Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 April 2024
Date: 2024-04-23
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202502132EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














10.4.2025







            23 April 2024
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 23 APRIL 2024
            
         
(C/2025/2132)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
5










2.

Conclusions of the recent European Council meetings, in particular on a new European Competitiveness deal and the EU strategic agenda 2024-2029 (debate)
5










3.

Effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance – Speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure – amending Regulation – Requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States – amending Directive (joint debate – Economic governance)
21










4.

Resumption of the sitting
35










5.

Voting time
36










5.1.

Gradual roll-out of Eudamed, information obligation in case of interruption of supply and the transitional provisions for certain in vitro diagnostic medical devices (C9-0010/2024) (vote)
36










5.2.

Union retail investor protection rules (A9-0162/2024 - Stéphanie Yon-Courtin) (vote)
36










5.3.

Discharge 2022: EU general budget – European Council and Council (A9-0071/2024 - Luke Ming Flanagan) (vote)
36










5.4.

Appointment of Karen Braun-Munzinger as a new member of the Single Resolution Board (A9-0150/2024 - Irene Tinagli) (vote)
37










5.5.

Recommendation for a decision not to oppose a delegated act: rules on the ratio for GAEC Standard 1 (B9-0199/2024, B9-0220/2024) (vote)
37










5.6.

Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Deleting Gibraltar from the table in Point I of the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 (B9-0210/2024, B9-0222/2024) (vote)
37










5.7.

Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Commission delegated regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 as regards the amount of the visa fees (B9-0216/2024) (vote)
38










5.8.

Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Feedstock for the production of biofuels and biogas (B9-0218/2024) (vote)
39










5.9.

Measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks (Gigabit Infrastructure Act) (A9-0275/2023 - Alin Mituța) (vote)
39










5.10.

The transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (A9-0008/2024 - Assita Kanko) (vote)
39










5.11.

Establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of insurance and reinsurance undertakings (A9-0251/2023 - Markus Ferber) (vote)
39










5.12.

Amendments to the Solvency II Directive (A9-0256/2023 - Markus Ferber) (vote)
39










5.13.

Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (A9-0271/2023 - Maria Spyraki) (vote)
39










5.14.

Payment services and electronic money services in the Internal Market (A9-0046/2024 - Ondřej Kovařík) (vote)
40










5.15.

Payment services in the internal market and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (A9-0052/2024 - Marek Belka) (vote)
40










5.16.

Combating late payment in commercial transactions (A9-0156/2024 - Róża Thun und Hohenstein) (vote)
40










5.17.

Amending Directive 2014/62/EU as regards certain reporting requirements (A9-0152/2024 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (vote)
41










5.18.

Access of competent authorities to centralised bank account registries through the single access point (A9-0004/2023 - Emil Radev) (vote)
41










5.19.

Regulation on import, export and transit measures for firearms, their essential components and ammunition(recast) (A9-0312/2023 - Bernd Lange) (vote)
41










5.20.

Ecodesign Regulation (A9-0218/2023 - Alessandra Moretti) (vote)
41










5.21.

Temporary trade-liberalisation measures supplementing trade concessions applicable to Ukrainian products under the EU/Euratom/Ukraine Association Agreement (A9-0077/2024 - Sandra Kalniete) (vote)
41










5.22.

Visa exemption for holders of Serbian passports issued by the Serbian Coordination Directorate (A9-0172/2024 - Matjaž Nemec) (vote)
41










5.23.

Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement: participation of Egypt in Union programmes (A9-0175/2024 - Michael Gahler) (vote)
42










5.24.

Preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution (A9-0148/2024 - João Albuquerque) (vote)
42










5.25.

Common rules promoting the repair of goods (A9-0316/2023 - René Repasi) (vote)
42










5.26.

Prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (A9-0306/2023 - Samira Rafaela, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques) (vote)
42










5.27.

Amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (A9-0285/2023 - Malin Björk, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop) (vote)
42










5.28.

Effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance (A9-0439/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)
42










5.29.

Speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure – amending Regulation (A9-0444/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)
42










5.30.

Requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States – amending Directive (A9-0440/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)
42










6.

Resumption of the sitting
43










7.

Combating violence against women and domestic violence (debate)
43










8.

European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities – European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities for third country nationals legally residing in a Member State (joint debate – Disability cards)
57










9.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
69










10.

EU's response to the repeated killing of humanitarian aid workers, journalists and civilians by the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip (debate)
69










11.

The use of Russian frozen assets to support Ukraine's victory and reconstruction (debate)
86










12.

Delegated acts (Rule 111(6)) (action taken)
99










13.

Corrigenda (Rule 241)(action taken)
99










14.

Attempts to reintroduce a foreign agent law in Georgia and its restrictions on civil society (debate)
100










15.

Situation in Haiti (debate)
105










16.

Withdrawal of the Union from the Energy Charter Treaty (debate)
108










17.

EU-Egypt strategic and comprehensive partnership and agreements with key third countries (debate)
116










18.

Production and marketing of plant reproductive material – Production and marketing of forest reproductive material (joint debate – Plant and forest reproductive material)
121










19.

Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans (debate)
129










20.

Explanations of vote
137










20.1.

Preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution (A9-0148/2024 - João Albuquerque)
137










20.2.

Common rules promoting the repair of goods (A9-0316/2023 - René Repasi)
137










20.3.

Prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (A9-0306/2023 - Samira Rafaela, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques)
138










20.4.

Amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (A9-0285/2023 - Malin Björk, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop)
138










21.

Agenda of the next sitting
138










22.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
138










23.

Closure of the sitting
138




Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 April 2024
                  


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO


Vicepresidente

1.   Opening of the sitting

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.03)

2.   Conclusions of the recent European Council meetings, in particular on a new European Competitiveness deal and the EU strategic agenda 2024-2029 (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca le dichiarazioni del Consiglio europeo e della Commissione sulle conclusioni delle recenti riunioni del Consiglio europeo, in particolare su un nuovo accordo europeo sulla competitività e l'agenda strategica dell'UE 2024-2029 (2024/2697(RSP)).
               

Ursula von der Leyen,
President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much. Indeed, competitiveness was the topic of the European Council and leaders taking the floor recalled that, since the last European elections, our union has really weathered two a crisis of historic proportions. The COVID-19 health crisis and the war in Ukraine, with a ‘made-in-Russia’ energy crisis. They could have turned into a dramatic economic and social crisis, but they didn't. And this was because of Europe's great resilience, but also because we put the right policies in place. Think of SURE. SURE saved 40 million European jobs. Or think of NextGenerationEU and REPowerEU, which fast-tracked the recovery and deployment of home-grown renewables. I have not forgotten that, in 2020, many predicted mass unemployment in Europe and long recession. It did not happen because we put the right policies in place and we acted decisively. Instead, today we have more people in work than at any other time in European history. Unemployment is at an all-time low, at less than 6 %. Employment is at an all-time high, at over 75 %. And inflation is now close to our 2 % target. So dear colleagues, we have gone certainly through hell and high water. But in many respects we have come out stronger than five years ago.
Yet the shockwaves of these crises have taken a toll on Europe's competitiveness. The business model of many European industries was based on supposedly cheap energy from Russia and trade with a growing China. Today, we face a rogue Russia and a China struggling with domestic demand. And besides geopolitics, there are other trends that are impacting our competitiveness. In the last decade, Europe's labour productivity has risen by only 0.8 % per year, compared with 1.1 % in the United States. These trends can only be addressed with a concerted effort at both European and national level. Therefore, restoring our competitive edge must be at the heart of Europe's economic agenda in 2024 and beyond. And I am absolutely convinced that with the necessary push, we can set off a new surge of European competitiveness.
At the European Council of last week, we listened to some very good ideas from Enrico Letta on our Single Market. Today, I want to look at four of the basic factors that determine costs, prices and productivity in Europe. Let me start with finance. Since we took office almost five years ago, we have unleashed an unprecedented wave of public investment in strategic sectors. Take energy and clean tech. We are investing EUR 400 billion from NextGenerationEU, and we have approved over EUR 550 billion in national public support, for clean tech and energy investment. This has been crucial. But certainly public investment is not enough. The time has come for a systemic solution that mobilises Europe's immense private capital. And an essential part of this solution is to complete the Capital Markets Union.
EUR 470 billion – this is the additional private investment we could raise every year if we completed the Capital Markets Union – EUR 470 billion! The Capital Markets Union, ‘the CMU’, was launched almost ten years ago. And since the start of the mandate, we have made progress on many of its elements. For instance, we have made it easier for companies across Europe, especially SMEs, to get listed on capital markets. But we have also faced a deadlock in Council, on many crucial aspects of the CMU. So, it is more than welcome that the last European Council marks a turning point, finally. We now have a clear mandate to move forward on three vital issues. First: harmonising national rules on topics like insolvency. This will give investors the predictability they need. Second: We will design and create cross-border savings products for retail investors. And third: The Commission has been tasked to strengthen supervision at European level of the most important market players. So the way forward is clear. If we are to fund the new industrial revolution of our times, we must mobilise Europe's private capital. And now is the time to turn the political will into action.
The second priority is reducing the cost of energy. Energy costs continue to affect our competitiveness, especially for energy-intensive industries. The International Energy Agency tells us that there might be some relief in sight. You remember very well that, last year, during the energy crisis, many investments have been done. A large wave of new LNG export projects is coming to the market. And therefore we might soon be moving from a global shortfall of LNG to an abundance of LNG. As a result, we expect gas prices to decrease, to fall. This gives us space to further develop renewable energies. And I think it is a very telling success that last year for the very first time the European Union was able to produce more electricity from wind than it did from gas. This was a big success.
At this point, I want to thank Parliament, for all the work you have done, the work for example on the reform of the electricity market or the new Renewable Energy Directive. We must keep pushing to produce more cheap and clean energy in Europe. And we must listen to our industries, what they need to reach the climate goals. We have done in so-called Clean Transition Dialogues with ten different industrial sectors. One of their central demands is always energy infrastructure. In our decade now, our cross-border electricity transmission capacity must double. So, this needs investments in smart grids and charging infrastructure, but also cables, pipes, turbines and electrolysers. You just name it. We must build the physical backbone of the economy of the future in order to be competitive.
The third priority is to address the labour and skills shortage that affects our economy and it's obvious. We have, as I said, very low unemployment, so we need to train as many as possible of our unemployed, specifically have a look at youth unemployment, because, as I said, we have very low unemployment on average – we have higher youth unemployment than average – and every young person has great potential, even if they might be struggling with obstacles of all kinds. Let us make sure that they get the chance they deserve. We also have to increase women's access to the labour market. Parents need infrastructure, it's very simple. Affordable and accessible childcare, good schools and flexible working hours are an absolute must. Finally, we can offer more flexible solutions for silver workers to continue their careers, and we need to attract the right talents from abroad. So it's a whole bundle of activities that have to be done to address the skills shortage. We are investing EUR 65 billion in skills, through NextGenerationEU and the European Social Fund, and skills must continue to be at the heart of our action.
Finally, let us never forget that Europe is a trading continent, and we derive a significant share of our prosperity from trade. If it is true that in the next decade 90 % of the most significant growth is happening in regions outside the European Union, well we should tap into it. Our Union is second to none in negotiating trade deals. We have the largest network of trade agreements in the world, with a total of 74 countries. The value of EU trade through these agreements surpassed EUR 2 trillion for the first time in 2022. And beyond exports, we need to secure imports, for example, of the critical raw materials that our industry needs. But, honourable Members, trade also needs to be fair. We need a global level playing field. And we need to address the risks that come with our openness. We need for example tools to address issues of overcapacity that is produced outside the European Union. I am speaking about structural overproduction, an overproduction that is achieved to a large extent by subsidies, massive subsidies. This overproduction has to go somewhere. Others are closing their markets. So our market is an attractive destination and we have to be very vigilant that our producers are not at risk to be forced out of the market. And we also need to involve developing economies around the world on this topic, because their industrialisation is also threatened directly by overcapacity. We need a more structural response with our partners and work on this is starting in the G7.
Honourable Members, the last five years have taught us something. Time and again, we have surprised the sceptics, and defied the doomsayers. Because for a strong Europe, if there is a will, there is a way. And our continent will continue to be the global beating heart of industry and innovation.
Thank you, and long live Europe.

