Verbatim report of proceedings of 7 February 2024
Date: 2024-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202501347EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














28.2.2025







            7 February 2024
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 7 FEBRUARY 2024
            
         
(C/2025/1347)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Composition of political groups
4










3.

Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71) (action taken)
4










4.

Empowering farmers and rural communities – a dialogue towards sustainable and fairly rewarded EU agriculture (debate)
4










5.

Resumption of the sitting
35










6.

This is Europe – Debate with the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis (debate)
35










7.

Resumption of the sitting
51










8.

Voting time
51










8.1.

Temporary derogation: combating online child sexual abuse (A9-0021/2024 - Birgit Sippel) (vote)
51










8.2.

Empowering the French Republic to negotiate, sign and conclude an international agreement on the safety and interoperability requirements within the Channel Fixed Link (A9-0018/2024 - Petar Vitanov) (vote)
51










8.3.

Conclusion of the Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Angola (A9-0005/2024 - Joachim Schuster) (vote)
51










8.4.

Amendments to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) and to the Directive relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITSD) (A9-0020/2023 - Isabel Benjumea Benjumea) (vote)
52










8.5.

Instant payments in euro (A9-0230/2023 - Michiel Hoogeveen) (vote)
52










8.6.

Limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates (A9-0263/2023 - Nikolaj Villumsen) (vote)
52










8.7.

Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd) (vote)
52










8.8.

Norway's recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic (B9-0095/2024) (vote)
52










8.9.

Rule of Law and media freedom in Greece (B9-0098/2024, B9-0099/2024) (vote)
52










9.

Resumption of the sitting
53










10.

Composition of committees and delegations
53










11.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
53










12.

The fight against hate speech and disinformation: responsibility of social platforms within the Digital Services Act (topical debate)
53










13.

Need to fight the increase of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred (debate)
80










14.

Automated data exchange for police cooperation (‘Prüm II’) (debate)
101










15.

The EU priorities for the 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (debate)
108










16.

Implementation report on the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 (debate)
121










17.

Resumption of the sitting
128










18.

Implementation report on the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 (continuation of debate)
128










19.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
134










19.1.

New wave of mass arrests in Belarus of opposition activists and their family members
134










19.2.

Increased number of executions in Iran, in particular the case of Mohammad Ghobadlou
139










19.3.

Recent attacks on Christmas Eve in Plateau State in Nigeria
145










20.

Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of Abbé Pierre's appeal on addressing homelessness in the context of persisting poverty and social exclusion (debate)
150










21.

Explanations of vote
154










21.1.

Instant payments in euro (A9-0230/2023 - Michiel Hoogeveen)
155










21.2.

Limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates (A9-0263/2023 - Nikolaj Villumsen)
155










21.3.

Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd)
155










21.4.

Norway's recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic (B9-0095/2024)
156










21.5.

Rule of Law and media freedom in Greece (B9-0098/2024)
157










22.

Agenda of the next sitting
157










23.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
157










24.

Closure of the sitting
157




Verbatim report of proceedings of 7 February 2024
                  


VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.00 Uhr eröffnet.)

2.   Composition of political groups

Der Präsident. – Ich habe Ihnen zu Beginn dieser Sitzung zwei Mitteilungen zu machen. Zum Ersten: Nicolas Bay ist mit Wirkung vom 7. Februar 2024 Mitglied der ECR-Fraktion geworden.
               
3.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71) (action taken)

Der Präsident. – Zum Zweiten: Zu den Beschlüssen mehrerer Ausschüsse über die Aufnahme interinstitutioneller Verhandlungen gemäß Artikel 71 Absatz 1 der Geschäftsordnung, die bei der Eröffnung der Sitzung am Montag, dem 5. Februar 2024, bekanntgegeben wurden, hat die Präsidentin von der Verts/ALE-Fraktion einen Antrag, durch den mindestens die mittlere Schwelle erreicht wird, auf Abstimmung über den Beschluss des LIBE-Ausschusses zur Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über den folgenden Text erhalten:
               

                  Vorübergehende Ausnahme: Bekämpfung des sexuellen Missbrauchs von Kindern im Internet.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet heute, am 7. Februar 2024, statt.
               

                  Zu den anderen Beschlüssen über die Aufnahme interinstitutioneller Verhandlungen hat die Präsidentin keine Anträge auf Abstimmung im Parlament von Mitgliedern oder einer oder mehrerer Fraktionen erhalten, durch die mindestens die mittlere Schwelle erreicht wird.
               

                  Die Ausschüsse können daher die Verhandlungen auf der Grundlage dieser Berichte aufnehmen. Ich wünsche für die Verhandlungen alles Gute und den erhofften Erfolg für die Position des Europäischen Parlaments.
               
4.   Empowering farmers and rural communities – a dialogue towards sustainable and fairly rewarded EU agriculture (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zu dem Thema ‘Landwirte und die Landbevölkerung stärken – ein Dialog hin zu einer nachhaltigen EU-Landwirtschaft mit fairen Einkommen’ (2024/2545(RSP)).
               

Hadja Lahbib,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members of the Parliament, dear Commissioner, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU has taken note of the measures announced by the Commission to respond to the demands of our farmers.
We have put the item on the agenda of the next meeting of the AGRIFISH Council, which will take place on 26 February, to allow the ministers of agriculture to express their views on the measures proposed by the Commission, as well as on the possible need for further measures.
As the Council pointed out on 1 February, the Common Agricultural Policy has an essential role to play. However, the rules adopted in 2021 to reform the CAP need to be reassessed in the light of current realities.
Ces règles ont été présentées avant la COVID-19 et avant la guerre en Ukraine. Il convient donc de les mettre à jour et de trouver un juste équilibre avec les objectifs fondamentaux de notre politique agricole, à savoir assurer la sécurité alimentaire et la juste rémunération des agriculteurs. Il faudra agir non seulement sur le court terme mais aussi sur le moyen et le long termes pour garantir une agriculture européenne durable dans tous les sens du terme, c'est-à-dire pour la planète, mais aussi pour ceux qui la cultivent.

Maroš Šefčovič,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, Madam Minister, honourable Members, good morning to you all.
We can be rightly proud of the crucial role played by Europe's agri-food sector, guaranteeing food security, safety and quality not only for 450 million Europeans but for many others around the world, quite literally putting safe, high-quality food on our tables, while at the same time making a massive contribution to the European and global economy and striving to contribute to the twin green and digital transitions.
But while the sector has shown remarkable resilience in the face of challenges such as pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, we must ensure that our food system is also fit for the future. With the Green Deal, we have already put in place an ambitious roadmap to lead us to that future.
And yet the reality of climate change, biodiversity loss, growing resource scarcity, price shocks and an increasingly competitive global market is having a huge impact on the farming sector and rural communities. We have seen from the farmers protesting on the streets of Europe that many of them feel trapped, that their needs are not being met. So we must act to secure the future of the sector and those who work within it, and those who benefit from it, namely all of us. We have to ensure that the agri-food sector remains competitive, but with decent incomes for all farmers and SMEs along the entire chain, not least to attract the next generation of young farmers, all whilst bringing the sector within the planetary boundaries. And this means a future where farming and nature go hand in hand in balance.
Views on how to move forward are understandably varied, and we have seen increasing polarisation on the number of topics. It is therefore imperative that we will bring all the stakeholders together to see how we can look for joint solutions and define a common vision and reach a new consensus. That is why we launched the strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the European Union. And I had the pleasure to discuss the dialogue with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of this House, as well as with the ministers in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council ahead of its launch on 25 January. The dialogue involves participants from EU-level associations and organisations, including umbrella organisations representing a number of European groups.
There are many reasons which have driven farmers onto the streets in the past weeks, and it's important not to oversimplify the situation – because the problems of agri food sectors are complex. There are those whom the system serves well and there are those who are being left behind. There are environmental champions, and there are those who need our help to become more sustainable. There are those who benefit from open trade, and there are those who are being squeezed by it.
So that is why the strategic dialogue must cover all the core questions and involve all stakeholders, and I believe that we should focus on ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers and rural communities, supporting agriculture within the boundaries of our planet and its ecosystem. We should discuss how to exploit the huge opportunities offered by knowledge and technological innovation, and how to promote a thriving future for the EU's food system in the competitive world.
Let me also highlight that our farmers continue being supported by EU budgets through the common agricultural policy. But we know that this money alone is not enough to address the challenges we are discussing today, nor to deal with climate change.
Let us look at the devastating droughts in Spain, the apocalyptic floods in Greece, Slovenia, Italy and elsewhere, the forest fires raging out of control. So inaction would merely lead to even greater costs in the coming decades. Such disasters can only be prevented if we have healthy natural resources and only healthy soils, clean water and abundant pollinators can protect high yields and farmers' incomes in the face of climate and biodiversity crises.
Farmers know what they are doing and I have seen this for myself first-hand. So our job now is to support farmers in the transition, helping them de-risk this necessary transformation and scaling up all the good practices in agriculture. It is crucial to work with the entire food chain, so that consumers can better appreciate the value of sustainability. Our farmers deserve to make a decent living, and that will only happen if we work together to achieve our climate and biodiversity goals.
I know that the future of agriculture is a complex topic for conversation, but I firmly believe that this strategic dialogue will ultimately help us speak with one voice of the common future we will pursue for farmers, the environment, and our union as a whole. So let's work together. Let's discuss it thoroughly also this morning. I will stop here and, Mr President, I very much look forward to our debate.

Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident, sehr geehrte Frau Ministerin! Agrarpolitik ist heute Vormittag im Zentrum der Debatte – und das ist gut so! Lassen Sie mich gleich klarstellen: Agrarpolitik ist keine Unterabteilung der Umweltpolitik, sondern ein eigenständiger, wichtiger Themenbereich, über den wir reden. Es geht um die Produktion von Nahrungsmitteln – von gesunden Nahrungsmitteln. Wir nehmen es vielleicht für zu selbstverständlich, dass die Versorgung sichergestellt ist. Aus unserer Sicht ist es ein wichtiger Punkt, und wir danken den Bäuerinnen und Bauern für ihre Arbeit. Agrarpolitik ist auch die Zukunft der ländlichen Räume – die nicht Peripherie sind, sondern wichtige Lebensräume, das Fundament Europas.
               

                  Ja, es stehen große Aufgaben vor uns: Die Bauern wissen das. Wir als Europäische Volkspartei unterstützen die Initiativen zum Klimaschutz, zum Tierschutz, zum Artenschutz, zum Grundwasserschutz. Wir müssen die Aufgaben unserer Zeit angehen. Aber wir dürfen dabei nicht ideologische Politik betreiben, sondern wir müssen sie mit Fachargumenten, mit inhaltlichen Argumenten angehen.
               

                  Im Umweltausschuss des Europäischen Parlaments gab es zunächst eine Mehrheit dafür, Holz nicht mehr als nachwachsenden Rohstoff einzustufen. Das zeigt mit aller Härte, wie ideologisch hier teilweise Politik gemacht worden ist. Jeder Waldbauer schüttelt den Kopf, wenn er das hört.
               

                  Politik startet für uns als EVP mit Zuhören. Deswegen ist der strategische Dialog wichtig. Wir alle sind derzeit in den Gesprächen draußen, und es werden auch viele meiner Nachredner beschreiben, dass sie gerne den Bauern zuhören.
               

                  Ich möchte nur deutlich machen: Heute vor zwölf Monaten, als wir als EVP die Debatten zur vernünftigen Agrarpolitik gestartet haben, und vor allem in der Debatte um die Nature Restoration Law, hatten wir ganz andere Stimmungslagen hier. Wir haben damals gesagt: Beide Gesetze sind schlicht und einfach schlecht gemachte Gesetze – Nature Restoration und die SUR-Initiative.
               

                  Flächenstilllegung in einer Zeit, wo Ägypten Nahrungsmittel braucht, ist der falsche Ansatz. Und prozentuale Kürzungen von Pflanzenschutzmitteln sind auch der falsche Ansatz, um Vernunft walten zu lassen. Deshalb haben wir damals ein Veto eingelegt und gesagt: Diese Initiativen gehen in die falsche Richtung. Wir wurden von den Sozialdemokraten als Klimaleugner beschimpft, Peter Liese beispielsweise. Wir wurden von Renew, vom Vorsitzenden des Umweltausschusses, als Trumpisten beschimpft, dass wir trumpistische Politik machen. Heute höre ich, dass der französische Premierminister Brüssel für überzogene Regulatorik schimpft und kritisiert.
               

                  Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, die EVP hatte recht vor einem Jahr. Die Bauern wissen, dass sie sich auf uns verlassen können. Die Bauern wissen, dass wir der Anwalt sind. Deswegen haben wir uns inhaltlich durchgesetzt. Ja, zum Klimaschutz, Ja zum Artenschutz – aber mit den Bauern und nicht gegen die Bauern.
               

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente Šefčovič, me llama la atención que, con todo el sector agrícola levantado en Europa y con un debate tan importante como este, el comisario de Agricultura esté totalmente desaparecido, no solo de esta Cámara, sino por completo. En cualquier caso, vamos a hablar de lo que sería su obligación.
               

                  Las protestas de los agricultores en la Unión Europea nos han dejado una lección: el sector agrícola necesita a la Unión Europea tanto como la Unión Europea necesita al sector agrícola y una agricultura sostenible. Porque gracias a los agricultores nos beneficiamos de una alimentación de alta calidad. Y gracias a la Unión Europea, los agricultores están más protegidos ante los enormes retos que afrontan, desde el incremento de los costes de producción hasta las dramáticas consecuencias del cambio climático.
               

                  La superación de la crisis agrícola debe hacerse con la ayuda de la Unión Europea y no con ataques indiscriminados a la PAC, como ha ocurrido irresponsablemente con algunos Gobiernos como Hungría o Francia.
               

                  No olvidemos que la última reforma de la PAC fue aprobada por todos los Gobiernos nacionales, de todos los colores políticos, incluido el Gobierno de Orbán, el señor que hoy se sube a los tractores haciendo gala del mejor populismo.
               

                  Los daños ocasionados a los transportistas italianos y españoles en Francia son intolerables. La disculpa del Gobierno francés es un gesto positivo, pero insuficiente. La Comisión debe abordar las medidas necesarias para paliar los costes ocasionados a los transportistas y garantizar la libre circulación de mercancías.
               

                  Señorías, necesitamos más diálogo y menos polarización. Los agricultores deben ser conscientes de que la pugna entre la derecha y la extrema derecha daña sus intereses. Porque la extrema derecha no busca incrementar las subvenciones agrícolas, sino renacionalizar la agricultura, lo que sería devastador para el campo europeo.
               

                  Hace falta escuchar y hablar con los agricultores. Las protestas merecen una respuesta contundente por parte de la Comisión y por parte de los Estados miembros.
               

                  El apoyo al sector agrícola debe mantener las ayudas directas extraordinarias, sobre todo para los agricultores más vulnerables al incremento de precios y a las consecuencias de las inundaciones y sequías.
               

                  También es urgente la implementación efectiva en todos los Estados miembros de la Directiva contra las prácticas comerciales desleales a lo largo de la cadena alimentaria para ayudar a mejorar la posición de los agricultores en la cadena de suministro. Precios justos.
               

                  La simplificación de los trámites burocráticos es otra medida necesaria en un contexto de acumulación de normativa. Lo primero es identificar qué carga administrativa se puede reducir. Porque simplificar no significa dejar de cumplir, significa cumplir de manera más sencilla.
               

                  Y si queremos garantizar el relevo generacional, es preciso que todos los Estados miembros apliquen el 3 % de sus fondos de la PAC a la instalación de los jóvenes agricultores.
               

                  Señorías, las próximas elecciones europeas no pueden servir de excusa para incluir medidas negacionistas y proteccionistas de algunas organizaciones convocantes de las protestas que ignoran las reivindicaciones de la mayoría de los agricultores. En ningún caso se puede aceptar que la coyuntural crisis agrícola ponga en cuestión los objetivos de una agricultura compatible con la lucha contra el cambio climático.
               

                  Tampoco es aceptable que la Unión Europea sacrifique los acuerdos comerciales con terceros países. Lo que resulta imprescindible es garantizar que las producciones procedentes de terceros países estén sujetas a los mismos requisitos de producción que aplicamos a nuestros agricultores en la Unión Europea.
               

                  Señorías, la agricultura y el medio ambiente pueden y deben ir de la mano. Si trabajamos por la protección del medio ambiente, si nos guiamos por la ciencia, si escuchamos las voces de los agricultores en la próxima fase del Pacto Verde, el proyecto europeo engrandecerá uno de los mayores éxitos de los últimos setenta años.
               

                  Los agricultores están organizados y no son patrimonio de nadie. Pongámonos a trabajar y a resolver sus problemas.
               

Ulrike Müller,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kollegen, Herr Vizepräsident! Gerade sehen wir europaweit die größten Bauerndemonstrationen seit Langem. Warum? Weil die Bauern sich überfordert fühlen von immer mehr, teils widersprüchlichen Vorgaben und Auflagen, während die Realeinkommen seit Jahren sinken. Die Landwirte erfahren zu wenig Anerkennung für ihren Beitrag zur Gesellschaft, und oft werden sie von der Politik bevormundet.
               

                  Der strategische Dialog, Herr Vizepräsident, zeigt Einsetzen von Problembewusstsein – das ist gut. Schlecht ist aber der gewählte Top-down-Ansatz im Hinterzimmer. So erreichen wir die Landwirte, die gerade auf der Straße sind, ganz bestimmt nicht. Der Dialog muss mit uns Europaabgeordneten auf regionalen Konferenzen aufbauen. Alle Landwirte müssen die Möglichkeiten zur Partizipation haben. Die regionalen Erfahrungen müssen zusammengeführt werden, erst dann kann man die richtigen Schlüsse für Reformen ziehen.
               

                  Das ist unser Vorschlag. Wir reichen Ihnen die Hand – ergreifen Sie sie und lassen Sie uns gemeinsam für Landwirte und Verbraucher Perspektiven für Europa bilden!
               

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, à vous en croire, vous l'extrême droite, les conservateurs, les chrétiens-démocrates, les libéraux, la révolte des agriculteurs n'aurait qu'un coupable: le pacte vert pour l'Europe et, derrière lui, ses écolos woke.
               

                  Mais, quand on ne se contente pas de haranguer les agriculteurs, qu'on les écoute vraiment, eux désignent un tout autre coupable: un système économique qui les emprisonne et les écrase. Car les agriculteurs, les vrais, sont pris entre le marteau des propriétaires fonciers, des semenciers, des géants de l'agrochimie, des équipementiers et des banques et l'enclume de l'agrobusiness et de la grande distribution.
               

                  Les agriculteurs, les vrais, sont depuis des décennies la variable d'ajustement de ces traités de libre-échange taillés sur mesure au profit des actionnaires. Les agriculteurs, les vrais, ne perçoivent que les miettes d'une politique agricole commune accaparée à 80 % par les exploitants industriels. Ceux-là, qui ne méritent pas le nom d'agriculteurs, prétendent en plus défendre cette noble profession; c'est comme si Ikea se présentait comme le défenseur des artisans du meuble.
               

                  Pas étonnant, donc, que l'agrobusiness et ses représentants politiques pointent du doigt les écologistes et le pacte vert, alors qu'il n'est même pas encore arrivé dans nos campagnes. Vous détournez la colère légitime des agriculteurs pour masquer votre responsabilité écrasante dans le carcan qui les écrase. Car c'est vous, les droites, qui avez tout fait pour conserver une politique agricole commune productiviste et mercantiliste, pour vider de son contenu la loi sur la restauration de la nature, pour empêcher toute contrainte de réduction des pesticides, pour que l'on ignore les émissions de CO2 du secteur.
               

                  Changer de modèle agricole est pourtant indispensable pour assurer notre survie. Les agriculteurs, qui sont aux premières loges du changement climatique, le savent mieux que quiconque. Mais nous n'y arriverons pas sans eux et encore moins contre eux. Nous n'y arriverons pas tant que ce système économique les conduit au suicide. ‘Jeune, on en rêve; adulte, on en crève’: voilà ce qu'ils disent.
               

                  Alors, vous qui brandissez l'épouvantail de l'écologie punitive, je vous le dis: nous n'en pouvons plus de votre économie punitive. Une économie tout entière asservie à l'avidité insatiable des détenteurs de capitaux que vous osez appeler investisseurs. Une économie qui rend malades des millions de travailleuses et travailleurs et les prive de sens, de liberté, de revenu et de dignité. Une économie qui détraque notre climat, empoisonne notre air, nos eaux, nos sols, nos assiettes. Une économie qui asphyxie à petit feu la vie sur cette planète.
               

                  Votre économie punitive, voilà ce que nous combattons depuis un demi-siècle sur le terrain démocratique. Notre écologie, elle est réparatrice et créative, afin que, toutes et tous, nous puissions jouir d'une vie digne sur cette planète, notre seule et unique maison commune.
               

Nicola Procaccini,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, mi spiace che al suo posto non ci sia Timmermans, che è scappato via. Per anni vi abbiamo chiesto di ascoltarci, vi abbiamo combattuto, pur non avendo i numeri per fermare la maggioranza rosso-verde che ha partorito questo programma folle chiamato Green Deal.
               

                  Ogni quattro mesi ci avete sbattuto in faccia una legge contro agricoltori, allevatori e pescatori. Ci avete detto che bisognava proteggere la natura da loro, loro che nella natura ci vivono e lavorano da generazioni e generazioni. Con la Farm to fork li avete schiacciati e promosso il consumo di insetti e larve. Con il Nutri-Score volevate colpire la dieta mediterranea. Con il regolamento imballaggi avete bandito le confezioni che garantiscono freschezza ai prodotti ortofrutticoli. Con le green claims avete stabilito che non si possono definire verdi gli ortaggi, se poi viaggiano in camion. Con la strategia contro il cancro avete dichiarato guerra alla carne e al vino. Con una direttiva avete equiparato le stalle agli impianti industriali. Con un'altra volete far produrre la carne in laboratorio dalle aziende farmaceutiche. In alcune nazioni le sinistre al governo hanno anche rimosso i sussidi per l'acquisto di gasolio. Con la legge sul ripristino della natura avete deciso che gli esseri umani nuocciono al pianeta, sicché bisogna abbandonare i campi coltivati, rimuovere gli argini dai fiumi e riesumare le paludi.
               

                  E meno male che è passata quella mezza schifezza della PAC, perché, se fosse andata come volevano Greta Thunberg e gli ambientalisti da salotto, sarebbe stata pure peggio di com'è. Ora, cosa vi aspettavate dagli agricoltori? Che vi ringraziassero? La rivolta è la lingua di chi non viene ascoltato. Ora fate marcia indietro, ma è tardi: la minoranza è diventata maggioranza in tutta Europa e tra pochi mesi rimetterà le persone al posto delle ideologie.
               

Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un bicchiere di vino fa male alla salute, mentre gli insetti sono un toccasana. Il formaggio è veleno, ma il pollo creato in provetta ci sfamerà. Pescare è considerato ormai contro natura, ma solo se il peschereccio batte la bandiera di uno Stato membro dell'Unione europea. Promuoviamo, da un lato, il biologico, ma forse è meglio se smettiamo di coltivare il grano. È meglio comprarlo dall'estero, perché i nostri campi devono riposare.
               

                  Ecco, questa è la sintesi della schizofrenia che ha portato avanti questa Commissione europea in questi cinque anni, sostenuta da una maggioranza in Parlamento. E oggi è ipocrita stupirsi che, di fronte a questa guerra senza senso che è stata mossa a questa categoria, la categoria reagisca, e reagisca in una maniera violenta che ha suonato un campanello di sveglia per tutta l'Europa. La politica green di von der Leyen e Timmermans è stata una sciagura, una sciagura che oggi abbiamo l'obbligo di correggere e di modificare. Pena sarà avere un continente, avere un'Unione europea sempre più debole e sempre più divise e lacerata.
               

                  Sono d'accordo con quanto diceva il collega Lamberts, quanto meno su una parte. Il Green Deal è una sciagura, a mio avviso, ma non è l'unico motivo per cui oggi gli agricoltori stanno protestando. Ci sono altre politiche portate avanti negli anni dall'Unione europea che hanno fatto sì che oggi, insieme alla sciagura del Green Deal, un agricoltore non sia in grado di coprire i suoi costi di produzione. Questo è il motivo principale per cui gli agricoltori sono in piazza. Sono in piazza per la propria sopravvivenza, sono in piazza perché non riescono ad arrivare alla fine del mese.
               

                  Un'ultima considerazione politica: oggi, sentendo parlare, sentendo le dichiarazioni sui giornali, sembra che questi provvedimenti siano arrivati dallo spazio. No, questi provvedimenti sono stati portati avanti nei cinque anni da una Commissione guidata da von der Leyen e da una maggioranza politica che oggi ha sostenuto questi impegni. Una considerazione molto importante per il prosieguo dell'azione dell'Unione europea è che dobbiamo accorgerci che la fine del mese, purtroppo, arriva prima della fine del mondo, e di questo gli agricoltori sono consapevoli.
               

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, ‘on est censés nourrir les gens, et vous nous laissez crever dans nos champs’: voilà ce que m'ont dit la semaine dernière des agriculteurs que j'ai rencontrés sur des blocages. Qui les laisse crever? Il faut mettre des noms: c'est vous, chers collègues, vous qui avez systématiquement refusé des prix planchers pour rémunérer dignement les paysans, vous qui avez balayé d'un revers de main la possibilité de bloquer les marges de l'agro-industrie, qui s'en est mis plein les poches en faisant raquer les consommateurs, vous qui avez signé à tour de bras des accords de libre-échange qui imposent une concurrence totalement déloyale à nos paysans.
               

                  Comment osez-vous venir à cette tribune faire de grandes déclarations pour les agriculteurs, la main sur le cœur, alors que, de cette même main, vous venez d'approuver l'accord de libre-échange avec la Nouvelle-Zélande, qui va augmenter les importations de lait, de viande, de fromage, de vin ou de miel depuis littéralement l'autre bout de la planète? Le tout, bien sûr, avec des pesticides interdits sur le sol européen. Heureusement que l'hypocrisie ne tue pas, chers collègues, contrairement au métier d'agriculteur.
               

                  Notre groupe, ici au Parlement, est le seul dans cet hémicycle à avoir rejeté unanimement l'ensemble de ces accords de libre-échange. Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, vous en avez voté deux autres, la semaine dernière, avec le Chili et le Kenya. Où allez-vous vous arrêter? À la mort complète de notre agriculture européenne? Ne me dites pas que l'accord avec le Mercosur serait sur pause quand, en réalité, les négociations se poursuivent et que se profile une autre pelletée d'accords avec le Mexique, l'Australie, l'Inde. Comment voulez-vous que nos paysans soient compétitifs face aux immenses fermes-usines du Brésil ou d'Ukraine? Expliquez-moi quel sens il y a à importer de l'autre bout du monde des produits que l'on produit déjà ici, et de bonne qualité! Tous ces accords sont autant d'insultes adressées aux éleveurs, arboriculteurs, maraîchers, pêcheurs, travailleurs et travailleuses agricoles, qui nous nourrissent au quotidien.
               

                  La semaine dernière, j'ai rencontré deux apiculteurs qui appelaient à l'aide. Ils se retrouvent, comme beaucoup, avec l'ensemble de leur production de 2023 sur les bras, que la grande distribution ne veut plus acheter, lui préférant le miel néo-zélandais, chinois ou ukrainien. Les abeilles butinent et les supermarchés empochent le butin. Comme nombre de leurs collègues, ces deux apiculteurs sont découragés et songent à tout arrêter. Qu'allez-vous leur dire? Qu'on va continuer, avec cette folie?
               

                  Les agriculteurs ne veulent plus, ne peuvent plus être les vaches à lait de l'agro-industrie et de votre obsession libre-échangiste, chers collègues. Si vous continuez dans cette voie, c'est toute l'agriculture européenne que vous allez laisser sur la paille.
               

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, gli agricoltori europei protestano, si fanno sentire. Succede in Italia, succede in Belgio, succede qui, fuori da questo palazzo, a Strasburgo. La ragione è molto semplice: non riescono, come si suol dire, ad arrivare a fine mese. Sono anni, anzi decenni, che abbiamo permesso che la grande distribuzione strozzasse i produttori. Produrre un chilo di pomodori o di grano o un litro di olio extravergine di oliva costa al produttore più di quello che riesce a venderlo.
               

                  Questo è il problema centrale ed è davvero in malafede pensare che tutelare l'ambiente sia andare contro gli agricoltori. Al contrario, dobbiamo tutelare l'ambiente insieme agli agricoltori, anche perché, se l'ambiente non si tutela, gli agricoltori fra qualche anno avranno problemi ancora più grandi.
               

                  La verità è che c'è un problema di prezzi e c'è un problema di accordi internazionali fatti in maniera sciagurata. E la verità è che l'Europa deve ripensare non la sua politica ambientale, ma la sua politica commerciale, per sostenere davvero gli agricoltori. Ciascuno, in ciascuna regione europea, deve avere lo stesso contributo. Oggi, un agricoltore siciliano prende un contributo che è minore di un terzo rispetto a quello di altre regioni italiane. Questo è inaccettabile. Cambiamo queste regole, adesso.
               

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, one of the greatest achievements of European integration is the quality of food in Europe. People in Europe trust food quality, they trust food safety, and at the centre of this success is the European farmer. This is why we have the duty to listen to farmers in Europe, this is why we have the duty to support and to protect them.
Of course, agriculture in Europe is modernising, agriculture in Europe has to modernise and to reform, as has every sector of our economy, as every part of our society. But we have to say clearly, ‘we are modernising agriculture with the farmers, not against the farmers’. My political family, the EPP, is ready to work with the majority here in Parliament to do the following seven things for farmers and agriculture.
Firstly, no decision on agriculture without listening to farmers. Secondly, no decision without knowing the impact, and if there is any additional burden for the farmers, we have to be ready to provide more support. Thirdly, reducing bureaucracy for farmers: they have to farm more than they report. Fourthly, secure the quality and the quantity of food production in Europe: we have to produce more food in Europe, not less.
Number five, invest in the rural areas as a whole: we want good schools, good hospitals. We are ready to invest in digitisation, in greening, but also in infrastructure in the rural areas, in the villages. Number six: help in times of crisis: if there is a crisis, we have to mobilise the European tools that we have, including crisis reserves, providing financial support. Number seven, help Ukraine, help Ukrainian farmers by also helping our farmers: absorb what we can in Europe, help Ukraine to export the other quantities to the other markets in the world where they are needed.
We are ready to work with the majority in this House to achieve this for the farmers in Europe.

Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente, compañeros, estamos ante una situación de crisis en la agricultura. Los agricultores y ganaderos están en la calle y lo que piden es que se les escuche y que debatan con ellos adecuadamente. También tienen una sensación de que no se valora suficientemente lo que aportan a la sociedad: alimentos sanos, seguros y de calidad, así como sostenibilidad medioambiental y cohesión territorial en las zonas rurales.
               

                  Ahora vamos a ver cuál es el problema real de los agricultores, porque tenemos un problema europeo real y luego hay problemas nacionales. El primero es el precio del tomate español —buenísimo, por cierto, a pesar de lo que dicen algunos franceses—: por 5 euros el kilo lo compro como consumidora. ¿Cuánto cobran mis agricultores de Motril? 70 céntimos. Ese es el problema.
               

                  Ese es el problema: el precio que perciben los agricultores. El problema son los altos costes de producción y la competencia desleal de productos de terceros países. Ese es el problema, no solo la agenda verde, que seguramente no se ha explicado adecuadamente, que seguramente necesita más debate, pero sobre todo hay mucha responsabilidad de toda la Comisión. Menciona el PP a Timmermans, ¿Ursula von der Leyen y el comisario de la derecha extrema dónde están? Búsquenlos ustedes a ver dónde están.
               

Pascal Canfin (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, on peut se renvoyer des recherches de boucs émissaires à la figure. Pour les uns, c'est l'écologie, pour les autres, c'est le libre-échange, pour les troisièmes, c'est la grande distribution. Cela ne changera rien. Ce qu'il faut, au contraire, c'est dépolariser ce sujet, arrêter de se renvoyer des noms d'oiseaux à la figure et dépolariser le sujet autour de trois enjeux clés: premièrement, le revenu; deuxièmement, la transition écologique; troisièmement, la lutte contre les concurrences déloyales et la nécessaire protection de notre agriculture.
               

                  Est-ce que l'on est capable de trouver un compromis entre nous sur ces trois enjeux? Parce que, si vous voulez faire la transition écologique avec des accords de libre-échange qui ne protègent pas nos agriculteurs, vous n'y arriverez pas, et si vous voulez faire du revenu pour les agriculteurs, mais sans transition écologique, vous n'y arriverez pas non plus, parce que la première menace sur les rendements, donc sur les revenus, c'est le dérèglement climatique.
               

                  Mais si on veut mieux partager la valeur et qu'on ne le fait pas en Europe, alors c'est contourné. En France, nous avons une loi Egalim, qui permet de mieux partager la valeur entre les agriculteurs et la grande distribution: elle est contournée grâce à des centrales d'achat européennes dans vos propres pays. Donc, au lieu de nous envoyer des noms d'oiseaux, mettons-nous au travail pour rechercher non pas des boucs émissaires mais des solutions.
               

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’)


Manon Aubry (The Left),
question ‘carton bleu’
                     . – Monsieur Canfin, vous nous avez dit que cela ne changerait rien de pointer le libre-échange. Pourtant, vous, avec votre groupe, vous avez voté un des derniers accords de libre-échange avec la Nouvelle-Zélande, qui, par exemple, va inclure l'importation de 15 000 tonnes de lait, 25 000 tonnes de fromage, 36 000 tonnes de beurre, 164 000 tonnes de viande bovine, le tout produit avec des pesticides, comme l'atrazine, qui sont interdits dans l'Union européenne, mais toujours autorisés en Nouvelle-Zélande. Alors, pensez-vous, pour tous ces agriculteurs, que cela ne changera rien de continuer à importer massivement ces produits, qui contribuent à de la concurrence déloyale?
               

Pascal Canfin (Renew),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                     . – Madame Aubry, vous savez très bien que nous avons voté l'accord de libre-échange avec la Nouvelle-Zélande, comme la majorité de ce Parlement, y compris le groupe socialiste et le groupe des Verts.
               

                  Pourquoi? Parce que cet accord contient des dispositions extrêmement positives, historiques pour la lutte contre le dérèglement climatique, parce qu'il contient aussi des dispositions qui sont favorables à une partie de notre agriculture.
               

                  Par contre, nous sommes totalement hostiles à l'accord UE-Mercosur et je crois pouvoir dire que, si la France et si le président de la République, Emmanuel Macron, n'avaient pas été, la semaine dernière, extrêmement offensifs pour dire non au Mercosur, aujourd'hui nous aurions le Mercosur. À cause de quoi? À cause de l'action du Parti populaire européen, à cause de l'action de Manfred Weber, à cause de l'action de Mme von der Leyen et du commissaire au commerce. Donc, cherchez vos responsables.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, los agricultores y ganaderos tienen muchas y buenas razones para salir a la calle a protestar: la pérdida de competitividad, el estancamiento de las rentas agrarias, el cierre de explotaciones.
               

                  Pero no nos equivoquemos. El problema no es el Pacto Verde, como nos repiten sin parar desde la coalición conservadora, a menudo con argumentos populistas y demagogos. El problema es una estructura económica contraria a los pequeños productores y unos ingresos que no son dignos. Porque todos sabemos que con unos ingresos dignos los agricultores serían los primeros aliados de la transición ecológica.
               

                  ¿Por qué no son dignos los ingresos? Por el oligopolio de la agroindustria, con quienes las derechas tienen buenas amistades; por la presión de los grupos intermediarios, que obligan a vender por debajo de costes y con quienes ustedes también tienen buenas relaciones; por la competencia desleal externa de los productos que entran sin cumplir los mismos requisitos que los producidos en la Unión, consecuencia de sus tratados de libre comercio, de los que el sector agrario es y ha sido moneda de cambio.
               

                  No seamos hipócritas. Expliquemos las verdaderas razones de los problemas del campo.
               

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Bardzo wiele tutaj pada pięknych słów. Pochylają się Państwo z troską nad losem rolników europejskich, którzy (chyba już to zrozumieliście) nie przyjechali do Brukseli w ubiegłym tygodniu ani wczoraj tutaj do Strasburga i nie protestują w Niemczech już od wielu, wielu tygodni i w kolejnych miastach, w kolejnych państwach (w piątek taki protest będzie w Polsce) dlatego, żeby wyrazić poparcie dla waszej polityki, tylko wręcz odwrotnie.
               

                  Szczególnie dziwnie brzmią te deklaracje poparcia dla rolników i pochylania się z troską z ust polityków związanych z partią pana Webera czy socjalistów. Przecież odpowiedzialność za to, co dzieje się w tej chwili, za ten kryzys w rolnictwie, za wykańczanie europejskiego rolnictwa, za to, że ludzie są po prostu wściekli, bo ich produkcja jest nieopłacalna (to samo dotyczy przedsiębiorców), to jest wasza odpowiedzialność, pani von der Leyen i pana Timmermansa. Mówicie dużo i pięknie. A jakie są fakty? Nie dalej jak wczoraj Komisja Europejska opublikowała projekt ograniczenia emisji o 90% do 2040 roku. Jak myślicie, kto na tym zyska? Rolnicy i przedsiębiorcy?
               

Jaak Madison (ID). – Esiteks kolleegidest: siin mõned kolleegid räägivad nagu treeningugrupist, et ärme süüdista üksteist, kui me otsime probleeme, mis puudutab põllumajandust. Mul tekib kohe küsimus, et kui me ei süüdista üksteist, siis te justkui tahate nii-öelda mõnusalt üle minna päris probleemidest, mis on teie tekitatud põllumajanduses ja sujuvalt räägite oma propagandat neli kuud enne valimisi, et siis jälle nagu ära tinistada või meelitada kõik need valijad ja põllumehed ütlemaks, et küll teie teate kõige paremini kuidas põllumajandust kaitsta. Mina ei tea, kui paljud teist olid möödunud nädalal Euroopa Parlamendis Brüsselis meeleavaldustel. Mina olin seal ja ma ei näinud seal vist peaaegu mitte ühtegi liberaali või sotsialisti. Üks kommunist oli, aga enamus liberaalid istusid mõnusalt parlamendis ja mina rääkisin põllumeestega. Ja ilmselgelt need mured olid neil samad, mida on konservatiivid rääkinud siin aastaid, et teie täiesti idiootne rohepööre hävitab põllumajandust, kuna teie oma utoopiaga ja fantaasiatega tahate päästa planeeti, kui kuus protsenti CO2-st on tekitatud Euroopas ja tahate panna rohkem kohustusi põllumeestele ja metsameestele ja siis siin saalis mugavalt räägite, kuidas teie seisate ka põllumeeste eest. Ilmselgelt need kaks asja ei käi kokku, kuna teie oma idiootsusega hävitate põllumajandust.
               

Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Mr President, farmers are protesting because, from their perspective, the just transition is just empty words. They are being required to meet ever-higher standards, as they should, and more needs to be done. However, their livelihoods are being undermined by imports from third countries that do not meet the same standards.
In Ireland, the most sustainable producers of beef, the suckler farmers, are being paid to reduce their stock while we import beef from South America, which is the other end of the rainbow when it comes to sustainability.
Commissioner, you talk about help with sustainability while incentivising the destruction of a sustainable beef production model. The hypocrisy of those supposedly supporting the farmers needs to be called out. The centrist and right wing groups in the European Parliament, now extolling the virtues of the farming community, are the same people who drove the trade liberalisation agenda that has brought us to this point. Every trade deal that further undermine the position of the food producer in the EU was enthusiastically supported by and championed by you.
Finally, you are wrong, Manfred Weber – farmers can't depend on you. On your watch, food has been reduced to a commodity to be traded around the world and exploited for profit by multinationals instead of being valued as an essential human right. Those who produce it should be respected for their work, and …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Maxette Pirbakas (NI). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, la crise agricole aujourd'hui est grave, oui. Ce que nous traversons trouve une partie de son origine ici, au sein des institutions européennes. C'est la vision de l'agriculture promue, notamment, par la Commission qui provoque aujourd'hui la colère de nos compatriotes agriculteurs français et des Outre-mer.
               

                  Par le passé, les institutions européennes ont accompagné la désindustrialisation, parce que l'industrie, c'était polluant et onéreux. On n'avait qu'à produire ailleurs, comme ça il n'y aurait plus de pollution chez nous et on ferait des économies. Vous refaites le coup avec l'agriculture. L'objectif de la Commission est: moins de production et moins d'agriculture. Au nom d'une moindre production pour vous, il vous suffira d'importer ce que nous, on ne produit plus. Les accords de libre-échange sont-ils faits pour ça? Vraiment?
               

                  Monsieur le Commissaire, ressaisissez-vous, et coupons cette hémorragie. Dites que l'agriculture est une grande richesse pour l'Europe et que ses externalités négatives ne valent pas qu'on jette le bébé avec l'eau du bain. Cessez cette politique décroissante et antiagriculteurs: c'est ce que nous vous demandons. Respectez le travail des agriculteurs parce que ce sont eux qui nous nourrissent.
               

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Was ist nachhaltig? Was ist ein nachhaltiger Bauernhof? Das ist dann, wenn es gelingt, einen Betrieb von Generation zu Generation zu bringen. Das hat natürlich ein ökologisches Element, aber das hat auch ein ökonomisches Element: Die Bauern müssen mit ihrem Einkommen letztendlich auch auskommen. Warum soll ein junger Mensch, der in die Landwirtschaft einsteigt, akzeptieren, dass er weniger verdient als sein Kollege, der in einem Büro sitzt?
               

                  In praktisch allen Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union liegt das landwirtschaftliche Einkommen deutlich unter dem Durchschnittseinkommen der Bevölkerung. Deshalb glaube ich, dass wir wieder eine GAP brauchen, die stärker auf die Wirtschaftlichkeit der Betriebe schaut. Wir müssen aufhören, den Bauern zu sagen, wann sie ihre Felder pflügen dürfen, was sie anbauen müssen, was sie stilllegen müssen, oder sie alleinzulassen, wenn der Wolf ihre Tiere frisst.
               

                  Herr Kommissar, ich hätte mir diesbezüglich von Ihnen heute auch ein paar Vorschläge erwartet; da ist leider nichts gekommen in Ihrer fünfminütigen Rede.
               

                  Wir brauchen wieder lebendige ländliche Räume, und das nicht nur in Gunstlagen, sondern auch in den Bergen. Ich komme aus den Alpen – in den europäischen Bergen sind inzwischen ganze Täler entvölkert. Es hat sich überall gezeigt: Zuerst geht der Bauer, dann gehen die anderen. Ohne Bauern wird es blühende ländliche Räume in Europa nicht geben.
               

Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Voorzitter, beste vrienden, beste collega's, zonder landbouwsubsidies lijden veel boeren verlies. We zeggen weleens: ‘melk is goed voor elk’, maar blijkbaar niet voor de boeren. Dat geldt niet alleen voor melk, maar ook voor uien, aardappelen, prei, en zo verder. Dat is de realiteit van onze boeren.
               

                  Terwijl de boer zwoegt, gaan supermarkten, tussenhandelaren, transporteurs, banken en andere leveranciers er met de miljardenwinsten vandoor. Het zijn precies die grote ondernemingen die pleiten voor het beschermen van hun bestaande belangen, ten koste van de boeren. Zij pleiten niet voor een beter inkomen van de boeren.
               

                  De boer heeft geen verdienmodel, de boer ís een verdienmodel. Dat is een groot probleem waar ik niemand over hoor aan de rechterzijde van dit huis. Daar wordt de schuld gelegd bij het klimaatbeleid, stikstof of natuurherstel. De Green Deal zorgt juist voor toekomstbestendigheid, gezonde natuur, gezond land. Dat is alleen maar goed voor onze boeren.
               

                  Ik pleit ervoor: geef de boeren waarde voor hun product, dan hoeven ze niet op te schalen. Dan houdt de boer een leefbaar inkomen over op een pak melk of een kilo aardappelen. Daar mis ik de inzet van dit Parlement.
               

Martin Hlaváček (Renew). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, kolegové, evropští politici si z našich zemědělců dělají léta užitečné idioty. Za dotace, které jsme jim už 15 let nezvýšili, s náklady na energie, osiva, hnojiva, techniku, které stouply o desítky a stovky procent, naši zemědělci nadále prodávají suroviny za podobné ceny jako před deseti lety. Zatímco obchodníci účtují našim občanům za stejnou dobu ceny dvojnásobné. Vy zemědělcům zakazujete používat zemědělskou půdu, dovážíte levné suroviny z Ukrajiny a z Jižní Ameriky, kde o vaší dohodě Green Deal nikdy neslyšeli. Zatímco naši zemědělci za pětadvacet let snížili emise o 22 %, v USA vzrostly o 6 %, v Číně a v Indii o 24 % a v Brazílii dokonce o 47 %. A vy teď říkáte, že když jsou zemědělci na ulici, že se s nimi chcete konečně bavit. Kde jste byli poslední čtyři roky? Neměli byste spíš začít konat a něco dělat a něco navrhovat?
               

Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, la colère qu'expriment aujourd'hui les agriculteurs est on ne peut plus légitime. Mais dites-moi, comment prétendre défendre l'agriculture en défendant le statu quo d'un système qui marche sur la tête, d'un modèle qui détruit l'emploi paysan, qui concentre les profits dans quelques mains en généralisant la précarité et qui dégrade la qualité de notre alimentation en faisant exploser la précarité alimentaire?
               

                  Nous en avons assez. Assez du double discours de ceux qui disent soutenir les agriculteurs, mais votent pour un libre-échange qui les étrangle en les soumettant à une concurrence injuste.
               

                  Monsieur Canfin, le ‘en même temps’ est l'autre nom de ce double discours. Alors, arrêtez l'hypocrisie. Vous avez tellement enfermé les agriculteurs dans les pesticides, dont ils sont les premières victimes, qu'ils ne savent même plus comment en sortir. Aujourd'hui, 80 % des subventions de la PAC vont aux 20 % des plus grosses exploitations. Et vous voulez nous faire croire que le problème, c'est l'écologie?
               

                  Réduisons plutôt les marges excessives de l'agro-industrie au lieu d'assassiner nos agriculteurs. Refusons la violence d'un Lactalis, qui se gave sur le dos des paysans et qui est aujourd'hui poursuivi pour fraude fiscale massive quand le patrimoine de ses propriétaires équivaut à 2,5 millions d'années de revenus d'un éleveur bovin. Voilà ce qu'il nous faut changer aujourd'hui.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, deberían estar pidiendo perdón, pero no lo han hecho ni lo harán. Las élites padecen un enfermizo desprecio a todo trabajo manual, hacia agricultores, ganaderos, pescadores.
               

                  Todo empezó un 15 de enero de 2020, día en que este Parlamento, salvo honrosas excepciones, votó a favor del Pacto Verde Europeo. Ustedes, ustedes y ustedes también. Votaron para condenar el sector primario. Votaron para promover la entrada masiva de productos importados de terceros países. Votaron para financiar planes de regadío en Marruecos mientras matan de sed el campo español. Esta es la historia y todo su dinero no la va a poder cambiar. Ahora se visten con piel de cordero, pero son lobos que asaltan a nuestros trabajadores del campo, su actividad y su modo de vida.
               

                  El Pacto Verde Europeo es la herramienta política y financiera con que la Comisión von der Leyen ha impuesto desde Bruselas la agenda de asfixia al campo. El Pacto Verde Europeo es un plan de despidos masivos para nuestro campo y nuestra industria, que condena la prosperidad de miles de familias y empresas.
               

                  Ustedes ya lo sabían y por eso crearon estos instrumentos para comprar la voluntad de los que iban a ser sacrificados: el Fondo de Transición Justa y el Fondo Social para el Clima. Pero el campo europeo se ha levantado con un solo grito: derogar el Pacto Verde.
               

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’).


Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
pregunta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – El señor Buxadé está pidiendo a esta Cámara que pidamos perdón por las medidas que ha tomado este Parlamento en su conjunto para beneficiar y ayudar al sector agrícola. Y a mí me gustaría preguntarle si le ha pedido usted a su comisario —el comisario de su familia política de extrema derecha desaparecido aquí en este debate— que pida perdón por lo que no ha hecho en toda la legislatura que lleva desaparecido.
               

                  A mí me gustaría que ustedes pidieran perdón por instrumentalizar y utilizar al sector agrario continuamente, que lo que necesita es más Europa; no menos Europa, que es lo que ustedes quieren; no menos Europa, que es lo que ustedes están deseando.
               

                  Por lo tanto, dejen de hacer ganancia de pescadores a río revuelto y ayuden al sector agrícola de verdad haciendo y aprobando aquí medidas para ayudar al campo.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – Yo solo quiero decir y repetir que yo no voté a favor del Pacto Verde Europeo. Yo no voté a favor de la Estrategia ‘De la Granja a la Mesa’. Yo no voté a favor de la Estrategia sobre Biodiversidad. Yo no voté a favor de los acuerdos comerciales con aquellos países que favorecen la importación de productos terceros. Esta es la realidad. Esta es la realidad. Ustedes votaron a favor, ustedes votaron a favor, ustedes votaron a favor.
               

                  Ahora se acercan las elecciones y ahora todos parecen ser amigos de los agricultores y ganaderos. Pero son ustedes los que han promovido una agenda globalista, esos ODS, esa Agenda 2030, que lo que predice expresamente es precisamente favorecer la importación de terceros países … (el presidente retira la palabra al orador).


Der Präsident. – Die Minute ist vorbei.
               

                  Ich würde Sie jetzt bitten, meine Damen und Herren, dass Sie nicht die Debatte über die Ufer treten lassen, was die Redezeit betrifft. Ich habe bei allen den Prozentsatz der Redezeit überziehen lassen, aber bei Ausführungen von einer Minute kann ich nicht länger als fünf bis zehn Sekunden überziehen lassen, sonst ist das ungerecht gegenüber allen. Ich möchte alle gleich behandeln, und wir sind später dran. Daher muss ich auch auswählen bei den blauen Karten und kann da nur eine Frage zulassen, und die umfasst eine Minute.
               

                  Bitte halten Sie sich an die Geschäftsordnung!
               

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Und wieder stehen wütende Landwirte diese Woche vor dem Europäischen Parlament in Straßburg so wie letzte Woche in Brüssel. Müssen Ihnen tatsächlich erst Eier, Gülle oder brennendes Heu um die Ohren fliegen?
               

                  Es geht nicht nur um die Aussetzung von Flächenstilllegungen, nicht nur um die von Ihnen geschaffene erstickende Bürokratie, um Mercosur und unfairen Wettbewerb; es geht nicht nur um gesetzlich festgelegte Bioquoten, Nutztierhaltungsverbote und Wolfspflege, die Überarbeitung des Verbots von Pflanzenschutzmitteln und so weiter und so fort.
               

                  Landwirte sind schlicht praxisferne Politquacksalber mit ihrem Green Deal und deren Almosen leid. Und sie wollen sich nicht im Zuge einer völlig irren Klimarettung abwickeln lassen und zu CO2-Gärtnern degradieren lassen.
               

                  Die Wirtschaft wandert vielleicht geräuschlos ab, die Landwirte aber sind mit ihrem Land verwachsen, und sie werden nicht weichen. Und sie lassen sich ab jetzt auch nicht mehr ignorieren.
               

Chris MacManus (The Left). – Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Madam Commissioner, I want to express solidarity with family farmers who are feeling the pain of inflation, fuel costs, competitions with imports from outside the EU, and general lack of fair prices.
These mounting challenges – while they're being asked to do more – has reached a breaking point for many who are more concerned than ever for their family farms' future. This was evident in the anger seen last week, but these protests did not happen in isolation: many of our farmers feel abandoned, many have lost faith in the system, a system that has burdened them with unfair free trade agreements they can't compete with. And as rural custodians, they are expected to carry a large share of green initiatives like the Nature Restoration Law.
They must be duly compensated for such efforts, and concerns such as forest re-wetting must be listened to, and I call on the Irish Government in any future national restoration plan to commit to such issues.

Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il reddito dei nostri agricoltori è crollato principalmente per due motivi. In primis perché soffrono la concorrenza selvaggia dei prodotti a basso costo che arrivano dall'altra parte del mondo, e poi perché la nostra filiera avvantaggia i grandi distributori.
               

                  Un chilo di mele oggi viene venduto nei supermercati a non meno di 2,10 euro, ma ai produttori vanno appena 29 centesimi. Questo è il problema principale. L'ambiente non c'entra nulla.
               

                  Da tempo, come Movimento 5 Stelle, denunciamo politiche commerciali che sacrificano l'agricoltura. Abbiamo votato contro il CETA, che ha favorito un'importazione selvaggia di grano canadese a basso costo, e ci siamo sempre opposti all'accordo UE-Mercosur, che avrebbe penalizzato il nostro settore ortofrutticolo.
               

                  Noi agli agricoltori dobbiamo tendere la mano. Insieme a loro dobbiamo costruire un commercio equo, vicino ai loro interessi. Solo così riusciremo a salvaguardare le nostre eccellenze e garantire un futuro alla nostra agricoltura.
               

Norbert Lins (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident! Es ist gut, dass die Bäuerinnen und Bauern in Europa auf die Straße gehen, dass sie diese Politik nicht weiter mitmachen. Es liegt oft an nationalen Regierungen, die falsche Entscheidungen treffen – z. B. meine eigene, die den Begriff ‘ländlicher Raum’ gar nicht versteht, die rein Politik für die großen Städte macht.
               

                  Aber es liegt unter anderem auch an uns; es liegt an der Timmermans-Agenda, an der ideologiegetriebenen Agenda, die wir hinter uns lassen müssen. Und es ist ein wichtiges Zeichen, Herr Vizepräsident, dass die Präsidentin gestern die SUR zurückgezogen hat – ein wichtiges Element als Zeichen an die Bäuerinnen und Bauern.
               

                  Aber, Herr Vizepräsident, ich bin schon sehr enttäuscht: Die Bäuerinnen und Bauern sind auf der Straße, und Sie kommen hier heute mit leeren Händen. Wir brauchen bei der GAP Änderungen. Wir müssen die Stilllegungsagenda ad acta legen. Wir brauchen Vereinfachungen bei der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, auch untergesetzlich.
               

                  Lassen wir die Bäuerinnen und Bauern doch endlich produzieren, ihre Arbeit machen, mehr wieder auf dem Feld, weniger im Büro! Das müssen wir hinkriegen in den nächsten Wochen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen!
               

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ zu beantworten.)


Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE),
pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Iš tikrųjų jūs tą paminėjote, bet teisės aktai, reglamentai, direktyvos leidžia valstybėms narėms griežtinti sąlygas, priimti papildomus apribojimus. Kokia jūsų nuomonė, ar neturėtų valstybės narės už tai susimokėti? Ar neturėtume mes įtraukti nuostatos, kad jeigu valstybė narė priima griežtinančias sąlygas, kurios didina išlaidas, ji turėtų įnešti savo pinigus už tai?
               

Norbert Lins (PPE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Ich habe große Sympathie dafür, dass wir europäische Regelungen – was wir hier verabschieden – in den Mitgliedstaaten eins zu eins umsetzen. Und in der Tat ist es manchmal so, dass die nationalen und teilweise auch regionalen Regierungen noch über die Bestimmungen von Brüssel hinausgehen.
               

                  Aber da, wo wir eben auch eigene Verantwortung haben, zum Beispiel beim Thema Stilllegung – die 4 % müssen wir jetzt anpacken und der Vergangenheit angehören lassen; da sind jetzt wir gefordert. Das Schwarze-Peter-Spiel bringt am Ende den Bäuerinnen und Bauern wenig.
               

Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente Šefčovič, dopo trent'anni di investimenti, in cui l'Europa ha portato la nostra filiera agroalimentare a non avere uguali al mondo in termini di qualità, di sostenibilità del cibo e di rispetto dei diritti dei lavoratori, la legislatura in corso ha dato l'impressione di voler passare dal perseguire obiettivi ideali a obiettivi ideologici, senza mettere in campo alcun piano che accompagnasse gli agricoltori nella transizione verso nuovi modelli produttivi.
               

                  Questo Parlamento, invece, ha saputo mettersi in ascolto dei bisogni delle nostre comunità rurali, lavorando per trovare soluzioni concrete e ben più equilibrate di quelle proposte dalla Commissione, anche nelle ultime ore.
               

                  Caro Commissario, per riallacciare il legame che ha sempre unito l'Unione e i nostri agricoltori, abbiamo bisogno di renderli protagonisti di un progetto, mettendo in campo strumenti innovativi, a partire dalle nuove biotecnologie sostenibili, adeguati a raggiungere obiettivi ambientali ambiziosi e rendere il settore sempre più competitivo a livello globale.
               

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO


Vicepresidente


Elsi Katainen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, itselleni entisenä viljelijänä on itsestään selvää, että tila jätetään paremmassa kunnossa seuraavalle sukupolvelle kuin mitä itse sen saimme. Meidän päättäjien on otettava oppia tästä ja tehtävä kaikkemme, jotta voimme parantaa maatalousalan kilpailukykyä ja houkuttelevuutta. Aivan loputtomasti ei viljelijöiltä voi vaatia ilman taetta toimeentulosta. Kyse on lopulta koko Euroopan ruokaturvasta.
                  

                     Nykyisen ja tulevan säätelyn osalta on tehtävä kokonaisvaltainen vaikutustenarviointi. Lainsäädäntöjen päällekkäisyyttä ja hallinnollista taakkaa on vältettävä. Lisäksi on arvioitava epäterveiden kauppatapojen direktiiviä, sen vaikuttavuutta jäsenvaltioissa ja myös sen vahvistamista, jotta viljelijöiden asemaa voidaan elintarvikeketjussa vahvistaa. Tuotteista on saatava parempaa hintaa, ja capin rahoituksesta on pidettävä kiinni.
                  

                     Toivon, että komissio ottaa viljelijöiden hädän huomioon tulevissa esityksissään.
                  

Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ja, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir haben – glaube ich – alle großes Verständnis für die Proteste der Bauern; dafür muss man auch keine Bäume vor dem Parlament abfackeln. Die wirtschaftliche Lage der Bauern ist in vielen Bereichen, gerade bei den kleineren und mittleren Betrieben, katastrophal, die Preise gehen runter. Und das Fatale ist, dass die Preisspanne zwischen dem, was der Bauer kriegt, und dem, was der Handel nimmt, immer größer wird. Wir müssen ja nicht die Macht der Konzerne im Handel begrenzen. Und wir haben es geschafft, einen ganzen Bereich der Industrie, der Lebensmittelbranche, sozusagen von den Subventionen abhängig zu machen. Das geht so nicht weiter.
                  

                     Zur GAP: Lieber Norbert Lins, Sie haben doch dafür gesorgt, dass weiterhin zwei Drittel des Geldes in Flächensubventionen gehen. Sie haben doch dafür gesorgt, dass die großen Betriebe nach wie vor (unverständlich). Jetzt stellt sich Norbert Lins hin, nachdem er gesagt hat ‘das war die größte Reform seit MacSharry’ – jetzt ist alles plötzlich schlecht. Also, Sie müssen schon dazu stehen, was Sie einmal gemacht haben. Und jetzt bejubeln Sie jede einzelne Maßnahme, wenn Umweltmaßnahmen abgeschafft werden.
                  

                     Nein, Landwirtschaft funktioniert halt nur mit Umwelt- und Klimaschutz für die Zukunft. Und wer das jetzt bejubelt, dass diese Maßnahmen abgeschafft werden, der schädigt die Landwirtschaft nachhaltig.
                  

Geert Bourgeois (ECR). – Voorzitter, collega's, het EU-Verdrag bepaalt dat de landbouwer recht heeft op een eerlijke levensstandaard. Welnu, dit beleid faalt. De boer heeft recht op een goede prijs voor zijn goede waar. Maar onze boer met een familiebedrijf heeft geen marktmacht. Hij staat alleen in de voedselketen tegenover grote spelers.
                  

                     De Commissie moet dus heel snel richtsnoeren uitvoeren in het mededingingsrecht om toe te laten dat de boeren afspraken maken en zich samen verenigen om de prijs te helpen bepalen. Vergeet niet dat de noodzakelijke duurzame transitie niet kan zonder economische duurzaamheid.
                  

                     Deze Commissie heeft een massa regels uitgevaardigd met schending van de proportionaliteit. Wij vragen effectbeoordelingen tot op regionaal en lokaal niveau, zoals het Verdrag ook bepaalt. Conclusie: geef de boer een waardig inkomen. Maak rechtvaardige, proportionele regels.
                  

Jean-Paul Garraud (ID). – Madame la Présidente, la situation dramatique que vivent nos agriculteurs n'est pas le fruit de la fatalité, mais de choix politiques décidés à Bruxelles et votés ici, à Strasbourg. Dernier exemple en date: l'accord de libre-échange avec le Chili voté en commission il y a deux semaines. Ici même, les élus macronistes votent les accords de libre-échange. Bien au-delà de la détresse de nos agriculteurs, étouffés par les réglementations, appauvris par la concurrence déloyale, qui casse les prix, c'est bien d'une crise sociétale qu'il s'agit.
                  

                     L'agriculteur, le paysan est passionné par son métier, il est enraciné, souvent depuis des générations, dans sa terre. Il a un lien viscéral avec la nature, les traditions, la transmission à ses enfants de cette passion, de son exploitation. Ce modèle traditionnel, ancestral, qui a façonné l'évolution de nos sociétés, se heurte de plein fouet avec celui que l'Union européenne veut nous imposer, ultralibéral, mondialiste et désincarné.
                  

                     C'est pour cela que les crises qui traversent toute l'Europe constituent des mouvements de fond qui ne sont pas près de s'arrêter. C'est pour cela que le soutien à nos paysans est massif. C'est pour cela que le pouvoir macroniste a peur et qu'il mobilise la gendarmerie, avec des blindés, pour arrêter la progression de nos tracteurs agricoles.
                  

                     Eh oui, cette révolte paysanne est populaire, elle est juste, elle tend au changement du système et elle est sous-tendue par des valeurs profondes, qui ont fait leurs preuves au cours des siècles. L'idéologie bruxelloise et macroniste ne fait pas le poids avec ce qui a construit et fortifié notre civilisation. Deux modèles s'opposent totalement. Pour notre part, le choix est fait depuis très longtemps, et tout est en train de nous donner raison.
                  

Presidente. – Aveva fatto richiesta di blue card l'onorevole Clergeau, però, siccome è nella lista degli oratori e sono tantissimi i colleghi che hanno fatto richiesta di blue card, chiederei all'onorevole Clergeau di esprimere il suo pensiero durante il suo intervento. Quindi, proseguirei con la lista. Onorevole Hidvéghi, prego.
                  

Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Az elmúlt hetek gazdatüntetései jól igazolják és jól mutatják, hogy a jelenlegi brüsszeli vezetés tévúton jár. És örülünk, hogy itt van Šefčovič alelnök úr, de itt valójában Ursula von der Leyennek kéne ülnie, aki személyben felelős azért, hogy ide jutottunk. Legyen szó akár az ukrajnai háborúról, akár a migrációról vagy éppen az agráriumról, teljesen világos, hogy Brüsszelt szélsőséges ideológiák vezérlik, és képtelen az európai érdekekért, az európai érdekek mentén cselekedni. Az átgondolatlan, szemellenzős brüsszeli zöld politika tönkreteszi az európai gazdákat. Közben Brüsszel hagyja, hogy olcsó ukrán gabona, csirkehús és egyéb termékek árasszák el az európai piacot, és még ráadásul olyan kereskedelmi megállapodásokat köt, amelyek ad abszurdum jobb helyzetbe hozzák az Európán kívüli versenytársainkat, mint az európai gazdákat.
                  

                     Ide jutottunk. Micsoda politika ez, kérem szépen! És miközben Brüsszel ezeket a téves, ideológiailag vezérelt döntéseket hozza, addig a versenytársaink, akár Kína, akár az Egyesült Államok protekcionista döntéseket hoznak, a saját érdekeiket védik, és rohamtempóban hagyják le Európát a globális versenyben. Itt az ideje, hogy Brüsszel végre visszatérjen a józan ész politikájára. Első helyre az európai érdeket tegye, az európai gazdák, az európai emberek érdekét, és hagyjon fel ezzel a rossz politikával. Brüsszelben eljött az idő a változásra.
                  

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente, la semana pasada muchos se alarmaron al ver las calles aledañas al Parlamento Europeo llenas de tractores y agricultores protestando con justas reivindicaciones.
                  

                     Esta semana, afortunadamente, la Comisión ha recapacitado y ha comenzado a atender las reivindicaciones de los agricultores, dando marcha atrás en la implantación de algunas de las medidas más radicales del Pacto Verde, como el nuevo Reglamento de pesticidas. Hoy, por lo tanto, celebramos que se pretenda dar carpetazo al legado del socialista Timmermans.
                  

                     Pero es hora, señorías, de seguir avanzando en defensa de los agricultores y ganaderos europeos. Tenemos que flexibilizar los criterios exigidos para acceder a las ayudas de la PAC. Tenemos que apoyar la construcción de infraestructura hídrica para paliar la sequía y tenemos que introducir las cláusulas espejo para poner fin a la competencia desleal. Esperamos, señor vicepresidente, que esta vez se pongan manos a la obra en la buena dirección.
                  

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’).


Sarah Wiener (Verts/ALE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Es ist Ihre Partei gewesen, die für die GAP und für Flächensubventionen gestimmt hat, also dafür, agrarindustrielle Maßnahmen zu steigern, zu fördern, und Kleinbauern und -bäuerinnen in unfairen Wettbewerb rutschen zu lassen. Sie kritisieren Umweltmaßnahmen, ohne irgendeine Alternative vorzulegen, siehe SUR, Pestizidreduktion.
                  

                     Jetzt zu sagen, dass eine Pestizidreduktion, die fruchtbare Böden schädigt, die unsere Gesundheit schädigt und unser aller Wasser, eine radikale Maßnahme ist, ist, glaube ich, nicht das, was alle Menschen hier in der Gesellschaft möchten.
                  

                     Bitte wachen Sie auf, und hören Sie auch auf die Gesellschaft und auf Bäuerinnen und Bauern, um sie zu befreien von teurem Input!
                  

                     Die Frage ist – wenn Sie eine Frage haben wollen: Sind Sie mit mir einverstanden, dass man Bäuerinnen und Bauern schützen sollte?
                  

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Permítame que le diga, en primer lugar, que el Partido Popular Europeo tiene muy claro que, para seguir avanzando en mejorar la calidad de los productos y también contribuir a frenar el cambio climático, hay que regirse por criterios científicos y no por criterios ideológicos, que es lo que hacen ustedes. Ustedes primero anteponen la ideología a todos y cada uno de los informes técnicos y de los informes científicos.
                  

                     Mire, le voy a decir una cosa. Considero gravísimo lo que hizo el señor Timmermans cuando presentó la Estrategia ‘De la Granja a la Mesa’ y nos ocultó el informe técnico en el que se venía a reconocer y recogía, de hecho, que se iba a producir menos, que se iba a producir más caro, que subiría la cesta de la compra como ha subido, y que, además, vendrían los productos de fuera, que no tienen la calidad que tienen los productos que tenemos aquí y fabricamos en Europa. Por tanto, eso es lo que pretende el Partido Popular.
                  

                     Ustedes hoy vienen aquí a ponerse de parte de los agricultores, cuando están viendo que tienen justas reivindicaciones por las limitaciones y condiciones que ustedes les están poniendo con carga ideológica y nunca científica.
                  

Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Caros Colegas, a minha primeira palavra é de solidariedade e vai para os agricultores, em particular os jovens agricultores que, independentemente dos seus Estados-Membros, lutam por algo tão simples quanto isto: dignificação do seu modo de vida, rendimentos dignos por uma atividade que é essencial a todos e menos, muito menos burocracia no acesso aos fundos a que têm direito. E quero também saudar a luta dos pequenos agricultores, dos pequenos criadores de gado, dos pastores, que são muitos nesta Europa e que, na maior parte das vezes, nem sequer têm acesso aos fundos da PAC.
                  

                     Esta luta é sua.
                  

                     Não é a luta da direita nem da extrema direita, uma direita que tanto quer ser o arauto defensor dos agricultores que até coloca agricultores europeus contra agricultores europeus, como vimos na semana passada.
                  

                     E esta é uma luta do mundo rural e essa luta merece respeito, merece respostas rápidas que ajudem os agricultores na transição justa para uma agricultura mais sustentável. Sim, porque os agricultores que amam a sua terra não criam, não são eles que criam a falaciosa separação entre agricultura e natureza.
                  

Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, în ultimele săptămâni, fermierii ies pe străzi în multe țări europene pentru că și-au pierdut răbdarea. Cauzele sunt cunoscute: criza energetică și post-pandemică, războiul din Ucraina și impactul asupra agricultorilor, politicile verzi fără calibrare de impact economic în agricultură.
                  

                     Dar cum ieșim din această situație? Cum punem în coerență ambițiile europene cu capacitatea de adaptare a sectorului agricol? Toate discuțiile despre sprijinul fermierilor pe termen scurt sunt lipsite de sens dacă nu tragem concluzii din greșelile făcute în ultimii ani.
                  

                     Avem o mare nevoie de un proiect în care să includem și nevoia de alimentație accesibilă și sănătoasă, și nevoia unui mediu înconjurător nepoluat, dar și veniturile rezonabile și predictibile pentru fermieri. Nu am făcut asta suficient de bine până acum și vedem deja rezultatele într-un context imprevizibil pentru fermieri.
                  

                     Derogările Comisiei Europene pe termen scurt sunt bune, dar nu vor rezolva problema pe termen lung. Rolul Comisiei este crucial în următoarele săptămâni și luni pentru a lua decizii care să dea un semnal clar că este capabilă să asculte, dar și să audă preocupările fermierilor pentru un venit corect, ca să poată să țină cont și de mediu și de producția alimentară.
                  

Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, our food system is broken: multinationals are making billions while farmers struggle to make ends meet; extremely low prices; family farms disappearing every day. We are in an agricultural crisis.
To the farmers protesting outside: we are not your enemy. We Greens know that without farmers there is no food and that farmers deserve to make a decent living. We all also know that without nature there is no farming. What has led to this crisis are the policies pushed by the very people who like to blame us Greens: more and more free trade agreements, an unfair common agricultural policy, and simply not enough support to help farmers through the transition.
Here is what we need to do: stop unfair competition from imported food; break the power of big corporations; more support to small farmers; less bureaucracy. Let us give farmers workable solutions that protect nature without burying farmers in paperwork.

Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, de boerenprotesten gaan door, overal in Europa. Dat is terecht. Met de Green Deal heeft Frans Timmermans geprobeerd om boeren in Europa het werk onmogelijk te maken. De kroon op zijn werk was de natuurherstelwet. De Nederland-op-slot-wet.
                  

                     Nu gaan de boeren de straat op. De christendemocraten schieten wakker, want de verkiezingen komen eraan. Snel gaat een anti-boerenvoorstel de ijskast in. Het type voorstel dat ze hier vijf jaar lang hebben gesteund. Dat is niet genoeg. De boeren moeten weer fatsoenlijk gewaardeerd en beloond worden.
                  

                     Voedselzekerheid is een kwestie van nationale veiligheid. De Europese Unie moet boeren niet in de weg zitten met steeds meer regeltjes, maar in plaats daarvan de boeren de ruimte geven. Daarom moet die verschrikkelijke natuurherstelwet van tafel. De effecten worden rampzalig. Boeren in heel Europa gaan dat merken.
                  

                     Als Parlement hadden we de angel eruit gehaald. Veel van mijn voorstellen voor de boeren waren hier aangenomen, maar tot mijn grote verbijstering zag ik dat al mijn verbeteringen er later gewoon weer uit zijn gesloopt.
                  

                     Nu kan de enige conclusie zijn: als de EVP echt voor de boeren wil opkomen, stemt ze de natuurherstelwet weg.
                  

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σε όλη την Ευρώπη και στην Ελλάδα, οι μεγαλειώδεις αγροτικές κινητοποιήσεις ενοχοποιούν την ΚΓΠ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και την γκριζοπράσινη στρατηγική μετάβασης. Αυτές εμφάνισε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ως λύση και αποδείχθηκαν βάσει σχεδίου μηχανισμοί εξόντωσης των βιοπαλαιστών αγροτών. Οι αγρότες ήρθαν έξω από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο στον τόπο του εγκλήματος, γιατί εδώ στην ολομέλεια, όλοι μαζί και από την Ελλάδα, Νέα Δημοκρατία, ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, ΠΑΣΟΚ, κόμμα του Βελόπουλου, όλοι πλην ΚΚΕ, ψήφισαν την ΚΓΠ που τους ξεκληρίζει. Γιατί οι περικοπές των ενισχύσεων και οι πράσινες προδιαγραφές τους είναι αυτές που τους πετούν από το χωράφι και από τον τόπο τους. Απαιτούν αφορολόγητο στα εφόδια και το πετρέλαιο, όπως έχουν οι Έλληνες εφοπλιστές, πλαφόν στο ρεύμα, κόντρα στο ευρωενωσιακό χρηματιστήριο της ενέργειας και αποζημιώσεις στο 100% από τις πλημμύρες. Κατώτατες εγγυημένες τιμές σε σύγκρουση με τη στρατηγική ‘από το αγρόκτημα στο πιάτο’ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Γιατί, ενώ αυτοί πουλούν τα προϊόντα τους σε εξευτελιστικές τιμές, οι αγροτοβιομήχανοι και οι μεγαλέμποροι θησαυρίζουν πουλώντας πολλαπλάσια, απογειώνοντας την ακρίβεια για τον λαό. Αλληλεγγύη με τον δίκαιο αγώνα και τα αιτήματα επιβίωσης των βιοπαλαιστών αγροτών.
                  

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caras e Caros Colegas, os agricultores protestam e protestam com razão. Temos a obrigação de saber ouvir o grito de revolta para atuar, agir em conformidade.
                  

                     Os agricultores merecem apoio. E aqui viro-me para o Conselho: desperdiçaram uma oportunidade, tiveram a revisão do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, onde poderiam ter reforçado montantes para os agricultores. E o que é que fizeram? Cortaram na Política Agrícola Comum, no que diz respeito à gestão direta da Comissão Europeia, o que é verdadeiramente inaceitável.
                  

                     Nós precisamos de menos burocracia e precisamos de um quadro legislativo com mais estabilidade. E a União Europeia? A Comissão Europeia tem de fazer a sua parte, assim como o Parlamento Europeu. Mas os Estados-Membros depois também têm de fazer o trabalho que lhes compete. E nomeadamente, naquilo que é a seca, há soluções que os Estados-Membros não estão a executar e poderiam utilizar, nomeadamente as verbas dos Planos de Recuperação e Resiliência para evitar a seca e para ajudar os agricultores.
                  

Maria Noichl (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Seit Langem ist Landwirtschaftspolitik keine Nischenpolitik mehr, sondern Gesellschaftspolitik. Ich habe für den Green Deal gestimmt, und ich würde es auch wieder tun, weil es der richtige Weg ist.
                  

                     Ich verstehe Landwirte, die ärgerlich sind. Ich verstehe auch, dass Landwirte Folgenabschätzungen einfordern, Folgenabschätzungen über Gesetze: Was passiert, wenn die Reduktion der Pestizide kommt? Was macht das mit meinem Hof, mit meiner Bewirtschaftung, mit meiner Möglichkeit, Geld zu verdienen?
                  

                     Diese Folgenabschätzungen für Landwirte sind wichtig und richtig. Aber gleichzeitig – und das ist wirklich wichtig zu benennen – gleichzeitig fordert auch die Gesellschaft Folgenabschätzungen ein, nämlich: Was passiert, wenn wir die Pestizide nicht reduzieren? Was passiert, wenn wir weiterhin Arten verlieren? Das heißt, es gibt nicht nur Folgenabschätzungen auf der einen Seite, sondern auch auf der anderen Seite.
                  

                     Ich bin meiner Fraktion, der S&D, dankbar, dass sie es immer wieder schafft, die Balance zu finden. Denn Landwirtschaftspolitik ist Gesellschaftspolitik. Und wenn die EVP glaubt, jetzt so tun zu können, als müsste sie die Landwirte vor Brüssel beschützen, würde ich nur sagen: Lasst uns die Landwirte unterhaken! Lasst uns mit ihnen in eine Zeit gehen, in eine schwierige Zeit, eine Zeit des Klimawandels, der Klimaanpassung. Das ist nicht leicht; da braucht die Landwirtschaft unsere Unterstützung.
                  