Manfred Weber,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear Madam President von der Leyen, dear colleagues, first of all I think we have to recognise that we cannot welcome the President of the European Council today.
We speak about the outcome of an official European Council meeting last week in Brussels and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, has obviously not the need to come to Strasbourg and explain to us as MEPs about the outcomes. So the Commission President is reporting, but not the Council President, so that's why I would first of all generally underline that I see there a lack of respect towards this institution and I ask also our services to ask Charles Michel for clarification. What is the reasoning why he is not with us?
I want to thank Ursula von der Leyen, because in the last five years she was a representative of the Commission, always being present in all debates here in this House, thank you so much, Ursula, for doing so. That, dear colleagues, is the last speech before we go into campaign, before we try to convince Europeans for our parties, but also in general for Europe, and you can imagine that for me as the EPP Group's leader, it is a great thing that we discuss now competitiveness, because the EPP has been asking for this debate for years now about jobs, jobs, jobs.
That was our EPP agenda over the last two or three years. Now it has arrived on the European level, on the European Council table. To be clear, competitiveness is not an empty word: it means preserving Europe's more than 30 million jobs in manufacturing, creating new jobs like in the artificial intelligence field, it means empowering the 25 million SMEs in Europe to successfully lead Made in Europe into the future and it means also ensuring that 450 million European consumers receive good, safe and affordable products every day. When we speak about competitiveness, that is what we mean to underline the importance of this field.
From a political point of view, I have to say yes, that on the European level the Council understood it from a party point of view. Let me also say that in the PES electoral programme, Iratxe, you never mention competitiveness with one single word there, so you can really see also from a party political point of view who has an idea about what is needed and who has no idea about what is needed.
What do we have to do? We support the ideas presented by Ursula von der Leyen. The first thing is to strengthen our own market, the single market, the capital market union, services, energy. Also, the implementation of the current rules is an issue to strengthen our market, so we should not look to the outside world first of all, we should trust in our growth engine and that is our own single market.
The second thing is innovation: not to allow that Horizon Europe be further watered down and cut. We need more money for innovation. We have to cut bureaucracy. This mandate was not a good one in this regard: we increased bureaucracy, it was driven by the thinking that a regulatory framework is better than having trust in those who are delivering on economic success stories. We want and stand for a Europe that creates opportunities and not a regulatory framework first of all.
Finally, trade and not being naive in this world we are living in. When Olaf Scholz is in China and he is telling the Chinese that he has no problem with electric car production there, then for me that is quite naive, having in mind that 20 % of the cars sold in Europe last year are produced in China. They want to occupy this new market with their dumping approach. That is why we should be strong as Europeans, and we should be open for others for us to create a common market of the democracies in the world with Mercosur, with other agreements, this is the line to take.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, for us this is in front of us when we speak also for preparing the next mandate: at the end of this mandate, before we go to elections, I want to underline that we all share one common understanding: to save democracy in Europe, to fight against those who are taking Europe, who are taking the democratic principles. My party, the European People's Party, is a founding party of Europe with Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman. Today, people like Donald Tusk have this flag in their hands. So we do this together with a pro-European, pro-rule of law and pro-Ukraine approach.
The campaign means to discuss things, but the starting point is that we delivered. We delivered together with Brexit, with the vaccines, with the RRF, with the Green Deal, migration and digital, the list is long. We did it together, and we did it together under the lead of Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President. So let us be proud about this and let us then have a good campaign where we show Europeans the alternatives in front of us.

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, el próximo jueves 25 de abril, coincidiendo con el 50.o aniversario de la Revolución de los Claveles en Portugal, la novena legislatura llegará a su fin. Aunque la ciudadanía tiene la enorme responsabilidad de decidir con su voto la Europa que queremos seguir construyendo, es inevitable echar la vista atrás y poner en valor los avances que hemos conseguido a lo largo de estos últimos años.
               

                  Después de golpearnos la pandemia, protegimos a 31 millones de asalariados y autónomos y a más de 2 millones y medio de empresas con el programa SURE, y evitamos el hundimiento socioeconómico con el plan de recuperación basado en una emisión de deuda sin precedentes. En medio del reto existencial que representa el cambio climático, impulsamos el Pacto Verde para detener la pérdida de vidas humanas y sus daños económicos.
               

                  Cuando el futuro de nuestros niños y jóvenes, de las clases medias y trabajadoras, y también de las mujeres, estuvo en peligro, levantamos el Pilar Social con las garantías infantil y juvenil, los salarios mínimos, la reducción de la brecha salarial entre hombres y mujeres y las directivas de los trabajadores en plataformas digitales y contra la violencia de género.
               

                  Cuando la guerra de Putin en Ucrania devolvió a nuestro continente a su peor pesadilla, pusimos al servicio de nuestra ciudadanía los recursos públicos necesarios para paliar sus efectos económicos y sociales. Dimos la batalla por la independencia energética de nuestra Unión y reformamos el mercado eléctrico para abaratar los precios de la luz.
               

                  Señorías, las fuerzas democráticas de este Parlamento hemos dado pasos que parecían imposibles en la integración de nuestra Unión. Pero en esta Cámara también hay fuerzas que no creen en el proyecto europeo. Hoy, el miedo el odio y la involución de la extrema derecha están intentando invadir el espíritu europeo.
               

                  Como es el último pleno, no voy a tomar la iniciativa de repetir las ocasiones en las que el Grupo Popular del señor Manfred Weber ha abierto la puerta y ha normalizado a estas fuerzas de extrema derecha. Como es el último pleno, vamos a hablar de todo lo que tenemos que hacer de forma conjunta.
               

                  No podemos caer en el pensamiento reaccionario. Vivimos en la Unión Europea, en el mayor espacio de derechos y libertades que nunca ha dejado de progresar desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Vivimos en la primera potencia comercial, en la mayor receptora de inversión extranjera directa. Pero tampoco podemos caer en la autocomplacencia ni en la inacción. Todavía hay demasiados ciudadanos que viven en la pobreza, sin empleo, sin salarios dignos y sin viviendas a precios asequibles.
               

                  Recordemos las palabras de Jacques Delors: ‘Rechazo una Europa que no sea más que un mercado, una zona libre de comercio sin alma, sin conciencia, sin voluntad política, sin dimensión social. Si es allí hacia donde vamos, lanzo un grito de alarma’.
               

                  Su grito de alarma nos obliga a ser valientes. Nos obliga a ofrecer un proyecto de Europa que ilusione a los ciudadanos. Un proyecto que no se deje arrastrar por el declive que preconizan desde la derecha y desde la extrema derecha.
               

                  Construyamos una Unión Europea que innove, que compita, que crezca sin recortar en derechos laborales ni sacrificar nuestro Estado del bienestar. Una Unión que siga siendo fiel a su modelo social y garantice empleos decentes y un parque público de viviendas. Una Unión dotada de un impuesto a las grandes fortunas y de nuevos instrumentos comunes de financiación que hagan realidad la transición energética y la transformación digital. Y, ante todo, una Unión faro de la razón, la cultura, la ciencia, los derechos humanos y la convivencia entre los pueblos.
               

                  Señorías, afrontemos el futuro con confianza, con optimismo y con ambición. No estamos aquí para evitar nuestra decadencia. Tampoco estamos aquí para resistir el auge de otras potencias. Estamos en la Unión Europea para liderar una nueva era de progreso global. Merece la pena luchar por una Unión Europea mejor porque la Unión Europea es lo mejor que le ha pasado a nuestras vidas.
               

Valérie Hayer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, une Europe prospère, voilà ce à quoi nous aspirons tous dans cet hémicycle. Très bien. La question, désormais, n'est pas si nous voulons cette prospérité, mais comment nous la bâtissons.
               

                  J'accueille favorablement le rapport d'Enrico Letta, qui pose des constats justes. Ces recommandations doivent désormais être suivies de faits. Nous devons faire les pas décisifs qui permettront d'assurer notre compétitivité. Les États-Unis subventionnent massivement leurs industries. La Chine surprotège les siennes et inonde notre marché européen. L'Europe ne peut pas rester spectatrice. Des actes courageux sont nécessaires pour mettre fin à nos dépendances.
               

                  Depuis plusieurs années, nous tirons la sonnette d'alarme et les crises ont révélé nos vulnérabilités de manière spectaculaire. 80 % de notre production de principes actifs est aujourd'hui assurée en Asie. Résultat: pénurie de paracétamol, d'amoxicilline, d'antibiotiques et d'antidouleurs, même, pour soigner nos bébés ici en Europe. Aujourd'hui, 70 % des puces électroniques sont produites à Taïwan et aux États-Unis, 80 % de nos panneaux solaires en Chine. Résultat: notre développement technologique et notre transition écologique dépendent de la stabilité du reste du monde.
               

                  Cet état de fait, chers collègues, est sévère. Pourtant, mettre fin à nos dépendances stratégiques n'est pas notre seul chantier. Il nous faut aussi mieux intégrer le marché intérieur et enfin réaliser l'union des marchés de capitaux, en gestation depuis tant d'années. Chers collègues, les Européens disposent de 33 000 milliards d'euros d'épargne privée. Autant de richesses qui pourraient et qui doivent être mobilisées pour nos investissements stratégiques, avec des retours concrets pour les Européens et leur portefeuille: des perspectives, leurs emplois.
               

                  Madame la Présidente, nous ne pouvons pas laisser un fossé se creuser entre l'Union européenne et ses concurrents internationaux. Le sommet européen de la semaine dernière semble avoir amorcé un sursaut à cet égard et je m'en réjouis. Renew Europe avait déjà alerté depuis longtemps sur le besoin d'assurer notre compétitivité. Je me réjouis que le PPE s'empare enfin du problème, un an après s'être en réalité divisé sur la résolution du Parlement européen sur le sujet. Un an après avoir échoué à mettre en place un outil crucial pour notre compétitivité, le Fonds de souveraineté, pourtant promis par vous, Madame la Présidente.
               

                  Nous attendrons de la prochaine Commission, quelle que soit sa couleur politique, une approche volontariste pour s'assurer que l'Europe que nous laisserons en 2029 sera elle aussi un des géants de ce monde.
               

Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, this is a moment of truth. A moment of truth for the climate, a moment of truth for our economy, a moment of truth for our security. Because we all know that the Green Deal is about climate action and energy transition, but it is also about global competitiveness, making our industry green, creating future-proof jobs, and it is about the question whether electric cars will be produced in China, in the US or here in the European Union.
It is about our place in the world. It is about our independence. It is, indeed, about our security. And this security will only be strong if we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, not to run into dependencies from dictators again. Building Nord Stream 2 was a mistake from the beginning, trusting that Putin would not wage a bloody war against Ukraine and attack our democracies and way of life was a mistake.
We wasted important years for the expansion of renewables, which make Europe strong and free. We are right now facing the hottest days and months on record, which cost lives and which costs our economies. And still, the EPP refuses to do what is needed for our climate, for our economies and for the European Union not to be left behind and leave production, for example, of electric cars to China.
Colleagues, let us not make the same mistakes of the past again. We cannot lose time to make this continent climate neutral, especially while we are also facing times when democracy and freedom are under severe attack. And as it looks, also from within this House – after Russiagate, now there are new suspicions of espionage for China, also from assistants from this Parliament. And it has become absolutely clear, these people on the far right, they are not patriots, they are not serving the interests of the European citizens, but the interests of dictatorships and autocracies. This makes it even more important, colleagues, to build strong, pro-European, constructive majorities in the next European Parliament.
After the European election, we will set a path for the next five years. The beginning of the next legislature will be our moment of truth. Will we steer the European Union in the direction of climate neutrality, of defending democracy and freedom? Or will we follow the same old recipes that risk harming our European economies and global competitiveness? I think you know the answer that I would give to that. So let us fight constructively in this election campaign, but then let us build constructive, pro-European majorities after this election.

Dominik Tarczyński,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, good to have you here, for the last session of this Parliament. Let's talk about the numbers. Because we heard this beautiful vision of yours. But we didn't hear much about the numbers. You mentioned youth unemployment. Let's talk about the facts about the numbers: Spain, 28.4; Sweden, 21; Italy, 20.4; Greece, 17.4; France, 16.9. I'm not going to continue, I just want to let you know there is no such numbers in Poland. We left Poland in a great shape. But Mr Weber was obviously happy to say that he's going to continue with Donald Tusk. What kind of achievements? One of the highest unemployment rates in Poland during the Tusk term. This is what you want to continue?
Madam President, you're smiling, I'm happy you're happy, but let's talk about the facts. Export from China: over EUR 500 billion. Exports from European Union to China: EUR 230 billion. In the same time, Madam President, you are forcing European citizens with the Green Deal when Europe is responsible for 7 % of pollution of the globe, and you want to save Europe with our pockets.
This is madness. And this madness will be stopped after these elections. We're going to make Europe great again. We're going to change the numbers. And your laugh will not change the fact that you are going to lose these elections. You know that, and you know that, Madam President. You know why? Because there is no freedoms you mention. We can read in the conclusions that Europe must be safe for European citizens. It's your fault, Madam President, that it's not safe. Illegal migration, and your policy, Mr Weber, German policy, ‘Willkommen’, is the reason why Europe is not safe.
Let's talk about the report about safety in Germany: 6 million crimes raised, the highest rise in the history of Germany, and you want to continue that? This madness about illegal migration will be stopped after these elections, this madness about the Green Deal, Madam President, will be stopped about this madness. And your smiles and good humour will not change the fact that Conservatives will make Europe great again.

Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo giunti alla fine della legislatura e uno degli ultimi atti con cui la Commissione europea decide di salutare questi cinque anni è emblematico, a mio avviso, dell'approccio sbagliato con cui si sono affrontati i temi cruciali di questa legislatura.
               

                  Ed è sbagliato, a mio avviso, secondo due punti di vista: 1) nel metodo e 2) nel merito, appunto, di quanto è stato fatto, e mi riferisco ovviamente al dibattito che è scaturito e che sta scaturendo dai due mandati che Lei, Presidente Von der Leyen, ha dato ad Enrico Letta e Mario Draghi per tracciare il futuro di questa Unione europea.
               

                  Sbagliato nel metodo perché, ancora una volta, queste relazioni di cui siamo stati in compagnia per tanti anni – io ne ricordo moltissime durante i miei dieci anni qui – sono relazioni che, come Lei stessa ha detto, debbono tracciare la nostra via del futuro. E qui sta il primo errore nel metodo, perché ancora una volta si stressa uno dei problemi principali di questa Unione, cioè il primato della tecnocrazia sulla politica, sulla democrazia.
               

                  Noi non abbiamo bisogno di relazioni di tecnocrati, noi abbiamo bisogno che il futuro lo delineino politici eletti con un forte mandato popolare. Quindi mi auguro che nei prossimi cinque anni sia la politica a tracciare il futuro e non persone che non hanno un mandato elettorale.
               