                     Die EVP macht Gräben zwischen der Gesellschaft und der Landwirtschaft immer tiefer – wir müssen diese Gräben aber zuschütten.
                  

Jérémy Decerle (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'agriculture européenne est déjà la plus vertueuse. Nos agriculteurs respectent les règles les plus exigeantes au monde. Pardon de le rappeler.
                  

                     Beaucoup ici passent leur temps à polariser le débat, à chercher des coupables à tort et à travers. Je pense qu'on devrait plutôt s'activer à trouver des réponses. C'est ce qu'attendent les femmes et les hommes qui font l'agriculture. Qu'on arrête de décider sans eux, qu'on les écoute, qu'on leur apporte des réponses solides, des réponses tangibles, applicables, des réponses rémunératrices pour un métier si difficile.
                  

                     Nous avons un chemin à construire. C'est possible si nous sommes sérieux, rationnels. C'est possible si on fait preuve de plus de cohérence, si, par exemple, la Commission qui lance le dialogue stratégique sur l'agriculture ne sacrifie pas cette même agriculture en validant de manière provocatrice l'accord commercial avec le Mercosur. N'importons plus l'agriculture que nous ne voulons plus.
                  

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’)


François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE),
question ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Cher collègue, vous dites opportunément maintenant qu'il ne faut pas polariser le sujet de l'agriculture, mais vous souvenez-vous du moment où vous votiez pour la loi sur la restauration de la nature? Et nous étions critiqués au PPE par vous ou par vos collègues parce que nous alertions sur le fait que ce texte allait faire baisser de 10 % la surface agricole utile en Europe? Vous rappelez-vous le moment où notre délégation avait alerté sur la stratégie ‘De la ferme à la table’, que vous avez votée?
                  

                     Vous dites qu'il ne faut pas importer l'agriculture que nous ne voulons pas produire. Mais vous rappelez-vous avoir voté pour l'accord avec la Nouvelle-Zélande, que nous n'avons pas voté, parce qu'il va contribuer à faire venir sur notre sol des tonnes de produits que nous ne produisons pas chez nous: 30 000 tonnes d'agneau, 20 000 tonnes de lait en poudre, développés avec des techniques que nous refusons à nos propres agriculteurs?
                  

                     Il est temps aussi de faire le bilan de ce que chacun assume et de regarder en face les responsabilités de nos groupes respectifs. Si nous voulons vraiment défendre l'agriculture, nous lui devons la vérité.
                  

Jérémy Decerle (Renew),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Monsieur Bellamy, j'assume les votes auxquels j'ai pris part et la manière dont j'ai voté dans ce Parlement européen. Je sais quelles trajectoires nous n'aurions pas dû choisir. Ce que je dis aujourd'hui, c'est que les agricultrices et les agriculteurs ne cherchent pas des coupables, ils cherchent des réponses.
                  

                     Si vous voulez que l'on continue encore à se disputer, on peut dire: ‘Toi, tu as voté ça. Toi, tu as voté ça, tu n'aurais pas dû. C'est à cause du pacte vert. C'est à cause de la stratégie “De la ferme à la table”. C'est à cause des Verts, qui en demandent toujours plus…’ Moi, je veux bien participer à ce débat-là, mais ce n'est pas là qu'on trouvera les réponses.
                  

                     Donc, construisons ensemble. Si vous avez de bonnes idées, prenons-les. Je pense qu'on en a aussi. Je pense qu'il y en a dans tous les camps, dans le champ républicain, dans ce Parlement. Donc, construisons ensemble l'avenir de l'agriculture. Les agriculteurs ont besoin de nous. Aidons-les.
                  

Anne Sander (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, aujourd'hui, les agriculteurs sont au centre de nos discussions. Dommage qu'il ait fallu attendre qu'ils sortent leurs tracteurs par milliers dans les rues européennes pour qu'on leur prête de l'attention. Certains semblent surpris de cette crise, qu'on n'aurait soi-disant pas vu venir.
                  

                     Alors c'est vrai, de la gauche de l'hémicycle à la macronie, on a fermé les yeux et on a poussé vers plus de surenchère réglementaire. Du côté de l'extrême droite, du RN, on est absent des débats, comme aujourd'hui. Il est vrai que, au PPE, cela fait longtemps qu'on alerte sur la détresse et le désarroi du monde agricole.
                  

                     Alors, aujourd'hui, je me tourne vers la Commission européenne et je dis: il y a urgence. Urgence à mettre en place une pause dans les réglementations, urgence à mettre en place des clauses miroirs, urgence à simplifier la PAC, à retravailler les 4 % de jachère. Urgence, tout simplement, à agir pour assurer notre sécurité alimentaire, partout en Europe.
                  

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’)


Isabel García Muñoz (S&D),
pregunta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Señora Sander, las legítimas protestas de los agricultores han llegado a convertirse en Francia en preocupantes e ilegítimos altercados contra los camiones que transportan productos agrícolas españoles; actos que, además de poner en peligro la seguridad de los transportistas, van en contra de la libre circulación de mercancías y de la competencia leal que debe primar en el mercado único europeo.
                  

                     ¿Usted cree que la solución para la agricultura en Francia es el nacionalismo agrario y que pasa por tirar los productos de los agricultores españoles? ¿Hacia dónde va a ir la Unión Europea si se permiten estas actuaciones? ¿No debería Francia asumir las consecuencias de su propia política agrícola?
                  

Anne Sander (PPE),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Madame García Muñoz, vous avez raison: dans ce débat et dans cette crise agricole, il y a aujourd'hui des responsabilités nationales et des responsabilités européennes. Il est vrai que, en France, nos agriculteurs connaissent des difficultés supplémentaires, parce que nous avons l'habitude de surtransposer un certain nombre de règles européennes.
                  

                     Mais je crois qu'ici nous avons aussi la responsabilité de nous poser la question des mêmes règles partout en Europe. On voit bien aujourd'hui que les agriculteurs ne sont pas soumis aux mêmes règles, ce qui crée de la détresse supplémentaire et des conditions d'exercice de ce beau métier d'agriculteur très déloyales. Donc, mobilisons-nous pour faire en sorte que les règles soient les mêmes en Europe, mais aussi vis-à-vis du reste du monde.
                  

Christophe Clergeau (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l'écologie n'est pas l'ennemie de l'agriculture. L'ennemi de l'agriculture, c'est le libéralisme, le libéralisme qui conduit à la baisse du revenu agricole. Le revenu, le revenu, le revenu: voilà ce qui devrait être au cœur de nos débats. Pour cela, nous aurons besoin d'une autre PAC, car l'aide à l'hectare et la vente des produits sur des marchés dérégulés et imprévisibles, cela ne marche pas.
                  

                     Mais tout de suite nous pouvons:
                  






—



                           changer la mise en œuvre de la PAC en plafonnant les aides, pour mieux aider les plus petits agriculteurs et les éleveurs;
                        










—



                           utiliser les outils européens de régulation des marchés et de lutte contre la spéculation, y compris réhabiliter les stocks;
                        










—



                           imposer une répartition de la valeur face à l'industrie et à la distribution, laquelle garantit le revenu des agriculteurs;
                        










—



                           suspendre les accords de libre-échange et généraliser les clauses miroirs et le correctif carbone aux frontières de l'Union européenne pour lutter contre la concurrence déloyale;
                        










—



                           rémunérer, enfin, le travail des agriculteurs pour protéger la nature et sortir des pesticides et du glyphosate.
                        





                     Oui, l'agroécologie doit se traduire par plus de revenus pour les agriculteurs.
                  

Asger Christensen (Renew). – Fru formand! Jeg er landmand, og jeg har støvlerne på, hr. Kommissær! I hele Europa demonstrerer landmændene med deres traktorer. Det er fordi, usikkerheden er meget, meget, meget stor. Den økonomiske usikkerhed efter Ukraine-krisen, stigende brændstofpriser, inflation, og man bliver oversvømmet af produkter fra Ukraine. Men også usikkerheden i forhold til for vidtgående miljølovgivning fra EU's side.
                  

                     Jeg vil gerne sige, at jeg godt kan forstå landmændene. Jeg tror, der er behov for, at vi tager en timeout lige nu. Den grønne omstilling er selvfølgelig vigtig, men det er simpelthen gået alt for stærkt i et tempo, som mange af mine kollegaer ikke kan følge med til. Vi skal have reduceret det administrative bøvl. Jeg synes, formanden for Kommissionen, Ursula von der Leyen, sagde det for et års tid siden: Vi skal have reduceret det administrative bøvl med 25 %. Det kunne vi starte med. Vi må også skrue op for de teknologier, som kan hjælpe os frem til en løsning: NGT, grønne alternativer, præcisionslandbrug, carbon farming og mange andre ting. Og så skal vi have vores godkendelse af biopesticider op i en fart, så vi kan komme til at bruge dem. Og vi har brug for en hurtig implementering. Vi kan ikke tillade os at vente.
                  

Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, hoeveel keer ging het debat hier de afgelopen jaren over de voorwaarden die we boeren opleggen? En hoeveel keer ging het debat over de situatie van boeren zelf? Hoeveel keer vroeg de Europese Volkspartij om te spreken met de boeren en niet over de boeren?
                  

                     Wie met de boeren spreekt, is vandaag helemaal niet verrast over de protesten. Natuurlijk is er de noodzaak om klimaatbeleid te voeren, maar we hebben hun kar volgeladen met nieuwe regels en we laten ze vervolgens los met vastgebonden handen op een moordende wereldmarkt, en dat met steeds minder landbouwbudget.
                  

                     Terwijl we de afgelopen jaren natuur- of industrieprojecten veiligstelden, is er geen enkele bescherming voor de rol van landbouw en voedselproductie. Voor mij moet de strategische landbouwdialoog daarom uitmonden in een echte Europese landbouwbeschermingswet die alle Europese wetgeving toetst aan essentiële factoren die een impact kunnen hebben op onze voedselzekerheid. Denk aan de beschikbaarheid en kwaliteit van gronden, denk aan jonge boeren, denk aan kostendekkende prijzen, beschikbaarheid van water en ga zo maar door.
                  

                     De boeren voelen zich terecht in een hoek gedrukt. Het is tijd om ze weer de centrale plaats te geven die ze verdienen.
                  

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, în titlul dezbaterii de azi apare un cuvânt interesant: echitabil. Aș vrea să întreb comisia ce i se pare echitabil la următorul exemplu: într-un singur an, valoarea producției de cereale în UE a scăzut cu aproape 30 %. Ce face Comisia? Vine cu o derogare, așa zis salvatoare, prin care obligă fermierii să dubleze suprafața supusă unor noi condiționalități de mediu. Astfel, spun fermierii, se vor dubla pierderile, deoarece, se știe, o parte dintre culturile recomandate nu supraviețuiesc fără pesticide, iar altele au nevoie de foarte, foarte multă apă vara, în sezon cu secetă.
                  

                     Comisia tot încearcă să cârpească ceva ce se deșiră rapid pe măsură ce noua legislație verde își arată eșecul, iar alegerile se apropie. E greu de înțeles de ce, nici măcar acum, încă nu e clar că, pentru fermieri, ‘echitabil’ înseamnă că orice se decide să fie stabilit împreună cu ei, nu peste capul lor și că, oricât de absurd li s-ar părea unora prin birouri, la ambiții noi, e nevoie de bani noi.
                  

Атидже Алиева-Вели (Renew). – Г-жо Председател, бурните протести на земеделците в цяла Европа са показателни. Те искат да бъдат чути и имат нужда от подкрепа. Сложните административни изисквания, ограниченото финансиране, високата инфлация, наслагващите се кризи и нелоялната конкуренция изправят земеделците ежедневно пред още по-големи предизвикателства.
                  

                     Да бъдем ясни, сектор ‘Земеделие’ е в криза, изискванията стават все повече, а финансирането все по-малко. Неведнъж от тази трибуна съм призовавала за реалистично изпълними цели и адекватно финансиране за успешен зелен преход. Няма да е изключение, и днес ще го повторя. Екологичен преход – да, само с икономическа устойчивост и стабилност. Намаляването на бюрокрацията от приоритет на думи трябва да се превърне в реални действия. Нужно е да бъдем близо до нашите земеделци и да работим за решаване на техните проблеми.
                  

                     Г-н Комисар, обръщам се и към Съвета, темата за пълната конвергенция на плащанията в многогодишната финансова рамка години наред е подминавана. Отново Ви призовавам за еднакво третиране на земеделците и пълно изравняване на субсидиите и на българските земеделци.
                  

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, fermierii europeni sunt astăzi în stradă. Le știm cu toții provocările: inflație, secetă, războiul din Ucraina, iar politicile verzi și subliniez, stimați colegi, care sunteți tributari acestor politici, îngenunchează sectorul.
                  

                     Lacrimile politicienilor vărsate în mod ipocrit pe umerii fermierilor nu le țin de foame sau de sete, câtă vreme nu schimbăm nimic din ceea ce trebuie schimbat. Domnule comisar, ați dat o derogare pe GAEC 8, dar care nu rezolvă problema, deoarece culturile ce urmează a fi înființate provoacă pagube și nu beneficii.
                  

                     Am cerut, de asemenea, să veniți cu bani pentru a suplini rezerva de criză. Nu ați făcut-o! Vă cer în al doisprezecelea ceas să veniți cu simplificarea regulilor PAC. Niciun fermier european nu poate înțelege cum cineva din birourile somptuoase de la Bruxelles îi poate impune când să-și întoarcă ogorul sau când să recolteze, dar în același timp să existe europarlamentari care să respingă noile tehnici genomice.
                  

                     Vă cer tuturor să fim partenerii onești ai fermierilor, să nu transformăm politicianul de la Bruxelles într-un factor de risc pentru agricultură, așa cum sunteți astăzi cei care promovați politicile verzi fără să-i ascultați pe fermieri.
                  

Μανώλης Κεφαλογιάννης (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κοινή γεωργική πολιτική: η πιο πετυχημένη πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης τα τελευταία 30 χρόνια. Τι ζητούν οι αγρότες μας; Αξιοπρεπές εισόδημα, μείωση κόστους πετρελαίου και ρεύματος, μείωση κόστους εφοδίων και ζωοτροφών, αναπλήρωση του χαμένου εισοδήματός τους. Ναι, οι αγρότες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχουν δίκιο. Τι προσφέρουν οι αγρότες μας; Επάρκεια τροφίμων στην Ευρώπη και εγγυημένη αγροτική ασφάλεια. Τι πρέπει να κάνουμε εμείς; Έναν σοβαρό στρατηγικό διάλογο για το μέλλον της γεωργίας. Προτείνω τη δημιουργία ενός νέου ταμείου, ενός νέου Ταμείου Δίκαιης Μετάβασης. Για τη στήριξη του εισοδήματος των αγροτών, όπως έχουμε κάνει ήδη για την Πράσινη Συμφωνία. Ναι, είμαστε υπέρ της προστασίας του κλίματος, πάντα όμως με τους αγρότες και τους κτηνοτρόφους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
                  

Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, Frau Ratsvertreterin, meine sehr geehrten Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Landwirte gehen seit Wochen nun auf die Straße, und das zu Recht: Zu viel ist einfach zu viel.
                  

                     Unsere Linie war in der Landwirtschaftspolitik immer, dass wir Politik mit den Landwirten zusammen machen und nicht gegen sie. Wir haben durchgesetzt, dass die Pestizidverordnung nicht kommt. Wir haben durchgesetzt, dass es keine weiteren Flächenstilllegungen mehr gibt. Und wir haben auch durchgesetzt, dass Restholz weiter als erneuerbare Energie genutzt werden darf.
                  

                     Wir brauchen gesunde Lebensmittel. Wir brauchen Landwirte, die Freude daran haben, unsere Landschaft zu pflegen. Wir haben Landwirte, die Nachhaltigkeit jeden Tag leben. Landwirte geben ihr Land immer gut bestellt von Generation zu Generation weiter. Unsere Landwirte haben Wertschätzung verdient und keine Verbote, keine Vorgaben, keine Restriktionen.
                  

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospa predsednica! Lansko spomlad, lani spomladi sem se pridružil slovenskim kmetom, ki so začeli proteste in so bili uperjeni tako proti neumnim ukrepom iz Evropske unije.
                  

                     Takrat smo videli, kaj pomeni uredba o trajnostni rabi pesticidov, kaj pomeni uredba o obnovi narave, in smo protestirali skupaj proti tem ukrepom. Prvič sem protestiral proti ukrepom Evropske unije, kajti takrat smo resnično šli predaleč.
                  

                     Slovenski kmetje so protestirali tudi proti ukrepom Vlade Republike Slovenije, ki je marsikateri evropski ukrep samo še zaostrila, uporabljala celo kot pravno podlago uredbe, ki še sploh niso bile sprejete v Evropskem parlamentu. Letos ta ista vlada poskuša omejiti rabo lesa za ogrevanje kot enega od trajnostnih virov na podeželju.
                  

                     Kmetje protestirajo tudi proti položaju v trgovskih verigah in vsi skupaj moramo resnično prisluhniti kmetom in začeti iskati rešitve, ne da se samo pogovarjamo in nalagamo nova bremena.
                  

Francesca Peppucci (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ci troviamo di fronte a una evidente verità: se gli agricoltori fossero stati rispettati, se fosse stato rispettato il loro lavoro, probabilmente non ci sarebbero state centinaia di manifestazioni in tutta Europa, le ultime quelle a Bruxelles e a Strasburgo.
                  

                     Il problema non è la transizione ecologica o la necessità di tutelare l'ambiente, anche perché i primi che tutelano l'ambiente sono gli agricoltori, che vivono grazie all'ambiente. Il problema sono le scelte ideologiche, le scelte ultraideologiche ambientaliste, che non sono basate su un'evidenza scientifica, che non danno un'alternativa e che mettono in difficoltà un intero sistema economico.
                  

                     Pertanto, la strada non può essere quella di mettere a riposo i terreni, non può essere quella di preferire la carne in provetta, non può essere quella di non raccogliere i prodotti perché non conviene raccoglierli, perché risulta troppo costoso. Pertanto, ripartiamo dal rispetto dell'ambiente, ripartiamo dal rispetto, soprattutto, degli agricoltori, del loro lavoro e delle persone.
                  

Peter Jahr (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident!
                  

(Die Präsidentin unterbricht den Redner.)


Presidente. – Onorevole Vautmans, avrà la parola. Ci dia il tempo di proseguire, Lei avrà la parola, stiamo procedendo per gruppi politici e stiamo, come vede, alternando. Lei avrà la parola, stiamo intervenendo per ordine di gruppi politici. Un attimo di pazienza e di calma e si fa tutto. Cerchiamo di stare calmi e di seguire l'ordine degli interventi. Prego, onorevole Jahr, proceda pure.
                  

Peter Jahr (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident! Das Problem ist: Wenn die Kommission sagt, wir wollen die Landwirte unterstützen, empfinden das unsere Landwirte zurzeit eher als Drohung denn als Lösung. Und, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, daraus erwächst eine große politische Verantwortung für Sie für den strukturierten Dialog. Ich muss mal einfach sagen: Es muss diesmal besser werden. Und deshalb brauchen wir vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen.
                  

                     Zwei Ideen hätte ich: die erste: Aussetzung der Flächenstilllegungspflicht für die Dauer des Ukrainekrieges im Basisrecht. Oder einfacher formuliert: weg mit der Flächenstilllegung.
                  

                     Und zweitens: ein Aufkaufprogramm für das ukrainische Getreide durch die Europäische Kommission, um dann dieses Getreide nach Nordafrika zu exportieren.
                  

                     Also, was wir brauchen, ist ein strukturierter Dialog – offen, ehrlich und lösungsorientiert.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, avem dezbatere prioritară cu fermierii în stradă și comisarul pe agricultură nu este aici. Cum să dezbatem probleme prioritare pentru agricultură fără comisarul care are fișa postului pentru a se ocupa de acest domeniu? Vă mulțumesc, domnule vicepreședinte, domnule comisar, că sunteți aici. Nici doamna președintă nu este, nu participă la dezbateri prioritare. Stimați colegi, aici trebuie soluții. Da, suntem mândri de sectorul agricol, dar oare ei sunt mândri de noi, de ceea ce facem pentru ei?
                  

                     Domnule comisar, ați spus că trebuie să găsim soluții? Păi, soluțiile sunt clare. Acum, în criză, trebuie să mărim bugetul pentru criză. Trebuie să modificăm urgent Politica agricolă comună (PAC). Despre ce echitate vorbim când nu sunt subvenții egale în toate statele membre? Despre ce echitate vorbim când în Olanda se consumă 8 000 de grame la hectar de pesticide și în țara mea 600? Asta vor fermierii. Despre ce echitate vorbim când le luăm terenurile și le lăsăm pârloagă și facem unt din muscă și mâncăm lăcuste și făină de greieri? Fermierii vor agricultură naturală, consumatorii vor agricultură naturală. Haideți să le dăm măsuri și nu povești.
                  

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ja som veľmi rád, že je tu aspoň pán Šefčovič, keď pani predsedníčka von der Leyenová nemala odvahu tu zostať s nami. Rastúce protesty farmárov už aj pred sídlami Europarlamentu sú úplne pochopiteľné. Blížia sa júnové voľby, a teda kedy, ak nie teraz by bolo treba zatlačiť aj na politikov na úrovni Európskej únie, ak chcú byť zvolení znova.
                  

                     Poľnohospodári tvoria síce iba malé percento pracujúcej populácie, ale ich požiadavky nemôže ignorovať nikto, kto hovorí o potrebe udržateľného a sebestačného poľnohospodárstva a o bezpečnosti potravín. Mnohé obavy farmárov sú oprávnené, keďže posledné obdobie zažívajú suchá, povodne, rastúce náklady na energie a hnojivá, a to aj v dôsledku vojny na Ukrajine. Treba ale priznať, že farmári majú obavy aj z niektorých opatrení v rámci Green Dealu a aj z pripravovaných liberalizačných zmlúv, ako je Mercosur, pretože môže ich ohroziť v rámci konkurencieschopnosti.
                  

                     Práve v tom treba povedať, že ja vítam aspoň malý krôčik Európskej komisie, že nebude v blízkom období nútiť farmárov nechávať pôdu úhorom. (Predsedajúca prerušila rečníka.) Osobne ma ale teší, že naprieč Európskou úniou si začína väčšina lídrov uvedomovať, … (predsedajúca prerušila rečníka)… že celá politika a transformácia musí byť férová.
                  

Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos vicepirmininke, Tarybos atstovai. Džiugu, kad jūs išgirdote ūkininkų reikalavimus, kai jie atvyko su traktoriais, ir pradedate strateginį dialogą. Bet noriu pasakyti, ko verti jūsų žodžiai, ko verti jūsų įsipareigojimai, jeigu duoti įsipareigojimai yra nevykdomi? Priminsiu, kad kai Lietuva stojo į Europos Sąjungą 2004 metais, buvo pasakyta, kad išorinė konvergencija, tiesioginės išmokos bus sulygintos per dešimt metų. Dabar jau praėjo dvidešimt metų ir išorinės konvergencijos nėra. Todėl noriu visus pakviesti ir atkreipti dėmesį, kad jeigu mes norime kalbėtis su ūkininkais ir įvykdyti savo pažadus, turime įvykdyti jau duotus pažadus. Ir todėl kreipiuosi į savo kolegas iš Europos liaudies partijos, Žaliųjų frakcijos ir ypatingai Komisijos vicepirmininką ir Tarybą. Turime įvykdyti duotus įsipareigojimus Lietuvos, Baltijos šalių ūkininkams ir tada spręsti tas problemas, kurios kyla šiandien.
                  

Presidente. – Onorevole Vautmans, ribadisco che c'è un ordine di arrivo delle richieste, quindi dovete stare tranquilli, perché la parola viene data a tutti. C'è bisogno di calma e serenità. Prego, a Lei la parola.
                  

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, ik ben eigenlijk heel erg blij dat we én gisterenochtend én deze ochtend hier prioriteit hebben gegeven aan wat de burgers vragen. De boeren zijn de straat op gegaan en hebben gezegd: ‘Luister naar ons. Onze boerenstiel is niet langer leefbaar.’
                  

                     Ik ben heel erg blij dat ook het Belgisch voorzitterschap met Alexander De Croo en Commissievoorzitter Ursula von der Leyen vorige week in Brussel al dadelijk actie hebben ondernomen. Ze hebben gezegd: ‘Die administratieve rompslomp moet verminderen en we moeten die 4 % braakligging schrappen.’
                  

                     Ik zou nu een oproep willen doen: die 4 % braakligging, schrap die definitief. Ik denk dat bijna alle fracties hier dat gevraagd hebben. Maak daar nu werk van.
                  

                     Een derde punt dat absoluut noodzakelijk is — en ook dat hoorde ik, mijnheer Bourgeois, ik was blij dat ook u het zei: maak eens een impactanalyse van die lasagne van wetten die op de boeren afkomen. Maar durf ook te spreken over de handelsakkoorden, durf te spreken over oneerlijke handelspraktijken.
                  

                     Ik vraag u: laat nu de aandacht niet verslappen. Geef de boer het respect dat hij verdient.
                  

Michal Wiezik (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, poľnohospodárstvo potrebuje pomoc. Sústreďme sa preto naozaj na užitočné a efektívne riešenia. Riešme férové ceny, neférové obchodné praktiky, riešme dopad zahraničného importu, riešme stále narastajúce ceny vstupov. No, prosím, vyhnime sa argumentácii, ktorá je falošná, krivá a ktorá tu odznieva, že síce ochrana prírody je v rozpore s poľnohospodárstvom, je preňho prekážkou a treba ju obmedziť. Je to veľmi nebezpečné tvrdenie. Ničomu neprospeje.
                  

                     V tomto duchu musím skritizovať krok Komisie, ktorý v tom pre tento rok otvára nové plochy úhorov pre poľnohospodárske využitie. Nemá to ekonomicky žiadny význam. Hovoríme o desatinných percentách pôdy, na ktorých chceme pestovať lucernu a šošovicu v čase nadprodukcie, ktorá zráža ceny. Pre ochranu prírody, a tieto plochy sa týkajú aj naturovských území, je to katastrofálne rozhodnutie, pretože ohrozuje prežitie kriticky ohrozených druhov, ktorí na úhoroch nachádzajú posledné vhodné podmienky v poľnohospodárskej krajine. Takýto naratív, takéto ústupky nikomu neprospievajú okrem krajnej pravice, ktorá štvaním proti Green Dealu sa prezentovala aj dnes. A na týchto falošných naozaj tvrdeniach si už dávno uplatnila svoj copyright.
                  

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sembra che in quest'Aula tutti siano diventati paladini dei diritti degli agricoltori. Me ne compiaccio. Mi chiedo, però: dov'erano nel 2020, quando noi, i cattivi ambientalisti, abbiamo proposto di rigettare l'accordo commerciale con i paesi del Mercosur? Oppure: dov'erano nel 2021, quando chiedevamo che con la nuova PAC vi fossero più risorse per gli agricoltori e meno per le grandi aziende?
                  

                     Lo chiedo ai colleghi di destra, che oggi fanno a gara a farsi le foto a fianco dei trattori. Peccato che all'epoca, invece dei trattori, avete scelto l'altra parte della barricata, quella delle lobby dei padroni dell'agroalimentare. Oggi volete dare un forte segnale di vicinanza agli agricoltori? Bene, noi abbiamo delle proposte: una tassa sugli extraprofitti delle grandi aziende e della grande distribuzione per sostenere il reddito degli agricoltori; rigettiamo una volta per tutte il Mercosur; riformiamo la direttiva sulle pratiche sleali in agricoltura su tutta la filiera; riformiamo la PAC in modo che l'80 % dei sussidi non vada più soltanto al 20 % delle aziende più grandi. Queste sono soltanto alcune proposte. E le vostre?
                  

Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovani kolege, mi, s ovog dijela političkog spektra, već godinama govorimo da je vaš pristup poljoprivredi poguban i za poljoprivrednike i za cijelo društvo.
                  

                     Sada je voda došla do grla, a vi ne želite priznati da ste bili u krivu, da ste donosili pogrešne odluke i ne želite promijeniti smjer. Seljaci su na cestama diljem Europe. I što kažu?
                  

                     Opteretili ste ih s previše regulativa, uveli ste im previše restrikcija zbog tzv. zelenog plana. Doveli ste ih u nekonkurentan položaj s obzirom na jeftinu hranu iz inozemstva. Ne dozvoljavate im da upotrebljavaju konvencionalno umjetno gnojivo i ukinuli biste im subvencije za dizel zato da ne zagađuju. Jeste li vi uopće pogledali koliko njih ima novaca za električni traktor?
                  

                     U Hrvatskoj čak Agronomski fakultet traži od svojih zaposlenika da idu na radionice u lezbijsku udrugu jer bez toga ne mogu dobiti novac iz europskih projekata…
                  

                     Koji je vaš cilj? Proglašavate kraj poljoprivredne proizvodnje u Europi? E, pa ja se nadam da će prije tog cilja građani proglasiti vaš kraj na sljedećim europskim izborima!
                  

Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la rivoluzione green vuole trasformare i campi agricoli in campi fotovoltaici per fornire energia all'industria che produrrà cibo sintetico. Non è un romanzo di fantascienza, non è Asimov, purtroppo è la folle realtà.
                  

                     I trattori hanno assediato il Parlamento europeo per qualche giorno, voi li avete assediati per cinque anni. Avete sottoscritto accordi commerciali di libero scambio che hanno aperto le porte del mercato unico a settori agricoli di paesi terzi senza standard analoghi ai nostri.
                  

                     Alcuni di voi accusano noi di aver votato la PAC. La PAC è l'unico strumento concreto a sostegno degli agricoltori. Non votarla avrebbe significato metterli in difficoltà. I deputati dell'estrema sinistra e dei Verdi che non l'hanno votata – badate bene – non l'hanno votata non per sostenere le giuste proteste degli agricoltori, ma perché secondo loro la PAC non era abbastanza green, non massacrava abbastanza gli agricoltori.
                  

                     Orgogliosamente, invece, ho votato contro i provvedimenti folli collegati al Green Deal, che veramente mettono in ginocchio la produzione europea, non solo quella agricola. Avete dimenticato i lavoratori europei, ma i lavoratori europei non dimenticheranno voi, statene certi.
                  

Sandra Pereira (The Left). –Senhora Presidente, os agricultores que protestam por toda a Europa têm uma causa comum: a Política Agrícola Comum. Podem anunciar pensos rápidos, mas já todos percebemos que se esta política desastrosa se mantiver a nível europeu e a nível nacional, com injustiças na atribuição de ajudas, em que 70 % das ajudas diretas vão para apenas 7 % dos agricultores, a justa indignação dos agricultores vai continuar.
                  

                     Os agricultores portugueses denunciam, entre outras coisas, a falta de apoio à agricultura familiar e aos pequenos e médios agricultores que enfrentam uma situação económica dramática, com o aumento dos custos de produção, o esmagamento dos preços à produção e a expressiva redução dos rendimentos, a que se junta agora a situação de seca extrema.
                  

                     Daqui nos solidarizamos com os agricultores que, a esta hora, se estão a manifestar em Vila Real e reafirmamos o nosso compromisso com a necessidade de uma profunda modificação da PAC, que recupere mecanismos de regulação de mercado, assegure rendimentos justos aos produtores, garantindo a atividade agrícola e a soberania alimentar dos povos.
                  

Marc Tarabella (NI). – Madame la Présidente, les agriculteurs belges et européens ont exprimé leur colère légitime et crié leur désespoir. Mon sentiment, c'est qu'ils ont été entendus, mais pas nécessairement écoutés.
                  

                     Et puis, il y a cette hypocrisie folle. Quand je vois le Rassemblement national, M. Bardella en tête, taper sur l'épaule des agriculteurs avec une compassion feinte en disant que ‘c'est la faute à l'Europe’, alors que le Rassemblement national et toute l'extrême droite ont voté massivement pour la politique agricole commune européenne, là ça ne va pas.
                  

                     Oui, vous avez voté pour cette PAC, qui accroît la différence entre les grands producteurs et les petites exploitations et qui n'a rien d'équitable. Oui, vous avez voté pour cette PAC, outil de l'ultralibéralisme, responsable de l'état de délabrement économique et social dans lequel se trouvent les agriculteurs, et qui a trop souvent favorisé les grandes exploitations au détriment des fermes à taille humaine.
                  

                     Il faut repenser totalement le mode de financement de l'activité agricole en tenant compte de la réalité économique de chaque secteur. Nous devons par ailleurs repenser les accords de libre-échange. Importer du bœuf du Mercosur, qui plus est sans clauses miroirs, ou du lait de Nouvelle-Zélande n'a aucun sens. C'est une folie.
                  

Presidente. – Grazie, onorevole Tarabella. Purtroppo, con il ‘catch the eye’ dobbiamo fermarci qui. Abbiamo accettato 13 richieste su 24, tenendo un equilibrio tra la grandezza dei gruppi politici. Il prossimo dibattito inizia alle 11:00, colleghi, e devono ancora intervenire, purtroppo, la Commissione e il Consiglio. La parola alla Commissione, al Vicepresidente esecutivo Šefčovič. Prego.
                  

                     No, Lei non può intervenire. Se è un punto all'ordine del giorno, se ha qualcosa da riferire, ma il ‘catch the eye’ è chiuso, onorevole, perché abbiamo cercato un equilibrio tra i vari gruppi politici. Il ‘catch the eye’ è chiuso, la parola al Vicepresidente Šefčovič.
                  

                     È un punto all'ordine del giorno, onorevole? Non ho capito, di che si tratta.
                  

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señora presidenta, quiero denunciar aquí que usted ha hecho una gestión poco transparente de los tiempos. Hay personas que llevamos todo el día aquí. Hemos pedido la palabra desde el minuto uno. Hemos escuchado responsablemente todo el debate. Nos hemos quedado aquí por respeto a esta institución. Usted ha hecho una gestión diciendo… (la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora).


Presidente. – Onorevole, mi faccia spiegare. Come abbiamo detto dall'inizio, non era possibile accettare tutti i ‘catch the eye’ perché erano 24, e non era possibile accettarli tutti. Siccome i gruppi politici sono diversi anche per grandezza, abbiamo accettato, in base alla grandezza dei gruppi politici, tre interventi dei Popolari, tre dei Socialisti, due di Renew e poi uno a scendere per gruppo politico. È stata una decisione della Presidenza dovuta al fatto che alle 11:00 inizia l'altro dibattito. Prego, Vicepresidente Šefčovič.
                  

Maroš Šefčovič,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, Madam Minister, honourable Members of the European Parliament, first and foremost, I would like to thank all of you for having added this key debate at the level of political leaders. And I think that this debate clearly demonstrated that our agriculture and rural communities are affected by a wide range of policies, several crises and current geopolitical tension. Therefore, I am glad that I could have participated in this debate on behalf of the European Commission.
You, honourable Members, clearly highlighted how complex this issue we are going to discuss today is, especially in these challenging times for Europe and farmers. But I think what is absolutely clear also after this morning exchange is that what we need is to work better together, that we need, together, to look for constructive solutions.
And I think, as Madam García Pérez mentioned early on in our discussion, farmers need EU and EU needs farmers. And I would like to ensure all of you, and especially our farmers and foresters community, that we treat them with the utmost respect and appreciation for their work and that we will continue to do so also in the future.
I think that now, clearly, it's a time to work on how can we overcome the polarisation which got into our discussion, what we can do to build bridges, and I cannot find a better place like this House to start with this process, to build the bridges, to look for the common solutions, and to have the right focus on our discussions for the future. And how to do it in the best possible way is to propose and work on concrete solutions. And many ideas have been already mentioned here today, and also, as Madam Vautmans said yesterday, in our debate with the President of the European Commission.
What I kind of record and recall is that all of you called for making sure that we have to address one crucial point, and this is how to guarantee decent income for our farmers, how to make sure that those who produce in a sustainable manner, who are treating their employees decently, who respect all environmental forms, will not be undercut by unfair practices or cheap alternative imports from abroad. And that's something what we are clearly looking at and what we want to address.
Mr Mureșan, Mr Weber and many others have been calling for making sure that we will not take the decisions on agriculture without talking to the farmers, and we are doing exactly that. Therefore, we launched our strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture well in advance of the next discussion on the next seven years' budget and next debate on the future CAP. And I believe that, through that strategic dialogue and also with your participation, we will have plenty of ideas how to structure and frame those policies better. And I agree with Mr Álvarez that we have to work with the farmers because they have to feel the ownership of this process, and this is how the structured strategic dialogue is organised.
Madam Müller was referring to the importance to make sure that the strategic dialogue shouldn't just be a top-down approach. I totally agree with her, and therefore we made sure that the participation in this discussion is wide-ranging, that we have big farmers, small farmers, young farmers, organic farmers, that we have representatives of the whole value chain, researchers, innovators, but also academics.
And I very much appreciate that some of you suggested that it would be good to also discuss these issues on the regional level, and I can assure you that through the special portal which we created for this, we are ready to accommodate also the ideas coming from you, coming from regional dialogue, so they would enrich the final report which we will present to all of you by the end of summer as a result of this strategic dialogue.
I also agree with you, honourable Members, that the best-quality food in the world is produced here in Europe and that our farmers are guaranteeing not only food security for all Europeans, but they also created the sector about which we are proud because it's important part of the European economy, and we want to improve it further – because the European farmers must consolidate this important position for now and for the future.
Madam Carvalhais was referring to the young farmers. I had several discussions with them and indeed, we have to find the solution to the two prevailing problems they have been highlighting to me: access to land and access to finance. If you want to have young farmers to work on the farms, we have to address these two issues, and it's one of the topics which we are discussing together.
Many of you called for better use of our regional policies to make sure that our rural areas have good schools, have good internet, have good digital and transport infrastructure, because it's important part for our farmers to be efficient and for young farmers to be, of course, attracted into this profession, and we take it on board. We are working on it, and also with my colleague, Commissioner responsible for regional development, Madam Ferreira. We are really paying a lot of attention to this issue.
I think in every intervention today was a call for reduction of bureaucracy and simplification. And again, we hear you loud and clear and we have to work again on this together. On the European level, I am glad that many of you also referred that we have to tackle the gold-plating on the national level, sometimes the specific regional problems by application of the European law. And just to make sure that we will limit the bureaucracies to the minimum. It's clearly a priority for our Commission. Our President is paying enormous attention to this. And together with the cluster of the Green Deal Commissioners, we are working to make sure that we will also deliver on these very important priorities.
I also would like to thank the honourable Members who made clear reference for tackling the unfair trade practices and proper implementation of the directive on unfair trade practices. We completely share your objective, and we are working on making sure that this would be well enforced. Currently, we are at a stage where we are assessing how this is enforced and implemented across the Member States to make sure that it's uniform, it's working, it delivers, and of course it brings the results which we need to remove unfair trade practices from agriculture. There was also quite a lot of intervention focused on the ongoing negotiations on the trade agreements. And here again, I would like to be clear and following this debate, I would like to confirm that the Commission assessment is that the conditions for the conclusion of the Mercosur agreement are not met.
And to conclude, Madam President – and thank you very much for your indulgence, but the debate was very, very long, and I wanted to respond to as many inquiries as possible – I would like to conclude by reassuring you that we in the Commission feel the sense of urgency, and we act. The strategic dialogue and intensive interaction with our farmers community is ongoing.
And if you ask about the concrete steps, just look at the last weeks. I would just recall our proposal on the partial derogation of GAEC 8, which is on the leaving land fallow obligation, where we work with flexibilities. And I believe that together with the Belgian presidency, we will find a good solution for our farmers.
The same applies to the agricultural imports from Ukraine, where we do our utmost to make sure that Ukrainian exports will go to the original destinations in the third countries. And if that would not be possible, that we will protect our farmers where and when necessary.
And the last word, Madam President, honourable Members, I would recall again, and if you allow me to pass it through our honourable Members to our farmers community. So, dear farmers, we respect you. We value your work, and I believe that we will overcome these challenges which are ahead of us today together.

Hadja Lahbib,
Présidente en exercice du Conseil. – Madame la Présidente, cher Commissaire Šefčovič, chers et honorables membres du Parlement, merci tout d'abord pour ce débat, que j'ai écouté avec grande attention et grand intérêt. J'ai pris bonne note de vos commentaires et de vos suggestions. Je retiens quelques phrases clés, essentielles au débat, lequel doit, évidemment, se poursuivre.
                  

                     L'agriculture et l'environnement doivent aller ensemble. L'un ne peut pas se développer sans l'autre. Les fermiers sont les premiers témoins des changements climatiques et ils comptent d'ailleurs parmi les principales victimes des bouleversements dus, entre autres, aux exploitations intensives. ‘Leur fin sera notre fin’, comme on a pu le lire sur certains slogans affichés lors des manifestations, mais aussi, j'ajoute, la fin de notre planète. Je le répète: les deux doivent aller ensemble. La nécessaire transition énergétique ne peut pas laisser sur le carreau les agriculteurs en les étouffant de mesures inapplicables en l'état et de contraintes administratives.
                  

                     Les agriculteurs sont les acteurs clés de notre sécurité alimentaire. Ils ont besoin d'un marché équitable, avec des règles du jeu elles aussi équitables. Ils ont besoin de plus d'Europe, une Europe plus agile, plus compatible avec les réalités quotidiennes auxquelles ils sont confrontés. Pour citer le commissaire Šefčovič:
                  

                     ‘Farmers need the EU, and the EU needs farmers.’
                  

                     Les traités de libre-échange ont été au cœur de nos débats. Ils doivent, bien sûr, permettre aux agriculteurs d'exporter vers de nouveaux marchés, de se diversifier, mais pas à leur détriment.
                  

                     Le Conseil attend avec impatience la mise à jour de l'étude sur les effets cumulatifs des accords commerciaux sur les secteurs agricoles, laquelle devrait permettre de mieux comprendre l'incidence réelle des accords sur nos agriculteurs, qu'il s'agisse d'ailleurs de grandes ou de petites exploitations. Je ne manquerai pas, soyez-en sûrs, de transmettre le contenu de nos débats à mon collègue le ministre de l'Agriculture, David Clarinval, qui présidera le prochain Conseil ‘Agriculture et pêche’, qui se tiendra le 26 février prochain.
                  

Presidente. – Grazie Ministra Lahbib. La discussione è chiusa e i nostri lavori proseguiranno con la discussione ‘Questa è l'Europa’ con il Presidente della Romania Klaus Iohannis. Grazie a tutte e a tutti.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171)



Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D),
por escrito. – El sector agrario necesita a la UE tanto como la UE necesita a al sector agrario y una agricultura sostenible.
                  

                     Los socialistas reconocemos el carácter estratégico de este sector para la UE y estamos convencidos de que el mantenimiento del tejido agrario y la rentabilidad de las explotaciones son condiciones necesarias para seguir avanzando en la transición una mayor sostenibilidad, también en este sector. Queremos una reciprocidad real en las condiciones de producción dentro y fuera de la UE. Esto sí es, a nuestro juicio, competencia desleal ya que dentro de la UE todos están sometidos a las mismas normas de producción que requiere la PAC.
                  

                     Somos conscientes del malestar del sector que obedece a múltiples causas, nacionales o europeas en función de cada Estado miembro, pero que tiene un denominador común en los bajos precios del primer eslabón de la cadena que no cubren costes de producción. En este debate hemos reiterado que estamos a la escucha del sector y hemos denunciado alto y claro la lamentable instrumentalización electoralista que la derecha y la extrema derecha están haciendo del malestar de agricultores y ganaderos y sus dificultades.
                  

Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
in writing. – Farmers are furious. Every Member in this Hemicycle must understand that this level of rage does not come out of nowhere. In our effort to ensure strategic autonomy for industry, we simply cannot ignore our primary industry – the agricultural sector. Without guaranteeing fair, reasonable conditions and adequate income for our farmers, we are not only failing on our social obligations to these citizens and their families, but we are also placing our own food security on the line.
I come from a small island state with slightly over 10 000 farms, 90% of which are less than two hectares in size, where agricultural land costs 22 times more than the EU average, where our insularity places even more burden to acquire resources like fertiliser that is necessary to sustain a sector, which is becoming only more economically arduous.
Indeed, while environmental ambition and regulation is necessary, we need to give farmers the breathing space needed for them to transition successfully. The choice could not be clearer; we must work to guarantee the economic viability of all farmers, especially small and micro-farms.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR),
в писмена форма. – От няколко седмици фермерите от Франция и Германия протестират срещу загробващите ‘зелени’ политики на ЕС и високите производствени разходи, които правят продукцията им неконкурентоспособна.
                  

                     Говорил съм не веднъж в залата на Европейския парламент за това, че алармизмът на зелените и налагането на сурови рестрикции ще доведе до продоволствена и енергийна бедност. Виждаме го на практика. Нашите земеделски стопани, които бяха принудени да спазват безумни правила, рестрикции и какво ли не, в името на псевдоекологията, сега излязоха на справедлив протест. Заради всички тези ненужни регулации, те зависят от субсидирането и след като не могат да бъдат конкурентоспособни на пазара, те се обръщат към палачите си за още подаяния, разбирайте субсидии.
                  

                     В Нидерландия заговориха за затварянето на 3000 ферми, заради въглеродния им отпечатък, в европейските институции пък непрекъснато се измислят нови и нови регулации върху производителите, но не и върху вноса от трети страни, където няма нито административна, нито регулаторна тежест върху производителите. Липсват политики за насърчаване на малките и средни стопанства, които да допринесат за по-добър, по-качествен и по-устойчив продукт. И това е проблем не само в една или друга европейска държава, а се отнася общо до целия Съюз.
                  

                     Трябва реформа в земеделието и повече политика за връщане на конкурентоспособността в отрасъла.
                  

Laura Ferrara (NI),
per iscritto. – Gli agricoltori stanno protestando in tutta Europa per diverse ragioni, tra cui una molto chiara.
                  

                     La produzione agricola europea ha dei costi per gli standard sociali e ambientali più elevati che garantiscono prodotti con un alto livello di sicurezza alimentare e di qualità. Il lavoro per avere cibo più sano, sicuro e sostenibile non viene valorizzato adeguatamente perché c'è un'enorme disparità tra i costi di produzione e i guadagni che si ottengono. Tutto è aggravato da aumenti dei prezzi di energia, fertilizzanti e materie prime, da distorsioni del mercato causate da una concorrenza sleale di prodotti provenienti da paesi terzi e da speculazioni della grande distribuzione.
                  

                     Gli agricoltori e le loro aziende, soprattutto quelle più piccole, chiedono più attenzione dalle istituzioni europee, dai governi nazionali e dalle stesse organizzazioni di categoria perché hanno problemi a ottenere redditi dignitosi e risposte ai problemi del loro comparto. Tutelare l'ambiente non significa andare contro gli agricoltori, perché sono loro a subire maggiormente gli impatti del cambiamento climatico e a necessitare di adeguate risorse per essere sostenuti e accompagnati nel percorso di transizione.
                  

Isabel García Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – El sector agrario necesita a la UE tanto como la UE necesita a al sector agrario y una agricultura sostenible.
                  

                     Los socialistas reconocemos el carácter estratégico de este sector para la UE y estamos convencidos de que el mantenimiento del tejido agrario y la rentabilidad de las explotaciones son condiciones necesarias para seguir avanzando en la transición una mayor sostenibilidad, también en este sector. Queremos una reciprocidad real en las condiciones de producción dentro y fuera de la UE. Esto sí es, a nuestro juicio, competencia desleal ya que dentro de la UE todos están sometidos a las mismas normas de producción que requiere la PAC.
                  

                     Somos conscientes del malestar del sector que obedece a múltiples causas, nacionales o europeas en función de cada Estado miembro, pero que tiene un denominador común en los bajos precios del primer eslabón de la cadena que no cubren costes de producción. En este debate hemos reiterado que estamos a la escucha del sector y hemos denunciado alto y claro la lamentable instrumentalización electoralista que la derecha y la extrema derecha están haciendo del malestar de agricultores y ganaderos y sus dificultades.
                  

Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – W ostatnich dniach opinia publiczna dowiedziała się, jak wielka jest skala niezadowolenia europejskich rolników z warunków ich pracy. Sektor rolny od lat znajduje się pod presją skumulowanych niezwykle niekorzystnych czynników: pandemii Covid-19, lawinowego wzrostu cen gazu i powiązanym z tym znacznym kosztem produkcji nawozów i utrzymania gospodarstw, zwłaszcza w hodowli zwierząt, wreszcie skutków wojny na Ukrainie i destabilizacji rynków rolnych, zwłaszcza państw przyfrontowych, poprzez niekontrolowany napływ towarów z Ukrainy na rynki europejskie, po cenach dumpingowych.
                  

                     Jednak do tych czynników mniej lub bardziej ‘losowych’ dochodzi jeden, całkowicie zależny od nas: obciążenia regulacyjne, zwłaszcza związane ze strategiami Zielonego Ładu w sektorze rolnym. Rolnicy nie potrzebują kolejnych debat w Parlamencie o ich sytuacji, potrzebują natychmiastowego zmniejszenia nowych norm ochrony środowiska naturalnego, wprowadzonych 2 lata temu w zreformowanej WPR, aby spełnianie nowych wymogów nie podważało rentowności gospodarstw rolnych, zwłaszcza małych i rodzinnych. Potrzebują również skutecznej ochrony prawnej przed nieuczciwą konkurencją ze strony państw trzecich. Dlatego zamiast kolejnych debat w tym temacie oczekiwałbym na przykład konkretnego, krótko i długoterminowego planu pomocy Komisji Europejskiej dla Polski i innych państw przyfrontowych, w zakresie ograniczenia niekontrolowanego wwozu produktów rolnych z Ukrainy do Polski.
                  

Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – El sector agrario necesita a la UE tanto como la UE necesita a al sector agrario y una agricultura sostenible.
                  

                     Los socialistas reconocemos el carácter estratégico de este sector para la UE y estamos convencidos de que el mantenimiento del tejido agrario y la rentabilidad de las explotaciones son condiciones necesarias para seguir avanzando en la transición una mayor sostenibilidad, también en este sector. Queremos una reciprocidad real en las condiciones de producción dentro y fuera de la UE. Esto sí es, a nuestro juicio, competencia desleal ya que dentro de la UE todos están sometidos a las mismas normas de producción que requiere la PAC.
                  

                     Somos conscientes del malestar del sector que obedece a múltiples causas, nacionales o europeas en función de cada Estado miembro, pero que tiene un denominador común en los bajos precios del primer eslabón de la cadena que no cubren costes de producción. En este debate hemos reiterado que estamos a la escucha del sector y hemos denunciado alto y claro la lamentable instrumentalización electoralista que la derecha y la extrema derecha están haciendo del malestar de agricultores y ganaderos y sus dificultades.
                  

Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
por escrito. – El sector agrario necesita a la UE tanto como la UE necesita a al sector agrario y una agricultura sostenible.
                  

                     Los socialistas reconocemos el carácter estratégico de este sector para la UE y estamos convencidos de que el mantenimiento del tejido agrario y la rentabilidad de las explotaciones son condiciones necesarias para seguir avanzando en la transición una mayor sostenibilidad, también en este sector. Queremos una reciprocidad real en las condiciones de producción dentro y fuera de la UE. Esto sí es, a nuestro juicio, competencia desleal ya que dentro de la UE todos están sometidos a las mismas normas de producción que requiere la PAC.
                  

                     Somos conscientes del malestar del sector que obedece a múltiples causas, nacionales o europeas en función de cada Estado miembro, pero que tiene un denominador común en los bajos precios del primer eslabón de la cadena que no cubren costes de producción. En este debate hemos reiterado que estamos a la escucha del sector y hemos denunciado alto y claro la lamentable instrumentalización electoralista que la derecha y la extrema derecha están haciendo del malestar de agricultores y ganaderos y sus dificultades.
                  

Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE),
în scris. – Birocratizarea excesivă este la fel de dăunătoare ca poluarea excesivă. Pe de o parte avem prea multe reglementări, obligații, sancțiuni, iar pe de altă parte, avem secetă, inundații, incendii de vegetație. Cele două sunt o povară imposibil de dus de către fermierii europeni, iar eu am convingerea că la nivel european nimeni nu trebuie să aleagă răul cel mai mic.
                  

                     Am declarat de multe ori că soluția pentru un mediu mai curat nu constă în distrugerea economiei europene și cu atât mai puțin a agriculturii noastre. De când am primit în PE pachetul ‘Pregătiți pentru 55’ (Fit for 55) din partea Comisiei, acum mai bine de 2 ani, am înțeles că este nerealist, hazardat și că nimeni nu s-a gândit la consecințe. Comisia a greșit cel mai grav prin lipsa unui studiu de impact comun, care să analizeze consecințele combinate ale întregului pachet.
                  

                     Și tot de atunci am spus că nu văd nicio diferență între a muri din cauza poluării sau a muri de foame pentru că nu ai un loc de muncă sau nu ai ce mânca. Soluția vine doar din echilibru între protejarea mediului și a economiei, din consultări și mai ales din realism.
                  

Alin Mituța (Renew),
in writing. – The last couple of months have witnessed unprecedented waves of protests across the EU, sweeping countries East to West. The war in Ukraine, increased production costs and unpredictability have brought farmers under increasing pressure. Swift responses are welcomed, but they are not enough.
We need a coherent approach from both the Commission and the Member States to stabilise farmers' situation in the long run and bring predictability and clarity in farmers' activities, without giving up on the EU's green ambitions. Agricultural production and environment protection should complement, not compete against each other. The protests we have seen are a clear sign that we need to do a better job at bringing these two elements together and to equip farmers to navigate the green transition without compromising their incomes or their livelihood.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D),
por escrito. – El sector agrario necesita a la UE tanto como la UE necesita a al sector agrario y una agricultura sostenible.
                  

                     Los socialistas reconocemos el carácter estratégico de este sector para la UE y estamos convencidos de que el mantenimiento del tejido agrario y la rentabilidad de las explotaciones son condiciones necesarias para seguir avanzando en la transición una mayor sostenibilidad, también en este sector. Queremos una reciprocidad real en las condiciones de producción dentro y fuera de la UE. Esto sí es, a nuestro juicio, competencia desleal ya que dentro de la UE todos están sometidos a las mismas normas de producción que requiere la PAC.
                  

                     Somos conscientes del malestar del sector que obedece a múltiples causas, nacionales o europeas en función de cada Estado miembro, pero que tiene un denominador común en los bajos precios del primer eslabón de la cadena que no cubren costes de producción. En este debate hemos reiterado que estamos a la escucha del sector y hemos denunciado alto y claro la lamentable instrumentalización electoralista que la derecha y la extrema derecha están haciendo del malestar de agricultores y ganaderos y sus dificultades.
                  

Mihai Tudose (S&D),
în scris. – Sectorul agricol european a ajuns într-o situație de criză exprimată cu legitimă furie de fermierii români și din multe alte state membre, din cauză că actuala Comisie Europeană a subordonat Politica Agricolă Comună noii direcții pe care a impus-o Europei, Pactul Verde, fără a ține cont de realitățile economice, geostrategice și sociale.
                  

                     Dovadă stau și cele mai recente motive de revoltă ale agricultorilor: legislația privind restaurarea naturii, prin care se voia scoaterea din circuitul agricol a unor suprafețe însemnate, respectiv cea privind pesticidele, care ar fi afectat grav producția. Asta, într-un moment în care Comisia negociază de zor acorduri de liber schimb, arătându-se foarte dornică să deschidă larg piața europeană produselor din America Latină și Noua Zeelandă obținute fără constrângerile de mediu din UE și, implicit, fără standardele și prețurile aferente.
                  

                     Încă o dată se dovedește cât de păgubos și-a gestionat mandatul această Comisie Europeană, care a reușit contraperformanța de a bloca economia în numele ideologiei verzi. Cei care am trăit în sistemul socialist am mai văzut în ce fundătură duce dictatul ideologic asupra economiei. Concesiile de ultim moment ale Comisiei nu ne amăgesc. De aceea, solicit Consiliului UE să vegheze la securitatea alimentară și garantarea veniturilor decente pentru fermieri.
                  

Loránt Vincze (PPE),
írásban. – Az elmúlt hetekben Európa nagyobb városai gazdatüntetésektől voltak hangosak. Azok a gazdák, akik a kiváló minőségű és biztonságos európai élelmiszert számunkra előállítják, arra kényszerültek, hogy utcára vonuljanak. Sajnálatos és elgondolkodtató esemény. A gazdák fáradtak, nem győzik követni a tőlük kért adatszolgáltatást, az adminisztratív teendőket, a szigorúbbnál szigorúbb környezetvédelmi előírásokat, sokan, jogosan, úgy érzik, hogy Európa cserbenhagyta őket. Mert fontosabbnak tűnnek az új ökológiai feltételek, az olcsóbb külföldi gabona, a nemzetközi kereskedelmi megállapodások, mint az ő munkájuk.
                  

                     Pedig, ahogy többször személyesen is meghallgathattam őket, a gazdák nem kérnek mást, csak tisztességes megélhetést abból a munkából, amit hivatásként, sokszor generációk óta végeznek, a föld megműveléséből. Ők Európa élelmiszerbiztonságát szavatolják, megmaradásuk elsődleges fontosságú. A Bizottság párbeszédet javasol a szektor képviselőivel, kérdezem én, ez a véleménycsere miért nem volt már eddig is? Mi, a Néppártban már egy ideje meghúztuk a vészharangot és figyelmeztettünk arra, hogy a túlszabályozás és az érintett felek mellőzése nem a jó út. Egyértelműen meg kell védenünk és támogatnunk gazdáinkat, olyan reformintézkedésekre van szükség, amelyek megerősítik az európai termelőket mind a hazai, mind az EU-n kívüli piacokon. Úgy kell modernizálnunk, hogy az fenntartható agráriumot teremtsen és jövőt biztosítson az abból élőknek, és velük együtt az európai vidéknek.
                  

(La seduta è sospesa alle 11.14)


PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

5.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 11.19)

6.   This is Europe – Debate with the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis (debate)

President. – Dear colleagues, we have the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, with us today. Dear President, dear Klaus, welcome to the European Parliament. Thank you for accepting our invitation to address this House as part of our ‘This is Europe’ series of debates.
Seventeen years of European Union membership have been transformative for Romania and for Europe. It has given new impetus for businesses, for industry, for science and academia. It has brought reforms and social benefits. It has brought opportunities for people and levelled up communities.
EU membership has meant protection for people's rights, for social justice and the rule of law. And in times of geo-political change, these European values must be defended.
Dear President, I would like to particularly thank you for your country's unwavering support for Ukraine and for the Republic of Moldova – particularly now that EU accession negotiations have begun. Thank you to Romania for always being the champion the people of those nations needed.
Romania has a special place in my heart. It is a country that has embraced what it means to be European. At the height of the pandemic, Romanian doctors flew to hospitals in other Member States to help. When we faced devastating natural disasters, Romanian firefighters left their country to run into the flames. In the first days of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, Romanian families rushed to the border to comfort those fleeing. Mulțumesc pentru tot România!

Mr President, yours is a country that has shown how to overcome challenges and how to lead. Europe is stronger thanks to Romania, thanks to your reinforcement of the EU's eastern flank. And we will be stronger still when you finally take your rightful place in the Schengen area, and join the eurozone in the future. And you will find this House on your side on that journey.

(Applause)

Last word: on 9 June, over 19 million Romanians will be called upon to choose the 33 Members of the European Parliament elected to represent them. We must work together to make sure people understand why they must vote, why it is important. Their voice matters for the European Union and Romania's future, and we must keep listening and keep delivering.
Dear President, Dear Klaus, the floor is yours.

Klaus Iohannis,
President of Romania. – Doamnă președintă a Parlamentului European, distinși membri ai Parlamentului European, doamnelor și domnilor, este o onoare pentru mine să mă aflu astăzi în fața dumneavoastră. Vă mulțumesc, doamnă președintă Metsola, pentru că mi-ați oferit ocazia de a reveni în centrul democrației europene la începutul unui an crucial pentru viitorul Uniunii Europene.
               

                  Ca și în urmă cu cinci ani, când m-am adresat plenului Parlamentului European, vreau să reafirm încrederea mea și a poporului român în valoarea acțiunii europene unite și solidare, în puterea incontestabilă a unei singure Europe.
               

                  Efectele pandemiei, războiul de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei, conflictul din Orientul Mijlociu, toate acestea sunt numai câteva dintre evoluțiile dramatice care ne-au testat în ultimii ani nu doar capacitatea de răspuns, ci și atașamentul nostru sincer față de Uniune și față de valorile și principiile care ne țin împreună.
               

                  Doamnelor și domnilor, țara mea este probabil unul dintre cele mai bune exemple ale puterii transformatoare a Uniunii Europene. Aderarea ne-a adus beneficii indiscutabile și dintre cele mai concrete. Fondurile europene intrate în România de la momentul aderării ne-au permis să realizăm proiecte esențiale de infrastructură. Peste 600 000 de tineri români au participat la programul Erasmus, însușindu-și astfel modul de viață european.
               

                  Uniunea înseamnă un spațiu al siguranței, al protecției, al prosperității și al diversității. Uniunea Europeană rămâne prin excelență un spațiu al liberei circulații. Ridicarea în martie a controalelor la frontierele aeriene și maritime trebuie urmată, în mod firesc, în cel mai scurt timp, de eliminarea controalelor la frontierele terestre. Doar astfel vom avea reflectarea corectă și concretă a contribuției pe care România o aduce la consolidarea securității întregii Uniuni Europene.
               

                  Doamnelor și domnilor, proiectul european necesită zi de zi atenție, efort, răbdare și onestitate, dacă vrem să trăim liberi într-o Europă unită și prosperă. România de astăzi este un promotor puternic al acțiunii coordonate în spiritul valorilor europene.
               

                  Avem responsabilitatea de a susține o Europă care duce mai departe aceste principii și valori, inclusiv către prietenii noștri din vecinătatea europeană care au ales modelul nostru de democrație și dezvoltare, iar o etapă cheie a acestui proces o reprezintă chiar alegerile europene. Prioritățile pe care le vom defini împreună după aceste alegeri vor trebui să ne ajute să răspundem pragmatic la provocările prezentului și să ne pregătească mai bine pentru provocările viitorului.
               

                  Distinguished Members of the European Parliament, our Union faces unprecedented geostrategic challenges. Our future and the future of the next generations depend on each and every decision we are taking now.
               

                  On a global level, the rules-based international order is being challenged over and over again. Russia pursues its aggression against Ukraine. Around the Union, instability and insecurity have reached alarming levels. The open conflict in the Middle East, the situation in the Red sea and the worrying developments in the Sahel: all these have a systemic impact on our own security. Climate change, economic difficulties and illegal migration continue to generate their own negative impact, adding to the complexity of global dynamics.
               

                  On top of all these challenges, we witness a crisis of values. And, as far as I see it, a crisis of public trust in our institutions. We are indeed facing an erosion of values within the European Union, which fuels the perception of decline of Europe, or at least of Europe's leadership and global role. This is why we need to do more, to promote the feeling and the certainty that we are all part of the same community of values, which must be protected by every single one of us.
               

                  Honourable Members of the European Parliament, at such a pivotal moment fundamental questions lie ahead of us. We must answer them together as Europeans with vision, courage and responsibility.
               

                  First, what can we do and have to do as a Union? The current challenges are pushing us towards a transformative rethinking of our actions. The past few years proved that our common action as one, as a true Union, is key. Our unity has been repeatedly tested and has not faltered. More than this, it was a strategic surprise for some and brought us tactical advantages. We should build upon this.
               

                  Second, thinking further, another crucial question emerges. What can we do more, internally? Strengthening our internal resilience is a fundamental condition for a stronger Union and for its increased geopolitical role. This is perhaps the most complex discussion. It includes finding the best strategies to respond to hybrid threats and to increase the functionality of our democratic systems.
               

                  It means developing sectoral policies such as technology, including artificial intelligence, fighting climate change, stimulating competitiveness, industrial production, and sustainable supply chains. I do believe that the success of the démarches in these areas depends on a strong single market, which can provide solutions to many of the problems we face, encouraging creativity and large-scale development.
               

                  We as a Union are now taking unprecedented steps to move away from a reactive approach in consolidating our internal resilience. We are taking action in terms of strengthening our internal capabilities such as infrastructure, green and digital transitions, civil crisis response, energy efficiency and supply chains.
               

                  Another obvious line of action is to continue to support Ukraine. We must stand by Ukraine and its people. I have this conviction, despite certain voices invoking a European solidarity fatigue. Defending democracy, territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as the rules-based international order, cannot be subject to any fatigue.
               

                  Romania remains engaged in this common effort. We are strongly involved in supporting Ukraine as well as the Republic of Moldova, which is intensely affected by the crisis in the region.
               

                  We also need to keep our focus on security. We are now moving towards a joint long-term planning and increased convergence in the field of European security and defence, while working in full complementarity with NATO. It is indeed high time to deliver on our European ambitions when it comes to our defence industry.
               

                  Esteemed Members of the European Parliament, I wish to express my appreciation for the strong attachment to values that this House has always shown, but we must be aware about the growing Euroscepticism. Its adepts may raise issues that are in some part real, but they give wrong and dangerous solutions that would throw our societies into crisis. It is therefore, our common duty to be honest in our communication with the European citizens.
               

                  Third, how can the Union further externalise its attractiveness? This is another key question to address when looking towards our future. How can we stay attractive as a Union? The answer is clear: enlarging our European family by accepting new members will only strengthen the Union.
               

                  The historic decisions taken by the European Council last December on the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as on Bosnia and Herzegovina and on Georgia, are a victory for the entire European Union. This Parliament has been strongly supportive of this objective, and I thank you for this. Romania has – and I personally have – strongly supported and promoted it.
               

                  I think that it confirms the Union's attractiveness at the time of hardship, strengthens its geopolitical weight, and creates opportunities for Member States and candidate countries alike. Enlargement is an essential part of our strategic answer to the geopolitical developments and the key investment in lasting peace, stability and democracy in our neighbourhood.
               

                  At the same time, the European Union must assume a leading global role in preserving the international order as a precondition for preserving our way of life and our values. The European Union's economic weight must be mirrored by its international political role.
               

                  The challenges we are facing are global and some of them can only be solved by promoting relationships with partners with similar values and interests. Ensuring this strategic network of resilient partnerships will make us stronger and more competitive in the long run. This is why we need to intensify our global outreach towards Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, and we do need to further consolidate the transatlantic link – this is crucial for our success.
               

                  Two last questions. Do we have the means to achieve our goals? Which is the way forward and what is the future of the Union? The Union has the legal and institutional instruments to achieve its goals, and the response to the pandemic and the crisis that followed is illustrative. But it is equally obvious that we need to streamline our decision-making capacity.
               

                  We need to closely analyse what measures can be taken in a context where some consider that the real efficiency of decision-making mechanisms is impossible without reopening the Treaties, while others radically rule out this possibility. There is no doubt that measures such as those discussed in relation to the qualified majority voting in specific areas of foreign and security policy can be taken without reopening the Treaties.
               

                  Without excluding changes to the Treaties at some point, we need to use all available possibilities under the existing Treaties for smoother and quicker decision-making. Romania is fully engaged in this exercise.
               

                  Honourable Members of the European Parliament, despite the views of some, we are stronger now than five years ago. We showed remarkable unity in probably the direst circumstances we had to face as a Union.
               

                  Nevertheless, we have a lot of work ahead of us. Our European common construction is, after all, work in progress. As stated by Jacques Delors, the visionary European leader whom we recently paid homage to, ‘The European model is in danger if we obliterate the principle of personal responsibility’.
               

                  Therefore, dear colleagues, it is our shared responsibility to do the best for all our citizens. We have a special responsibility towards our youth. The future generations are looking towards us with hope and optimism in times of geopolitical volatility and socioeconomic distress. The future of Europe is about the capacity of the Union to give them honest answers and to deliver in education, health, prosperity, climate security and employment opportunities.
               

                  Five years ago, we adopted the Sibiu Declaration. The ten commitments made back then are still valid. Unity, solidarity, cohesion, the rule of law – they continue to lie at the very core of our joint European action.
               

                  For my part, I remain deeply faithful to these valuable values and principles in my future endeavours, and I am convinced that these are the basis for the work done by you here in the European Parliament as well. I also believe that together we are able to maintain the Union on the path of success, staying true to our vision of a united and stronger Europe.
               

Manfred Weber,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Šefčovič, President Iohannis, it is good to have you in the European Parliament. Welcome.
I want to start with a quote: ‘We cannot ignore the challenges we face on the eastern flank. Security and defence are fundamental components of the Union's future’. These, Mr President, are your words from the Munich Security Conference in 2019. I was in the audience. You were right then, and you are right now. The war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call for many, but not for you.
When you entered into office in 2014, you said that defence was one of the priorities for Romania and for Europe. In 2017, you managed to get the Romanian Parliament to increase defence spending to meet the NATO 2% commitment, and in 2023, Romania committed to spend 2.5% of its GDP for defence. It is your determination that made Romania a strong pillar of European defence and one of Ukraine's greatest allies. This is leadership at its best – not speaking about problems, but solving them.
Dear President Iohannis, when we look at Romania today, we see a true European success story. Since joining the European Union in 2007, Romania has become Eastern Europe's second-largest economy at an impressive speed, and a modern, attractive country. Bucharest is number one in the Balkans for building up start-ups; Cluj-Napoca is a true European tech hub. This is a country full of talent that is fighting to turn brain drain into brain gain.
Great leaders are not only great at the national level, but they are also great on European level. You also reminded us that in the Sibiu EU summit in 2019 – the first EU summit to be held on Europe Day – you got all leaders to agree on a Europe that protects its citizens. You have advanced many EU defence initiatives, always working for a strong EU pillar in a strong NATO. You started many strategic discussions on enlargement, and it was also your strong voice in the European Council that made it possible to open the accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova last December.
Europe owes a lot to Romanian leadership and Romania owes a lot to your leadership. You showed Romanian citizens that a modern, pro-European Romania is possible and is successful. I also want to thank the Romanian Commissioner and all Romanian colleagues in the plenary who also served this broader perspective.
Dear President Iohannis, for us in the EPP there is no doubt that Romania must fully join the Schengen Area. You have been ready for 13 years on this subject. If planes and ships are crossing borders without inspection, why should cars and trucks have to wait in endless lines? Romania and Bulgaria must mean Schengen. It's good for security, it's good for the business, and it's good for our citizens.
In the middle of the Brexit crisis in 2019, the spirit of Sibiu was fresh air to relaunch Europe. Now, five years later – if I may say this from an EP point of view – the EP family will go to Bucharest for the congress. We will go to Romania to kick off our campaign and to kick off the campaign for the European elections. Once again, Romania is the place to shape a safer home for all Europeans. Thanks for your leadership.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta Metsola, señor presidente Iohannis, después de escucharle con atención y respeto, quiero compartir con usted dos mensajes positivos.
               

                  El primero: seguro que sabe cuántos en este Parlamento Europeo celebramos que, por fin, durante la Presidencia española, a finales de diciembre, se levantasen las restricciones para el pleno disfrute del espacio Schengen y, por tanto, del derecho fundamental a la libre circulación en las fronteras marítimas y aéreas a Rumanía y a Bulgaria. No sabe cuántas veces lo hemos pedido en este Parlamento Europeo en un histórico de Resoluciones —las últimas en 2022 y 2023— desde que en 2011 la Comisión decidiese que Rumanía y Bulgaria habían superado el mecanismo de verificación. Por tanto, enhorabuena, rumanos y búlgaros, que disfrutan de Schengen.
               

                  Y el segundo mensaje positivo es el reconocimiento a la solidaridad europea en la primera línea frente a las personas desplazadas por la brutal guerra de agresión de Putin contra Ucrania. Tres millones, al menos, en su mayoría mujeres y niños en situación vulnerable, han entrado en la Unión Europea a través de las fronteras de Rumanía. Y, al menos, 200 000 permanecen en Rumanía disfrutando de la Directiva de protección temporal, lo que significa libre circulación sin visado, libre elección de residencia, acceso al mercado de trabajo y los servicios asociados al mercado de trabajo, además de los derechos a la educación y a la asistencia sanitaria. Por tanto, reconocimiento también a esa solidaridad en primera línea de la Directiva de protección temporal.
               

                  Solo ayer este Parlamento Europeo validó 1 500 millones de euros para el Fondo de Solidaridad y 1 500 millones de euros para ayudar a la política de inmigración, lo que supone un refuerzo para el sostenimiento de los derechos de las personas que han entrado en la Unión Europea en búsqueda de protección a través de la Directiva de protección temporal.
               

Valérie Hayer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la Roumanie entame une année électorale: élections législatives, présidentielle, européennes, locales. Ces élections seront cruciales, et c'est un symbole fort de voir que les Roumains écriront à la fois leur avenir national et européen en l'espace de quelques mois, car les valeurs comme les intérêts des Roumains sont solidement ancrés dans le projet européen.
               

                  Je pourrais citer notre combat contre la corruption, notre soutien résolu au Parquet européen et à l'action de votre compatriote, Laura Codruța Kövesi, qui fait un travail dantesque à l'échelle de l'Europe entière après l'avoir fait depuis Bucarest. Ces valeurs, cet état de droit, sont la base de notre communauté de destins européenne. Notre famille, Renew Europe, se battra jusqu'au bout pour les protéger, pour les renforcer, pour les fixer.
               

                  Les scrutins que j'évoquais s'inscriront dans une ère où les ingérences étrangères se multiplient sur notre sol. Les institutions devront être robustes car la protection cyber et la lutte contre la désinformation sont un défi de taille, autant que les discours de l'extrême droite, qui ne servent que la division et la haine, en Roumanie comme ailleurs, malheureusement.
               

                  Votre responsabilité – protéger la démocratie et les institutions – sera donc grande, Monsieur le Président, et c'est parce que nous formons cette communauté de destin que je me réjouis de la levée des contrôles aux frontières aériennes et maritimes avec la Roumanie, mais aussi, le mois prochain, avec la Bulgarie. Je l'assure aujourd'hui devant cet hémicycle: notre groupe politique continuera à défendre la levée des contrôles aux frontières terrestres, aussi. C'est fondamental et prioritaire.
               

                  Cette communauté de destin, c'est également le lien étroit que nous nouons avec le peuple ukrainien. Son combat, c'est aussi le nôtre. Sa sécurité, c'est aussi la nôtre. Je salue dans cette assemblée le rôle majeur de la Roumanie dans le soutien apporté à l'Ukraine car, lorsque la sécurité de notre continent est menacée, c'est ensemble que nous agissons. Je veux aussi avoir un mot pour la Moldavie. Je me réjouis, ainsi que mon groupe, que ces deux pays poursuivent, et même accélèrent, leur cheminement vers notre Union.
               

                  Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, cette année électorale revêt une importance cruciale, non seulement pour la Roumanie, mais aussi pour l'ensemble de l'Europe. Nos libertés, nos institutions sont en jeu. Il relève de notre responsabilité à tous de les protéger.
               

Nicolae Ștefănuță,
în numele grupului Verts/ALE. – Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, doamne ministre, doamnă comisară, vorbim azi despre viitorul Europei și României și ne dorim fiecare pace, libertate, egalitate. Realitatea acum nu este așa.
               

                  O mulțime de români încă pleacă din țară. Nu avem spitale noi și avem o populație săracă. Milioane de tineri nu știu ce să spere de la viitor. Pentru ca populismul și extremismul să nu crească, și ați spus-o și dumneavoastră, democrația trebuie să meargă mână în mână cu traiul bun. Românii și bulgarii încă așteaptă la cozi în vamă și vor să intre demn și deplin în Schengen anul acesta.
               

                  Domnule președinte, vă mulțumesc pentru angajamentul pe care îl dați Ucrainei și pentru orientarea dumneavoastră euroatlantică. Este lupta dreaptă, însă pentru că mandatul dumneavoastră și mandatul nostru în Parlamentul European vine la capăt, haideți să ne întrebăm. Ce Românie lăsăm în urmă pentru tinerii noștri ? Ce Europă le lăsăm lor ? Ce ne-am propus la Sibiu, orașul din care mă trag și eu?
               

                  Haideți să punem viitorul tinerilor în centrul politicii. Tinerii au nevoie să fie ascultați, auziți, ajutați! Vreau să luptăm pentru o Românie care oferă tinerilor locuințe accesibile, locuri de muncă decente, servicii de sănătate, inclusiv mintală. Avem nevoie de cămine decente pentru studenții de acum. Viitorii noștri doctori, profesori, arhitecți învață în cămine cu igrasie, cu 4-5 în aceeași cameră. Viitorul președinte al României, domnule președinte, se găsește astăzi într-un astfel de cămin. Cum ne purtăm cu el sau ea? Ce îi oferim ei sau lui?
               

                  Haideți să avem grijă și de mediu. Știu că vă pasă de mediu și eu țin foarte mult la această componentă și întreaga familie a Verzilor ține. Cum ar fi o Românie cu orașe mai verzi, cu aer curat, cu trenuri rapide? O Românie cu mâncare sănătoasă și cu mai mult respect pentru natură, sol, păduri, albine și animale. Aș vrea să las fetiței mele, care are astăzi patru ani, aș vrea să las un astfel de continent și o astfel de țară.
               

                  Tinerii, și asta e o idee foarte importantă, nu vor să trăiască într-o țară cu extrema dreaptă la putere. De aceea, vă cer, domnule președinte, să nu permiteți un guvern fascist în România. Nu avem nevoie nici de un referendum nou al urii. Europa iubește drepturile omului și dreptul omului de a iubi pe cine dorește. Și pentru că am avut aici un caz în Parlamentul European, România trebuie să se asigure, domnule președinte, că nu permite agenților Rusiei să facă politică pentru români.
               

                  Emil Cioran a spus ‘Trecutul României nu mă flatează și nu sunt mândru că strămoșii au dormit atâta timp în așteptarea libertății’. Astăzi suntem liberi. Noi nu așteptăm libertatea, dar nici nu vom ceda extremiștilor. Avem ce ne trebuie, avem resurse, dar mai ales avem inimă pentru o Românie mai bună.
               

Cristian Terheș,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, President, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the ‘This is Europe’ debates held in the European Parliament are a great opportunity for European political leaders to express their vision about the current and future course of Europe. I congratulate, therefore, the Romanian President, Klaus Iohannis, for sharing his vision about Europe and emphasising the importance of Romania for the European project.
But since the debate is about Europe, before we talk about what Europe is, it is imperative to look back and see what Europe was, how this project started, where it is heading, and if this new direction has anything in common with the initial project.
When Ms von der Leyen held her speech in this plenary in 2019, she said that the European project is based ‘on Roman law and Greek philosophy’. She forgot one, and the most important pillar of the European project, the Judeo-Christian values, civilisation and culture. It was the Christian belief and Judeo-Christian values, based on the Bible, that gave the power and motivation to many political leaders from different European nations that killed, destroyed and decimated each other during the Second World War to meet after the war, pray together, forgive and reconcile with each other, and come up with an economical and political plan that would and did bring peace through prosperity. Because of these visionary, faithful and courageous political leaders, Western Europe was able to achieve peace and hold it for over 80 years, which was unprecedented for Europe.
I say ‘Western Europe’ because, us in Eastern Europe were under the Soviet occupation and we experienced a different kind of political and economic system, an atheistic one, in which the state and the Communist Party were God, where the state was above all and people were deprived of their basic fundamental rights.
The difference between the two political and economic systems that Europe experienced after the Second World War – the European project that we witness here, which evolved in the European Community and Union in Western Europe, and the USSR and the Soviet Marxist and communist model in Eastern Europe – is exactly the pillar that was intentionally or not forgotten by Ursula von der Leyen: the Judeo-Christian values, culture and civilisation.
The Judeo-Christian values are the source of and notions that later evolved and were mentioned in international treaties, national constitutions and laws like human dignity, equality before the law, the separation of powers in the state or inalienable fundamental human rights.
Robert Schuman, a founding father of the European Project and former President of the European Parliament, said, ‘Democracy owes its existence to Christianity […] Christianity teaches equality of all nature of all men, children of the same God, redeemed by the same Christ, without distinction of race, colour, class or profession […] Democracy will be Christian or it won't exist. An unchristian democracy is a caricature which sinks into tyranny or anarchy.’
               
It was exactly these Judeo-Christian values that brought peace, prosperity, respect among nations in Western Europe, and the lack of them that brought tyranny, abuse and poverty in the USSR, in Eastern Europe. It was this faith in God that my fellow Romanians held strong under communism and motivated them to dream and fight for freedom.
It is therefore incomprehensible for many fellow Romanians why in the past 40 years exactly these personal and national freedoms have been violated by the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. The European project was built on a free market principle which was brought, which has brought prosperity in Western Europe. In the past four years, under the current European Commission, we see that free market principles are becoming an overregulated one, which is making the European businesses and products less likely to be competitive on the global market.
The European project was built on the concept that fundamental human rights are inalienable, and the governments must not force or impose medical products into citizens bodies, but allowed them to decide based on their free and informed consent. We saw what happened during the pandemic, when people were forced to be vaccinated with medical products that we find out now, later on, have many adverse effects.
Europe has long been a reference of democracy and human rights, championing principles of liberty, equality and the rule of law. An erosion of these fundamental rights, even by EU entities, represents a betrayal of our shared values and must be met with firm opposition. The Romanian nation, which I most proudly represent, was able to overcome any challenges during history and become today one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. We did it through faith and fight for freedom.

Gunnar Beck,
on behalf of the ID Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, Your Excellency, Romania's motor insurance industry has been in turmoil in recent years: 12 companies providing motor insurance have been driven out of business in just 12 years. A total of 12 insurance fails in 12 years should raise serious concerns about the regulatory environment in the Member State.
In 2019, the Romanian insurance regulator ASF asked Euroins Romania to buy the then-failing City Insurance. Just three years later, ASF suspended Euroins' insurance license in Romania, apparently for questionable reasons. This was Romania's last motor insurer gone. Last year, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development raised questions with the Romanian Finance Minister about the actions of ASF and submitted a resolution proposal to your predecessor to the effect. The European insurance watchdog, EIOPA, wrote a report about the Euroins affair. In a reply to my written question, the Commission claims it never saw the report. To date, I'm denied access to the full details of the EIOPA report.
What are ASF and EIOPA trying to hide from the Commission and Members of Parliament? One observation following the decision to strip Euroins of its licence: ASF awarded a licence to Eazy Asigurări, a subsidiary of Superbet. And who's the chairman of Superbet? One of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's brothers.
Your Excellency, Romania is one of the largest net recipients of EU money. You are receiving EUR 10 billion from the European budget and the NextGenerationEU fund. According to the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International, you are the second most corrupt country in the European Union. Now, none of this is ideal for a country hoping to attract foreign investors.
What, I am asking, are you proposing to do about it?

Clare Daly,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President and President, I listened very carefully to your opening remarks. And for me, I think, Romania is one of the most interesting European countries. I think the Romanian people are pretty much like the Irish people, in my experience, in terms of their approach to life. I spent a month in Timișoara and Bucharest in the spring of 1990 as a student leader from Ireland, and learned so much about the hopes and aspirations of Romanian citizens in the post-Ceaușescu years.
And I think against that backdrop, for me, it's quite unfortunate to see that, since joining the EU, so many Romanian people have been forced to leave the country or been hoovered up by Western Europe as a sort of pool of cheap labour, rather than having the opportunities that they should have had at home. I'm sorry to see that you ended up joining NATO and that you're spending so much of your defence money on things that really should be spent on making people's lives better.
And I am sorry to see cases such as the one highlighted by my colleague about the very, very serious problems and questions that remain to be answered regarding the operation of the Romanian regulator, the ASF, because of the consequential impact not just on your own drivers, but also across the EU motor insurance sector. And I, too, am one of the Members of this House who for many months now have been raising questions about that regulator's decision to withdraw the licence to Euroins Romania, which is obviously part of the largest independent insurance group in central, eastern and south-eastern Europe.
Now, I know you know about that case, Mr President – and not just because my colleague raised it – but it is beyond curious that the Romanian regulator acted against this company three years after requesting them to take over City Insurance. Why did they do this? It is a fact that both the Bulgarian financial regulator and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development queried what your regulator was up to.
Both of them approached the European authorities. One of the organisations produced a report cautioning against the consequences of this. They even produced a resolution proposal which would have mitigated the impacts, but nothing happened. And your country faces exposure to a EUR 500 million lawsuit, not to mention the broader impact beyond.
Having brought this to the attention of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, who are supposed to mitigate these issues but who have failed to produce the report for Members of this Parliament – it's been withheld from us – I'm deeply concerned about the security around this case.
So I suppose my question, Mr President, is really quite a simple one. In the interests of the citizens of Romania and beyond, would you join us in supporting our call to the European Commission to initiate a comprehensive and independent review of this case?

Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE). – Madam President, domnule președinte, Excelențele Voastre, today, the big day, I will speak my language.
Doamnă președintă, am avut privilegiul de a asculta alături de dumneavoastră analiza și viziunea unui adevărat om de stat, Klaus Iohannis, președintele României în ultimii 9 ani, votat de două ori de aproape șapte milioane de români de fiecare dată. Ați ascultat discursul unui om cu vocație europeană despre Europa și construcția europeană. Nu este un simplu discurs. Aceasta este România, distinși colegi. Cea mai importantă țară pentru asigurarea securității UE la Marea Neagră și țara care are 650 de kilometri de granița cu Ucraina.
În România, au primit adăpost peste 7 milioane de ucraineni, femei, bătrâni și copii fugind din calea războiului în ultimii doi ani de zile. Românii nu și-au blocat niciun moment granițele, nici nu i-au privit cu ostilitate pe cei care au căutat să salveze viețile lor și ale copiilor. Dimpotrivă, la nivel instituțional, în frunte cu președintele Iohannis și la nivel uman, fiecare român și-a deschis inima și casa în fața refugiaților. Nu suntem nici cei mai bogați din Europa și nici cei mai ajutați din Europa, dar avem un cult strămoșesc pentru ospitalitate și ajutor. Aceasta este România, o țară sinceră, deși este cea mai atacată țară din UE în războiul informațional dus de un dictator, Putin, împotriva civilizației occidentale.
Kremlinul a înțeles că România este o miză colosală și investește masiv în coruperea minților alegătorilor și în încercarea de a destabiliza România și dinamita din interior Uniunea Europeană. Încearcă să dinamiteze valorile civilizației occidentale. Vă asigur însă că românii vor rămâne europeni prin excelență, iar președintele Iohannis va garanta până în ultima zi a mandatului său acest lucru.
Aceasta este România, țara cu cel mai mare potențial energetic din Uniunea Europeană și de ale cărei investiții finanțate și din bani europeni, nu puțini, dar nu destui, va depinde în mare parte independența energetică a Europei.
Președintele Iohannis, așa cum v-ați convins, este un șef de stat echilibrat și rațional, profund european, așa cum mi-aș dori să văd și alți șefi de stat, în special în zonele vecine României. Este un președinte care a echilibrat într-un mod admirabil interesul țării sale, fără a afecta interesul Europei în regiune. A trecut vremea individualităților și a orgoliilor. Viitorul va demonstra că echilibrul câștigă forțe în fața nesăbuinței.
În țara mea există un cântec cântat pentru prima dată acum 150 de ani. Se numește Hora Unirii, iar versurile sunt ‘Unde-i unul, nu-i putere, la nevoi și la durere. Unde-s doi, puterea crește și dușmanul nu sporește’. Hora Unirii, în această perioadă complicată și plină de provocări de securitate, poate fi adaptată ca mesaj, ca un adevărat imn al Europei actuale.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, stimată doamnă ministru și întreaga echipă, la început vreau să vă mulțumesc pentru că ați descris atât de frumos țara mea. Așa este și aș vrea, stimați colegi, cei care astăzi ați încercat să o blamați, să înțelegeți România. Vizitați-o întâi, discutați cu oamenii de acolo și înțelegeți-o.
               

                  Domnule președinte, voi fi obiectivă. Vreau să ridic problemele pe care le-am ridicat în fața tuturor șefilor de stat și de guverne și să vă întreb: chiar vă place cum arată acum Europa? Credeți că s-ar fi putut face mai mult? Există cu adevărat o coeziune socială? Există o echitate?
               

                  Eu sunt vicepreședinta Comisiei pentru piața internă și protecția consumatorilor și refuz să folosesc termenul de ‘piață unică’ pe care dumneavoastră l-ați folosit, ca de altfel și domnul comisar Breton. Nu cred că este o piață unică și pentru asta trebuie să ne luptăm, domnule președinte. Eu închei al doilea mandat cu un gust amar că România nu este în piața internă, că nu suntem în Schengen și este nedrept, și au spus-o colegii din toate grupurile politice.
               

                  Apoi, credeți că politica agricolă comună (PAC) este echitabilă? De ce de atâta timp nu avem această echitate? Fermierii din toate statele, dacă avem o singură piață internă în toate statele, să fie la fel recompensați. Cred că sunt lucruri care ar fi putut să se rezolve în această perioadă și nu cred că nu trebuie, chiar pe ultima sută de metri să insistați, domnule președinte, pentru că, știm bine, în Consiliu se decide în final cum să meargă Europa și încotro.
               

Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, anul electoral 2024 este crucial pentru Europa, pentru că valorile pe care s-a construit și a funcționat până acum sunt sub asediul extremismului, antieuropenismului și al dezinformării. De aceea, pentru a ține democrația vie, dezbaterile din acest an trebuie să fie relevante pentru viața de zi cu zi a cetățenilor și mai puțin pentru supraviețuirea partidelor politice sau ale unor lideri politici.
               

                  Pentru România, provocarea e și mai mare. Avem în acest an toate rândurile de alegeri. Acest lucru poate duce la resetarea totală a establishmentului politic și, în ciuda unui avans lent pe drumul european, România a ajuns, prin efortul întregii societăți, un actor cheie în partea de Uniune în care se află, un pilon estic al Uniunii.
               

                  Domnule președinte Klaus Iohannis, sunteți ultimul actor politic care va ieși din scenă după alegerile din acest an fără o miză electorală personală. Până atunci, aveți datoria de a veghea, asigura și comunica cetățenilor români importanța apartenenței noastre europene într-un an complicat, cu provocări populiste, și consider că puteți face acest lucru în mod credibil și în mod asumat.
               

                  România și Uniunea Europeană nu-și permit alunecarea în idei extremiste fără soluții și toată această presiune electorală ne ridică și întrebarea profilului de lider pe care cetățeanul român și european îl așteaptă astăzi. Pentru că, după multe dezamăgiri, românii au senzația că liderii politici nu mai vorbesc suficient cu ei și prea puțin pe limba lor atunci când o fac. Efortul pentru a recrea punți în societatea noastră afectată de crize va fi mare, dar cauza este una esențială atât pentru noi, cât și pentru Uniune, în ansamblul ei și pentru viitorul ei, pentru credibilitatea Uniunii. Fermierii, tinerii fără perspectivă, cetățenii ignorați din județele periferice sau din micile orașe, trebuie remotivați și angajați într-o viziune de viitor în care să se regăsească și în care Bruxelles-ul sau Strasbourg-ul sunt aliații lor, și nu dușmanii lor închipuiți.
               

Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! This is Europe – das ist Europa. Und ja, wir haben keine Wahl, als gemeinsam, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, für unsere Klimastabilität und unsere Artenvielfalt einzustehen. Wir brauchen Rumänien und seine Schatzkammern an Primär- und Urwäldern.
               

                  Ich fordere Sie auf, verehrter Herr Präsident Iohannis, sich für den Schutz dieser Wälder einzusetzen. Ich war schon öfter in Rumänien, in den Făgăraș Mountains und in vielen schönen Orten, und ich habe die Schönheit Ihrer einzigartigen Wälder gesehen. Ich habe unzählige Tier- und Pflanzenarten – endemische – gesehen.
               

                  Ich habe aber auch die fortschreitende Abholzung gesehen, Kahlschläge bis zum Horizont, leider auch illegale Abholzung in Natura-2000-Gebieten, riesige Furchen in der Erde und schlimme Erosion, weil keine Wurzeln mehr den Hang halten.
               

                  Vor vier Jahren hat die EU ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren eingeleitet. Die rumänische Regierung versprach Verbesserungen und Maßnahmen. Immer noch sind Korruption und illegale Abholzung an der Tagesordnung.
               

                  Deshalb frage ich Sie heute, Herr Präsident Iohannis: Wie kommen Sie voran mit den abgesprochenen Reformen der Schulung der Försterinnen und Förster, der Rückverfolgung des Holzeinschlags? Und was tun Sie auch für die Umweltschützer und Umweltschützerinnen?
               

                  Die EU schaut auf Sie; wir brauchen Ihre Hilfe.
               

Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente Iohannis, a marzo Lei guiderà la Romania nell'area di Schengen. È un momento storico e ciò renderà più forte l'Unione europea e il suo paese. Con orgoglio le do il benvenuto, anche da rappresentante dell'Italia, poiché Romania e Italia aggiungeranno una nuova tessera alla propria amicizia, fondata su profondi e antichi legami storici, sociali, umani, economici, commerciali e culturali fondati sui valori giudaico-cristiani.
               

                  In Italia vivono oltre 1 000 000 di cittadini rumeni e allo stesso tempo 19 000 aziende italiane hanno sede in Romania. I nostri Stati crescono e possono crescere insieme. Siamo legati anche dall'alleanza della NATO, la Romania è parte della missione Sea Guardian per la difesa del Mediterraneo e, a maggior ragione, dentro l'area di Schengen rafforzeremo la nostra alleanza nel campo della cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria, nella lotta alle organizzazioni criminali, per garantire sicurezza all'Unione europea e agli alleati, così come la Romania, con grande generosità, ha accolto i profughi dall'Ucraina aggredita.
               

                  Colgo però anche l'opportunità che ho oggi di parlare con Lei per chiedere attenzione anche a un tema forse minore, ma legato al traffico illecito di animali e al maltrattamento degli animali, una delle maggiori fonti di finanziamento illegale delle organizzazioni criminali del mondo. Dobbiamo agire insieme, uniti nella storia, nei valori, nelle economie, nelle sfide, nell'amicizia che diamo, dimostrazione del significato più autentico dell'Europa. Buon lavoro, Presidente.
               

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Madam President, President Iohannis, Madam Commissioner, Herta Müller once wrote: ‘In this country, we had to walk, eat, sleep and love in fear’. When we read about life in Communist times, we can only appreciate Romania's success in the European project.
Romanian culture and heritage is indispensable for Europe because it merges the Roman-Latin culture with Orthodox heritage and with Germanic, Slavic and Magyar influence. That gives Romanians a unique ability to understand European diversity. We have seen Romania's amazing economic development under your Presidency and impressive progress in the rule of law. Today, when we see attacks on the rule of law in Spain, in Malta, in Slovakia, we have to congratulate you, Mr President, for your exemplary leadership.
We have an historic step in the lifting of air and sea border controls, but that is not enough. Romania, like Bulgaria, must fully join Schengen. You dealt with the migration crisis, pandemic restrictions and the arrival of war refugees in an extraordinary manner under immense pressure. The EPP has always been on your side in this matter.
As the great Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu once wrote, 
                     ‘vreme trece, vreme vine’, or ‘time goes by, time comes along’. The time for complete and full accession to Schengen has come.

Marc Angel (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident Iohannis, es ist uns eine große Ehre, Sie hier im Haus der europäischen Demokratie empfangen zu können. Und wir begrüßen natürlich, dass rumänische Bürgerinnen und Bürger im Schengen-Raum fortan Luft- und Seegrenzen kontrollfrei überqueren können.
               

                  Wir sind aber als Sozialisten und Sozialdemokraten sehr enttäuscht, dass die Kontrollen an den Landesgrenzen, die für viele verlorene Stunden, für viel Unmut – das ist klimaschädlich, das ist wirtschaftsschädlich – bestehen bleiben. Und übrigens, auch Hilfsgüter, die für die Ukraine bestimmt sind, sind lange blockiert.
               

                  Das ist unverständlich und ungerecht, und deshalb geben wir nicht auf, den Rat aufzufordern, umgehend das Wegfallen der Kontrollen an den Landesgrenzen zu beschließen. Rumänien wie auch Bulgarien haben sich dies durch harte Arbeit verdient. Diese Entwicklung wird unsere europäische Familie und unser gemeinsames Projekt weiter stärken.
               

                  Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident! Wir stehen vor gewaltigen Herausforderungen, so zum Beispiel der Digitalisierung unserer Gesellschaften. Ich hatte vor Kurzem die Ehre, auf einer Veranstaltung meines rumänischen Kollegen Victor Negrescu über digitale Kompetenzen im ländlichen Raum teilzunehmen. In diesem Zusammenhang habe ich einige sehr interessante Projekte in Rumänien in Erfahrung bringen können.
               

                  Daher wollte ich Sie fragen, wie Sie die Herausforderungen der digitalen Transformation in Europa sehen, und welche Erfolgsrezepte Sie uns mit auf den Weg geben. Müssen wir weiter regulieren, oder lassen wir – was ich nicht hoffe – den Tech-Giganten und den Algorithmen freien Lauf?
               

Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, stimată doamnă ministru, stimate domnule președinte, mă simt onorat că Președintele României se adresează Parlamentului European de la Strasbourg.
               

                  România este vecină cu Ucraina și cu Republica Moldova, unde Rusia nu vrea să înceteze să-și exercite influența. România este riverană a Mării Negre, unde războiul afectează toate statele din zonă și nu numai. De aceea, este foarte important ca România să rămână o țară cu adevărat democratică, ancorată în valorile europene.
               

This is Europe, aceasta este tema dezbaterii noastre de astăzi, iar România este parte a Uniunii Europene de 17 ani. Vedem în mod constant dezvoltarea și modernizarea țării noastre, la care au contribuit semnificativ cele 90 de miliarde de euro din fonduri europene, dar și faptul că cetățenii români au acces la o piață unică, la economia și cultura europeană, chiar dacă încă nu suntem pe deplin membri ai spațiului Schengen. Aici ar trebui să apăsăm mai tare accelerația și mă bucur că ați spus-o și dumneavoastră răspicat astăzi, în acest plen.
               

                  România a demonstrat că are în ADN-ul său valorile europene și le promovează. Chiar și atunci când politicienii români au luat decizii greșite, cetățenii au apărat cu înverșunare și apără încă valorile europene, democrația și statul de drept, iar Europa înseamnă stat de drept. Și această formulă are o greutate teribilă în viețile fiecăruia dintre noi. Avem toți un set de reguli și nimeni, oricât de înaltă i-ar fi funcția, nu e mai presus de regulile acestea.
               

                  Dacă tot vorbim de reguli, poate n-ar strica să ne aducem toți aminte că regulile sunt reguli și când vine vorba despre alegeri, iar încrederea fiecărui cetățean european în instituțiile europene va fi cu atât mai mare dacă reușim să explicăm deschis, pas cu pas, nu doar ce pot face ei pentru Europa, ci și ce face Europa pentru ei în fiecare zi. Asta nu o vom putea face dacă dezbaterea în România se încearcă a fi mutată în altă parte, în același timp cu alegerile europene din același an.
               

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Mr President, thank you, President Iohannis, for sharing your perspectives on our common European future. Very often this House is used for national debates, even from prime ministers and presidents, so I am very thankful that you shared your vision for what Europe should look like.
So let me ask you quite concretely, when do you think can we have an improved decision-making in the Council? When will we move to qualified majority? When can we actually change the Treaties? I would love to hear an answer on that. And then second, we have a great moment of European democracy coming up with the European elections. But looking at the different countries and also at Romania, I do see inhibiting factors to democracy, such as the amount of signatures you need to collect to be able to run as a party, such as the fact that you have, I think, to be 23 to be able to be a candidate.
These are all things that could potentially slow down our democratic participation. So maybe the last question on this: will you advance the European electoral law act that we proposed here in 2020, with the second vote for transnational lists to strengthen our European democracy?

Sven Simon (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Präsident Iohannis, Sie sind ein Präsident, der sich im eigenen Land immer für Reformen stark gemacht hat. Sie stehen für einen starken Rechtsstaat. Ihr Kampf gegen Korruption hat Vorbildcharakter. Und es ist maßgeblich Ihr Verdienst, dass Rumänien jetzt Teil des Schengener Abkommens wird.
               

                  Genau diese Reformstärke brauchen wir jetzt auch auf europäischer Ebene. Die Europäische Union ist gegründet worden zum Schutz der Europäer voreinander. Heute müssen wir sie weiterentwickeln zum Schutz der Europäer füreinander in der Welt.
               

                  Vor einigen Monaten hat das Europäische Parlament Reformvorschläge unterbreitet, mit dem Ziel, die Europäische Union handlungsfähiger zu machen. Der Rat tut sich schwer mit einer Antwort, der Entscheidung für einen Konvent.
               

                  Sie, Herr Präsident, haben angesprochen, dass wir vieles ändern könnten ohne Vertragsänderungen. Aber wenn wir wirklich die innere Widerstandsfähigkeit, wie Sie gesagt haben, und die äußere Handlungsfähigkeit verbessern wollen, brauchen wir einen Konvent. Deshalb bitte ich Sie heute um Unterstützung im Rat für die Einberufung dieses Konvents.
               

Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, pentru a rezolva problemele globale, trebuie să le rezolvăm în primul rând pe cele de acasă, din fiecare țară. Aud că ne preocupă crizele și soluțiile globale, dar i-am uitat pe oamenii de lângă noi, am pierdut contactul cu cei pe care îi reprezentăm. Nemulțumirile românilor sunt tot mai multe și mai numeroase și sunt legate de traiul de fiecare zi. Acum vedem nemulțumirile fermierilor și ale celor din transporturi, dar adevărul e că scăderea nivelului de trai ne-a afectat pe toți.
               

                  Domnule președinte, am fi putut face mai multe și mai mult pentru România. Onorată Comisie, onorat Consiliu, ați ignorat adesea problemele și durerile poporului meu și ale țării mele, iar aici am văzut, din păcate, prea mulți ghiocei politici care nu sunt în stare, nu au putut să spună ‘nu’ atunci când interesele noastre au fost călcate în picioare. Eu pot să spun ‘nu’ de fiecare dată și o voi face și de acum încolo.
               

                  De aceea, cred că este un moment în care trebuie să ne reconectăm la problemele oamenilor. Fiecare în țara lui, fiecare în orașului și cred că doar așa putem să le creștem încrederea că ceea ce facem aici este doar spre binele fiecăruia dintre ei. Eu cred că doar așa și Iașul, și România vor fi pe mâini bune, la fel ca întreaga Europă.
               

Loránt Vincze (PPE). – Jó napot kívánok!
               

                  Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, fiecare cetățean român înțelege această urare în limba maghiară. Nu pentru că majoritatea a început să învețe limba minorității, ci pentru că în 2020 ați folosit limba maghiară ca instrument politic împotriva adversarilor dumneavoastră. Iar de când sunteți președinte nu ați răspuns deloc la propunerea venită din partea comunității maghiare de a realiza un pact majoritate-minoritate.
               

                  Există modele de succes în protecția minorităților europene în țări membre ale Uniunii Europene, care nici măcar nu pot fi discutate la București, iar între timp extremiștii capătă forță în România. Xenofobia, pe de o parte, și comportamentul antidemocratic, antieuropean, pe de altă parte, provin din aceeași rădăcină.
               

                  Sunt de acord cu dumneavoastră, rămân multe de făcut în România și în Uniunea Europeană pentru România. Ne aflăm pe un traseu de integrare deplină la Uniunea Europeană. De aceea, aderarea integrală la zona Schengen trebuie să devină realitate, pentru că este dreptul nostru câștigat.
               

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente Iohannis, la Romania è un importante paese europeo. Dopo aver aderito all'Unione nel 2007, entrerà nello spazio Schengen dal prossimo marzo. Questa è una bella notizia, perché ci parla di un'Europa più unita e più forte, dove i cittadini possono godere di uguali diritti. Un'Europa che, oggi, deve affrontare grandi sfide insieme.
               

                  Abbiamo approvato in questo Parlamento, in questi mesi, il primo regolamento al mondo che norma l'intelligenza artificiale, ma non basta. Penso al fenomeno migratorio, dove l'Europa deve parlare a una sola voce, senza veti nazionalisti, per gestire finalmente in modo strutturato e non emergenziale gli arrivi di esseri umani, dal Mediterraneo come dai Balcani.
               

                  Rivoluzione digitale, migrazioni, ma anche cambiamento climatico, nuove frontiere del lavoro e contrasto alle disuguaglianze: queste sono priorità della nostra agenda politica. Le elezioni europee si avvicinano e saranno cruciali per il futuro di questo continente. Sono milioni i giovani europei che chiedono un futuro migliore. Dobbiamo essere capaci di garantirglielo facendo le scelte giuste.
               

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, President Iohannis, welcome back to the European Parliament. We very well remember here your speech from 2018 when you stood up for European values and told us that unity and solidarity are the solutions for Europe.
Time has proven you right. We have seen that Europe stays united. It provides solutions and helps people in need. We have seen you defending European values, and we have seen you defending a European approach to challenges that we are facing. Romania has chosen the pro-European path and we have seen a European decade in Romania under your leadership. And for this we say thank you today.
We are seeing today that Romania believes in Europe, and we are also seeing that Europe believes in Romania. Together, we have managed over recent years to create the biggest package of economic support after the pandemic. You always advocated for strong support for Ukraine. You led the efforts of supporting the Republic of Moldova, and you helped Europe understand that we are only safe if our neighbouring countries are safe.
Looking ahead, our common task is to defend Europe. Europe means security. Europe means prosperity, democracy, rule of law, and Europe means stability. As pro-Europeans, we shall continue to provide solutions and tell people that extremism is no solution to any of the difficulties and challenges that we face. As pro-Europeans, we have to speak up to defend Europe and defend European values. This is what we stand for as a clear majority of pro-Europeans here in the European Parliament. This is what we are ready to achieve in the next years together with you.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta Metsola, señor presidente Iohannis, gracias por sus palabras. Yo le felicito por su compromiso con la integración europea y por su europeísmo. Agradezco también que haya hecho mención en su intervención a la dimensión institucional. Es evidente que, con una Europa ampliada, con el relanzamiento del proceso de ampliación, ese proceso debe acompañare de la profundización de nuestro proyecto político en clave federal.
               

                  Usted se ha referido a la cuestión de no excluir las reformas de los Tratados, lo cual celebro, y creo que hay que dar también un paso más allá en esa dirección. Usted se ha referido a las cláusulas pasarela. Es verdad: se pueden activar; están en el Tratado de Lisboa para poder decidir más asuntos por mayoría cualificada. Pero en catorce años el Consejo no ha sido capaz de activar ni una sola de ellas. Espero que no tengamos que esperar otros catorce años. Por favor, apoye la propuesta del Parlamento de reforma de los Tratados.
               

Цветелина Пенкова (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, повече от 12 години България и Румъния изпълняват всички технически критерии за присъединяването ни към Шенгенското пространство, за пълноправно членство в Шенген. Този факт е оценен и многократно потвърждаван и тук, в пленарната зала на Европейския парламент.
               

                  Въпреки това, поради политически причини, ние вече над десетилетие сме държани извън Шенгенското пространство, а нашите съграждани се третират като втора ръка европейци. Изпълняваме задълженията си, а нашите съграждани са лишени от полагащите им се права. Ето защо не бива да се самозалъгваме, че частичното членство на България и Румъния в Шенген е успех.
               

                  Г-н Президент, имам няколко въпроса към Вас. Какви са общите действия, които обсъждате с България, за да доведат възможно най-бързо до премахване на сухопътните транспортни проверки? Какъв според Вас е реалистичният срок за полагащото ни се пълноправно членство в Шенген?
               

                  Това дискриминационно отношение към български и румънски граждани не може да продължава.
               

Νίκος Παπανδρέου (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to thank the Romanian President for his presentation today. Our two countries have similar histories, not just in Christian orthodoxy, but we had dictatorships – you had a totalitarian country run by the Kremlin, we had a dictatorship run by the Pentagon.
Today we see clouds gathering over Europe. We have the European elections. I would like your wisdom and your experience. How do we convince the voter that the solution is not the extreme populists, but more democracy? That we need a new contract for the citizens of Europe? That's what I would call it, a ‘contract’ to complete the European project, something that most of the Members here and the farmers in the streets feel has not been completed. So it's our duty and your wisdom, perhaps, in the answer, will help us come up with the proper arguments to bring about the Europe of our dreams.

Klaus Iohannis,
President of Romania. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, thank you very much. This is a privilege for me to speak to you here in the centre of European democracy.
Thank you for your very positive feedback. I thank the speakers of the political groups for their positions, and I appreciate very much the positive and constructive approach in all the views expressed here. But let me thank you specifically for one issue, most of all mentioned, which is the Schengen issue.
Romania is a very determined, a very strong and a very faithful member of the Union. We really believe that the Union has to be united, strong, secure, prosperous. To make this happen, we have to finish the European integration of all the Member States, including Romania. So let's hope that we make the decisive step. We have the first step in place. It is a good sign, and let's continue.
There have been then some issues and – I think you agree – it would go too far if I answered each and every question. So let me just point out a relatively small number of issues, and I think you expect me to be honest on these things. So I'll try to be short and honest.
When I ran for president in 2014, for the first time, I promised to the Romanians a couple of things. I'm not a great speaker, and I am not excelling in promises, so I said I will keep Romania firm on the European track, on the transatlantic track. I will see about the economy as far as the president can do this to bring more prosperity. But one important issue, which was very dear to me – I promised to strengthen the rule of law, which I did.
We have less corruption. We have an independent judiciary. And this is not what I say – it is what the Commission says and what you said because you accepted the Commission's report on the so-called CVM. And one important issue was not only to have an independent judiciary, a strong prosecution – it was also important to have independent regulators.
Well, I heard that one regulator had an issue with one business, and as everywhere in a democracy and the rule of law, people, if they feel that decision was not so good, go before a judge. This is what happened, and the judges decided that the decision was correct. This is what I understand if we speak about the rule of law: everybody has the same right. Everybody has the right to a fair trial, and everybody has to accept the result.
Now, many of you asked more or less precisely what I believe should happen in the European Union. I stated a number of issues in my opening remarks, but if it comes to it, what should we do with the Union to make it function better? Where are the problems? Where are the real problems? Where are the systemic problems and what can be done?
Well, some systemic problems and some important issues have been discussed in this House, on our streets, in the marketplaces, and in convenings. I think you just finished before I arrived a discussion about the common European agricultural policy. That's an issue. We have a decision on this as of 2020, four years ago. So obviously, people ask me and I ask others, ‘Why did it take us four years and huge European protests to rethink some issues of the common agricultural policy?’ Maybe it could have happened faster.
We are talking about the environment, about climate change. That's all correct. Personally, I'm very much involved in these issues. I am really convinced that we have to fight climate change, and I believe that we have to protect our environment, and we can do it. We proved it. We proved it in Romania, and we have a good policy in this respect. But we have to do more. Now we have the Green Deal, which is super. But let me tell you, if it is not sustainable and if it does not lead to economic growth, and if we do not take everybody with us, it will be a failure.
So, bref, elections upcoming – most of you are probably running for new mandate. That's fine. Not me, I'm finished. At the end of this year, I finish my mandate and that's it. So I believe that three things should be changed or should be improved.
First, our relationship with the European citizens. My impression – maybe I'm wrong – is that if the citizens are here, we are here. We are levitating a bit high. Maybe we should decrease and be closer to our citizens, because what we do is correct but we lost, almost lost, our ability to explain this to our people.
We are not really performing well when it comes to communicating our very good results. We are doing a super job and more and more Europeans believe the Union is failing. Well, this is about communication: communication between the voters and the politicians. So this is one issue where I believe we can and should do more and better.
Second, some of you asked about decision-making. It is about the architecture of the Union. How do we make it better? And we have to improve it, because if we take in Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans, we will be a large Union, and this decision-making, especially in crisis, war, pandemic and energy crisis, has to be correct, transparent but fast.
So I believe that we have to work on our architecture. Some of it may be possible to change without opening the Treaties, but some issues have to be changed in the Treaties. They are not perfect. Since we have these Treaties – I hope you don't mind me telling you – years have passed. We are a different Union and we work towards a different Union. I hope very much you agree: we work towards a better Union, so let's work on this.
At least one issue – and you will know what I mention – it is not acceptable that one member is using a veto to stop all of us helping others. So if we're not in a position yet to generalise a qualified majority voting, which may be defined different than it is now, not talking about the details, but at least we should have the courage to say ‘no veto’ and let's take it out of the decision-making process. That's something very concrete we should do.
Finally, our external image, well, I believe we have to be much better here. First, we have to integrate those who want to be with us and those we want to be with us: Ukraine, Moldova, Western Balkans. They try to become part of the Union, some of them for 20 years. I mean, are we serious? Are we? Do we want them? If we do, let's go. If not, let's say to them ‘no’. But dragging on, you know very well, never makes things better.
Somehow linked to this is how we act towards others. It is what we call foreign policy. Well, guess what? We don't have one. This is strange, isn't it? We have as many foreign policies as we have Member States, and maybe even more. Thanks, you're right. Maybe this is the reason why our foreign policy weight is way, way, way smaller than our economic weight. This is not good for us because economic policy and foreign policy have to go hand in hand. So we should work on these two: extension and foreign policy.
Now, the elections are upcoming. Each of you is going to fight for a seat or a principle or a value. That's correct. Every party comes up with concepts, with ideas, with policies. You will accuse each other of being, well, the wrong guys. You will fight for as many votes as possible. That's absolutely fair. That's the essence of democracy: campaigning, profiling, trying to be the best. Please do so. You sitting here are the best. This is why you sit here.
But please, if you fight each other, don't fight Europe. If you fight for votes against your opponents, still fight for European Union. And if you fight with the other party and tell them they are not the right guys, please do not fight against the European solidarity. Because without this we are doomed. So no matter who is winning – and I hope the best are winning – let us uphold our values, our principles, our unity, and our solidarity.

President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 171)


Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris. – Beneficiile aderării României la UE sunt nenumărate și tangibile pentru români. De la aderarea la Uniunea Europeană până în prezent, România a înregistrat un sold pozitiv de peste 62 de miliarde de euro comparativ cu obligațiile sale financiare ca stat membru. Majoritatea investițiilor în școli, spitale, drumuri realizate pe plan național și local nu puteau fi făcute fără fonduri europene pentru că, atât instituțiile publice, cât și majoritatea companiilor private depind de existența acestor fonduri pentru dezvoltare.
               

                  Totodată, sute de mii de români au avut acces la educație și formare profesională prin accesarea resurselor și oportunităților europene, în timp ce fermierii români au supraviețuit concurenței globale, beneficiind de subvențiile primite de la UE și accesând fonduri europene. Fie că vorbim despre dreptul la liberă circulație și piața internă europeană sau despre accesul la fonduri europene, securitate sau drepturi esențiale conferite de legislația europeană, România europeană de astăzi este mai puternică și mai sigură decât România de acum 17 ani.
               

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments.)

7.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.51)

8.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

8.1.   Temporary derogation: combating online child sexual abuse (A9-0021/2024 - Birgit Sippel) (vote)
8.2.   Empowering the French Republic to negotiate, sign and conclude an international agreement on the safety and interoperability requirements within the Channel Fixed Link (A9-0018/2024 - Petar Vitanov) (vote)
8.3.   Conclusion of the Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Angola (A9-0005/2024 - Joachim Schuster) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Joachim Schuster,
Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Weil es um das Abkommen einige Irritationen gegeben hat, sei vorab betont, das Abkommen über nachhaltige Investitionsförderung (SIFA) zwischen der EU und Angola ist kein klassisches Investitionsabkommen zur Liberalisierung des Marktzugangs für ausländische Investoren. Es enthält keine Bestimmungen zur finanziellen Förderung von Investitionen und auch kein investor-state dispute settlement.
                  

                     Das SIFA ist ein bilaterales Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Republik Angola, das darauf abzielt, durch mehr Transparenz und effektivere Verfahren nachhaltige Investitionen zu fördern. Konkret geht es um die Veröffentlichung der Investitionsgesetze und -bedingungen, die Förderung der Nutzung einheitlicher Informationsportale für Investoren, die Vereinfachung der Genehmigungsverfahren und Förderung elektronischer Behördendienste, die Verbesserung der Kooperation zwischen Investoren und der Verwaltung sowie die Einrichtung von Anlaufstellen und Konsultationen mit Interessengruppen.
                  

                     Zudem werden Verpflichtungen im Bereich Umweltschutz und arbeitsrechtliche Standards integriert. Beide Seiten verpflichten sich, diese Standards nicht zu schwächen, um Investitionen anzuziehen. Zugleich sollen beide Seiten wirksame Schritte zur Umsetzung internationaler Arbeits- und Umweltabkommen einschließlich des Pariser Abkommens ergreifen.
                  

                     Das Abkommen setzt auf vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Angola, die darin enthaltenen umwelt- und arbeitsrechtlichen Verpflichtungen sind rechtlich bindend. Das Abkommen enthält aber keine harten Durchsetzungsmechanismen, weil es um Selbstverpflichtung der Beteiligten geht.
                  

                     Eine erfolgreiche Umsetzung des Abkommens wird das Investitionsklima deutlich verbessern, weil es Hemmnisse beseitigt, die bisher viele Investoren abschrecken, und damit wird es auch einen Beitrag leisten, die grüne Transformation in Angola zu fördern. Ich bitte deshalb um Zustimmung.
                  
8.4.   Amendments to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) and to the Directive relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITSD) (A9-0020/2023 - Isabel Benjumea Benjumea) (vote)
8.5.   Instant payments in euro (A9-0230/2023 - Michiel Hoogeveen) (vote)
8.6.   Limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates (A9-0263/2023 - Nikolaj Villumsen) (vote)
8.7.   Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd) (vote)

– After the vote on the Commission proposal:


Jessica Polfjärd,
rapporteur. – Madam President, and thank you, colleagues, it is a historic day when the European Parliament has voted in favour of science, of food safety and in support of European farmers. After decades of deadlock, we have finally taken a step towards a modern framework for regulating NGTs. And according to Rule 59(4), I request to have the file referred back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations.
8.8.   Norway's recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic (B9-0095/2024) (vote)
8.9.   Rule of Law and media freedom in Greece (B9-0098/2024, B9-0099/2024) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

9.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.36 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

10.   Composition of committees and delegations

Der Präsident. – Die Fraktion Renew Europe hat der Präsidentin einen Beschluss über die Änderung von Ernennungen in einen Ausschuss übermittelt. Dieser Beschluss wird in das Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgenommen und tritt am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.
               
11.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar.
               

                  Gibt es Einwände?
               

                  Ich sehe keine Einwände.
               

                  Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt.
               
12.   The fight against hate speech and disinformation: responsibility of social platforms within the Digital Services Act (topical debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über ein aktuelles Thema (Artikel 162 GO) betreffend die Bekämpfung von Hetze und Desinformation – Verantwortung der sozialen Plattformen im Rahmen des Gesetzes über digitale Dienste.
               

                  Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass bei dieser Aussprache weder spontane Wortmeldungen noch blaue Karten akzeptiert werden.
               

Heléne Fritzon,
författare. – Herr talman! Trollarméer och falska konton – bakom dessa utländska agenter och extrema ideologier. Ord som inte fanns när jag först fick rösträtt är för dagens förstagångsväljare en bister verklighet.
               

                  Jag menar det jag säger när jag säger att årets EU-val inte kommer att likna något tidigare val. Desinformation är ett regelrätt hot mot vår säkerhet, både i Europa och i mitt land Sverige. Vi såg det i lögnerna om covid-19-vaccinet och jag ser det i lögnerna om den svenska socialtjänsten. Vi ser det i desinformationen som nu sprids i spåren av Rysslands invasion av Ukraina.
               

                  Oavsett om det är proryska, högerextrema eller religiösa fundamentalistiska krafter, så finns det en sak som förenar dem och ordet är splittring. För mig som socialdemokrat är det en utveckling som manar mig till handling.
               

                  I Europa har vi nyligen skärpt kraven på de stora internetjättarna. Varför det? Jo, för att demokratiskt sinnade medborgare inte ska behöva ta kampen i kommentarsfälten mot ryska robotkonton.
               

                  Rent konkret handlar det om att snabbare stoppa spridningen av fejkade nyheter. Att stänga av falska konton och att begränsa missbruket av artificiell intelligens för desinformation. Men EU kan inte ensamt göra allt. Det krävs också nationella regeringar som är villiga att göra jobbet – villiga att bygga motståndskraftiga samhällen där fria medier kan agera motvikt mot falska nyheter, där skolor får de resurser som krävs för att förbereda våra barn och ungdomar på den nya verkligheten och där myndigheterna tar seriöst på den radikalisering som gror i desinformationens mylla.
               

                  Vi har alla ett ansvar att bekämpa hatet och desinformationen. Alternativet är att bli Putins nyttiga idiot. Som politiker är vårt ansvar extra tungt – att faktiskt tänka innan man pratar. Att samla i stället för att splittra. Att inte trycka send innan man har tänkt en gång till. Det är så politiken kan vara och borde vara. Det är laget före jaget. Det är landet framför ett klick och klickvänliga rubriker.
               

                  I mitt hemland Sverige tycks den verkligheten i dag vara långt borta. Vi har en konservativ regering som styrs av det högerpopulistiska partiet Sverigedemokraterna och vi har i dag ledande politiker i samhällsdebatten som uppmuntrar till brännandet av religiösa texter. Vi har ledande politiker som ifrågasätter minoriteters medborgarskap och demoniserar Pridetågen och som gör allt i sin makt för att sätta krokben för den demokratiska oppositionen.
               

                  Sverige och Europas befolkning förtjänar bättre än det här. Vi har alla ett ansvar att hålla ihop vår kontinent i en orolig tid. Jag är särskilt glad över att vår chefsförhandlare Christel Schaldemose från Danmark har lyckats få till stånd en lagstiftning som tydliggör att det här ansvaret är politiskt och det är ett ansvar som vi alla ska ta.
               

Hadja Lahbib,
Présidente en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, cher Commissaire, Monsieur Breton, chers membres du Parlement européen, tout d'abord, je vous remercie d'avoir invité la présidence du Conseil à participer à ce débat de la plus haute importance, et merci à la députée Fritzon d'avoir mis ce sujet opportun à l'ordre du jour.
               

                  Les deux guerres qui font rage à nos frontières contribuent malheureusement à l'exacerbation des discours de haine en ligne ainsi qu'à la propagation de fausses informations qui visent à déstabiliser nos sociétés. Nous l'avons vu à la suite de l'agression russe en Ukraine et nous le voyons encore actuellement avec la situation et le conflit à Gaza.
               

                  Cette année est cruciale aussi, on ne cesse de le répéter, pour nos démocraties en raison de la tenue de nombreuses élections, y compris bien sûr les élections européennes, et du renouveau de nos institutions. C'est notre rôle de veiller à ce que ces processus démocratiques soient à l'abri de toute interférence externe. Nos institutions européennes et nos États membres doivent plus que jamais intensifier leurs efforts afin de protéger, dans le monde numérique, tous les citoyens, et notamment les plus jeunes, et de s'assurer aussi que la haine ne se retrouve pas à portée de clic.
               

                  Tous les prestataires de services en ligne, en particulier les réseaux sociaux, ont une responsabilité particulière vis-à-vis de la société: celle de contribuer à la lutte contre les contenus illicites diffusés au moyen de leurs services. Leurs responsabilités doivent être à la hauteur du rôle qu'ils jouent aujourd'hui dans les relations humaines.
               

                  L'Union a largement mis à jour sa législation et mis en œuvre des politiques pour lutter contre les contenus illégaux en ligne, notamment à travers le règlement sur les services numériques. Ces changements, malheureusement, sont relativement récents. Il faudra un certain temps pour que leur mise en application et les adaptations que cela nécessite portent pleinement leurs fruits.
               

                  Lutter efficacement contre les discours de haine et la désinformation en ligne tout en préservant la liberté d'expression propre à nos démocraties est une exigence fondamentale, qui toutefois reste sujette à deux écueils auxquels il nous faut constamment remédier: d'une part, les contenus haineux en ligne non détectés, et qui prolifèrent librement sur l'internet, et, d'autre part, la suppression de contenus légaux, ce qui intente évidemment à notre liberté d'expression. Cet équilibre, délicat à atteindre en pratique, doit guider nos efforts et ceux des plateformes.
               

                  C'est cette intention qui a également largement influencé la forme finale du règlement sur les services numériques. Pour faire face à ces risques, ce règlement a mis en place les règles les plus strictes pour les plus grands acteurs du marché, des plateformes comme Facebook, Instagram, TikTok ou X (anciennement Twitter). Désormais, ces acteurs doivent accorder une attention particulière à la manière dont leurs services sont utilisés pour diffuser ou pour amplifier des contenus trompeurs ou faux. Ils doivent agir avec diligence dès que ces contenus sont téléchargés sur leur plateforme, et les supprimer. Ils doivent réagir tout aussi rapidement lorsque de tels contenus sont renseignés par les autorités, par les fournisseurs ou par les utilisateurs.
               

                  Le règlement sur les services numériques est entré en vigueur pour les plus grandes plateformes l'année dernière. Il sera pleinement en vigueur dans dix jours seulement. Les États membres doivent être prêts à assurer la surveillance des prestataires de services établis sur leur territoire. Chaque État doit prendre ses responsabilités, d'autant que le règlement sur les services numériques ne contient pas de définition du contenu illicite, lequel est défini par le droit national de chaque État membre.
               

                  Finally, Article 45 of the DSA provides for voluntary codes of conduct. As such, the ongoing revision of the Code of Conduct on Illegal Hate Speech Online will complete our regulatory arsenal and should formally integrate the DSA. This code of conduct is an important tool, and its revision should allow for better anticipation of emerging threats of hate speech before the content goes viral.
               

                  Our efforts to guarantee of fundamental rights in the digital world must continue in full synergy with digital platforms. I can assure you on the Council's full commitment to preserving and defending these rights.
               

Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Madame la Ministre, vous l'avez rappelé, en 2024, la moitié de la population mondiale renouvellera les dirigeants de plus de 50 pays sur la planète. Nos concitoyens, évidemment, vont en faire partie. Nous ne sommes qu'à quelques mois des élections européennes, et je note également, comme vous toutes et vous tous, qu'un certain nombre d'élections auront lieu cette année dans plusieurs États membres.
               

                  Ces élections se tiendront dans un contexte marqué par des épreuves qui se sont enchaînées au cours de ces dernières années (pandémie, changement climatique, migrations, retour de la guerre sur notre continent, instabilité géopolitique, hausse du coût de la vie, etc.), comme nous avons pu le voir, lors des élections récentes, avec des tentatives de déstabilisation de nos processus démocratiques par le biais de campagnes de manipulation de l'opinion publique, laissant libre cours à la désinformation et parfois même aux discours de haine. Nous devons être attentifs.
               

                  Alors même que la Russie continue sa guerre d'attrition en Ukraine, nous savons que la période électorale qui s'ouvre en Europe sera une cible particulière pour les attaques hybrides, mais aussi pour les ingérences étrangères de toutes origines. Ces campagnes peuvent aujourd'hui s'appuyer sur les nouvelles technologies telles que l'intelligence artificielle, qui permet de générer facilement des contenus visant à manipuler notre espace informationnel. Nous en avons vu, évidemment, de nombreux exemples récents. Nous avons donc une responsabilité commune, tant sur le plan moral que sur le plan juridique, tant au niveau national qu'au niveau européen: veiller à ce que l'intégrité de nos élections soit garantie et préservée.
               

                  En tant que commissaire chargé du numérique, je prendrai évidemment toute ma part de responsabilité, car la lutte pour protéger l'intégrité des élections nécessite évidemment un effort collectif. Avec le règlement sur les services numériques – dont vous avez parlé à l'instant, Madame la Ministre, et à juste titre –, l'Europe est devenue le premier continent où les grandes plateformes en ligne ont l'obligation non seulement d'évaluer les risques qu'elles représentent pour l'intégrité des élections, mais surtout d'adopter des mesures proportionnées et adéquates pour atténuer ces risques. Dans ce cadre, nous intensifions notre action en tant que régulateurs des plus grandes plateformes pour présenter des mesures concrètes visant à assurer le respect des obligations liées au règlement sur les services numériques. Nous agissons sur deux fronts: tout d'abord, un bras préventif, à travers les lignes directrices – les toutes premières dans le cadre formel établi par le règlement sur les services numériques – sur l'intégrité électorale. Ces lignes directrices décrivent concrètement ce que les plateformes doivent faire pour se mettre en conformité, sur ce sujet, avec le règlement sur les services numériques.
               

                  Quatre points sont à noter si vous le permettez.
               

                  D'abord, nous demanderons aux plateformes d'analyser les risques spécifiques au niveau de chaque État membre. Cela implique évidemment la disponibilité de ressources adéquates pour la modération des contenus, avec une capacité aussi, je tiens à le préciser, linguistique locale et une connaissance des contextes spécifiques nationaux.
               

                  Ensuite, les plateformes doivent mettre en place un mécanisme de réponse rapide aux incidents. Cette procédure doit être établie, convenue et testée, notamment par le biais d'exercices de simulation préalables, afin qu'elle puisse être appliquée rapidement et dès que nécessaire.
               

                  Troisièmement, les plateformes doivent prendre en compte les évolutions technologiques et plus particulièrement l'intelligence artificielle, qui constitue un nouveau paramètre à intégrer au cours des élections. Nous demandons aux plateformes de s'assurer que le contenu généré par l'intelligence artificielle – générative, en particulier – soit clairement identifiable, en garantissant que le tatouage numérique (digital watermark) est bien visible. Pour éviter que ces mesures ne soient contournées, les plateformes doivent également prévoir des fonctionnalités qui permettront aux utilisateurs de signaler les hypertrucages – les deep fakes – non encore tatoués et indiqués comme tels. À cet égard, nos lignes directrices ont pu s'inspirer des nouvelles règles novatrices que les colégislateurs ont adoptées dans le cadre de la législation sur l'intelligence artificielle.
               

                  Enfin, quatrièmement, pour prévenir la propagation de la désinformation et la manipulation de l'information sur le processus électoral – nous avons beaucoup d'exemples passés à ce sujet, vous le savez –, les plateformes doivent permettre d'orienter leurs utilisateurs vers des informations officielles en provenance des autorités électorales nationales compétentes.
               

                  Nous offrons aux plateformes ce qu'on appelle un readiness dialogue, soit la possibilité d'échanger avec toutes les équipes qui sont prêtes à leur fournir l'aide nécessaire en vue de garantir qu'elles pourront ajuster leur système à nos exigences. Un projet de lignes directrices sera du reste publié rapidement pour consultation, et j'invite toutes les parties prenantes à apporter leur expertise afin que nous puissions les affiner si nécessaire. Notre objectif est de finaliser ces lignes directrices (guidelines) d'ici la fin du mois de mars pour être prêts, évidemment, avant les élections européennes et avoir des règles et des processus clairs.
               

                  L'autre axe de notre action est le pilier correctif. Nous avons lancé, dans ce contexte, une analyse des risques spécifiques à chacune des plus grandes plateformes dans la perspective des élections, afin de mieux nous préparer et d'anticiper les problèmes. Car, si nous voulons être efficaces, nous devons aussi être précis et ciblés. Les surfaces de risque ne sont évidemment pas les mêmes pour chaque plateforme ni dans chaque État membre. Sur la base des données que doivent nous fournir les plateformes dans le respect de leurs obligations relatives au règlement sur les services numériques ainsi que d'autres indicateurs quantitatifs, nous sommes donc en train de cartographier les domaines dans lesquels notre attention doit être particulièrement forte. Ces analyses de risque nous permettront de surveiller la bonne mise en œuvre par chaque plateforme des obligations qui leur incombent dans le cadre du règlement sur les services numériques. Elles nous permettront de détecter les problèmes, mais aussi d'agir immédiatement et de manière ciblée en cas de besoin.
               

                  Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, dans la phase électorale dans laquelle nous entrons, il ne peut y avoir de demi-mesure. Nous avons mis le cadre juridique en place, et je tiens à saluer ici le travail exceptionnel qu'a fait ce Parlement et la coopération qui a été la nôtre. Je vois un certain nombre des rapporteurs qui ont contribué. Je ne vais pas les citer, mais je les vois, ils se reconnaîtront. Je les remercie et je remercie toute cette maison d'avoir contribué à bâtir un cadre qui est un cadre juridique, le premier au monde, c'est une réalité. Désormais, grâce à vous, grâce aux institutions européennes, grâce à l'Europe, nous avons mis un cadre juridique en place, le premier au monde. Les plateformes ont des responsabilités claires, et, puisque telle a été la volonté des colégislateurs, et donc de l'ensemble de nos concitoyens européens, que vous représentez ici, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, nous n'aurons pas la main qui tremble pour le faire respecter.
               

Arba Kokalari,
för PPE-gruppen. – Herr talman! För snart två år sedan inledde Ryssland sin fullskaliga invasion av Ukraina. Kriget utspelar sig just nu inte bara på marken i Ukraina utan också på internet.
               

                  Ryssland försöker bekämpa våra demokratier i Europa och i västvärlden genom att sprida desinformation på de sociala medierna. Genom falska nyheter och propaganda och hatbrott försöker Ryssland sprida lögner i syfte att stoppa västvärldens stöd till Ukraina. Skulle Putins propaganda få fäste hos oss riskerar den att innebära att Ukraina förlorar kriget och hela Europas fred och frihet står på spel.
               

                  Det här är på riktigt. Nätplattformar som Facebook och Tiktok och X (gamla Twitter) har med EU:s nya digitallag (DSA) fått en juridisk skyldighet att plocka ned den här ryska propagandan och annat olagligt innehåll. Jag är stolt över att ha varit med och tagit fram den här världsunika lagen, och att vi både kan värdesätta de demokratiska fri- och rättigheterna på internet och ta krafttag mot olagligt innehåll och kriminalitet på nätet.
               

                  Men vi ser inte att nätjättarnas åtgärder gör någon skillnad i våra mobilskärmar. De gör för lite. Det vi ser är att plattformarna hellre väljer att fortsätta gynna extremism och polarisering framför fakta och ansvar.
               

                  Om inte nätjättarna tar sitt ansvar så måste EU-kommissionen ta och gripa in och säkerställa att reglerna efterlevs. För ska Ukraina vinna kriget på marken måste vi vinna kriget på internet.
               

Christel Schaldemose,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, in a few months, all the European citizens will go to the voting room and vote in the European Parliament elections. Dear Commissioner Breton, do not let Putin's internet trolls steal the vote.
When social platforms emerged, we were hopeful that they would be a place to connect people across the world. How exciting! We hoped that these new platforms would create new room for democracy, places where people of all kinds shared their thoughts and came together in a greater understanding. Now I often wonder if the technology simply brings out the worst in people.
Fuelled by conflict-loving algorithms, hate speech and disinformation are spreading like wildfire. It is threatening our mental well-being, it is threatening our democracy and it is endangering our fundamental rights. As such, we need a structural solution to these threats. That is why we made the Digital Services Act two years ago, to hold big tech responsible for the spread of hate speech and disinformation on their platforms.
I am so proud of that law. We obliged the platforms to do risk assessments, to counteract disinformation and to stop illegal content. The DSA is adopted, the tools are here and the very large online platforms are identified. Now we need to see the law in action. Everybody has to do their part. The Member States needs to assign the digital services coordinators, and they must provide adequate resources. They do play a crucial role in enforcing the DSA on national level.
The Commission needs to open up investigations when there are signs that social platforms are breaching the DSA rules. Breaches of the rules should be punished and the rules should be enforced thoroughly. The big tech companies need to live up to their obligations under the DSA; they have to adapt their business model to serve democracy, not to undermine it.
Going into the European elections this year, these responsibilities are more important than ever. The European Parliament elections will be the first stress test of the DSA. Now it has to prove its worth. Now all parties to the DSA have to prove their worth.
We count on you in the European Commission, Commissioner Breton. We count on the Member States, and we also count on the big tech companies to do their part. Rest assured that the S&D Group and I will call out anybody that neglects our democratic rules on social platforms. Let us now protect European democracy. We have the tools in place; we just need to start acting.

Sandro Gozi,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, en 2024, tous les indicateurs sont formels: la désinformation, les fausses informations et les hypertrucages risquent d'augmenter de façon exponentielle en Europe et dans le reste du monde. Dans notre lutte contre la désinformation en ligne, les réseaux sociaux non régulés représentent un danger majeur, comme le montrent les récents exemples en Ukraine, à Gaza et lors des différentes élections en Europe.
               

                  Avec le règlement sur les services numériques, nous mettons fin à l'anarchie numérique et nous imposons aux plateformes de prendre enfin toutes leurs responsabilités. Les ingérences et les manipulations de nos processus démocratiques sont inacceptables, et même une seule voix manipulée lors d'une élection est une voix de trop.
               

                  Nous devons assurer une application très stricte et des ressources suffisantes pour les mesures de modération des contenus et pour la transparence des algorithmes. Il est grand temps que les plateformes changent leur modèle économique pour respecter nos principes et nos valeurs.
               

                  Pour plus de transparence et une meilleure protection des données à caractère personnel, nous allons également adopter des règles plus efficaces sur la publicité politique en ligne à la fin du mois. Notre but est clair. Liberté d'expression ne signifie pas droit à la viralité de tout contenu faux, violent ou manipulé. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Nous voulons plus de transparence pour tous les acteurs capables d'avoir une influence sur une élection, sur un processus démocratique, que ce soient des candidats, des influenceurs, des partis politiques, des associations, des entreprises ou autres.
               

                  Les élections européennes représentent le premier test pour nous tous. Nous devons le réussir.
               

Alexandra Geese,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! 2024 ist ein Superwahljahr. Am 9. Juni ist Europawahl, und deswegen bin ich dem Kommissar sehr dankbar, dass er heute schon die Maßnahmen vorgestellt hat, mit denen die Kommission die Europawahl auf der Grundlage des DSA schützen will.
               

                  Desinformation und Hass und Hetze dominieren aktuell die sozialen Netzwerke. Erst vor wenigen Tagen hat in Deutschland das Auswärtige Amt eine riesige russische Desinformationskampagne auf X aufgedeckt – 50 000 gefälschte Accounts, die mit einer Million Tweets die deutsche Öffentlichkeit im Zwei-Sekunden-Takt überschwemmt haben.
               

                  Deswegen ist es sehr gut, dass die Kommission an Maßnahmen arbeitet und diese konsequent umsetzt. Aber es reicht noch nicht; sie bleiben noch an der Oberfläche, denn das eigentliche Problem ist das Geschäftsmodell der sozialen Netzwerke. Das basiert nämlich darauf, Menschen so lange wie möglich auf Plattformen zu halten, um ihnen viel Werbung zeigen zu können. Menschen bleiben länger, wenn sie interagieren, also Inhalte teilen oder kommentieren. Und das funktioniert leider am besten mit Inhalten, die Angst oder Wut auslösen.
               

                  Angst und Wut löst man am einfachsten aus mit Lügen, Desinformation, Hass und Hetze. Das erkennen die Algorithmen, die deshalb solche Inhalte viel höher ranken, sie also viel schneller an mehr Menschen ausspielen. Das nennt man interaktionsbasiertes Ranking, und das ist der Grund, warum Internetinformation keine Chance gegen Desinformation hat und positive Berichterstattung keine Chance gegen Hass und Hetze. Und das ist das, was wir ändern müssen.
               

                  Das fließt auch in die Presse rein, die mit reißerischen Titeln Desinformationsnarrative dann in die breite Bevölkerung trägt. So kommt es zu einer gefährlichen Verzerrung. Themen werden nicht mehr nach gesellschaftlicher Relevanz gesetzt, sondern nach dem Prinzip der Profitoptimierung von Digitalplattformen.
               

                  Interaktionsbasiertes Ranking muss enden – und zwar vor der Wahl. Denn Demokratie lebt davon, dass Wählerinnen und Wähler sich frei informieren können, anstatt von Desinformation, Hass und Hetze überschwemmt zu werden.
               

Adam Bielan,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Żyjemy w erze niezwykle szybkiego rozwoju technologii cyfrowej, przede wszystkim internetu, z którego to większość obywateli, a na pewno zdecydowana większość młodych ludzi, czerpie dzisiaj głównie informacje. To oznacza duże wyzwania, które stoją przed nami, przede wszystkim dotyczące dezinformacji w przestrzeni internetowej.
               

                  Ja doceniam te zagrożenia. Dokładnie rok temu, 9 lutego, w tej Izbie zorganizowałem dużą konferencję na temat putinowskiej, rosyjskiej dezinformacji, wspólnie z ministrami ds. cyfryzacji z Polski i Ukrainy.
               

                  Ale walcząc z patologiami, nie możemy wylać dziecka z kąpielą. Apeluję o to, aby pamiętać, że fundamentem demokracji jest przecież wolność słowa. Wolności słowa musi towarzyszyć odpowiedzialność. Stąd duża potrzeba edukacji naszych obywateli. Ale nie możemy doprowadzić do nieuzasadnionej cenzury lub ograniczenia wolności wypowiedzi.
               

                  Opowiadam się za jasnymi i spójnymi standardami moderowania wypowiedzi. Jako współsprawozdawca aktu o usługach cyfrowych, tzw. DSA, walczyłem o to, żeby kreować bezpieczniejszy, bardziej przejrzysty internet, tak aby nie dawać platformom internetowym, dużym platformom internetowym, mediom społecznościowym, pretekstów do usuwania treści.
               

                  Apeluję do Państwa, aby tego, co dobrego uchwaliliśmy w DSA nie wykorzystywać przeciwko wolności słowa. Jestem zaniepokojony niektórymi pomysłami dotyczącymi odebrania anonimowości internautom. Takie pomysły rozważa część z frakcji politycznych. Uważam, że to może doprowadzić do bardzo niebezpiecznej cenzury. A wolność słowa, powtarzam, jest wielką wartością w internecie i wielką wartością w demokracji.
               

Virginie Joron,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, le plus gros fake, c'est d'avoir cru que ces nouvelles législations du numérique allaient protéger notre marché intérieur des poupées gonflables chinoises défectueuses ou des fausses Rolex des Philippines. En effet, depuis le rachat de Twitter par Elon Musk, c'est devenu l'obsession principale de la Commission, qui veut absolument nous protéger du Grand Méchant X.
               

                  Il y a quelques jours, Mme von der Leyen déclarait à Davos que la principale préoccupation pour les deux prochaines années n'était pas le conflit ou le climat, mais la désinformation ou la mésinformation, et que cela constituait sa priorité depuis le début de son mandat, avec la législation sur les services numériques et la définition de la responsabilité des grandes plateformes Internet quant aux contenus qu'elles promeuvent et propagent, déclarations appuyées par Emmanuel Macron en Suède.
               

                  Donc, exit le climat, exit les conflits armés, exit les pandémies, et haro sur la désinformation, ce mal du siècle qui, selon vous, a engendré le Brexit, Donald Trump et, pourquoi pas, le référendum de 2005.
               

                  L'année 2024 est une année importante, comme vous l'avez dit, où la moitié du monde sera appelée à voter, à exprimer son choix, même quand il déplaît au camp du bien. Le camp du bien, c'est ceux qui décident de mettre en place dans cette enceinte démocratique un cordon sanitaire contre ceux qui ne se rangent pas derrière la droite, Macron, les socialistes, les verts ou la gauche, ce petit monde merveilleux qui se remet des prix du meilleur député.
               

                  La liberté d'exprimer son opinion, finalement, c'est cette information que vous ne maîtrisez pas et qui vous gêne, sous couvert de lutter contre la désinformation ou de contenus illicites. Un parti politique, un discours différent sur la COVID-19 ne vous convient pas? Illico c'est la censure.
               

                  La chute du mur de Berlin en 1989 marquait la chute du régime communiste en Europe, avec son cortège d'outils de propagande. Trente-cinq ans après, vous reprenez ces mêmes recettes staliniennes avec ce nouveau ministère de la vérité pour contrôler le récit politique et la censure 4.0. Big Brother is watching you.


Clare Daly,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, our media and our social media is awash with hate speech and disinformation. Israeli officials are on air and online every day, spewing out the vilest, most despicable hate speech. Silicon Valley tech investors and the Israeli Government conspire in WhatsApp groups to shut down pro-Palestine voices online, and to work their contacts to set online narrative for Israel.
But, of course, the Commission is not talking about the responsibility of platforms or the responsibility of anyone to do anything about any of that. Hate speech, interference: it's only a problem when our lords and masters say that it's a problem.
The Israelis have called for targeting the entire Gaza population and are causing severe epidemics to break out. They've called Palestinians ‘human animals’. The children shouldn't be there. This is hate speech. It's disinformation and there's pages of it. It spews out unchecked on all channels daily.
And it has incited a genocide – a genocide that the Commission, the Council and a large majority in this Parliament are all in lockstep behind. So really it is an irony and a bit of a cheek that you come in here and pretend to care about hate speech and disinformation, when you clearly don't. The sanctimonious lies, the hypocritical keening over our values: it doesn't fool anyone anymore. The Emperor has no clothes!

Lívia Járóka (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az a gyűlöletkeltés, ami 20 éve nyitott, ritkán moderált fórumokon, az internet rejtett zugaiban volt jelen, manapság már nyílt Facebook-csoportokban és moderálatlan tweetekben zajlik a világ leglátogatottabb közösségi portáljain. Ennek a gyűlöletnek a hatásait pedig nem csak az online formában érzékeljük. Azzal, hogy online, szabadon, kvázi anonim módon gyűlölködhetnek az emberek, a személyes kapcsolatokban is eltörlődtek ezek a gátlások, mely a rasszizmus és a szexizmus rapid népszerűsítéséhez vezetett. A szabályozás pedig mit sem tudott evvel eddig mit kezdeni. Tavaly több rasszista indíttatású tüntetés került megrendezésre Európa-szerte, amely olyan félelmet keltett egyes kisebbségek tagjaiban, hogy nem mertek aztán az utcára menni, félve, hogy őket is meghurcolják.
               

                  A nők helyzete ugyanúgy kényes az online szférában, mikor a világ egyik leggazdagabb nőjéről nyíltan, órákon keresztül terjengenek mesterséges intelligenciával készült, kreált, obszcén képek. Akkor mit tehet egy átlagos nő? Sokszor úgy érezzük, hogy semmit. Köteleznünk kell tehát a platformokat arra, hogy zéró toleranciát engedjenek a gyűlöletnek, és szigorúbb szabályokat vezessenek be.
               

Andreas Schwab (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bestimmte Formen von Social Media sind eine Gefahr für unsere Kinder, wie wir in der vergangenen Woche bei einer Anhörung mit Autorin Silke Müller wieder zu Ohr bekommen haben. Das Grundproblem ist altbekannt, aber trotzdem waren die Teilnehmer der Veranstaltung ein Stück weit erschüttert, weil wir gehört und gesehen haben, wie leicht wirklich brutale und gefährliche Inhalte für unsere Kinder zugänglich sind.
               

                  Gleichzeitig, Herr Kommissar, erleben wir russische Desinformationskampagnen auf X – zahlreiche gefälschte Konten versuchen dort, deutsche Bürger gegen die Ukraine aufzustacheln. Hassreden und Desinformation haben im Internet nichts zu suchen. Mit dem Gesetz über digitale Dienste wollen wir genau das abstellen.
               

                  Deswegen müssen Kommission und Mitgliedstaaten aber jetzt auch liefern, Frau Ratspräsidentin! Die Kommission rekrutiert doch immer Mitarbeiter, um die neuen Aufgaben bewältigen zu können – wir hoffen, dass dies bald vollständig gelingt. Bis jetzt haben aber nur acht Mitgliedstaaten ihre nationalen Koordinierungsstellen benannt, und das Gremium zur Koordinierung und Unterstützung der gemeinsamen Untersuchungen fehlt noch.
               

                  Hier gibt es noch viel zu tun, wenn wir wollen, dass die Europawahlen am 9. Juni korrekt und richtig stattfinden können.
               

Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Iċ-ċittadini Ewropej ser ikunu qegħdin isemmgħu leħenhom fl-elezzjonijiet f'Ġunju li ġej sabiex jagħżlu r-rappreżentanti tagħhom f'dan il-Parlament.
               

                  U mhijiex sorpriża li d-diżinformazzjoni u d-diskors ta' mibegħda jinsab fuq ir-radar ta' kulħadd, speċjalment minħabba li splodew fuq livelli online, f'livelli mingħajr preċedent kemm waqt, kif ukoll wara l-pandemija.
               

                  Mhux se tkun l-ewwel darba fejn atturi barranin u malizzjużi użaw informazzjoni qarrieqa bħala arma u, permezz ta' programmi awtomatizzati bħal bots, jipproduċu narrattivi diviżivi fid-diskors pubbliku. Ixerrdu l-biża', jimmanipulaw l-opinjoni pubblika u jqarrqu l-fiduċja fl-istituzzjonijiet demokratiċi tagħna.
               

                  Il-ġlieda kontra d-diskors ta' mibegħda u d-diżinformazzjoni, u r-responsabbiltajiet tal-pjattaformi soċjali ser tkun sfida ewlenija għas-soċjetà demokratika tagħna u test għat-tħejjijiet tal-elezzjonijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
               

                  Dan il-Parlament stabbilixxa standard globali ġdid bl-Att dwar is-Servizzi Diġitali, b'miżuri speċifiċi u obbligi aktar stretti fuq kumpaniji bħal Meta, TikTok u X għat-tixrid tal-miżinformazzjoni. L-ittri u t-twissijiet tal-Kummissjoni lil TikTok u Meta, u l-investigazzjoni fuq X jagħmluha ċara illi għandna l-għodod it-tajba sabiex insolvu, sabiex nindirizzaw dawn il-problemi gravi. Però biex din taħdem sew, madankollu, neħtieġu infurzar b'saħħtu u rapidu, u sanzjonijiet immedjati jekk il-pjattaformi ma jikkonformawx. Neħtieġu wkoll restrizzjonijiet fuq l-algoritmi illi jirrakkomandaw il-kontenut li jippromwovu jew jagħmlu d-diżinformazzjoni jew diskors ta' mibegħda aktar viżibbli.
               

                  Fl-aħħar nett, pjattaformi online kbar għandhom ipoġġu aktar riżorsi fl-eliminazzjoni ta' bots li jxerrdu d-diżinformazzjoni, jidentifikaw awturi malinni u fabbriki ta' trolls, u jintensifikaw il-kooperazzjoni mal-verifikaturi tal-fatti u r-riċerkaturi.
               

Róża Thun und Hohenstein (Renew). – Koleżanki i Koledzy, chciałabym skupić się na hejcie. I bardzo konkretnie. Tutaj mówimy głównie o skutkach politycznych tego hejtu. Oczywiście nie zapominajmy o tym, co dotyka szczególnie młodzież na skutek hejtu: samobójstwa, depresje, samookaleczenia i mnóstwo innych dramatów. A konkretnie, cytuję: ‘mam nadzieję, że takich Niemców jak ty, Thun, będziemy mogli pozabijać bezkarnie, zdrajców niemieckich’. I taki post wisi sobie bezkarnie w sieci. Jest dezinformacją, bo ani nie jestem Niemką, ani nie jestem zdrajcą. Nienawiść uderza nie tylko we mnie, ale uderza w cały naród i jątrzy w stosunku nie tylko do osób poszczególnych, ale do całego narodu. I nic z tym się nie da zrobić, bo bardzo trudne, albo niemożliwe jest, żeby znaleźć autora.
               

                  Wszyscy mówimy tu o zbliżających się wyborach. Wybory to czas wzmocnionych emocji i wzmocnionych, często emocjonalnych, dyskusji. I niestety w czasie kampanii wyborczych wzmaga się fala hejtu i często populistycznej, kłamliwej argumentacji. Tak, hejt sam w sobie jest podłością, ale brak akcji ze strony platform odpowiedzialnych, brak akcji ze strony prokuratury jest, jak zresztą wspominałyście, Koleżanki, zagrożeniem dla zdrowego funkcjonowania społeczeństwa i dla demokracji. Musimy tutaj podjąć o wiele więcej aktywności.
               

Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, how do big platforms make money? Well, they sell ads, or rather, they do everything they can to keep us all glued to our screens for as long as possible so that they can sell more ads and keep their shareholders and investors happy. They use multiple addictive design tools to do so, but their main money-maker is their hyper-personalised algorithm, based on clicks, interaction and tracking.
You might ask why this algorithm is addictive. Well, it shows you content that agitates you, content that makes you feel emotional and angry. Every time you scroll down, you will see something that gives excitement to your brain. In short, big tech algorithms are designed to show you extreme content; middle-ground content where people have a middle-of-the-road opinion simply doesn't do the trick.
This is where big tech companies are shaking the hands of Putin's disinformation tactics and far right campaigns. These algorithms are rapidly pushing people, and especially youngsters, into extreme content and far right or misogynist posts. We see a rise in hate, both online and offline, against activists, women, the queer community and journalists, and we see more and more distrust in democratic institutions.
With the EU elections upcoming, the EU can no longer be naive. We urgently need action to protect our democracies. That's why I call on you, Commissioner, to make sure these platforms turn off these polarising algorithms, either with an update to the code of conduct or with a crisis measure, because our democracy and these elections are too important to be based on what makes the most profit for big tech companies. We need to protect our democracy.