                  Nel merito, ancora una volta, noi per anni abbiamo parlato di un problema di competitività, ma l'Europa non ha un problema di competitività. Noi siamo uno dei continenti più competitivi, nelle classifiche internazionali i nostri Stati membri sono considerati più competitivi degli Stati Uniti, di altri paesi.
               

                  Il problema dell'Europa non è la competitività, è la produttività. Noi il nostro gap con gli Stati Uniti ce l'abbiamo sulla produttività e la produttività non si raggiunge, non si aumenta con politiche come quelle del Green Deal, con regolamentazioni complesse, con la burocrazia, ma con l'innovazione, con la libertà, fare poco ma farlo bene. Solo così davvero riusciremo a focalizzarci su quello che è oggi il problema dell'Europa, che non ha un problema di competitività.
               

                  Mario Draghi nel suo discorso a La Hulpe ha detto una cosa molto interessante che rende l'idea di quello che è stato il problema. Mario Draghi ha detto che, purtroppo, parlando di competitività e lavorando sulla competitività negli ultimi anni, dal 2010 in poi, l'Europa ha commesso degli errori, degli errori nelle sue politiche, nella competitività, per cercare di abbassare i salari abbinati a politiche fiscali pro-cicliche. Queste sono parole di Mario Draghi e secondo lui questi errori hanno distrutto il nostro mercato interno, la domanda interna e il nostro modello sociale, che era tra i più avanzati al mondo.
               

                  Quello che io mi domando era: c'era bisogno di Mario Draghi 15 anni dopo, quando queste sono cose, errori che noi abbiamo detto sin dal principio che avrebbero distrutto l'Europa. Questo è il motivo per cui io credo sia necessario ribadire il primato della politica, perché è troppo facile dire cose ovvie dopo che i buoi sono scappati dal recinto, dopo che i disastri sono stati fatti.
               

                  Chiudo il mio intervento ricordando una cosa: in questo dibattito il tema del progresso dell'Europa è sempre identificato con un aumento della dimensione, con un aumento del centralismo verso Bruxelles. È esattamente quello che abbiamo fatto negli ultimi trent'anni con risultati non del tutto soddisfacenti, se siamo qui a parlarne. Quindi la dimensione non è sempre un fattore di successo.
               

                  L'Europa per sopravvivere deve imparare dai suoi errori e deve imparare a portare avanti due concetti che sono fondamentali: sussidiarietà e proporzionalità. Senza una legislazione che sta in questi binari, l'Europa non potrà sopravvivere dal pantano in cui si è ficcata.
               

Marina Mesure,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Madame Ursula von der Leyen, il est ironique de venir ici nous parler de compétitivité et d'une Europe forte, sans aucune autocritique sur les politiques néolibérales que vous avez portées et qui nous ont conduits là où nous en sommes. D'où peuvent bien venir les difficultés de nos industries face à la Chine, à l'Inde ou aux États-Unis? Peut-être du fait que vous imposez la concurrence et la destruction de nos pôles publics industriels, là où la Chine planifie le déploiement de ces secteurs stratégiques. Peut-être du fait que vous interdisez les aides d'État, là où les États-Unis mettent des centaines de milliards d'euros sur la table pour la transition écologique. Peut-être aussi du fait que vous multipliez les accords de libre-échange avec des États dont les salaires sont dix fois inférieurs aux nôtres, alors que la Chine et les États-Unis osent le protectionnisme.
               

                  Votre croyance dogmatique en la concurrence libre et non faussée ont eu raison hier de nos chantiers navals et de notre industrie textile. Aujourd'hui, ils ont raison de notre production de panneaux solaires et de notre production d'éoliennes. Demain, ils auront aussi raison de notre industrie automobile. Donc, ça suffit, la libéralisation des secteurs stratégiques, notamment du secteur énergétique, le fameux marché européen de l'énergie dont vous vous félicitez aujourd'hui, alors que c'est un véritable fiasco pour nos entreprises, les ménages, les artisans, les TPE et les PME, qui font faillite à cause des prix de l'énergie. Ne venez pas ici vous en féliciter, c'est une véritable honte.
               

                  Je vous propose à la place une solution éprouvée: la planification, le protectionnisme, l'intervention publique, les droits sociaux dans les secteurs stratégiques et, partout en Europe, la réindustrialisation verte. À ce prix, nous en avons besoin pour, toutes et tous, vivre dignement.
               

Jörg Meuthen (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissionspräsidentin – na, die geht gerade wieder mal –, verehrte Kollegen! Die EU wird offenbar wach. Auf dem Ratsgipfel war keine Rede mehr vom Green Deal. Stattdessen steht nun der Competitiveness Deal im Mittelpunkt. Man erkennt also endlich auch in Brüssel, in welches Desaster die von grünen Ideologen und Frau von der Leyen betriebene Deindustrialisierungspolitik des Green Deal führt.
               

                  Grund zur reiner Freude ist diese Kurskorrektur indessen nicht. Die Einsicht kommt nämlich zu spät. Europas Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist nicht erst jetzt plötzlich in Gefahr. Es ist das Ergebnis einer jahrelangen völlig falschen Wirtschaftspolitik des Aushebelns der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der EU. Die Volkswirtschaften in der EU verlieren international immer weiter den Anschluss. Millionen Menschen droht der langfristige Verlust ihres Lebensstandards.
               

                  Die Notbremse muss deshalb jetzt gezogen werden. Es muss Schluss sein mit Hybris und Hysterie. Wir brauchen nüchterne, pragmatische ökonomische Vernunft. Die bestünde in der Beschränkung auf das Setzen kluger Rahmenbedingungen für die Unternehmen und im Verzicht auf staatliches Steuern aller wirtschaftlichen Abläufe. Weniger Bürokratie, weniger Reglementierung, weniger Abgabenlast. Weniger ist mehr. Aber das kapiert hier scheinbar niemand mehr. So und nur so kann Europa langfristig wieder wettbewerbsfähig werden.
               

                  Den blumigen Märchenstunden von Frau von der Leyen glaubt niemand mehr, der die wahren Daten kennt.
               

Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, beste collega's, we staan hier vandaag om de conclusies van de Raad te bespreken. En ik moet bekennen dat ik hier met een dubbel gevoel sta. Ik lees conclusies van onze regeringsleiders over het versterken van onze concurrentiekracht. Dat klinkt heel mooi en herkenbaar, want daar pleiten we als EVP onder leiding van Manfred Weber al jaren voor. Maar er is genoeg reden om kritisch te zijn voor onze regeringsleiders:
               

                  De Raad concludeert dat we ruimschoots beschikbare en betaalbare energie willen hebben. Maar ondertussen zijn er landen in de Europese Unie die besluiten hun kerncentrales te sluiten in de grootste energiecrisis van de afgelopen decennia.
               

                  De Raad concludeert dat we strategische afhankelijkheden willen afbouwen, maar ondertussen zien we landen in de Europese Unie groeiende Chinese invloed in onze havens, in onze kritieke infrastructuur, toestaan.
               

                  De Raad concludeert dat we onze defensie-industrie willen versterken, maar levert ondertussen onvoldoende om de productie van bijvoorbeeld munitie daadwerkelijk naar het niveau van een oorlogseconomie te krijgen.
               

                  Dus laten we in plaats van al die prachtige teksten op te schrijven, er nu echt werk van maken. De Europese Unie is de op een na grootste economische macht ter wereld. Nu we stevig worden uitgedaagd door andere grote machtsblokken, moeten we onze positie versterken. En we kunnen dat, als we de handen ineenslaan, als we de keuze maken om samen sterk te staan in de grote onderwerpen en daar ook echt werk van te maken, van oplossingen leveren zoals we dat de afgelopen jaren in Europa ook in moeilijke tijden gedaan hebben. Samenwerken waar dat ons sterker maakt en elkaar de ruimte geven waar nodig.
               

Marek Belka (S&D). – Madam President, in this discussion, I would like to take up one issue: capital markets union, or more precisely, the lack of it. Our financial system in Europe is ideal for financing traditional industries with full collateral, with long business records. It's improper to finance start-ups, disruptive technologies – those champions of new technology.
As long as we drag our feet with developing, creating a real capital markets union, we'll have to be satisfied with a long list of commendable but ineffective actions on the part of the European Union that we heard from Ursula von der Leyen. I was impressed, but still we are losing on competitiveness against China and America. Why? Let's think about it.

Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signora Presidente, signor Vicepresidente della Commissione, onorevoli colleghi, ci apprestiamo a concludere una legislatura senza precedenti, segnata da eventi tristemente storici, ma anche da un profondo intervento legislativo sulla nostra economia.
               

                  Oggi però è arrivato il momento di delineare la strada che l'Unione europea dovrà seguire nella prossima legislatura. Strada che deve essere quella tracciata da Mario Draghi nei giorni scorsi, di un new deal per la competitività del nostro continente.
               

                  Serve una vera politica industriale che ci consenta di affrancarci dalle dipendenze; un mercato unico dell'energia che abbatta i costi per le imprese e le bollette per i cittadini; un'unione dei capitali che ci permetta di mettere a frutto i risparmi privati per generare investimenti nelle nostre aziende. E serve continuare sulla transizione verde e digitale, mettendo però al centro il supporto economico e il pragmatismo che in questi anni sono mancati.
               

                  Per fare tutto questo servirà coraggio e ambizione. Il coraggio di mettere da parte i veti nazionali e le piccole differenze da cortile e l'ambizione di tornare a contare in un mondo che corre sempre più veloce.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, esta es mi última sesión plenaria y, puesto que hablamos de prioridades de los próximos años para la Unión Europea, dejen que humildemente ponga deberes a los que van a continuar.
               

                  Defiendan Europa, una Europa más fuerte, más integrada, más cohesionada, con más competitividad y con más capacidad de decidir y preservar sus intereses legítimos de forma más autónoma. Defiendan una Europa que reconduzca la globalización y sus efectos menos positivos, con más compromiso con la justicia social y también más —no menos— compromiso con la sostenibilidad. Defiendan una Europa que en su acción exterior sea eficaz y coherente y priorice los derechos humanos y la lucha contra las indecentes desigualdades que hay en el mundo.
               

                  Y la última petición se la voy a expresar en catalán, una lengua que incomprensiblemente todavía no es oficial de la Unión. (El orador habla en una lengua no oficial).


Geert Bourgeois (ECR). – Voorzitter, vanaf dag één vroeg de N-VA van deze Commissie veel meer inzet op competitiviteit. Helaas, onze industriële activiteit zakt verder weg. Geen enkel Europees digitaal bedrijf staat in de top vijftien wereldwijd. Er is onvoldoende productiviteit. We zijn veel te sterk afhankelijk van China, mede door veel te weinig nieuwe handelsakkoorden. En de regeldruk is nog verstikkender geworden. De vergunningen voor investeringen laten ellenlang op zich wachten. De interne markt is nog altijd niet voltooid, waardoor we 12 % groei missen. En dit terwijl de versoepelingen van de staatssteunregels het gelijke speelveld onderuithalen.
               

                  Er is dus heel veel werk aan de winkel. Binnen honderd dagen na de start van de nieuwe Commissie moet er een alomvattend nieuw industrieel plan van aanpak komen en dit moet op een slimme manier gebeuren. Dit mag niet door de volgende generaties – mijn kinderen, mijn kleinkinderen – op te zadelen met nieuwe schulden. Dit mag niet met nieuwe EU-belastingen. Dit moet gebeuren door een verstandige shift in de begroting richting meer O&O, meer innovatie, meer inzet op veiligheid, meer inzet op de grensoverschrijdende infrastructuur. De EU moet vooral veel welvaart creëren en onze economie, onze mensen, onze vrijheden beschermen.
               

Enikő Győri (NI). – Elnök Asszony! A Bizottság elnöke egy alternatív valóságban él. Öt elvesztegetett év áll mögöttünk. Az Unió a válságkezelésben elbukott, gyenge és megosztott. Az Unió egy békeprojekt, a mostani Brüsszel pedig háborúpárti. Az orosz–ukrán háborúnak nincs katonai megoldása. Hiába egyértelmű, hogy ki az agresszor és ki az áldozat. Minél előbb lesz béke, annál több életet tudunk megmenteni, és ezért kellene mindent elkövetnünk.
               

                  Az EU-t azért hozták létre, hogy együtt erősebbek legyünk. Ehhez képest az Unió sosem volt még olyan megosztott, mint most. A Bizottság a háború, a migráció és a gender kérdésében a sorból kilógó országokat zsarolja a nekik járó források visszatartásával. Az ideológiai viták helyett ideje lenne, hogy végre az embereket valóban érintő problémákkal foglalkozzunk.
               

                  Európa veszít a versenyképességéből. Az erőltetett zöld ideológiával tönkretették az európai ipart és a mezőgazdaságot. A világkereskedelemben is egyre gyengébben teljesítünk. A migrációs paktum nem más, mint a már elutasított javaslatok átcsomagolása. A lényeg változatlan: Önök nem megállítani, hanem kezelni akarják a migrációt. Magyarország nem fogja beengedni az illegális migránsokat, a menekültkérelmeket a határokon kívül kell elbírálni. No War, no Migration, no Gender! Júniusban változásra van szükség Brüsszelben.
               