Beata Mazurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! W wolnej Europie nie ma miejsca na cenzurę. Jestem głęboko zaniepokojona tendencją do narzucania ograniczeń wolności słowa pod płaszczykiem walki z nielegalnymi treściami w internecie. Koncepcja mowy nienawiści ma swoje korzenie w totalitarnych reżimach, jak w Związku Sowieckim, gdzie służyła jako narzędzie uciszania opozycji politycznej. Dziś widzimy, jak ten sam mechanizm jest wykorzystywany przez niektóre siły polityczne do eliminacji konkurencji i zdławienia dyskusji politycznej.
               

                  Osobiście tego doświadczyłam. Mnie i moim kolegom z ECR odebrano immunitet za to, że polubiliśmy post naszego ugrupowania politycznego w mediach społecznościowych, na którym w jasny sposób zobrazowano agresję i zagrożenia stwarzane przez nielegalnych imigrantów dla mieszkańców całej Unii Europejskiej.
               

                  Czy wyobrażacie sobie Państwo, że za polajkowanie wpisu, który atakuje wartości chrześcijańskie, konserwatywne czy Kościół katolicki, zostaje komuś z tej Izby odebrany immunitet? Oczywiście, że sobie tego nie wyobrażacie, bo atak na te wartości jest w modzie dla europejskiej lewicy. Nie pozwólmy więc, aby wolność słowa została zdeptana przez europejskich neomarksistów, którzy chcą narzucić nam swoją wizję świata.
               

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident! Während Corona haben wir deutlich gesehen, wie vom Mainstream abweichende Meinungen als Hass und Hetze diffamiert und in den sozialen Medien rigoros zensiert wurden. Dass sich diese Meinungen dann später größtenteils als korrekt erwiesen haben – man denke nur an den angeblichen Fremdschutz der Impfung oder den angeblichen Nutzen von Masken –, zeigt doch deutlich, dass es dem Staat nur um die Deutungshoheit ging, um die menschenverachtenden COVID-Maßnahmen rechtfertigen zu können.
               

                  Die Lehre daraus sollte sein, die Meinungsfreiheit zu stärken, Zensur zu unterbinden und staatliche Fake-News-Kampagnen zu bekämpfen. Die aktuelle Situation in Deutschland zeigt derzeit aber genau in die andere Richtung. Die antidemokratischen Bestrebungen der Regierung werden sogar noch intensiviert. Regierungsdemonstration gegen die Opposition auf Basis einer von der Regierung angefachten Fake-News-Kampagne – so etwas gibt es nur in totalitären Systemen.
               

                  Unterstützt wird das durch die Regierungssender ARD und ZDF, die auf diesen Demos schon mal über 100 Mal angebliche zufällige Demoteilnehmer interviewten, die sich dann als Vertreter der Regierungsparteien entpuppten. Dieses antidemokratische Vorgehen beweist einmal mehr, wie wichtig soziale Medien in der heutigen Zeit sind, wo sich Bürger unabhängig informieren können. Und genau deswegen bekämpft die Kommission die Meinungsfreiheit auf den Plattformen durch den Digital Services Act. Der Digital Services Act gehört deshalb genauso umgehend abgeschafft wie der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk in Deutschland.
               

Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, društvene mreže su, nažalost, jedino mjesto u današnjem svijetu gdje građani mogu čuti istinu i činjenice.
               

                  U mainstream medijima, pogotovo u Europskoj uniji, apsolutno je nemoguće pronaći bilo koju istinitu činjenicu koja ne odgovara vladajućoj kliki odnosno BlackRocku koji, ja vjerujem, da i upravlja ovom Europskom unijom koja je postala jedna gomila i velika hrpa laži.
               

                  Vi sada želite uvesti najstrožu cenzuru na društvene medije, a upravo tamo su bile informacije i tijekom pandemije covida-19 koje su spasile milijune života, dok su se tijekom te iste pandemije isključivo laži i neistine plasirali građanima, zbog kojih su milijuni ljudi izgubili vlastiti život.
               

                  Ne cenzuri, ne Sovjetskom Savezu i ne komunizmu!
               

Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner and minister, the Digital Services Act has been crucial in making the digital transition one that respects the law and fundamental rights that we uphold in the non-digital world. This is all the more important in a time of increasing conflict around the globe and, indeed, as so many colleagues have said, with so many elections this year – at least 70 around the world.
We've all seen the impact of the rise in hate speech and disinformation online; parents worried about whether their children are safe online. I've seen the enormous work done by Jackie Fox after the death of her daughter, resulting in a law called Coco's Law in Ireland. And we now have a similar law in the Directive on violence against women.
Incitement of fear and hate among communities, entire elections being decided on the basis of untrue or inaccurate information. No country allows the right to free speech override provisions on incitement to hatred. It should be no different online.
There are excellent provisions but, of course, they have to be implemented. And I welcome what the Commissioner had to say today. Administrators now have to ensure that these provisions are fully implemented and enforced. The law must not only be upheld; it must be seen to be upheld.
After the dreadful riots in Dublin before Christmas, the Irish Government contacted all online platforms about their obligations to remove illegal content under the DSA. Online hate speech and virulent disinformation played a big role in the outbreak. We all have a responsibility to change this.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario Breton, uno de los objetivos proclamados de esta legislatura —y ahora decimos que uno de los logros— era la Agenda Digital, con una ley europea de servicios digitales orientada a imponer obligaciones y responsabilidades a las plataformas en línea, incluidas las redes sociales —Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter—, para que remuevan contenidos ilícitos en la medida en que sus algoritmos induzcan al discurso del odio, al crimen del odio y a la violencia de odio contra individuos, contra grupos, contra minorías o categorías enteras de personas. Pero también, tal y como se puso de manifiesto en la Comisión Especial sobre Injerencias Extranjeras en Todos los Procesos Democráticos de la Unión Europea, en particular la Desinformación (INGE), cuando interfieran en procesos electorales amenazando la integridad de los valores democráticos que la Unión Europea tiene la obligación de defender.
               

                  Y esto es lo que hemos visto a través de la misinformation, la malinformation o la disinformation, que producen un daño serio, grave, severo a la integridad y a la credibilidad de los procesos democráticos.
               

                  Y ahora que están cerca las elecciones europeas del 9 de junio, es imprescindible que completemos esta Agenda Digital con todas las medidas que no pasan solamente por la autorregulación de las plataformas en línea ni por la alfabetización digital, ni por el Derecho penal en el caso de las violaciones, sino también por una verdadera estrategia de ciberdefensa de la democracia, que la Comisión Europea tiene la obligación de compartir con este Parlamento Europeo para que las elecciones no solamente sean elecciones participativas, sino absolutamente creíbles sin ninguna interferencia, sin ninguna injerencia de ninguna potencia extranjera.
               

Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, dear Minister, dear Commissioner, I think today we have to speak about mitigating the risk about deepfakes. And of course – of course – we have to criminalise the sharing of deepfake videos of Taylor Swift. We have to oblige creators of deepfake videos to put a label there.
But the only way to tackle real – real – threats to our democracy and security is to put obligations on platforms, just like we ask platforms to tackle illegal content, IP infringements, spam, botnets, terrorist content and much more. And rightly so. But no obligations were set for platforms when it comes to deepfakes.
Two years ago, we had a great opportunity to oblige Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, et cetera to detect and to watermark and label deepfake videos on the platform, so citizens at least know when a deepfake goes viral that it's not real. My amendments on this made it to Parliament's negotiating position, and thank you for that, rapporteur Christel Schaldemose, but it didn't make it to the final position of the law. The big tech lobby won. And I'm very disappointed about that. Two years ago, one might say, ‘Deepfakes – is that a real life problem?’ But in 2024, we see daily deepfake scams and it's rising fast and we need best-effort obligations for platforms to detect deepfakes and to label it as an obligation for them. Put it in the code of practice, or legislate before real and existential accidents occur to our democracy and security.

Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, permítame compartir tres informaciones que he encontrado en plataformas en línea.
               

                  La primera: las placas solares son una bomba de efecto retardado que estallará cuando dentro de unos años se conviertan en residuo. Segunda: al acercarse a una mujer, sepan que es más efectivo menospreciar la ‘presa’, no halagarla. Y es que el body count de las mujeres pasado su prime las hace de ‘poco valor’. Y tercera: para informarse, el 39 % de los jóvenes lo hacen directamente desde las redes sociales.
               

                  De estos tres enunciados, solo uno es verdadero, el último. Y este es precisamente el problema: misoginia, negacionismo histórico y climático y xenofobia encuentran en ciertas plataformas un territorio fértil.
               

                  El espacio digital no puede estar fuera de las normas democráticas que ponemos para cualquier otro espacio de convivencia. Por eso le pedimos a la Comisión valentía, para que instrumentos como la Ley de Servicios Digitales se puedan aplicar. Y es que en cada fake news que se difunde estamos perdiendo una batalla democrática.
               

Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, Facebook, Google, Amazon i sve druge društvene platforme trebali bi imati iste uvjete poslovanja kao i svi drugi mediji i trebali bi osigurati ista prava svim korisnicima.
               

                  Dakle, ne bi se smjelo događati da nekim korisnicima blokiraju ili ograničavaju račune jer se kao protive pravima zajednice, a da to ne čine drugima koji objavljuju slične sadržaje.
               

                  Dakle, time bismo se mi danas trebali baviti u ovoj raspravi, no čini se da ipak prevladava želja za cenzurom. Ne daj Bože da kažeš nešto protiv zelenog plana ili promjene spola ili protiv homoseksualnog lobija. Odmah bi to proglasili govorom mržnje i dezinformacijama, sve kako bi te uklonili iz javnog prostora.
               

                  A tko određuje što je to dezinformacija ili govor mržnje? U Hrvatskoj to čine upravo oni koji su stotinama puta plasirali laži i nesnošljivost prema drugima.
               

                  Dakle, apeliram, nemojte se boriti protiv slobode mišljenja i govora, jer sloboda u konačnici uvijek pobjeđuje.
               

Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, collega's, jullie willen dat Facebook en andere sociale media censuur toepassen op internet. Dat is om twee redenen onaanvaardbaar. Bij mijn weten hebben Facebook en co geen rechterlijke bevoegdheid en niemand weet precies wat desinformatie of haatspraak is. Er dreigt dus willekeur.
               

                  Waarom gebeurt dit alles? Omdat de gevestigde partijen hun mediamacht ondergraven zien door de komst van de sociale media waar iedereen zijn mening kan uiten. Daarom willen jullie de mensen uit de brede maatschappelijke oppositie de mond snoeren. Sterker nog, jullie plannen een procedure tegen X van Elon Musk, het vroegere Twitter, omdat die niet meegaat in jullie plannetjes, en jullie bedreigen hem met monsterboetes.
               

                  Het lijkt hier de EUSSR wel, waarin een heuse Pravda de enige echte waarheid mag verkondigen. Wij roepen de kiezers dan ook op om zich bij de komende verkiezingen hiertegen te verzetten. Vrije meningsuiting is een fundamenteel recht in onze democratie.
               

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, prema posljednjim podacima Eurostata, 75 % građana u Europskoj uniji obavlja kupovinu putem interneta. U takvim okolnostima prodaja opasnih proizvoda kao što su neprovjereni lijekovi i krivotvoreni proizvodi, širenje nezakonitog sadržaja poput onog kojim se krše prava intelektualnog vlasništva, terorističkog sadržaja ili pak govora mržnje stvarnosti su s kojima se svakodnevno suočavamo. Poseban problem predstavlja učestala pojava lažnih informacija koje se nekontrolirano šire internetom.
               

                  Primjera je mnogo, a ovi nedavni uključuju lažne tvrdnje o izraelskim raketiranjima civila i bolnica u području Gaze. Zato moramo smanjiti izloženost građana lažnim informacijama i istovremeno povećati razinu sigurnosti potrošača uspostavom jasnih pravila o uklanjanju nelegalnog sadržaja s interneta.
               

                  Važno je stoga da smo donošenjem Akta o digitalnim uslugama osigurali visoku razinu zaštite za sve europske potrošače te prisilili internetske platforme da uklone nezakonite sadržaje, ali i zabranili ciljano oglašavanje prema maloljetnicima kao najranjivijoj društvenoj skupini.
               

                  Osim toga, Aktom o digitalnim uslugama obvezali smo internetske platforme i da detaljno provjere trgovce čije proizvode nude na svojim stranicama, što je izrazito važno za potrošače.
               

                  Kolegice i kolege, dobro je da danas raspravljamo o Aktu o digitalnim uslugama jer ono što se počelo primjenjivati u kolovozu na velike internetske platforme, za deset dana počinje se primjenjivati i na sve ostale internetske platforme.
               

                  Ključno je zato da sada osiguramo ispravnu primjenu ovog zakona i onemogućimo da dezinformacije i teror ugroze sigurnost naših građana, kako na internetu tako i izvan njega.
               

Katarina Barley (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Hass tötet. Hass tötete die Ärztin Lisa-Maria Kellermayr sowie viele andere Opfer, weil sie die Online-Bedrohungen und die Gewalt nicht mehr aushalten und sich das Leben nehmen. Bei einem Anschlag in Halle wurden Jana Lange und Kevin Schwarze getötet. Der rechtsextreme Anschlag galt der jüdischen Synagoge – die Tür hielt stand. Der Täter, ein Rechtsextremer, filmte alles mit einer Helmkamera.
               

                  Desinformation ist ein klarer Angriff auf unsere Demokratie, die derzeit von allen Seiten angegriffen wird. In Deutschland versuchten 50 000 russische Fake-Accounts mit der Verbreitung von Falschinformationen auf X, die deutsche Regierung zu destabilisieren.
               

                  Die EU muss handeln. Zu lange haben die Täter den Raum bekommen, ihren Hass und ihre Falschinformationen insbesondere im Netz ungestört zu verbreiten. Im Kampf dagegen ist das Gesetz über digitale Dienste, der DSA, ein starkes Schwert. Dieses müssen wir jetzt auch einsetzen – zum Schutz der Demokratie und zum Schutz ganz konkret von Menschenleben.
               

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, ‘il y aura un avant et un après les attaques du Hamas sur les réseaux sociaux’, a déclaré le commissaire Breton. Car oui, le temps où les grandes plateformes déclinaient toute responsabilité sur ce qui circule sur les réseaux est révolu. Les discours de haine, les fausses informations, les contenus à caractère terroriste n'ont tout bonnement pas leur place sur des réseaux que nous fréquentons quotidiennement, comme des millions de citoyens, y compris nos enfants.
               

                  L'Europe n'a pas édicté de simples recommandations ou de simples bonnes pratiques aux plateformes, elle a posé des règles claires et contraignantes en matière d'obligation de modération des contenus et de retrait des contenus illicites. L'Europe n'a pas fait de simples lettres de réprimande, elle a ouvert des enquêtes formelles contre X. Demain, les sanctions et les amendes tomberont.
               

                  C'est donc à prendre ou à laisser, si ces plateformes veulent continuer à diffuser sur le marché européen, auprès de 450 millions de citoyens. Elon Musk peut continuer à crier à la censure. Il peut continuer à licencier toutes ses équipes de modération. X comme toutes les autres plateformes devront se conformer aux obligations européennes, pour protéger les citoyens.
               

                  Non, l'Europe ne faiblira pas face à la hausse alarmante de la désinformation, qui prospère en ligne et qui est le cheval de Troie de nos opposants en amont des élections européennes et américaines. Ce ne sont pas des milliardaires installés en Californie ou des oligarques russes qui décideront de notre vie et de notre futur à nous, les Européens.
               

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, self-regulation is a concept that has proven a spectacular failure in many industries in the last decades. Only if all market actors are equally forced or motivated by the state to improve their product, at the cost of their profits, only then they will do it. It is therefore no surprise that companies with billions of users are cutting their disinformation-related staff and expenditure, and continue to profit from disinformation through engagement.
Our citizens, only months before the European elections, have the choice between several US and Chinese social media apps that will flood them with conventional and now also AI-generated disinformation.
As lawmakers, we have failed to hold these online giants to account. If the DSA should have a value after all, let it be the knowledge to the next legislature that self-regulation is self-delusion.

Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, desinformatie, het nieuwste stopwoordje van de links-liberale gevestigde orde. Oorspronkelijk ging het hier om de strijd tegen buitenlandse inmenging. Nu gaat het om de strijd tegen onwelgevallige meningen van de eigen burgers.
               

                  Merk je op dat de bevolkingssamenstelling in Europa de afgelopen vijftig jaar nogal is veranderd? Desinformatie. Merk je op dat het uitgeven van duizenden miljarden euro's aan klimaatbeleid niet eens een meetbaar effect heeft? Desinformatie. De links-liberale gereedschapskist zit vol met dit soort termen. Altijd is er sprake van eenrichtingsverkeer. Het gaat niet om echte desinformatie, maar om het bestrijden van alles wat tegen het eigen wereldbeeld ingaat. Censuur dus.
               

                  Nu dreigt de Europese Commissie de Orwelliaanse digitaledienstenverordening in te zetten om Elon Musks platform X de nek om te draaien. Maar als dat gebeurt, is onze democratie het grootste slachtoffer. Vrijheid van meningsuiting is niet alleen een recht, het is een plicht en een noodzaak voor onze gezonde democratie. Zij die de democratie claimen te beschermen, dragen haar ten grave.
               

Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, après le débat rituel d'hier sur la Hongrie, nous tenons aujourd'hui notre débat sur Twitter, que l'Union européenne a dans le viseur depuis son rachat par Elon Musk et la levée de la censure qui y sévissait.
               

                  Je parle de Twitter, car même si notre débat d'aujourd'hui concerne l'ensemble des réseaux sociaux, tout le monde comprend très bien lequel est visé. La preuve, ce débat aborde les problèmes que posent les réseaux sociaux exclusivement sous un angle politique et orienté. Rien sur le temps passé par les utilisateurs en ligne, rien sur l'isolement dans des bulles cognitives, rien sur la course au buzz ou à l'immédiateté de l'information.
               

                  La seule chose dont vous parlez, c'est la lutte contre les discours haineux et la désinformation, c'est-à-dire en clair contre les opinions politiques qui ne vous plaisent pas. Le discours de haine est une notion, importée tout droit des États-Unis, qui est totalitaire, arbitraire et idéologique. Totalitaire car c'est criminaliser une émotion. On ne criminalise pas une émotion, nous ne sommes pas des robots. M. le commissaire Breton voudrait-il, demain, criminaliser l'amour? Qu'est ce qui est bien? Est-ce que j'aime? Est-ce que je n'aime pas? Est-ce que j'ai le droit? Est-ce que je n'ai pas le droit? Mais on criminalise pas une émotion, ça ne se fait pas. Nous ne sommes pas des robots, comme je le disais. Arbitraire car les sentiments sont totalement subjectifs. Idéologique car, bien sûr, c'est le pouvoir qui dictera, selon sa propre idéologie, ce que les autres ont le droit ou non de penser, avec des différences de traitement évidentes.
               

                  Par exemple, quand des médias ou des individus écrivent que les villes européennes sont trop blanches – et attention, c'est le journal Politico qui l'avait déjà titré ainsi –, cela ne vous pose aucun problème. Mais dire l'inverse serait considéré comme haineux et illégal.
               

                  Il en va de même de la désinformation devenue hautement politique et qui ne concerne plus seulement les faits, mais les opinions ou les interprétations qui posent un problème à l'Union européenne. Car sur le terrain des faits, tous vos reproches s'effondrent. Les retraits de fausses informations ont lieu même après le temps nécessaire à la vérification, et l'essentiel des reproches de la Commission européenne tient à ce que Twitter refuse dorénavant la censure. A priori, je rappelle enfin…
               

(Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur)


Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege, Sie haben schon nicht mehr das Wort.
               

                  Monsieur Lacapelle, ich rufe Sie zur Ordnung und bitte Sie, Ihre Rede einzustellen. Es bleibt ohnehin der Nachwelt verborgen, weil es nicht gedolmetscht wird. Monsieur!
               

                  Herr Kollege Lacapelle, ich erteile Ihnen einen zweiten Ruf zur Ordnung. Nehmen Sie bitte Platz! Das geht nicht.
               

                  Ce n'est pas possible. Qu'est-ce que vous faites? Ce n'est pas possible. C'est inacceptable. Asseyez-vous. Asseyez-vous. Asseyez-vous.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ein Parlament ist ein Ort der freien Rede – die freie Rede ist sogar durch zahlreiche Vorkehrungen geschützt. Und dennoch – wenn man die Regeln bricht, wird der Präsident hier im Parlament jemanden zur Ordnung rufen; wir haben das gerade eben jetzt erlebt. Und würde ich jetzt noch schimpfen und streiten gegen andere, dann wäre der Ordnungsruf wahrscheinlich noch viel schärfer. Und das ist es auch, was die Meinungsfreiheit in unseren Gesellschaften hochhält: dass es selbstverständlich Regeln gibt.
               

                  Denn die Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der anderen. Die Freiheit ist die des anderen, die eigene Meinung zu sagen. Und das hochzuhalten, das bedarf Grenzen für diejenigen, die verbale Gewalt anwenden. Denn Meinungsfreiheit ist nicht das Recht des Stärkeren. Meinungsfreiheit bedeutet, einander zuzuhören oder zumindest jenen Raum zu geben, die möglicherweise eine andere Meinung haben.
               

                  Hass, Hassverbrechen im Internet, wie es sie in der realen Welt kaum gibt, weil dieser Hass im Internet, in einem anonymen Rahmen oder in einem physisch distanzierten Rahmen verbreitet wird – das gehört abgestellt, dem gehört Einhalt geboten, um die Meinungsfreiheit hochzuhalten, um die Meinungsfreiheit zu verteidigen.
               

                  Und ehrlich gesagt: Wir Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier sind nicht die ersten Betroffenen davon, wenn es Hassverbrechen gibt, sondern diejenigen, die sich nicht wehren können, die keine Öffentlichkeit haben, die nicht diese gewalttätige Sprache anwenden; die sind betroffen, und für die bekämpfen wir Hassverbrechen.
               

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, não me surpreende que a extrema direita venha aqui a este debate tentar negar as evidências, mas a verdade é que as redes sociais se estão a tornar num mundo fora da lei, onde se multiplicam as páginas e os perfis falsos, circulam campanhas de desinformação e se difundem mensagens intoleráveis, discursos de ódio, racistas e xenófobos.
               

                  E sim, muitas dessas ações são concertadas por grupos ligados a movimentos populistas de extrema direita, que enganam a opinião pública, alimentam tensões sociais e atacam as instituições democráticas.
               

                  Devemos responder certamente com campanhas de informação e com pedagogia junto dos cidadãos. Mas isso não basta.
               

                  É preciso que a Comissão Europeia e os Estados-Membros obriguem as plataformas digitais a cumprir o recentemente aprovado Regulamento dos Serviços Digitais, eliminando as informações que violam os direitos fundamentais e põem em causa a nossa democracia.
               

                  Os serviços digitais não podem continuar um mundo fora da lei.
               

Anna Júlia Donáth (Renew). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Ne tagadjuk, valósak azok a gazdasági és társadalmi problémák az Európai Unióban, melyek a populisták előretöréséhez vezettek. Ezekre a problémákra valódi válaszokat kell adnunk, hiszen tudjuk, hogy a populisták nem rendelkeznek valódi válaszokkal. Ehelyett a dezinformáció és a gyűlöletkeltés egyszerű, de mérhetetlenül kártékony eszközeivel élnek. Ezért nem lehet eléggé komolyan venni a dezinformáció és a gyűlöletbeszéd terjeszkedését. Ahogy azt sem lehet eléggé komolyan venni, hogy az óriás techcégek felelőssége mekkora ebben, mekkora a hazugságok és a gyűlöletkeltés terjedésében.
               

                  Képviselőtársaim! Hatalmas felelősségünk van abban, hogy felhívjuk a választóink figyelmét arra, hogy az adataik védelme a döntésük szabadságának a záloga, és hatalmas a felelősségünk abban is, hogy ne engedjük a populistáknak elsilányítani a szólás szabadságának értékét és védelmét. Nem engedhetjük meg nekik, hogy egy ilyen fontos európai érték mögé bújva uszíthassanak és kelthessenek gyűlöletet nap mint nap. Ezért arra kérem Önöket, európai döntéshozókat, hogy legyenek még szigorúbbak az európai és a világ technológiai óriáscégeinek szabályozásában. Ne hagyják, hogy ezek a vállalatok európai társadalmakat szétszakíthassanak és ezeken nyerészkedhessenek.
               

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Lisa-Maria Kellermayr war Ärztin in Österreich – jetzt ist sie tot. Nicht wegen einer physischen Einwirkung, sondern wegen Bits and Bytes, wegen Worten, wegen des Hasses. Während der COVID-Epidemie warb sie für Impfungen und erntete eine regelrechte Hasslawine im Internet. Sie nahm sich daraufhin aus Verzweiflung das Leben.
               

                  Menschen werden Menschen hassen – daran wird sich auch künftig nichts ändern. Aber Netzplattformen bündeln den Hass, befeuern den Hass und bringen ihn zu uns nach Hause. Das machen sie zum Geschäftsmodell und machen daraus Geld.
               

                  Viel zu lange haben wir mit naivem Blick zugeschaut. Mit dem DSA haben wir einen richtigen Schritt in die richtige Richtung gemacht, und mit dem neuen KI-Gesetz haben wir auch die Deepfakes adressiert. Sie müssen jetzt, wenn sie generiert sind, gekennzeichnet werden.
               

                  Und Medienkompetenz: Sie muss genauso gestärkt werden wie die Zivilcourage, auch online. Schaffen wir eine Kultur der digitalen Zivilcourage!
               

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Internet stał się dzisiaj głównym miejscem debaty publicznej. Media społecznościowe przestały być tylko źródłem rozrywki, ale stały się przestrzenią wyrażania poglądów, źródłem informacji oraz narzędziem komunikacji między politykami a obywatelami. Nikt nie ma wątpliwości, że treści propagujące łamanie prawa czy nawołujące do tego powinny być usuwane. Jednak pod pretekstem walki z tzw. mową nienawiści często mamy do czynienia ze zwalczaniem poglądów, opinii czy przekonań niezgodnych z narracją, jaką chce Europie narzucić lewica we wszystkich możliwych kwestiach, zaczynając od definicji rodziny, przez zagrożenia związane z nielegalną imigracją, aż po ochronę klimatu. Próba cenzurowania czy ograniczania wolności słowa to zawsze krok w kierunku osłabienia demokracji i wartości, na których się ona opiera. W taki sposób zarządzają internetem państwa autorytarne, usuwając i blokując treści, które nie są zgodne z główną linią ideologiczną władzy. Unia Europejska nie może stosować podobnych metod.
               

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Monsieur le Président, il y a quelques semaines, le groupe ‘Identité et démocratie’ proposait de remettre le prix Sakharov de la liberté d'expression à Elon Musk. Son nom n'a pas été retenu par les autres groupes politiques. Nous n'en sommes pas surpris, mais c'est bien dommage, car le combat du patron de Twitter en faveur de la liberté d'expression ne nous a jamais semblé aussi nécessaire.
               

                  Aujourd'hui, dans les institutions européennes, la liberté d'expression est le premier des droits que la Commission veut abattre au sein des États membres. La liberté d'expression semble absolument insupportable à certains d'entre vous comme aux partis qui en sont le relais dans ce Parlement. Je veux évidemment parler, pour les Français, des républicains, des socialistes et des amis d'Emmanuel Macron. Vous défendez la liberté d'expression à la seule condition qu'elle soit cantonnée à la diffusion de vos opinions. Sinon, au mieux nous sommes des idiots, au pire nous sommes des personnes dangereuses.
               

                  J'allais même dire que beaucoup de discours haineux et de désinformation qui pulluleraient d'après vous sur les réseaux sociaux n'ont rien à envier aux discours que nous entendons ici. Souvent d'ailleurs, la traduction légale de vos excès de langage déroge aux principes les plus élémentaires de la constitution des États membres. Car avant le règlement sur les services numériques, il y avait eu en France sa matrice idéologique, la loi Avia des amis de M. Macron, qui a été largement invalidée par le Conseil constitutionnel le 18 juin 2020.
               

                  Dans un Parlement européen où l'on entend certains affirmer au sujet des affaires étrangères qu'il faudrait mettre sous surveillance une partie de nos collègues, il y a de quoi s'inquiéter. C'est un véritable totalitarisme soft que nous sommes en train d'imposer dans cette assemblée.
               

Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, sociálne siete sú primárnym zdrojom informácií najmä pre mladých ľudí a tie zaznamenali celkový nárast podielu v mediálnom priestore o 11 % len za posledný rok. Je preto nevyhnutné, aby tak, ako existujú kontrolné mechanizmy a postihy pre šírenie nenávisti a falošných správ vo fyzickom a verejnom priestore, aby tomu tak bolo aj v online priestore.
               

                  Je dobré, že po veľkých platformách nadobudne akt o digitálnych službách účinnosť konečne aj pre všetky platformy. Dotkne sa tak mnohých oblastí online sveta, ako sú online trhoviská, webhostingové služby, cloudové služby, vyhľadávače a platformy sociálnych médií. Občanom a používateľom internetu to prinesie najmä väčšiu kontrolu nad sledovaným obsahom či ochranu detí pred online nezákonným obsahom. Pre spoločnosti je výhodou právna istota, jednotný súbor pravidiel v celej Únii či jednoduchšie začatie a rozšírenie podnikania v Európe. Pre našu spoločnosť tak získame väčšiu ochranu demokracie cez zmiernenie systémových rizík, ako sú manipulácia alebo dezinformácie.
               

                  Nedovoľme, aby slobodné rozhodovanie občanov v nadchádzajúcich voľbách zamorili nedemokratické živly. Boj proti dezinformáciám bude pre demokraciu stále dôležitejší.
               

Ibán García Del Blanco (S&D). – Señor presidente, la libertad de expresión no ampara la práctica deliberada de desinformación. No ampara la profusión de contenidos nocivos ponzoñosos para personas vulnerables y para menores. No ampara la utilización de ningún espacio para el azuzamiento del odio contra minorías y contra personas que también están en situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
               

                  Después de años de descontrol en el entorno de las redes sociales, las democracias hoy tienen algunas enfermedades que provienen de aquellos momentos. Ahora estamos reaccionando con normas como la de Ley de Servicios Digitales, pero también con normas como la Ley de Libertad de Medios, que ampara realmente lo que está protegido por la responsabilidad editorial, que es el periodismo de verdad, así como con la Ley de Inteligencia Artificial, contra los contenidos creados con inteligencia artificial y utilizados deliberadamente para desinformar.
               

                  Las democracias se tienen que defender. Y las democracias se defienden con leyes que son aplicables en igualdad para todos y aplicables también por los tribunales, en última instancia, que son un control público democrático. Yo recomiendo mucho echar un vistazo a la última comisión en Estados Unidos de las grandes plataformas, en la que niegan su responsabilidad. Pero sí la tienen, y tenemos que hacérsela asumir.
               

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, dezinformácie na sociálnych sieťach sú reálnym ohrozením demokracie. Varujú nás pred tým odborníci, ale aj sú si toho plne vedomí aj občania. A skutočne slobodné voľby a skutočne slobodná kampaň v demokratickej spoločnosti sú bez manipulácie a lží. Nesmieme zabudnúť na to, aké dôsledky mali podobné manipulácie a podobné lži pred 100 rokmi na tejto Európe. A teraz ich neprinášajú anonymné pamflety, ale prinášajú ich sociálne médiá. Preto je nástup deepfake videí taký desivý, pôsobia reálne a pritom sú to lži.
               

                  Zo skúsenosti z nedávnej predvolebnej kampane na Slovensku vám môžem povedať, ako sa taký deepfake diskreditujúci jedného z lídrov volieb a bývalých podpredsedov tohto Parlamentu navyše počas moratória dostal k státisícom voličov, čím zasiahol do volieb.
               

                  Darmo svetové médiá ako CNN prichádzajú na Slovensko robiť reportáže a bijú na poplach. Sociálne siete, kde sa deepfake šíril, reagovali nezodpovedne a povrchne. A vyšetrovatelia? Podľa slovenských orgánov vraj obsahu videa nikto príčetný neverí.
               

                  Preto, vážený pán komisár, občania vám to hovoria jasne: zasahujte, vymáhajte a efektívne postihujte manipulácie a ich šíriteľov, pretože inak na to doplatíme všetci vrátane našej slobody a demokracie.
               

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Nazischlampe, Kriegstreiberin, Kriminelle – das ist nur eine kleine Auswahl, wie wir als Politikerinnen oft im Netz tituliert werden. Auf der individuellen Ebene sind diese Kämpfe nicht zu gewinnen. Aber auf der größeren Ebene, wenn Hass, Hetze und Desinformation direkt unsere Demokratie und unsere Wahlen angreifen, dann müssen wir uns wehren.
               

                  Und die Plattformen, die gegen unsere Demokratie eingesetzt werden, müssen auch bereit sein, Fakten bzw. freie Wahlen zu verteidigen. Während der Corona-Krise haben die Plattformen bewiesen, dass sie sehr wohl die Bedeutung von Faktenchecks und die Bekämpfung von Desinformation erkannt haben. Gleichzeitig haben wir gesehen, welche verheerenden und tödlichen Auswirkungen ihre fahrlässige Untätigkeit haben kann.
               

                  Kurz vor den Europawahlen können sich die Plattformen nicht aus ihrer Verantwortung stehlen; sie müssen zeigen, dass sie den Ernst der Lage erkannt haben. Sie dürfen sich nicht zum Handlanger der Antidemokraten machen, die unsere Demokratie abschaffen wollen. Selbst mit dem DSA sind viele Lügen immer noch legal. Aber wir können entscheiden, welche Forderungen wir stellen und was wir von den Plattformen erwarten.
               

                  Unser Kampf für Freiheit und Sicherheit in Europa ist eine Schlacht, die wir online und offline gewinnen wollen.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, bajo la expresión ‘discursos de odio’ se esconde la mayor operación de censura de la historia moderna. Teoría crítica de la raza, cancelación cultural, memoria histórica e ideología de género son los cuatro jinetes de su apocalipsis woke, una distopía horrible donde la libertad de expresión, pensamiento y opinión son aniquiladas. Ahora utilizan a los gigantes tecnológicos como instrumentos de su censura a cambio de mantenerles o permitirles mantener su modelo de negocio consistente en expoliar nuestra experiencia, convertirla en datos y enriquecerse con ellos.
               

                  Es tan demencial que han convertido en odio la verdad. Es odio decir que España liberó a los pueblos autóctonos de América de imperios antropófagos como el de los aztecas o los incas. Es odio recordar que el 80 % de las detenciones en Barcelona en 2022 y 2023 fueron de población extranjera. Es odio afirmar que se promueve una sustitución demográfica. Es odio proclamar la injusticia de que varones que dicen sentirse mujeres contiendan con ellas en competiciones deportivas, privándoles de los títulos que merecen.
               

                  La biología, la historia, la sociología y la antropología han sido secuestradas por su ideología, y ello nos lleva al abismo de las peores dictaduras del pensamiento.
               

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin


Geoffroy Didier (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, en 2024, ce sont plus de 4 milliards d'êtres humains dans le monde qui sont appelés aux urnes pour décider du sort de leur nation. Si les résultats de certaines élections sont déjà connus à l'avance, comme en Russie, d'autres pays sont heureusement plus libres de leur destin. En juin prochain, 400 millions d'Européens, dont 45 millions de Français, vont s'exprimer dans le cadre des élections européennes.
                  

                     Nous le savons: la liberté des citoyens à décider pour eux-mêmes est désormais mise à l'épreuve. Elle est mise à l'épreuve par des puissances étrangères qui veulent décider à notre place, par des officines privées qui sont sans scrupules et par des extrémistes qui combattent le principe même de démocratie. Ils utilisent tous les mêmes armes – les réseaux sociaux – comme armes destructrices.
                  

                     Grâce au règlement sur les services numériques, première régulation au monde des réseaux sociaux, grâce à la nouvelle législation sur l'intelligence artificielle, nous commençons à nous armer contre la désinformation la plus grossière, celle qui, par de fausses vidéos, de fausses images, détourne, trompe, arnaque les esprits. Ces agissements ne sont pas de l'influence, non. Ils ne sont pas non plus de la liberté. Bien au contraire. Ils sont une insulte à ce que nous sommes: des hommes et des femmes qui voulons garder la maîtrise de notre destin. Albert Camus écrivait: ‘Vivre en homme libre, c'est refuser d'exercer et de subir la terreur.’ Le voilà, le défi que nous allons devoir relever, certes dans les prochains mois, mais aussi bien au-delà.
                  

Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Der Digital Services Act und der Digital Markets Act sind Meilensteine, globale Meilensteine im Kampf gegen Hassreden und Desinformation. Die Europäische Union geht hier voran und schafft das erste weltweite Regelwerk, um Onlineplattformen endlich in die Verantwortung zu nehmen. Mit diesen Vorschriften wird auch dieser rechtsfreie Raum, dieser Wilde Westen im digitalen Bereich endlich beendet, nach dem Prinzip: Was im echten Leben offline illegal ist, muss auch im digitalen Raum illegal sein.
                  

                     Plattformen werden verpflichtet, illegale Inhalte, Hassreden, Desinformation und Fake News zu bekämpfen und zu löschen. Aber jetzt, mit diesem Gesetz, müssen wir auch die Plattformen dazu bringen, dass sie dieses Gesetz nicht ignorieren, sondern auch handeln, dass sie die Vorschriften auch streng anwenden, und wenn nicht, auch unsere Gerichte diese Plattformen verurteilen und sie dazu zwingen, dass sie rechtskonform handeln.
                  

                     Denn die Realität zeigt: Fake News nehmen zu. Künstliche Intelligenz gibt noch eines drauf, und wir müssen schauen, dass hier endlich wieder Gesetzlichkeit und Recht herrschen.
                  

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Veliko nas, ki smo zdaj tu v tej dvorani, si je prizadevalo za to, da je nastala res dobra, zgodovinska zakonodaja pravil na spletu. In je.
                  

                     A v praksi stvari ta hip niso tako optimistične. Spletne platforme se še vedno niso prilagodile. Upam sicer, da se bo do spomladi, ko ta zakonodaja začne delovati v celoti, to spremenilo. Ampak, kako je v praksi zdaj?
                  

                     Zdi se, da se na spletnih platformah še vedno odstranjujejo tiste vsebine, ki bi morale ostati, tiste, ki bi jih pa res morali umakniti, pa ostanejo. Druga težava je, da diskriminacija med uradnimi jeziki Evropske unije ostaja.
                  

                     Praktično edini jezik, kjer moderiranje vsebin kolikor toliko deluje, je angleščina. Za mojo slovenščino, recimo, so nadzor, procesiranje zahtev in izpolnjevanje te zakonodaje pomanjkljivi. Tudi na tem mestu zato res prosim Komisijo, naj takšne diskriminacije spletnim platformam ne dovoli.
                  

                     Posledice vpliva spletnih platform so vedno bolj očitne. Vdori v zasebnost prek ciljnega oglaševanja, depresija med mladimi, širjenje sovraštva in dezinformacij – nič od tega ne pojenja, kvečjemu je še slabše. Žal. Na spletu so se ustvarili ideološki mehurčki, narašča polarizacija. Zdi se, da so socialna omrežja postala antisocialna.
                  

                     Namesto soočanja s temi težavami pa se platforme odgovornosti raje izognejo. V času, ko je – hočemo, nočemo – splet vedno večji del našega sveta, se moramo vprašati, kakšen svet si želimo. Jaz si takšnega, kjer so ljudje depresivni in zmanipulirani, vse zgolj za dobičke iz oglaševanja spletnih velikanov, ne želim.
                  

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, X, formerly Twitter, is no longer a leftist safe space for woke snowflakes. It's a bastion for free speech, just as Elon Musk promised. But the EU's new Ministry of Truth, spawned by the Digital Services Act, pursues censorship of free speech. The Sweden Democrats saw this coming and voted against the DSA Regulation.
The EU censorship tsar – you, Commissioner Breton – threatened X with multi-billion euro fines if illegal content is not removed, including documentation of Hamas's barbaric murders, kidnappings and rapes of Israelis: graphic, monstrous evil content. Supporters of the Islamic death cult dismissed these atrocities as lies. But I wonder: if the world does not witness Hamas atrocities, how can it confront such wilful ignorance? Don't fear free speech. Embrace it!

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, dámy a pánové, podle zprávy Světového ekonomického fóra o globálních rizicích na rok 2024 je právě tím největším globálním rizikem, které se dá očekávat, šíření dezinformací. A jsou to právě sociální platformy, kde lidé žijí, kde získávají informace. Většina hlavních digitálních platforem neprovádí opatření, ke kterým se dobrovolně zavázala v kodexu zásad boje proti dezinformacím. To alespoň vyplývá z přezkumu evropské sítě pro ověřování faktů. A bohužel se tedy ukazuje, že tento dobrovolný rámec nefunguje, a proto jsem velmi ráda, že máme DSA, tedy tento náš evropský zákon, do kterého vkládáme velké naděje, že bude vymáhán a že bude závazný právě pro velké digitální platformy. A proto si vážím kroku Evropské komise, která zahájila řízení s platformou X a chce prosadit její odpovědnost podle DSA.
                  

                     Je třeba konat v zájmu demokracie a v zájmu bezpečnosti občanů. A když tady někdo hovoří o svobodě, tak svoboda ano, ale také zodpovědnost. Zodpovědnost za to, co se pak děje. Ochrana bezpečí dětí. Běžte to vysvětlovat potom rodičům dětí, které páchají sebevraždu. Takže pane Musku, pane Zuckerbergu – odpovědnost.
                  

Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, falamos muito sobre as plataformas e sobre os que promovem o discurso de ódio e a desinformação online, mas não podemos esquecer que estes fenómenos não afetam todos por igual.
                  

                     Tal como no mundo offline, as vítimas são normalmente os mais vulneráveis e os que não se podem defender. É por isso que temos números como este: uma em cada dez mulheres na União Europeia já foi vítima de ciberviolência, uma situação favorecida pelo anonimato que protege os detratores.
                  

                     Certo, este tipo de conteúdos garante muitas visualizações e interações às plataformas e é, portanto, um dos seus elementos mais rentáveis. Mas não podemos permitir que se faça do ódio um modelo de negócio.
                  

                     É preciso que nos mantenhamos unidos na União Europeia, na garantia de um espaço digital seguro, mais transparente, que proteja os direitos fundamentais e contribua para a democracia, em vez de contribuir para a sua destruição.
                  

                     Prevenir estes ataques em vez de remediar o que muitas vezes já não tem remédio é mesmo o que tem de acontecer.
                  

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here and the rapporteur on the Digital Services Act. With the Digital Services Act, we oblige platforms to fight hate speech and disinformation, to protect our democracy, information and debate online.
The horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel and the war in Gaza has put that promise to the test and, as it stands, we are failing. The prioritisation of speed over accuracy has meant legitimate content has been removed, while hate speech slips through. Pro-Palestinian views have de facto or ‘de algorithm’ been censored. A platform's choice in detection systems has resulted in overzealous detection of Arabic-language hate speech, while leaving detection of Hebrew-language hate speech inaccurate. Since 7 October, we have also seen an avalanche of disinformation – the use of AI-generated content, and misrepresentation of images from other conflicts to garner support.
We are tested in times like these. Platforms cannot rely on algorithms alone, because remember, platforms do not understand context. Platforms need to make sure that they have both the staff and the technical means to run their services responsibly. We demand responsibility by design in the online platforms. A swift and forceful enforcement of the DSA is the only way to fulfil the promise to our population that they can trust their online democracy and media.

Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! ‘Mowa nienawiści’ to termin kontrowersyjny. Jest pojęciem niejednoznacznym, które może być interpretowane subiektywnie, a dodatkowo wpisanym w kontekst polityczny.
                  

                     Obserwujemy przypadki ograniczania przy jego użyciu podstawowych praw i wolności, w tym fundamentalnego prawa do swobodnej wypowiedzi i prawa do krytyki. Po upadku komunizmu i, jak się wydawało, odejściu w niepamięć wszechobecnie towarzyszącej mu cenzury powraca ona w jeszcze niebezpieczniejszej formie.
                  

                     Jaki cel bowiem realizują postulaty penalizacji mowy nienawiści? Istnieją w kodeksach przepisy, które zapewniają ochronę osobom dotkniętym nienawiścią. Przepisy te obejmują ochronę wszystkich, a więc także np. osób z odmienną orientacją seksualną.
                  

                     Chodzi więc nie o ochronę, a o stworzenie narzędzia do walki z przeciwnikami politycznymi, których chce się zdyskredytować. Posługując się szlachetnymi hasłami, wpływowe mniejszości polityczne dążą do tego, by reszta świata bała się mówić, co myśli, nazywać rzeczy po imieniu, ujawniać niewygodne fakty.
                  

                     Dzisiaj to nie mniejszości są zagrożone, ale swoboda debaty publicznej. Skandaliczne i symptomatyczne jest w tym zakresie straszenie Twitterem, zakazem działania w Unii Europejskiej.
                  

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, свободата на словото и изразяването е свързано и с отговорността да не се допуска в общественото пространство реч на омраза, призиви за насилие и дезинформация в подкрепа на престъпни идеологии като националсоциализма и комунизма. Знам, че за някои колеги може би ще е изненада да чуят, че свободата на словото не включва свободата да лъжеш и разпространяваш омраза и дезинформация в полза на диктатори или на комунизма, нацизма и носталгията по тях.
                  

                     Демокрацията има нужда от ефективна, силна имунна система срещу това и Европейският акт за цифрови услуги е една част от тази система. За пореден път в пленарната зала тук повдигаме въпроса относно отговорността на платформите в борбата срещу езика на омразата и дезинформацията. И за съжаление, за пореден път се налага да отбележим, че тези компании не са взели необходимите мерки, за да ограничат разпространението на пропаганда, омраза и лъжи. Войната на Путин срещу Украйна и терористичните атаки на Хамас срещу Израел са съпътствани от стратегии за дезинформация и разпространение на пропаганда в подкрепа на Кремъл, на тероризма, на антисемитизма и дискриминацията като цяло. В района на Западните Балкани, и България включително, има постоянно разпространение на съдържание, което предизвиква носталгия към престъпните комунистически режими, Съветския съюз и сегашния режим в Москва.
                  

                     Въпреки усилията на гражданите за отбелязване и докладване на такъв тип съдържание, често платформите се крият зад своите кодекси на поведение или общностни стандарти, или с други думи – техните собствени критерии. В резултат на това съдържание много групи и профили, които явно подкрепят режими и действия, които Европейският съюз определя като престъпни, продължават да бъдат, да съществуват и масово да се разпространяват. Приканвам Комисията и платформите да спазват новото законодателство и да работят за освобождаването на онлайн пространството от пропаганда, дезинформация и език на омразата.
                  

Marina Kaljurand (S&D). – Euroopa Liit tegi ajalugu, kui võttis vastu digiteenuste akti. Esmakordselt maailmas reguleeriti digiplatvormide tegevust võitluses vihakõne ja valeinformatsiooniga. Tehti oluline samm selles suunas, et kõik, mis on ebaseaduslik tegelikus maailmas, on ebaseaduslik ka digimaailmas. See on oluline lubadus meie inimestele – digiteenuste tarbijatele. Te olete ühtemoodi kaitstud nii päris kui ka digimaailmas. Euroopa Liidu Põhiõiguste Ameti aruanne märgib, et võitluse vihakõne vastu teeb keeruliseks see, et Euroopa Liidus puudub ühtne vihakõne mõiste. Jätkuvalt levib netivägivald, mille peamised ohvrid on lapsed, vähemused ja naised, ka naised poliitikas. Samuti on puudulik inimeste ja töötajate väljaõpe, kes netipostituste sisu modereerivad. Selles osas on liikmesriikidel suur töö veel vaja ära teha. Ma tahaksin tunnustada komisjoni: eelmise aasta lõpus algatas komisjon digiteenuste akti raames esimest korda formaalsed protseduurid firma X (endise Twitteri) vastu. See on oluline samm, et hinnata platvorm X tegevust, aga ka analüüsida laiemalt digiteenuste rakendamist, sest praktika otsustab selle, kas digiteenuste akt jääb ainult poliitiliseks sõnumiks või kaitseb ta meie kodanikke netimaailmas ka lähenevatel Euroopa Parlamendi valimistel.
                  

Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Rutgers University in den USA hat vor Kurzem eine Studie vorgestellt, die zeigt, dass TikTok systematisch Inhalte reduziert oder weniger ausspielt, die nicht den Interessen Chinas entsprechen – Inhalte, die über die Uiguren informieren, über Unterstützung für die Ukraine und auch Unterstützung für Israel.
                  

                     Das ist sehr besorgniserregend, denn unsere Debatten, gerade bei jungen Menschen, werden über TikTok geprägt. Aktuell warnt die Bildungsstätte Anne Frank davor, dass auf TikTok Speed-Radikalisierung von Jugendlichen zu Antisemitismus stattfindet. Das ist wirklich besorgniserregend.
                  

                     Nutzen wir die Regeln, die uns der Digital Services Act in diesem Zusammenhang gibt! Schaffen wir tatsächlich Transparenz darüber, ob TikTok diese Inhalte systematisch reduziert bzw. auch zu Radikalisierung beiträgt! Diese Möglichkeiten haben wir.
                  

                     Herr Kommissar, ich fordere Sie auf, dass wir, sobald der DSA in Kraft tritt, diese Regeln jetzt auch anwenden, insbesondere bei TikTok.
                  

Magdalena Adamowicz (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Kto z nas chciałby żyć w miasteczku na Dzikim Zachodzie, zastraszonym przez bandytów, bez żadnego prawa, rządzonym przez nietykalnego bogacza, który robi, co chce? Nikt. To dlaczego wszyscy godzimy się, żeby świat wirtualny, w którym spędzamy już jedną trzecią naszego życia, był takim Dzikim Zachodem? Dlaczego godzimy się, żeby w takim świecie dorastały nasze dzieci? W świecie, w którym właściciele platformy zarabiają fortuny na promocji przemocy, najobrzydliwszych patotreści, pornografii bez ograniczeń wiekowych, kłamstw, hejtu i teorii spiskowych. A my pozwalamy im zarabiać na promocji tego czystego zła, bo obiecali, że pomogą ofiarom tego zła. To tak, jakbyśmy w życiu realnym pozwalali dealerowi sprzedawać narkotyki, bo ten obieca, że pomoże potem osobom uzależnionym. Przecież to czysty absurd.
                  

                     Ten internetowy Dziki Zachód zdążył zniszczyć setki tysięcy osób, w tym dzieci, a także zagroził demokracji, stając się idealnym narzędziem antydemokratów. Czas, żeby to, co jest nielegalne offline, było też nielegalne online. Bo choć to wielkie bezprawie jest wirtualne, to jego ofiary są bardzo realne.
                  

Paul Tang (S&D). – Madam President, disinformation is a serious threat to the European elections. And Big Tech facilitates it. It not only disseminates disinfo, but also amplifies it through content-recommender algorithms.
The algorithms make it a small step from following conservative news to conspiracy theories, and are vulnerable to foreign interference from pro-Kremlin actors. Already, this House called on Commissioners Verstager and Breton to support the Irish regulator that wants to turn off profiling by these algorithms by default. I am happy to hear whether Commissioner Breton supports the Irish regulator.
Today I am forced to take it a step further. In the absence of the political ads framework, I asked the Commission to trigger Article 36 of the DSA, the crisis response mechanism, during the elections. Will the Commission temporarily halt content-recommender systems which profile individuals to prevent amplification of disinformation? Act now to preserve the integrity of our democratic elections.

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, colleagues, the Digital Services Act will create a safer digital space in which all users are protected. And I look forward to its full commencement on 17 February. It will protect against hate speech and disinformation and protect our democracies. It will hold online platforms accountable so that our democracies can be a marketplace of ideas.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Irish Constitution and vindicated in Irish courts. In the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, Ireland ranked second in the world. The great Irish leader, Daniel O'Connell, said almost 200 years ago, ‘I am the friend of liberty in every clime, class, colour and creed’. In 2024, almost 200 years later, it is, incredibly, even more important than ever to protect that same liberty. Last November, as buses burned in the centre of Dublin city, an individual sought out foreigners to attack. Rapid dissemination of inflammatory content online became a catalyst for real-world violence.
However, I am conflicted about Ireland's own hate speech legislation. On the one hand, Elon Musk says he will fund a legal challenge to the proposal, which in my book means it must be very good. On the other hand, our existing incitement to hatred legislation is barely enforced, and the Digital Services Act surely changes everything. So I would encourage the Irish Government to carry out an urgent review of the proposal in light of the forthcoming commencement of the Digital Services Act.

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Była tu już mowa, że samo pojęcie mowy nienawiści powstało w Związku Sowieckim już w latach 40-tych. Wtedy komuniści wykorzystywali to pojęcie do walki ideologicznej z przeciwnikami politycznymi reżimu. Widzimy, jak dziś po ten sowiecki wynalazek ochoczo sięga współczesna neomarksistowska lewica.
                  

                     W tej Izbie byliśmy tego świadkami, jak lewicowa większość zagłosowała za odebraniem immunitetu moim koleżankom i kolegom, za polajkowanie postu pokazującego prawdziwą sytuację związaną z agresją i przestępczymi działaniami nielegalnych imigrantów. Czy za chwilę standardem będzie wysyłanie do więzień ludzi, którzy powołują się w internecie na prawo naturalne czy chrześcijaństwo? Już dziś w Europie toczą się procesy sądowe za cytowanie Biblii.
                  

                     Walka z nienawiścią, z hejtem, terroryzmem w internecie nie może być przykrywką do walki z rozumem i zdrowym rozsądkiem. To jest mechanizm, który nieuchronnie zmierza do zamykania ust przeciwnikom politycznym, który w oczywisty sposób ogranicza jedną z podstawowych wolności, jaką jest wolność słowa. Dlatego w tej Izbie musi wybrzmieć bardzo mocno: stop dla cenzury w internecie.
                  

Antonius Manders (PPE). – Voorzitter, collega's, commissaris, desinformatie is een bedreiging voor onze maatschappij en ik zal zo direct aan het einde van mijn betoog vertellen waarom.
                  

                     Platforms zijn verantwoordelijk voor hun content. Zij verdienen er geld aan. Ik kan me herinneren dat Mark Zuckerberg op 31 januari zijn excuses aanbood in de Senaat voor de valse content op zijn platforms. Maar het is heel makkelijk om excuses aan te bieden.
                  

                     Ik wil u vragen, commissaris, om in het volgende werkprogramma van de Commissie op te nemen om aan de digitaledienstenverordening ook een stukje strafrecht toe te voegen, zodat de eigenaren van platforms die valse content of schadeveroorzakende content versturen, persoonlijk strafrechtelijk aansprakelijk zijn. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat Mark Zuckerberg alles zal doen om uit de gevangenis te blijven en dus zijn platform zo helder mogelijk te maken.
                  

                     Je mag veel geld verdienen in deze maatschappij, maar je moet ook verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor wat de actie en de handelingen die je verricht om dat geld te verdienen, teweegbrengen.
                  

                     Vorige maand organiseerde een collega van ons, Pascal Arimont, een bijeenkomst met de titel ‘Wij verliezen onze kinderen’. Ik heb beangstigende filmpjes gezien en op platforms waar kinderen die bizarre filmpjes bekijken, circuleren ze volop. Het gaat over het doden van mensen. Het gaat over het doden van dieren. Die kinderen zien dat. Die filmpjes hebben een hele slechte invloed. Dat betekent: als die kinderen groot zijn, hebben wij een slechte maatschappij. Dus wij moeten zorgen dat die desinformatie van de platforms verdwijnt.
                  

Josianne Cutajar (S&D). – President, Kummissarju u kollegi, importanti li nitkellmu fuq id-dibattitu tal-lum. Ejjew ma nissottovalutawx l-effetti tal-lingwaġġ ta' mibegħda u d-diżinformazzjoni online.
                  

                     Dawn jheddu s-sigurtà tad-demokrazija u s-saħħa mentali taċ-ċittadini tagħna. Joħolqu diviżjonijiet profondi u perikolużi fis-soċjetà. Ir-retorika ta' mibegħda, li ħafna drabi tkun ġejja mid-diskriminazzjoni, razziżmu, omofobija u misoġinija, taffettwa wkoll il-benesseri taċ-ċittadini, filwaqt li d-diżinformazzjoni timmina l-kapaċità tagħhom li jieħdu deċiżjonijiet infurmati u bbażati fuq il-fatti.
                  

                     Jeħtieġ li nutilizzaw l-għodod u r-regoli kollha disponibbli biex il-pjattaformi soċjali jinżammu responsabbli. L-Att dwar is-Servizzi Diġitali, li fih assigurajna regoli dwar il-moderazzjoni tal-kontenut fuq il-pjattaformi, irid jiġi applikat b'mod rigoruż. Għalhekk, nilqa' l-isforzi tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea biex tinforza d-DSA anke permezz ta' proċeduri formali kontra pjattaformi soċjali rinomati.
                  

                     Nagħlaq billi nappella lill-Istati Membri kollha biex jiffinalizzaw il-proċess ta' implimentazzjoni fil-ħin. Għax wara kollox, dan hu obbligu lejn iċ-ċittadini tagħna.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, las grandes plataformas digitales venden audiencias agrupadas a las que dirigir, con la máxima eficacia, los mensajes publicitarios de sus clientes. Para agruparlas necesitan nuestros datos personales. Por eso, diseñan algoritmos que potencian los mensajes extremos, la polarización y la desinhibición, que lo cuentan todo sobre cada usuario.
                  

                     En ese terreno pantanoso, en los megatráficos basados en mentiras, nacen —además de jugosos dividendos— las corrientes de fondo que desprestigian nuestro modelo de vida y de convivencia, nuestra democracia y las políticas que nos mantienen como referente de paz, de justicia social y de progreso en el mundo.
                  

                     El problema está, en consecuencia, en la base, en el modelo de negocio. Por eso, esas plataformas no firman códigos de buenas prácticas y van desmantelando —o congelando— el desarrollo de los mecanismos con los que deberían controlar la difusión entre sus usuarios de los mensajes de odio, la quintaesencia de la polarización.
                  

                     El Reglamento de Servicios Digitales, que entrará en vigor en diez días, tiene que ser nuestra vacuna digital contra este estado de cosas. Necesitamos una apuesta tecnológica para desenmascarar y combatir, en igualdad de armas, la siniestra programación que favorece esos tráficos, y una cibereducación que denuncie este juego, genere anticuerpos contra la mentira y trabaje contra las adicciones digitales.
                  

                     Apostemos también por la promoción de contenidos digitales contrastados, capaces de competir con la glorificación algorítmica del disparate y que nos ayuden a reflotar y prestigiar el periodismo, la profesión que más sufre con estas reglas del juego.
                  

Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, a Internet é cada vez mais um espaço onde os jovens interagem, brincam, aprendem e descobrem. Neste espaço rico em oportunidades, os perigos são também abundantes. Entre eles, contam-se o cyberbullying, a exposição a conteúdos ilegais e as tentativas de manipulação e doutrinamento.
                  

                     Sabemos que as redes sociais são um palco preferencial daqueles que se dedicam a promover o discurso de ódio. São utilizadas como holofote por extremistas e populistas em vários países. Estes estão a começar a atrair eleitorado jovem através destas plataformas.
                  

                     A Internet deve ser um espaço tendencialmente livre, mas seguro, através da Lei dos Serviços Digitais. A União Europeia foi pioneira na adoção de um regulamento que procura responder a estes desafios, nomeadamente proibindo a publicidade dirigida a menores, tornando ilegal a utilização de dados sensíveis, tais como orientação sexual, religião e etnia, prevendo multas para as grandes plataformas, impondo a remoção de conteúdo e, no limite, suspendendo serviços.
                  

                     Mas devemos manter-nos prontos a atuar para prevenir e combater abusos.
                  

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsednica! Spoštovani visoki zbor! Danes si življenja brez sodobnih tehnologij in pametnih telefonov ne moremo več predstavljati. Svet že vstopa v drugo generacijo otrok, katerih življenja so tako rekoč od rojstva povsem digitalna. Zaznamujejo jih všečki, nešteto mobilnih aplikacij ter socialna omrežja.
                  

                     Svetovna podjetja, ki ta moderna orodja razvijajo, so bogatejša od večine majhnih držav sveta in v veliki meri narekujejo agendo, ustvarjajo novice, vplivajo na dogodke. Omogočajo pa tudi masovno širjenje neresnic, manipulacij, pa tudi pasti za številne zlorabe. Žrtve so pogosto tudi naši najmlajši. Zato te platforme nosijo izjemno odgovornost, čeprav od nje večinoma – v pohlepu po megalomanskih dobičkih – bežijo.
                  

                     Zakonodaja v veliki meri zaostaja za tem tempom. In Evropa je ta razkorak deloma zaprla. Vse upore moramo sedaj usmeriti v implementacijo zakonodaje. Zahtevamo odgovornost platform. Zaščititi moramo še posebej otroke. Sovražni govor in dezinformacije nimajo več mesta ne na spletu ne v realnem življenju.
                  

Beatrice Covassi (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario Breton, contrastare la diffusione online della disinformazione e dei discorsi d'odio è essenziale. Viviamo infatti oggi un vero e proprio cambio di paradigma, dove il digitale determina aspetti centrali della nostra vita.
                  

                     Il Far West in rete non è un'opzione, e con la legge sui servizi digitali l'Europa è all'avanguardia per trasparenza delle informazioni, legalità e responsabilità. Ma non basta. I discorsi di odio e la disinformazione organizzata rappresentano ormai veri e propri strumenti di guerra ibrida. Lo abbiamo visto durante la pandemia, quando la disinformazione sui vaccini ha messo a rischio la vita e la salute di milioni di persone. E ancora, sul piano politico, con minacce dirette alla democrazia – penso ai fatti di Capitol Hill e di Brasilia – e con fake news sui conflitti in corso in Ucraina e in Medio Oriente.
                  

                     Colleghi, a pochi mesi da elezioni europee cruciali per il futuro della nostra Unione, assicuriamo che queste nuove regole siano rispettate non solo in Europa, ma diventino la base per nuove intese internazionali. Nell'epoca dell'intelligenza artificiale e dei deep fakes – e concludo – non possiamo lasciare alla buona volontà di alcuni la difesa della democrazia e della libertà di tutti.
                  

Witold Pahl (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Mowa nienawiści oraz dezinformacja to nie tylko świat polityki, to także podwórko, szkoła, uczelnie, akademiki. Ale to przede wszystkim przestrzeń, w której nie ma miejsca na odmienność, przestrzeń, w której ludzie młodzi, ale nie tylko, narażają się na nękanie, cierpią, pogrążają w chorobach psychicznych, a także dokonują prób samobójczych. W tym obszarze mamy dwie wartości: wolność słowa i prawo do prywatności. W momencie, kiedy wolność słowa staje się narzędziem do nękania lub poniżania innych, to oczywiste jest, iż w takich sytuacjach konieczna jest interwencja. W Polsce przykładem tragicznych skutków mowy nienawiści z przyczyn politycznych jest popełnione publicznie zabójstwo prezydenta Gdańska pana Pawła Adamowicza.
                  

                     Życie, bezpieczeństwo i godność ludzka to wartości nadrzędne i te zapisy Karty Praw Podstawowych muszą stać w centrum wszelkiej aktywności legislacyjnej Unii Europejskiej i państw członkowskich. Także jako prawnik jestem zadowolony z propozycji aktu o usługach cyfrowych. Nowa legislacja będzie lepiej chroniła użytkowników internetu, ustanowi solidne ramy przejrzystości i odpowiedzialności za publikowane treści oraz zapewni lepszą ochronę praw podstawowych obywateli Unii Europejskiej w internecie.
                  

Leszek Miller (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i koledzy! Zgadzamy się wszyscy, że w obliczu rosnących zagrożeń w internecie, takich jak mowa nienawiści, dezinformacja, manipulowanie informacjami, niezbędna jest zdecydowana i aktywna rola wszystkich instytucji europejskich. To na nich spoczywa kluczowa odpowiedzialność za ochronę Europejczyków. Jak ważny to jest temat, przekonaliśmy się chociażby w czasie pandemii, kiedy fałszywe informacje podawane w internecie naraziły tysiące osób na utratę zdrowia i życia.
                  

                     Wielokrotnie też na tym forum rozmawialiśmy o wykorzystywaniu platform społecznościowych w kampaniach wyborczych czy w wojnie w Ukrainie. Musimy tym manipulacjom zapobiegać, a to wymaga silnych i skutecznych regulacji. Dzięki właśnie nim internet będzie przestrzenią bezpieczną, wolną od zagrożeń, które mogą podważać demokrację i bezpieczeństwo naszych obywateli.
                  

                     Akt o usługach cyfrowych stanowi właściwy krok w tym kierunku. Parlament Europejski, jako głos obywateli, ma obowiązek pilnować, aby prawa i bezpieczeństwo Europejczyków były na pierwszym miejscu w sferze cyfrowej.
                  

Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, dnes si pokojne žiaľ môžeme prečítať na internete, že treba zabiť všetkých cigánov, treba zabiť všetkých buzerantov, poprípade treba zabiť všetkých aj židov. Aj takéto prejavy v online priestore žiaľ si nájdeme a žiaľ v podstate my všetci ich tolerujeme. Zašlo to tak ďaleko, že nenávisť je dnes šírená nielen ústami fašistov, no najmä kvôli sociálnym platformám šíri nenávisť aj nemalá časť spoločnosti.
                  

                     Vážení priatelia, povedzme si pravdu: nenávisť v online priestore nemáme absolútne pod kontrolou. Kvôli našej ľahostajnosti to zašlo tak ďaleko, že sa z online priestoru nenávistné prejavy stávajú už bežným štandardom čoraz väčšieho počtu ľudí v spoločnosti. Sme na historickej križovatke. Veľká časť ľudí šírenie nenávisti v online priestore dokonca už akceptovala. Zatvárame oči nad rasistickými útokmi na sociálnych platformách, prehliadame šírenie neofašistickej ideológie, vyhrážky, ponižovanie či uplatňovanie kolektívnej viny. Ak by na internete velebil niekto bin Ládina, dávno by bol v base. No keď na internete velebia Hitlera či Breivika, všetci to prehliadajú. Priatelia, nenávisť nezostane len vo virtuálnom priestore internetu. Následkami nenávisti sú reálne skutky, ktoré žiaľ končia aj tragicky.
                  

                     Ako je možné, že keď sa niekto vyhráža smrťou, hovoríme, že je to sloboda slova? Ako je možné, že bojujeme proti terorizmu, no nenávistné prejavy tolerujeme? Nenávisť nie je sloboda slova. Nenávisť je zlo. Nenávisť musíme zastaviť hneď v zárodku a musíme mať na pamäti, že po nenávisti nasleduje terorizmus. Je našou povinnosťou veľmi rýchlo nájsť účinné opatrenia, aby sme aj online priestor, tak ako máme aj offline priestor pod kontrolou.
                  

Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario Breton, usted inició una investigación a X por la propagación de contenido violento y discursos de odio durante la guerra de Gaza. Sigue sin dar respuesta. Por su lado, Meta ha sido denunciada en Estados Unidos por perjudicar la salud mental de los jóvenes a través de sus diseños adictivos, que promueven trastornos alimentarios y autolesiones. La respuesta de Zuckerberg a las familias ha sido ‘lo siento’.
                  

                     Las redes están infectadas de pornografía ultrafalsa o bulos que criminalizan a colectivos y distorsionan nuestras campañas electorales. Es una verdadera pandemia en forma de intoxicación informativa y odio, que la extrema derecha utiliza con un vehículo de transmisión común: las grandes plataformas digitales. Nuestra vacuna en Europa es clara: la Ley de Servicios Digitales, para poner coto a la desinformación, el odio y también al acceso de los menores a la pornografía.
                  

                     Señor Zuckerberg, en Europa no queremos su perdón. Queremos que venga a dar la cara, tome responsabilidades y ponga remedio a esta pandemia que amenaza la salud de nuestros jóvenes y de nuestras democracias. La ciudadanía europea reclama un entorno digital basado en la confianza y la verdad. No podemos esperar más.
                  

Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Gospa predsednica! Sovražni govor in dezinformacije se širijo po žilah naših digitalnih platform. To predstavlja resno grožnjo, da laži prevladajo nad resnico, kar pa ogroža našo demokratično družbo.
                  

                     Digitalni zakon o storitvah ni le zakonodajni akt. Je dokaz naše skupne odločenosti, da se borimo proti valu spletnega sovraštva in laži. Socialne platforme, sodobni javni trgi, imajo v tej bitki ogromno odgovornost. Na njihovih vmesnikih se oblikuje diskurz, oblikujejo mnenja in na žalost nekontrolirano širi škodljiv govor.
                  

                     Te platforme morajo prevzeti odgovornost. Moramo jih k temu pozvati, da postanejo budni varuhi resnice ter dostojanstva in da prevzamejo svoj del odgovornosti. Z zakonom ne zagovarjamo omejevanja svobode govora, ki je temelj naše demokracije. Namesto tega se zavzemamo za odgovoren govor.
                  

                     Svoboda izražanja ne more biti izgovor za sovraštvo. Ne more biti krinka, pod katero se skriva dezinformacija ali avtorji anonimnih laži. Zdrav in konstruktiven diskurz mora biti naš cilj.
                  

Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, parliamentarians, illegal hate speech has no place in our society online or offline. Illegal hate speech needs to be met with a level of punishment set at EU level. In Ireland, the Oireachtas is currently working on a new criminal justice bill specifically dedicated to hate speech. In December, our capital city of Dublin witnessed riots which were motivated by hate and by violence, fuelled by those who want to see us divided. Those who purposely peddle hate speech, who incite violence, have become smarter, unfortunately. They use social media platforms as a tool to take advantage of people by bombarding them with false information or by dressing their hate speech in subtle language, so the line between freedom of speech and hatred is blurred. Elon Musk has tried to create outrage by saying that the Digital Services Act will result in armed police storming people's houses. He can pretend that he defends free speech, but do not be confused: he and some others who shout against this legislation are focused only on their own self-interests. We cannot allow them to continue to be unchecked. We must ensure that the Digital Services Act, another law introduced to eradicate hate speech, holds those who continue to undermine our democracy, our equality and our peace to account.

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kada govorimo o dezinformacijama, znam osobu koja je dugo godina gradila svoju popularnost na Facebooku i onda je sve izgubila 2020. godine. Zašto? Zato što je napisala da će se sljedeće, 2021. godine uvesti poseban certifikat koji će ograničiti prava ljudi. Proglašena je za širitelja teorija zavjere i izgubila sve na Facebooku. Na kraju se to i ostvarilo 2021. godine uvođenjem digitalnog zelenog certifikata.
                  

                     Ako hoćemo dezinformacije, ne moramo ići na neke rubne portale, treba samo pratiti što rade vlade Europe i što je radila Komisija za vrijeme COVID krize. Vrlo dobro znamo da, iako je još od kraja 2020. Komisija znala da cjepiva ne sprječavaju, dakle, širenje, Komisija je mjesecima, dakle u siječnju, u veljači, u studenom i sljedeće godine, sve do listopada 2022. širila dezinformacije, promovirala i prezentirala te proizvode kao nešto što oni nisu.
                  

                     Tu su, naravno, i ovi koji provjeravaju činjenice. Udruge, one nemaju nikakve veze niti s nezavisnošću niti s činjenicama niti s bilo kakvom provjerom, nego su svi umreženi preko jednog instituta na Floridi, Poynter instituta, i to je jedna stroga cenzura. Tužno je što i ovaj Akt o digitalnim uslugama zapravo financira i potiče.
                  

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, koncom roku 2021 sme sa so skupinou europoslancov zapojili do projektu a nahlasovali sme antisemitský obsah. Platformy Twitter, Facebook a YouTube však z nahlásených stiahli iba okolo 11 %. V šoku sme oslovili vedenie týchto platforiem, ale bez výsledku. Odvtedy vstúpil do platnosti akt o digitálnych službách. My sa ale napriek tomu dozvedáme o škandáloch s množstvom toxického obsahu. Komisia platformy požiadala o vysvetlenie, ale opäť nemáme žiadnu odpoveď.
                  

                     Po útoku Hamasu na Izrael v októbri minulého roku sa totiž na sociálnych sieťach, a to najmä na TikToku, v obrovskej miere opäť rozširuje antisemitský obsah. Šíreniu toxického obsahu pritom vo veľkej miere pomáhajú aj tzv. algoritmy ekonomiky pozornosti. Práve tieto za účelom generovania zisku uzatvárajú ľudí do informačných bublín, a tak znásobujú tento toxický efekt.
                  

                     Dlhodobo upozorňujem na to, že ide o veľký problém, ktorý nielenže podkopáva demokraciu, ale šíri dezinformácie a zároveň ohrozuje aj duševné zdravie ľudí. Preto som presadzovala, aby tieto algoritmy boli v akte o umelej inteligencii zaradené medzi vysoko rizikové, čo sa napokon stalo aj pozíciou Európskeho parlamentu. Žiaľ, v trialógu Európska komisia a Rada tento názor Európskeho parlamentu nepodporila. Pýtam sa, akým spôsobom teda plánujeme zakročiť, keďže sociálne platformy zjavne svoj podiel zodpovednosti neprijímajú a akt o umelej inteligencii sme premárnili?
                  

Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Madame la Ministre, d'abord, je voudrais vous remercier pour ce débat. Vous l'avez compris, la Commission s'organise pour faire respecter par les plateformes les obligations qui désormais leur incombent. Car, en effet, nous disposons maintenant des instruments pour obliger les plateformes à respecter la loi. Il en va de la responsabilité et de la préservation de nos systèmes et procédures démocratiques à un moment où, beaucoup d'entre vous l'ont rappelé, l'Europe est attaquée.
                  

                     C'est pourquoi nous n'aurons pas la main qui tremble. Mais c'est une responsabilité, je tiens à le dire ici dans cet hémicycle, qui est une responsabilité partagée, qui demande aussi aux États membres d'agir et aux plateformes, bien entendu, de prendre leurs responsabilités.
                  

                     Les plateformes ne peuvent plus désormais monétiser la viralité ni des contenus de désinformation et de haine ni de ce qu'on appelle les hypertrucages. C'est la question de l'amplification algorithmique et du classement des contenus sur la base des interactions dont Mme Geese et d'autres membres ont parlé. Et cette question est précisément au cœur du règlement sur les services numériques.
                  

                     D'abord, la transparence. Les lignes directrices rappelleront que les plateformes doivent mettre fin à l'amplification algorithmique de ces contenus. Elles prévoient la mise en place de systèmes de contextualisation avec de la vérification des faits ou des labels spécifiques pour éviter les manipulations. Et non, ce n'est pas de la censure: c'est de la transparence. Ne nous étonnons pas, du reste, que ce soit l'extrême droite qui ait peur de la transparence.
                  

                     Ensuite, le règlement sur les services numériques donne la possibilité de se soustraire aux systèmes de recommandations pour limiter le risque de ces algorithmes. Enfin, nous menons nos propres analyses et, lorsque nous identifions des problèmes, nous pouvons demander aux plateformes de changer leurs algorithmes.
                  

                     Sur les hypertrucages: nous agissons, évidemment. La législation sur l'intelligence artificielle va imposer aux fournisseurs de systèmes d'intelligence artificielle de marquer les contenus générés par de l'intelligence artificielle ainsi que les hypertrucages, qui devront donc divulguer que le contenu a été généré ou manipulé artificiellement.
                  

                     Le règlement sur les services numériques impose ensuite aux grandes plateformes de s'assurer que le contenu généré par l'intelligence artificielle générative soit identifiable. Les plateformes doivent donc adapter leur processus de modération de contenus en fonction de ce point précisément.
                  

                     Enfin, je note que l'accord trouvé hier soir sur la directive sur la lutte contre la violence à l'égard des femmes criminalise le partage non consenti d'hypertrucages. Les plateformes doivent respecter la loi.
                  

                     En ce qui concerne la liberté d'expression, elle est au cœur de notre action, et je ne peux laisser dire qu'il s'agit de censure. Le règlement sur les services numériques a su équilibrer l'ensemble de ces éléments pour préserver notre démocratie et la liberté d'expression. Alors non, Madame Joron, nous n'installons pas un régime stalinien de censure, comme vous l'avez dit. Nous, nous ne prenons pas la Russie comme modèle, contrairement à vous. Et non, Monsieur Lacapelle, nous ne régulons pas les sentiments. Nous faisons simplement respecter les règles. Les règles, Monsieur Lacapelle, qui régissent nos systèmes démocratiques en ligne, ne vous en déplaise, les règles qui s'appliquent aussi partout, y compris dans cet hémicycle.
                  

                     Enfin, quant à X, nous ne faisons aucune idéologie. Nous appliquons et faisons juste appliquer la loi. Nous soupçonnons X de violations concernant le fonctionnement des mécanismes de signalement pour les contenus illégaux, les ressources consacrées à la modération, l'efficacité des community notes et les mécanismes pour atténuer les risques sur les processus électoraux. Donc, c'est fondé sur des faits. Si les griefs sont confirmés – on verra, on est en cours d'investigation –, à ce moment-là, cela entraînerait une violation du règlement sur les services numériques, et nous prendrions évidemment les mesures nécessaires, données notamment par cette Chambre, pour y remédier. Nous ne faisons aucun procès d'intention. Nous ne faisons qu'appliquer la loi, toute la loi, rien que la loi.
                  

                     D'ailleurs, si nous avons une procédure formelle engagée contre X aujourd'hui – en cours d'investigation, comme je l'ai dit –, nous menons également des enquêtes sur neuf autres plateformes.
                  

                     Voilà ce que je voulais vous dire à l'issue de ce débat très important. Vous pouvez évidemment compter sur moi, comme vous me l'avez demandé, pour faire appliquer la loi, pour la préservation de ce qui est extrêmement précieux pour nous tous: notre démocratie.
                  

Hadja Lahbib,
Présidente en exercice du Conseil. – Madame la Présidente, chers députés, Monsieur le Commissaire, dans un contexte de défis sans précédent, je voudrais conclure en rappelant le devoir de chaque institution de l'Union européenne et de chaque État membre de promouvoir et de protéger nos valeurs fondamentales, y compris dans la sphère numérique.
                  

                     Comme vient de l'évoquer le commissaire Breton, et il le disait aussi dans son introduction, la protection de l'intégrité des élections est un effort collectif. La coopération et l'engagement avec les plateformes numériques est également essentiel pour parvenir à cette fin. Et comme l'a dit M. Gozi – plusieurs députés ont abondé dans ce sens, encore tout dernièrement, telle la députée Novak –, les plateformes doivent prendre leurs responsabilités.
                  

                     Je crois aussi, comme Mme Kokalari, que nous pouvons être fiers des mesures que nous avons déjà mises en place, tout en n'étant pas naïfs. Certaines plateformes ne voudront pas jouer le jeu, et il faudra y être attentifs, prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires, y compris concernant les hypertrucages, pointés par le député Groothuis. Il est clair que, si les plateformes sont de puissants outils de communication, la désinformation y trouve un terrain fertile, et chaque crise, que ce soit la pandémie de COVID-19 ou le conflit international du moment, entraîne avec soi son lot d'angoisses, de rumeurs et de fausses informations, aux conséquences désastreuses – et certaines ont la peau dure, comme je viens encore de le vérifier lors de plusieurs interventions.
                  

                     Il est essentiel de prendre en compte les logiques et les fonctionnements propres des plateformes, entre autres les algorithmes et toutes les distorsions qu'ils engendrent, les bulles qu'ils créent au sein des populations, qu'ils isolent dans des avis, dans des goûts et des opinions qui sont toujours les mêmes, des algorithmes qui les éloignent de toute forme d'altérité et conduisent à la stigmatisation, à l'exclusion des minorités, des femmes et finalement de l'autre, tout simplement.
                  

                     Il est crucial d'utiliser pleinement les outils dont nous avons pour l'instant veillé à la création et primordial que le règlement sur les services numériques soit mis en place et en application. Les États membres doivent être prêts, le 17 février prochain, à intégrer pleinement le règlement sur les services numériques dans leur législation. La liberté d'expression doit être préservée, mais ce qui est illégal hors ligne doit être illégal en ligne.
                  

                     Nous avons conscience que les prochaines élections européennes, le 9 juin, seront une sorte de crash-test, mais nous ne pouvons tout simplement pas échouer. Je prends bien note de l'expérience slovaque évoquée par le député Hojsík lors des dernières élections. Pour toutes ces raisons, le Conseil continuera à suivre de près ces questions.
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),
kirjallinen. – Vihapuhe ja disinformaatio verkossa ja sosiaalisessa mediassa uhkaavat demokraattisten yhteiskuntiemme ja oikeusvaltiomme perustaa. Ne palvelevat aina jonkun valtapyrkimyksiä. Valheellinen tieto naamioituu nykyään helposti uutisen muotoon, ja väärä tieto leviää salamannopeasti. Tämä on vaarallista.
                  

                     Vihapuhe osuu erityisen sankoin mitoin naisiin ja tyttöihin. Sukupuolittunut vihapuhe pyrkii vaientamaan erityisesti ne naiset ja tytöt, jotka ilmaisevat itseään ja omia mielipiteitään tai ovat poliittisesti aktiivisia, eikä sitä edelleenkään nähdä mahdollisesti rikoksen tunnusmerkit täyttävänä toimintana. Vihapuhe, kiusaaminen ja ahdistelu kaventavat naisten ja tyttöjen tilaa yhteiskunnassa. Jo vuonna 2020 kirjoitin aiheesta teidän kollegoiden kanssa kirjeen komission puheenjohtajalle. Kirjeessä vaadittiin naisiin ja tyttöihin kohdistuvan vihapuheen kriminalisoimista lainsäädännöllisin keinoin.
                  

                     Verkkopalveluja ja sosiaalisen median alustoja ei valitettavasti ole nähty julkisena tilana, jossa pätevät samat säännöt kuin muuallakin yhteiskunnassa. Säätämämme digipalvelusäädös oli tähän epäkohtaan odotettu ja tarpeellinen toimi. Sen täytyisi kuitenkin varmistaa vieläkin voimakkaammin, että somealustoilla olisi isompi vastuunsa siinä, että vihapuhe ja disinformaatio eivät kukoista sosiaalisessa mediassa. Alustat tulisi velvoittaa tiedon todenperäisyyden seuraamiseen ja laittoman sisällön poistamiseen vielä nykyistäkin nopeammin. Naisten yhteiskunnallinen toiminta on kaikkien etu ja tasa-arvoisten yhteiskuntien edellytys. Siksi digipalvelusäädöksen avulla pitäisi pystyä kitkemään nyt nähtyä paremmin sukupuolittunutta vihapuhetta ja verkkohäirintää sekä velvoittamaan alustoja poistamaan häiritsevää materiaalia.
                  
13.   Need to fight the increase of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Notwendigkeit der Bekämpfung der Zunahme des Antisemitismus und der Muslimfeindlichkeit (2024/2556(RSP)).
               

Hadja Lahbib,
Présidente en exercice du Conseil. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers députés, nous venons tout juste de conclure un débat sur les discours de haine et la désinformation en ligne et sur la manière dont ces deux phénomènes comptent parmi les plus grands défis de nos sociétés. Je ne répéterai pas ce qui vient d'être dit et je me concentrerai donc plus simplement et plus précisément sur l'augmentation alarmante des propos et des incidents antisémites et antimusulmans en Europe, surtout depuis les attaques du 7 octobre et la situation dramatique à Gaza – et plus largement au Proche-Orient.
               

                  Cette guerre a un impact indéniable en Europe et ailleurs dans le monde et elle contribue à polariser plus que jamais nos opinions publiques. L'antisémitisme, le racisme, ces phénomènes d'exclusion insidieux et persistants, doivent être combattus sans relâche, en rappelant sans cesse les valeurs sur lesquelles l'Union européenne est fondée: le respect de la dignité de chaque personne, y compris les droits des personnes appartenant à des minorités, le respect de la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion, consacrée par l'article 10 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne.
               

                  Le dernier Conseil européen a condamné avec la plus grande fermeté toutes les formes de haine, d'intolérance, de racisme et de xénophobie, ainsi que la haine à l'égard des musulmans. Il a également rappelé le plan d'action de l'Union européenne contre le racisme et la stratégie européenne de lutte contre l'antisémitisme et de soutien à la vie juive, dont la mise en œuvre rapide est essentielle pour les communautés juives. Le dialogue entre tous les secteurs de la société est absolument essentiel pour lutter contre la menace du racisme et de la haine. Dans cette optique, la présidence organisera divers événements et débats, notamment sur la lutte contre le racisme, l'antisémitisme et la haine antimusulmans. Notre intention est d'étendre le débat à la société civile et de travailler ensemble pour renforcer la protection des libertés individuelles, l'égalité et la non-discrimination. Le Conseil discute de manière régulière sur ces questions, au niveau politique aussi bien que technique. Dans ses dernières conclusions sur la lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme, adoptées au mois de mars 2022, il invitait les États membres à élaborer des stratégies et/ou des plans d'action nationaux pour sensibiliser leur population à la lutte contre toutes les formes de racisme et d'exclusion. Il s'agit d'un effort continu, qui doit être mené par chaque pays, chaque région, chaque ville et chaque communauté.
               

                  Les médias doivent aussi jouer leur rôle. Lors du débat précédent, j'ai évoqué les obligations des plateformes sociales en matière de désinformation. Elles ont également un rôle crucial pour élaborer et adopter des solutions leur permettant de détecter, d'évaluer et de supprimer rapidement les discours de haine illégaux en ligne à caractère antisémite et antimusulman. Comme je viens de le souligner lors du débat précédent, l'entrée en vigueur du règlement sur les services numériques devrait certainement contribuer à un environnement en ligne plus respectueux des croyances de chacun.
               

                  Avant de conclure, permettez-moi de remercier les trois coordonnateurs de la Commission responsables de la lutte contre le racisme, l'antisémitisme et la haine antimusulmane pour leurs initiatives et pour le travail précieux qu'ils ont effectué.
               

Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, this is a very timely debate. Today, we are four months after 7 October and four months before the European elections. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed an alarming surge in hate speech, hate crime across Europe, in the streets of our cities, as well as online. We cannot remain indifferent.
The heinous terrorist attack by Hamas shook us all to our core. Not since the Holocaust had so many Jewish lives been lost on a single day. This attack still reverberates among the Jewish communities in Europe and around the world. From the first moment, the European Union supported Israel's right to defend itself in line with international law and international humanitarian law, and has called for the unconditional release of the hostages.
At the same time, we are witnessing a dramatic humanitarian situation affecting the Palestinian population in Gaza. Addressing this humanitarian crisis and ensuring the protection of civilians, including children and the vulnerable, and avoiding regional escalation must now be our top priority.
As the situation in the Middle East unfolds, many individuals, including many Jews and Muslims in Europe, are mourning and worrying about their loved ones. And to add to this, many Jews and Muslims living in Europe are also fearing for their own safety.
Since 7 October, we are witnessing with horror a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents, Molotov cocktails thrown at synagogues, Stars of David sprayed on residential buildings, Jewish stores destroyed, Swastikas and anti-Muslim slurs spray painted on mosques and houses, an attempt to set a mosque on fire when people were praying inside, Jewish and Muslim cemeteries desecrated.
Anti-Muslimism and anti-Semitism have also exploded online, with slogans calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, the killing of all Jews, glorifying terrorism, or calling for Muslim migrants to be killed or expelled, and Muslim women to be raped. This is simply unacceptable. It is incompatible with all that the European Union stands for, with a model of society that represents us, with our European way of life.
In Europe today, a Europe of equality, no minority should live in fear, irrespective of which side of the political spectrum each one of us comes from, irrespective of where you take your seat in this hemicycle. We must all unequivocally condemn such acts of hate.
On the Commission's side, we have acted immediately and decisively. As Vice-President in charge, I visited several Jewish communities immediately after 7 October, first in Strasbourg, then in Antwerp, then in Thessaloniki, and overseas in Melbourne, in Sao Paulo. We accelerated the implementation of many of the actions under our EU strategy on combating anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish life.
On 6 December, we adopted a new targeted communication entitled ‘No place for hate: a Europe united against hatred’. We are stepping up efforts to fight hatred in all its forms by reinforcing action across the policy spectrum, measures to counter physical as well as online threats, increasing the scrutiny of beneficiaries of EU funding to ensure respect of our values, and raising awareness through education, culture and sport.
Let us never forget that it was hate and anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a European tragedy, but it happened locally. In Nazi death camps, shooting grounds, at deportation points and hiding places. This is why we are launching a major initiative today to establish a network of places where the Holocaust happened. We want to ensure that every child in Europe learns about the darkest chapter of our history.
Security remains also a top concern. We are making extra funding available to protect places of worship and other premises. We launched a new call for proposals in December with a total budget of EUR 30 million. Of this, EUR 5 million will be dedicated specifically to projects protecting Jewish places of worship, schools and community gatherings.
In the online environment, we are addressing the explosion of racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate for the first time with the regulatory instruments that we managed to obtain under this political cycle, with a close cooperation of the European Parliament and our Member States with the Digital Services Act. You just had the debate. I'm not going into the specifics. Thierry Breton has just presented what we can do under the Digital Services Act.
We have also now working with a major online platform to reinforce the code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, as soon as possible. And we have increased funding to address anti-Semitism online through a network of trusted flaggers and fact checkers across the EU. In parallel, we are working closely with Europol and our Member States' law enforcement agencies to make sure that terrorist content online and the glorification of terrorism on European streets are pursued vigorously.
Honourable Members, dear friends, we are not naive. We are fully aware that no communication, no strategy from Brussels, no amount of EU funding will ever be sufficient in itself to address centuries-old prejudice and often rekindled but orchestrated disinformation campaigns. We know we must act on all levels and engage society as a whole.
On 19 December 2023, I called for an extraordinary high-level meeting of religious leaders – Christian, Muslim and Jewish – to discuss the impact of the conflict in the Middle East, and I was genuinely encouraged by their joint determination to stand up against hatred and speak up for tolerance and respect.
In line with our EU strategy, the conclusions of the European Council last December, I call now upon all Member States to do their part to adopt and implement the national strategies on combating anti-Semitism and national action plans against racism, and to ensure that the necessary resources are available to protect Jewish and Muslim communities from hatred.
Beyond the Member States, we at the Commission are committed to engage directly with citizens. It is a citizens' topic. It is not a discussion that needs to be taken in offices and in conference rooms. The first half of this year, we will organise a European Citizens' Panel on action against hatred.
We are determined to have citizens on board to help us identify action for all Europeans, to ensure that Europe is a place where our founding values are enjoyed by anyone, by everyone, on an equal basis. Thank you. I look forward to the debate.

Lukas Mandl,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Durch ein Gedenkprojekt in meiner Heimatstadt Gerasdorf habe ich viel gelernt, zum Beispiel darüber, was jüdische Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger fühlen, wenn auf einer Gedenktafel – das war anderswo der Fall – aus der Geschichte zwar aufgeschrieben steht, dass Menschen ermordet wurden, aber es dann nicht geschrieben steht, dass es jüdische Mitmenschen waren, die dort ermordet wurden, im Holocaust, in der Shoah.
               

                  Warum ist das so wichtig? Weil sich der Antisemitismus direkt gegen jüdische Mitmenschen richtet, weil sie jüdische Menschen sind, und der Antisemitismus die gesamte Gesellschaft schädigt, den Grundwasserspiegel von gegenseitigem Vertrauen, von Lebensqualität senkt.
               

                  Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, Antisemitismus zu relativieren. Es gibt auch keinen Anlass, Antisemitismus zu erklären, denn er hat keinen rationalen Grund. Er ist purer Hass gegen Menschen, die diesem Hass nicht entkommen können, wenn nicht wir alle daran arbeiten, Antisemitismus zu bekämpfen.
               

                  Ich möchte Ihnen nur einige wenige Zahlen zur Kenntnis bringen aus der Zeit vor den aktuellen großen antisemitischen Ausschreitungen auch in unseren europäischen Hauptstädten und in ganz Europa: Die Antisemitismusstudie, die der österreichische Parlamentspräsident Wolfgang Sobotka in Auftrag gegeben hat, zeigt, dass unter der Bevölkerung mehr als ein Drittel der Befragten sagen: Ich bin dagegen, dass man immer wieder die Tatsache aufwärmt, dass im Zweiten Weltkrieg Juden umgekommen sind. Oder die Antisemitismusstudie der Agentur für Grundrechte sagt: 89 % der befragten jüdischen Menschen geben an, Opfer von Antisemitismus gewesen zu sein.
               

                  Das muss uns alarmieren. Besonders nach den jüngsten antisemitischen Ausschreitungen in Europa dürfen wir nicht zur Tagesordnung übergehen. Und schon gar nicht darf es geschehen, dass der Opfer des Holocausts, der Shoah, gedacht wird, aber im selben Atemzug das Existenzrecht Israels infrage gestellt wird, die Entfaltung jüdischen Lebens in Europa nicht geschützt und gefördert wird und der aktuelle Antisemitismus nicht bekämpft wird. Das eine hängt mit dem anderen zusammen.
               

                  Es ist im vitalen Interesse Europas, jüdisches Leben zu schützen und zu ermöglichen.
               

Evin Incir,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Muslimhat och antisemitism sprider sig som en cancersvulst runt om i våra samhällen. Många av oss som är muslimer eller av vissa antas vara muslimer, känner – precis som våra judiska vänner – ända in i benmärgen att något har hänt i Europa, även i mitt land Sverige.
               

                  Rasismen är en cancersvulst som måste bekämpas och förebyggas. I början av mitt politiska engagemang 2006 brukade jag få brev hem där det stod ‘Du är inte svensk’, ‘åk tillbaka till där du kommer ifrån’ och ‘jävla muslim’. Breven har inte upphört, men kommentarerna på nätet har ökat. Dessa rasistiska yttringar har normaliserats till den grad att vissa till och med stoltserar med sina namn och efternamn.
               

                  Redan 2014, inför det nationella valet, gjorde den antirasistiska tidskriften Expo ett reportage som visade att var tredje sverigedemokratisk kandidat med tillgängligt konto på nätet har antingen delat eller uttryckt sympati för nätsidor kopplade till den rasideologiska miljön. Majoriteten av sidorna hade en antisemitisk grundsyn. Det har inte heller upphört sedan dess.
               

                  Det är alltså samma parti som är representerat här i Europaparlamentet och en del av ECR-gruppen. Vidriga konspirationsteorier och yttranden som ‘judar kontrollerar media’, ‘judar är inte svenskar’, ‘judar är inte ett problem för att den judiska gruppen är så pass liten’. Skämt om att deras nazistiska kompisar sparkat på döda lamm och kallat dem judar.
               

                  ‘Muslimer är inte fullt ut människor’, och nu försöker Sverigedemokraterna till och med likställa muslimska halvmånen med hakkors. Samma vidriga hakkors som deras parti alltså en gång i tiden omfamnade. Det är läskigt att se högerextrema på frammarsch, men att det sker med hjälp av traditionella konservativa och liberala krafter i EU är oförlåtligt.
               

Илхан Кючюк,
от името на групата Renew. – Г-жо Председател, разбира се, че този дебат е много важен, но ми се струва, че е много закъснял. Ние го разглеждаме в контекста на случилото се преди 4 месеца, а той има дълбоки корени. И грешката, която за пореден път правим в европейските институции, е, че разглеждаме последствията, а не толкова причините за случилото се.
               

                  Съгласен съм обаче с генералната констатация. Можем да говорим за цялостен подход и активна борба срещу всякакви форми на расизъм, антисемитизъм, ислямофобия, ксенофобия, речта и други форми на омразата, единствено когато мерките обхващат цялото общество. И ми се струва, че тук трябва да започнем на първо място от образованието. Средствата, които се залагат в плана на Европейската комисия, са твърде недостатъчни, но уважавам подхода, за да се говори с гражданското общество. На второ място, колективното усилие изисква да формулираме какво означава антисемитизъм и ислямофобия, да има работно понятие. В колко от европейското законодателство и в наказателните кодекси на страните членки съществува работното понятие ‘ислямофобия’ и ‘антисемитизъм’? В немного.
               

                  Има усилия в някои национални държави да се създаде система от координатори, да се координира политиката срещу антисемитизма и ислямофобията. Защо това да не бъде европейска политика и да има специален пратеник от страна на Европейския съюз по тези въпроси? Защото, както вече споделихте, г-н Комисар, те са във фундамента на европейската интеграция. И разбира се, не на последно място ми се струва отношението на тази зала. Колко пъти сме били свидетели на това косвени обиди на база етнос и религия да бъдат подминавани без наказание. Ако ние не сме готови да санкционираме това поведение на нашите колеги, няма да сме готови да покрием и очакванията на европейското гражданско общество и да се преборим с това зло, защото е зло.
               

Alice Kuhnke,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Vi lever i en tid när det krävs mer av oss. Särskilt av oss som vunnit många andra människors förtroende. När folkvalda politiker medvetet misstolkar, sprider lögner och konspirationsteorier, då bäddar de för hatet och rasismen som bland annat tar sig uttryck i antisemitismen och islamofobin, och som sakta men säkert leder till våld och död.
               

                  Jag önskar att vi ägnade väldigt mycket mindre tid åt att prata om hur hemsk rasismen är och i stället lade väldigt mycket mer tid och kraft på att tala om hur vi konkret ser till att främja varje enskild individs rätt att vara den den är och tro på och leva precis som hon vill – i respekt för att andra människor ska åtnjuta samma rättighet.
               

                  Vi lever i en tid när många politiker tyvärr inte tar det ansvar som krävs, och det är förödande.
               

Assita Kanko,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, saying that anti-Semitism is unacceptable has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. It is sad and disappointing that these two topics have been connected for today's debate. How cynical. We all know who needs protection today against whom: it is the Jewish schools, museums and synagogues that are guarded, and we all know why.
But why is it so difficult to say it, to name the reality, the Islamic anti-Semitism? We saw it in the streets here in Europe, calling to destroy the Jews. We saw it in the murders in the Jewish Museum in Belgium. We saw it in the celebration of the pogrom in Israel. We saw it in the pressure for the silence kept by international organisations who ignored the pain of the Jewish women. The reason why they kept silence is the same reason why, whenever you say anything about anti-Semitism, they want to add Muslim hatred in the conversation or they say that you are a racist.
It is the reason why so many European countries use taxpayers' money to sponsor organisations who pretend to fight racism and Islamophobia, but are the tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood operating here to feed its forces against us in Europe. Today is Shani Louk's birthday. She was born on 7 February 2001 and killed on 7 October in Israel.
Dear colleagues, I was born as a Muslim and I am telling you, saying that radical Islam is a threat has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. Saying that anti-Semitism is unacceptable has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. Colleagues, on the contrary, it has everything to do with human dignity.

Susanna Ceccardi,
on behalf of the ID Group. – Madam President, we need to fight any form of hate and any act of violence motivated by racism and religious intolerance. This is our duty – the defence of our main European values. However, we can't put anti-Semitism, which is a dramatic reality, and anti-Muslim hatred on the same level. The hard truth is that after the 7 October, after the first pogrom of Israeli people inside Israel, anti-Semitism came back as a flame all over Europe.
The horror of those scenes of slaughter of innocent Jewish people inflamed not just the moral condemnation of the aggressors, but also the irrational and motivated hate against Jews. We have to say that Jews are hated mostly by Muslim immigrants nowadays in Europe. They are not the only ones, but they are the main promoters of the new anti-Semitism, together with the far left.
We don't want to cancel the truth, we don't accept this equalisation and therefore we are not equidistant. We don't forget that the aggressor is Hamas and that Israel is the victim, that Islamic terrorists want to wipe a people of the face of the earth, while Israelis are forced to defend themselves in order to assert their right to exist and live in safety.

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, el genocidio que está cometiendo Israel contra el pueblo palestino, con la complicidad de la Unión Europea y de los Estados Unidos, no puede ser en ningún caso utilizado como un pretexto para que los discursos del odio vuelvan a agitar el antisemitismo. Hay que combatir cualquier discurso antisemita, se produzca donde se produzca y lo practique quien lo practique.
               

                  Pero también es fundamental no caer en la trampa de asimilar al judaísmo con una ideología colonial y supremacista como es el sionismo. Y esto es algo que están denunciando miles de judíos en todo el mundo desde hace meses, saliendo a la calle y diciendo ‘no en nuestro nombre’ y declarándose antisionistas. Por eso no debemos cansarnos de repetir que las acciones criminales del régimen sionista no representan a la comunidad judía del mundo.
               

                  Ahora bien, debemos exigir la misma intransigencia en combatir cualquier discurso de odio como a la hora de combatir la islamofobia; una islamofobia que está floreciendo peligrosamente en el conjunto de Europa. Y también aquí debemos huir de automatismos peligrosos, porque un puñado de fanáticos religiosos que atenten en Madrid o en París jamás representarán a la mayoría de la comunidad musulmana.
               

                  El respeto a las creencias religiosas de cada cual debe ser equivalente a la repulsa contra quienes usan la religión para justificar atentados o limpiezas étnicas. Todas las formas de odio y exclusión nos encontrarán enfrente gritando ‘no en nuestro nombre’ y declarándonos antirracistas.
               

Lívia Járóka (NI). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe and even among ourselves here is very concerning.
However, I'm disappointed a little bit when I didn't see anti-gypsyism beside these on the agenda here today, though. The Roma are the largest and probably the most discriminated ethnic minority in Europe, and the rise of the hatred against us Roma, Sinto, Gitano, Cigano gypsies in the recent years is very serious and all too often overlooked.
But now we have the European Roma inclusion strategies on Roma and it's a very, very good tool to fight. Also, we have a very strong vocational training agenda, which is the perfect place to get those young people together with those who they hate, the ‘racist youth’, to educate them together. And that can be a good starting point, so I'm happy that the Commission is ready to support such actions.
We also need a stronger implementation in all the Member States, and we need the Commission to monitor very well with the FRA. And I want to thank the work of the FRA in the last few years.
Please also make sure, all the political parties, that you nominate Roma, and that you ask your Roma voters to go to the elections and practise their democratic rights.

Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, som etnický Róm. Ak by Hitler vyhral vojnu, ja by som tu dnes nebol. Mnohí z vás by tu dnes neboli. Rýchlo sme zabudli na to, čo sa dialo, keď sa v minulosti dovolilo myslieť si, že existuje nejaká nadradená rasa. Neexistuje žiadna nadradená rasa, neexistuje žiadny podradný človek. Spoločnosť sa za posledné roky výrazne zradikalizovala. Musíme si otvoriť oči a priznať si, že extrémisti majú aj našou vinou, v podstate, narastajú na sile. Celý čas o tom len rozprávame a nečinne sa prizeráme.
               

                  Vojna na Blízkom východe dnes rozšírila antisemitizmus a nenávisť voči moslimom. Dlhodobo hovorím, že extrémizmus, neofašizmus či nenávisť naberá v Európe na sile. Dnes sú takíto ľudia dokonca súčasťou mnohých parlamentov či vlád. Popierajú holokaust, velebia fašistický režim, šíria nenávisť voči Rómom, židom či moslimom. Koľko ľudí ešte musí zomrieť, kým začneme naozajstný boj proti nenávisti?
               

                  Je dôležité, aby sme sa postavili k nenávistnej ideológii nie ako k názoru, ale ako k zločinu. Ten, kto hlása, že nejaká rasa je dokonalejšia ako iná, to nie je sloboda prejavu, to je zločin. Je hanbou tohto Parlamentu, že aj v tejto miestnosti sedia ľudia, ktorí popierajú holokaust. Vážení fašisti, holokaust sa stal a šírenie nenávisti voči akejkoľvek skupine je zločin. Vyzývam všetkých kompetentných, začnite, prosím, konečne trestať tých, ktorí sa správajú ako nadľudia a začnite chrániť obete zločinov z nenávisti.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente Schinas, claro que nos preocupa y nos motiva hablar de antisemitismo en el Parlamento Europeo.
               

                  Se trata de una forma de odio racista contra los judíos muy arraigada en Europa y sobre la que este Parlamento Europeo adoptó una definición la pasada legislatura —en junio de 2017— en la que se decía con claridad que el antisemitismo es incompatible con los valores europeos, además de con los derechos fundamentales y la no discriminación por ningún tipo de razón, de acuerdo con el artículo 21 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Por tanto, el antisemitismo es un viejo espectro que recorre Europa y que requiere una respuesta estratégica de todas las instituciones europeas —promoting Jewish life, there is no place for hatred—, además del Derecho penal europeo en lo que respecta a la incitación al odio, porque el discurso de odio propende al crimen de odio e incita a la violencia de odio. Y esto merece una respuesta penal, además de estrategias preventivas y educativas.
               

                  Pero, dicho esto, usted mismo mencionó que, si bien se celebró solemnemente la memoria del Holocausto en esta misma Cámara hace escasas fechas —apenas diez días—, el antisemitismo sigue estigmatizando a europeos, personas y comunidades que pertenecen a esa fábrica de diversidad, a esta Unión Europea unida en la diversidad.
               

                  Pero mencionó también la fecha del 7 de octubre, que nos recuerda que —claro que sí— condenamos los atentados de Hamás, —claro que sí— condenamos su terrorismo y —claro que sí— exigimos la liberación incondicional de los rehenes. Pero, al mismo tiempo, decimos que, si es legítima la libertad de expresión, criticar o manifestarse contra la desproporción de la respuesta militar del Gobierno de Netanyahu en Israel, nada hay de antisemitismo en esa crítica.
               

                  Sí lo hay, sin duda ninguna, en la inseguridad que están padeciendo las comunidades judías en todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, merecen que alcemos nuestra voz y decir que las comunidades judías pertenecen a esta Unión en la diversidad que somos todas y todos nosotros.
               

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Ilan Halimi, 24 ans, enlevé, torturé et achevé en banlieue parisienne en janvier 2006 parce que juif. Jonathan, 30 ans, Gabriel, 3 ans, Arié, 6 ans, Myriam, 8 ans, assassinés le 19 mars 2012 à Toulouse parce que juifs. Mireille Knoll, 85 ans, rescapée de la Shoah, poignardée à mort le 23 mars 2018 à Paris parce que juive. Chaque fois, nous avons pleuré, nous avons marché et nous avons dit: ‘Plus jamais ça!’
               

                  Et puis, le 7 octobre, en Israël, des terroristes islamistes ont massacré 1 200 personnes et en ont pris en otage 150. Des hommes, des femmes, des enfants, parce que juifs. Et là, certains voudraient nous dire: ‘oui, mais’, ‘oui, mais c'était un acte de résistance’, ou ‘oui, mais il y avait un contexte’. Tuer un homme parce qu'il est juif, il n'y a pas de résistance, il n'y a pas de contexte qui vaille. C'est un crime, un crime immonde. L'antisémitisme tue. Le relativisme tue. L'indifférence tue. Le silence tue.
               

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies


Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, jeudi dernier, en France, une femme de confession juive portait plainte pour violences antisémites par personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique. Des images montrent des policiers en train de l'humilier et de lui arracher sa perruque. Violence gratuite, sentiment d'impunité totale: l'incident n'est pas isolé. Il faut tout faire pour qu'il ne devienne pas ordinaire.
                  

                     La France est régulièrement épinglée pour discrimination raciale et violences policières. Islamophobie, racisme, antisémitisme et xénophobie: on est désormais face à des actes qui se banalisent, et l'État porte indéniablement une responsabilité. Médias populistes et d'extrême droite, débats haineux, stigmatisations, discriminations, lois iniques comme celle sur l'immigration, le jeu du gouvernement Macron est dangereux pour la démocratie française. Nos exécutifs sont démissionnaires, face à l'extrême droite qui prospère.
                  

                     Devant l'intolérance et la violence, le projet européen reste, j'en suis convaincu, notre meilleur rempart. L'Union doit exiger des États membres le respect de leurs obligations: protéger, éduquer, sanctionner ou encore réhabiliter les victimes. Voilà la feuille de route que nous avons, nous, ici, le devoir de promouvoir.
                  

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, would you feel safe walking Europe's streets with a kippah? No. Just read the statements by Swedish Jews in an official EU study: ‘I never wear any Jewish symbols publicly’. Sweden was not antisemitic at all before, but that has changed. For centuries, European Jews have been interwoven in the tapestry of our history, culture, art, science, philosophy and law, but that has changed.
Mass migration from the Islamic world has spawned a cancer that festered and grew in Muslim enclaves. This is why so many are afraid to live an open Jewish life in Europe. In the wake of the barbaric attack by Hamas, antisemitism has intensified. Cheerleading and jubilant rallies for these Islamist butchers took place all over Europe. This is naked antisemitism cloaked with a thin veil of anti-Zionism, as they call it.
Colleagues, in order to crush antisemitism, we must end mass migration. We must deny citizenship to those who espouse antisemitic beliefs, and when we can, we should revoke citizenship for those convicted of antisemitic crimes.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)


Evin Incir (S&D),
fråga (‘blått kort’). – Charlie Weimers påstår att antisemitism är ett nytt fenomen i Sverige och att det har skett på senaste åren. Vad säger du om att dina kollegor har påstått att judar kontrollerar media? Vad säger du om att dina SD-kollegor har påstått att judar inte är svenskar? Vad säger du om att dina SD-kollegor har sagt att judar inte är ett problem för att den judiska gruppen är så pass liten? Och vad säger du om att dina kollegor har skämtat om att dennes kompis sparkat på döda lamm och kallat dem judar? Vem är ansvarig för antisemitismen i Sverige?
                  

Charlie Weimers (ECR),
svar (‘blått kort’). – Tack för frågan, Evin! Nu är det ju så att Sverigedemokraterna har intagit en nolltolerans mot rasism. Det innebär att vi utesluter personer som uttrycker sig antisemitiskt, till skillnad från Socialdemokraterna som håller kvar vid sin riksdagsledamot Jamal El-Haj, som har demonstrerat under Hamas banér, som har kramat Hamasföreträdare och som deltog på den konferens i Malmö som PLO:s ambassadör i Sverige kallade Hamaskonferensen.
                  

                     Vi försöker reda upp när det är problem, men Socialdemokraterna, ni går i full defensiv för er riksdagsledamot som ju tar viktiga röster för er i Malmö. Det är cyniskt.
                  

Mathilde Androuët (ID). – Madame la Présidente, le Parlement européen aime l'indignation à géométrie variable. Il invite à mener une nécessaire lutte contre l'antisémitisme et la haine antimusulmans, mais oublie les premières victimes dans le monde du fait de leur foi, à savoir les chrétiens. Nous attendons d'ailleurs toujours un coordinateur chargé de cela, comme vous avez nommé celui contre l'antisémitisme et l'islamophobie.
                  

                     Le Parlement européen aime aussi donner des gages. Alors même qu'Israël pleure encore ses morts et que les atrocités du 7 octobre ont entraîné une explosion des actes antisémites, vous mettez sur un même plan la haine antimusulman et la flambée récente des violences antisémites. Au nom de l'achat de la paix sociale, vous ne vous privez pas d'une mise à égalité qui est quelque peu indigne.
                  

                     Toutes les violences et humiliations antireligieuses sont à bannir. Toutes. Seulement, ne restez pas aveugles sur les mouvances internes à certaines religions qui ont pour précepte la destruction de ceux qui ne pensent pas comme eux. Vous dites vouloir faire baisser l'antisémitisme. Cessez donc de laisser venir sur notre sol ou de subventionner avec notre argent les faiseurs de haine, quand ce ne sont pas les terroristes eux-mêmes.
                  

                     Le loup est venu par votre faute dans la bergerie européenne. Chassons-le. Et seulement ainsi, nous retrouverons une pacification de la vie interreligieuse.
                  

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’)


Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE),
blue-card question. – Colleague, thanks for these enthusiastic words on anti-Semitism, but how do you react to the new reports that one of the youth organisations of your group, Alternative for Germany, in Saxony was openly discussing bringing Jews, and people of other origins as well, into ghettos? These are the news items coming in right now from Saxony in Germany.

Mathilde Androuët (ID),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Monsieur Lagodinsky, je ne suis pas porte-parole de l'AfD, je ne sais pas du tout si c'était des cadres ou des représentants. En l'occurrence, j'ose espérer que, si c'était le cas, ils seraient en effet évincés et sortis de leur parti manu militari.
                  

Martina Michels (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Man schämt sich für diesen geschichtsvergessenen Beitrag meiner Kollegin eben.
                  

                     Ja, es ist richtig, wenn wir feststellen, dass Geld und Strukturen fehlen, um den Kampf gegen Antisemitismus erfolgreich zu führen – und dies nicht erst seit dem 7. Oktober. Dieser Kampf ist auch nicht nur die Aufgabe der anderen; auch wir selbst sind da angesprochen.
                  

                     Bereits vor neun Jahren wurde eine Studie im Kulturausschuss vorgestellt, die eine rasante Abnahme des Wissens über den Holocaust bei Jugendlichen europaweit offenlegte. Kurz nach den Terroranschlägen im Pariser Musikclub Bataclan verabschiedeten wir hier einen Bericht über den interkulturellen Dialog.
                  

                     Damals entschied die Mehrheit dieses Hauses, meine Änderungsanträge – den Kampf gegen Antisemitismus dabei klar zu formulieren – abzulehnen, denn dies sei unnötig, das decke bereits der Kampf gegen den Rassismus ab. Und vier Jahre später schweigen wir in Ziffer 7 der Geschichtsentschließung des Europäischen Parlaments vom September 2019 über den Antisemitismus zu Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges.
                  

                     Fangen wir also bei uns an, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, den Kampf gegen Antisemitismus und auch antimuslimischen Rassismus endlich klar auch auf unsere eigene parlamentarische Agenda zu setzen!
                  

Jörg Meuthen (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Gegen Antisemitismus, also Judenhass, und gegen Islamhass wendet sich diese Debatte. Das ist im Ziel durchaus zu begrüßen: Keine Religion darf in einer zivilisierten, freiheitlichen Gesellschaft Gegenstand von Hass sein. Doch steckt in der Gleichsetzung implizit die Unterstellung, Juden wie Muslime seien in Europa gleichermaßen in Gefahr religiöser Verfolgung – und das ist nicht die Wahrheit.
                  

                     Die Wahrheit ist: Synagogen müssen militärisch bewacht werden, nicht Moscheen. Jüdische Friedhöfe werden geschändet, Wohnungen von Juden werden mit Hassparolen beschmiert. Menschen, die Kippa tragen oder Hebräisch sprechen, werden täglich auf offener Straße angegriffen. Jubelnde Massen feiern auf den Straßen die Ermordung von Juden. Der offene Antisemitismus, auch der gewaltbereite, grassiert.
                  

                     Muslime müssen in Europa nicht in Angst leben, weil sie Muslime sind. Gott sei Dank ist das so, aber Juden leben in Europa inzwischen wieder in Angst, weil sie Juden sind. Das ist unendlich beschämend.
                  

                     Und dagegen anzugehen, darf sich nicht auf Worthülsen eines ‘Nie wieder’ beschränken, sondern jeder Form des Judenhasses, der leider oft auch von muslimischen Migranten ausgeht, muss in aller gebotenen Entschlossenheit entgegengetreten werden.
                  

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, toivottavasti olemme oppineet toisen maailmansodan kokemuksista tarpeeksi, että moraalimme on riittävän vahva ja järjestelmämme ovat riittävän vahvoja torjumaan vihapuhetta ja pitämään huolen nollatoleranssista vihapuheelle, joka joko kätkeytyy eri uskonnollisten aatteiden taakse, käyttää niitä väärin hyväkseen tai käyttää ihmisryhmien etnistä taustaa tai muuta taustaa vihan ja syrjinnän perusteena.
                  

                     Me olemme tässä suhteessa hitaasti etenevällä äärioikeiston, nationalismin ja monessa suhteessa myös totalitarismin tiellä. Tämä on se kuuluisa yhdestoista hetki, jolloin meidän tulee yhteisönä – olipa poliittinen tai kansallinen taustamme mikä tahansa – herätä ja nousta tämän yläpuolelle ja nousta puolustamaan ihmisyyttä, demokratiaa, EU:n perusarvoja ja elinkelpoista elämää tulevaisuudessa.
                  

                     Haluankin kiittää lopuksi komissaaria erittäin hyvästä puheenvuorosta ja päättäväisestä otteesta näiden asioiden hoitamisessa.
                  

Елена Йончева (S&D). – Г-н Председател, обединена Европа е родена от съпротивата, която оказаха милиони граждани на нацизма, но днес все по-често чуваме призиви за нетърпимост към хора с друга вяра. Неонацизмът поражда антисемитизъм и ислямофобия, поставя под съмнение Холокоста. Днес вече се рушат паметници на тези, които победиха фашизма по време на Втората световна война. Днес те вече се възхваляват публично от хората, които участваха в геноцида срещу евреи, славяни и роми, срещу хората, които бяха обявени за второ качество хора. Нечовеци ги нарекоха. Това факелно шествие на омразата и на разрушението, което днес отново е тръгнало през Европа, това трябва да спрем. Поздрав с вдигната ръка. Така нареченият ‘римски’ поздрав, с който Мусолини и Хитлер маршируваха през Европа, вече е законен. И днес или утре, ако някой от тази трибуна изправи ръка със същия поздрав, вината ще бъде наша, защото носим отговорност и за нашето бездействие.
                  

Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me give you some pictures from Europe today.
The Swedish party leader used artificial intelligence to address the Muslim and Arabic-speaking community in Sweden, asking them basically to leave Sweden if they do not totally give up on their culture and religion. And the Chair of the Justice Committee in the Swedish Parliament wants to forbid Islamic symbols such as half-moons and minarets because they scare him.
And another example, the Alternative für Deutschland wants to put forward a proposal that would make it possible to mass deport Muslims, Arab Africans. Thousands of Germans went to the streets to demonstrate how the German society is united against racism and fascism, but when people holding the Palestinian flag wanted to participate in the rally, they were spitted on, kicked on, beaten, not allowed to participate. The same very people that AfD wants to mass-deport. How ironic is that, don't you think?
And this House reacts very differently when the oppressor is a black person, or a Muslim or an Arab, while when the victim is Muslim or Arab, that's a totally different reaction you get from this house. When 10 000 children are killed in three months, it's called the right to self-defence. When hospitals and schools overcrowded with refugees are bombed, international law is thrown out the window. It's time to check ourselves. Because if …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte mit dem Aufruf an die Kollegin beginnen: Hören Sie auf, verschiedene Gruppen gegeneinander auszuspielen! Wir haben massenhafte Demokratinnen- und Demokraten-Demonstrationen in Deutschland, und das sind Menschen, die für die Rechte aller eintreten. Das darf nicht für politische Kundgebungen antiisraelischer Art missbraucht werden. So werden wir nicht weiterkommen.
                  

                     Ein jüdischer Student wurde vor einigen Tagen krankenhausreif getreten, mitten in Berlin, weil er jüdisch war und weil er einen israelbezogenen Antisemitismus nicht begrüßte. Dieser Angriff kam auch nicht aus dem Nichts.
                  

                     Es gibt natürlich an der FU, der Universität, an der er studiert, schon viele jüdische Studenten, die angepöbelt werden und sich bedroht fühlen. In Südafrika wurde ein jüdischer Teamkapitän abgesetzt, in der Türkei ein israelischer Spieler. Das alles hat nichts mit berechtigter Sorge um Palästinenser zu tun – das hat alles mit 1000 Jahren des Hasses gegen Juden zu tun.
                  

                     Und insofern auch in diesem Haus mein Aufruf: Wer mit echauffierten Reden anfängt, mit Obsession und Einseitigkeit, der endet mit krankenhausreif geprügelten Juden auf Europas Straßen.
                  

Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Znów rozmawiamy o prześladowaniu muzułmanów i oczywiście każde prześladowanie jest złe. Jednak muzułmanie są często preferowani przez was, sprowadzani do Europy, obdarowani socjalem i dawane są im mieszkania, a zdarzają się takie przypadki, że wyrzucani są Europejczycy. Ostatnio doświadczyła tego 77-letnia mieszkanka Würzburga, jej mieszkanie dano imigrantom.
                  

                     Dlaczego znów mówicie o muzułmanach, a nie o najbardziej prześladowanej religii na świecie, czyli chrześcijaństwie? Według Światowego Indeksu Prześladowań 360 milionów chrześcijan jest obecnie ofiarami prześladowań na świecie. Najczęściej zresztą są prześladowani przez wyznawców islamu, a jakoś ciężko znaleźć taką sytuację na odwrót. I podobnie będzie, jeżeli większością staną się w Europie.
                  

                     Kluczowe pytanie brzmi tak: dlaczego więc bardziej dbacie o wojującą religię szariatu niż o własną religię miłości, która stworzyła siłę i wyjątkowość tego kontynentu? Mówicie bardzo często o prawach kobiet. Porównajcie prawa kobiet w islamie i prawa kobiet w cywilizacjach stworzonych na religii chrześcijańskiej. Porównajcie te prawa. Wobec tego również to, że świadomie kolejny raz mówiąc o prześladowaniu, wskazujecie na muzułmanów, a pomijacie chrześcijaństwo, też jest symboliczne. I najwyższy czas z tym skończyć.
                  

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Die Bundesregierung fälscht seit Jahren Statistiken zu antisemitischen Straftaten. Taten, die nicht zugeordnet werden können, oder Siegheilrufe auf Palästinenserdemos werden als rechtsextreme Straftaten verortet. Tausende antisemitische Straftaten seit dem 7. Oktober oder der aktuelle Fall des jüdischen Studenten in Berlin, der von einem muslimischen Kommilitonen ins Krankenhaus geprügelt wurde, zeigen, dass Antisemitismus fast ausschließlich von Muslimen ausgeht, die dank der EU und der Altparteien seit Jahren millionenfach in unsere Sozialsysteme einwandern.
                  

                     EU und Bundesregierung forcieren dadurch die Islamisierung unseres Kontinents. Das führt dazu, dass die Werte der Demokratie wie Meinungsfreiheit oder Gleichberechtigung abgeschafft werden, sobald die Scharia Einzug hält. Der dramatische Anstieg von Sexualverbrechen – seit 2015 alleine 7000 vergewaltigte Frauen in Deutschland durch Asylbewerber – ist nur ein Vorgeschmack dessen, was uns dann droht.
                  

                     Diese sogenannte Muslimfeindlichkeit existiert quasi nicht. Niemand hat etwas gegen rechtschaffene Muslime, die sich integrieren und ihre Religion privat ausüben. Dieser Begriff wurde von islamistischen Verbänden etabliert, um Kritiker der Islamisierung als Rechtsextremisten zu denunzieren und dadurch mundtot zu machen, genauso wie die gefälschten Statistiken über antisemitische Straftaten eine Verantwortung der Einheimischen für den Anstieg des Antisemitismus suggerieren und damit den Kampf gegen die Opposition rechtfertigen sollen.
                  

                     Wer Antisemitismus bekämpfen will, der beendet die Massenmigration und schiebt millionenfach ab.
                  

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ zu beantworten.)


Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Eine Frage auch an Sie, die ich ja vorher schon der Kollegin gestellt habe: Wir bekommen jetzt Berichte über die AfD-Jugendorganisation aus Sachsen, die bei ihrem Ausflug über die Deportation der Juden in Ghettos und auch über antimuslimische Pläne gesprochen hat. Widerspricht das nicht Ihrem flammenden Appell, Antisemitismus zu bekämpfen? Welche Schlussfolgerungen würden Sie daraus ziehen?
                  

Bernhard Zimniok (ID),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Erst einmal: Die AfD ist die einzige Partei in Deutschland, die überhaupt eine Liste hat, die ausschließt, dass wir Extremisten reinbekommen in die Partei – Punkt 1.
                  

                     Punkt 2: Sollten Fälle auftreten, dann reagiert die Partei sehr schnell. Ich möchte also nicht irgendetwas hier in den Raum werfen und projizieren. Ich sage nur: Sollte etwas sein, das in diese oder in jene Richtung extremistisch wäre, dann würde die Partei sehr schnell, sehr hart reagieren.
                  

                     Sind Sie damit zufrieden?
                  

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE),
Reaktion nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Ich bin gespannt, was die Folgen dieser Aussage von Ihnen sein werden. Ich hoffe, Sie bringen diese Initiative in Ihrer Partei ein, und das betrifft dann nicht nur diese Jugendorganisation, sondern alle Jugendorganisationen, die in Deutschland als rechtsextrem beobachtet werden.
                  

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Dann seien Sie weiterhin gespannt.
                  

Emmanuel Maurel (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, nous sommes nombreux dans cet hémicycle à nous être éveillés à la politique en combattant le racisme et l'antisémitisme. C'est un combat qui est consubstantiel à mon engagement, à mes convictions profondes, et c'est pourquoi le retour de la monstruosité antisémite en Europe nous stupéfie et nous bouleverse. Des thèses, des déclarations et des slogans que l'on croyait définitivement disparus dans les poubelles de l'histoire sont lus et entendus dans le débat public, dans les manifestations, ou simplement dans la rue, à Londres, à Berlin, à Paris ou ailleurs.
                  

                     Dans mon pays, la France, le nombre d'actes antisémites a augmenté de 1 000 % depuis les attentats terroristes du 7 octobre. Et aujourd'hui, l'antisémitisme ne se chuchote pas, il ne se murmure plus: il se profère à voix haute, il est devenu décomplexé. Et ce qui est terrible, c'est que certains justifient cette affreuse rechute par les massacres perpétrés en Palestine par le gouvernement d'extrême droite israélien.
                  

                     Eh bien moi, je vous le dis, utiliser cette tragédie pour répandre à nouveau une haine séculaire, c'est indigne et c'est dangereux, et c'est salir la cause palestinienne que de soutenir cela. Ce serait un naufrage pour notre continent que de laisser prospérer la haine du juif, comme si nous avions tout oublié d'un passé douloureux, pourtant pas si lointain.
                  

                     Ensemble, disons-le: plus jamais ça!
                  

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, u 2021. je 90 % Židova smatralo da je došlo do porasta antisemitizma u njihovoj zemlji, a 38 % njih razmišljalo je o iseljavanju jer se nisu osjećali sigurno u Europskoj uniji.
                  

                     To je bilo prije 7. listopada i brutalnog pokolja kojeg je teroristička organizacija Hamas izvela protiv židovskog naroda, počinivši tako najveći zločin u povijesti Izraela. Od tada se bilježi konstantan rast antisemitizma koji se, nažalost, manifestira ozbiljnim incidentima na europskom tlu kao što su isticanje neprimjerenih obilježja, napadi oružjem na sinagoge i ugrožavanje života pripadnika židovskih zajednica.
                  

                     Odgovorni za takav rast antisemitizma su prvenstveno pripadnici ekstremne ljevice koji, pa i ovdje u Europskom parlamentu, uporno žele izjednačiti krivnju za rat na koji je Izrael prisiljen te radikalni islamisti kojima je dozvoljeno da slobodno paradiraju u europskim gradovima i šire mržnju uporno odbijajući u Europi živjeti europske vrijednosti i naš način života.
                  

                     Nažalost, svjedoci smo toga da se antisemitizam pretvorio i u negiranje postojanja suvremene Države Izrael, koja je, sviđalo se to nekima ili ne, međunarodnopravna činjenica i koja će, unatoč nastojanjima da je se diskreditira, nastaviti biti pouzdan dio međunarodnog poretka.
                  

                     Europska je unija prije tri godine predstavila prvu strategiju za suzbijanje antisemitizma i njegovanje židovske kulture u Europi, temeljenu na sprječavanju svih oblika antisemitizma, zaštiti njegovanja židovske kulture te promicanju obrazovanja, istraživanja i sjećanja na holokaust. Imajući na umu napade terorističke skupine Hamas, ovoj strategiji mora se dodati četvrti stup – onaj o podršci Izraelu da uništi Hamas i sve njegove simpatizere.
                  

                     Kolegice i kolege, u modernoj Europi nema mjesta antisemitizmu niti radikalnom islamizmu.
                  

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospa predsednica! Spoštovani podpredsednik Komisije, kolegice in kolegi! Eskalacija oboroženega spopada med Izraelom in Hamasom neti nova žarišča v regiji, hkrati pa resno ogroža socialno kohezijo, demokracijo ter človekove pravice tudi v Evropi s porastom antisemitizma in sovraštva do muslimanov.
                  

                     Evropska komisija v strategiji EU za boj proti antisemitizmu ter v akcijskem načrtu EU za boj proti rasizmu obljublja odločno ukrepanje proti verbalnemu in fizičnemu nasilju ter vsem oblikam spodbujanja sovraštva in nasilja do Judov in muslimanov. A delim skrb več kot stotih izraelskih in mednarodnih nevladnih organizacij, da lahko zanašanje na definicijo antisemitizma Mednarodne zveze za spomin na holokavst (IHRA) krči prostor za svobodo govora, aktivizem, nenasilne proteste ter kritiko zoper uradno politiko Izraela.
                  

                     Podpredsednik Komisije mi je v odgovoru na pisno vprašanje zagotovil, da uporaba te definicije IHRA ne nadomešča ali posega v obstoječo zakonodajo o sovražnem govoru ali kaznivih dejanjih iz sovraštva. Toda razmejitev med legitimno kritiko izraelske politike in njenih ravnanj ter antisemitizmom mora biti jasna, da se bomo lahko spopadali z antisemitizmom in sovraštvom do muslimanov.
                  

José Ramón Bauzá Díaz (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente, ¿llamar al genocidio a los judíos viola las normas de intimidación y acoso de su universidad? Depende del contexto. Esas fueron las palabras de la directora de Harvard ante una pregunta muy sencilla en el Congreso de Estados Unidos. El 9 de octubre, un día después de la mayor masacre contra civiles desde el Holocausto, actuales ministros del Gobierno de España se manifestaron justificando los ataques de Hamás en defensa de la causa palestina. Y esta misma semana, entre las fallas de Valencia en mi país —España—, se ha presentado un árbol de Navidad sobre una esvástica, coronada con una estrella de David, y de sus ramas cuelgan figuras de cabezas de bebés tiroteadas representando a los bebés supuestamente asesinados por Israel. Y a esto alguno verdaderamente quiere llamarle libertad de expresión.
                  

                     Europa debe actuar frente a quienes enmascaran su odio e ignorancia con expresiones mal llamadas de libertad de expresión. Sin respeto, no habrá convivencia. Sin una estrategia de acción contra esta lacra, desde una Europa que ha vivido el odio desde dentro de sus propias fronteras, no habrá futuro. Simplemente es respeto y dignidad.
                  

Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir müssen uns gemeinsam und entschlossen gegen Islamfeindlichkeit und antisemitische Übergriffe einsetzen. Diskriminierung aufgrund religiöser Überzeugungen hat in unserer Welt keinen Platz. Hass bedroht unsere Gesellschaft und Demokratie, indem er die Meinungsfreiheit untergräbt.
                  

                     Sowohl die muslimische als auch die jüdische Gemeinschaft sind nicht nur Teil unserer Gesellschaft, sondern haben sie auch maßgeblich geprägt und einen wichtigen Beitrag zu unserer Welt geleistet. Dennoch mussten und müssen sie aufgrund ihres Glaubens unermessliches Leid ertragen.
                  

                     Daher müssen wir die zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen bei ihrem Kampf unterstützen. Der EU-Aktionsplan soll über das Jahr 2025 hinaus umgesetzt werden. Er muss einen intersektionalen Ansatz für alle Formen von Diskriminierung beinhalten – einschließlich Islamophobie und Antisemitismus. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind aufgefordert, diesen in ihrem nationalen Aktionsplan konsequent umzusetzen.
                  

Teuvo Hakkarainen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, muslimiviha on kyllä lisääntynyt, kuitenkin niin päin, että juuri muslimit lietsovat vihaa juutalaisia kohtaan. Tästä kertovat ympäri maailmaa kantautuvat viestit juutalaisten kokemuksista.
                  

                     Gazan sota lienee yksi vihan kannustin. Iranin aseistama ja yllyttämä kiihkoislamilainen Hamas aloitti tuon sodan ja joutuu nyt maksamaan siitä. Muistettakoon, että Hamasin hyökkäys Israeliin vaati saman verran uhreja kuin arabiterroristien isku kaksoistorniin vuonna 2001.
                  

                     Muistutan taas kerran, kuinka Euroopan sisällä on jo miljoonittain islamin sotureita, jotka kutsun tullen ovat valmiina. Ääriliberaalinen EU on jatkuvasti alistunut ja pitänyt rajat auki tuon kuolettavan uhan edessä.
                  

Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io trovo francamente sconcertante che una discussione sul crescente antisemitismo sia stata allargata all'islamofobia per non urtare le comunità musulmane.
                  

                     Per l'ennesima volta, l'Unione europea si piega. Mentre vediamo continue manifestazioni nelle città europee, spesso con toni inaccettabili, filoterroristi di Hamas, voi riuscite a dire che c'è un odio antimusulmano o, come ha detto il Segretario generale delle Nazioni Unite, un'epidemia mondiale di islamofobia.
                  

                     La verità è che sono gli ebrei che hanno paura di girare per strada per paura di violenze da parte di estremisti islamici. Ma di quale islamofobia state parlando? Nel mondo, piuttosto, sono in aumento le persecuzioni dei cristiani e in Europa c'è un serio arretramento sulle libertà, con docenti e presidi uccisi o minacciati. Io stessa sono sotto scorta in Italia perché ho osato esprimere la mia opinione sul velo islamico, sulla condizione delle donne e sull'islamizzazione nel nostro continente.
                  

                     Per paura o interesse state facendo di tutto per cancellare le nostre tradizioni, la nostra storia e la nostra identità. Siamo di fronte al suicidio dell'Occidente, alla resa dell'Europa, quella che promuove il velo islamico nelle sue comunicazioni e cancella le nostre feste. State tradendo i valori dell'Unione europea per portarci a un futuro drammatico di un'Europa islamizzata.
                  

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’ (articolo 171, paragrafo 9, del regolamento))


Karen Melchior (Renew),
blue-card question. – Thank you very much for accepting the blue card. You mentioned demonstrations. There have been demonstrations in Italy where a gesture – the so-called Italian greeting, but which is seen by the rest of the world as a Nazi salute – is being used. This, of course, instils fear because it was under Mussolini, fascist leader of Italy, from where Jews were sent to the camps and exterminated.
How do you see the obligation of the right wing in Italy to ensure the safety of all minorities and of all religions in Italy?

Silvia Sardone (ID),
risposta a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’
                        . – Mi pare che Lei stia parlando dai banchi del PPE. La informo che l'erede anagrafica di Mussolini è nel PPE e siede tra i vostri banchi. Questa come premessa. Inoltre, per quanto riguarda il saluto romano, La informo che c'erano molti più manifestanti a fare, in quel luogo, il saluto romano quando al governo del mio paese, dell'Italia, c'era la sinistra. Ecco, magari si informi e capisca effettivamente come sono le cose nel mio paese.
                  

Νιαζί Κιζιλγιουρέκ (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρώπη πέρασε τις πιο σκοτεινές σελίδες της ιστορίας της εξαιτίας του αντισημιτισμού. Στις μέρες μας, δυστυχώς, συναντάμε και πάλι το μίσος κατά των Εβραίων με πολλά προσωπεία. Αλλά έχει προστεθεί ακόμα μια ρητορική μίσους. Η ισλαμοφοβία που πηγάζει από τον πολιτισμικό ρατσισμό. Μπορεί ο αντισημιτισμός και η ξενοφοβία να έχουν διαφορετικές αφετηρίες, αλλά και τα δύο στιγματίζουν και αποκλείουν ανθρώπους λόγω θρησκευτικής και εθνοτικής καταγωγής. Δεν πρέπει να ξεχάσουμε ποτέ πως τα έθνη που αναγνωρίζουν δικαιώματα στους πολίτες μόνο βάσει θρησκείας και εθνότητας βρίσκονται στον δρόμο της βαρβαρότητας. Αυτό ήταν ακριβώς που ήθελαν οι ιδρυτές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να αποφεύγουμε. Επείγουσα ανάγκη για καταπολέμηση του αντισημιτισμού και της ισλαμοφοβίας πηγάζει από το γεγονός ότι καθιστούν απειλή κατά της φιλελεύθερης δημοκρατίας και ανοιχτής κοινωνίας, αλλά και κατά του ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού. Διότι ένας πολιτισμός που καταπατά την ανθρώπινη αξιοπρέπεια παύει να είναι πολιτισμός.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, antisemitismus je bohužel hluboce zakořeněný rasismus v evropské společnosti. Pro židovskou komunitu i základní cíle EU představuje existenční hrozbu. Před dvěma týdny jsme si připomněli Den holocaustu, ale stále jsme nenašli dostatečně efektivní způsob, jak tento hrůzný příběh naší historie předat našim dětem a obecně lidem v naší společnosti. Je to přitom naléhavé, protože projevy antisemitismu jsou na dramatickém vzestupu. Organizace pro monitorování antisemitismu RIAS oznámila, že od 7. října v Německu vzrostl počet antisemitských incidentů o 2,5násobek. V Rakousku je to dokonce o 3násobek. Velký nárůst těchto útoků hlásí také Francie a řada dalších evropských států, takže židovští občané se ve svých domovských zemích v Evropě opravdu necítí bezpečně. Nenávist nepochází pouze od pravicových extremistů, ale také od levicových extremistů a islámských extremistů odkazujících na válku na Blízkém východě. Zároveň také pouze třetina populace v EU považuje antisemitismus za velký problém a zásadní roli v podněcování nenávisti pak hrají sociální média.
                  

                     Tato situace si vyžaduje jasnou a rozhodnou reakci. Jsem rád, že v roce 2021 předsedkyně von der Leyenová představila strategii EU boje proti antisemitismu, ale je co nejdříve třeba dokončit revizi směrnice o právech obětí, aby bylo možno lépe podporovat oběti těchto trestných činů. A také nárůst antisemitismu je pro EU nepochybně velkou výzvou. Já věřím, že ji zvládneme společně.
                  

Leszek Miller (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Od rozpoczęcia wojny na Bliskim Wschodzie odnotowano znaczący wzrost zarejestrowanych zachowań antysemickich i antymuzułmańskich w Europie, ale i na świecie. Zjawisko to budzi głęboki niepokój, pokazując, że wiele demonów z przeszłości nie zostało unicestwionych, a jedynie uśpionych. Zaczynają się budzić i snują się po Europie. Na nas spoczywa obowiązek podejmowania działań, aby tutaj, w naszym europejskim domu, się nie zadomowiły.
                  

                     W Unii Europejskiej nie może być miejsca na partie i polityków, poglądy czy zachowania rasistowskie czy ksenofobiczne, a niestety zdarzają się również i w tym gmachu, i na tej sali. Wiemy, że tragedie wyrastają z ziarna nienawiści, które z takim trudem wyrywaliśmy z korzeniami przez dziesięciolecia. Trzeba dołożyć wszelkich starań, aby wysiłki wielu pokoleń nie poszły na marne.
                  

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Da, antisemitizem je v porastu in, da, antiislamizem oziroma sovraštvo do muslimanov je v porastu. Bodimo pošteni in povejmo oboje.
                  

                     Iskreno povejmo tudi, zakaj. Zaradi eskalacije razmer v Gazi. Zaradi vojne v Gazi. Zaradi genocida, ki ga Izrael že štiri mesece – najmanj – izvaja nad palestinskim narodom. A čeprav se sproži kot popotresni cunami, gre v resnici za globoko zakoreninjen strukturni rasizem, temelječ na sovraštvu. Žal.
                  

                     Sovraštvo je kot virus in širi se kot epidemija, v našo družbo pa prinaša tudi nasilje, zločine iz sovraštva, maščevanja zaradi vere ali etničnega izvora. Njihovo manifestacijo dodatno pospešujejo družbena omrežja, ki omogočajo spletne napade, širjenje teorij zarot in dezinformacij. Vse našteto v sodobni družbi nima mesta.
                  

                     In žalosti me, da prav na podlagi tako grozljivih dejanj uspevajo in rastejo radikalno desne politične stranke, četudi smo ravno mi politiki tisti, ki moramo z zgledom voditi, učiti ter usmerjati vrednotna in moralna stališča ljudi. Domoljub ni tisti, ki to dokazuje s sovraštvom do drugih.
                  

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η θεωρία της λεγόμενης ισλαμοφοβίας προωθείται από συγκεκριμένα κέντρα, την Τουρκία, το Κατάρ, την Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα. Οι ίδιοι, δηλαδή, που χρηματοδοτούν την λαθροεισβολή, την αντικατάσταση του πληθυσμού μας στην Ευρώπη, την ενοχικότητα για το γεγονός ότι είμαστε χριστιανοί. Δυστυχώς, βρίσκουν πρόσφορο έδαφος. Το παρόν Κοινοβούλιο αρνήθηκε να καταδικάσει την χρήση της μαντίλας, έστω σε καμπάνιες της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής. Αυτό είναι ντροπή, αλλά ο καιρός γαρ εγγύς. Και, βεβαίως, υπάρχουν χριστιανοφοβικοί διωγμοί στην Ευρώπη, υποβάθμιση του θεσμού της Εκκλησίας και των διδαχών της, επιθέσεις κατά χριστιανών, κυρίως γυναικών και παιδιών, βεβηλώσεις των ναών μας. Η Ευρώπη, λοιπόν, αυτοκτονεί. Για σχεδόν δύο χιλιετίες, στηρίχτηκε στον Χριστιανισμό, κυρίως στη Ρωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορία μας, το Βυζάντιο. Είμαστε περήφανοι απόγονοι εκείνων που απώθησαν το Ισλάμ ξανά και ξανά. Να είστε περήφανοι και οι Γάλλοι για τη μάχη του Πουατιέ και οι Αυστριακοί για τη Μάχη της Βιέννης. Σήμερα, είμαστε ευγνώμονες για τις γενναίες επιλογές των Ούγγρων και των Ολλανδών. Η Ευρώπη ξυπνάει. Οι πατρίδες μας πρέπει να σωθούν και θα σωθούν. Οι λαθροεισβολείς δεν θα περάσουν.
                  

Mick Wallace (The Left). – We're discussing the need to fight the increase of in antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred. On Monday, you blocked a debate about the UN's highest court ruling that the Israelis supporting an entire predominantly Muslim population at risk of genocide.
Looking at Germany may help us understand this contradiction; it arms Israel and it supported our defeated case at the ICJ. It materially and politically supports genocide of Muslims in Gaza. At the same time, in the name of fighting antisemitism at home, 30% of events cancelled due to suspected antisemitism are actually anti-Zionist events organised by Jewish people.
In the fight against antisemitism, German police forces are kicking down doors and beating Muslims in the street for speaking out against the genocide of their own people in Gaza. Anti-Muslim hatred is clearly state-mandated, while antisemitism is being brandished as a stick to attack those who speak out against the crimes of Europe's Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Not a lot has changed in the past century.

Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, Komisijos nary, kolegos. Šiandien mes susiduriame su skaudžia tikrove – nauja antisemitizmo banga. Pranešimai apie neapykantos skatinamus incidentus yra stulbinantis priminimas, kad istorijos pamokos išmoktos ne visur.
                  

                     Pastarasis smurto protrūkis Artimuosiuose Rytuose sukėlė pavojingą antisemitinės retorikos ir išpuolių bangą ne vienoje valstybėje narėje.
                  

                     Lietuva, kaip ir daugelis Europos tautų, turi praeities randus: kadaise gyvybinga ir neatsiejama mūsų visuomenės dalis – Lietuvos žydų bendruomenė – Antrojo pasaulinio karo metu susidūrė su sisteminiu smurtu, kurio kulminacija buvo Holokaustas. Getai ir žudynės išliko Europos kolektyvinėje atmintyje kaip ryškus priminimas apie pražūtingas nekontroliuojamos neapykantos pasekmes.
                  

                     Deja, antisemitizmo augimas yra ne tik istoriniais reliktas, bet ir šių dienų realybė Europoje.
                  

                     Retorikos negana. Siekdami įveikti antisemitizmą, privalome taikyti politines, teisines priemones, traukti baudžiamojon atsakomybėn už neapykantos nusikaltimus tiek internete, tiek ir realiame gyvenime. Tai reiškia investicijas į švietimo programas, skatinančias toleranciją ir supratimą, dialogo ir bendradarbiavimo tarp įvairių bendruomenių grupių skatinimą.
                  

                     Privalome siųsti žinią ateities kartoms, kad vieningai smerkiame visas antisemitizmo, kaip ir bet kokios kitos neapykantos, formas. Turime dar kartą patvirtinti savo įsipareigojimą ginti pagrindinius tolerancijos, pagarbos ir lygybės principus, kuriais remiantis buvo įkurta Europos Sąjunga.
                  

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, antisemitismul e un virus care nestârpit la timp, a infectat sistemul de valori aflat la temelia Uniunii Europene. El folosește orice breșă, orice eveniment, orice mijloc pentru a contamina masele. Iar declarațiile unor oficiali, ciudat de rezervați în condamnarea masacrului din 7 octombrie, n-au făcut decât să răspândească boala.
                  

                     Dar cea mai recentă explozie de antisemitism a venit deja pe o creștere a acestui flagel. În pandemie, când planeta era în izolare, iar grijile erau altele, antisemitismul urca vertiginos. În 2022 atingea un nou vârf. În 2024, el a ajuns la cel mai înalt grad de absurditate, astfel încât pentru prea mulți terorismul a devenit acceptabil, justificabil.
                  

                     De aici până la punctul în care oricărui alt stat i se va putea nega într-o zi dreptul de a-și apăra suveranitatea și integritatea, distanța e periculos de mică. E bine că facem o legislație europeană care să combată antisemitismul, dar fără educație adecvată și oficiali echilibrați, responsabili, care să înțeleagă că tonul îl dau ei, nicio legislație nu va reuși vreodată să ucidă această monstruozitate.
                  

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, despite the title of this debate, being anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim are not two sides of the same twisted coin. The coin of hate shows hate no matter to which side you turn it. But here we are, in 2024, sliding backward into racism and bigotry. The danger and the toll on our citizens flooded by hate and threats is immense. They must be protected.
We cannot fight hate with hate, but only by meeting and knowing each other. Seeing truly in practice that we are not defined by our religion, like the incredible work done by Brobyggerne, the ‘Bridge Builders’ association, founded by the late Chief Rabbi Bent Melchior – not my direct family – and former MP Özlem Cekic.
We need to stop political posturing. We need to start solid anti-hate measures, focus on protection, prevention and education. We need to build bridges.

Beata Kempa (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Dzisiaj dużo mówiono o ekstremizmach, o nienawiści. Jestem temu przeciwna ze względu na jakiekolwiek kwestie, aby ktokolwiek doznawał aktów, które są niegodne człowieka. Ale trzeba nam powiedzieć jasno, że one na pewno wywodzą się też z braku edukacji.
                  

                     W ubiegłym miesiącu tutaj w Parlamencie Europejskim przedstawiałam wystawę upamiętniającą rodzinę Ulmów, polską rodzinę, którą Niemcy wymordowali, matkę, ojca, matkę w dziewiątym miesiącu ciąży, sześcioro malutkich dzieci i jej męża tylko dlatego, że chronili Żydów, że dali im schronienie, że ci, którzy uciekali przed okrucieństwem wojny, mogli się u nich schronić. I takie przypadki trzeba pokazywać. Ale trzeba powiedzieć, że to byli chrześcijanie.
                  

                     Dzisiaj też trzeba nam mówić o chrystianofobii, która jest tutaj, w Europie i na świecie. My mamy jako Europa instrumenty, żeby z tym walczyć. Mamy przecież około 792 ataki na kościoły i wiernych. Nie może być tak jak dzisiaj, były szef EPL-u zatrudnia w rządzie kobietę, która naruszała sacrum, która weszła na mszę świętą chrześcijańską. Tak być nie może. Musimy się temu przeciwstawiać.
                  

Janina Ochojska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Art. 14 Europejskiej Karty Praw Człowieka zabrania dyskryminacji ze względu na płeć, rasę, kolor skóry, religię, poglądy polityczne, inne pochodzenie narodowe lub społeczne, przynależność do mniejszości narodowej, urodzenie lub inny status. Wiemy, jak powinno być. Jednak przykłady z historii pokazują, że rasizm jest wciąż obecny w naszych myślach i działaniach i że te tendencje do mowy nienawiści wzrastają.
                  

                     Po ataku Hamasu na cywilną ludność Izraela, kiedy opinia publiczna została wstrząśnięta brutalnością i bezwzględnością tego czynu, zaczęły wzrastać nastroje antymuzułmańskie. Tendencja ta zaczęła odwracać się po bombardowaniach Strefy Gazy przez siły IDF i po wzrastającej ilości cywilnych palestyńskich ofiar. W wielu krajach, łącznie z Izraelem, odbywają się protesty przeciwko agresji Izraela, co powoduje wzrost nastrojów antyizraelskich, nie mylić z antysemickimi. Trzeba rozróżnić akty rasistowskie od protestów przeciwko bezprawnym działaniom rządów.
                  

                     Chcę żyć w społeczeństwie, które potępia rasizm w każdej formie. Motto Unii Europejskiej brzmi ‘Zjednoczeni w różnorodności’. Naszym zadaniem jest sprostać tym słowom i wypełnić ich znaczenie.
                  

Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'è un pericoloso virus che è sempre più radicato nelle nostre società. Si tratta dell'odio: odio verso l'altro, verso il diverso, verso chi non la pensa come te o verso chi prega un altro Dio. È un sentimento pericoloso, spesso utilizzato con lo scopo di distogliere l'attenzione dai veri problemi attraverso fake news, alimentate talvolta dalla propaganda russa che trova sponda nella peggiore destra, in partiti come quello di Matteo Salvini.
                  

                     È la stessa destra che non sa dare risposte ai veri problemi, come quello di avere un sistema sanitario efficiente, un lavoro dignitoso, una casa sopra la testa o la possibilità per i giovani di avviare una vita indipendente o di vivere liberi. Ed è lì, di fronte a quell'incapacità di trovare soluzioni, che le destre scaricano la colpa sempre su qualcun altro, sui governi che li hanno preceduti, o indirizzando sui più fragili e vulnerabili accuse strumentali e infondate.
                  

                     L'odio genera odio, non aiuta le nostre imprese, non offre un futuro ai nostri figli, non risolve gli effetti del cambiamento climatico, non genera crescita né, tantomeno, pace. L'odio si combatte con una politica efficace contro razzismo e intolleranza religiosa, per costruire un futuro giusto per tutti.
                  

Salima Yenbou (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, les préjugés et les discriminations persistent, malheureusement, dans nos sociétés. Il est urgent de nous mobiliser collectivement contre l'antisémitisme, mais aussi contre l'islamophobie. Ce sont des manifestations d'ignorance et de peur qui menacent nos valeurs fondamentales de tolérance et de respect.
                  

                     L'Union européenne doit agir de manière concrète et déterminée, au risque de voir nos sociétés se diviser et s'affronter. Luttons pour que chaque individu, indépendamment de son origine ou de sa religion, puisse vivre sans craindre la discrimination et dénoncer cette dernière en actionnant la justice et contribuer ainsi à promouvoir une société plus juste, équitable et apaisée.
                  

                     La lutte contre toutes les formes de discrimination ne doit pas être sélective, mais équitable et inclusive. Chaque fois qu'une minorité est victime de discrimination, la société tout entière doit se lever pour condamner ces actes et prendre des mesures appropriées. C'est dans notre unité que réside notre force, pour construire un avenir où la diversité est une richesse et où la justice est notre bien commun.
                  

                     Nelson Mandela disait que le racisme était une maladie de l'âme, pour laquelle il n'existe ni vaccin ni traitement, et que seule l'éducation pouvait en venir à bout. Alors éduquons-nous pour guérir nos sociétés de l'antisémitisme, de l'islamophobie, mais aussi de toute forme de racisme.
                  

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, con todo respeto, yo creo que aquí hay una trampa ya en el título. Se presentan antisemitismo e islamofobia como si existieran por igual y fueran lo mismo. Eso es mentira.
                  

                     Hay dos antisemitismos que hacen Europa otra vez muy peligrosa para los judíos.
                  

                     Un antisemitismo lo importamos con fronteras abiertas a la entrada ilegal e incontrolada de millones de odiadores de los judíos. Hemos visto las ciudades europeas llenas de musulmanes pidiendo el exterminio de judíos y la destrucción de Israel.
                  

                     Y está el otro antisemitismo, que es el antisemitismo de la izquierda, disfrazado de antisionismo, con odiadores profesionales de Israel como Pedro Sánchez, a quien felicitan los terroristas de Hamás, o su ministra Rego, que encabeza manifestaciones pidiendo la desaparición de Israel.
                  

                     La islamofobia, en cambio, es un invento de esa misma izquierda antisemita para intimidar a los europeos y obligarles a aceptar lo inaceptable con esta invasión de una cultura hostil a su forma de vida, de millones que no vienen a integrarse, sino a una conquista territorial que ya ha comenzado.
                  