Andreas Schwab (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Diese Debatte zeigt: Weniger ist mehr. Es ist doch interessant, dass der Rat endlich auch zu dieser Einsicht gelangt ist und in seinen Schlussfolgerungen das Ende der industriepolitischen Naivität endlich einleuchtet. Wir brauchen in Europa eine Fokussierung auf mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Insofern begrüße ich ausdrücklich, was der Kollege Belka von den Sozialdemokraten gerade gesagt hat: Wir brauchen auch neue Ideen.
               

                  Ich bin überrascht, dass der bundesdeutsche Wirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck plötzlich vom risikobasierten Ansatz spricht. Es gibt Möglichkeiten, Europas Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu steigern, ohne die Ziele des Pariser Klimaabkommens in Gefahr zu bringen und ohne den Binnenmarkt in Schieflage bringen zu müssen. Aber klar ist – in den vergangenen Jahren ist es ja ein Stück weit auch exemplarisch, Herr Kommissar, dass wir jetzt, am Ende der Legislaturperiode, noch einmal über den Binnenmarkt diskutieren: Dem Binnenmarkt fehlt der Biss. Das hat Enrico Letta in seinem Bericht sehr deutlich aufgeschrieben.
               

                  Deswegen ist es unsere Aufgabe, in der kommenden Legislaturperiode nochmals deutlich darüber nachzudenken und dann auch zu handeln, wie wir das, was uns verbindet, stärken können über die Interessen einiger Mitgliedstaaten hinweg, weil wir gemeinsam stärker sind, weil wir die Resilienz Europas, vor allem der wirtschaftlichen Wohlstandsketten stärken können, wenn wir einheitliche Regeln setzen. Ich glaube, dass ein Europäisches Gesetzbuch für das Recht der Unternehmen, so wie Herr Letta vorschlägt, durchaus ein interessanter Weg sein kann, um zu Vereinfachung und zu Einheitlichkeit zu kommen.
               

                  Ich darf aber auch sagen, Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, dass mir nicht so ganz klar ist, wie die beihilferechtliche Konstruktion in Herrn Lettas Bericht aussehen soll, die er für diese Projekte gemeinsamen europäischen Interesses vorschlägt. Wir brauchen letztlich weniger Beihilfe – Frau von der Leyen hat darauf hingewiesen – und mehr Markt, mehr Innovation, mehr Eigeninitiative. Darauf wird es die kommenden fünf Jahre ankommen. Deswegen hoffe ich, dass wir das hinbekommen.
               

Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Madam President, in a changing geopolitical landscape, Europe must step up to compete with China and the US, we keep reminding ourselves of this. And we've been reminded by leaders like Draghi and Letta of the path forward: the necessity for increased investments at the European level, which implies a bigger budget and the fiscal capacity at the EU level – but these are needed to address the big challenges of our century, the ecological transition and the digital transformation. And these are elements we've started to work on, but we need to keep pushing on that.
But in this scenario, however, we must not forget that the foundation upon which we can build competitiveness is represented by peace. Europe has thrived in the context of peace and stability that has enabled our path of economic and social development. And today, unfortunately, this context is no longer a given. So to be competitive, Europe must equip itself, not only with tools strictly of an economic nature, but also to defend peace and geopolitical stability, which can be stronger defence as a deterrent but also stronger European diplomacy worldwide. Let's take our role in the geopolitical scenario.

Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, Uniunea Europeană, ca să facă față presiunii competitive a Chinei și a Statelor Unite, are nevoie de investiții în economie gândite la scară europeană. Ca să fim competitivi în afară, trebuie să învățăm să cooperăm în interior.
               

                  Am văzut cum securitatea energetică europeană, dar și repunerea pe agendă a subiectului extinderii Uniunii către Est, s-a făcut sub presiunea agresiunii Rusiei în Ucraina. Trebuie ca, acum, Uniunea să facă pasul curajos și mai departe și să facă investiții de anvergură în economie, în energie, la granița de est, în zona Mării Negre, în România, în Polonia, în Bulgaria, în țările baltice, atât productive, cât și de interconectare, care să racordeze la sistemul energetic european statele vecine cu aspirații de integrare în Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  Pentru a încuraja atașamentul la valorile europene în aceste zone, este necesar să integrăm și să gândim integrarea încă de pe acum a Moldovei, a Ucrainei, a zonelor din Balcanii de Vest, la dezvoltarea economică europeană și să investim și pentru interconectarea în zona Mării Caspice. Doar în felul acesta putem gândi o competitivitate europeană regională de durată pe termen lung.
               

Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, Europa is hard op weg een tweederangseconomie te worden. Onze schulden lopen op, onze regel- en belastingdruk is een nachtmerrie. In de dagen van de vrije markt, met Europa als industriële topspeler, gaf de politiek burgers en bedrijven de vrijheid: de vrijheid om te ondernemen, handel te drijven en, jawel, geld te verdienen. Tegenwoordig neemt de Brusselse politiek die vrijheid af.
               

                  De Europese Commissie bestaat uit 27 Eurocommissarissen en daaronder 50 verschillende departementen met 32 000 ambtenaren. En wat doen die de hele dag? Zij karnen de ene verstikkende verordening en groene richtlijn na de andere. Onze industriële topbedrijven worden het continent afgejaagd om plaats te maken voor een ‘groene’ industriepolitiek, uitgetekend op de Brusselse poldertafel. Het gevolg? Ons concurrentievermogen holt achteruit en onze invloed op het wereldtoneel neemt af.
               

                  Meer vrijhandel en deregulering – bij gebrek aan een beter woord – zijn goed. Goed voor onze welvaart, goed voor onze banen, verkrijgbare producten en toegang tot grondstoffen. Laat die vrijheid na 6 juni terugkeren.
               

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, the importance of this topic is growing every day. I'm glad that, symbolically, we are discussing the topic at the last Plenary. Recognising the issue is not enough; we must start to solve it, and very quickly. Let me make four suggestions, before the report of Mario Draghi will probably be more detailed and more descriptive.
The first: make the single market better, work better. Enrico Letta made some suggestions. It's obvious that we should proceed in the energy market, make sure that cheap energy is available across the Union. Services, particularly communication. And obviously the financial capital markets union is a project that is not delivering so far enough.
We need much less red tape. Wherever possible, we should make it more simple by transforming directives into deregulation. We should make requirements more simplified. We should digitalise. But first and most importantly, we must finally deliver. Companies must feel that we care and we are progressing.
The third: better support for the green transition. We delivered a good, clear, transparent environment, but we need to use the state support to make it happen quickly and more effectively. Support on the level of the EU is much better than 27 different policies of the Member States.
Last but not least, foreign economic policy. First, we must make sure that we support free trade. At the same time, we must protect our companies against free trade.
I believe we can deliver. It's demanding, but we manage even more difficult troubles, so I hope we will be progressing very clearly.

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, liderii europeni negociază în această perioadă agenda strategică pentru următorii cinci ani. Este timpul ca ei să înțeleagă că pentru un viitor mai bun al Uniunii Europene, trebuie să iasă din cancelarii și să discute cu oamenii. Europenii își doresc ca Europa să-i protejeze, dar vor să fie și consultați de liderii europeni când se iau decizii.
               

                  Ne dorim ca Europa să prospere și să trăim în pace, iar acest lucru necesită o economie puternică și antreprenori susținuți, investiții în dezvoltarea locală, în educație și sănătate, creșterea producției locale și sprijin pentru fermieri, dar și mecanisme clare și simple, respectate de toți, astfel încât nimeni să nu rămână în urmă.
               

                  Avem nevoie, în consecință, de un buget european care are resurse suficiente pentru toate aceste provocări și soluții pentru combaterea sărăciei și reducerea inegalităților. Pentru românii pe care îi reprezint, este crucial ca în această agendă a liderilor europeni să fie prevăzută aderarea completă a României la spațiul Schengen. Dacă vrem o Europă puternică, avem nevoie să reunim în spațiul Schengen toată Uniunea, iar aderarea pe cale terestră a României ar aduce un bust economic și de competitivitate util tuturor statelor membre.
               

Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, compétitivité, souveraineté et durabilité: ces piliers sont non seulement compatibles, mais également essentiels pour notre avenir. En tant qu'Européens, nous devons poursuivre cet objectif, afin de renforcer notre capacité à agir par et pour nous-mêmes. L'Europe s'est bâtie sur la force de son marché intérieur. C'est notre atout et lorsque nous faisons le choix de l'unité, rien ne nous arrête.
               

                  Dans un monde en mutation où les menaces sont nombreuses, où les défis sont multiples et où la compétition a cédé la place à la confrontation, l'Europe ne peut plus se contenter de mesures tièdes, paralysée par des autocrates qui sont les meilleurs alliés de ceux qui cherchent à nous nuire. Pour garantir notre sécurité, pour créer nos emplois de demain et pour remporter la bataille du climat, nous devons faire le choix d'un choc de compétitivité. Choisir l'innovation et investir dans l'avenir, c'est avoir confiance en notre capacité à devenir producteurs et protecteurs.
               

                  Il est temps de renouer avec l'audace des pionniers qui ont posé les bases de notre marché intérieur, de l'euro et de notre développement. Accélérer, simplifier et libérer: nous en sommes capables. Nous pouvons faire tous ces choix pour améliorer notre compétitivité et garantir notre souveraineté.
               

Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissaari, kaksi teemaa, joihin Euroopan unionin on tulevat vuodet keskityttävä: kokonaisturvallisuuden vahvistaminen ja talouden kilpailukyvyn parantaminen.
               

                  Viimeiset 15 vuotta Euroopan unioni on jäänyt Yhdysvaltain kasvusta. Meidän on luotava sellaista Eurooppaa, joka kannustaa innovoimaan ja investoimaan Euroopassa.
               

                  On erinomaista, että jäsenvaltiot nyt nostivat kilpailukyvyn hyvin vahvasti tulevien vuosien agendalle. Meidän on tehtävä neljä asiaa, jotta voimme tässä menestyä. Ensinnäkin jäsenvaltioiden on lakattava kilpailemasta valtion tuilla keskenään. Toiseksi meidän on luotava sellaista säätelyä, joka kannustaa investoimaan ja innovoimaan Euroopassa. Meillä on aivan liikaa byrokratiaa, hallinnollista taakkaa, joka estää investointeja ja innovaatioita. Meidän on vauhditettava lupaprosesseja niin, että meidän uudet ideat pääsevät markkinoille siten, että investoinnit saadaan käyntiin. Meidän on myös varmistettava se, että Euroopassa on osaavaa työvoimaa yrityksille tulevaisuudessa. Samoin meidän on satsattava entistä enemmän tutkimukseen ja tuotekehitykseen.
               

                  Vain siten teollisuus pysyy täällä kilpailukykyisenä ja voimme vastata isoihin globaaleihin haasteisiin.
               

Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Madam President, there are still right-wing conservatives who are still focussed on this old-fashioned narrative of the trickle-down economy at the cost of people, which has been debunked already for years.
But luckily, I have to say there is a new wind blowing in Europe and last week was the proof of it. In La Hulpe we signed the declaration that sets the social agenda for the upcoming years, calling to promote collective bargaining in public procurement. A few days later, Enrico Letta presented his report to the European Council, where he argues that the internal market cannot flourish without the essential social values integrated in it. Competitiveness is not just about the lowest prices, it is also about upholding social values and high quality jobs.
In order to break this downward spiral of the market at the cost of people, we need to revise our public procurement directives so the money works for the interests of the citizens.

Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir brauchen die Wirtschaftswende auch in Europa. Denn nur mit einer starken Wirtschaft können wir uns unsere Ziele auch leisten. Dafür müssen wir in Europa Bürokratie abbauen. Da hat Frau von der Leyen in den letzten Jahren, da haben Sie eher etwas aufgebaut. Wir brauchen einen stärkeren europäischen Kapitalmarkt, damit wir auch privates Kapital mobilisieren können. Und wir brauchen mehr Freude am Erfinden als am Verbieten in Europa.
               

                  Jetzt wollten Sie, Frau von der Leyen, etwas für den Mittelstand in Europa tun. Einen Beauftragten haben Sie gesucht für über 18 000 Euro im Monat. Den am schlechtesten qualifizierten CDU-Freund haben Sie dann in diesen Job gebracht. Jetzt musste Herr Pieper zurücktreten oder hat den Job nicht angenommen. Sie haben damit dem Mittelstand in Europa einen Bärendienst erwiesen und die Glaubwürdigkeit der Kommission untergraben.
               

                  So wird Europa nicht fit für die Wirtschaft, Frau von der Leyen.
               

Markus Ferber (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Das Thema Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist endlich dort angekommen, wo es auch hingehört, nämlich ganz oben auf die Agenda der Staats- und Regierungschefs. Die Europäische Union hatte sich in der Lissabon-Strategie einmal selbst das Ziel gegeben, zum – und ich zitiere: ‘wettbewerbsfähigsten und dynamischsten wissensbasierten Wirtschaftsraum der Welt zu werden’. Davon sind wir weit entfernt.
               

                  Eine Säule einer Strategie für mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit muss natürlich auch das Thema Finanzierung sein. Jeder weiß, unser Finanzierungsmodell hat Schlagseite zur Bankenfinanzierung; auf der Kapitalmarktseite geht fast gar nichts. Und alle Börsengänge, auch von Firmen aus der Europäischen Union, finden heute in New York und nicht mehr in Paris, in Amsterdam oder in Frankfurt statt.
               