                     El rechazo a actitudes invasoras no es odio a ideología ni religión alguna, es autodefensa de quienes son agredidos y no son defendidos por sus gobernantes.
                  

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Madam President, Vice-President, the fight against anti-Semitism is a constant and never-ending battle. We must never lower our guard. It surrounds us in Europe.
I want to let all the victims know that we are taking this very seriously here. Thanks to the efforts of the President of the European Commission, von der Leyen, and Vice-President Margaritis Schinas, we are making important steps forward to fight this in the European Union.
I wish and I hope that the European governments are up to doing what we are doing here in the European institutions about it. They have to do it. Anti-Semitism is anti-European, it does not belong in Europe and we will keep up the work and the fight to make Jewish people safe and happy, working and interacting in our Europe.
Now more than ever in these difficult times, after the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, now more than ever is the moment to show our European principles and to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves here in Europe.

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, é muito preocupante a multiplicação, um pouco por todo o mundo, mas também na Europa, de graves incidentes onde podemos ver discursos e até crimes de ódio, em especial contra as comunidades judaica e muçulmana.
                  

                     A crise no Médio Oriente pode ajudar a explicar estes incidentes, mas não os torna mais toleráveis.
                  

                     Todas as formas de ódio e intolerância contra comunidades inteiras contrariam os valores europeus e o respeito devido aos direitos humanos, venham de quem vierem.
                  

                     Fez bem a Comissão Europeia ao apresentar uma comunicação para combater todas as formas de ódio na União Europeia. E é preciso fazer mais, lançando uma grande campanha pedagógica contra o ódio e a favor dos valores europeus. Mas também os partidos europeus têm uma grande responsabilidade. As alianças que partidos liberais e de centro-direita têm feito com partidos populistas de extrema-direita, os mesmos que alimentam os discursos nacionalistas, racistas e xenófobos, são uma traição aos valores europeus.
                  

                     É preciso travar esta deriva antes que seja tarde demais.
                  

Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, beste collega's, de dramatische gebeurtenissen op 7 oktober hebben ook hun weerslag op onze samenleving. We zien een enorme polarisatie. Maar wat daarbij nog wel het meest zorgen baart, is de enorme opleving van het antisemitisme. Dit moeten we stoppen.
                  

                     Namelijk:
                  






a)


Door heel duidelijk te zijn. Je mag protesteren, maar zodra je gaat schreeuwen dat Joden uit hun land verdreven moeten worden, ga je een grens over. Dat tolereren we niet.










b)


Door te blijven investeren in onze jongeren. Zoals de directeur van een school in Molenbeek me onlangs toevertrouwde — een school met ruim 80 % moslimjongeren: wij leren onze leerlingen andersdenkenden te respecteren. Zo moet het.










c)


Door het goede voorbeeld te geven. Dat de Europese Unie nog steeds geld overmaakt aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit en UNRWA ten behoeve van antisemitisch lesmateriaal, is daarom niet uit te leggen. Commissie, stop daarmee!





Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Madam President, love and inclusion go beyond the hate of the far right that is always ready to juxtapose one community against the other. First, they were the frontrunners in antisemitism, including denying the Holocaust, and now leading an Islamophobic campaign.
But away from the far right in this European Parliament, away from the far-right government in Israel, or the far-right Hamas in Gaza, I'll just mention one beautiful story. It is that of two men: David, who is Jewish, and his partner Amir, who is Palestinian, who have been living together for 15 years in a region which is in turmoil. They built their family over there. And yet this is only one example of so many interesting stories of people who come together in love, notwithstanding the hate of the far right.
Because let's speak of the far-right hate, the homophobia. They would be against this couple. The former antisemites would be against half of this couple, and now they're against the other half with their Islamophobia. These are so many countless stories of love.
And no, criticising the far-right Israeli Government is not antisemitism as much as condemning fascist Hamas is not Islamophobia.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente Schinas, gracias por su presencia en este largo debate. La verdad, yo estoy de acuerdo con muchas de las cosas que se han dicho, pero también creo que tenemos que ser más concretos y más prácticos a la hora de abordar este problema. No basta con darnos golpes de pecho, decir que el antisemitismo está muy mal, por supuesto, la islamofobia también, sino que necesitamos una acción concreta.
                  

                     Es verdad que la Comisión tiene una coordinadora para la lucha contra el antisemitismo que está trabajando en este asunto y la Comisión tiene iniciativas en este sentido valiosas. Pero nosotros creemos que hay que dar un paso más y, además, hemos tenido, querido Sr. Schinas, ocasión de tratarlo. La propuesta del programa para los jóvenes de Europa para que cualquier joven de escuela secundaria de Europa pueda visitar, al menos, uno de los campos de exterminio, de la muerte o de concentración. Como dijo la presidenta Metsola durante la inauguración del Memorial del Holocausto, nada es comparable a la experiencia de visitar Auschwitz.
                  

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Sto lat temu na ulicach Polski spotykali się przedstawiciele wielu mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych: Żydzi, Ślązacy, Kaszubi, Łemkowie czy ludzie, którzy mówili, że są tutejsi, i chociaż mieli różne pochodzenie etniczne czy wierzyli w innych bogów, to wspólnie budowali swój kraj. Ich świat zburzyły ksenofobia, rasizm i nienawiść. Najstraszniejszą cenę, cenę eksterminacji, zapłacili Żydzi. Jednak innych nieszczęścia także nie ominęły: Łemkowie, Bojkowie, akcja ‘Wisła’, Ślązacy, pomijana w podręcznikach do historii tragedia górnośląska.
                  

                     Europa musi wyciągnąć wnioski ze swojej historii. Możemy być silni tylko wtedy, gdy hejt i nienawiść są zwalczane instytucjonalnie, także w internecie. Możemy być silni, gdy prawa mniejszości i języki regionalne są szanowane i uznawane przez państwo. Unia Europejska to projekt pojednania. Widzimy to dobrze zwłaszcza tutaj, w Alzacji. Tym bardziej Komisja Europejska powinna wrócić do dobrego obywatelskiego projektu Minority SafePack. Różnorodność to siła.
                  

Carina Ohlsson (S&D). – Fru talman! Deras ekonomiskpolitiska talesperson blir påkommen i en film och berättar anekdoter om hur hans tyska kollegor heilar och sparkar på fårkadaver och samtidigt kallar dem för judar. Han är fortfarande partiets ekonomiskpolitiska talesperson.
                  

                     Under de senaste åren har det kommit flera avslöjanden om politiker från samma parti som applåderar Hitler, säger att judar inte är svenskar och som hånar Anne Frank och kallar henne för saker som ‘the coolest Jew in the shower room’. Helt oacceptabelt.
                  

                     Jag pratar såklart om företrädare som tillhör Charlie Weimers parti. De säger att de är och har nolltolerans mot rasism och antisemitism, och att den som bryter mot det ska uteslutas. Men i själva verket har de kvar sina toppositioner.
                  

                     Listan på uttalanden från Sverigedemokraterna fyllda med judehat kan göras lång, alldeles för lång. De säger att antisemitismen beror på muslimer och massinvandring. Men med lärdomar från historien såväl som nutiden skulle jag med säkerhet säga att det är partier med främlingsfientliga idéer som står för det största hotet.
                  

Matthias Ecke (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es schmerzt mich, wenn bis heute jüdische Einrichtungen in Deutschland Polizeischutz brauchen, wenn Jüdinnen und Juden bedroht werden. Diese Bedrohung kommt vor allem von rechts; noch im September kamen über 80 % antisemitischer Straftaten von rechts. Deswegen: Vergießen Sie keine Krokodilstränen, sondern halten Sie diese Leute im Zaum!
                  

                     Seit dem barbarischen Angriff der Hamas am 7. Oktober sind aber noch viele weitere Straftaten hinzugekommen, auch von Muslimen verübt. Das ist inakzeptabel und erfährt unsere schärfste Ablehnung.
                  

                     Antisemitische wie antimuslimische Gewalt rührt aber von einem Menschenbild her, das Menschen als nicht gleichwertig ansieht. Sie betrifft Gruppen, die aufgrund ihrer religiösen Zugehörigkeit ausgegrenzt werden, Gewalt erfahren und im Alltag nicht angstfrei leben können.
                  

                     Für die Rechtsextremen in diesem Haus sind Menschen eben nicht gleichwertig. Ihre Solidarität ist fake. Sie machen sich die schmerzhaften Wunden der jüdischen Gemeinschaft zunutze, um wiederum zu diskriminieren. Sie hetzen Menschen gegeneinander auf.
                  

                     Wir halten aber die universellen Werte der Europäischen Union hoch – die unantastbare Würde des Menschen, Freiheit, Solidarität, Gleichheit und eine faire Gesellschaft.
                  

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Željana Zovko (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, potpredsjedniče Schinas, mi ovdje raspravljamo o antisemitizmu i antimuslimanskom osjećaju.
                  

                     Što ćete reći na situaciju u Mostaru, gdje su studenti hrvatskog sveučilišta bili prisiljeni, zbog propagande korištenja Starog mosta i plakata koji nije imao dovoljno minareta da zadovolji drugu stranu, morali su otkazati ljetnu školu međunarodne politike? Jedno sveučilište i mladi ljudi žive u strahu od propagande koja ih čini da se osjećaju ugroženo u svom gradu, u svojoj sredini. I to da se osjećaju ugroženo, da ne mogu koristiti sliku objekta, znači mosta koji je upisan na listu svjetske baštine. I ja sam ga upisala 2005. godine kao simbol pomirenja triju naroda, tri kulture, pomirenja koje je trebalo donijeti mir i pomirenje u Bosni i Hercegovini.
                  

                     Što ćete reći na Željka Komšića koji napada izraelsku veleposlanicu i zove je budalom zato što od njega traži da žaluje za svim nestalima i svim ubijenim mladim ljudima u napadu koji se desio 7. listopada?
                  

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, the wretched history of antisemitism and Islamophobia on this continent is measured in centuries. Both have produced horrific crimes. Neither has gone away. And our moral rejection of bigotry must be absolute and resolute.
Hatred and dehumanisation lead all too quickly to violence and repression, and nobody from any minority should experience it. And I really wish I could say that that was the dominant approach here. But I can't, because instead now Europe's approach is to see novel forms of both bigotries reinforcing each other.
So we see European governments parroting Islamophobic ‘war on terror’ tropes to dehumanise innocent victims in Gaza as violent and savage, enabling violence against them. We see false and cynical accusations of antisemitism against legitimate demonstrations condemning genocide. Rather than supporting these communities, Europe is dividing them, as it did in all the colonial years. The sooner we cut Israel loose, the better in the struggle against racism.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, it's only right we should fight against hatred of all types: antisemitism, anti-Muslimism, but also anti-Christian hatred. Only last week we saw a church in Turkey being attacked during mass. Christians are the most persecuted minority in many parts of the world, and that's something that we EPP Christian Democrats would have to condemn and would like to see addressed.
Also, it has to be said that, in relation to antisemitism, while Netanyahu had a right to defend Israel after the horrific attacks by Hamas, he's gone over the top completely. The indiscriminate killing of so many Palestinians, women and children, is something that we'd have to condemn, and that actually makes it very difficult to fight against antisemitism. And that is something we have to recognise and hopefully bring about peace there.
As well as that, we need to look at the platforms that have become a home for the haters and a home for the bitter – to use it, often anonymously, to spread hatred. And that's something we need to look at, particularly in the next mandate: look at Twitter and the like to stop this free opportunity to spread hatred.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Margaritis Schinas,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for this long debate, but a converging one.
What makes Europe a unique place in the world is that we are a union of 27 democracies. The minorities are protected with strong constitutional guarantees. The role of women is safeguarded in the family, in the society and in the workplace. We are the world champions of human rights, of data protection. We have universal and free systems for education and health. We take care of our elderly and we have no death penalty. This is what everybody calls the European way of life.
Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are forms of threats to this model of society that unites us. These turbulent times should not be an excuse for polarisation, indifference and threat to this model of society that makes us a beacon of light in a world that is becoming darker.
In these turbulent times, we need an opportunity to strengthen our mutual respect, to reinforce our cohesion and solidarity, to protect the safety and the security of all communities living in the European Union, irrespective of their religious, ethnic or gender background.
No one – no one – in Europe should have to hide their identity because they feel threatened. And this together. This is a collective obligation that we have to ensure that in Europe there is no place for hate. And Mostar University cannot be an exception, my dear Željana.
If Europe fails any of these commitments, Europe will have failed us all.

Puhemies. – Paljon kiitoksia varapuheenjohtaja Schinas.
                  
14.   Automated data exchange for police cooperation (‘Prüm II’) (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Paulo Rangelin kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetukseksi automaattisesta tietojenvaihdosta poliisiyhteistyössä (Prüm II) sekä neuvoston päätösten 2008/615/YOS ja 2008/616/YOS ja Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetusten (EU) 2018/1726, (EU) 2019/817 ja (EU) 2019/818 muuttamisesta (COM(2021)0784 - C9-0455/2021 - 2021/0410(COD)) (A9-0200/2023).
               

Paulo Rangel,
relator. –Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, votaremos amanhã o acordo alcançado em novembro com o Conselho para o regulamento relativo ao intercâmbio automatizado de dados para efeitos de cooperação policial, ou seja, o Prüm II.
               

                  Antes de mais, queria agradecer a todos os colegas que integraram a equipa negocial do Parlamento, à Comissão e, em particular, à Comissária Johansson, às Presidências sueca e espanhola pelo longo trabalho e dedicação e, já agora, a toda a equipa que, seja no Secretariado do Parlamento, seja em particular nos gabinetes dos deputados, os apoiou no desenvolvimento desta mudança legislativa.
               

                  O novo Prüm terá a possibilidade de, de uma forma semiautomatizada, trocar dados criminais, ADN, impressões digitais, dados de registo de veículos, imagens faciais, registos policiais, entre as autoridades responsáveis pela aplicação da lei durante a investigação de um crime através de um sistema hit/no-hit.
               

                  Damos, assim, às autoridades nacionais responsáveis pela aplicação da lei a possibilidade de saber, de forma mais rápida e eficiente, se outros Estados-Membros, se a Europol, possuem dados que correspondem aos recolhidos durante a investigação de uma infração criminal.
               

                  Recordo que, segundo a Europol, mais de 70 % das organizações criminosas estão presentes em mais de três Estados-Membros. Todos os anos, na nossa União, centenas de milhares de pessoas, muitas delas crianças, são dadas como desaparecidas. Trata-se, pois, de uma pedra angular da cooperação policial na nossa União, utilizada diariamente pelas autoridades na luta contra a criminalidade organizada, o terrorismo, o tráfico de seres humanos, o tráfico de droga, entre muitos outros crimes.
               

                  Com o sistema anterior, o acesso das autoridades nacionais a dados como o DNA, como as impressões digitais, era possível, mas era moroso e era bilateral. Com esta reforma, a comparação de dados deixa de ser feita de forma bilateral. É feita agora através de um sistema semiautomatizado em que entram todos os Estados-Membros, dado que as bases de dados nacionais estarão agora ligadas a um router central, em vez de estarem apenas conectadas umas às outras.
               

                  Para além de ganhos operacionais evidentes no combate à criminalidade, este regulamento traz mais garantias de proteção da privacidade, dos direitos humanos, das liberdades fundamentais das cidadãs e dos cidadãos, porque garante a anonimização dos dados e o controlo humano das chamadas correspondências e também a monitorização destes processos de troca de informações.
               

                  Queria dizer que é fundamental o respeito pela lei europeia e pela lei nacional em termos de proteção de dados. E esta recolha é sempre feita apenas e só no âmbito da prevenção, deteção ou investigação de um crime e também só pode ser utilizada para esse fim.
               

                  Neste sentido, queria deixar claro que o novo Prüm é um passo em frente enorme na tarefa das polícias e é também um passo em frente enorme na defesa dos direitos fundamentais. Portanto, é uma solução win-win.
               

                  Nós temos um procedimento criminal que será muito mais eficiente e, porventura, até mais rápido e temos, ao mesmo tempo, um grau de garantia dos direitos fundamentais que é francamente maior do que aquele que tínhamos até aqui.
               

                  Garantir um espaço como um seguro para os cidadãos é uma obrigação dos Estados-Membros. Dar às polícias condições para trabalharem no respeito pelos direitos fundamentais, mas fazerem o seu trabalho de investigação, é muito importante.
               

                  E queria aqui, no momento em que uma parte da polícia de investigação criminal no meu país está a ser objeto de uma discriminação injusta, queria também solidarizar-me com eles.
               

                  Por outro lado, diria, finalmente, que haverá menos espaço para que os Estados-Membros recorram ao controlo de fronteiras quando confrontados com uma ameaça ou um desafio à segurança pública. E, por isso, também o Espaço Schengen ganha muito com este novo sistema. Assim ele possa entrar em funcionamento o mais rapidamente possível.
               

Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, Mr rapporteur Paulo Rangel, organised criminal networks are a severe threat to our societies. Last year, more than 600 explosions in the Netherlands alone. In Sweden last year 350 criminal shootings killing 53 people and more than 300 children aged 15 to 17 charged with murder or attempted murder in Sweden alone. Child soldiers in a drugs war. Children killing children. Imagine those were terrorist shootings, terrorist bombs, terrorist killings.
To me, it's clear, organised crime is as big, big a threat to society as terrorism. We have to counter this threat with all the means at our disposal. We have achieved much more on security than we intended four years ago when we started this mandate.
Most recently, the Commission launched the European Ports Alliance, a public private partnership in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. A key step was the new mandate we gave Europol. A new mandate to meet the new challenges of our time. To better support Member States' police, because police cooperation and information exchange are at the heart of the fight against organised crime. After all, it takes a network to fight a network.
That is also why I welcome the agreement by Parliament and Council on the updated Prüm framework. This is the third and final pillar in our police cooperation package, after the Council recommendation on operational police cooperation and a directive on Law Enforcement Information Exchange. Prüm is an important tool for police officers on the ground to check if a suspect in front of them is known for crimes in other Member States, and essential to stop dangerous criminals. Some examples: after a knife attack in The Hague, police found DNA on the knife. A check showed French police had matching DNA on record, allowing the suspect to be arrested. After robberies of cash machines in Estonia, police found DNA on the scene. A check showed several Member States had matching profiles. The criminal group could be dismantled and the leaders arrested. Or petty thefts against tourists in France. A check for fingerprints revealed a pan-European organised crime network that was also involved in a much more serious crime of trafficking in human beings.
We have now modernised the 15 year old Prüm framework with Prüm II, to speed up and improve police information exchange and bring it up to date. Now police still have to make checks against all other Member States databases. In the future, police will only have to make one single check covering all Member States, thanks to a new central router. And we are also making new kinds of checks possible. Today, police can already check if there are hits on fingerprints, car number plates and DNA. In future, police will also be able to check for hits on police records and facial images, thanks to this agreement. And that is an important update not only to catch criminals, but also to find missing people. Missing children, because in the last 15 years, digital photos have become much more important in police investigations. Often, facial images are the only leads police have.
Other essential update: Europol will take part in the data exchange. This is essential because Europol is at the heart of police cooperation in the European Union.
I would like to specially thank the rapporteur, Paolo Rangel and the shadows for their work. I thank Parliament and Council for reaching this balanced compromise. A game changer for law enforcement. Tomorrow, when you vote on this, will be a good day for citizens and a bad day for criminals. Tomorrow your vote will make Europe a safer place and you can be proud of that.

Lukas Mandl,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zuerst möchte ich meinem portugiesischen Kollegen Paulo Rangel herzlich danken für die Arbeit als Berichterstatter für diesen wichtigen Bericht. Die Ratspräsidentschaft ist nicht mehr vertreten heute Abend in dieser Debatte, aber das kann ja nur ein Zeichen dafür sein, dass der Bericht so gut verhandelt wurde im Europäischen Parlament, dass er gut auf die Reise geschickt und nicht mehr kritisch gesehen werden kann.
               

                  Tatsache ist, dass Polizeiarbeit schwieriger geworden ist, vor allem seit der Migrationskrise, dann durch die Pandemiekrise. Alles, was wir als gesellschaftliche Phänomene und Herausforderungen dieser Tage besprechen – auch hier im Europäischen Parlament vielfach verhandeln –, hat auch mit der Polizeiarbeit zu tun, die herausfordernder geworden ist.
               

                  Der Polizeidatenaustausch ermöglicht es nicht nur, schneller und automatisiert Verdächtige – auch vermisste Personen – zu suchen, erleichtert nicht nur den Kampf gegen viele Arten von Verbrechen bis hin zum Terrorismus, sondern der Polizeidatenaustausch gibt auch Polizeibeamtinnen und —beamten die Möglichkeit, das zu tun, wofür es eben menschliche Polizistinnen und Polizisten braucht. Für das, was nicht elektronisch und digital erledigt werden kann, gibt es jetzt mehr Möglichkeiten für die Polizistinnen und Polizisten.
               

                  Polizeiarbeit ist vielfach auch Beziehungsarbeit, und Polizeiarbeit ist Kreativarbeit – die muss auch vernetzt über die Grenzen Europas hinweg funktionieren. Wenn der Datenaustausch über die Grenzen Europas hinweg funktioniert, dann sehen wir, wie wichtig die Europäische Union für unser aller Sicherheit ist, und was es bedeutet, dass wir vorankommen in der Polizeiarbeit und in der technischen Vernetzung.
               

IN THE CHAIR: MARC ANGEL


Vice-President


Paul Tang,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, today's discussion precedes a vote on an important bill, which could be a good starting point for future data sharing frameworks.
Europe's internal borders do not stop criminals, but our internal borders pose big hurdles to our police forces when coordinating with their peers. The Prüm II router will increase efficiency of cooperation and this is very, very welcome. No longer will law enforcement agencies have to contact each of their 26 peers individually.
Of course, cooperation in the form of sharing sensitive data cross-border must be limited to what is strictly necessary and must respect fundamental rights of data subjects. That is why I am happy with the achieved trilogue result. It strikes the right delicate balance between law enforcement needs and the protection of fundamental rights.
Among other things, we oblige ex-ante data impact assessment by national data protection authorities before the connection of national databases to the Prüm router. And this addresses the issue of corrupted databases with biometric data of innocent people like we have seen in France and Slovenia.
We have agreed on mandatory human intervention by biometric experts before sharing of biometric data, ensuring no automated exchange is possible, and we require continuous monitoring of false positives and adequate measures to address them. This is essential in our fight in addressing the problems that may occur with real time facial recognition in the public space. Our dedication to fundamental rights, protection and accountability of law enforcement forces is evident in this agreement.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the rapporteur, Paolo Ansell, to the shadow, Fabienne Keller – she's there – and her teams, and of course the S&D teams. The tireless efforts have been instrumental in shaping this outcome. I call upon you, colleagues, to lend your support to the trilogue agreement, embracing this framework as a good starting point for future endeavours.

Fabienne Keller,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, cher Marc Angel, Madame la Commissaire, chère Ylva Johansson, chers Paul Tang et Paulo Rangel, chers collègues, ensemble, nous les rapporteurs fictifs, nous avons très bien travaillé. Je voudrais me réjouir du fait que l'Europe de la coopération policière va devenir une réalité opérationnelle.
                  

                     En tant que rapporteure pour le compte de mon groupe, je me félicite de ce nouveau règlement Prüm II, qui ancre la stratégie de sécurité intérieure de l'Union européenne à l'ère du numérique. Concrètement, nous permettons aux forces de l'ordre de tous les États membres de consulter, comparer et échanger des données essentielles pour identifier les criminels et collecter des preuves. Grâce à la plateforme sécurisée qui est créée, un policier ou un gendarme à Strasbourg pourra consulter les bases de données de ses collègues à Hambourg ou à Milan dans le cadre des enquêtes en cours et en assurant, chers collègues, la protection des données à caractère personnel.
                  

                     Face à des criminels et à des terroristes toujours plus sophistiqués, toujours plus agiles, l'Union européenne s'adapte et répond avec force. Notre Agence de l'Union européenne pour la coopération des services répressifs progresse aussi, elle démantèle toujours plus de réseaux criminels s'adonnant au trafic de drogue, à la cybercriminalité ou à la traite des êtres humains. Elle sera ainsi dotée d'un outil complémentaire qui lui permettra de poursuivre le déploiement de ses enquêtes et de ses interpellations.
                  

                     Cet accord vient ainsi compléter l'écosystème de sécurité intérieure engagé dès 2019. Avec mon groupe, Renew, nous saluons ces avancées majeures et concrètes pour assurer la sécurité de nos concitoyens en Europe.
                  

Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Greens and the Pirates, contrary to most of you, are very concerned about the Prüm II Regulation.
Civil society organisations have pointed out the insufficient safeguards.
Prüm I failed to demonstrate its necessity and proportionality, and Prüm II will now expand data categories and optimise exchanges of information. It will bring in a centralised router enabling the automated exchange of facial images and police records. It will increase the exchange of personal data among police authorities, and it will allow for searches into police databases containing personal data before even any crime has been committed, for so-called crime prevention. Searching for those convicted of crimes, indeed, but also for suspects and in certain cases, victims.
We are already seeing what happens when the power of law enforcement goes unchecked. In France, people are arrested for nothing more than attending a protest, and they will then enter this famous database. At the EU borders, experiments with invasive biometric surveillance technologies against vulnerable migrant populations, and this list goes on.
And will this regulation stand up at the European Court of Justice in terms of the processing of biometric data? The lack of safeguards and the expansion of facial recognition jeopardise our privacy and our data protection.
With Prüm II not only do we increase police powers across Europe and reduce the control we have over our own data, but we also decrease the level of scrutiny citizens have over law enforcement and of creeping police surveillance. This is a real concern.

Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidenta, al inicio de esta legislatura insistimos en que para proteger el espacio Schengen había que mejorar los mecanismos de cooperación policial y reformar la euroorden. No tiene sentido tener un espacio interior sin controles fronterizos si los delincuentes pueden campar a sus anchas y no se dispone de normas para evitar la fuga de delincuentes o la búsqueda de foros de conveniencia para evadir el cumplimiento de la ley en los Estados miembros.
                  

                     Sin embargo, aquí estamos otra vez en una de esas grotescas contradicciones de la Unión Europea, porque el señor Puigdemont y su tropa siguen fugados de la justicia española sin que la euroorden haya valido para absolutamente nada.
                  

                     Y no son delincuentes menores. Les recuerdo que el señor Puigdemont está siendo investigado por terrorismo, tal como avaló ayer mismo la Junta de Fiscales del Tribunal Supremo de España por una amplísima mayoría, además de por sus conexiones para llegar tropas de mercenarios desde Rusia y apoyar el golpe de Estado en Cataluña en 2017.
                  

                     Bien está que mejoremos el sistema de intercambio de datos para prevenir e investigar los delitos, pero ¿qué pasa con la euroorden?, ¿es más importante intercambiar fotos del delincuente o intercambiar realmente a los delincuentes para que paguen sus culpas?
                  

Patricia Chagnon,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, les criminels et les terroristes sont intelligents et, il faut bien le dire, Madame le Commissaire, ces réseaux sont implantés ici, chez nous. Ils ont bien compris que la circulation sans contrôle au sein de l'espace Schengen accroît leur capacité de nocivité. Deux tiers des réseaux criminels sont implantés dans au moins trois États membres et ils en profitent pour déjouer la surveillance des autorités et jouer à cache-cache avec elles.
                  

                     Vous mettez en place un nouveau dispositif centralisé de partage de données, et nous sommes tout à fait d'accord. Mais l'interdiction de contrôle aux frontières intérieures empêche toute amélioration de l'efficacité de votre nouveau dispositif pour arrêter les criminels et les terroristes. Votre discours technocrate, Madame le Commissaire, c'est de la poudre aux yeux, pour les citoyens, qui sont de plus en plus nombreux à comprendre que, en réalité, vous ne défendez ni leurs intérêts ni leur sécurité.
                  

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice, prije svega čestitam kolegi Rangelu na značajnom napretku postignutim prijedlogom Prüm II, ključnim korakom naprijed u jačanju policijske suradnje među državama članicama putem automatizirane razmjene podataka.
                  

                     Uspostava nacionalnih datoteka za analizu DNK označava ključan razvoj u našoj borbi protiv kriminala, terorizma, trgovcima droge, trgovine ljudima. Donošenjem provedbenog akta kojim se određuju karakteristike profila koji se razmjenjuju i minimalni zahtjevi za podudarnosti, usklađujemo se i s međunarodnim i europskim standardima, osiguravajući čvrst okvir za prekograničnu suradnju.
                  

                     Razmjena podataka nužna je u istragama kriminalnih aktivnosti, stoga jednostavno ne razumijem kolege koji dovode u pitanje ovakav način razmjene podataka.
                  

                     Mogućnost da države članice sudjeluju u automatiziranoj razmjeni indeksa policijskih zapisa dodatno poboljšava naše mogućnosti suradnje. Ovakva razmjena temeljena na skupovima, pa i biometrijskih podataka pojedinaca osuđenih ili osumnjičenih za teška kaznena djela, jača i našu kolektivnu sposobnost da učinkovito spriječimo, otkrijemo i istražimo zločine.
                  

                     Naravno da naše akcije moraju biti vođene načelima proporcionalnosti, poštovanja temeljnih prava i nepokolebljive predanosti sigurnosti Europske unije. Ovo su dobri alati našoj policiji u borbi protiv kriminala i podupirem ovakav prijedlog.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente Angel, señora comisaria Johansson, aprobar esta Ley europea de intercambio automatizado de datos policiales es una buena ocasión para explicarle a los ciudadanos a los que representamos en qué consiste la promesa del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia, no solamente cooperación judicial penal para el enjuiciamiento de los delitos, sino también cooperación policial para la prevención, detección e investigación de los delitos.
                  

                     Existía un Prüm I que permitía el intercambio de bases de datos de ADN, impresiones dactilares y matrículas de vehículos. Pero ahora hay un Prüm II que amplía no solamente los datos que se pueden intercambiar, sino que incluye un encaminador que directamente deposita esos datos en una base gestionada por la agencia especializada eu-LISA. Y ello, además, con las garantías de los derechos fundamentales, que siempre preocupan a este Parlamento Europeo y, particularmente, a la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, bajo la supervisión del Supervisor Europeo de Protección de Datos.
                  

                     Por tanto, Prüm II es una buena noticia no solamente para la cooperación policial en ese espacio de libertad justicia y seguridad, sino también para la ciudadanía europea a la que representamos.
                  

Karin Karlsbro (Renew). – Herr talman! Det är dags för en europeisk polisstyrka som också kan bedriva förundersökningar i EU-länderna. De flesta, 70 procent, av de grovt kriminella nätverken är nämligen verksamma i tre EU-länder – minst tre EU-länder –samtidigt. Gängbrottslighet och terrorism har aldrig stannat vid nationsgränser.
                  

                     Men EU:s arbete för att bekämpa brott är extremt eftersatt, för att det finns krafter som motarbetar ett fördjupat Europasamarbete när det verkligen ställs på sin spets. Hade vi haft en europeisk polisstyrka på plats nu – som Liberalerna har krävt i decennier – hade vi stått mycket bättre rustade för att stoppa gängkriminalitet både i Sverige och i Europa.
                  

                     Det beslut vi nu ska fatta är väldigt viktigt och mycket välkommet. Det är ett steg framåt för polissamarbetet i EU, men det räcker inte.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, již více než 15 let si donucovací orgány EU mohou vyměňovat informace díky prümskému rámci. Prümská rozhodnutí přijatá v roce 2008 mají podpořit přeshraniční policejní a justiční spolupráci v trestních věcech. A tento prümský rámec úspěšně přispívá k boji proti trestné činnosti a terorismu v EU. Také jde o důležitou část spolupráce v oblasti výměny informací, kde ovšem stále existují mezery, a proto je zde prostor ke zlepšení. Rámec Prüm II v tomto smyslu rozšiřuje kategorie vyjmenovaných údajů o snímky obličeje a policejní záznamy a posiluje interoperabilitu s dalšími informačními systémy EU. Tento rámec zajistí, aby všechny relevantní údaje, které mají k dispozici donucovací orgány v jednom členském státě, mohly využívat i donucovací orgány v jiných členských státech. Zajistí také, aby mohl Europol poskytovat větší podporu členským státům.
                  

                     Za velký přínos považuji možnost vyhledávat ve všech uvedených kategoriích údajů za účelem nalezení pohřešovaných osob nebo identifikace lidských ostatků. Zásadní pro nás jako pro Evropský parlament je také lidská kontrola shody dat a tu jsme ve vyjednávání s členskými státy také prosadili. Já považuji výslednou dohodu s Radou za velmi kvalitní a věřím, že ji v zítřejším hlasování potvrdíme.
                  

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, tijelima kaznenog progona u Europskoj uniji potrebni su pouzdani i učinkoviti alati za djelotvorno suzbijanje kriminala. Složit ćemo se svi da je zajednički interes i odgovornost svih država članica uspješno suzbijanje počinitelja kaznenih djela.
                  

                     S tim u vezi, suradnja i razmjena informacija najmoćnija su sredstva za suzbijanje kriminaliteta. Postojećim zakonodavstvom tijelima kaznenog progona omogućuje se uvid u nacionalne baze podataka drugih država članica u pogledu informacija o DNK-u, otisaka prstiju i podataka o registraciji vozila. Međutim, ovim zakonom idemo i korak dalje u proširenju kategorija podataka na koje se može primijeniti automatizirana razmjena.
                  

                     Drugim riječima, nakon što ažurirani zakon stupi na snagu, policijska tijela moći će se koristiti instrumentima za pretraživanje prikaza lica i pretragom policijskih evidencija. To će uvelike doprinijeti otkrivanju počinitelja kaznenih djela, što je izrazito važno u okolnostima u kojima Europska unija bilježi povećan migracijski pritisak te se suočava s jačanjem islamskog fundamentalizma i terorističkim prijetnjama.
                  

                     Sigurnost europskih građana nema cijenu, a na nama je da boljom suradnjom među tijelima kaznenog postupka zaštitimo europski način života.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Caterina Chinnici (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, oltre il 70 % delle organizzazioni criminali ha ramificazioni in più di tre Stati membri. I loro traffici, come il loro giro d'affari, non conoscono confini. La cronaca più recente, poi, ci ricorda quanto la minaccia terroristica sia ancora presente. Ma se la criminalità è così diffusa e connessa deve esserlo anche la risposta.
                  

                     Chi, come me, per storia personale, prima ancora che professionale, ha conosciuto la grande stagione della lotta alla criminalità organizzata, sa bene quanto essenziale sia lo scambio di informazioni fra autorità di polizia e giudiziarie. Tale cooperazione oggi deve avvalersi delle più moderne tecnologie.
                  

                     Ringrazio quindi Commissione, colegislatori e, in particolare, il relatore Rangel per l'accordo su questo nuovo regolamento. Nuove categorie di dati e nuovi e più efficienti canali di comunicazione, anche con Europol, il tutto accompagnato da solide garanzie. L'accordo va nella giusta direzione di migliorare il quadro Prüm per incrementare il contributo che già offre alla lotta alla criminalità e al terrorismo. E voglio ringraziare la Commissaria per la consapevolezza, ancora oggi ribadita, della gravità della criminalità organizzata, al pari del terrorismo.
                  

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, we had a problem with this proposal from the very start, and I suppose the trilogue hasn't really improved it much for us. We were asked to massively expand the EU machinery for sharing biometric data, with no evidence that this would do anything to make crime investigation more effective or more successful. We were just asked to trust the Commission that that would happen. Well, no thanks, I don't think so!
Not just that: we were asked to agree that third countries could launder their dodgy data into EU police forces' data. For example, we now have a situation where the EU trusted partner Israel has a direct line to flag its political opponents – and there are many – to Europe's police forces and to pursue them in Europe.
And we're supposed to bank on Europol's notoriously shabby quality control to filter out the scurrilous falsehoods from the real thing. We know that that won't happen. It's another blank cheque for Israel to slander innocent people in Europe. But in any case, the whole thing is likely to be thrown out by the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it's disproportionate.

Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο υπό συζήτηση κανονισμός γιγαντώνει το ευρωενωσιακό φακέλωμα. Στην ήδη υπάρχουσα αυτοματοποιημένη ανταλλαγή DNA, δακτυλικών αποτυπωμάτων, αδειών κυκλοφορίας, τώρα προστίθενται εικόνες προσώπου, η φωτογραφία δηλαδή ενός διαδηλωτή, ενός απεργού, αλλά και κάθε είδους στοιχεία που συλλέγει η αστυνομία. Όλα τα παραπάνω κοινοποιούνται άμεσα σε Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, Europol, κράτη μέλη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τα αστικά κόμματα, λοιπόν, δεν έχουν αντιρρήσεις για τις παρακολουθήσεις, όταν αυτές βέβαια γίνονται από το αστικό κράτος, πάντα σε βάρος του λαού. Το δε άρθρο 56 συνιστά μνημείο υποκρισίας, καθώς δίνει το πράσινο φως για ένα όργιο παρακολούθησης, αναθέτοντας στις ίδιες τις κατασταλτικές αρχές και την Europol τον δικό τους αυτοέλεγχο. Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και αστικές κυβερνήσεις είναι ασύμβατες με έννοιες όπως δημοκρατικές ελευθερίες και λαϊκά δικαιώματα. Οι λαοί, λοιπόν, σε σύγκρουση με το κράτος των λίγων και τους νόμους τους, μπορούν να εξασφαλίσουν τα συλλογικά δικαιώματά τους, διεκδικώντας με την πάλη τους την ανατροπή του επικίνδυνου κατασκοπευτικού σε βάρος του λαού νομοθετικού πλαισίου, που στην Ελλάδα υλοποίησαν η Νέα Δημοκρατία, ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και το ΠΑΣΟΚ.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this important debate, and thank you again for your valuable cooperation and support on this important file.
By improving police cooperation and information exchange, we will be able to dismantle more criminal groups. We will be able to prosecute more criminals. And we are making Europe a safer place – safe from terror and from organised crime.

Paulo Rangel,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the new Prüm tool will contribute to the Union's internal security by simplifying and speeding up the exchange of criminal information between law enforcement authorities and expanding the data categories that can be exchanged. The existence of common rules harmonising these exchanges will provide predictability to all users, as everyone knows what data they would obtain at each stage.
The new system will also provide simplified and faster means for authorities to search for missing persons where time is a matter of life and death. Furthermore, it will allow for the identification of human remains, this is of essence for the families of the missing who have a right to know the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones – a right recognised by international humanitarian law.
The new Prüm will also include Europol, as you mentioned, Commissioner, boosting the cooperation between the agency and Member States within the scope of the powers conferred to these agency.
Colleagues, Schengen and the right to move freely is one of the European Union's greatest achievements since its foundation. Effective police cooperation is a key pillar to ensure its functioning and the security of our citizens. With modernised Prüm exchanges, we will allow law enforcement authorities to work faster and more efficiently when fulfilling their mission of fighting crime and protecting citizens, whilst ensuring the highest standards on the protection of personal data and human rights. Exchanging criminal information is fundamental to ensure timely responses – not just to find criminals, but also, in a wider sense, to guarantee to our citizens the right to freedom and the right to fair justice.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Waldemar Tomaszewski (ECR),
raštu. – Šiandien svarstome reglamentą, kuriuo siekiama pagerinti, racionalizuoti ir palengvinti valstybių narių kompetentingų teisėsaugos institucijų keitimąsi informacija apie nusikalstamą veiklą siekiant užkirsti kelią, nustatyti ir tirti nusikalstamas veiklas. Tai svarbūs klausimai piliečių ir valstybių saugumo požiūriu, ypač kai kalbama apie teroro aktų prevenciją, tačiau nepamirškime, kad nauji teisės aktai turėtų būti parengti siekiant apsaugoti sąžiningų žmonių duomenis, privatumą ir pilietines laisves, ir būtų našta tik nusikaltėliams. Dėl šios priežasties bet koks asmens duomenų tvarkymas ir keitimasis asmens duomenimis šio reglamento tikslais turėtų būti vykdomas pagal Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos duomenų apsaugos direktyvą. Asmens duomenų tvarkymas ir keitimasis šio reglamento tikslais neturėtų sukelti asmenų diskriminacijos jokiais pagrindais. Duomenų tvarkymas ir keitimasis jais turėtų vykti visapusiškai gerbiant žmogaus orumą ir asmens neliečiamybę bei kitas pagrindines teises, įskaitant teisę į privataus gyvenimo gerbimą ir asmens duomenų apsaugą, laikantis Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisės aktų. Ir labai svarbu, kad būtų ypač saugomi jautriausi asmens duomenys, pvz., asmenų DNR profiliai. Jų galimam perdavimui tarp teisėsaugos institucijų turėtų būti taikoma ribojamoji kontrolė, kad nebūtų pažeista piliečių teisė į privatumą. Tokios nuostatos turi būti įtrauktos į šį reglamentą.
                  
15.   The EU priorities for the 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on:






—


the oral question to the Council on the EU's priorities for the 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women by Robert Biedroń, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (O-000056/2023 – B9-0005/2024), and










—


the oral question to the Commission on the EU's priorities for the 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women by Robert Biedroń, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (O-000057/2023 – B9-0006/2024).





Robert Biedroń,
author. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, thank you very much. Next month a delegation of the FEMM Committee will go to New York to represent this Parliament at the 68th Commission on the Status of Women organised by the United Nations, called, in short, the CSU. This is the biggest inter-governmental body dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. This year, the conference will focus on achieving gender equality through addressing women's poverty. It will also focus on gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming. The principles that we, as the FEMM Committee, have been asking to fully incorporate into the works of our institutions for a long time.
We will go there with a good message. As a representative of this House, we can say that we have fought hard and adopted some key files this term, like the Pay Transparency Directive or the Women on Boards Directive, to name just a few. Yesterday we also finalised the negotiations on the Directive on Combating Violence against Women, which is a great success and a revolutionary law coming from our continent.
All this shows that we, as the European Union, are global leaders when it comes to fighting for gender equality. Remaining to be a global leader it is the fight and achieving true gender equality in our union should be our shared ambition and our joint commitment.
But dear colleagues, we still have a long, long way to go. The European Institute for Gender Equality tells us that, at this pace of progress, it will take us 60 years to say that men and women are truly equal in our Union. It is a long time, but dear colleagues, at last year's CSW, we learned that globally it would take around 300 years to achieve gender equality. 300 years! This is completely unacceptable. It sounds like it cannot be true.
But then, when I think about it, even here in the EU, recent data shows that 95 million people live at risk of poverty, and that it is women that are more likely to end up in this tragic situation. The gender pay gap is still at 30 %, and women are still under-represented in the decision-making bodies, including this House. And I could go on and on and on colleagues to give more examples.
This is why on this international stage, we must show our joint commitment to this fight. We must remain global leaders in gender equality policy, and this we can only do when we are united. Unfortunately, dear Commissioner, I do not see the Minister, but in the past that has not been the case. We as European Parliament have been sidelined in the past during such high-level meetings. We did not even receive access to the EU position document ahead of the negotiations. We like to say as European Union that we are all Team Europe, but sometimes it seems that we are split Europe and it is really, again, a shame. That is why we address those questions to the Commission and the Council to present us a clear plan of our Union in this matter. How can we ensure that we continue to adopt relevant legislation helping women and girls in the EU and worldwide? How how are the principles of gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting implemented in the EU? And how can we ensure that we, as the delegation of the European Parliament, are fully involved? I underline fully involved, Commissioner, in the negotiations and conclusions during this year's CSW. Side by side, united Team Europe with the representatives of the Commission and the Council. If we are to show strong global leadership of the European Union as representatives of this great Commonwealth, we must act together.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, dear Robert, the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women is an occasion to reflect on key challenges and opportunities for gender equality globally, and the empowerment of all women and girls. Gender equality and women's rights constitute a key priority for the EU in its internal and external relations. I therefore thank you for inviting me to discuss this topic.
I stress the importance of our institutional cooperation, including through exchanges at all levels. Our preparations for the upcoming session of the Commission on the Status of Women also draws from the work done by the European Parliament, of course, and I am happy that we strengthen our cooperation with the presence of the European Parliament at the CSW meeting. A strong, coordinated approach among all of the EU institutions, both in presence and in content, bolsters the EU's leadership on gender equality and contributes to advancing women's rights and empowerment worldwide. The CSW's main theme on economic structures to combat poverty among women allows to stress once again the need to address the root causes that constrain women's economic empowerment, while paying attention to the multidimensional and intersectional forms of inequality.
So I will highlight some of our key instruments. The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and the EU Gender Equality Strategy include concrete legislative and policy initiatives for women's empowerment and addressing vulnerability.
Increasing employment rates and the formal economy is vital. In this respect, the action plan includes a sub target to at least half the gender employment gap. Progress is measured as part of the European Semester. The gender-care gap significantly hinders women's active participation in the labour market. Hence this increases their risks to poverty, including in old age. To tackle this, the Work Life Balance Directive promotes the reconciliation of work with care responsibilities for both women and men. Furthermore, the European Care Strategy promotes affordable, accessible and high quality care services, including through the revised Barcelona Targets for Early Childhood Education and Care.
The recommendation on minimum income and on social protection for all supports women's resilience. And the Pay Transparency Directive promotes equal pay for equal work of equal value and values women's contribution on the labour market.
Next to those measures, efforts to increase women's empowerment should also address specific barriers for women facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. As an example, women with disabilities and the Disability Employment Package provide supportive measures specifically designed to enhance the employment opportunities for women with disabilities. Equally, the Action Plan on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in External Action aims at bridging the gap towards the realisation of SDG 5 and alleviating women's poverty. It takes a gender transformative, intersectional and human-rights based approach.
GAP III includes an ambitious target to ensure that at least 85 % of all new EU external actions are gender responsive by 2025. The inequality marker aims to reduce inequality in all its intersections by assessing whether and to what extent our support to international partners contributes to curb inequalities. The EU has invested in the implementation and enforcement of GAP III. The EU Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy through programmes funding human-rights dialogues and activities in multilateral fora.
I also underline the importance of continued efforts to strengthen gender mainstreaming to ensure that gender equality is integrated in all aspects of the Union's activities. EU funding is an effective tool to promote our policy objectives. Catering for gender mainstreaming in the EU budget is therefore crucial to further advance gender equality. The Multiannual Financial Framework serves as a notable example. The Commission has developed a methodology to track the contribution of all EU spending programmes to gender equality, which was implemented in a pilot phase in the last two draft budgets, and was also included again in this year's work on the upcoming draft budgets.

Maria da Graça Carvalho,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, a igualdade de género, o empoderamento das mulheres em todos os setores da sociedade e da economia é uma questão que interessa a todos.
               

                  O combate à desigualdade social e ao risco acrescido de pobreza associados ao género deve ser uma preocupação da União Europeia em termos de política externa, nomeadamente no quadro das Nações Unidas, mas deve ser igualmente uma prioridade no plano interno.
               

                  O risco de pobreza na União Europeia é maior entre as mulheres e esta tendência acentuou-se nos anos de pandemia. Sabemos também, através de diversos estudos já realizados, que garantir a igualdade de género no mercado laboral teria impactos muito positivos na nossa economia, nomeadamente aumentando o PIB per capita da União Europeia entre 6 % a 9 % e criando cerca de 10 milhões de empregos adicionais para a União.
               

                  Promover a inclusão de mulheres nos setores onde estão subrepresentadas, tais como a economia digital, a energia, a luta contra as alterações climáticas, é não apenas um imperativo moral, mas também uma necessidade. Estes são setores nos quais temos um défice de recursos qualificados. Não faz qualquer sentido continuarmos a dispersar o nosso capital humano.
               

Evelyn Regner,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Abgeordnete! Die UN-Frauenkonferenz setzt jährlich Zeichen. Sie setzt Zeichen, dass wir auch im Jahr 2024 noch nicht dort sind, wo wir in Bezug auf Gleichstellung sein möchten, dass es im Jahr 2024 noch immer extreme Widerstände gibt, gegen die wir tagtäglich kämpfen müssen. Die Verhandlungen zum EU-Gewaltschutzpaket haben das deutlich gemacht.
               

                  Ich habe nicht im Traum daran gedacht, dass es so problematisch sein würde, Vergewaltigung als kriminellen Akt zu benennen und als solchen zu kriminalisieren. Doch zu viele Staats- und Regierungschefs haben uns gezeigt, dass sie einfach keinen Willen haben, Frauen ausreichend vor Gewalt zu schützen. Wir wollen und wir müssen diesen patriarchalischen Systemen die Stirn bieten, und aus diesem Grund freue ich mich, mit so vielen Verbündeten aus der ganzen Welt in New York für Frauenrechte aufzustehen.
               

                  Die Bekämpfung der Armut von Frauen steht heuer im Mittelpunkt der Konferenz. Ich durfte dabei an einem essenziellen Werkzeug in der Europäischen Union mitverhandeln – der Lohntransparenz. Sie gibt uns konkrete Instrumente, um die Lohnschere zu schließen.
               

                  Aber das Thema Frauenarmut stellt natürlich noch viel tiefgreifendere Fragen: Wie kann es sein, dass Frauen für dieselbe Arbeit weniger bezahlt bekommen als Männer? Warum sind die weiblich dominierten Branchen so viel schlechter bezahlt?
               

                  Um das zu verändern, müssen wir an vielen Schrauben drehen – und zwar gemeinsam, damit alle Menschen auf der ganzen Welt ein gleichberechtigtes Leben ohne Armut führen können.
               

Samira Rafaela,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, at the upcoming 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, in New York, we continue our tireless pursuit of women's rights and empowerment. Our report sends a clear message: women and young girls are integral to the rapid advancements shaping our future world. And even as these changes sometimes carry biases against us – examples are found in tech, health and the labour market – we need to keep fighting for these equal rights.
Also, in times of crisis and conflict, women find themselves disadvantaged disproportionately, and this is even a soft statement. We are speaking of weaponisation of gender-based violence and other atrocities that are becoming more common, atrocities that are beyond imagination. It is therefore essential to keep raising awareness on these matters and not forget about silent conflicts or situations that remain underrepresented.
Remember and understand that we make up half the global population and are indispensable in critical areas such as the energy transition, the combat against climate change, or the settlements of violent conflicts. So in New York, we will reiterate our commitment to gender equality and for equal opportunities for access to sexual health and reproductive rights, equal pay, making sure that we don't have a pay gap any more in this world, all of which are non-negotiable in our opinion.
So inclusion of women and young girls is essential for true equality, and our Parliament stands ready to fulfil its role. We need to make sure as the European Parliament that we stand ready and that we keep fighting for it.

Monika Vana,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, it's a very crucial moment for gender equality. I am a member of the EP delegation to CSU since 2016 and for this year, the task is clear, I guess.
We have to secure the last years' achievements, especially on SRHR, intersectionality and the important role of civil society organisations as well as our fight against the backlash.
It is of utmost importance that we finally advance towards a feminist foreign policy, as supported by the European Parliament in the GAP III.
This year's priority theme of the CSW on women's poverty and the review theme on public services are long overdue. According to the fact that 383 million women and girls live in extreme poverty and lack social infrastructure. The persistent gender pay and pension gaps, precarious employment and the underrepresentation of women in decision making show systematic inequalities that have dramatically worsened due to the multiple crises we face, such as climate change, rising costs of living, the pandemic and wars.
For me, it's obvious: we urgently need a decent minimum income for anyone and institutionalised gender budgeting across all policy areas. Therefore, the strong EP resolution we vote on tomorrow is needed. And as usual, as also my dear colleague Robert Biedrón emphasised already, I want to point out the absolute necessity of ensuring the full involvement of the European Parliament and the FEMM Committee in the decision-making process before and during the CSW in order to strengthen our collective voice and shape together the final conclusions of the CSW.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, señorías, todavía millones de mujeres en nuestro planeta viven inmensas injusticias: ablaciones, matrimonios forzosos, falta de libertad para trabajar, salir de casa o vestirse incluso como quieran.
               

                  Para ellas, las Naciones Unidas y la Unión Europea no tienen voz. Parece más importante envenenar con perspectiva de género y resentimiento nuestras legislaciones. Una ideología que niega la propia naturaleza de las personas, que nos obliga a rechazar todo lo que nos identifica como mujeres, desprestigiando la maternidad, despreciando la vida, viéndola como una amenaza. Incluso se menciona en esta Resolución que la protección de la vida es un trato inhumano.
               

                  Señorías, no hay nada más humano que defender la vida, ampararla. El aborto es un drama, nunca un signo de libertad.
               

Isabella Tovaglieri,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa vuole più diritti e uguaglianza per tutte le donne, ma non si accorge che oggi la vera battaglia è difendere le conquiste femminili che non possiamo più dare per scontate a fronte della progressiva islamizzazione delle nostre città.
               

                  Pochi giorni fa, in Italia, una ragazzina di 13 anni è stata abusata da un branco di giovani egiziani. Un episodio agghiacciante, ma non isolato, come confermano dati incontrovertibili quanto agghiaccianti, che a una certa parte politica fa comodo non vedere, che ci dicono che in Italia il 40 % dei reati sessuali è commesso da stranieri. Reati maturati in un contesto culturale che considera la donna inferiore e sottomessa all'uomo, condannata a subire l'imposizione del velo, i matrimoni precoci, le mutilazioni genitali femminili, fenomeni in preoccupante aumento proprio qui in Europa.
               

                  Care sinistre, non illudetevi. Per difendere la parità non basta cambiare nome alla Camera dei Deputati aggiungendo la parola deputate. Non basta fare le femministe solo contro gli stupratori italiani, ma voltarsi dall'altra parte quando a violentare sono gli immigrati. È molto più utile combattere insieme l'ideologia islamista radicale che minaccia la sicurezza e la libertà delle nostre donne.
               

                  Come Lega abbiamo presentato una mozione per impedire qualsiasi finanziamento europeo alle associazioni che promuovono l'uso del velo in Europa. Sinistre, ci appoggerete o, ancora una volta, in nome del miope buonismo, continuerete a foraggiare chi veramente è nemico dei diritti e della dignità delle donne.
               

Eugenia Rodríguez Palop,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, estamos ante la última Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer (CSW) de nuestro mandato y el tema no puede ser más apropiado considerando los tiempos que corren: brecha salarial, de pensiones, de cuidados; violencias machistas; privatización de los servicios más básicos; cambio climático; crisis energética; discriminación interseccional; obstáculos para acceder a los derechos sexuales y reproductivos; tratados de libre comercio con consecuencias nefastas para la vida de millones de mujeres y niñas y un largo etcétera.
               

                  Las causas y consecuencias de la feminización de la pobreza están más que claras y, huelga decirlo, no se resuelven con medidas puntuales y descontextualizadas. Estamos en lo de siempre: no necesitamos inventar la rueda; lo que hace falta es voluntad política para, entre otras cosas, avanzar en el pilar social europeo con medidas de corte feminista; contar con unos presupuestos de la Unión Europea que incorporen con seriedad la perspectiva de género; priorizar las inversiones en infraestructuras sociales y fortalecer los servicios públicos; avanzar en la estrategia de cuidados; contar con una política exterior feminista ambiciosa que nada tiene que ver con la política de la guerra o el cierre de fronteras; implementar la Directiva de transparencia salarial y de conciliación y —si todo sale bien—, en las próximas semanas, la de trata y violencia de género.
               

                  Y en esta agenda los que sobran son los negacionistas de la violencia de género y del cambio climático, que no quieren entender las razones por las que las mujeres somos más pobres.
               

                  Ojalá en esta CSW se abran nuevos horizontes de libertad e igualdad para mujeres y niñas en todo el mundo.
               

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono necessarie risposte globali per affrontare sfide come la povertà femminile, un fenomeno che si manifesta in modo sproporzionato rispetto a quello maschile. Sono le donne a percepire stipendi e pensioni più bassi, ad assumersi più responsabilità nell'assistenza ai familiari, e a soffrire maggiormente la precarietà, la disoccupazione e l'insicurezza sociale.
               

                  Questa disparità di trattamento è radicata in disuguaglianze e discriminazioni sistemiche, strutturali e culturali, che si acuiscono in situazioni di vulnerabilità derivanti da violenze, da guerre, flussi migratori e crisi economiche. Allora, il rafforzamento della dimensione di genere e l'applicazione dei principi del bilancio di genere in tutte le politiche, anche nelle relazioni esterne dell'Unione europea, sono strumenti essenziali per affermare i diritti delle donne e favorire la loro emancipazione a livello europeo e mondiale.
               

                  Garantire pari opportunità nell'istruzione, nel mercato del lavoro, nel processo decisionale politico ed economico, nonché l'accesso alla salute e ai diritti sessuali, comprese cure abortive sicure e legali, sono obiettivi imprescindibili per una società più libera, inclusiva e con pari diritti.
               

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor presidente, en el próximo mes de marzo se celebrará el sexagésimo octavo periodo de sesiones de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer, donde la Unión Europea tendrá que presentar sus prioridades y tendrá que presentar un liderazgo firme en defensa de los derechos de las mujeres y, además, conseguir una hoja de ruta para que haya una plena participación de las mujeres en todos los ámbitos.
               

                  Es verdad que el tema central es que, por desgracia, la pobreza tiene cara de mujer y las causas son múltiples. Estamos sobrerepresentadas en trabajos y en empleos poco remunerados, precarios y también a tiempo parcial. Por supuesto, las interrupciones profesionales tienen mucho que ver, precisamente porque hay una responsabilidad desproporcionada en todos los cuidados no remunerados. También hay una brecha salarial —es necesario trasponer ya la Directiva de transparencia salarial— y una brecha en las pensiones, así como una falta de participación absoluta en todo lo que es la toma de decisiones por parte de las mujeres.
               

                  Esa pobreza conlleva a que haya un riesgo grandísimo de violencia contra las mujeres —lo podemos ver cada día— y también exclusión social. Ayer se cerró con un acuerdo provisional la Directiva europea para que la violencia contra las mujeres y la violencia doméstica sea un eurodelito. Sería un paso histórico, pero se dejó fuera la violación sin consentimiento, básicamente porque países como Alemania, gobernados por el Grupo Socialista, no accedieron a ponerlo.
               

                  Necesitamos un compromiso de toda la Unión Europea, un compromiso universal, que empieza también por una reflexión personal. Tenemos que conseguir que en este sexagésimo octavo periodo de sesiones se dé un paso de gigante en la consecución de la igualdad de derechos de las mujeres.
               

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Förra året var jag en del av Europaparlamentets delegation på FN:s kvinnokommission i New York. Det vore rimligt att anta att vi i år inför det 68:e mötet bygger vidare på en rad framsteg för kvinnors rättigheter som har skett under det senaste året.
               

                  Men vi vet alla att den krassa sanningen är att framstegen är små. I stället måste vi fortsätta varna för alla de hot mot kvinnors rättigheter och jämställdhet som finns överallt i hela världen och i våra samhällen.
               

                  Vi är också i en tid i Europa då proryska, högerextrema och religiösa fundamentalistiska krafter vill försvaga Europa och splittra vår gemenskap. De här krafterna gör allt i sin makt för att attackera och nedmontera allt som jämställdhet och kvinnors rättigheter handlar om. Inför årets kvinnokommission undrar jag hur rådet och kommissionen kommer att ta upp det hot som högerextrema organisationer och antidemokratiska rörelser utgör mot kvinnors rättigheter.
               

                  Lika viktig är frågan om jämställdhet i den gröna omställningen. EU måste visa ledarskap i en jämställd klimatomställning, för jämställdhet gynnar inte bara kvinnor och flickor – det gynnar män och pojkar, det gynnar våra samhällen och det är en förutsättning för en hållbar framtid.
               

Guy Lavocat (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la voie est tracée au niveau de nos institutions européennes. Avoir des femmes à la tête de la Commission, du Parlement, de la Banque centrale européenne et de la majorité des groupes politiques de cette assemblée n'est pas un symbole vain. Il s'agit de montrer aux petites filles et aux garçons à travers le monde que la moitié de l'humanité peut exercer les plus hautes fonctions et ne pas se limiter aux métiers du lien, injustement dévalués et injustement rémunérés.
               

                  En effet, l'inégalité entre les hommes et les femmes est la matrice de toutes les inégalités. Dépasser les préjugés de nos sociétés, amener les femmes et les filles aux métiers scientifiques, numériques et industriels est le meilleur moyen de lutter contre les inégalités salariales et d'assurer aux femmes indépendance et liberté. Lutter contre cette injustice est un combat démocratique, qui passera par le développement des systèmes éducatifs dans le monde. L'école est notre bien commun le plus précieux pour parvenir à rétablir une égalité réelle des chances pour toutes les filles et femmes d'Europe et du monde. L'Europe doit porter haut cette ambition.
               

Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, en temps de crise et de guerre, les femmes et les filles sont souvent particulièrement exposées et elles sont vulnérables. Elles subissent donc de la violence, et nous sommes étonnés que le viol n'apparaisse pas dans le catalogue des priorités et, surtout, dans la directive.
               

                  Ma question est, tout d'abord: comment assurez-vous que la vulnérabilité particulière des femmes victimes de discriminations intersectionnelles soit prise en compte?
               

                  Ma deuxième question serait: pouvez-vous nous présenter des initiatives ou des programmes détaillés visant à soutenir de manière plus ciblée ce groupe vulnérable et à garantir une protection efficace?
               

                  Comment comptez-vous faire en sorte que les politiques liées à la migration tiennent compte de la dimension de genre et soutiennent spécifiquement la protection, l'intégration et la promotion de l'autodétermination des femmes dans les processus migratoires?
               

                  Compte tenu, par ailleurs, de l'augmentation inquiétante du nombre de féminicides dans le monde et dans toutes les régions – dans mon État membre, également –, j'aimerais savoir quelles sont les mesures concrètes de coopération et de prévention internationales qui sont prises au niveau de l'Union européenne pour lutter contre cette forme de violence sexiste.
               

Annika Bruna (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, je tenais à commencer cette intervention en soulignant certaines améliorations par rapport aux textes des années précédentes. En effet, cette résolution inclut la nécessité de s'attaquer aux pratiques traditionnelles néfastes telles que les mariages d'enfants, les mariages forcés ou bien encore les mutilations génitales, qui, je le rappelle, sont importées sur notre sol.
               

                  Je salue aussi la volonté d'améliorer les conditions de travail du secteur de la santé et des soins à prédominance féminine. Je note également que cette résolution propose enfin le renforcement des traitements contre l'infertilité, alors que nous ne cessons d'alerter sur le déclin de la natalité européenne et ses conséquences dramatiques pour la survie de notre civilisation et de nos systèmes de sécurité sociale. Ces mesures représentent une victoire idéologique pour notre groupe politique et nos députés, qui se battent pour apporter des solutions à des situations que nous dénonçons depuis beaucoup trop longtemps.
               

                  En revanche, ces résolutions proposées par le Parlement européen passent systématiquement à côté de réelles priorités pour les droits des femmes. Pas un mot sur l'accroissement de l'insécurité partout en Europe, l'immigration massive et incontrôlée, l'islam radical et leurs graves répercussions sur les femmes, qui en sont les premières victimes. Pas un mot non plus pour améliorer la sûreté des transports en commun en ville et en zone rurale, alors que 87 % des femmes déclarent avoir déjà été victimes de harcèlement ou de violences sexuelles dans les transports en France.
               

                  Force est de constater que l'Union européenne s'attache souvent plus à mettre la perspective de genre dans toutes ses politiques, notamment dans la budgétisation, plutôt que de s'attaquer aux causes profondes. Notre groupe politique a donc déposé des amendements qui reprennent les enjeux majeurs auxquels sont confrontées les femmes et qui rappellent à l'Union européenne la nécessité absolue de respecter les compétences des États membres.
               

Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, a próxima sessão da Comissão das Nações Unidas sobre o Estatuto da Mulher vai centrar-se na igualdade de género, na emancipação das mulheres e raparigas e no combate à pobreza.
               

                  Todavia, as políticas da União Europeia insistem em prosseguir o caminho de imposição de políticas neoliberais, que provocam retrocessos graves nos direitos das mulheres: aumento do desemprego, desregulamentação do mercado de trabalho e do horário de trabalho, aumento da precariedade laboral e salários baixos.
               

                  Por muito que enalteçam aqui palavras como empoderamento e empreendedorismo femininos, os resultados destas opções estão à vista: desinvestimento nos serviços públicos, aumento da pobreza e da exclusão social, das migrações, do tráfico humano e das multifacetadas violências da mercantilização do corpo da mulher.
               

                  No momento em que esta sessão tem lugar, não podemos deixar de referir a violência contra as mulheres em situação de guerra, concretamente as mulheres palestinianas que vivem sob constante ameaça de destruição das suas casas, deslocação e o desespero de perderem a sua vida ou a dos seus pais, maridos e filhos, ou que sejam presos, feridos ou mortos. A luta delas também é a nossa luta.
               

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la próxima sesión de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer en las Naciones Unidas tiene como prioridad acelerar los avances en igualdad de género y el empoderamiento de todas las mujeres, muy especialmente, escapar de la pobreza. Sí, de la pobreza. Porque la pobreza tiene rostro de mujer en el mundo y también aquí en Europa, como demostramos en el informe que aprobamos en el 2022 —y del que yo fui ponente— sobre la pobreza de las mujeres en Europa y también en un informe más reciente sobre el impacto de la pobreza energética y de la inflación en las mujeres.
               

                  Las recomendaciones incluidas en ese informe valen para Europa, pero también valen para todo el mundo. Porque en todos los sitios la pobreza tiene un carácter multidimensional que va más allá de la privación material y se traduce en una pérdida de capacidades de la que en muchos casos y contextos las personas no pueden escapar, las mujeres no pueden escapar y mucho menos sus hijos e hijas.
               

                  La pobreza debemos combatirla con empleos y con salarios dignos y con un acceso universal a los servicios de educación, salud y cuidados, que alejen a las mujeres también de la pobreza de tiempo resultante de combinar un trabajo precario, mal remunerado con los trabajos de cuidados que les hacen entrar en esta espiral de la pobreza de la que difícilmente pueden salir ni ellas ni sus descendientes.
               

                  El empoderamiento de las mujeres pasa por combatir las desigualdades económicas al mismo tiempo que combatimos las desigualdades de género. Solo con una regulación financiera internacional que las empodere, mercados de trabajo con derechos y dignidad, con Estados de bienestar robustos que reconozcan el valor económico y social de los cuidados y combatan el desigual reparto entre mujeres y hombres, con políticas económicas que distribuyan mejor la riqueza y con la transversalidad de género en todas las políticas podremos sacar a las mujeres de la pobreza.
               

Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Irish Constitution puts the Irish woman's place in society in the home. It warns women against the neglect of their duties. Ireland has often been a hostile place for women who did not fit this mould. Women were told they were wayward and they were hidden away in laundries and institutions.
But Irish women have never accepted the mould of conservative society. Women like Grace O'Malley, the pirate queen; public health activist and suffragette doctor Mary Strangman; Eileen Flynn, our first senator from the traveller community; Cork's LGBT trailblazer, Orla Egan, and indeed our president, Mary Robinson. These women did not neglect their duties, as the Constitution says, they did their duty to Ireland. This 8 March, Ireland votes to change our Constitution to reflect the Ireland shaped by women who knew that their place was wherever they wanted it to be.

Malin Björk (The Left). – Mr President, colleagues, the ones of us working together here in the European Parliament know that feminists can move mountains. We have proven it again and again through history, but we have also proven it here in the European Parliament. Empowering women and girls and achieving gender equality requires political commitment. It needs financing. We need political boldness and courage. We need financing for women's NGOs.
The global agenda for women's rights is also about doing our homework, that is: to advance women's and girls' rights inside the EU; to make sure that we put an end to violence against women; to ensure that every Member State adopts consent-based rape legislation; to fight the poverty of women, including energy poverty; to ensure quality jobs for women; to strengthen our social security systems and welfare systems here in Europe; and of course, to ensure sexual reproductive health and rights and abortion care.
Friends, the feminist agenda is demanding, but as feminists, we will continue to move mountains.

Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in quest'Aula oggi ho sentito tante belle parole sui diritti delle donne e sull'uguaglianza di genere, parole che però si scontrano con i fatti.
               

                  Proprio ieri è stato trovato un accordo al trilogo sulla direttiva sulla violenza di genere e io mi chiedo con quale biglietto da visita ci presentiamo alle Nazioni Unite a parlare di condizione femminile nel mondo, se l'Europa stessa non ha il coraggio di insistere e di inserire lo stupro fra i reati europei. Il Movimento 5 Stelle non può sostenere questa ipocrisia.
               

                  Nell'Unione europea servono inoltre leggi per tutelare quelle donne che devono assistere i figli senza penalizzare la loro carriera. E servono anche nuove regole per combattere il divario retributivo e pensionistico di genere. Grazie al salario minimo e al reddito minimo potremo riuscire a garantire una rete di sicurezza per tutte le donne, in particolare per quelle più esposte al rischio di povertà e di esclusione sociale.
               

                  Noi siamo per un'Europa giusta. Chi ci sta?
               

Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Herr talman! Varje dag utsätts kvinnor och flickor för misshandel, sexuella övergrepp, våldtäkter och mord. En tredjedel av alla Europas kvinnor har någon gång utsatts för fysiskt eller sexuellt våld. Våld mot kvinnor leder i längden till ökad fattigdom eftersom utsatta kvinnor riskerar att förlora både jobbet och hemmet.
               

                  Att bekämpa våld mot kvinnor är det viktigaste vi kan göra för kvinnors rätt till grundläggande frihet och för jämställdheten i världen. Att säkra rätten till ett liv utan våld är en av vår tids största frihetsfrågor.
               

                  I Europa har vi gått från ord till handling och äntligen ratificerat Istanbulkonventionen efter tio års kamp och nu även till slut direktivet mot våld mot kvinnor. Det är jag väldigt stolt över. Resten av världen måste nu följa efter och ta våldet mot kvinnor på större allvar. Det måste råda nolltolerans mot våld mot kvinnor, oavsett var i världen man bor.
               

Vera Tax (S&D). – Voorzitter, vrouwen en meisjes vormen de helft van de wereldbevolking, maar nog nergens in de wereld is er sprake van gendergelijkheid. Nog nergens in de wereld zijn er gelijke kansen voor vrouwen en meisjes. Ik ben van nature een optimistisch mens en ik zie de successen die geboekt zijn in de EU-wetgeving waardoor vrouwen fatsoenlijk betaald krijgen voor hun werk, er verplichtingen zijn om vrouwen op te nemen in de top van bedrijven. Maar ik zie ook in mijn eigen land hoe moeizaam het nog steeds gaat. Er is geen betaalbare kinderopvang, er is geen steun van het kabinet om verkrachting op te nemen als Europees misdrijf en abortus staat nog steeds in het Wetboek van Strafrecht.
               

                  Maar deze achterstanden zijn bijna onbetekenend in de wetenschap dat vrouwenbesnijdenis een praktijk is die nog steeds dagelijks slachtoffers eist. Het lijkt appels met peren vergelijken, maar er is wel degelijk één overeenkomst: desinformatie. Het is de vijand van vrouwenrechten overal ter wereld: het verspreiden van onwaarheden over emancipatie. Desinformatie is schadelijk voor vrouwenrechten uit het verleden en in de toekomst. Dat hebben we gezien toen Trump aan de macht kwam in de VS. Een muur kon hij niet bouwen, maar het recht op veilige abortus afnemen en financiën voor buitenlandse vrouwenorganisaties stoppen was een makkelijke prooi.
               

                  Wat we dus nodig hebben is educatie en voorlichting in alle gevallen: educatie en voorlichting als verdediging tegen discriminatie en extreemrechtse politici. We moeten investeren met kennis tegen desinformatie en autocraten die zich daarmee voordoen als hoeders van de vrouw en het traditionele gezin, maar als eerste vrouwenrechten op de schop nemen als ze aan de macht zijn en vervolgens de rest van de democratie.
               

Ελένη Σταύρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η επίτευξη της ισότητας των φύλων και η ενδυνάμωση όλων των γυναικών και κοριτσιών αποτελεί κεντρικό στόχο για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Για να προχωρήσουμε προς αυτήν την κατεύθυνση, είναι απαραίτητο να αντιμετωπίσουμε τη φτώχεια και να ενισχύσουμε όλες τις πολιτικές μας με τη διάσταση του φύλου. Πρώτον, πρέπει να δράσουμε ενεργά για την εξάλειψη της φτώχειας, η οποία επηρεάζει περισσότερο τις γυναίκες και τα κορίτσια. Αυτό περιλαμβάνει την προώθηση ισότιμης πρόσβασης σε εκπαίδευση, υγεία και εργασία για όλες τις γυναίκες, καθώς και την εφαρμογή κοινωνικών προγραμμάτων με ειδική διάσταση φύλου, έτσι ώστε να επιτρέπουν στις γυναίκες και στα κορίτσια ισότιμη πρόσβαση σε ευκαιρίες εργοδότησης και απασχόλησης. Δεύτερον, είναι αναγκαίο να προωθήσουμε την ισότιμη συμμετοχή γυναικών και ανδρών σε όλα τα επίπεδα λήψης αποφάσεων στην πολιτική, την οικονομική και την κοινωνική ζωή ανά το παγκόσμιο. Τέλος, πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η χρηματοδότηση και οι πόροι που διατίθενται εξυπηρετούν την επίτευξη της ισότητας των φύλων. Αυτό σημαίνει την ανάληψη δράσεων για την προώθηση των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών σε όλα τα προγράμματα και τις πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Η ισότητα των φύλων μας απασχολεί ανά το παγκόσμιο και για αυτόν τον λόγο οι δράσεις μας, τόσο εντός όσο και εκτός με τις αναπτυξιακές μας πολιτικές, πρέπει να έχουν στόχο μια πιο ισότιμη και δίκαιη κοινωνία για όλους.
               

Radka Maxová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, na blížícím se 68. zasedání Komise OSN pro postavení žen by měla delegace Evropského parlamentu přijít s jasným, jednotným a ambiciózním postojem ke zlepšení postavení žen ve světě. Většina z 1,2 miliardy lidí na celém světě, kteří žijí v chudobě, jsou ženy. V Evropské unii je pak chudobou ohroženo více než 20 % žen, přičemž jde opět o větší procento než u mužů. Podobný trend vidíme také u dopadů energetické krize nebo u nerovnosti v platech. Vidíme tedy, že chudoba je do velké míry genderový problém.
               

                  Je třeba, abychom společně podnikli kroky, které zlepší postavení žen ve světě a které je mohou vymanit z extrémní chudoby, která ze světa stále nevymizela. To znamená posilovat postavení žen prostřednictvím vzdělávání, zaváděním silných systémů sociálního zabezpečení, zlepšením veřejných služeb, zvýšením přístupu k pracovním příležitostem a podporou ženské zaměstnanosti, podporou rovného rozdělení domácí práce a péče, podporou změn ve společenských postojích a stereotypech o roli žen a mužů ve světě. Evropský parlament, potažmo Evropská unie, musí jít příkladem a ukázat silné vedení a zaujmout jednotný postoj k důležitosti posílení postavení žen a dívek a dosažení genderové rovnosti ve světě.
               

Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissaari, naisten oikeuksien ja sukupuolten tasa-arvon edistäminen on keskeinen osa EU:n perusarvoja, ja meidän on tärkeä edistää tätä sekä Euroopan unionin sisällä että myös globaalisti.
               

                  Tosin työtä on vielä paljon tehtävänä. Tasa-arvoa ei ole lähellekään saavutettu. Täällä esitettiin arvio, jonka mukaisesti tällä tahdilla Euroopassa saavutettaisiin sukupuolten tasa-arvo 60 vuodessa ja globaalisti tämä veisi tällä tahdilla 300 vuotta. On selvää, että kehitystä on vauhditettava. On hyvä todeta, että Euroopan unionissa on viime vuosina otettu tärkeitä ja merkittäviä askelia, joista nostan esiin erityisesti viime vuonna tehdyn päätöksen, jolla Euroopan unioni viimein liittyi Istanbulin sopimuksen osapuoleksi, ja siihen sisältyy nyt rahoitusta, politiikkaa ja lainsäädäntötoimia.
               

                  Samoin tällä viikolla päästiin sopuun direktiivistä, joka koskee naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan ja perheväkivallan torjumista. Tämä on ensimmäinen EU-tason oikeudellinen väline, missä nyt kriminalisoidaan fyysinen väkivalta ja naisiin kohdistuva psykologinen, taloudellinen ja seksuaalinen väkivalta kaikkialla EU:ssa ja myös tietoverkoissa. Myös naisten sukupuolielinten silpominen ja pakkoavioliitto kriminalisoidaan erillisinä rikoksina. Tärkeää on myös se, että uusien sääntöjen nojalla kriminalisoidaan yleisimmät verkkoväkivallan muodot, kuten intiimien kuvien jakaminen ilman suostumusta, mukaan luettuna väärennökset sekä myös verkkohäirintä, verkkovakoilu, naisvihapuheet ja verkkoväläytykset. Paljon on siis saatu aikaan, mutta paljon meillä on vielä tehtävänä.
               

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, la rivoluzione è donna e, in vista della 68a sessione della Commissione delle Nazioni Unite sulla condizione femminile, noi dovremmo ribadirlo con tutta la forza che abbiamo.
               

                  La rivoluzione per cambiare questo mondo, che è ancora così ingiusto, è cominciata e continuerà esattamente grazie alle donne. Perché sono le donne – la metà della popolazione mondiale – ad aver subito, per millenni, in ogni angolo della Terra, l'oppressione patriarcale. E sanno bene, le donne, che cosa significa essere discriminate, cosa significa essere oppresse, cosa significa essere sminuite. E lo sanno indipendentemente dalla loro condizione sociale e dalla loro appartenenza religiosa. Perché, come non smetto di ripetere, non ci accomunano i diritti, perché esistono persino nel territorio dell'Unione diritti diversi a seconda dei paesi in cui nasciamo. Non ci accomunano le libertà, esistono libertà diverse a seconda del paese nel quale nasciamo. C'è una sola cosa che ci accomuna tutte, in ogni angolo della Terra: il fatto di essere, per la colpa di essere donna, oggetto di discriminazioni, di violenza.
               

                  Non c'è libertà senza la manifestazione, il peso e la lotta delle donne e non c'è possibilità per le donne di affermarsi, se non in una condizione di libertà. E allora non può che partire da qui il desiderio di cambiamento, come abbiamo visto in tanti angoli del mondo, dall'Iran all'Afghanistan. Il femminismo è già la rivoluzione che sta modificando la struttura gerarchica del potere e che sta unendo le persone intorno a un sentire comune e a una prospettiva di cambiamento che è sempre più necessaria.
               

                  Quanti più diritti e libertà avranno le donne, tanti più diritti avrà il resto della società. Perché la lotta delle donne significa più diritti per tutti e più libertà per chiunque.
               

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, prioriteti su očito jasni: riješiti siromaštvo iz rodne perspektive, ojačati institucije, osigurati snažne mehanizme financiranja koji podržavaju te ciljeve. Ekonomsko osnaživanje i iskorjenjivanje diskriminacije temeljene na spolu na radnom mjestu i izvan njega također su na vrhu našeg dnevnog reda.
               

                  Međutim, kakva je stvarna situacija? Čuli smo različite brojke. Prošlogodišnje izvješće UN-a upozorava nas da će nam uz trenutnu stopu napretka trebati 286 godina da se zatvore praznine u pravnoj zaštiti žena. Kolega je nešto slično o tome govorio. Do 140 godina da se postigne ravnopravna zastupljenost žena na takozvanim pozicijama moći. I sada idemo unatrag. Prošle godine trebalo nam je 40 godina da se postigne jednaka zastupljenost žena i muškaraca u nacionalnim parlamentima, došli smo na 47.
               

                  Pred nama su izbori pa ću ja pitati. Znate tko je bila Medeleine Albright, znate što je ona poručila ženama? Da u paklu sigurno postoji mjesto za žene koje ne podupiru žene pa, prema tome, neka to bude mjesto gdje ćete poduprijeti žene.
               

                  Na kraju, želim pozdraviti jučer postignuti sporazum Vijeća Europskog parlamenta u pogledu Zakona o nasilju nad ženama i nasilju u obitelji i želim dati dobar primjer moje zemlje Republike Hrvatske koja je izmijenila Kazneni zakon. Uvedeno je novo kazneno djelo teškog ubojstva žene, takozvani femicid i brojne druge stvari su unaprijeđene u korist žena i djevojčica. Hrvatska ovdje može biti primjer.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria Dalli, el presidente de la Comisión de Derechos de la Mujer, Robert Biedroń, trae este punto al Parlamento Europeo buscando inspiración para representarnos dignamente a todas y a todos en la próxima sesión de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer de las Naciones Unidas.
               

                  Creo que la voz que surge con resolución de este debate en el Parlamento Europeo es clara y terminante: la igualdad de las mujeres es una cuestión de derechos humanos y de derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea. Una sociedad que los garantiza plenamente — que es la obligación de la Unión Europea— es una sociedad no solamente más justa y equitativa, sino también más eficiente económicamente y más próspera socialmente.
               

                  La igualdad de las mujeres en la Unión Europea exige respeto, no discriminación. Exige superar la brecha salarial definitivamente. Exige seguridad a todas las mujeres frente a cualquier forma de violencia. Exige libertad para que las mujeres puedan desarrollar su personalidad sin someterse a ningún prejuicio ni a ningún estereotipo. Y exige, por supuesto también, que de una vez por todas afirmemos que la igualdad y la no discriminación son una cuestión absolutamente fundamental.
               

                  No hay cláusula más hermosa en el Derecho europeo que la que prohíbe cualquier forma de discriminación por sexo, por género o por orientación sexual. Es el artículo 21 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Por tanto, querido Robert Biedroń, ahí tiene su inspiración.
               

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, Komise OSN pro postavení žen je hlavní celosvětový mezivládní orgán, který se věnuje postavení a prosazování rovnosti žen a mužů a posílení především postavení žen. Nadcházející setkání se zaměří na urychlené dosažení rovnosti žen a mužů a posílení postavení všech žen a dívek, řešení problému chudoby a posílení institucí a financování beroucí v potaz také toto genderové hledisko. Já plně souhlasím s návrhem usnesení, o kterém k tomuto tématu budeme zítra hlasovat. Ono totiž připomíná závazky politiky a opatření EU k dosažení rovnosti žen a mužů a konkrétně k řešení chudoby žen. Za její základní příčiny označuje nedostatek vzdělávání, obtížný přístup na trh práce a přerušení kariéry. Zároveň zdůrazňujeme důležitost plné účasti žen na ekonomickém životě společnosti.
               

                  Musíme vyzvat Radu, aby znovu potvrdila závazek EU vůči cílům OSN, případně vůči jiným mezinárodním cílům, pokud jde právě o rovnost žen a mužů, a posílit postavení žen prostřednictvím vhodně zvolené kombinace opatření. Zároveň je třeba, aby Rada řešila problémy, kterým čelíme i v EU, jako je genderově podmíněné násilí nebo přístup žen a dívek ke vzdělávání, na trh práce nebo ke zdravotním službám. EU musí jít příkladem a ukázat silné postavení a vedení v oblasti práv žen.
               

Carina Ohlsson (S&D). – Herr talman! I år har vi för 68:e gången ett möte i FN:s kvinnokommission. Vi har gjort många framsteg, men vi kan inte luta oss tillbaka och ta tidigare framsteg för givna. Jämställdheten i världen är på nedgång, tyvärr, och vi måste fortsätta kämpa för något så självklart som allas lika värde.
               

                  Att vara feminist, det kräver tålamod. Det är en ständig kamp och ofta tar vi två steg fram och ett steg tillbaks. Årets tema – att bekämpa fattigdom – är väldigt viktigt och det är tydligt att kvinnor drabbas hårdare än män av fattigdom. Det är oftare en djupare fattigdom för kvinnor än för män, beroende också på att kvinnor oftare har otrygga anställningar och lägre lön än män.
               

                  Kvinnor utför mer obetalt arbete för att ta hand om sina egna barn, även om pappan också faktiskt är förälder. Jag hoppas att kommissionen och rådet lyssnar på de viktiga synpunkter som framförs i resolutionen, så att vi tillsammans kan ta ett stort steg framåt i jämställdhetskampen. För kvinnors rättigheter är mänskliga rättigheter och mänskliga rättigheter är även kvinnors rättigheter.
               

Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a pobreza não é neutra em termos de género.
               

                  Cerca de 383 milhões de mulheres vivem com menos de 2 dólares por dia. Estima-se que a próxima geração de mulheres, a próxima, ainda gastará em média, 2,3 horas a mais por dia em trabalho de cuidado não remunerado do que os homens.
               

                  Sem esquecer a dependência económica decorrente do não acesso à educação, privilégio ainda negado a mulheres em algumas partes do mundo; a pobreza associada à viuvez, em consequência da privação do direito de herdar; ou os casos, tão frequentes em África, de mulheres que são deixadas sozinhas, com o encargo de cuidar de muitos filhos, porque os companheiros procuraram vida melhor em outro lado ou simplesmente as abandonaram.
               

                  Para enfrentar esta realidade, é imperativo combater com mais coragem e mais ambição as causas fundamentais do excesso de pobreza feminina em todo o mundo. Espero que a próxima Assembleia das Nações Unidas dê um contributo importante para isso.
               

Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D). – Señor vicepresidente, tras más de medio siglo trabajando por la igualdad de género en la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer de las Naciones Unidas, nos encontramos hoy ante un panorama alarmante.
               

                  En España, más del 65 % de las mujeres jóvenes creen que el feminismo es importante para lograr la igualdad de género, mientras que más del 35 % de los varones consideran que el feminismo promueve el odio y la discriminación hacia los hombres. A la vez, vemos cómo crecen en las redes sociales tendencias como el ‘novia, quédate en casa’(stay at home, girlfriend), un fenómeno viral que promueve alejar a las mujeres jóvenes de la figura de la mujer trabajadora para devolverlas al siglo pasado con la ayuda de las grandes plataformas y de la extrema derecha.
               

                  Tenemos un reto colosal ante nosotras. Así que, ¿cuáles son nuestras prioridades para esta Comisión de Naciones Unidas? La Unión Europea debe liderar el empoderamiento de las mujeres y de las niñas, garantizando la igualdad de oportunidades en todas las esferas de nuestras vidas, también en el entorno digital.
               

                  Pero también debe dar respuesta a las enormes brechas ideológicas que no paran de crecer, con hombres y mujeres jóvenes que habitan en espacios culturales y sociales cada vez más separados. No permitamos retroceder en avances logrados tras siglos de lucha feminista. Ante los que quieren involucionar, avancemos, avancemos siempre hacia un futuro más justo y más igualitario.
               

(La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’ (artículo 171, apartado 8, del Reglamento interno)).


Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR),
pregunta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – Me ha chocado que queriendo proteger las decisiones de las mujeres y que hagan lo que quieran ¿por qué hay un problema con que haya mujeres que quieran voluntariamente quedarse en casa? ¿Por qué lo considera un retroceso?
               

                  Esa misma mujer que en un momento puntual de su vida puede decidir quedarse en casa, en otro momento puede querer incorporarse a la vida profesional. Pero me choca que esto alarme y que lo considere un retroceso de los derechos de la mujer, porque creo que la mujer debe ser libre para decidir dónde debe estar en cada momento. Me parece una contradicción, simplemente. ¿Qué puede decir al respecto?
               

Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – Gracias por su pregunta, señoría. Mis padres me educaron en que la independencia económica de las mujeres era la base de nuestra libertad y de nuestra seguridad.
               

                  Por supuesto que respeto la decisión que tomen individualmente, de forma autónoma y sin ningún tipo de condición, las mujeres que quieran quedarse en casa. Pero yo estoy hablando de un fenómeno en redes sociales que alienta que vivamos de nuestras parejas y que aprovechemos ese tiempo para dedicarnos al cuidado, sobre todo a nuestro cuidado físico, para estar bellas para nuestros hombres que nos mantienen. Yo estoy absolutamente en contra y sí que veo esto como un retroceso claro y evidente.
               

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, globally, we have three priorities at the moment in gender and women's rights.
Firstly, we have had very good progress, but backlash through the growing populism and totalitarianism is threatening women's rights. It's increasing hate speech, it's increasing attitudes limiting women's personal rights, democratic rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and their rights in the work life. So the whole set of strengthening legally and globally and in all Member States, the right-based approach is the first priority and zero tolerance of hatred towards the gender of women in any forms.
Second priority is, of course, the integration of women and gender aspects in all parts of the policies. And this, again, is this old-fashioned discussion about quotas – quotas in business life, quotas in public life and quotas in decision-making. And this is something that I hope that the EU could step up in the global sphere in its talks.
And last but not least is, of course, the poverty issue. Issues like pay transparency can work when we are actually dealing with the fact that women are not either getting the same salary for the same work, not to talk about for the same value of the work. And by tackling the pay transparencies, we can tackle the poverty in one part and with the social security on the other part.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the upcoming session of the Commission on the Status of Women comes at a time of ongoing and new geopolitical challenges and in the context of inflation, crises and conflicts. So the eradication of poverty, and in particular poverty experienced by women and girls, therefore calls for urgent action both in the EU and beyond our borders.
The European Commission is undertaking several initiatives to invest in and advance gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls in all their diversity. Together, we can build a world where women and girls are able to thrive and reach their full potential.
Our work is guided by, and aligns with, the European Parliament's resolutions, including the resolution on CSW68, which we are discussing today. We need to accelerate progress on these commitments both within the EU and globally. So I thank you for your commitment and support to advance gender equality and to deliver together as a Union of equality.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left),
γραπτώς. – Κύριοι συνάδελφοι, παρά τις προσπάθειες που έχουν σημειωθεί για την προώθηση της ισότητας και των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών, σε όλο τον κόσμο, τα δικαιώματα αυτά πλήττονται, απειλούνται, παραβιάζονται και η ισότητα μεταξύ των δύο φύλων απομακρύνεται ολοένα και περισσότερο. Σύμφωνα με τον ΟΗΕ, η ισότητα για την οποία αγωνιζόμαστε όλα αυτά τα χρόνια θα επιτευχθεί στην καλύτερη περίπτωση ‘σε 300 χρόνια’. Για τον λόγο αυτό, θα πρέπει να εντείνουμε τις προσπάθειες και τις διεκδικήσεις μας για την 68η σύνοδο της Επιτροπής του ΟΗΕ για τη Θέση των Γυναικών. Πρέπει να θέσουμε στο επίκεντρο των διεκδικήσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου: την εξασφάλιση ίσων ευκαιριών στην εκπαίδευση, στην αγορά εργασίας, με ίση πρόσβαση σε οικονομικές και χρηματοπιστωτικές υπηρεσίες και ισότιμη συμμετοχή των γυναικών σε όλα τα επίπεδα λήψης αποφάσεων· την αντιμετώπιση των πολλαπλών συστημικών αιτιών της φτώχειας των γυναικών παγκοσμίως και την ενσωμάτωση περισσότερων χρηματοδοτικών μέσων· την ενδυνάμωση των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών μέσω της εκπαίδευσης, της κατάρτισης, της δια βίου μάθησης, που είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για την καταπολέμηση των έμφυλων στερεοτύπων και ανισοτήτων που οδηγούν στη φτώχεια· την ενίσχυση των δημόσιων δομών, υπηρεσιών και μηχανισμών, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των υπηρεσιών υγείας, της ποιοτικής και οικονομικά προσιτής δημόσιας εκπαίδευσης και των δημόσιων μεταφορών· την εξασφάλιση καθολικής πρόσβασης στη σεξουαλική και αναπαραγωγική υγεία και τα συναφή δικαιώματα.
               

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca

16.   Implementation report on the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez José Gusmão w imieniu Komisji Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie realizacji unijnej strategii na rzecz równości osób LGBTIQ na lata 2020–2025 (2023/2082(INI)) (A9-0030/2024).
               

José Gusmão,
relator. – Senhora Presidente, em 2020, a Comissão Europeia publicou a Primeira Estratégia para a Igualdade LGBTQI+. Esta estratégia foi considerada um marco histórico e recebida com esperança pelas pessoas e movimentos LGBT. Essa estratégia tem de ser efetiva e não apenas uma declaração de intenções e este relatório vai nesse sentido.
               

                  Queria começar por agradecer aos relatores dos restantes grupos, ao staff e aos assistentes pelo trabalho e compromissos que fizemos juntos.
               

                  Começamos por constatar que a discriminação existe fora da lei e dentro da lei. Em alguns Estados-Membros, a discriminação parte do Estado com consequências trágicas. Noutros, temos assistido a avanços no casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, uniões civis e direitos de parentalidade, no direito à autodeterminação, à autonomia, à igualdade perante a lei. Esses avanços não destruíram a família, não prejudicaram ninguém, não fizeram colapsar a sociedade, apenas a tornaram mais inclusiva. Mas os direitos formais não garantem tudo.
               

                  Um pouco por toda a Europa, o discurso de ódio cresce e uma parte é dirigida contra a comunidade LGBT. Um relatório da ILGA concluiu que 2022 foi um dos anos mais violentos registados. O discurso de ódio tem consequências diretas, nomeadamente na incidência de suicídios de pessoas LGBT, particularmente jovens.
               

                  Como este relatório demonstra, o aumento do discurso de ódio está diretamente associado ao surgimento e crescimento de forças e grupos de extrema-direita. Aqui no Parlamento, curiosamente, estes grupos nem se deram ao trabalho de apresentar relatores para este relatório.
               

                  Mas o discurso de ódio nunca é só discurso. Das palavras rapidamente se passa aos atos, desde os crimes de ódio até às leis de ódio. É por isso que felicitamos a iniciativa da Comissão de acrescentar o discurso de ódio e os crimes de ódio à lista de crimes da União Europeia. No entanto, precisamos de mais. Queremos um programa de trabalho para encorajar a denúncia desses crimes e a formação e sensibilização das forças policiais e autoridades judiciais para a sua gravidade e implicações.
               

                  Queremos também a proibição à escala europeia de práticas violentas ainda permitidas em alguns Estados-Membros. É o caso das chamadas terapias de conversão, autênticos programas de tortura física e psicológica, da mutilação genital ou da esterilização forçada.
               

                  É importante pensar as estratégias LGBT ao nível das várias políticas públicas e não apenas como um nicho. A degradação dos serviços públicos prejudica toda a gente, mas prejudica particularmente os grupos que são discriminados, como os pobres, as pessoas racializadas, as mulheres e as pessoas LGBT, sobretudo quando acumulam várias destas discriminações.
               

                  Fui relator das regras de governação económica e não posso deixar de manifestar a minha preocupação com a nova vaga de políticas de austeridade que se prepara e que não deixará de ter impactos nos serviços públicos.
               

                  Precisamos de enfrentar a crise da habitação e introduzir medidas para combater a discriminação de todos os grupos marginalizados, incluindo a comunidade LGBT. A Agência dos Direitos Fundamentais dá conta de que de 20 % a 40 % de toda a população sem abrigo é LGBT.
               

                  Este relatório tinha um parágrafo inteiramente dedicado à saúde que foi retirado. Registava o impacto da violência e estigmatização na saúde física, mental e sexual das pessoas LGBT, condenava a discriminação no acesso a cuidados de saúde e deixava claro que a saúde deve ser um serviço público universal e gratuito. Amanhã, no voto final da resolução, tentaremos voltar a introduzir esse parágrafo.
               

                  Apelo a que o Parlamento esteja unido na defesa do acesso sem discriminações à saúde.
               

                  Temos de continuar a ter um Comissário para a Igualdade e passar a ter um coordenador para os direitos LGBT na Comissão Europeia, com um mandato para assegurar a implementação da estratégia. E a Europa precisa de uma nova estratégia para a igualdade LGBT, desta vez com objetivos concretos, calendarizados e mensuráveis.
               

                  Queremos uma nova estratégia antes das eleições europeias de 2024! Vamos a isso!
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address this Chamber on the important topic of implementation of the first ever Commission LGBTIQ Equality Strategy. Now, more than halfway into implementing this strategy, the Commission is working on a mid-term review that will assess how the situation of LGBTIQ people has evolved since it was adopted, the progress made, and which areas require more focus to fully implement the strategy by 2025, considering the challenges identified and revealed by data.
In April 2023, the Commission published a progress report presenting numerous actions undertaken to implement this strategy at the EU level in the period up to February 2023. The mid-term report will also reflect on opinions of stakeholders provided through an extensive consultation process, including Member States and civil society organisations. The Commission plans to adopt it in the second quarter of 2024. Your implementation report and your reflections today will also be an important contribution to this process.
Since its adoption, the strategy has contributed to improving many people's lives and to build more equal and welcoming societies for LGBTIQ people. The strategy has been implemented using intersectionality as a cross-cutting principle. Sexual orientation, gender identity, expression, and or sex characteristics have been considered alongside other personal characteristics or identities such as sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, belief, disability, and age. According to a Eurobarometer survey in 2023, compared to 2019 Europeans now are more likely to feel comfortable having a lesbian, gay or bisexual colleague: 75 %. That is three points higher than in 2019. Or if one of their children is in a same sex relationship: 59 %, which is four points higher. Although these figures are still lower when it comes to trans and intersex people.
A growing number of Member States are stepping up their commitment for LGBTIQ equality in accordance with the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy. 12 of them have in place dedicated LGBTIQ action plans or strategies, and a growing number of Member States are working to adopt their first ever national LGBTIQ Action Plans, in line with the Commission's strategy and the guidelines prepared by the LGBTIQ equality subgroup, building our Union of equality on strong national foundations.
Also, more Member States are introducing human rights based legal gender recognition procedures, strengthening the recognition and protection for same sex couples and rainbow families, and extending the scope of protection from discrimination to gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics.
While these are important steps forward, ongoing backlashes are a reminder that progress towards LGBTIQ equality can be very fragile. Our Eurobarometer survey also showed that in 2023, 54 % of all respondents thought that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is widespread in their country, compared to 53 % in 2019. This percentage rises to 57 % in relation to being a transgender person, which is a 9 % increase, and 47 % say that discrimination against intersex persons is widespread. An 8 % increase. According to ILGA-Europe's 2023 annual review, 2022 was the most violent year for LGBTQI people across the region in the past decade, both through planned attacks and through suicides in the wake of rising and widespread hate speech.
So even in countries where social acceptance is higher, certain political forces increased their efforts to curtail LGBTIQ rights, fuelling violence and hate against LGBTIQ people for political gain. Against the surge in violence and discrimination, the EU has not hesitated to act. We remain vigilant and continue working with Member States, civil society organisations and other institutions to uphold the human rights of LGBTIQ people through the implementation of our LGBTIQ equality strategy.
The Commission continues monitoring the implementation of EU law in Member States, and we do not hesitate to take action, of course, as you know, including initiating infringement procedures in case the fundamental rights of LGBTIQ people are violated.
The hatred we have recently seen is a risk for our societies and for our democracy. We cannot accept that people are prevented from playing their full part due to how they look, what they believe, who they love, or where they come from. We are determined to combat hatred, scapegoating, and the denigration of any person due to their racial and ethnic origin, their faith, their gender, or their sexuality. And December 2023, the Commission and the High Representative adopted a joint communication on ‘No place for hate: a Europe united against hatred’, which aims to step up EU efforts to fight hatred in all its forms, including LGBTIQ people, of course.

Maria Walsh,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, as always, here for a late-night debate on LGBTI rights. Thank you very much for your continued support.
Colleagues, the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination is a fundamental right enshrined in the EU Treaties. On 8 March, Ireland will hold two referendums that directly impact the LGBTI+ community: one question focuses on the family and the second on care. These are progressive referendums that, in my eyes, will ensure the empowerment of our citizens to shape their country's future, uphold democratic values, and promote equality, dignity and respect for all families.
Let me focus on the first one, which is to amend Article 41. The positive impact in revising the definition of ‘family’ is to explicitly provide a wider concept of family beyond just the traditional concept of marriage. If passed, we will recognise the diversity of families that exist in our society, ensuring rainbow families, one-parent families and couples – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – are recognised in the Irish Constitution, acknowledging their rights as equal members of our society.
I urge Irish people to continue to follow the path to progress, to vote and safeguard the rights for families and gender equality, and collectively continue to adapt our Constitution to a modern Europe in a modern European Union. Constitutional change sends a powerful message of acceptance, equality and inclusion. This is the type of Member State and EU change we need to see progress in the future of all and any LGBTI strategies.
I welcome this review. I'm just always disappointed – and I'm going to use my last few seconds here – to say that at 8 o'clock at night yet again on a Wednesday of plenary, we have about less than 30 colleagues, led by Commissioner Dalli, in probably one of the most politically incised conversations we have in our time.
LGBTQ+ communities, minority groups, people who are seen as ‘other’ will be used as a political ping pong game. And it's up to us 30 and hopefully many more allies to end this ridicule and injustice for all.

Isabel Santos,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, permitam que comece por cumprimentar o nosso colega José Gusmão não só pelo excelente trabalho desenvolvido neste relatório, mas também pela forma como envolveu a sociedade civil e todos aqueles que lutam pela igualdade e não discriminação. E quero garantir-lhe que contará com o nosso apoio na inclusão da referência à necessidade de garantir a igualdade do acesso da população LGBT à saúde.
               

                  Numa Europa que acaba de viver um dos anos mais violentos desde que há registos entre as populações LGBT, assistimos a ataques contínuos à liberdade dos nossos concidadãos, impulsionados por uma direita extremista que tem feito do ódio uma arma de arremesso.
               

                  Embora a UE tenha dado ontem um passo significativo no sentido da criminalização da mutilação genital feminina, falta-nos ainda percorrer um longo caminho. Práticas que a todos nos envergonham, como as terapias de conversão ou a esterilização forçada, continuam inexplicavelmente a ter lugar em vários Estados-Membros. É tempo de pôr termo a esta indignidade.
               

                  A ambição do relatório que hoje aqui discutimos reflete bem a nossa determinação, lançando as bases e estabelecendo os compromissos daquilo que esperamos ver na Estratégia LGBT 2025-2030: uma Europa diversa, tolerante, inclusiva e justa, onde a dignidade e a segurança das pessoas LGBT são as de todos nós.
               

Moritz Körner,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Gerade erreichen uns schreckliche Nachrichten aus dem Jemen, wo aufgrund ihrer Sexualität 13 Menschen zum Tod verurteilt wurden.
               

                  In Europa ist das zum Glück nicht vorstellbar. Europäische Werte sind Toleranz und Vielfalt. In Europa muss es egal sein, wen man liebt.
               

                  Aber auch wir sehen, dass unsere Werte, unsere europäischen Werte, angegriffen werden. Die liberale Demokratie ist von innen und von außen, auch von Russland, bedroht, und wir sehen, dass gleichzeitig als Erstes auf Minderheiten gezielt wird. Dem müssen wir uns entgegenstellen. Auch deshalb ist die LGBTIQ-Strategie der Europäischen Kommission ein wichtiger Schritt und der Bericht, in dem wir den Fortschritt festhalten, gemeinsam, ein guter Bericht; ich danke dem Berichterstatter.
               

                  Ich habe als liberaler Verhandlungsführer versucht, mitzuhelfen, dass wir tatsächlich mehr tun. Denn solange queere Jugendliche immer noch eine höhere Selbstmordrate haben, haben wir noch nicht genug getan. Solange es noch Konversionstherapien in Europa gibt, haben wir noch nicht genug getan. Deswegen unterstützen wir in diesem Bericht die Europäische Bürgerinitiative zum Verbot von Konversionstherapien. Hier müssen wir noch mehr tun zum Schutz unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger.
               

                  Die Rechten versuchen, sich mit ihren Änderungsanträgen – mit ihren islamophoben Änderungsanträgen – jetzt als besonders queerfreundlich darzustellen. Wenn sie aber gleichzeitig die Rechte von LGBTIQ, von Regenbogenfamilien infrage stellen mit ihren Anträgen, dann zeigen sie eigentlich nur ihre hässliche Fratze. Hören Sie auf damit! Helfen Sie uns, gemeinsam für Toleranz und Demokratie in Europa zu streiten!
               

Diana Riba i Giner,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, estamos en un momento de involución. No hace falta que hablemos de Polonia, Hungría o Italia. En el Estado español, por ejemplo, los importantes avances llevados a cabo para impulsar el reconocimiento legal de la autodeterminación de género con la Ley trans han generado una reacción sumamente virulenta por parte de la derecha, la ultraderecha y los sectores más conservadores de la sociedad. Hemos vuelto a escuchar discursos públicos en los que se tilda a la homosexualidad o la transexualidad como una enfermedad o una pandemia.
               

                  Según el informe del estado del odio de 2023, se calcula que en España alrededor de 280 000 personas han sufrido agresiones por su orientación o identidad sexual en algún momento en los últimos cinco años. Sin embargo, hay un dato dentro que es muy importante y alarmante: el 60 % de ellos asegura haber sufrido acoso en la escuela.
               

                  La Estrategia de la Unión para la Igualdad de las Personas LGBTIQ 2020-2025, cuya implementación estamos analizando, es una muy buena declaración de intenciones, pero necesitamos más. Necesitamos leyes europeas que obliguen a los Estados a tomar medidas efectivas para luchar contra la discriminación y blinden y protejan los derechos humanos de las personas LGTBIQ+.
               

                  Dar los derechos conquistados por descontado es un error. Pero óiganme bien, señores de la derecha y la extrema derecha: pensar que no los defenderemos con uñas y dientes, también.
               

Beata Kempa,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Mamy tyle problemów dzisiaj w Unii Europejskiej: chociażby protesty rolników, potężne zawirowania związane z wojną w Ukrainie, wzrost ataków na chrześcijan o 44%. I co? O tym nie dyskutujemy. Na ten temat nie ma sprawozdania.
               

                  Żeby było jasne: jestem przeciwna dyskryminacji kogokolwiek ze względu na wiarę, ze względu na orientację, ze względu na jakiekolwiek inne przyczyny. To jest niedopuszczalne – i to jest jasne i oczywiste. Ale w tym sprawozdaniu, jeżeli mamy zawierać takie sformułowania prawne, które tak naprawdę dotyczą polityki i ustawodawstwa, które już jest ustawodawstwem kraju członkowskiego, jest wyłączną kompetencją kraju członkowskiego, to w tym przypadku naruszamy, jako Unia Europejska, właśnie tymi działaniami, te kompetencje krajowe w obszarach chociażby zdrowia i prawa rodzinnego.
               

                  Po drugie, np. pojęcie gender – przecież to jest pojęcie zupełnie nieostre i może budzić przede wszystkim problemy w interpretacji i problemy znaczeniowe, i generalnie problemy semantyczne. Dokumenty unijne powinny opierać się na terminologii przyjętej w prawie pierwotnym.
               

                  Kończę, Pani Przewodnicząca. Unia Europejska powstała na wartościach chrześcijańskich i godność, poszanowanie osoby ludzkiej, to jest ten fundament i tego się trzymajmy. Mamy to w traktatach.
               

Danilo Oscar Lancini,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nessuno ha il diritto di interferire con chi amiamo o con quello che facciamo sotto le coperte di casa nostra. Io rispetto tutti, ma quando è troppo è troppo.
               

                  In nome del politicamente corretto, la televisione, l'educazione e addirittura i film traboccano di esempi LGBT. Imporre a forza questi modelli nella vita quotidiana è malsano e soprattutto non è corretto. Negli asili e nelle scuole dilaga l'imposizione dell'ideologia gender, secondo cui la differenza tra maschile e femminile è solo una costruzione culturale, e dunque va decostruita. Voi siete quelli che vogliono inquinare la mente pulita dei nostri bambini. Io non sarò complice. Non potete prevaricare il mio diritto di genitore a educare mio figlio.
               

                  Ha ragione Vittorio Feltri: non si possono più usare certe espressioni della lingua italiana, perché se no si rischia la galera. Questo vuol dire tutelare la libertà? Io non posso usare certi termini, mentre voi dovete dirmi come parlare? Basta imporre agli Stati membri di riconoscere l'omogenitorialità. Basta imporre la libertà di espressione in nome del politicamente corretto. Basta corsi obbligatori LGBT per tutti.
               

                  Voi vedete la famiglia tradizionale come un ostacolo. La famiglia vera è composta da padre e madre, è sana, è quella che fa bambini e fa andare avanti il mondo. Voi proponete una porcheria che non ha futuro e porterà il mondo all'estinzione.
               

                  Già l'anno scorso, a maggio, avete lordato queste aule con una mostra blasfema fatta dall'ultimo dei pervertiti. E, concludo, siamo stufi di subire per legge modelli e costumi che non riflettono la realtà. Vogliamo vivere senza essere indottrinati. Prevarrà il buon senso, non le vostre strategie.
               

Malin Björk,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, together with colleagues from different political groups here in this House, I have worked to strengthen the rights of LGBTIQ people since I took my place here. We move the world forward. We move families forward. We move societies forward. We move love forward.
And we have come a long way. We have an LGBTIQ strategy. We have an Equality Commissioner. We have funding. We have several pan-European organisations defending the rights of our community. I can see that we are moving forward. I can feel it in my own life – how it has changed over time. Living between Sweden, Belgium and France, it has become easier, better.
But we still have so much to do. The situation in the European Union, in some of the Member States, is terrible. We see how the national conservatives are attacking our siblings. We see how they are subject to hate crimes and hate speech, scapegoating, discrimination. We will not have it.
We need to step up against hate speech and hate crime. We need to address specific discrimination of lesbians, of trans people, and we need to make sure that there is equality in health and in employment.
We need equality for our families. We need equality for queer kids – every kid should be happy and proud. Nothing less is good enough. So let's step up the political action. Let's take a new strategy that is even more ambitious, that has more resources and even more political power.

Mario Furore (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ieri la Corte d'Appello di Milano ha annullato la trascrizione dei riconoscimenti dei figli di tre coppie di donne perché in Italia non c'è una legge che lo prevede. Questa si chiama discriminazione e ha conseguenze drammatiche sulla vita delle famiglie, delle persone e dei bambini.
               

                  Il divieto di discriminazione è un principio sancito nei trattati fondativi dell'Unione europea e quindi dobbiamo impegnarci di più per difendere queste vittime. Per esempio, approviamo subito la direttiva orizzontale antidiscriminazione che è bloccata in Consiglio dal 2008, quindi da ben quattordici anni. E poi dobbiamo approvare il certificato di genitorialità, che garantisce stessi diritti ai genitori, a prescindere dalle loro preferenze sessuali.
               

                  È arrivato il momento di fare sul serio, di garantire l'uguaglianza per le persone LGBTQ+. Invito dunque la Commissione a fare la propria parte, perché dobbiamo invertire la rotta rispetto a quello che sta avvenendo in Italia e nell'Unione europea. Personalmente, dico no a un'Europa di cittadini di serie A e di serie B.
               

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Madam President, I could actually start with the same words as I did with the hate speech. The hate against the Muslim and Jewish minorities. The targets for the next UN Women Conference here, too. So, it is the bigger issue with the totalitarianism and negative developments in our societies in the EU that I think that we should tackle really seriously.
And then what are the tools? Of course, the tools are very much in all the groups the same. It is zero tolerance for any kind of hate speech, legally binding rules – both in digital media and in real life – for this boiling effect of insulting people because of their backgrounds. We need to back up the people, the diversity and stop the hate speech as long as we can.
The next steps are two things. First of all – I am campaigning and very great supporter – we really would need to ban conversion therapies in Europe. They are against human rights, they are against dignity and they are against everything that we know about medicine and the good physical care of people.
We would need to have better compulsory education about the issue and we would need to have special social and medical streams and services for LGBTIQ people. They are getting older, they need their own elderly people's care, their own medical care centres and issues like that.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Madam President, this legislature, our Europe, stood for equality. I must thank you, dear Commissioner, dear Helena, for the work and your dedication to make sure that we move strongly towards equality, even when having to swim against the tide in certain quarters. I believe it is essential that in the next mandate, in the next Commission, we will once again have a progressive Commissioner with this portfolio of equality in order to make sure that we keep on moving forward.
Let me speak on one particular part of this strategy. It was already mentioned before: conversion practices. I thank the Commission for having the citizens' initiative approved, and I hope that in the next months we will have much more than 1 million people signing the citizens' initiative in order to stop this abominable way of manipulating children's minds, people's minds, in order to make them change whoever they were born into. This is an abomination and it must be stopped all across the European Union!
We did this in Malta – we were the first country to do so – and it must be stopped in all the countries of the European Union. Because it is unacceptable to lead young people to suicide, simply because some people from the far right and the anti-gender movement do not acknowledge who they are! This is unacceptable and this House will always stand with all young people, all across the European Union.

Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, depuis cinq ans, il s'en est passé, quand même, des choses! Nous avons fait reculer avec vous les zones sans LGBT en suspendant les fonds européens pour les collectivités polonaises. Ici, chers collègues, nous avons déclaré l'Union européenne comme une zone de liberté pour les personnes LGBT. Vous avez – nous vous avons soutenus – porté la Hongrie devant la Cour pour sa loi visant à combattre la supposée ‘propagande LGBT’. Nous avons soutenu ici les familles homoparentales grâce à vous, également, grâce au texte que vous avez déposé. Nous avons voté pour la dépénalisation universelle de l'homosexualité. Nous? Pas tout le monde…
               

                  Pas tout le monde, étant donné que nous avons dû combattre l'extrême droite et, parfois, malheureusement, la droite, quand elle s'acoquine avec cette extrême droite sur le sujet. Je pense par exemple à des collègues comme Nadine Morano ou Brice Hortefeux, des élus français, qui ont voté contre cette résolution, contre la dépénalisation de l'homosexualité. Quand nous constatons que 13 personnes ont été condamnées à mort au Yémen, que penser de cela? Évidemment, je pense aussi à Jordan Bardella, qui s'est opposé au fait d'ajouter les crimes homophobes à la liste des crimes de haine dans l'Union européenne.
               

                  Eh bien, chers collègues, soyons fiers de ce que nous avons fait. Mais, surtout, soyons conscients que le combat continue et que nous avons encore bien des actions à mener.
               

Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, in 2020, 23 years after the founding of our Parliament's LGBTI intergroup, the European Commission published their very first LGBTIQ equality strategy. And it is truly a victory for our community to see this allyship from the Commission. And some very good first steps were taken. But I'm asking you now, please continue having our backs. Despite the growing backlash, despite the fact that my community is scapegoated for political gains and despite the increased hate against us, please continue to work with a new commissioner responsible for equality and a new strategy. Because we are still far away from a Europe where we are truly equal, where we are truly safe. We deserve to be treated equally. And for this we need the horizontal anti-discrimination directive to be unblocked. We want to be able to move throughout the Union without fear of losing our legal rights as partners or as parents. Our intersex siblings need to be protected with a ban on genital mutilation. Our trans siblings deserve to have a passport that reflects who they are without going through long and medicalised degrading processes. And we want a ban on the torturous practice of conversion therapy. In other words, we would like to have our basic human rights to be respected in the EU. So, I count on you to continue fighting together with us towards that.

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, από καταβολής του κόσμου και ανά τους αιώνες, η απόκτηση οικογένειας απαιτεί έναν άνδρα και μια γυναίκα. Η βιολογική σύνδεση εμβρύου και μητέρας είναι βαθιά, πολυεπίπεδη και αναντικατάστατη. Η μητέρα αποτελεί για εμάς ένα ιερό πρόσωπο. Στην Ορθοδοξία μας, η σημασία της Παναγίας αντανακλά τη σημασία της μητέρας στη ζωή μας. Είναι θλιβερό να μιλάμε για αλλαγή προτύπων. Είναι προφανές ότι θα οδηγήσει όλο και περισσότερα παιδιά να μεγαλώνουν χωρίς μητέρα. Είναι σαφές ότι το σχεδιαζόμενο πλήγμα στην οικογένεια ως θεμελιώδη πυρήνα της κοινωνίας κρύβει και άλλα πράγματα από πίσω. Εμείς επιμένουμε μέχρι τέλους. Τα παιδιά χρειάζονται μητέρα και πατέρα. Η κανονική οικογένεια είναι αναντικατάστατη. Λέμε ένα στιβαρό ΟΧΙ στην απόκτηση παιδιών από ομόφυλα ζευγάρια. Υιοθεσία μόνο από κανονικές οικογένειες. Πρέπει να σταματήσει η Ευρωβουλή να παράγει περιττές εκθέσεις. Δεν υπάρχει ευρωπαϊκή αρμοδιότητα στα θέματα οικογενειακού δικαίου. Ας δούμε όλοι το άρθρο 81 της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας και ας τελειώσει εδώ αυτό το αστείο.
               

Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, José, ευχαριστούμε πάρα πολύ για την πολύ ωραία δουλειά και όλους εσάς, διότι από την Τεχεράνη ας έρθουμε πάλι εδώ στην Ευρώπη, σιγά σιγά. Η αναγνώριση των ίσων δικαιωμάτων και η καταπολέμηση των διακρίσεων δεν αποτελεί κατά τη γνώμη μας καινοτομία. Είναι απλώς το αυτονόητο ενωσιακό διεθνές κεκτημένο. Δεν είναι, λοιπόν, ευτυχής συγκυρία να κυνηγάμε το αυτονόητο εν έτει 2024. Γιατί αυτό σημαίνει ότι σε αδρές γραμμές οι πολιτείες και οι κοινωνίες αντιμετωπίζουν τα ΛΟΑΤΚΙ άτομα με τρόπο βαθιά προβληματικό. Και καμιά ασθμαίνουσα μικροσυμφόρηση δεν πρέπει να την χειροκροτούμε ως ρηξικέλευθη πρόοδο, γιατί έτσι συμβιβαζόμαστε στα ελάχιστα και αυτό δεν αξίζει ούτε στις Ευρωπαίες ούτε στους Ευρωπαίους. Είναι πολύ σημαντικό, όμως, να λέμε τα πράγματα με το όνομά τους, όπως λέμε στην Ελλάδα. Όσο υπάρχουν στο δημοκρατικό τόξο πολιτικοί παράγοντες και παρατάξεις που σε κάθε ευκαιρία κλείνουν το μάτι στην ακροδεξιά, που την ακούσαμε και εδώ, τόσο στην κοινωνικοπολιτική πράξη θα ανακινείται το δηλητήριο του μίσους και της διάκρισης και θα κανονικοποιείται ο ρατσισμός, η περιθωριοποίηση, δηλαδή – να πούμε τα πράγματα με το όνομά τους – ο φασισμός, επειδή είναι εντελώς διαφορετικό ζήτημα η τυπική ισότητα βάσει του νόμου σε σχέση με την ουσιαστική ισότητα που επιτυγχάνεται μέσα από συγκεκριμένες σταθερές, εφαρμόσιμες και αξιολογημένες πολιτικές. Καλώ να επανεξετάσουν τη θέση τους οι ομάδες που επεδίωξαν να αφαιρεθεί η αναφορά στις υγειονομικές προεκτάσεις των διακρίσεων σε βάρος των ΛΟΑΤΚΙ ατόμων και επίσης στην Ένωση να νομοθετήσει άμεσα και οριζόντια για τα ζητήματα των επεμβάσεων επαναπροσδιορισμού.
               

Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se l'Unione non è una comunità che protegge le libertà dei suoi cittadini, non è niente. E una di queste libertà, una delle più preziose, è la libertà di amare chi vogliamo. Chi potrebbe essere contrario? Per quale ragione?
               

                  La strategia LGBTQ+ della Commissione ha rappresentato un importante passo avanti, ma può essere migliorata. Per esempio, per quanto riguarda il quarto pilastro, che guida la richiesta di uguaglianza LGBTQ+ in tutto il mondo, non siamo riusciti a garantire la non discriminazione basata sull'orientamento sessuale nei paesi firmatari dell'accordo di Samoa con gli Stati dell'Africa, dei Caraibi e del Pacifico. Ciononostante, dobbiamo sostenere queste comunità in quei paesi, come per esempio l'Uganda, dove sono gravemente minacciate. Dobbiamo sostenere i difensori dei diritti umani che si mettono a rischio sul campo per difendere i diritti delle persone LGBTQ+.
               

                  Ma la strategia viene combattuta troppe volte anche dall'interno dell'Unione europea, dall'estrema destra. Proprio ieri, ad esempio, lo ha fatto il vicepresidente del governo valenciano in Spagna. È necessario intervenire a livello giuridico, ma anche andare alle radici delle cause della LGBT-fobia e curare il risentimento che l'alimenta. È una battaglia culturale, che faremo con tutta la serenità, ma anche con tutta la nostra determinazione.
               

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 20.21)

17.   Resumption of the sitting

(Posiedzenie zostało wznowione o godz. 20.25)

18.   Implementation report on the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025 (continuation of debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Powracamy do debaty na temat sprawozdania sporządzonego przez José Gusmão w imieniu Komisji Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie realizacji unijnej strategii na rzecz równości osób LGBTIQ na lata 2020–2025 (2023/2082(INI)) (A9-0030/2024).
               

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidenta, lo dijo la presidenta Ursula von der Leyen. Trabajaremos todos juntos para conseguir una Unión de la Igualdad.
               

                  La Estrategia Europea para las Personas LGTBIQ, presentada hace poco por la Comisión, ha sido determinante. Determinante para poder ser esa Unión de la Igualdad. Todas las personas LGTBIQ deben sentirse seguras y disfrutar de los mismos derechos y las mismas oportunidades, así como participar en igualdad de condiciones. Con esta Estrategia, como he dicho, se dio un paso adelante.
               

                  Hoy hemos de seguir luchando para que no estén discriminadas. Para eso es muy importante una educación en igualdad. El estigma, la violencia y la discriminación contra este colectivo limitan, sin ninguna duda, su participación y atentan contra los derechos humanos. También es muy importante garantizar la seguridad de las personas LGTBIQ, sobre todo por delitos de violencia o de odio. Decirles también que estoy absolutamente en contra de las terapias de conversión. Hay que prohibirlas en toda la Unión Europea. Y hay que crear sociedades inclusivas para las personas LGTBIQ. Proteger a todas las familias arcoíris que estén en situaciones transfronterizas. Normalmente tienen dificultades para acceder al empleo y a la vivienda, y también corren el riesgo de sufrir violencia, exclusión y pobreza.
               

                  Por lo tanto, la Unión Europea, comisaria, tiene que liderar el llamamiento a favor de la igualdad de este colectivo porque es tanto como liderar la defensa de los derechos fundamentales. La Unión Europea tiene que ser un ejemplo y asumir esa posición de liderazgo.
               

Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Koledzy i Koleżanki! Unia Europejska wprowadziła standardy w wielu kwestiach. Mamy jeden standard dotyczący np. tablic rejestracyjnych, mamy jeden standard dotyczący praw zwierząt domowych, mamy jeden standard dotyczący banana czy marchewki, ale do dzisiaj niestety nie mamy jednego standardu, jeśli chodzi o osoby LGBT+. To jest absurd, to jest wstyd, że w 2024 roku, kiedy wprowadziliśmy standardy naprawdę w tylu dziedzinach, nadal na terenie Unii Europejskiej prowadzimy dyskusję na temat, czy powinny obowiązywać strefy wolne od LGBT, czy powinniśmy stosować terapie reparatywne? Czy osoby LGBT mają takie samo prawo do miłości jak inne osoby?
               

                  Pani Komisarz, naprawdę dla przyszłej Komisji kolejnym wyzwaniem jest wprowadzenie także jednego standardu, jeśli chodzi o równe prawa dla wszystkich bez wyjątku.
               

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Fru formand! LGBTI-politik eller -strategi skal ikke tages for givet. Jeg er tolerant, men jeg er ikke tolerant over for de intolerante, fordi grundlæggende rettigheder er for alle. Så tak til Kommissionen for at sikre, at alle europæere og familier i Europa behandles med respekt og behandles ligeværdigt. For det kan vi ikke tage for givet. Og arbejdet skal fortsættes, så den såkaldte omvendelsesterapi, social tvang kan forbydes. Lokalt i København tror man, at sejren er vundet. Man fornyer ikke den LGBTI-politik, som man vedtog i 2019. Man støtter ikke uddannelse i gensidig respekt og forståelse gennem normstormerne på trods af stadig stigende mistrivsel og selvmordstal blandt LGBTI-unge. Og Melonis Italien undergraver italienske transkønnedes og regnbuefamiliers rettigheder. Så derfor, til valget til juni skal lige rettigheder sikres for alle borgere, så alle er inkluderet, hørt og respekteret.
               

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Depression, Angst, Einsamkeit – zu viele LGBTIQ kennen genau diese Gefühle. Viele junge Menschen haben Angst davor, sie selbst zu sein – in 2024. An alle jungen Menschen sei ganz klar gesagt: Ihr seid kein Problem. Liebt, wen ihr wollt! Es ist völlig okay, dasselbe Geschlecht zu lieben und eure Identität neu zu entdecken. Lasst euch nichts anderes einreden; lasst euch nichts anderes einreden, beispielsweise von den Faschisten der AfD und vielen anderen, die probieren, euch eure Freiheit zu nehmen. Sie wollen euch vorschreiben, wie ihr zu leben habt.
               

                  Hier im Parlament, auf TikTok oder auch in ziemlich krassen Hasspamphleten probieren Rechtsradikale, Stimmung zu machen gegen Menschenrechte – gegen Menschen. Das geht uns alle an, egal ob wir hetero-, bi-, trans-, inter- oder homosexuell sind. Faschisten greifen unsere Freiheit an, und es ist wichtig, dass wir dagegen aufstehen, dass wir jetzt laut werden. Das tun wir hier im Parlament, und hier im Parlament gibt es eine breite Mehrheit, die für die Rechte von queeren Menschen – für Menschenrechte – einsteht.
               

                  Aber es ist auch wichtig, dass wir das außerhalb des Parlaments tun, dass wir laut sind auf der Straße, dass wir den Mund aufmachen in unserem privaten Umfeld, am Arbeitsplatz, in der Schule oder aber auch in der Universität. Ich freue mich, dass wir uns hier im Haus mit großer Mehrheit einig sind – darauf können wir aufbauen.
               

Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, a igualdade que importantes textos internacionais e nacionais, como a Constituição da República Portuguesa, consagram está longe de ser alcançada.
               

                  Para que a estratégia da União Europeia para a igualdade de tratamento das pessoas LGBTI 2020-2025 seja bem-sucedida são necessárias medidas que, efetivamente, combatam todo o tipo de discriminações. São necessárias estratégias concretas e de consciencialização para a luta contra a discriminação em função da orientação sexual, da expressão/identidade de género e das características sexuais.
               

                  Isto consegue-se sobretudo com ações de sensibilização e através da promoção da cidadania. Para isso, precisamos também de Estados mais fortes e dotados de serviços públicos mais robustos. Por exemplo, a escola pública, além do espaço de inclusão que deve ser, tem um papel importante na promoção de cidadania e igualdade, combatendo estereótipos e discriminações e na promoção da educação sexual que contribui para o exercício do direito à autodeterminação da identidade/expressão de género e das características sexuais em ambiente escolar.
               

                  Condenamos e não aceitaremos retrocessos nos direitos das pessoas LGBTI. Só avanços.
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è incredibile ascoltare ancora oggi qualcuno di voi dire, specialmente dai banchi di questo lato dell'emiciclo, che questo dibattito è inutile e superfluo e, peggio ancora, un dibattito sbagliato.
               

                  Io vorrei chiedervi – se foste qui in Aula e non lo siete – dove vivete, colleghi? Vi serve forse davvero l'Eurobarometro per capire che, nell'Europa di oggi, più di un cittadino su due sente ogni giorno il peso della discriminazione, sente il veleno dell'odio verso la sua libertà di poter scegliere la propria identità sessuale, il proprio orientamento sessuale? Quanti altri giovani suicidi dovremo piangere per farvi capire che ognuno ha il diritto di amare e di essere ciò che vuole?
               

                  In Italia, nel mio paese, non è neanche più ammesso il riconoscimento dei figli adottivi di coppie omogenitoriali e il governatore della mia regione, il Lazio, ha revocato il patrocinio al Pride senza nessuno scrupolo. Questa è la destra al governo in Italia.
               

                  Da vicepresidente dell'intergruppo per i diritti LGBTI sono fiero di poter votare e di dibattere su questa implementazione, una strategia che abbiamo voluto per vent'anni. Sono fiero di essere impegnato in questa battaglia e non mi fermerò e non ci fermeremo fino a quando non saremo davvero tutte e tutti uguali, senza distinzioni. Amor vincit omnia.
               

Theresa Bielowski (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, LGBTIQ rights – and I want to make that very clear – are not the rights of this or that percentage of people. They are all of our rights because we can never settle for a society that's almost fair, for rule of law being almost upheld or for fundamental rights including almost everybody, almost everywhere.
So rights need defence, constant defence, and they need it in politics, on the streets, in institutions even in our own homes. We carry a responsibility for keep on creating laws that finally protect queer people from hate, from discrimination, from hostility and also from violence. Also, that only will do justice to the hundreds of thousands of activists that fight for freedom, for the right to live a safe and good life every day.
So to all you activists out there, thank you. Thank you for never backing down. We would be nothing without you fighting on the streets for what we are discussing here today.

Michael Kauch (Renew). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Ein queerpolitischer Aufbruch – das ist das, was ganz Europa braucht. Die deutsche Regierung hat ihren Stillstand beendet – verschärfte Strafbarkeit von Hassgewalt, mehr Schutz für queere Flüchtlinge und ein Selbstbestimmungsgesetz für Transpersonen.
               

                  Nun soll auch ein Abstammungsrecht folgen mit einem besseren Rechtsrahmen für Regenbogenfamilien. Für mich ist in diesem Zusammenhang klar: Alle in der EU geschlossenen Ehen, alle in der EU anerkannten Elternschaften müssen auch EU-weit geachtet werden – in allen Mitgliedstaaten, mit allen Rechten.
               

                  Besonders kritikwürdig ist hier das Verhalten der italienischen Regierung, die Italiener kriminalisiert, die im Ausland Leihmutterschaften in Anspruch nehmen, obwohl sie in den jeweiligen Ländern legal sind. Das ist eine Missachtung der Rechtsordnung der anderen Mitgliedstaaten.
               

                  Signori e signore, come padre gay ho un messaggio per Giorgia Meloni. Se anche il Papa benedice coppie omosessuali, perché avete paura delle famiglie che sono piene di amore? Perché volete impedire la nascita di bambini? Come può farlo, come donna, come madre e come cristiana?
               

Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! På många sätt hade det varit enklare om alla de som faktiskt vill begränsa hbtqi-personers rättigheter talade högt och vitt och brett om det. För alltför ofta är de många. Och det hade vi då sett, det hade blivit uppenbart. De är ofta också mäktiga.
               

                  I stället är verkligheten det motsatta, att de finns. De är makthavare. De finns bland oss politiker. De finns här. Medan de samtidigt viftar glatt med regnbågsflaggor så gör de upp med extremhögern i stängda rum om att skicka tillbaka hbtqi-flyktingar mot döden. Samma personer talar gärna vitt och brett om mänskliga rättigheter, men när det kommer till kritan, då är de inte beredda att göra det som krävs för att alla människor ska få leva ett liv fria från förtryck och fria från hat och diskriminering. Kampen för ett EU där alla får vara den de är och älska den de vill, den fortsätter.
               

Marc Angel (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you so very much, dear Commissioner Helena Dalli. Your LGBTI Equality Strategy is already a success, as such. For the first time in EU history, our Union is committed to tackle discrimination not only on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation but also on gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics and not forgetting intersectionality. However, a lot still needs to be done to achieve a real Union of Equality. We should not forget that still today, part of our society is victim of discrimination, harassment and violence, merely as a result of the person they are or they love, be they lesbian, gay, bi, trans, non-binary or intersex persons. The Union of Equality is above all, a Union that puts human dignity at the core of our society. In this context, the renewal of the LGBTI strategy after 2025 is a priority. Dear Commissioner, this House, with large majorities, has issued clear calls for a Union that ensures safe and inclusive sex education from early childhood, a Union that protects minorities from hate speech and hate crime, a Union that bans conversion practices, a Union that recognises marriage and parenthood of rainbow families. Our fight for equality is far more than a political debate in this House. It is a societal topic and it is so good to see in the last Eurobarometer that growing majorities of our citizens are supporting LGBTIQ rights. This is a reality, despite the loud voices of haters. Human rights will always prevail.

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, je hrozné, že miera nenávistných prejavov a zločinov voči LGBTI ľuďom rastie naprieč Európskou úniou.
               

                  Aj preto sa z tohto miesta chcem všetkým queer ľuďom čeliacim týmto útokom, násiliu a diskriminácii ospravedlniť. Prepáčte. Zároveň však chcem všetkým gejom, lesbám, bisexuálom a transrodovým osobám odkázať: nie ste v tom sami. Nie sú to len niektorí politici, ktorí stoja na strane rovnosti a dôstojnosti.
               

                  Na nedávne homofóbne útoky ministerky kultúry na Slovensku reagovalo takmer dvestotisíc ľudí svojím podpisom a požaduje jej odchod. Ľudskosť má a stále bude mať väčšinu. Ďakujem preto všetkým Európanom a Európankám, ktorí sa vždy ozvú, keď sa niekto snaží nehanebne zaútočiť na našich LGBTI spoluobčanov. Presne tak, ako to robí Európsky parlament vo svojich uzneseniach vrátane toho k teroristickému útoku pred barom Tepláreň.
               

                  Preto aj z tohto miesta chcem verejne sľúbiť, že budeme robiť všetko pre to, čo je v našich silách, aby ste boli v našej spoločnosti chránení tak ako všetci ostatní a aby ste mohli s pocitom bezpečia a slobodne milovať tých, ktorých skutočne ľúbite.
               

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sottolineare l'importanza di questa strategia è importante, votare questa relazione è importante. Ma dobbiamo rendere la strategia operativa con un cronoprogramma e risorse sufficienti in tutta Europa.
               

                  Soprattutto, non bisogna abbassare la guardia di fronte a chi, come i governi di destra, come quello italiano, il governo Meloni, normalizza con il proprio silenzio un clima di violenza e di odio dilagante. La realtà è che aggressioni alla comunità LGBTIQ+ sono all'ordine del giorno in tutta Europa. In Italia, per esempio, il Gay Center di Roma è oggetto di atti di vandalismo. Le famiglie arcobaleno sono vittime di una crociata ideologica che mette a rischio, in primis, i diritti dei minori. Le persone trans sono attaccate nel loro diritto di autodeterminarsi. Un clima di intimidazione quotidiana per mettere a tacere le voci di chi si batte per il diritto di essere sé stessi. E tutte le volte che questo succede, il governo di destra, il governo italiano, si volta dall'altra parte. Ma l'Europa no, noi no. Noi non staremo in silenzio. Michela Murgia scriveva: ‘Fascista è chi fascista fa’. Un rigurgito del passato che bisogna chiamare con il proprio nome e fermare a tutti i costi.
               

Evin Incir (S&D). – Fru talman! Jag mår bokstavligt talat illa över att höra hur de högerextrema här inne i Europaparlamentet, som jag dessvärre tvingas kalla för kollegor, ger sig på hbtqi-personer och visar hur tydligt de hatar kärleken.
               

                  Ibland undrar jag vilken era vi lever i. Vi må kalla den modern, men hur modernt är det med hat, hot och våld mot hbtqi-personer? Hur modernt är det att inte fatta att kärlek är vackert? Hur modernt är det att inte fatta att hbtqi-personers rättigheter är mänskliga rättigheter? I många länder i EU utsätts än i dag hbtqi-personer för diskriminering och olika typer av förtryck.
               

                  Även här i parlamentet kommer sådana avskyvärda yttranden. Vi har till och med folkvalda från extremhögern som Sverigedemokraterna, vars representanter gång på gång gör hbtqi-fientliga uttalanden och påståenden som att Pride skulle legitimera pedofili. Vi behöver kavla upp ärmarna och tydligt skandera att hbtqi-personers rättigheter är mänskliga rättigheter och vi behöver agera nu.
               

Asger Christensen (Renew). – Fru formand! Mennesker bliver dræbt på grund af deres kærlighed. Mennesket skal ikke dømmes til døden for at elske et andet menneske af samme køn. Det er absurd, og det er umenneskeligt. Jeg priser mig lykkelig for hver dag at mine børn og børnebørn vokser op og er født i Danmark, hvor man har ret til at elske den, man vil. Men selvom vi er foregangsland i EU i forhold til LGBT+-rettighederne, så skal vi ikke være blinde for, at personer dagligt oplever diskriminering i EU, og at flere af medlemsstaterne laver hadefulde og diskriminerende lovgivning mod disse personer. Min egen søn er homoseksuel. Han har oplevet at blive slået ned på grund af sin seksualitet. Derfor er det noget, vi skal gøre rigtig meget ved. Det hører fortiden til, og det skal stoppes. Lad os i stedet se fremad og gøre fremtiden endnu bedre for de personer. Det kan vi, det skal vi, og det vil vi.
               

Zgłoszenia z sali


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, aontaím le mo chomhghleacaithe, le Maria Walsh, maidir leis an ábhar seo agus le cothromaíocht a bhunú trasna an domhain uile.
               

                  Equality is the key word. They say people are born equal, but some more equal than others. And I think the LGBTQ community can vote for that. It's one thing to have a theory where you have equality, but in practice there are far too many examples of discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. We have to fight against it constantly because a person's colour or creed or sexual orientation shouldn't be a basis for discrimination, both within Europe and outside Europe.
               

                  I think we should do more outside Europe as well, where people are often condemned to death and executed based on sexual orientation. This is not good enough. We often have very favourable trade arrangements for those countries through GSP+, etc. And I think we should be putting pressure on them to end discrimination against LGBTIQ people and indeed everybody.
               

Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, no discurso sobre o Estado da União, em 2020, a Presidente da Comissão Europeia anunciou uma proposta para garantir que uma criança nunca perde os seus pais, do ponto de vista jurídico, quando muda de um Estado-Membro para outro. Isto acontece hoje em dia porque a parentalidade de uma criança filha de famílias arco-íris não é reconhecida em todos os Estados-Membros.
               

                  Em dezembro do ano passado, o Parlamento aprovou a sua posição sobre a proposta da Comissão, da qual fui relatora, defendendo o princípio básico que a fundamenta: a família de uma criança não pode variar dentro da União.
               

                  Apelamos, hoje, a que o Conselho seja sensível a esta convergência de posições entre a Comissão e o Parlamento.
               

                  Nenhuma criança pode ser discriminada pelo tipo de família de que faz parte ou pela forma como nasceu.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, a few weeks ago, the State of Israel's Twitter account posted a picture of an Israeli soldier in Gaza holding a Pride flag with the phrase ‘In the Name of Love’ written on it. The depravity of Israeli propaganda knows no bounds. How dare they use the LGBT community as a prop to justify genocide? As if portraying Palestinian society as homophobic would ever justify wiping it off the map altogether. They don't care about gay rights. They care about salvaging their abysmal global reputation and demonising Palestinians by spreading Islamophobic hate.
Colonial powers have long weaponised notions of civilisation and human rights to legitimise their plunder and military rule. Does the pretext of bringing in freedom and culture to racialised communities to justify a genocidal crusade not sound too familiar, especially for Europeans?
We can all see through Israel's lies and pink washing. If the EU truly cares about LGBT rights, they should stand with the Palestinian LGBT community, calling for dignity and self-determination.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria Dalli, EU no place for hate. Ese hermoso lema ha resonado con contundencia en tres debates esta tarde en el Parlamento Europeo y lo hace ahora, a justo título, cuando evaluamos la ejecución de la Estrategia Europea LGTBIQ.
               

                  Es el momento de afirmar que el infame lema de las LGBTIQ free zones debe ser superado por su alternativa, que la Unión Europea sea una LGBTIQ freedom zone. Y eso no lo será hasta que no aseguremos la libre circulación, la libre elección de residencia de las familias arcoíris —las rainbow families— con todos sus derechos a cuestas: derechos de sucesión, derechos de filiación y, por supuesto, reconocimiento en pie de igualdad en todos los Estados miembros, cumpliendo las sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia.
               

                  Los hay que alegan que el Derecho de familia es competencia de los Estados miembros. Ninguno puede, sin embargo, oponerse a la contundencia del artículo 21 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, que prohíbe toda discriminación no solo por razón de sexo, sino también por orientación sexual.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I want to close this debate by reminding us all what President von der Leyen said four years ago in her State of the Union speech: ‘being yourself is not your ideology, it is your identity and no one can ever take that away.’ This idea has underpinned our work over the last four years to build a Union of equality.
Backlashes shall not discourage us in our efforts to protect and empower LGBTIQ people. On the contrary, they show that our work must continue and guide us as to exactly where we need to focus, and this includes pursuing our work to adopt the equal treatment directive. I call on the Member States still blocking the proposal: we need to move on, and I intend to continue working for this and the few months left of this Commission.

José Gusmão,
relator. – Senhora Presidente, como já foi dito, este relatório foi elaborado com consulta a movimentos LGBT e é muito importante que esse seja um princípio que norteie todas as políticas da União, porque estes movimentos trabalham contra a discriminação, muitas vezes nos contextos mais difíceis, e trabalham para que todos e todas as famílias possam ter os mesmos direitos. E essa é a diferença com a extrema-direita.
               

                  Quem defende os direitos LGBT, não o faz contra nenhum tipo de família. Mas há crianças na União Europeia que ficam órfãs e não podem ter uma família porque casais de pessoas do mesmo sexo, que as poderiam adotar, são rejeitados. Destruir a família é isto. Há pais e mães que perdem o reconhecimento enquanto pais e mães de crianças que educaram toda a sua vida porque há países em que essa parentalidade não é reconhecida. Destruir a família é isto.
               

                  Há jovens que são expulsos de casa e banidos das suas famílias por causa do preconceito. Destruir famílias é isto. E há jovens que se suicidam por ouvirem discursos como aqueles que ouvimos aqui ou são assassinados por pessoas que ouvem esses discursos. Destruir famílias também é isto.
               

                  No dia 7 de junho, um dos dias das eleições europeias, assinalaremos 70 anos da morte de Alan Turing. Alan Turing foi uma das mentes mais brilhantes do seu tempo, que pôs a sua mente ao serviço dos Aliados na Segunda Guerra Mundial e foi mais tarde julgado e condenado por atos homossexuais e foi submetido a castração química como alternativa a uma pena de prisão. Que, 70 anos depois, ainda seja possível que cidadãos europeus sejam submetidos a tratamentos para a homossexualidade é uma vergonha para todos nós.
               

                  Que nas próximas eleições europeias possamos dar o primeiro passo para acabar com esta vergonha e muitas outras. Nenhum tipo de amor, nenhum tipo de família, ataca qualquer outro cidadão europeu. É a discriminação que mata.
               

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 8 lutego 2024 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)



Sara Cerdas (S&D),
por escrito. – O ódio, a discriminação e a violência contra os membros da comunidade LGBTQIA+, especialmente os adolescentes, estão a aumentar e, consequentemente, a provocar graves problemas de saúde mental. Segundo um estudo recente, pela Universidade de Manchester em colaboração com a The Proud Trust e com a LGBT Foundation, os problemas de saúde mental são mais prevalecentes em pessoas trans e não binárias e, apesar da maior vulnerabilidade da comunidade LGBT+ aos problemas de saúde mental, as suas necessidades tendem a ser menos satisfeitas.
               

                  A criminalização da homossexualidade, a implementação de zonas livres de LGBTQIA+, bem como as ‘terapias’ de conversão e as mutilações genitais intersexuais, aumentam os problemas de saúde mental e constituem uma violação dos direitos humanos. A União e os Estados-Membros devem adotar legislação antidiscriminação e práticas que visem terminar com estes flagelos. A Comissão Europeia deve igualmente preparar uma nova Estratégia para a igualdade de tratamento das pessoas LGBTIQ+ para 2025-2030. A autonomia e a saúde física e mental das pessoas LGBTIQ+ devem ser protegidas em todas as circunstâncias.
               
19.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
19.1.   New wave of mass arrests in Belarus of opposition activists and their family members

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad sześcioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie nowej fali masowych aresztowań działaczy opozycji i członków ich rodzin na Białorusi (2024/2550(RSP)).
                  

Miriam Lexmann,
author. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me begin by thanking colleagues from across this House for cooperation on this resolution. The cruelty of the Lukashenka regime knows no bounds, and we continue to observe that the treatment of political prisoners in Belarus continues to worsen.
The arrest of family members, in particular wives and mothers, is a new low even for this regime. Maryna Adamavich, Tatsiana Sevyarynets, Darya Losik and all their loved ones must be released. This evil needs to stop!
The European Union must continue to strengthen its sanction regimes against Lukashenka and his henchmen. We must also do more to speak out for the political prisoners on the highest level, and to support their family members through different mechanisms and schemes.
Finally, we must ensure that all these crimes are thoroughly documented, and Lukashenka and the representatives of the regime will be one day held accountable. Thank you very much and zhyve Belarus!

Juozas Olekas,
Autorius. – Pirmininke, Komisijos nare, gerbiami kolegos. Sausio 23-iąją Lukašenkos režimas ir vėl pademonstravo visišką žmogaus teisių ir tarptautinių normų nepaisymą. Baltarusijos saugumo pajėgos nusitaikė į politinių kalinių šeimų narius. Tarp sulaikytųjų dauguma moterys – žmonos, motinos. Taip bandoma dar labiau įbauginti visuomenę prieš vasario 25-ąją rengiamus, o tiksliau – vaidinamus, parlamento ir savivaldos rinkimus.
                  

                     Todėl būtina, kad Europos Sąjunga toliau stiprintų sankcijas Baltarusijai už žmogaus teisių pažeidimus. Kiekvienas režimo atstovas turi pajusti, kad kiekvienas nusižengimas žmogiškumui grįš jam bumerangu naujų sankcijų ir suvaržymų pavidalu.
                  

                     Europos Sąjunga taip pat turi sustiprinti pagalbą Baltarusijos pilietinei visuomenei, o politinių kalinių ir jų šeimų narių reabilitacijai ir pagalbai turi būti įsteigtas specialus fondas.
                  

Žyvie Belarus!


Petras Auštrevičius,
author. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Lukashenka regime continues trampling on the basic human rights of Belarusians and selling the country's sovereignty to the Kremlin.
Its anger is directed against critics and free thinkers who aspire a different future for Belarus, a democratic and European future. The arrest of Maryna Adamavich, the wife of Mikalai Statkevich, as well as the wives and mothers of other political prisoners, demands an appropriate response from the European Union. We must also react to the nuclear dangers posed by the Lukashenka regime, such as unsafe nuclear power plant in Astravets and the deployment of the Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus.
I call on the EU High Representative, Mr Borrell, to take an active role in reducing the number of Belarusian diplomats in Brussels and to ensure that a number of Belarusian physical and legal persons, enablers of Lukashenka regime are included in the EU's 13th sanctions package.

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
Verfasserin. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Belarussen waren die ersten, die sich gegen Putin wehrten, indem sie zu Tausenden friedlich gegen Lukaschenko demonstrierten. Nur mit Mut und Freiheitsliebe ausgestattet, marschierten sie durch die Straßen, verteilten Blumen und weiß-rote Fahnen. Sie wurden von Lukaschenkos Miliz brutal niedergeschlagen, und die Unterdrückung hält bis heute an. Aktuell sehen wir überall Massenverhaftungen – vor allem gezielt gegen die weiblichen Angehörigen der politischen Gefangenen eingesetzt.
                  

                     Lukaschenko jagt jeden und alles, was ihm verdächtig erscheint. Er befiehlt seinem Militär sogar, auf unbewaffnete Zivilisten zu schießen – ein klares Zeichen für den grausamen Wahn. In der verkehrten Welt des Diktators sind Spenden für die Freiheit ein Zeichen für Extremismus. Zivilcourage ist Verrat und Friedensliebe Terrorismus.
                  

                     Lukaschenko hat die Besten der Besten in den Kerker geworfen – Intellektuelle, Journalistinnen, Menschenrechtsanwälte, Unternehmerinnen, Wissenschaftlerinnen. In der Zwischenzeit hat er Belarus an Putin verkauft und es zu einer brutalen Waffe gegen die Ukraine gemacht.
                  

                     Aktuell plant Lukaschenko die nächste Farce: Wahlen – an denen demokratische Kräfte gar nicht teilnehmen dürfen. Ja, Lukaschenkos Regime wird zusammenbrechen, sobald Putin fällt. Aber darauf alleine sollten wir uns nicht verlassen. Wir können mehr tun, um Lukaschenko für all die Verbrechen, die er in den letzten 27 Jahren begangen hat, zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen.
                  

                     Es ist an der Zeit, entschlossen zu handeln und Sanktionen zu verhängen, die ihm und seinen Helfershelfern wirklich wehtun. Žyvie Bielaruś!


Anna Fotyga,
author. – Madam President, methods used by the Lukashenka regime against the Belarusian opposition are well known from our regional, painful past. The recent crackdown on hundreds of closest family members, wives, mothers, daughters, other relatives of the most prominent leader, political leaders of opposition, as well as on Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's closest co-workers, against Polish community members resemble those methods used by Bolsheviks and Stalinists. We have to stand by all of them and demand immediate, unconditional release of all prisoners, cessation of all hostilities. And we have to remember that Belarus is our closest neighbour.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident


Helmut Scholz,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Am 25. Februar sollen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von Belarus wählen. Auf diesen Tag hat die Lukaschenko-Administration sowohl die Parlaments- als auch die Kommunalwahl gelegt. Bereits jetzt ist klar: Von freien Wahlen kann keine Rede sein.
                     

                        Denn allen ist klar, was die politische Realität in dem Land kennzeichnet: das Verbot und die Auflösung aller Oppositionsparteien; die im Januar und Februar wiederholte und verschärfte – wiederholte und willkürliche – Verhaftung und Vertreibung hunderter Oppositioneller, Journalisten und Journalistinnen – einschließlich ihrer Angehörigen, insbesondere der weiblichen; stetig verschärfte Repressionen gegen aktive Gewerkschaften, Medien, Kunst und Kultur; eine Atmosphäre der Einschüchterung und Verunsicherung vieler Menschen im Land; das Unrecht gegenüber mindestens 1 500 politischen Gefangenen – viele von ihnen schwer krank und misshandelt.
                     

                        All dies sind Angriffe auf international verbriefte persönliche und politische Rechte der Menschen in Belarus. Und die Einschüchterung soll weiter vorangetrieben werden. Wir sagen deshalb laut und deutlich: Dieser Irrfahrt muss ein Ende gesetzt werden! Statt Machterhalt für das Regime muss es wieder um Zukunftsperspektiven, um ein souveränes und demokratisches Belarus gehen.
                     

                        Bleiben wir gerade deshalb in Kontakt mit den Menschen im Land, mit der belarussischen Gesellschaft. Nutzen wir die wenigen noch bleibenden Brückenpfeiler, um all jene im Land zu unterstützen, die einen Weg aus der aktuellen Sackgasse gehen wollen. Setzen wir all unser Gewicht ein, damit die konkreten Belange der Menschen im Land nicht vergessen werden.
                     

Eugen Tomac,
în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, felicit autorii pentru această inițiativă. Este extrem de important să le transmitem cetățenilor din Belarus că Uniunea Europeană a rămas alături de ei, alături de aspirațiile lor și evident că trebuie să facem mai mult pentru a-i asigura că libertatea, drepturile omului, dreptul la asociere, libertatea de exprimare și garanția că jurnaliștii trebuie să-și facă datoria într-o societate liberă sunt valori pe care Belarus le va îmbrățișa într-o zi.
                     

                        Este limpede că acest criminal, care se află practic într-o competiție continuă cu cei de la Kremlin, face tot ce-i stă în putință pentru a comite orori, pentru a umili cetățeni, pentru a reprima opoziția și este de datoria noastră să îi asigurăm că suntem alături și că vom face tot ceea ce trebuie pentru ca Lukașenko într-o zi să răspundă pentru toate aceste crime.
                     

Isabel Santos,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, a pena de morte, a tortura, o tratamento desumano e degradante são marcas negras do regime de Lukashenko.
                     

                        Mais de 1 500 pessoas continuam detidas desde as eleições de 2020. Entretanto, os familiares destes presos políticos estão a ser perseguidos e detidos nos últimos tempos.
                     

                        Daqui a poucos dias, a Bielorrússia irá a eleições, mais uma vez. E, mais uma vez, eleições-fantoche, eleições que não passam de um ato de fachada para o qual a OSCE ou a OSCE-ODIR não foram convidadas. Pois claro, convém fazer eleições à porta fechada, longe dos olhares dos observadores internacionais.
                     

                        Todos sabemos que este ato eleitoral não tem as mínimas condições, porque não há condições mínimas de democraticidade quando os opositores estão detidos e os partidos estão liquidados.
                     

                        Resta-nos apoiar a sociedade civil e sancionar fortemente Lukashenko.
                     

Karin Karlsbro,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commission, colleagues. Three and a half years ago, the people of Belarus took to the streets demanding democracy and human dignity. They displayed immense courage, standing up against the regime. Thousands of Belarusians paid for their bravery with their freedom. On 23 January this year, at least 200 citizens were arrested by Lukashenka's security forces, most of them family members of already imprisoned opposition figures. That is happening now, and it's no coincidence. At the end of February, Belarus is organising the spectacle that the regime refers to as ‘an election’. But it's certainly not an election. It's an act of abuse and as such it must be scrutinised. We must still support free Belarus and all the political prisoners have to be released.