                  Die europäische Antwort auf dieses Problem hat die Kommission vor zehn Jahren schon vorgestellt, nämlich die Kapitalmarktunion. Seitdem haben wir aber nur kleine Fortschritte erreicht. Was wir jetzt dringend brauchen, sind nicht Gipfelerklärungen, sondern Mitgliedstaaten, die auch bereit sind, zu handeln, die bereit sind, Kompetenzen im Steuerrecht, im Insolvenzrecht abzugeben zu einer gemeinsamen europäischen Lösung, damit wir für die Zukunft wettbewerbsfähig werden.
               

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Nachhaltigkeit, soziale Gerechtigkeit – das ist die Erfolgsformel für eine erfolgreiche Transformation unserer Gesellschaft. Darum müssen wir die Europäische Union fit machen für die nahenden Herausforderungen einer globalisierten und polarisierten Welt. Ein unvollendeter Binnenmarkt, eine unkoordinierte Industriepolitik und immer größere Abhängigkeiten bei kritischen Infrastrukturen und Technologien bedrohen unsere Wirtschaft, aber am Ende auch Handlungsfähigkeit und unsere Gesellschaft.
               

                  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Nachhaltigkeit, soziale Gerechtigkeit: Sie müssen immer zusammen gedacht werden, sie dürfen nicht gegeneinander ausgespielt werden. Denn in einer Welt, die den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel verliert, ist Wirtschaftswachstum wertlos. Eine Transformation, die keine guten Arbeitsplätze schafft, die Menschen nicht mitnimmt und ihnen keine guten Lebensbedingungen garantiert, gefährdet unsere demokratische Gesellschaft. Deshalb besorgt es mich zutiefst, dass der Europäische Rat die Ziele des Green Deals auf Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Energieunabhängigkeit reduziert hat.
               

                  Wir Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten treten bei dieser Wahl an, um in den nächsten fünf Jahren diese Mammutaufgabe zu bewältigen und den Dreiklang aus Klimaschutz, Wirtschaftswachstum und sozialer Gerechtigkeit für ein Europa der Zukunft sicherzustellen.
               

Christian Ehler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Was ist Wettbewerbsfähigkeit? Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist der Ausdruck und auch die Notwendigkeit in Europa, in den europäischen Demokratien Freiheit, Sicherheit, soziale Stabilität, eine Umwelt, die wir einer nächsten Generation übergeben wollen, sicherzustellen. Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist nicht das Gegensatzpaar zwischen Ökologie, sozialen Themen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen, sondern die Grundlage unserer Gesellschaften. Wenn wir politisch unabhängig bleiben wollen, wenn wir unser Schicksal selber in die Hand nehmen wollen, wenn wir den Wettbewerb in unseren Gesellschaften, was Ziele wie Umwelt, wie Sozialverträglichkeit, wie aber auch Jobs betrifft, in irgendeiner Weise sicherstellen wollen, dann brauchen wir Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.
               

                  Insofern hat es keinen Sinn, jetzt Gegensatzpaare aufzustellen. Wir sind in einer transformativen Situation in unseren Volkswirtschaften. Es ist notwendig. Die alte Carbon-Ökonomie wird nicht die Ökonomie der Zukunft sein. Aber wir müssen sicherstellen, dass wir nicht durch Überregulierung, sondern durch die Wirtschaftskräfte, durch den europäischen Binnenmarkt, durch die Freiheit wirtschaftlichen Handelns unsere gemeinsamen Ziele erreichen. Insofern hat es keinen Sinn, hier Gegensatzpaare aufzubauen. Das wird nur der extremen Rechten und der extremen Linken nutzen.
               

Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, la legislatura 2019—2024 toca a su fin y recapitulamos.
               

                  La crisis de la COVID-19 y la guerra de Ucrania han generado un nuevo despertar en la Unión Europea y la necesidad de dotarla de nuevos instrumentos que tengan un horizonte de futuro, como lo tuvo el Tratado CECA hace más de veinte años. Es urgente zarandear nuestro proyecto común de tal manera que no nos quedemos detrás de otros países del mundo, algunos de ellos cuasi continentes como China o Estados Unidos.
               

                  En mi opinión, la tríada competitividad, industria y mercado interior es esencial. Para esos tres grandes objetivos hay tres grandes tractores: innovación, suficiencia energética y digitalización. Es necesario —como ha señalado Mario Draghi— hacer un acuerdo industrial en Europa.
               

                  La industria europea se está debilitando y tiene que desarrollar tonicidad que le permita ser realmente competitiva. Sin olvidar que hace falta simplificación, evitar sobrerregulación y, desde luego, acabar con la fragmentación en el mercado interior, el complejo vitamínico que necesita la Unión Europea es fuerte y su fórmula magistral es triple: como he señalado, innovación, energía y digitalización.
               

Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Fru formand! Kommissionens årsrapport for EU's konkurrencedygtighed fra februar 2024 kommer ind på mange relevante faktorer og udfordringer. Derfor nævnes energi 43 gange, kritiske råstoffer 16 gange, semikonduktorer 2 gange og hydrogen også 2 gange. Men vand nævnes overhovedet ikke. Til trods for, at flere steder i EU mærker vi smerteligt, hvordan oversvømmelser eller tørke slår benene væk under borgere, bønder og virksomheder. Vand er i hver eneste industri i EU, men i Kommissionens måde at se konkurrencedygtighed på, slet ikke. Den intellektuelle vandstand i Kommissionen kan da ikke være så lav, at den ikke forholder sig til, at i 2050 vil knap 20 % af Europas indbyggere være negativt berørte af vandmangel. En vandmangel, der, hvis vi IKKE gør noget, vil splitte os ad i slåskampe og krige om, hvem der skal tage regningen, og hvem der skal have det vand, der er, først og foran alle andre, hvis ikke vi gør noget. Heldigvis foreslår Lettas rapport om konkurrencedygtighed, at vi, som vi netop har fået på bordet, får en New European Water Framework. Ja tak. Mange her i huset har længe og sammen med det europæiske civilsamfund råbt for en ‘EU Blue Deal’. Præcis det samme som nu Letta gør. Step nu op! Kommission. Kast jer ud på det dybe vand sammen med os andre. Ellers dør EU's konkurrencedygtighed af tørke.
               

Jörgen Warborn (PPE). – Fru talman! Äntligen debatterar vi konkurrenskraft. Det borde vi ha gjort för väldigt länge sedan, och det måste vi göra allt oftare. För faktum är att Europa halkar efter; vi halkar tillväxtmässigt efter nästan alla andra länder i världen. Och långsiktigt betyder det att vårt välstånd sjunker.
               

                  Vi måste vända den här utvecklingen så att Europa blir både rikare och tryggare. Och vägen går alltid genom småföretagen. Det är genom småföretagen, när de anställer och det skapas jobb och skatteintäkter, som vår kaka ökar.
               

                  Det finns många saker vi måste göra för att lösa denna utmanande situation för Europa. Jag vill lyfta en fråga i dag, och det är att vi måste minska byråkratin och regelkrånglet. Det är kanske den viktigaste saken för europeiska småföretagare. Från Moderaterna föreslår vi ett ambitiöst mål med att sänka regelbördan med 30 procent för företagen.
               

                  Vi behöver mer frihandel, vi behöver mindre byråkrati och vi behöver fler europeiska företagare.
               

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                     


Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, avem nevoie de un acord industrial european care să ne facă competitivi și care să fie cel puțin la fel de important ca și Pactul verde european. Industria europeană se luptă cu urmările pandemiei, cu prețurile mari la energie, cu probleme de finanțare, de resursă umană calificată, dependență de materii critice.
               

                  Avem nevoie de întărirea pieței interne, de unirea capitalului, mai mult accent pe inovație, investiții și productivitate, conducând la creștere economică durabilă și crearea de locuri de muncă. Putem fi inspirați de unele măsuri luate de partenerul nostru strategic, Statele Unite ale Americii. Putem întări parteneriatul economic și crea și mai multe sinergii.
               

                  Cea mai mare provocare este finanțarea acestei transformări a industriei europene. Trebuie urgent găsite soluțiile cele mai potrivite pentru a susține financiar renașterea economiei europene.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, analizăm la final de mandat competitivitatea, declarația Comisiei și a Consiliului. Iată că doamna președintă a Comisiei înregistrează o performanță, pentru că în cinci ani n-a reușit să stea la nicio plenară să asculte până la capăt punctul de vedere al europarlamentarilor.
               

                  Despre ce performanță să vorbim, doamnă președintă? Ați dat dovadă de cea mai mare lipsă de transparență! Sunteți singurul președinte de Comisie care aveți aviz negativ de la toate instituțiile: de la Parlamentul European, de la Ombudsman, de la Curtea de Conturi, pe descărcarea de gestiune. Cum puteți să vorbiți de competitivitate ? Cum puteți să vorbiți despre o politică corectă? Ați pronunțat acest lucru de mai multe ori.
               

                  Ce politică corectă este că lăsați o piață dezbinată? N-ați reușit în mandatul de cinci ani să faceți piața unică. N-ați reușit să pledați și să argumentați Austriei ca România și Bulgaria să intre în Schengen. Nu ați făcut nimic pe acest mandat! Cred că onorant ar fi să vă retrageți candidatura, pentru că și așa pe prima ați câștigat-o doar cu patru voturi.
               

Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, gracias a la Comisión por su presencia. Lamentablemente, el Consejo Europeo no está presente aunque estamos debatiendo su agenda estratégica y las conclusiones de las últimas reuniones del Consejo.
               

                  Me imagino que habrá alguien tomando nota en su nombre y, por tanto, aprovecho la ocasión para recordar al Consejo Europeo que sigue sin incluir en su orden del día la propuesta de reforma de los Tratados que ha lanzado el Parlamento Europeo en aplicación del artículo 48 —que es el artículo ordinario—. Todo pese a haber celebrado ya tres reuniones desde que la Presidencia española del Consejo de la Unión —a la cual agradezco su labor— le transmitiera en diciembre dicha propuesta de reforma.
               

                  Bien, es verdad que no hay un plazo en el artículo 48, pero el Consejo Europeo no puede pretender posponer esta cuestión sine die ad calendas graecas pensando que, simplemente por el mero hecho de no tomar posición, el procedimiento de reforma se paraliza. De lo contrario, nos vamos a ver en la tesitura de tener que plantear otras medidas que van más allá de la esfera estrictamente política.
               

                  Y a la Comisión Europea, le recuerdo que en el marco del artículo 48 hay también una consulta sobre la propuesta del Parlamento y que tendrá que posicionarse. Y deberá hacerlo en positivo, no como han hecho con su última Comunicación porque, de lo contrario, creo que esta Cámara no debería otorgar su confianza a la próxima Comisión Europea.
               

Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, ne uităm cu admirație la America, ne uităm cu îngrijorare la China și vorbim despre competitivitatea Uniunii Europene și vrem să fim mai competitivi, bineînțeles. Dar ce livrăm? Livrăm discursuri, aici, foarte frumos, vorbe foarte drăguțe. Dar gândiți-vă cum ar fi dacă America ar avea granițe interne. Cum ar fi dacă în America un camion care pleacă de la New York și vrea să ajungă la Los Angeles trebuie să treacă prin trei granițe? Cam cât de competitivă este treaba asta? Asta se întâmplă azi în Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  Cum ar fi dacă în America ar exista cetățeni de categorii diverse, cetățeni de categoria 1, cetățeni de categoria a doua, adică unii care stau la cozi, sunt verificați, care sunt ținuți la ghișeu, și să aștepte, și să stea, ca să ajungă dintr-o parte în cealaltă, și unii care nu sunt verificați și care trec mai departe fără niciun fel de probleme. Asta este realitatea!
               

                  Domnule comisar, mă adresez dumneavoastră pentru că doamna von der Leyen a plecat, nu mai este în sală. Cum facem? Livrăm discursuri frumoase? În discurs ați spus tot timpul că România și Bulgaria au intrat în Schengen. În realitate, nu au intrat. Cum vreți ca cetățenii noștri să respecte toate regulile, dacă dumneavoastră nu le respectați și dacă nu îi respectați pe ei?
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, mais quel mépris! Franchement, ce matin, la présidente de la Commission européenne, madame von der Leyen, a dû être là pendant une heure, une heure et demie. C'est la dernière séance du Parlement européen, elle doit présenter son bilan pendant une heure et elle se barre au milieu. Déjà, le Conseil n'est pas là, Charles Michel n'en a rien à faire, et en plus, madame von der Leyen nous méprise comme cela. N'importe quoi!
               

                  Pourtant, quelqu'un qui est accusé – parce que j'ai croisé pas mal de gens ces derniers temps – donc on accuse madame von der Leyen de conflit d'intérêt par rapport à l'achat des vaccins qu'on aurait achetés trop cher, même de népotisme – elle est accusée pour la nomination d'un haut fonctionnaire – mais elle se barre.
               

                  Ce que les gens détestent le plus dans cette Union européenne, dans cette Commission européenne, c'est ce mépris-là: ce Pacte vert qu'on impose, mais qu'on fait payer aux travailleurs; ces multinationales qui reçoivent des aides tandis que les salaires ne suffisent pas. Ce mépris pour les travailleurs, c'est ce qui fait qu'aujourd'hui, les gens demandent une rupture. Et cette rupture-là, on va vous l'imposer le 9 juin.
               

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Maroš Šefčovič,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I very much would like to express my gratitude for this debate, which in a great sense reflected upon the lessons of the five years and strategic agenda for the future. And from many of your interventions, it's very clear that we all remember very vividly our debates on all difficult moments, which at those times seemed that they would present unsurmountable challenges, for Europe and the European Union.
But I have to say that thanks to our common actions, energetic steps, innovative measures and, I would underline, interinstitutional and European unity and solidarity, we have proven wrong all those who hoped that those unprecedented crises would bring turmoil into Europe and into the European Union.
We have proven that the European Union is indispensable in this new, rough world. And our economy has clearly proven to be more resilient than many thought. And thanks to SURE and Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni, who just joined us, we have saved millions of jobs and businesses across all EU Member States.
Having said all this, I fully agree with all the honourable Members calling for more clear European focus on competitiveness and on tackling bureaucracy. We have just completed a series of clean transition dialogues with industry, and we are actively communicating with our citizens and NGOs on all aspects of the Green Deal.
I can tell you that the main takeaways are quite obvious: our citizens, but also our industry, want to live in a cleaner environment, healthier nature, and want to have a more competitive economy. I would also underline that there is a clear link between our strong performance in clean and green tech and our overall competitiveness. We are competing with other major economies in sectors and in areas like who would manufacture more performing batteries, who will make better electric vehicles, better heat pumps, who will be more efficient in constructing hydrolysers, and who will be capable to scale up production much faster than the other competitor in the commodities like green steel or green hydrogen.
So, therefore, we have to continue to work very hard in those sectors and, of course, to fight for competitiveness and our industry in our European way. This means with full respect for high European social values, with social fairness to underpin the unique social model built over the generations in Europe. We have to lower prices of energy. We have to fight very hard for the global level playing field in a more assertive way. And also we have to make sure that those companies who produce in a sustainable way, with a low carbon footprint and treat their employees decently should be rewarded for their work and not punished by usually ending up on the second or third place in the public procurement.
So we would need to adjust that approach as well. If you look at public procurement across the European Union, we spend through public procurement around EUR 2 trillion per year. It's 14 % of our GDP, and this is a massive fiscal instrument, which we have to learn how to use better in the future, because what we need is more investment into our economy and less bureaucracy.
A lot of you addressed the issue of the Capital Markets Union, and I think it's very obvious that this should be a clear priority for the next Commission and for the next European Parliament. We cannot afford to have EUR 33 trillion in our savings accounts, with a better prospect to be invested elsewhere than in the European Union. We just have to make it more attractive, more conducive, to make sure that these huge fiscal reserves we have on savings accounts in our banks would be invested here in the European Union.
We also hear you loud and clear on the need to simplify, streamline and use modern technologies when it comes to oversight, when it comes to reporting. Very soon we will present to you and to the European public detail report on reduction of annual administrative burden and also on the reduction of reporting obligations. But I know that this will not be enough, and that we simply also in this area will have to go much further. And I'm a strong believer that with a new technology, let's say, with the satellite imagery, use of the artificial intelligence and the digitalisation of our administrative processes, we can achieve much more than until today.
Honourable Members, Madam President, this legislature comes to a close, and I really would like to use this opportunity to thank all of you for excellent cooperation and to call for support again in the future for more European unity, more European solidarity, because, let's be honest, also, next mandate will be challenging. And I think that it would be at least as difficult as this one and therefore we need the European spirit, we need cooperation, and we need this interinstitutional and European solidarity to navigate us through the times which will be ahead of us.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
               
3.   Effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance – Speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure – amending Regulation – Requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States – amending Directive (joint debate – Economic governance)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta:
               






—



                        la relazione di Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques, a nome della commissione per i problemi economici e monetari, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo al coordinamento efficace delle politiche economiche e alla sorveglianza di bilancio multilaterale e che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 1466/97 del Consiglio (COM(2023)0240 - C9-0150/2023 - 2023/0138(COD)) (A9-0439/2023),
                     










—



                        la relazione di Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques, a nome della commissione per i problemi economici e monetari, sulla proposta di regolamento del Consiglio recante modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 1467/97 per l'accelerazione e il chiarimento delle modalità di attuazione della procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi (COM(2023)0241 - C9-0172/2023 - 2023/0137(CNS)) (A9-0444/2023), e
                     










—



                        la relazione di Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques, a nome della commissione per i problemi economici e monetari, sulla proposta di direttiva del Consiglio recante modifica della direttiva 2011/85/UE del Consiglio relativa ai requisiti per i quadri di bilancio degli Stati membri (COM(2023)0242 - C9-0171/2023 - 2023/0136(NLE)) (A9-0440/2023).
                     





Markus Ferber,
Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Herren Kommissare, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Eine gemeinsame Währung zu haben, bedeutet zwangsläufig, dass alle, die in dieser Währungsunion zusammenarbeiten, gemeinsam Verantwortung für die Stabilität dieser Währung übernehmen müssen. Dazu gehört natürlich zuvorderst eine verantwortungsvolle Haushaltspolitik, und genau das ist die Idee hinter dem Stabilitäts— und Wachstumspakt. Wenn wir zu den bisherigen Regeln Bilanz ziehen, dann müssen wir aber feststellen, dass dieses Regelwerk nicht besonders gut funktioniert hat. Viele Mitgliedstaaten haben selbst in wirtschaftlich guten Zeiten die Defizitgrenzen nicht eingehalten, und die Staatsverschuldung ist immer weiter angestiegen – bereits vor der Pandemie, bereits vor dem furchtbaren Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine.
               

                  Wir haben beim Stabilitäts— und Wachstumspakt doch drei Probleme gehabt: Haushaltskonsolidierung wurde immer auf die lange Bank geschoben. Die Kommission hat viel zu viel Flexibilität gewährt, und die Kommission hat auch nicht dafür gesorgt, dass die Regeln durchgesetzt werden, denn es wurde noch nie von den Sanktionsmöglichkeiten Gebrauch gemacht. Diese Probleme haben die Glaubwürdigkeit des Stabilitäts— und Wachstumspakts untergraben. Hinzu kam natürlich auch ein technisches Problem, dass diese Regeln sehr mechanisch waren und auch prozyklische Effekte gehabt haben.
               

                  Mit diesem neuen Regelwerk, das heute zur Abstimmung ansteht, versuchen wir, diese Probleme anzugehen. Die Schuldenregeln werden nicht mehr Jahr für Jahr analysiert. Stattdessen ist der relevante Betrachtungszeitraum vier bis fünf Jahre lang, je nach Wahlzyklus in den Mitgliedstaaten. Das lässt auch genügend Spielräume, um auf wirtschaftliche Schocks reagieren zu können und nicht in eine Krise hineinsparen zu müssen. Dadurch, dass wir uns nun auf eine wesentliche Kenngröße konzentrieren, nämlich das Nettoausgabenwachstum, wird das Regelwerk nachvollziehbarer und transparenter. Vor allem ist das Nettoausgabenwachstum auch eine Größe, die von den politischen Entscheidungsträgern wirklich auch während eines Haushaltsjahres beeinflusst werden kann. Das ist ein ganz großer Unterschied zu der Ex-Post-Betrachtung, die wir bisher hatten.
               

                  Ich möchte aber die Gelegenheit auch einmal nutzen, mit zwei Mythen aufzuräumen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Stabilitäts— und Wachstumspakt immer zu hören sind. Erstens ist das der Vorwurf, dass das neue Regelwerk eine neue Ära der Austerität einleiten würde. Entschuldigung, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, dieser Vorwurf ist Unsinn. Denn es ist doch klar: Austerität greift dann, wenn man seinen Haushalt nicht im Griff hat. Die Regeln sollen dafür sorgen, dass man den Haushalt im Griff hat. Deswegen wird hier Ursache und Wirkung miteinander durcheinandergebracht. Das ist nicht das Problem.
               

                  Zweitens heißt es immer wieder, es wäre jetzt der falsche Zeitpunkt für eine verantwortungsvolle Haushaltspolitik, weil die Herausforderungen Klimawandel, Digitalisierung so groß seien, dass die Staaten investieren können müssen. Ja, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, wer Nachhaltigkeit in der Umweltpolitik haben will, der kann nicht auf Nachhaltigkeit in der Finanzpolitik verzichten! Ausgaben, die über viele Jahre, eine Generation, zu leisten sind wie andere Staatsaufgaben auch, müssen in den Ausgaben mit eingerechnet werden und können nicht die Begründung sein, dass man sich hier auf Instabilität begibt. Wer die Fiskalregeln dauerhaft nicht erfüllt, wird auch nicht die Ressourcen haben, in Klimaschutz und Digitalisierung zu investieren.
               

                  Deswegen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, geht es doch darum, dass wir mit stabilen Staatsfinanzen einen Beitrag leisten können, dass wir als Europäische Union wieder Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gewinnen, dass unsere Unternehmen die Investitionen leisten können, die notwendig sind, um unsere Ziele zu erreichen.
               

                  Ich möchte mich wirklich bei allen bedanken, die hier mitgewirkt haben. Ich will hier insbesondere Esther de Lange erwähnen, die das für uns in der Fraktion bei den Schattenberichterstattern entscheidend mitgestaltet hat. Ich will wirklich dafür werben, heute mit großer Mehrheit diesem Regelwerk zuzustimmen – für eine gute, für eine stabile Zukunft in Europa.
               

Margarida Marques,
relatora. – Senhora Presidente, Senhores Comissários, a reforma das regras de governação económica da União Europeia era uma das principais prioridades deste mandato. Podemos dizer aqui, hoje, que cumprimos. Cumpriu a Comissão Europeia, cumpriu o Conselho, cumpriu o Parlamento. O papel do Parlamento Europeu foi decisivo. Muitos acreditaram que fazer uma nova reforma das atuais regras orçamentais da União Europeia seria impossível. Outros fizeram tudo para bloquear qualquer avanço nas atuais regras que sempre criticaram.
               

                  Reformar as regras orçamentais era uma urgência e foi um ato de coragem. Coragem do Comissário Gentiloni, que colocou na mesa a primeira proposta e a quem agradeço toda a colaboração que teve com este Parlamento. Agradeço ao Comissário e à sua equipa. Coragem do Conselho que teve de conseguir um compromisso entre todos os Estados-Membros. Sei que para alguns ministros das Finanças foi difícil dar o seu acordo.
               

                  Coragem do Parlamento e de alguns partidos em assumir que a responsabilidade de proteger os cidadãos e de melhorar a União Económica e Monetária é mais importante do que o discurso político do momento.
               

                  Todos nós, sem exceção, tivemos de fazer concessões, muitas delas difíceis. Se este é o acordo, a reforma que gostaria de ter ou sonhei? Não, não é. Também queríamos mais ambição, flexibilidade, mais margem para investimentos, menos safeguards e simplicidade. Mas para uma reforma ser eficaz, é preciso que todos a aceitem e a vejam como sua para que seja credível, para os cidadãos, para os governos, para os mercados financeiros.
               

                  É um facto que as novas regras que votamos hoje são muito melhores do que as anteriores. As regras que hoje votamos são mais flexíveis, transparentes, democráticas, progressistas e, pela primeira vez, têm uma forte dimensão social. As regras que hoje votamos alteram a estrutura da governação económica, no sentido que o Parlamento Europeu pediu: análise caso a caso; abordagem multianual; foco na despesa e na prioridade do investimento.
               

                  Os socialistas introduziram reformas históricas como a exclusão do cofinanciamento da regra da despesa. Isto irá abrir espaço orçamental para investimento em muitos Estados-Membros. Representará, em média, 1 % do produto interno bruto.
               

                  Introduzimos, pela primeira vez, uma verdadeira dimensão social na governação económica. Criámos um quadro de convergência social, conseguimos proteger os investimentos na defesa, na transição climática e no Pilar Europeu dos Direitos Sociais, assegurando investimentos sustentáveis e inclusivos.
               

                  Introduzimos maior flexibilidade, com critérios mais favoráveis para conseguir extensões dos planos de quatro para sete anos e, assim, permitir aos Estados-Membros suavizar o investimento, o ajustamento.
               

                  Tornámos o procedimento por défice excessivo mais flexível quando estão em causa investimentos estratégicos ou a implementação dos Planos Nacionais de Recuperação e Resiliência.
               

                  Reforçámos a dimensão democrática ao dar a possibilidade aos Estados-Membros de discutirem previamente as suas trajetórias de referência com a Comissão Europeia. Demos um papel concreto ao Parlamento Europeu, aos parlamentos nacionais e aos parceiros sociais.
               

                  Como referi no início, cumprimos o nosso mandato. Falta agora avançarmos para a criação de um instrumento de investimento permanente ao nível da União Europeia. E isto terá de ser feito no quadro do debate sobre o próximo orçamento plurianual da União Europeia. Este instrumento deverá apoiar os enormes investimentos que a União Europeia terá de fazer nos próximos anos. Um elemento, um instrumento decisivo para a boa implementação deste novo quadro de governação económica.
               

PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK


podpredseda


Gabriele Bischoff,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kommission, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Meine Vorrednerinnen und Vorredner haben schon beschrieben, wie wichtig diese Reform der Wirtschaftssteuerung ist. Aber sie sind auch – wie Margarida Marques – darauf eingegangen, dass der Kernpunkt auch sein wird, welche Spielräume für Investitionen und insbesondere eben auch für soziale Investitionen vorhanden sind.
                  

                     Und mein Part in diesen Verhandlungen war, dass das alte Versprechen, das schon die vorherige Kommission gegeben hatte, nämlich dass die Säule sozialer Rechte der Kompass auch für die wirtschaftliche Steuerung sein soll, mit einem Instrument hinterlegt wird. Das klingt sperrig, ein Rahmen für soziale Konvergenz, aber es ist ein Instrument, das in die Steuerung eingebaut ist, um Alarmsignale zu geben, wenn die sozialen Investitionen nicht ausreichen und wenn die Reformen eben Armut vergrößern, statt Armut zu reduzieren, wenn die Reformen eben tatsächlich nicht funktionieren, um die nötigen sozialen Investitionen in den Mitgliedstaaten auch bereitzustellen.
                  