Heidi Hautala,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, since February 2023 the authorities have prevented Maria Kolesnikova, Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Viktar Babaryka, Mikalai Statkevich and other prominent political prisoners from communicating with their lawyers and families. And now the Belarusian opposition is faced with a new wave of mass arrests, including their family members. This must be condemned. All the 1 500 political prisoners must be immediately released.
There is more we can do in our partnership with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the leader of the opposition. She is calling us for making our relationship closer with the democratic Belarus. We can bring our relationship to a new level. We must support Belarusian democratic forces in trying to find a situation where the EU can issue the passports to the Belarusian democratic forces in exile, so that they can travel. Indeed, she is a very good partner to us and we must continue to tighten our relationship with her.

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Ostatnie naloty i przeszukiwania domów więźniów politycznych przez reżimowy aparat bezpieczeństwa doprowadziły do aresztowania ponad 200 osób. Według Centrum Praw Człowieka ‘Viasna’ większość zatrzymanych to żony i matki więźniów politycznych, w tym chociażby na przykład pani Maryna Adamowicz, żona więźnia politycznego, byłego kandydata na prezydenta i laureata Nagrody Sacharowa Mikołaja Statkiewicza.
                     

                        Kraje Unii Europejskiej nie tylko winny być zbulwersowane tym okrucieństwem, ale także powinny wezwać do natychmiastowego, bezwarunkowego uwolnienia zatrzymanych krewnych więźniów politycznych.
                     

                        W tym samym czasie do sprawy 20 znanych białoruskich politologów, dziennikarzy i ekspertów, tzw. analityków Cichanouskiej, dodano dodatkowe zarzuty. Są oni sądzeni zaocznie i mogą zostać pozbawieni białoruskiego obywatelstwa, jeśli zostaną skazani.
                     

                        Te przestępstwa muszą spotkać się z dodatkową reakcją Unii Europejskiej i całego cywilizowanego świata w postaci zwiększonej presji na reżim w formie sankcji. Skala naruszeń praw człowieka na Białorusi jest tak duża, że według Wysokiego Komisarza ONZ ds. Praw Człowieka niektóre z tych czynów można uznać za zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości.
                     

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, blitz nella notte, interrogatori in condizioni disumane, lavori forzati, ritorsioni sui familiari e su chiunque abbia offerto aiuto ai quasi 1 500 detenuti politici. Il modus operandi del comitato di sicurezza statale bielorusso, il tristemente noto KGB, ricorda spaventosamente bene quello del suo omonimo predecessore.
                     

                        La complicità attiva di Lukashenko nella criminale invasione dell'Ucraina è la prova inconfutabile di quanto ancora oggi dobbiamo combattere. Ecco perché chiedo con forza al Consiglio e a tutti gli Stati membri di imporre immediatamente ulteriori sanzioni a quanti si macchiano quotidianamente di questi crimini intollerabili, calpestando i diritti umani, e di profondere ogni sforzo per assicurare che i colpevoli vadano di fronte alla Corte penale internazionale.
                     

                        La Bielorussia non può essere relegata a una periferia sottomessa alle criminali ambizioni imperiali di Mosca. Di questo Putin e Lukashenko devono stare assolutamente certi. Noi ci batteremo al fianco della sua società civile fino a quando non sarà un libero e democratico Stato membro dell'Unione europea, fino a quando la bandiera rossa e bianca non sventolerà a Minsk. La vostra libertà è la nostra libertà.
                     

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, opět se důrazně zastáváme běloruských občanů, pronásledovaných členů opozice, novinářů, jejich rodin a vlastně celé běloruské občanské společnosti. Důrazně odsuzujeme další vlnu hromadného zatýkání v Bělorusku. Naléhavě vyzýváme nelegitimní Lukašenkův režim, aby zastavil represe. Režim musí jednoznačně bezpodmínečně propustit všechny neoprávněné vězněné, více než 1 400 politických vězňů.
                     

                        Žádáme Radu a Komisi, aby reagovaly uvalením přísnějších sankcí na Lukašenkův režim v důsledku nedávných akcí, včetně sankcí proti zboží zahrnujícímu nucenou práci politických vězňů, přísnějších finančních sankcí a sankcí vůči jednotlivcům odpovědným za závažné porušování lidských práv. Běloruská opozice ani běloruští občané nejsou sami. My jsme s nimi, ale důrazně odsuzujeme běloruský nelegitimní Lukašenkův režim.
                     

Leszek Miller (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Ponieważ na Białorusi zbliżają się wybory parlamentarne i samorządowe, reżim w Mińsku postanowił po raz kolejny pokazać Europie i światu, że żadne standardy demokratyczne ani prawa człowieka w tym kraju nie obowiązują. Ponieważ liderzy opozycji, a właściwie wszyscy ci, którzy w jakikolwiek sposób sprzeciwili się Łukaszence, siedzą już w więzieniach, to reżim postanowił także represjami objąć rodziny. Większość z 200 zatrzymanych ostatnio to matki i żony więźniów politycznych. To bezprzykładny przejaw skrajnego okrucieństwa w stosunku do własnych obywateli, w stosunku do narodu białoruskiego. Najwyższy czas, żeby ilość rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego dotyczących Białorusi, a przyjmowaliśmy tych rezolucji wiele, zaczęła przechodzić w jakość, a konkretnie w działania państw Unii Europejskiej. Same wezwania, kolejne deklaracje i potępienia reżimu w Mińsku, jak widać, nie wystarczą.
                     

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the fraud elections in Belarus are coming. One would think Lukashenka gives up this charade after 30 years, but no, he has to pretend he still has power over the country.
And thus the authorities got inspired in Russia and North Korea, I guess, and intensified their oppression of journalists, lawyers, activists and even families of those who ran away. As if people in Belarus would not know, without mass protests in the streets, that the system is rigged and Lukashenka should be out. As if we here in the European Union could acknowledge his regime this time around if only he silenced all opposition.
No, no, no, no, no! Our sanctions will remain. Our support to opposition remains, and our help to get people out and grant them asylum and support remains. Let's have a coordinated response at the European level. Lukashenkas and Putins of this world shall soon run out of breath. The civil society shall prevail.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, we have been bearing witness to Lukashenka's regime increasingly close further and further in on civic space in Belarus and this latest wave of mass arrests and arbitrary detentions on trumped-up charges further proves his determination to crack down on any fundamental freedoms which remain in the country and tighten his authoritative grip over the people of Belarus.
The rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and freedom against torture and arbitrary detention are bastions of a democratic and free society, and rights which the European Union has committed itself to protecting. We have a duty, therefore, to stand up against these injustices against the people of Belarus when we see them.
So, I reiterate the resolution's call for decisive and immediate action from the High Representative, Mr Borrell, and the Council to place sanctions on the Lukashenka regime in Belarus, which, after all, he has turned into only a vassal state of Putin's.

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Mr President, the title of the resolution is ‘on the new wave of mass arrests in Belarus of opposition activists and their family’. It's not really new, just a new wave of mass arrests. It's Lukashenka's election campaign. It's not a coincidence that it comes now, just before the so-called elections on 25 February. Lukashenka is so scared of his own population that he needs to not only arrest politicians, but also their families; not only politicians, but also anybody that raises their voice for freedom in Belarus, including analysts and experts.
We must continue to show our support and take actions of support. We must continue to support freedom and democracy in Belarus by imposing sanctions on the Lukashenka regime. It is not a day too soon. It has been going on for nearly 30 years. We need to stop the last dictatorship in Europe.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, there is no doubt about it, there are considerable problems with the prison conditions in Belarus: widespread allegations of poor treatment, failure to access medicine, sufficient food and family visits, and widespread arbitrary arrest on tenuous grounds, often for being foreign agents.
We ourselves have made repeated requests to go and see the labour and workers' leaders Henadz Fiadynich, Vasil Berasneu and Vatslau Areshka, requests which have been denied by the Belarusian authorities, a situation which has happened to us in no other state begs the question: why were those visits not being facilitated?
I think that, while asking those questions and liking to see these issues put the spotlight on, we have to say that it's very regrettable that our credibility in raising these issues is seriously undermined by the fact that, inside the EU, we also have people arbitrarily arrested who are opposition journalists and so on. People like Pablo González, now two years in prison in Poland, that also is not on.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the last debate we had on the worsening situation of political prisoners in Belarus was in December. Again, persecutions escalate. Now Lukashenka's regime is systematically targeting family members of political prisoners, mostly wives and mothers. We again urge Lukashenka to release all political prisoners, their families and the detained persons. Moreover, Lukashenka's regime has been involved in a forced transfer of Ukrainian children, which is a war crime. Same as Putin, we need to treat Lukashenka also as a war criminal.
At this point, it is clear that the upcoming Belarusian election will not meet worldwide standards. That is why we call on the EU, its Member States and the international community not to recognise the results. The High Representative and the Council need to impose stronger sanctions on the Lukashenka regime. We will learn something from Putin's war: the sanctions are working.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as repeatedly said, also in this chamber, the human rights situation in Belarus has been rapidly and drastically deteriorating. The recent searches, repression and arrests of family members, of political prisoners, are the latest demonstrations of Lukashenka's disregard for rule of law, democracy and fundamental freedoms.
The EU firmly reacts to these developments with public statements, sanctions, solidarity with political prisoners and their families, and by supporting the work on accountability. We continue to call on the regime to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners. In his latest statement on 25 January, the High Representative condemned this new wave of repressions and the detention of over 200 people, mostly women, relatives of political prisoners.
There are nearly 1 500 political prisoners currently detained in Belarus, many of them kept incommunicado for weeks, months and even years, many without access to legal representation and appropriate medical care, deprived of their fundamental rights and submitted to ill treatment or torture.
The EU has introduced restrictive measures against the perpetrators of human rights violations, judges, prosecutors, heads of penal colonies and members of the regime's security services. We are committed to work on further listings. We are mobilising all tools to address the situation of political prisoners. The EU delegation in Minsk regularly requests information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and on the conditions of prominent political prisoners kept incommunicado. We also ask to visit political prisoners, however, to no avail.
The minimum we can do is to continue showing our solidarity with political prisoners, notably by standing in front of courts during their trials. We also support families of political prisoners and work to ensure the rehabilitation of those who have served their sentence. I assure you that the EU has been, and will continue to lead the effort to support political prisoners and bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations in Belarus through the International Accountability Platform and in other international fora.
We have respect and admiration for the people of Belarus and their exceptional courage and dignity. We use every opportunity to convey to the Belarusian people our support for their quest for free, democratic, sovereign and independent Belarus as part of a peaceful and prosperous Europe.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                     

                        Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden 6 Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.
                     

                        Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, den 8. Februar 2024, statt.
                     
19.2.   Increased number of executions in Iran, in particular the case of Mohammad Ghobadlou

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sechs Entschließungsanträge zu dem Thema ‘Die gestiegene Zahl von Hinrichtungen in Iran, insbesondere der Fall Mohammad Ghobadlu’ (2024/2551(RSP)).
                  

Evin Incir,
author. – Mr President, thank you very much for making it clear that this is an important discussion that we all should focus on right now. What is wrong? What is wrong with our governments? How is this passivity possible while people in Iran are being killed on the spot or killed after being sentenced to the death penalty?
On 23 January, the bloodthirsty regime arbitrarily executed Mohammad Ghobadlou, a young man with a disability that took part in the protest against the regime and for a democratic country. On the same day also the Kurdish Farhad Salimi was arbitrarily executed. The regime sends over and over again a clear signal. It is ruthless.
Time is ticking. Executions are irreversible. Many are facing, or are at risk of facing, the death penalty, especially those that are taking part in the democratic revolution. And minority groups such as Kurds, Baloch Baha'is are continuing to be disproportionately affected.
Time is ticking. The Swedish citizen Johan Floderus risks being sentenced to the death penalty, and Ahmadreza Djalali is sentenced since 2018. There is no time for if or when …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Jakop G. Dalunde,
författare. – Herr talman! Dödsstraffet är ett fruktansvärt verktyg som ingen stat borde ha makten att använda mot sina medborgare. I Iran avrättade regimen 834 människor förra året och nu – bara en dryg månad in på detta år – har ytterligare 54 liv släckts. Det är avskyvärt.
                  

                     Bara hotet om att dömas till döden är ett hänsynslöst vapen som den iranska regimen håller över huvudet på sina medborgare. Tyvärr är det bara ett av många verktyg de använder för att förtrycka landets befolkning och tysta de modiga röster som vågar göra uppror.
                  

                     Den 23 januari avrättades den 23-årige Mohammad Ghobadlou efter att ha deltagit i kvinna-liv-frihet-rörelsen. Hans erkännande tvingades fram under tortyr och rättegången var djupt rättsosäker. Att svenska och andra utländska medborgare också hålls godtyckligt fängslade av den iranska regimen är också oacceptabelt.
                  

                     Mina tankar går särskilt till Johan Floderus och hans familj, efter att åklagaren i Johans fall nyligen yrkat på dödsstraff för påhittade brott. Vi måste skydda dem som lyckats fly och aldrig sluta kämpa för Johan, Ahmad och alla de andra som hålls kvar i fångenskap. För ingen är fri innan alla är fria.
                  

Charlie Weimers,
författare. – Herr talman! En efter en, gång på gång, får vi veta om unga iranier som har mördats av mullaregimen i Teheran. Mohammad Ghobadlou avrättades för ‘krigsföring mot Gud’. Men islamistregimen i Teheran begår inte bara kallblodiga dåd på egen mark. I går uppdagades det att Irans militära underrättelsetjänst kartlagt tre svenska judar de planerar att mörda i Sverige. Agentparet utvisades till Iran, men det här är knappast en engångsföreteelse.
                  

                     Mullornas bödlar ska inte tillåtas smida mordplaner på svensk eller europeisk mark. Irans regim kartlägger, planerar och har förmåga att utföra attentat i Europa. Det är dags att sätta hårt mot hårt och terrorlista IRGC. Kräv att alla de som är godtyckligt fängslade i Iran blir frisläppta, inklusive Johan Floderus och Ahmad Reza Djalali. Utöka sanktionerna och inkludera även den högsta ledaren, presidenten och riksåklagaren.
                  

Cornelia Ernst,
Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident! Die Todesstrafe ist das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Bruch jedweden Völkerrechts, archaische Rache. Kein Grund rechtfertigt sie – nirgendwo. Das iranische Regime zerstört systematisch Leben, um sein eigenes zu erhalten und zu verlängern. Wir werden niemals aufhören, gegen diese Politik unsere Stimme zu erheben. Wir unterstützen den Kampf um Demokratie und um ein Leben in Menschenwürde mit unserem Herzen und all unserer Kraft.
                  

                     Dazu muss aber auch ein europäischer Abschiebestopp für Iranerinnen und Iraner gehören. Und wir fordern die Mitgliedstaaten auf, endlich, endlich alles zu tun, um ihre Staatsangehörigen aus den iranischen Gefängnissen zu retten, wie den Deutsch-Iraner Jamshid Sharmahd.
                  

                     Wir stehen an der Seite der Iranerinnen und Iraner, die nichts anderes wollen, als frei leben, frei atmen. Woman, Life, Freedom – es gibt kein Zurück.
                  

Antonio López-Istúriz White,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the authors for this very timely resolution. Today we address the assassination of yet another young Iranian man who died at the hands of the tyrannical regime of the Ayatollahs. Three people die every day in Iran – including women and children – but it's also important to know that this is not only happening in Iran, but also in the streets of Europe against people that are fighting for democracy in Iran.
A former Member and Vice-President of the European Parliament, Alejo Vidal-Quadras was shot in the face on 9 November 2023 in Madrid, Spain – in Europe. This is happening here; the regime is trying to silence all those who speak the truth, denounce the atrocities and fight for a democratic future in Iran. Mr Borrell, European governments, no more shady deals with the regime.

Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, it's not your fault, but we have adopted unanimous calls here, as of January last year, we have written letters to three presidencies of the Council. Not even an answer we got!
We have supported our Iranian communities and their friends and relatives in Iran who are tortured, imprisoned and executed because that is what's happening. You never know how many will be executed today, tomorrow, at the time of the azan. Pure terror and fear. They have nothing else. The IRGC regime will ultimately lose from the call of freedom.
But our leaders look away. Away from the Kurdish Iranians, the Baloch people, the countless political prisoners who might face executions today, tomorrow. This must stop. Put them on the list. ‘Women, Life, Freedom’.

Abir Al-Sahlani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Mohsen Shekari, 22; Majidreza Rahnavard, 23; Mohammad Mehdi Karami, 21; Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini, 39; Majid Kazemi, 30: the list is very long of all the young people that have been put to death. These are the names of the heroes. Heroes who stood up though on the other side there were guns pointed at them. These are the names of the heroes who spoke up, though on the other side there was the terrorist IRGC. These lives were taken. Their dreams, hopes, futures, their light, they were taken. They were murdered by a terrorist regime. And still, though these young people are being executed, our governments cannot put the IRGC on the EU terrorist list. We owe it to these young lives and to all the women protesters – Balochis, Azeris, Persians, Kurdish. We owe it to Jina Mahsa Amini. Put the IRGC on the terrorist list.

Jin, Jiyan, Azadi: Woman, Life, Freedom.

Francisco Guerreiro,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the 23-year-old Mohammad Ghobadlou was the ninth protester executed by the Iranian regime.
At no time in the past three decades has the human rights situation been as grave as it is today under the presidency of Ebrahim Raisi – notoriously known for his role as a member of the ‘Tehran death commission’ which sent thousands of prisoners of conscience to the gallows for their support for democratic opposition.
The current situation in Iran underscores the moral imperative for the international community to support Iranian people in their struggle against tyranny. It is crucial to recognise and uphold their rights to seek freedom, justice and democratic government as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So the EU diplomacy must not foster a culture of impunity: a foreign policy is needed, focusing on accountability through international courts and universal jurisdiction before we see another massacre in Iranian prisons.
To conclude, may the future bring a free, democratic and secular Iran.

Dorien Rookmaker,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, political prisoners in Evin Prison in Iran are on hunger strike against the death penalty every Tuesday. They hear our message from the European Parliament. What is this message? The regime in Iran constantly violates human rights and democracy, and the Iranian people have the right to seek change through any legitimate form of resistance.
The EU need to support this resistance. How? By blacklisting the IRGC, the regime's instrument of oppression. The regime recently executed Mohammad Ghobadlou, a courageous young Iranian man. Let us not forget Maryam Akbari Monfared, a mother of three who has been serving 15 years in prison and who was recently charged for three more years. I have to stop here because the list is too long.
We all know the Iranian regime is the worst in the world. Over 870 executions were carried out in 2023 to silence the opposition. When is the EU speaking up?

Patricia Chagnon,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, en application de la charia, Mohammad Ghobadlou a été exécuté en Iran le 23 janvier 2024. Une exécution barbare, prononcée par des juges des tribunaux islamiques, parce qu'il avait participé à des manifestations à la suite d'un autre assassinat, celui d'une jeune fille par la police des mœurs iranienne. Une fille qui avait osé sortir sans voile.
                  

                     Dans un pays où les islamistes sont au pouvoir, le refus de se couvrir, pour les femmes, peut vous conduire à la mort. Soutenir la liberté des femmes peut vous mener à l'exécution. Mais ce n'est pas seulement dans les pays musulmans que cette vision d'islam rigoriste avance. C'est aussi en Occident que les relais des islamistes arrivent à imposer les préceptes de ‘pudeur’, c'est-à-dire l'invisibilisation des femmes dans l'espace public. Cela se passe même au sein des plus prestigieuses institutions européennes, ici même, au Parlement européen, en recevant par exemple l'association Femyso, proche des Frères musulmans, ou encore en finançant la campagne de promotion du voile ironiquement intitulée ‘Mon voile, ma liberté’.
                  

                     Mais quelle ignominie de banaliser le combat des femmes iraniennes ou européennes contre les islamistes. Peut-être que les enquêtes menées par la justice belge sur les allégations d'influence, voire de corruption, au sein des institutions européennes vont nous fournir des éléments de réponse et vont, une fois pour toutes, tout démêler.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Iran è il paese al mondo con il più alto tasso di esecuzioni capitali, un inferno in cui nessuno può sentirsi al riparo dalle violenze arbitrarie e dalla persecuzione del regime. Lo dimostra benissimo il caso di Mohammad Ghobadlou.
                  

                     Io sono fiero e orgoglioso di aver contribuito ad attribuire il premio Sacharov alla memoria di Mahsa Amini e al movimento ‘Donna, vita, libertà’. Ma un premio prestigioso non basta, perché senza azioni concrete resterà solo una targa ad arrugginire, priva di significato. Continuare a sostenere attivamente la lotta di milioni di donne e di uomini che combattono strenuamente ogni giorno per la propria libertà, spesso a costo della loro stessa vita, è per noi un dovere, tanto in Iran quanto nella nostra stessa Europa.
                  

                     Sì, perché omicidi, rapimenti e intimidazioni accadono ogni giorno anche contro la diaspora iraniana. Il regime sanguinario di Khamenei estende i suoi tentacoli ben al di là dei confini nazionali. Siamo noi a dover proteggere e sostenere questi attivisti. Ecco perché ho invitato i ragazzi di questa diaspora, della diaspora iraniana in Italia, nel Parlamento europeo, perché sentano questo sostegno, perché sappiano che l'Europa sarà sempre con loro e sarà la voce di chi non ha voce. Donna, vita, libertà oggi… (Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


Carina Ohlsson (S&D). – Herr talman! När man trodde att den iranska regimen inte kunde sjunka lägre, då avrättar teokratin en man med funktionshinder. Hans namn var Mohammad Ghobadlou. Mohammad var anklagad för det medeltida brottet ‘krig mot Gud’. Men vilken Gud förordar mördandet av människor som bekämpar maktens tyranni?
                  

                     Mohammad engagerade sig i protesterna mot sedlighetenspolisens avrättning av Mahsa Jina Amini. Hon hade inte täckt håret tillräckligt och för det mördades hon av en regim som aktivt stöttar och ägnar sig åt internationell terrorism, en regim som våldtar flickor och kvinnor. En regim som avrättar människor som står upp mot förtrycket.
                  

                     Den iranska regimen måste också omedelbart frige den svenske medborgaren och EU-tjänstemannen Johan Floderus. Det är besynnerligt att åklagaren yrkar på dödsstraff. Den iranska regimen måste reformera sig eller skrotas på historiens sophög.
                  

Guy Verhofstadt (Renew). – Mr President, this is today, I think, in all the debates that I have followed, the only item where there is consensus across all groups in Parliament, that is, that our policy towards Iran is a complete failure! You see it every day: executions, Iran behind Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, the attacks against military facilities of the US. The deliveries of weapons continue and they are ready today to make atomic bombs in Iran.
So, we need absolutely a new strategy and a new strategy based on three things: first of all, more massive sanctions until all hostages are released. That would be an approach. Secondly, recognition of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, tomorrow if possible. And lastly, recognise the opposition and the resistance as the real representatives of the Iranian people, and no longer the mullahs.

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Verhofstadt, ich verstehe, dass Sie sich da manchmal ärgern, aber ich schaue, dass die Redezeit eingehalten wird, dass wir nicht zu spät sind. Und ich will auch mal ausdrücklich sagen, dass ich Kollegen wie Sie ausdrücklich schätze, die hier mit keinem Manuskript auftreten und frei sprechen, und andere Reden wörtlich ablesen und sich sogar bei der Vorbereitung solcher Reden nicht an die eine Minute halten. Das ärgert mich kolossal!
                  

Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, tortures, disparitions forcées, procès inéquitables, exécutions: l'arbitraire règne en Iran. Le 23 janvier dernier, Mohammad Ghobadlou et Farhad Salimi étaient exécutés. Demain, tant d'autres risquent d'être soumis à la folie sanguinaire du régime.
                  

                     Confrontée à son propre peuple et face à la puissance du mouvement pacifique ‘Femme! Vie! Liberté!’, la République islamique d'Iran vacille et s'enfonce dans la répression. Plus de 8 000 personnes exécutées en 2023, déjà 54 en 2024 – et nous ne sommes que le 7 février!
                  

                     L'Union européenne condamne, l'Union européenne sanctionne, l'Union européenne soutient la société civile. Elle peut et doit faire plus et mieux pour la population iranienne. Quand elle le veut, l'Union européenne sait se servir de ses leviers d'action. Elle le peut et devrait le faire dès qu'il en va de l'oppression d'un peuple.
                  

Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'impiccagione di Mohammad, un oppositore del regime con disabilità mentale, è un ulteriore passo nell'infamia degli ayatollah.
                  

                     Ma, con grande onestà e grande dolore, dobbiamo constatare che le continue condanne a morte comminate dal regime iraniano nei confronti di giovani donne e uomini, colpevoli soltanto di chiedere democrazia, non fanno più notizia in Europa. Così come non fa più notizia lo sterminio di minoranze, come beluci e curdi, che sta avvenendo in questi giorni. I media europei insabbiano sistematicamente queste notizie, coprendole con pagine e pagine di presunte violazioni dei diritti in Ungheria, in Slovacchia e così via, perché sono scomode per il deep state dei global dem.
                  

                     D'altra parte, malgrado le nostre continue richieste di provvedimenti seri, l'Unione europea ha deciso di fingere di sanzionare l'Iran, ma non lo ha fatto. Sappiamo che il Corpo delle guardie rivoluzionarie, attorno al quale girano tutti i business illegali del regime, che è molto attivo in Europa, conta quasi 200 000 membri attivi, ma l'Unione europea ne ha sanzionati solo 216. Non è oltraggioso per le vittime di quegli assassini e anche per la nostra intelligenza?
                  

                     L'unico lato positivo di questa triste situazione è che dobbiamo lodare tutti quegli uomini coraggiosi come Mohammad, che protestano per i diritti delle donne: sono la prima linea dei nostri valori e stanno ancora rischiando la vita.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Mr President, colleagues, on 16 September 2023, protests throughout multiple cities in Iran erupted to commemorate one year after Mahsa Amini's death. One of the protesters was also Mohammad Ghobadlou. This was enough for the Iranian regime to execute him over the death of a local official during mass demonstrations. The death sentence was preceded by unfair trials marked by torture and abuse of his mental condition. The death sentence was preceded, as I said, and he is one of at least 54 people who have been executed during the last month. Iran must cease these inhuman practices and release all those on death row, as well as other political prisoners. Among them are also EU nationals Ahmad Reza Djalali and Johan Floderus. So, we condemn Iran's brutal repression and call for an independent, transparent investigation.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, I condemn the death penalty wherever it's used, be it Iran, China, Saudi, the US, or anywhere else. But it would be possible to take the EU's concern about capital punishment in Iran at face value if this was not the same week that you vetoed the discussion on the ICJ ruling against Israel. The UN's highest court just ruled that the charge of genocide against Israel has merit, and you flatly refused to put this historic judgement on the agenda.
You are showing us that the Muslim life is only valuable to you, to the extent that it can be used as a weapon against your geostrategic rivals. Otherwise, you're happy to provide the weapons to murder them and cover up a genocide against them. Over 30 000 Palestinians have been murdered by the Israeli regime and we don't even want to talk about it in here. The hypocrisy is terrible.

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege, vor allem wenn Sie im ‘Catch the Eye’-Verfahren das Wort erhalten, sollten Sie sich schon an das Thema der Debatte halten.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Mr President, at least 360 prisoners have been executed since 7 October 2023 – the start of the war, which is clearly sponsored by the Iranian regime. The head of the snake, which is in Tehran, needs to create an external crisis because they cannot face the Iranian people's uprising against the regime. Executions are their tactic to silence.
Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, has come here to the European Parliament many times and said we must condition any relations with the Iranian regime. After all these executions, is it not time? Every day we hear the name of many people who have been executed by the regime. While the regime keeps on killing, is the EU going to decide to take strong action? When will it designate IRGC as a terrorist entity?

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, like everybody else here, I think the death penalty is an abomination wherever it's used – in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Alabama. I unreservedly oppose the boom of executions in Iran. The only acceptable number of executions anywhere is zero. Full stop!
And in any other context, that would be all there would have to be to say on this subject. But we're in the European Parliament, where human rights are weaponised and where the victims of human rights violations are only relevant where they can advance our interests or distract from our own crimes.
Nobody in Europe enables Iranian executions. And how is this discussion going to help stop it? You've basically sanctioned everything there is there to sanction already. But we could stop and talk about the genocide in Israel, which we are enabling and which we could do something about. Can you not ask yourselves the question…

(The President cut off the speaker)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Daly, Sie können sich bei mir in keiner Weise darüber beklagen, insbesondere Sie beide, dass Sie das Wort im ‘Catch-the-Eye’-Verfahren bekommen. Sie haben gerade mitbekommen, dass ich den Kollegen Wallace nicht zur Ordnung gerufen habe. Sie weichen wieder genauso vom Thema ab, deshalb rufe ich Sie jetzt zur Ordnung, und ich werde es auch in der Zukunft nicht mehr dulden. Und es wäre schön, wenn Sie sich das auch anhören würden.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the European Union has a strong, unequivocal and long-standing opposition to the death penalty at all times and in all circumstances. The EU always raises human rights issues and human rights cases and its official interactions with Iran, including by raising specific cases. Death penalty is an ultimate denial of human dignity, which fails to act as a deterrent to crime and makes miscarriage of justice irreversible. We do not shy away, as I said, from expressing our condemnation and our position publicly and in private, in any country where the death penalty is used.
This includes the widespread use of the death penalty in Iran, which we regularly address in our direct exchanges with the Iranian authorities as part of the EU's comprehensive policy approach towards the country. The EU has publicly condemned Iran's recent execution of Mohammad Ghobadlou after being arrested and sentenced to death in connection with the 2022 protests in Iran. This latest execution is part of an alarming trend in Iran, with more than 750 executions in 2023, representing a sharp increase from previous years, and including, in particular, individuals from ethnic minorities.
The use of the death penalty as a tool of repression against protesters is yet another reminder of the deterioration of human rights in Iran. Fundamental rights such as freedom of opinion and expression must always be respected. Both privately and publicly, we continue to urge Iran to uphold its international obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Iran must guarantee the full range of fundamental rights for their citizens, irrespective of religion, belief or any other status.
In line with its firmly established stance in multilateral fora, including the UN, the EU will spare no effort to urge Iran to pursue a consistent policy towards the abolition of the death penalty altogether. It is also imperative for the Iranian authorities to uphold the accused individuals' due process rights and ensure that those who are under any form of detention or imprisonment are not subject to any form of mistreatment.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden 6 Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, den 8. Februar 2024, statt.
                  
19.3.   Recent attacks on Christmas Eve in Plateau State in Nigeria

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sieben Entschließungsanträge zu dem Thema ‘Jüngste Anschläge an Heiligabend im nigerianischen Bundesstaat Plateau’ (2024/2552(RSP)).
                  

Karsten Lucke,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Wir sprechen heute über die schrecklichen Vorfälle an Weihnachten vergangenen Jahres in Nigeria, wo bewaffnete Banden auf brutalste Art und Weise mehrere Dörfer im Bundesstaat Plateau überfielen und dort zahlreiche Menschen töteten. Und ja, bei den Opfern handelt es sich um Christen, und die Angreifer waren muslimischen Glaubens. Daraus jetzt aber einen primär religiösen Konflikt abzuleiten, das wäre wirklich mehr als eindimensional. Wir haben es mit einem gefährlichen Mix aus starkem Bevölkerungswachstum und Klimawandel mit einhergehender zunehmender Wüstenbildung und mit einer fortschreitenden Ressourcenknappheit zu tun.
                  

                     Viele Nomaden waren und sind gezwungen, vom Norden des Landes weiter in den Süden zu den sesshaften Bauern vorzudringen, dort, wo fruchtbares Land ist – und hier liegt das Grundübel dieses Konfliktes. Terroristen missbrauchen diesen Grundkonflikt und heizen ihn religiös und ideologisch auf.
                  

                     Daher: Wir müssen ran an die Ursachen des Konfliktes – gerade im globalen Süden –, Klimawandel bekämpfen und die Lebenslage der Menschen verbessern. Das adressiert diese Entschließung heute, und daran muss dringend gearbeitet werden.
                  

Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana,
auteure. – Monsieur le Président, dans le centre du Nigeria, les villages de l'État de Plateau sont en deuil après les tueries du réveillon de Noël. Des groupes armés ont attaqué une vingtaine de villages, faisant plus de 160 morts et au moins 300 blessés. Des habitants sont toujours portés disparus.
                  

                     Cependant, le mobile de cette attaque, d'une ampleur sans précédent, reste incertain, même si la plupart des victimes sont des chrétiens. Ces attaques ignobles perturbent la coexistence entre les communautés (éleveurs et agriculteurs). En effet, ces groupes armés ont des antécédents de tensions avec les agriculteurs chrétiens de la région.
                  

                     Ces violences, qui ont pour toile de fond l'accès à la terre, sont exacerbées par le changement climatique, les inégalités sociales et la pauvreté de plus en plus forte dans les milieux ruraux. Cette région est souvent le théâtre de tensions et de conflits meurtriers autour de l'exploitation de la terre et des ressources en eau entre communautés, aggravés ces dernières années par la pression démographique et par la dégradation de l'environnement, voire par le dérèglement climatique.
                  

                     La succession de meurtres, suivis de représailles, a donné naissance dans la région à une forte criminalité et à la formation de gangs qui mènent des expéditions ciblées dans des villages, où ils pillent, tuent et enlèvent des personnes. Le cas de Boko Haram demeure vivace dans les mémoires: des jeunes filles ont été enlevées pour servir au repos du guerrier de leurs agresseurs.
                  

                     En réaction, des groupes d'autodéfense armés, souvent soutenus par les autorités locales et par l'armée, se sont constitués, eux-mêmes parfois accusés d'exactions. Ce climat d'insécurité s'étend dans plusieurs régions du Nord-Ouest et du centre du pays, qui sont la cible des bandits qui massacrent et kidnappent des personnes, pour lesquelles ils réclament des rançons afin de poursuivre leurs forfaits.
                  

                     Ces attaques sont de graves violations des droits de l'homme.
                  

Bert-Jan Ruissen,
Auteur. – Voorzitter, beste collega's, de gruwelijke aanvallen op christelijke dorpen in Nigeria in de kerstnacht van vorig jaar vormen een nieuw dieptepunt in het voortslepende geweld. Wie zegt dat het louter een conflict is tussen herders en boeren, miskent de andere oorzaken. Het zijn moslimextremisten die hier dood en verderf zaaien. Dat is de harde realiteit en onze resolutie is daar helder over.
                  

                     Ik roep de Nigeriaanse autoriteiten op de daders op te pakken en te veroordelen, meer veiligheidsmaatregelen te treffen, de slachtoffers ruimhartig te compenseren en vrijheid van geloof te garanderen.
                  

                     Ook roep ik de Commissie en de hoge vertegenwoordiger op meer oog te hebben voor de ernst van toenemende christenvervolging. Niet alleen in Nigeria, maar ook elders in de wereld. Dat de hoge vertegenwoordiger eind december niet eens de moeite nam om de aanvallen te veroordelen, is wat dat betreft ronduit beschamend. De slachtoffers verdienen beter.
                  

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
autor. – Señor presidente, la verdad es que lo hemos dicho muchas veces: Nigeria es un magnífico ejemplo de un país que debería ser rico, pero donde más de la mitad de su población vive en la pobreza.
                  

                     Todo ello es responsabilidad, evidentemente, de su Gobierno, pero no solo de él. También lo es de las políticas neocoloniales y de las empresas multinacionales que expolian el territorio. El conflicto histórico en la región de Plateau no es un conflicto religioso, como algunos pretenden disfrazarlo, sino una consecuencia directa de esta pobreza. Desde hace décadas, las disputas entre campesinos y pastores nómadas son en torno al acceso a la tierra y a las fuentes de agua, ambos recursos cada vez más escasos por los efectos de la crisis climática.
                  

                     Por supuesto, exigimos al Gobierno nigeriano que proteja a la población civil en Plateau. Pero hay que ir más allá. Hay que asumir nuestras responsabilidades y analizar justamente el impacto de las políticas sobre el cambio climático en un país como Nigeria.
                  

György Hölvényi,
a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Engedjék meg, hogy megosszak Önökkel egy évtizedes tapasztalatot. Az ideológiai elfogultság sajnos az európai döntéshozók egy részét teljesen érzéketlenné teszi az emberi szenvedés iránt, amikor keresztényekről van szó. Ezt az európai álláspontot még a keresztények üldözői sem értik. Ennek következménye viszont, hogy a Nyugat védelmének hiányában a keresztények még kiszolgáltatottabbá válnak. A pünkösdre, szentestére időzített rajtaütéseket, brutális gyilkosságok, templomok megtámadását nem lehet másképp értelmezni. Itt keresztényüldözésről van szó. Legyünk képesek kimondani.
                  

                     Sajnálatos, hogy a Külügyi Szolgálat részéről semmiféle érdemi reakciót nem láthattunk. Az Open Doors emberjogi szervezet adatai szerint Nigériában csak tavaly a dzsihadisták több mint ötezer áldozatából több mint négyezer keresztény volt. Mi, európaiak nem hunyhatunk szemet a keresztények elleni erőszak felett. Tinubu elnök decemberben arról beszélt, hogy a hadsereg biztosítani fogja a nigériai biztonságot. Várjuk meg, várjuk meg, hogy a szavakat tettek kövessék!
                  

Carlos Zorrinho,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, os números do massacre realizado por grupos armados em 24 de dezembro do ano passado, véspera de Natal, em várias localidades do Estado de Plateau, na Nigéria, falam por si: 335 mortos, 171 feridos, 18 725 deslocados, 409 casas destruídas.
                  

                     As motivações que explicam o que ocorreu são complexas. Fatores religiosos, étnicos e territoriais somaram-se à pobreza endémica, à degradação ambiental, à escassez de recursos, qualificações e oportunidades para gerar um cenário de terror e sofrimento.
                  

                     As autoridades da Nigéria têm que investir mais nas ações preventivas, na resposta de emergência e na identificação e no sancionamento dos culpados. E precisam também de apoio da comunidade internacional, um apoio integrado que conjugue a cooperação para o desenvolvimento com a ajuda humanitária, para consolidar caminhos de paz e de diálogo.
                  

                     Como relator permanente do Parlamento Europeu para a ajuda humanitária, apelo à União Europeia, em particular, que reforce a sua ação de suporte, tendo em conta o relatório recentemente aprovado nesta Câmara e que propõe vias de intervenção holística e integrada para prevenir e responder a catástrofes como a que hoje aqui debatemos.
                  

Charlie Weimers,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in the wake of the slaughter of 335 Christians by Muslims in Nigeria, I very much welcome this debate.
Atrocities against Christians don't fit the EU narrative. We just heard the left label the systematic persecution of Christians in Nigeria a tribal conflict between herdsmen and farmers. Well, was it a coincidence that the slaughter and burning of churches took place on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, I wonder?
Fact: 90 % of Christian martyrs are Nigerian. It is wilful ignorance to claim the religion of peace did not motivate these brutal killings. The EU is not exerting real pressure on Nigeria to bring these terrorists to justice and restore law and order, because Christian victims do not fit the post-colonial worldview of the left. That's why.

Mathilde Androuët,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, dans la nuit de Noël, pendant que des millions de chrétiens dans le monde célébraient la naissance d'un enfant intervenue il y a plus de deux mille ans, 200 autres chrétiens sont morts de cette simple adoration. Autour de la crèche, de la joie ultime de l'arrivée de la vie, 200 Nigérians de l'État de Plateau ont été massacrés de la plus terrible des manières.
                  

                     La cause de ces tueries ne s'explique pas, comme l'ont avancé certains, par de simples tensions entre agriculteurs et nomades peuls liées au partage des terres, sur fond de désertification, non. Les motivations principales résident dans la haine antichrétiens des djihadistes.
                  

                     L'année 2023 a été une nouvelle année noire pour les communautés chrétiennes. Selon diverses études, 360 millions de chrétiens sont aujourd'hui fortement persécutés et discriminés dans le monde. Malgré cela, il faut se battre, y compris dans cet hémicycle, pour obtenir la possibilité d'en parler. Et jamais, jamais il n'y eut d'hommage ou de marche solidaire en Europe pour dénoncer ces massacres, qui, en Afrique, sont permanents.
                  

                     Bien évidemment, le nécessaire respect de la souveraineté du Nigeria nous interdit toute ingérence dans ses affaires intérieures. Cependant, la Commission a désigné le Nigeria comme pays pilote de l'Union européenne pour des projets humanitaires, de développement et de consolidation de la paix, pour répondre aux besoins des populations vulnérables.
                  

                     Nous attendons donc de la Commission qu'elle oriente son action dans le sens d'une plus grande protection des chrétiens menacés.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, vážení kolegové, zatímco většina světa slavila Vánoce, v Nigérii bylo zmasakrováno 200 křesťanů. Bohužel se nejedná o ojedinělý případ. V roce 2023 bylo na celém světě kvůli své víře zabito přibližně 5 000 křesťanů, z toho 90 % právě v Nigérii. Za posledních 15 let přišlo o život v Nigérii přes 52 000 křesťanů, tisíce kostelů a stovky škol byly vypáleny. Bohužel, jak se ukazuje, nejhorším místem na světě pro křesťany je právě Nigérie.
                  

                     Evropský parlament jednoznačně odsuzuje násilí cílené na křesťany a vyzýváme nigerijské úřady, aby neprodleně jednaly. Vážená paní komisařko, Evropská unie má s Nigérií partnerství, podporuje Nigérii v jejím rozvojovém programu. Musí tato podpora ale být podmíněna respektováním lidských práv a zajištěním svobody náboženského vyznání. Vyzýváme Vás tedy k akci.
                  

Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, kako reagiramo kad čujemo vijest da su muslimani u Nigeriji ubili 160 ljudi samo zato što su kršćani, kao što se to sad dogodilo za Božić?
                  

                     Hoćemo li reći – ah, to je tamo negdje daleko u nekoj egzotičnoj državi, mi na to ne možemo utjecati? Ili ćemo se bar na trenutak staviti, pokušati staviti u kožu tih ljudi kojima su ubijena djeca, roditelji, braća, neki živi spaljeni u kućama?
                  

                     Današnji vladajući europski političari u svojem odmaku od kršćanstva ne žele čvrsto stati u obranu kršćana, a mnogi relativiziraju ova ubojstva pa kažu da su klimatske promjene i potraga za pašnjacima uzrok ovog masovnog pokolja kršćana u dijelovima Afrike.
                  

                     Kršćani su uvjerljivo najprogonjenija vjerska zajednica u svijetu i zato bez ustručavanja trebamo staviti zaštitu života i vjerske slobode kao ključni uvjet naših vanjskopolitičkih odnosa sa svim državama svijeta, a ne pobačaj i homoseksualne brakove.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtarán, a Choimisinéir, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in many parts of the world, and we in the EPP, the Christian Democrats, condemn this and stand in solidarity with our persecuted brothers and sisters around the world.
For example, at least 160 Christians were massacred by the Fulani militants in Nigeria on Christmas Eve. This tragedy reminds us of the harsh reality faced by Christians in Nigeria, one of the most dangerous places in the world for Christians. Since 2009, over 52 000 Christians have lost their lives, while 18 000 churches and more than 2 000 Christian schools have been destroyed.
The Nigerian authorities must conduct a thorough, independent investigation into the Christmas attacks and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice, and must also make every effort to improve the security of Christian communities, promote dialogue and ensure their commitment to socio-economic reform.
Freedom of religion is an inalienable human right that we must protect with all our efforts.

Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, centinaia sono stati i cristiani uccisi dai militanti fulani nello Stato di Plateau durante e subito dopo i massacri di Natale e, ancora una volta, nessun arresto.
                  

                     Soltanto nel periodo tra aprile e giugno 2023, gli attacchi contro le comunità cristiane in quella regione hanno causato la morte di oltre 340 persone e provocato 80 000 sfollati. Un genocidio che continua nell'indifferenza generale, spesso ridimensionato, anche in quest'Aula, a conflitti tra pastori e agricoltori, quando invece l'elemento religioso è sicuramente alla base di questi atti terroristici, a cui si sommano quelli mai cessati di Boko Haram.
                  

                     La minaccia delle milizie islamiste nell'Africa subsahariana si è intensificata. In alcune zone si prevedono altri esodi forzati delle comunità cristiane. Le istituzioni locali rimangono inerti, mentre l'Unione europea continua a tacere e a stanziare risorse, come le centinaia di milioni per la Nigeria collegate al Global Gateway. Mai più soldi europei ai paesi che non difendono la libertà religiosa.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja ze zdumieniem usłyszałem tutaj z ust moich przedmówców, że ta tragedia chrześcijan w Nigerii to efekt zmian klimatycznych, walk pasterzy z rolnikami albo zupełnie oderwanych od prawdy powodów. Pozwólcie Państwo, że zacytuję Wam słowa z deklaracji o wojnie z chrześcijanami, mającej na celu wyrugowanie tych chrześcijan z Nigerii. Otóż autorzy tej deklaracji, dżihadyści, stwierdzili: ‘włożymy tak wiele wysiłku w ustanowienie państwa islamskiego, że chrześcijanie nie będą mogli tu pozostać. Będziemy kontynuować nasze ataki na kościoły, dopóki nie osiągniemy naszego celu’. Więc to nie zmiany klimatyczne, a chore głowy oszalałych z nienawiści ekstremistów z Boko Haram.
                  

                     Dzisiejsze posiedzenie w tej Izbie, proszę Państwa, rozpoczęło się o dziewiątej rano. Był czas, żebyśmy mówili o nienawiści w internecie, zjawisku antysemityzmu i o strategii na rzecz równości osób LGBTIQ, a o masakrze chrześcijan w Nigerii po raz kolejny mówimy pod osłoną nocy, tak jakby krew niewinnych chrześcijan była mniej ważna niż te tematy, które wymieniłem wcześniej.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, pronásledování jakékoliv menšiny je neakceptovatelné, natož vraždy pětatřiceti zemědělců a křesťanů. Je zcela nepřijatelné, co se stalo ve státě Plateau, a musím připomenout, že se situací v Nigérii zabýváme již opakovaně. Pozadí tohoto útoku je také důležité zmínit – vánoční svátky, islámský terorismus. Myslím, že není možné skrývat a strkat hlavu do písku. Musíme jasně pojmenovat, že křesťané se stali obětí barbarského útoku islámských teroristů a také hlasitě tyto útoky nejen odsoudit, ale žádat rovněž nigerijskou vládu o vyšetření, o potrestání pachatelů, o sjednání spravedlnosti a samozřejmě dodržení naší společné dohody o partnerství s nigerijskou vládou. My máme právo žádat spravedlnost.
                  

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues. First of all, we don't know who carried out these attacks; nobody has claimed responsibility for them. If – as is suspected – it is Fulani herders, that maybe should have informed the drafting of the ECR resolution, which makes no reference whatsoever to the conflicts between herders and pastoralists in the area where these despicable attacks happened.
There is no doubt that there is jihadi violence; nobody denies that. However, we need to look at the deeper symptoms of it, and the deeper symptoms of it are poor governance, corruption and the absence of the rule of law. We had an election last year in Nigeria that fell very, very far short of the standards Nigeria set for itself. What has the EU done in response to the corruption that was carried out in that election? Almost nothing. We shouldn't be surprised to find these symptoms at large in Nigeria.
This resolution falls very far short of what is expected of a proper debate about the complexities of what's happening in Nigeria.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señor presidente, en Navidad recordamos el nacimiento de Jesús. Son días especiales para encontrarnos las familias. Este año, en Nochebuena, mientras todos celebrábamos, al menos 170 cristianos fueron asesinados en Nigeria en un ataque coordinado y deliberado contra las comunidades cristianas de aldeas en plena festividad de Navidad. En Nigeria, más de 52 000 cristianos han sido asesinados por extremistas islámicos en los últimos quince años, 18 000 iglesias han sido quemadas y 2 200 escuelas cristianas destruidas.
                  

                     ¿Y lo ponen en duda? El cristianismo es la religión más perseguida del planeta, también en Europa. Es intolerable la posición de esta Cámara. Se intenta, primero, que no se trate este tema. Cuando se agenda, lo convocan un miércoles a las diez de la noche. Y ahora tenemos que escuchar que esto no es un conflicto religioso, sino que es por el cambio climático. No sé si son las horas, pero parece que ustedes deliran. Es vergonzosa la actitud de esta Cámara ante una dramática matanza contra nuestros hermanos cristianos.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate.
The latest cycle of violence in central Plateau State reached a tragic peak, as we have been hearing, on 24 December, resulting yet again in too many innocent victims and wanton destruction.
The security steps taken, the commitment from highest levels, the peace walk of the governor with Christian and Muslim leaders have sadly been insufficient to stop the violence. Two weeks ago, the state governor had to impose a curfew in violence-affected areas.
These are, of course, very concerning developments within a generally worsening security context. Recent research has found a 730 % increase in bandit attacks between 2018 and 2022 in northern Nigeria. The causes, as ever, are complex. No single factor can explain the violence. There is a history of conflict in Plateau State which has fed on ethno-religious differences.
But we should not forget that 80 % of the population in this area is poor, highly dependent on subsistence farming and cattle breeding. They are significantly affected by climate change and desertification. Sedentary farmers and mobile cattle breeders face conflicts over land. Land ownership and grazing areas are poorly regulated, and significant demographic growth adds to the strain on natural resources.
Therefore, security measures should not be the only answer. Grassroots initiatives for conflict prevention and resolution, promoting inter- and intra-religious coexistence and the management of natural resources are all important as well.
The EU offers support in these areas of work, including in Plateau State. The EU human rights strategy for Nigeria includes freedom of religion and belief as a priority, and the EU addressed this issue with Nigeria in the Human Rights Dialogue last year. Governance, peace and security have always been a priority and, conscious of Nigeria's role in the region and on the continent, we have strengthened our political partnership to address these challenges.
We carefully follow the new government's plans for improving security, conflict prevention and resolution and stand ready to provide further support, all to help ensure peace, tolerance and coexistence among religious and ethnic communities. Freedom of religion and belief is addressed with the Nigerian authorities through the EU's annual Human Rights Dialogue and is a distinct priority in the EU human rights strategy for Nigeria. Two projects were launched in 2022 to promote inter- and inter-religious peaceful coexistence in Plateau State and other states, through increased and structured engagement of local faith partners and communities.
The EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion and Belief is currently considering a visit to Nigeria in the coming months, and the EU High Representative expressed his dismay at targeted attacks against Christians, for instance when scores of churchgoers were massacred in Ondo State in June 2022.
So the European Union has advocated for speedy criminal justice responses while continuing to stand ready to support Nigeria in achieving lasting peace and stability.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden sieben Entschließunganträge eingereicht.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, den 8. Februar 2024, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Dominique Bilde (ID),
par écrit. – Les terribles attaques de Noël au Nigeria illustrent les persécutions que subissent les chrétiens à travers le monde et, en particulier, sur le continent africain. Selon les dernières estimations de l'ONG Portes Ouvertes, un chrétien sur sept serait persécuté dans le monde, avec 78 pays concernés par ces faits. À lui seul, le Nigeria représente d'ailleurs 82% des chrétiens tués à cause de leur foi (La Croix). On peut aussi évoquer le Moyen-Orient, où le nombre de chrétiens se réduit comme peau de chagrin.
                  

                     Face à l'ampleur du désastre, on est surpris par la faiblesse des condamnations officielles ou même par l'absence d'un réel débat public à la hauteur des enjeux. De même, la coopération au développement de l'Union européenne pourrait, en Afrique, viser davantage ces communautés, dans le cadre de son action en faveur des pays et populations vulnérables, notamment au Nigeria. Il est temps de réagir, car il y a urgence!
                  
20.   Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of Abbé Pierre's appeal on addressing homelessness in the context of persisting poverty and social exclusion (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Gedenken anlässlich des 70. Jahrestags des Aufrufs von Abbé Pierre zur Bekämpfung der Obdachlosigkeit im Kontext von anhaltender Armut und sozialer Ausgrenzung (2024/2562(RSP)).
               

                  Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass nur eine Rednerrunde der Fraktionen vorgesehen ist. Deshalb werden weder spontane Wortmeldungen noch blaue Karten akzeptiert.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today we celebrate 70 years since Abbé Pierre launched his appeal for political action on poverty on 1 February 1954. It is therefore only fitting to ask ourselves – what is the state of homelessness, poverty and exclusion in Europe today? What have we done in this regard?
The share of the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion has remained broadly constant over the past years, despite the repeated shocks and crises. This can be largely attributed to effective policies and social transfers. Notwithstanding all our efforts faced with repeated economic and social challenges, homelessness keeps increasing in most Member States.
According to estimates by the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless and the Fondation Abbé Pierre, at least 895 000 people are currently homeless in Europe. So we must renew our commitment to fight homelessness. Successful examples have one clear element in common: consistency of action and long-term planning and investment. Increasing the supply of affordable housing, and, in particular, public housing and social housing, is key.
As the European Commission, we are of course playing a role in this. The European Platform on Combatting Homelessness, launched in Lisbon in 2021, brings together national authorities, civil society and European institutions to combat homelessness in the EU with a Housing First approach. The Platform has become a reference point for national decision makers and the establishment of national homelessness strategies in an increasing number of Member States and, based on the work of the platform, this is a visible sign of its achievements.
The social innovation call launched by the Commission, which is currently in the evaluation phase, will further support innovative grassroots projects. Furthermore, housing-led policies towards homeless people require the appropriate level of financial resources, of course, so Member States have programmed close to EUR 15 billion in their national recovery and resilience plans in connected investments and reforms, including following country-specific recommendations.
The InvestEU programme dedicates a EUR 2.8 billion guarantee to social investments and skills, so this allows leveraging substantial investments on affordable housing and student housing. Cohesion policy funds, notably the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund Plus contribute to building an integrated approach to housing for vulnerable groups. For instance, about EUR 1 billion from the European Regional Development Fund have been directly allocated to investments in housing in the scope of social inclusion over the 2021—2027 programming period.
In addition, several other investments, such as support for energy efficiency in housing, which amounts to around EUR 6.2 billion, are also expected to have a positive impact on housing. More generally, the Commission has been promoting better housing policies in Member States, including in the context of the European Semester.
We monitor housing policies in the European Semester and look at affordability, availability and quality of housing when we propose country-specific recommendations. Indeed, several Member States have received recommendations on this. We need to be accountable, and that is why we are also investing in better analysis and better monitoring of policies, including at city level, with the first coordinated homelessness count organised in different cities in Europe this year as a pilot project sponsored by this Parliament.
The European Commission will continue to work on different fronts to support the Member States and other actors involved in combating homelessness across the EU.

Cindy Franssen,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, collega's, zeventig jaar geleden deed Abbé Pierre reeds de oproep om dakloosheid aan te pakken. Toch worden steeds meer mensen en gezinnen geconfronteerd met dakloosheid.
               

                  In het laatste overzicht van uitsluiting van huisvesting van Feantsa en de stichting Abbé Pierre wordt het aantal daklozen geschat op bijna 900 000 mensen. Dit is een verdubbeling ten opzichte van tien jaar geleden. Nochtans is het recht op degelijke huisvesting en adequate diensten aan daklozen een van de prioriteiten van de Europese pijler voor sociale rechten.
               

                  In het actieplan voor de Europese pijler voor sociale rechten hebben we bovendien een duidelijke doelstelling bepaald: tegen 2030 willen we 15 miljoen mensen uit de armoede halen, onder wie 5 miljoen kinderen.
               

                  Met de Verklaring van Lissabon zijn we in 2021 het engagement aangegaan om een einde te maken aan dakloosheid tegen 2030. Het daartoe opgerichte Europees Platform voor de bestrijding van dakloosheid heeft zijn meerwaarde al bewezen in verschillende lidstaten. Dit toont aan dat we met een langdurig, consequent en efficiënt beleid de trend echt kunnen keren. Het is dan ook van groot belang dat het platform duurzaam kan blijven functioneren en dat ook in het nodige budget wordt voorzien, met parallel uiteraard ook een ambitieus werkprogramma.
               

                  We moeten de strijd tegen dakloosheid en armoede opvoeren en onze beloftes nakomen. Enkel zo kunnen we erover waken dat de verdere uitrol van onze sociale pijler ook in de komende jaren en decennia gegarandeerd wordt. Laten we armoede en dakloosheid samen aanpakken en er zo voor zorgen dat in onze Europese Unie niemand achterblijft.
               

Raphaël Glucksmann,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, le 1er février 1954, il y a tout juste soixante-dix ans, l'abbé Pierre lançait à la radio un appel aux citoyens français. Devant leurs frères mourant de misère, une seule opinion doit exister entre hommes: la volonté de rendre impossible que cela dure. Cet appel fut un choc. Un immense courant de solidarité se fit jour, une mobilisation nationale admirable. Mais, soixante-dix ans plus tard, force est de constater que les pouvoirs publics français et européens ont failli à rendre impossible que cela dure.
               

                  Lors de la Nuit de la solidarité, organisée à Paris le mois dernier, plus de 3 500 personnes sans abri ont été recensées. Parmi elles, 450 enfants, qui dorment chaque soir dans la rue. Et cela dure. On recense à travers l'Union européenne près de 900 000 personnes sans abri. Et cela dure. Des millions de familles européennes sont en situation de précarité absolue, ne parviennent pas à se loger, à se chauffer, ou sont forcées de sauter des repas régulièrement. Nous sommes le continent le plus riche, le plus stable, le plus éduqué du monde, dit-on. Chers collègues, comment pouvons-nous tolérer que cela dure?
               

                  Je veux rendre ici hommage à tous ces bénévoles, toutes ces organisations, toutes ces femmes et tous ces hommes qui se mobilisent auprès des plus démunis. Ils sont admirables, mais leur tâche est sans fin, et ils comblent l'absence et la faillite des pouvoirs publics. Cela dure et cela ne doit plus durer.
               

                  À Paris, à Barcelone, à Berlin, à Prague, des investisseurs privés, des fonds de pension étrangers achètent des immeubles résidentiels et les convertissent en appartements Airbnb pour les louer à la nuit et à prix d'or. Le logement est devenu un actif spéculatif, acheté et vendu pour faire du profit. Cela doit cesser.
               

                  Le logement est un droit. La puissance publique européenne doit s'attaquer aux causes, réguler les investisseurs sur le marché immobilier et les locations touristiques, investir massivement dans la construction et la rénovation de logements abordables. Enfin, le modèle du logement d'abord mis en place en Finlande doit être généralisé à toute l'Europe.
               

                  L'Union européenne n'est pas simplement un projet de paix, c'est un projet de justice, et la démocratie n'est pas qu'un ensemble d'institutions, c'est un régime de solidarité.
               

Karen Melchior,
for Renew-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Det er en tragedie, at 70 år efter at Abbé Pierre holdt sin appel, står vi stadigvæk her og taler om hjemløshed i Europa. På Islands Brygge er der en mand, der bor i en gangtunnel. På metrostationen ‘Porte de Namur’ i Bruxelles er der en kvinde, som har boet der i de sidste par år. Ved katedralen her i Strasbourg er der en kvinde, som bor i en port. Mennesker, der ikke har andre valg end at bo på gaden. De har brug for en bolig tilpasset deres behov, og når de har tag over hovedet, kan vi hjælpe dem med deres andre problemer. alkohol, angst, stofafhængighed, vold og social tvang. Mennesker, der bor på gaden – ja, så har vores sociale systemer fejlet. Vi skal hjælpe disse mennesker, og hvis vi vil, så kan vi. Medlemsstater og byer bør lære af bedste erfaringer. Det er begyndt med bolig. Sådan så det ikke skal være afhængigt af sociale organisationer eller vores charity, når vi møder folk på gaden. Tak til Kommissionen for deres koordination, erfaringsudveksling og lederskab med fokus på ‘housing first’ eller ‘begynd med boliger’. Alle medlemslande bør sikre adgang til gode boliger for alle. Boliger skal ikke være en skattefri investering for de mest privilegerede, og vi kan heller ikke bare bygge os ud af problemet. En mulighed er at sikre, at der er bopælspligt, sådan så boliger ikke står tomme. Men vi skal sørge for, at alle i Europa har adgang til en god og fast bolig i alle vores samfund. Vi kan ikke leve med, at vores unge mennesker, vores ældre, vores psykisk syge bor på gaden og ikke har mulighed for at håndtere deres problemer, fordi de ikke har stabilitet i deres liv.
               

Kim Van Sparrentak,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, in 1954, war-ridden France was experiencing a serious housing crisis. It was a freezing winter and thousands of people were sleeping on the streets. On 1 February, Abbé Pierre, outraged by the death of a homeless woman that still carried the eviction notice on her, launched a radio appeal for solidarity.
Seventy years later, still, every night homeless people are dying in our cities. Every single night, 900 000 people sleep on the streets or in shelters. We could lose all hope and accept this as a fact of life. But it doesn't have to be this way.
We have the tools to halt growing rates of homelessness in the EU and even end homelessness for good. We see in Finland, with the Housing First approach, that this is possible. We need to move away from ‘managing’ homelessness and ‘charity only’ to solving it.
This was also recognised by all Member States in the Lisbon Declaration that took on board the call of the European Parliament to work on ending homelessness by 2030. Several countries since then have adopted new strategies and work at the European level to better coordinate action, share knowledge and streamline funding has started.
On Friday, I will represent the European Parliament at the ministerial meeting on homelessness hosted by the Belgian Presidency. This will be a key moment to ensure that the platform on combating homelessness is continued and strengthened in a new mandate, with a new work plan and a dedicated budget. The ministers gathering should agree to work on Council recommendations on homelessness to underpin the work of the platform and give guidance to the strategies of EU countries.
Furthermore, we have to make sure that we continue combating the housing crisis, because solving homelessness can't happen if people are continuing to become homeless.
Also, knowing that the EU's five richest billionaires increased their wealth since 2020 –from EUR 244 billion to EUR 429 billion, at a rate of EUR 5.7 million per hour – I think we simply cannot accept the most extreme form of poverty to continue to exist.

Dorien Rookmaker,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, waarom zijn er in Nederland meer dan vijftigduizend mensen dakloos? Omdat er te weinig betaalbare woningen zijn. Het is zo simpel als dat. In Nederland is dakloosheid een zorgprobleem. Voor daklozen is opvang vaak langdurige opvang en van langdurige opvang is nog nooit iemand beter geworden.
               

                  Wat is de oplossing? Betaalbare huisvesting voor iedereen — niet alleen voor daklozen — en specifieke maatregelen. In Nederland betekent dat stoppen met de moderne slavernij van onderbetaalde EU-immigranten die dakloos worden zodra ze hun werk verliezen, samenwonen aanmoedigen en niet snoeien in de uitkering van samenwonende pensionado's en mensen met een uitkering, en het stimuleren van de sociale woningbouw. Geef investeerders de ruimte en focus, zet een target, verplicht lidstaten het aantal daklozen met 5 % naar beneden te brengen, zodat we snel dit oplosbare probleem kunnen tackelen. Zo doen we dat met CO2. Dat kan met dakloosheid ook.
               

Aurélia Beigneux,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, l'abbé Pierre a marqué l'histoire par son humanisme. Fervent défenseur des plus pauvres, il n'a cessé de se battre contre la misère et contre l'exclusion sociale, noble combat qui doit continuer de nous inspirer.
               

                  Mais que dirait-il aujourd'hui en voyant que près de 900 000 personnes dorment chaque nuit dans la rue au sein de l'Union européenne? Que dirait-il en voyant que ce chiffre honteux n'a fait qu'augmenter ces cinq dernières années? Comment ne pas reprocher au président français Emmanuel Macron la trahison de son argument de campagne, lui qui avait promis de régler le problème des sans-abri pendant son mandat? Comment ne pas se tourner vers nos gouvernements quand les centres d'hébergement ne peuvent pas profiter aux citoyens car ils sont saturés par les vagues migratoires?
               

                  Au vu de l'entrée de 400 000 migrants par an en France – 400 000! –, nous demandons que la priorité nationale s'applique pour l'accès aux logements sociaux. Il faut dès maintenant que les places profitent d'abord aux nationaux avant d'être attribuées à des étrangers, parfois entrés illégalement.
               

                  L'Union européenne a le devoir de s'occuper de ses citoyens en priorité, et non de distribuer les biens publics au tout-venant.
               

Chris MacManus (The Left). – Mr President, I want to welcome this debate on the 70th anniversary of Abbé Pierre's appeal on addressing homelessness. His appeal, which centred on the belief in the fundamental right to shelter and the need for immediate action to address homelessness, is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago.
In Ireland, we have had successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments setting records they should be ashamed of. They've consistently overseen increase after increase in the number of homeless people in Ireland. Indeed, just before Christmas, a new record was set. The number of homeless people in Ireland surpassed 13 000: 13 179 to be precise, 3 991 of them children. That is the highest number of homeless children ever recorded in our state. Indeed, a government of record-breakers. They should hang their collective heads in shame.
If the Irish Government are serious about tackling the housing and homelessness crises, they must reinstate the ban on no-fault evictions in order to create the space for an emergency response to be put in place. We need a package of measures to reduce the number of people becoming homeless in Ireland. We need to stop vulture and cuckoo funds evicting families or buying up the housing stock from under the noses of workers and families.

A chairde, we need a new approach that puts people ahead of vested and financial interests. Only then may our children sleep easy.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you, honourable Members. In June 2021, the ministers of 27 Member States, the European institutions and civil society committed to work towards eradicating homelessness by signing the Lisbon Declaration and launching the European Platform on Combating Homelessness. The platform has created a strong momentum at EU level to address the plight of homeless people. We should sustain this momentum. We should answer to the demands and concerns of our most vulnerable citizens. The right to access decent and affordable housing is at the heart of the social Europe that we want to strengthen.
To turn this right into a reality for every person in the EU, we need to make sure that we have in place the adequate housing and employment and social policies. There is a shared, clear political will by all institutions and stakeholders represented in the platform to ensure its continuity and build on the achievements and on the work done so far. The European Commission remains fully committed to the fight against homelessness.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Milan Brglez (S&D),
pisno. – Statistične ocene kažejo, da je bilo leta 2022 med prebivalci EU skoraj 900.000 brezdomcev ter da se njihovo število v večini držav članic po pandemiji naglo povečuje. Dodatno nas mora skrbeti podatek, da po oceni Eurostata več kot 19,2 milijona ljudi živi v stanovanjih, ki niso primerna za bivanje.
               

                  Dejstvo, da v Evropski uniji nimamo natančnih statistik o brezdomcih in populaciji, ki živi v za bivanje neustreznih objektih, temveč se moramo zanašati na ocene, že samo po sebi pojasnjuje, zakaj so brezdomci ter milijoni drugih ljudi žrtve ali izpostavljeni revščini in socialni izključenosti. Brez zanesljivih in primerljivih podatkov v zvezi s prebivalstvom in stanovanji ne moremo oblikovati učinkovitih evropskih politik, kar pa ne rešuje problema in nas ne odvezuje odgovornosti za (ne)ukrepanje.
               

                  Države članice morajo prenehati z eksternalizacijo problema brezdomstva na humanitarne organizacije in društva za pomoč in samopomoč brezdomcev ter zavzeti pristop ‘najprej stanovanja’, saj je ta dokazljivo učinkovit v boju proti revščini in socialni izključenosti brezdomcev. Hkrati pa se moramo sočasno z uresničevanjem zelenega prehoda spopasti z neustreznimi (slabo izoliranimi, energetsko potratnimi, prenatrpanimi, nefunkcionalnimi …) stanovanji kot javnozdravstvenim problemom, ki ogroža zdravje ljudi in jih potiska v revščino ter socialno izključenost.
               
21.   Explanations of vote

Der Präsident. – Nach der Tagesordnung folgen Erklärungen zu den Abstimmungen.
               

                  Wir beginnen mit einer Erklärung zur Abstimmung betreffend den Bericht von Herrn Kollegen Hoogeveen über Sofortüberweisungen in Euro (A9-0230/2023).
               
21.1.   Instant payments in euro (A9-0230/2023 - Michiel Hoogeveen)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Chris MacManus (The Left). – Mr President, I welcome the adoption of the new EU rules on instant payments.
I especially welcome the approval of my amendment, which means that checking IBAN numbers to prevent fraud will be free under these new rules. This means people can use this service and so fraud can be prevented. By following this process, ordinary workers and consumers will be empowered to know whom they are actually transferring to.
By making this check free, my amendment has vastly improved this service and made it so that it will be at no cost to consumers. This rule should now be applied more generally in all electronic payments, and it should be done so as soon as possible. There is no reason to wait 18 months.
This is a big win for consumers and a big blow to fraudsters. People should always be on their guard but, through this amendment, they now have an important new weapon in the fight against scammers.
21.2.   Limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates (A9-0263/2023 - Nikolaj Villumsen)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, today I was happy to support the directive regarding the limit values for lead in its inorganic compounds to secure rules protecting millions of workers across the EU. This is the fifth revision of the EU legislation on cancer-causing substances, bringing essential changes to the carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances directive and the Chemical Agents Directive. The directive aims to protect workers from health risks linked to exposure to dangerous chemicals.
The lead limit values are to be updated for the first time since 1982. Despite lead's wide use, including batteries and cosmetics, it is hazardous to health. Ingested or inhaled, it can damage the central nervous system, and it can also affect the kidneys, the heart and blood, amongst other harmful effects, in particular for fertility.
Once introduced correctly, this directive will have positive impacts for many workers in Europe.
21.3.   Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, our farmers need the best tools available to support our production and our food security.
My support for this proposal is based on the recognition of the need to embrace new technology and innovation in the agri-food sector. New genomic techniques, or NGTs, have great potential to help us adapt to many of the most serious challenges facing European agriculture today – including food security, climate change and reduced biodiversity – and their use should benefit farmers, consumers and the environment alike.
I support the transparency and control requirements of this proposal, which would serve to maintain a high level of protection in both human and animal health, while enabling the further development and use of NGT plants and their products.
Ultimately, this proposal gives new opportunities for farmers. Farmers will be able to use technology that their competitors outside of the EU are already using, thus creating a more level playing ground. Crops derived from NGTs may exhibit enhanced yields and decrease reliance on pesticides, resulting in improved family incomes and fostering a more sustainable approach to food production.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, dnes byl pro Evropskou unii velmi důležitý den, protože jsme udělali první krok k tomu, aby evropští vědci, farmáři mohli využívat nové genomické techniky pro získání nových odrůd plodin. Máme pozici Evropského parlamentu, pro kterou hlasovalo 307 poslanců a poslankyň, a máme tak velkou většinu těch, kteří podporují tento návrh. Znamená to tedy, že budeme mít možnost jednat se členskými státy a dosáhnout dohody snad ještě v tomto mandátu. Jde o to, abychom měli takové plodiny, které budou výnosné a které budou zajišťovat potravinovou bezpečnost i v situaci velkých dopadů klimatických změn, jako je sucho, choroby, výkyvy klimatu. To všechno způsobuje velké problémy zemědělcům. Takto jim budeme moci lépe čelit.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, kolem nových genomických technik se šíří spousta nepravd a je zde málo racionální debaty. Já jsem návrh kolegyně Jessicy Polfjärdové podpořil, protože je stanoven jasný právní rámec pro tyto techniky. Jde o křížení a úpravy genetického materiálu u křižitelných druhů. Návrh má za cíl zajistit odolnost plodin. Důležité je to zejména ve vztahu ke klimatické změně a samozřejmě také k zajištění potravinové bezpečnosti. My potřebujeme odolnější rostliny proti škůdcům, proti vysokým teplotám, proti suchu. To jsou vážné výzvy, kterým čelíme. Zpráva je podle mě dobrou zprávou i pro vědce a ti její přijetí dnes v Evropském parlamentu, myslím, ocenili. Také samozřejmě pro zemědělce. Zajistili jsme rovněž nepatentovatelnost jakýchkoli použitých technik a také rozumnou transparentnost. To jsou všechno důvody, pro které jsem tuto zprávu podpořil.
                  
21.4.   Norway's recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic (B9-0095/2024)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I voted for this resolution to support the call for an international moratorium on deep-seabed mining until its effects on the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities have been sufficiently researched. I also share concern about the Storting's decision to open areas for deep-seabed activities. The resolution highlights the concerns raised by the Norwegian Environment Agency regarding significant knowledge gaps in the environmental impact assessment.
Importantly, the resolution also draws attention to the international context, considering the impact on high seas and areas for international fisheries. It underscores the need to respect existing agreements which regulate the continental shelf in the region. Moreover, the resolution emphasises the ecological significance of the Arctic, addressing concerns about the vulnerability of its ecosystems. It points out the potential release of methane stored in subglacial ecosystems and Arctic permafrost soils, highlighting the risk to biodiversity, fish stocks and climate regulation. It is only right that we should vote in favour of this plan.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, kolegyně a kolegové, my jsme dnes přijali usnesení o nedávném rozhodnutí Norska pokročit v těžbě z mořského dna v Arktidě. Toto usnesení jsem spolu s mnoha svými kolegy podpořila. V usnesení vyzýváme Komisi a členské státy, aby podporovaly mezinárodní moratorium na hlubinnou těžbu na mořském dně, dokud nebudou dostatečně prozkoumány její dopady na mořské prostředí, na biodiverzitu a lidské činnosti. Rozhodnutí norského parlamentu neznamená a nemůže znamenat automatické povolení těžební činnosti, protože první těžební plány musí projít opět schvalováním. Věřím, že Norsko bude respektovat mezinárodní moratorium a smlouvy týkající se ochrany mořského prostředí.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem také podpořil tento návrh usnesení, protože za prvé je podle mě nutné trvat na platnosti mezinárodního moratoria v oblasti Arktidy a těžby na tomto mořském dně. A také je třeba bojovat za zachování a podpořit rozvoj biodiverzity. My sdílíme prakticky stejné hodnoty s Norskem a jeho občany. Sdílíme velmi blízké partnerství. Jsme vlastně sousedé s Nory, ale nesdílíme s Norskem jeho přístup právě k těžbě na arktickém dnu. Myslím si, že je třeba postupovat v této oblasti velmi opatrně. Celý ten ekosystém je velmi křehký. Ze všech těchto důvodů jsem podpořil tento návrh usnesení a chci vyzvat Norsko, aby toto rozhodnutí ještě velmi důkladně zvážilo.
                  
21.5.   Rule of Law and media freedom in Greece (B9-0098/2024)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, dnes jsme hlasovali o právním státě a o svobodě médií v Řecku a toto usnesení jsem nepodpořila. Měla jsem v úmyslu hlasovat pro usnesení, které předložila kolegyně Elissaveta Vozembergová, ale na to už se v hlasování nedostalo. Přijaté usnesení, které tedy bylo schváleno některými kolegy zejména z levicových stran, je jen dalším politickým útokem proti vládě spojené s Evropskou lidovou stranou v Řecku a proti premiérovi Řecka. Usnesení má daleko k objektivnímu popisu skutečné situace. Obsahuje řadu nepodložených tvrzení a neuznává pokroky, které byly právě v ochraně svobody médií a novinářů označeny dokonce Radou Evropy za příklad dobré praxe, které řecká vláda uskutečnila. Řecko musí brát výzvy Komise a dalších organizací vážně, tak jako všechny členské státy.
                  

President. – Ms Šojdrová, this was more likely a contribution in a debate than an explanation of vote.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, snad se trefím do požadavku na vysvětlení hlasování. Já jsem tento návrh usnesení podpořil přes jisté výhrady. Podle mě právní stát je pro nás klíčovou hodnotou, spojuje členské státy EU a v řeckém přístupu bylo možno spatřovat určité rozpory a problematický přístup právě k hodnotě právního státu. Je třeba garantovat rovnost zacházení všem občanům a samozřejmě také možnost dosáhnout spravedlivého procesu. Jsou to všechno základní hodnoty EU. Já jsem velmi citlivý v okamžiku, kdy se dochází k určité erozi těchto hodnot. A přeci jenom v řeckém případě byly v minulosti jevy, které, myslím, ohrožovaly tuto hodnotu. Z těchto všech důvodů jsem se rozhodl nakonec přes jisté drobné výhrady k popisu některých skutků tento návrh usnesení podpořit.
                  

Der Präsident. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.
                  

                     Wir sind damit am Ende der Tagesordnung für heute.
                  

                     Die nächste Sitzung findet morgen, Donnerstag, den 8. Februar 2024, um 9.00 Uhr statt.
                  
22.   Agenda of the next sitting

Der Präsident. – Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.
               
23.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament morgen zu Beginn der Nachmittagssitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
               
24.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 22.59 Uhr geschlossen.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)