                     Deshalb ist es wirklich ein Erfolg, dass wir es geschafft haben, die Stärkung des sozialen Europas wirklich auch im Kern der wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung zu verankern. Und ich will noch einmal in Erinnerung rufen, dass das letzte Eurobarometer letzte Woche wirklich eines hervorgehoben hat, nämlich: Die Europäerinnen und Europäer sorgen sich. Sie sorgen sich um die steigende Armut, sie sorgen sich über die schwächelnde Wirtschaft, und sie sorgen sich insbesondere, dass es zu wenig und zu wenig gut bezahlte Jobs gibt. Deshalb ist es essenziell, welche Spielräume für Investitionen in der Zukunft bereitgestellt werden.
                  

Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission welcomes the provisional political agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on reforming the EU's economic governance.
This ambitious agreement delivers on the objectives of the Commission's reform proposal to strengthen Member States' debt sustainability, and to promote their sustainable and inclusive growth. The revised fiscal rules will help to make the EU more competitive, to strengthen its resilience to tackle the challenges that we face today as well as tomorrow.
It addresses several existing shortcomings. It places a greater focus on reducing high debt ratios and deficits in a realistic, gradual and sustained way. It also leaves more room for counter-cyclical policies and incentivises reforms and investments. It supports greater compliance with the rules – for example, by focusing Member States' plans and their monitoring on a single operational indicator based on net expenditure. We simplify implementation and avoid certain pro-cyclical bias that fiscal policy has had in the past.
Let me remind you of the key elements of the revised rules. First, stronger national ownership and differentiation. At the core of the reform are the national medium-term fiscal structural plans. These bring countries' fiscal reform and investment policies together. The fiscal path will become more differentiated based on the degree of fiscal sustainability challenges. These changes will allow more scope for taking countries' specific challenges and priorities into account.
Second, incentives for reforms and investments. Member States that commit to implementing priority reforms and investments will benefit from a more gradual fiscal adjustment path. Reforms should contribute to fiscal sustainability, promote sustainable and inclusive growth, and contribute to achieving common EU objectives. These include pressing ahead with the green and digital transitions, strengthening Europe's security and defence, and putting the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights into effect.
Third, better enforcement and common safeguards. Rules are only fully effective if they go hand in hand with credible enforcement. This is why the greater lever for Member States is constrained by a set of common EU safeguards to ensure transparency and equal treatment. The debt-based excessive deficit procedure will be strengthened; a control account will monitor slippages over time; and more effective financial sanctions will enter into force.
Honourable Members, it has been a long journey to reach this point. The time has now come to start the implementation. We expect Member States to submit their medium-term fiscal structural plans by 20 September. This will provide clarity about their fiscal policy for years ahead and will set out key reforms and investments. So I look forward to this debate on this crucial topic for the EU's future resilience.

Paolo Gentiloni,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, we have a lot of work behind us to correct the existing fiscal rules – rules so rigid that they were often not applied. What we have achieved is not perfect. It is a compromise, a good compromise. The result of the determination by all to advance and improve the current legislative work.
I want to thank very sincerely all rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their engagement and openness. It was not easy, but it was – and is – important to move forward.
The new rules provide more leeway to Member States to set their fiscal trajectory. At the same time, the new framework strengthens incentives for public investment, as the European Parliament had also strongly called for. This is done primarily via the possibility to have a more gradual fiscal adjustment against a set of reforms, and investment meeting certain criteria, and via the exclusion of national co-financing of Union programmes from the net expenditure indicator.
The reform framework pays greater attention to social aspects. It acknowledges, for instance, that the surveillance by the Commission will include the monitoring of progress in implementing the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and its headline targets via the social scoreboard and framework to identify social convergence risks. And let me underline the crucial contribution of the EMPL Committee to strengthen this particular aspect.
The social pillar is also part of the EU common priorities, together with the green and digital transitions and defence as important areas for reform and investment commitments in exchange for a more gradual fiscal adjustment path.
I've said it before, we have a lot of work behind us. During this time we saw the European economy first collapse for the pandemic, then recover strongly in 2021 and 2022, before slowing sharply after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which sparked very high inflation. Across these stages, general escape clause was in force. Now we have, on one hand, the prospect of reducing the accumulated debt and deficit as a result of these two black swans. On the other hand, we must reinforce our weak growth with the recovery of purchasing power, a decline in inflation, and the preservation of public investments. A delicate balance, indeed. But it is to this delicate balance that these new rules are adapted.
The adoption of the reform after today's debate and vote will allow the submission of the first round of medium-term fiscal structural plans already this year. This is the set of rules we need to face current and future challenges with confidence. It will allow a gradual reduction of public debts while not undermining growth. It will help us protecting the level of public investment, which is more than ever needed to finance the green and digital transitions, safeguard our social model and ensure the security of the continent. So I look forward to a good debate.

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi,
în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, în dezbaterea de astăzi privind guvernanța economică din ultimul plen al acestei legislaturi, punem accentul încă o dată pe importanța politicilor fiscale, strategiilor monetare și reglementărilor financiare menite să asigure stabilitate și creștere în zona euro.
                  

                     Însă mă bucur că aceste discuții implică și disciplina bugetară, reformele structurale și măsurile de abordare a disparităților economice dintre statele membre. Trebuie să întărim piața internă, capitalul, să punem accent pe competitivitate, avem nevoie de un pact industrial, și o spun și în calitate de președinte al Comisiei ITRE, și pe întărirea actorilor noștri economici de toate dimensiunile și da, din toate regiunile Uniunii.
                  

                     Avem nevoie de reguli clare, implementare clară și un echilibru rezonabil între reducerea datoriei excesive și permiterea investițiilor. Aceasta a fost busola grupului PPE la conturarea noilor reguli fiscale pentru statele membre ale Uniunii Europene și aceasta trebuie să continue să fie busola noului Parlament. Finanțe solide și niveluri sustenabile ale datoriei rămân esențiale, mai ales având în vedere creșterea recentă a costului împrumuturilor publice.
                  

                     Noul cadru constituie o bază solidă pentru Uniunea Economică și Monetară a Uniunii Europene și cred că aceste reguli vor face viitorul mai previzibil. Finanțarea solidă rămâne o prioritate și, aici, implicarea instituțiilor precum Banca Centrală Europeană și Comisia Europeană este necesară și importantă, pentru a reduce povara pentru statele membre și a consolida realmente politica fiscală.
                  

Jonás Fernández,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, Comisión, es un placer concluir este mandato con esta votación y con este debate porque en esta legislatura hemos vivido —como ambos comisarios recordaban— momentos complicados: la pandemia o el inicio de la guerra de Putin en Ucrania.
                  

                     Ambos retos exigían flexibilidad desde el punto de vista fiscal y que nos tomáramos un tiempo para permitir una respuesta que mantuviera la actividad en esos momentos tan difíciles. Pero también es verdad que no podemos seguir sin normas sine die; necesitamos tener unas normas que orienten las políticas fiscales.
                  

                     Me alegro —en primer lugar— del amplio consenso para rechazar las normas previas que obligaron a un austericidio después de la crisis financiera de hace ya algo más de una década, y de que el consenso para rechazar esas reglas permitiera alumbrar un nuevo acuerdo hacia una reducción suave de la deuda acorde a la situación de cada Estado.
                  

                     Confío en que así sea y en que este Parlamento supervisará muy de cerca la aplicación de estas normas en la próxima legislatura.
                  

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Commissaires, demain nous voterons pour mettre à jour le règlement intérieur de notre copropriété en matière de gouvernance économique. Qu'en est-il? Il s'agit de conditions pour permettre aux États membres de réduire leur niveau d'endettement sans freiner les investissements indispensables pour répondre aux enjeux de demain. L'Europe ne pourra renforcer sa souveraineté que si elle est crédible sur le plan budgétaire, crédible auprès des générations futures et de nos partenaires, crédible pour continuer à investir en Européens dans nos priorités communes.
                  

                     Je regrette que certaines oppositions fassent semblant de confondre austérité et responsabilité. Que sont ces nouvelles règles? C'est une personnalisation des objectifs pour chaque État membre, en fonction de sa situation budgétaire, afin de le sortir du désendettement, et des incitations aux réformes et aux investissements dans la transition climatique, numérique et dans la défense.
                  

                     Encore une fois, les oppositions brilleront par leur irresponsabilité et prouveront leur incapacité à gouverner. Ne pas voter cette réforme, c'est considérer que le pacte, dans sa formule actuellement en vigueur, est satisfaisant: ce n'est pas mon cas.
                  

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, c'est notre toute dernière session de la législature. Je vois que les esprits sont déjà ailleurs – d'ailleurs, les corps aussi. D'ici les élections du 9 juin, nous allons assister à une poussée inflationniste très particulière, qui ne surgit qu'en période de campagne, à savoir l'explosion des promesses électorales. À droite, mes collègues libéraux et conservateurs, protecteurs autoproclamés de l'entrepreneuriat, rivaliseront – merci, Stéphanie, de t'en aller. C'est au moment où l'on parle de toi que tu t'en vas – rivaliseront de promesses de subventions publiques et de cadeaux fiscaux pour les entreprises européennes. À gauche, mes collègues socialistes promettront, la main sur le cœur, de relever les salaires, les pensions et les allocations des infirmières, des enseignants et je ne sais plus tout qui.
                  

                     Finalement, la seule question que tous les citoyens se posent, c'est: tiendrez-vous vos promesses? Eh bien, nous allons bientôt le savoir, car dans deux heures se tiendra le vote le plus important de toute la législature, le vote pour ou contre l'austérité. Si vous votez aujourd'hui en faveur de l'austérité, rentrez dès à présent vos affiches et vos calicots, absentez-vous des réseaux sociaux. La campagne électorale est terminée, car vous ne pourrez tenir aucune de vos promesses, simplement parce que vous aurez créé les conditions de votre propre impuissance politique.
                  

                     Contrairement à ce que vous dites, Messieurs les Commissaires, contrairement à ce que les rapporteurs et ceux qui les soutiennent racontent, voter ces nouvelles règles budgétaires, c'est imposer une camisole de force à tous les États européens, c'est leur confisquer tous les moyens financiers indispensables pour garantir un avenir économique, social, climatique et géopolitique à notre Union. Les collègues libéraux ne pourront pas financer les aides aux entreprises. Les collègues socialistes ne pourront pas financer une amélioration des services publics.
                  

                     Franchement, quand j'entends les gens parler de flexibilité et de marge pour l'investissement, je me dis: ‘Mais on est dans Orwell, ici!’ La paix, c'est la guerre. La liberté, c'est la servitude. Les mots ne veulent plus rien dire. C'est une imposture. Je n'ai absolument pas le cœur à plaisanter. Pour la dernière fois, je vous le demande: rejetez ces règles injustes et mortifères. Il ne vous reste que quelques heures pour vous ressaisir.
                  

Johan Van Overtveldt,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, begrotingsregels hebben als doel gezonde overheidsfinanciën na te streven in het belang van onze samenleving en onze economie. Ze moeten ervoor zorgen dat toekomstige generaties niet opgezadeld worden met de gevolgen van overmatige schuldopbouw. Bovendien – en dit wordt vandaag vaak vergeten – kan een monetaire unie simpelweg niet overleven zonder budgettaire discipline.
                  

                     De nieuwe begrotingsregels die nu voorliggen, bieden flexibiliteit, zodat belangrijke investeringen, in infrastructuur en defensie bijvoorbeeld, kunnen doorgaan. Tegelijkertijd leggen ze ook discipline op, maar dat zal enkel gebeuren als de Commissie bereid is om de stok achter de deur ook boven te halen als dat nodig is. Ik vrees dat dat onvoldoende zal gebeuren. Men moet op een geloofwaardige en effectieve manier kunnen ingrijpen als de begroting van een lidstaat ontspoort, zoals dat vandaag bijvoorbeeld heel duidelijk het geval is in mijn thuisbasis België.
                  

                     Opteren voor meer schuldopbouw op Europees niveau is een onverantwoorde vlucht vooruit. Nu steeds meer lidstaten qua begroting en schuld aan het einde van hun Latijn zijn, gaat men zo de schuldeconomie in een nieuwe en gevaarlijke fase brengen. Dat is onverantwoord. Als landen onvoldoende begrotingscapaciteit hebben, is het antwoord niet het opbouwen van schuld op Europees niveau, maar wel een doordachte sanering, gekoppeld aan groeistimulerende hervormingen. Neem Ierland: twaalf jaar geleden 120 % schuld-bbp, nu 40 %. Hoe? Door de begroting min of meer in evenwicht te brengen, te hervormen en groei te stimuleren. Zo simpel is het.
                  

Gunnar Beck,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Als die EU sich für den Euro entschied, hieß es, es werde eine Hartwährung nach Vorbild der D-Mark mit niedriger Inflation und einer Zentralbank, die Ersparnisse und kleine Vermögen schützt und Regierungen zur Verantwortung zwingt. Man einigte sich auf strenge Haushaltsregeln und ein Inflationsziel von unter 2 %. Doch 30 Jahre nach Maastricht haben wir hohe Inflation, kranke Banken und Rekordverschuldung. Fast jeder Staat missachtet die Maastricht-Regeln, auch das neue Deutschland. Deshalb sollen die Rechtsbrüche in der Eurozone jetzt legalisiert werden – auf Vorschlag von der Leyens und unterstützt von allen deutschen Parteien außer der AfD. Geschehen soll dies durch dauerhafte und inflationäre Schuldenaufnahme auf EU-Ebene entgegen den Verträgen, nach Muster des wirkungslosen NextGenerationEU-Schuldenprogramms und finanziert durch hohe Steuern und Inflation, vor allem von Deutschland und Nordeuropa.
                  

                     Doch die deutsche Finanzierung kommt nicht kostenlos, denn fließen soll das geschöpfte Geld in grüne Fantasie— und Gesellschaftsprojekte, die unsere Wettbewerbsfähigkeit weiter untergraben, weil die Kosten unnachgiebig steigen. Mit anderen Worten: Was Sie hier debattieren, sind die letzten Feinheiten eines Suizidpaktes für unseren gemeinsamen Abgesang auf Europas Rolle in der Weltwirtschaft. Denn der Rest der Welt strebt nach Wachstum und nicht nach degrowth.
                  

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, qu'allez-vous dire aux malades qui vont voir le prix de leurs médicaments augmenter, aux chômeurs qui vont perdre leur assurance-chômage, aux retraités dont les pensions vont être gelées, aux locataires de passoires thermiques dont le logement ne sera pas rénové, aux parents dont les enfants n'auront pas de professeurs en face d'eux, bref, aux millions de personnes fragilisées par l'austérité? Qu'il fallait à tout prix rentrer dans les clous des 3 % de déficit et 60 % de dette? Qu'une bonne note des agences de notation vaut bien un immense racket social des Européens? Qu'il fallait leur faire les poches, plutôt que de taxer les grandes fortunes et les superprofits?
                  

                     Quels que soient les sacrifices, ce ne sera en réalité jamais assez pour vous. Voilà à quoi vous nous condamnez avec le vote de ces règles budgétaires: l'austérité à perpétuité. Voilà comment, ensemble, les socialistes, les libéraux et la droite sont en train de solder notre avenir, nos services publics, notre protection sociale et même l'environnement. Mais s'il y a bien quelque chose qui se négocie, c'est la dette, pas la planète.
                  

                     Regardez d'ailleurs comment le gouvernement français s'en donne déjà à cœur joie avec son concours Lépine des pires idées pour priver les Français de tout ce qu'ils ont de plus précieux: hôpitaux, écoles, transports publics, assurance-chômage, fonction publique, investissements écologiques… tout, absolument tout subira les assauts du bulldozer austéritaire. Détruire l'État social pour mieux cajoler le capital. Saboter la bifurcation écologique pour faire tourner la pompe à fric. Nous avons été bien seuls à nous opposer dans cet hémicycle à votre politique économique de la terre brûlée. Alors, le 9 juin, on arrête définitivement vos dégâts, avant qu'ils ne soient irréversibles.
                  

Enikő Győri (NI). – Elnök Úr! Pozitív, hogy a fiskális keretrendszer reformjának középpontjában továbbra is az áll, hogy gátat szabjunk az eladósodásnak. A szabályok rugalmasabbá válnak, a tagállamok mozgástere nő. Üdvözlöm továbbá, hogy a kamat-, a védelmi és az uniós társfinanszírozáshoz kapcsolódó kiadásokat kedvezőbben lehet majd figyelembe venni a hiány megállapításakor. Ez olyan vészterhes időkben, mint most, amikor a szomszédban háború dúl, az Unió versenyképessége válságos állapotban van, a tagállamok magas adóssággal és deficittel küzdenek, valamint gyenge a gazdasági növekedés, különösen fontos.
                  

                     Sajnálattal tapasztaltam ugyanakkor, hogy a baloldal a gyakorlati megoldások helyett szokás szerint ideológiák érvényesítéséért küzdött a tárgyalások során. Szociális kérdésekkel tűzdelné tele az európai szemesztert, továbbra is eladósítaná az Uniót, feláldozná a költségvetési egyensúlyt a zöldítés oltárán, a saját hatalmuk növelése érdekében a Szerződésekkel ellentétes hatásköröket harcolnak ki a parlamentnek, jórészt a tagállamok számonkérése érdekében.
                  

                     Szerencsére ezen törekvések nagy részét sikerült visszaszorítani. Végül egy olyan kompromisszum született, amely objektív mutatók mentén garantálja a költségvetési egyensúlyt, nem lehetetleníti el a növekedést, és korlátot szab a Bizottság befolyásának, miközben növeli a tagállamok felelősségvállalását. Még egy megjegyzés: csak remélem, hogy a választások után felálló Bizottság az uniós források folyósításánál pártatlanul fog eljárni, s felhagy az ideológia alapú büntetőhadjárattal, amelyet a hazám ellen folytatott a mostani ciklusban.
                  

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, vážené dámy a pánové, děkuji vám za společnou práci na této zprávě. Je nutné kontrolovat zadlužování členských států. Na druhé straně je potřeba hledat i určitou flexibilitu, jakým způsobem reagovat v dnešní době na mezinárodní situaci, především na investice v oblasti obrany, které potřebujeme a potřebují je všechny členské státy. Členské státy dnes musí investovat do bezpečnosti. Roky se této povinnosti vyhýbaly a teď se musíme k této povinnosti postavit čelem. Dalším krokem tedy musí být, abychom dokázali přimět evropské banky, aby podporovaly investice do naší kolektivní bezpečnosti, tedy do obrany. Na obraně stojí budoucnost Evropy, její prosperita a je to i naše zodpovědnost vůči budoucím generacím.
                  

Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Mr President, allow me to make a comparison. For the last ten years, we have been working to remodel our garden. So we mowed the lawn, we planted new trees, we sewed the grass, and we sewed flowers, but we forgot that we never were able to remove or reduce the barrier that's blocking the water supply. And the vital thing to make the garden grow is water and that's lacking in the economic governance review.
We know, of course, for years that the old rules didn't work. They had to be revised, but we forgot to ensure enough room for investments. The lack of fiscal capacity ultimately dehydrates our economy. We need a strong investment plan that accompanies the new rules. So therefore I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favour of these rules.

Eva Maria Poptcheva (Renew). – Señor presidente, en España tenemos una deuda del 107 % del PIB y las nuevas reglas fiscales exigen que la reduzcamos en unos 14 000 millones EUR al año, el equivalente a nuestro presupuesto anual en defensa. O reformamos nuestra economía o no quedará más remedio que recortar gasto.
                  

                     El Gobierno se echa flores porque estamos reduciendo la deuda a base de crecimiento coyuntural y de inflación. Pero esto es un espejismo. Es pan para hoy y hambre para mañana, como ya han dicho muchos organismos internacionales y la propia Comisión Europea.
                  

                     Escucharéis gritos alarmistas desde la izquierda, pero estas nuevas reglas no son una vuelta a la austeridad, sino una oportunidad para hacer las reformas e inversiones que España necesita. Lo hemos visto con la crisis financiera de 2008 y con la crisis de la COVID-19. Al final siempre somos los mismos los que tenemos problemas, los que necesitamos la ayuda de nuestros socios europeos.
                  

                     Ahora nos toca a nosotros volver a ganarnos esa confianza. Debemos ser responsables y utilizar esta oportunidad para reformar nuestro país. España y los españoles se lo merecen.
                  

Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, les besoins pour la transition écologique sont colossaux et la pauvreté explose en Europe; mais c'est à ce moment-là, à ce moment précis, que vous nous privez des moyens d'investir dans la nécessaire bifurcation écologique et la justice sociale. Ce faisant, vous condamnez aussi l'Europe à être à la traîne des puissances économiques face à l'IRA américain et au plan massif d'investissements chinois.
                  

                     En somme, pour vous, si on vous écoute, pour sauver l'économie, il faudrait abandonner toutes les législations de protection du climat, de la biodiversité et de la santé. Alors, pendant cette session plénière, vous lancez le grand détricotage du Pacte vert, la grande régression environnementale, supposément pour sauver une économie, que vous condamnez au chaos du fait de votre enfermement dans l'orthodoxie budgétaire.
                  

                     Camarades socialistes, comment pouvez-vous prétendre défendre et garantir la justice sociale et faire la transition climatique en votant contre les nécessaires investissements, c'est-à-dire en faveur de ce pacte de stabilité budgétaire? Ne vous y trompez pas: pour une Europe plus juste et plus verte, nous continuerons à nous battre et ne baisserons pas les bras. Mais aujourd'hui, ce vote enterre notre avenir.
                  

Antonio Maria Rinaldi (ID). – Signor Presidente, Commissari, onorevoli colleghi, per cambiare l'Europa a fatti e non a parole, è necessario prima modificare radicalmente i trattati, ad iniziare dalla governance economica.
                  

                     Ma la nuova versione del patto, invece di promuovere una reale politica di investimenti, ripropone riforme ancora animate da obiettivi punitivi e da un impianto fortemente prociclico dettato solo dal rapporto deficit/PIL e da miopi vincoli obsoleti di bilancio e condizionalità che, unitamente alle regole sugli aiuti di Stato e da uno statuto della BCE imperfetto, non rimuove minimamente i limiti della precedente, anzi li amplifica.
                  

                     Ragionevolmente gli ambiziosi ed onerosi obiettivi sulla difesa, sull'indipendenza energetica e sul digitale dei prossimi anni possono essere raggiunti con i limiti di spesa che imporrà agli Stati anche questo nuovo patto di stabilità?
                  

                     Invece di concepirne uno realmente sostenibile e facilmente applicabile, dal trilogo è scaturito un mostro normativo ancora più fortemente prociclico, peggiorativo rispetto alla proposta del Commissario Gentiloni dell'aprile 2023, impossibile da rispettare e che non porterà a nessuna crescita sperata.
                  

                     Se non si modificheranno prima i trattati, ad iniziare dall'allegato all'articolo126 di Lisbona, Protocollo n.12, articolo 1, che fissa i criteri di convergenza del 3 % e del 60 %, nessun patto di stabilità potrà generare crescita, come se non si metterà mano al cosiddetto statuto monetario, presente nel trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea agli articoli 123, 124 e 125.
                  

                     La riduzione del rapporto debito/PIL deve avvenire principalmente non con il taglio reale della spesa corrente primaria e con l'aumento dell'imposizione fiscale, cioè con un'esclusiva riduzione del deficit, ma stimolando la crescita, con politiche espansive ad alto coefficiente moltiplicatore. In quest'Aula non si conosce John Maynard Keynes?
                  

                     Questo patto accentuerà asimmetrie, ingiustizie sociali, divergenze e discordia tra i popoli europei e non consentirà quella crescita che tutti auspichiamo e ci condannerà ad un declino inesorabile, relegandoci ultimi fra tutte le economie mondiali.
                  

José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, a proposta que hoje discutimos inspirou um discurso da Comissão e também do Parlamento, que é um festival de publicidade enganosa. É-nos dito que estas regras serão menos procíclicas, ou seja, mais adequadas a enfrentar crises económicas, que irão promover o investimento e que irão aumentar a legitimidade democrática das políticas orçamentais. Cada uma destas afirmações é falsa e é diretamente contraditória com o conteúdo do que aqui estamos a votar.
                  

                     A despesa passar a ser a variável fundamental para as trajetórias de referência é um enviesamento para que os ajustamentos orçamentais se façam através dos cortes, tal como aconteceu nos tempos de austeridade, prejudicando serviços públicos e políticas públicas em geral, e, em particular, o investimento público.
                  

                     E é por isso que a segunda afirmação também é falsa. Os programas da troika levaram a níveis mínimos históricos de investimento público nos países em que aconteceram e o mesmo acontecerá a partir do momento em que se estabeleça um garrote sobre a despesa pública, sem nenhuma medida de proteção do investimento público. Por isso, continuar a clamar pelos objetivos sociais e verdes da União Europeia e pelo investimento que é necessário para os cumprir é pura hipocrisia.
                  

                     E sobre a legitimidade democrática, as estratégias orçamentais vão ser definidas pela Comissão e, em caso de desacordo com o Estado-Membro, é a trajetória da Comissão que vai valer. E, portanto, o que acontece é que as troikas regressaram e, desta vez, são definitivas. Dantes os países ainda recebiam empréstimos. Agora só vão receber ordens.
                  

Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo l'approvazione del Next Generation EU, la riforma del patto di stabilità è sicuramente quella più importante di questa legislatura. Eppure sta passando in sordina. Nessun leader europeo oggi a tagliare i nastri, nessun titolo sui giornali, nessun programma televisivo. Come mai questo silenzio? Forse perché si vuole nascondere, a poche settimane dalle elezioni europee, il ritorno dell'austerity?
                  

                     Con queste nuove regole l'Europa imporrà tagli di 12-13 miliardi l'anno all'Italia. Questo significa meno soldi per sanità, scuola, trasporti, investimenti. Taglieranno su tutto, tranne che per la difesa e per la produzione di armi e munizioni. E la cosa assurda è che il masochista governo Meloni ha persino controfirmato questa camicia di forza. Abbiamo la Troika in casa e non lo sapevamo.
                  

                     Chi vota sì a questo patto di stabilità tradisce l'Italia e tradisce i suoi cittadini. E noi, come Movimento 5 Stelle, continueremo a lottare in ogni sede istituzionale per un'altra Europa, quella che tende la mano ai cittadini e le imprese e non li soffoca con regole assurde che faranno aumentare la povertà.
                  

Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, sääntöjen uudistaminen on todellakin välttämätöntä. Vanhat taloussäännöt eivät ole enää pitkään aikaan toimineet. On siis tehtävä uusi ratkaisu.
                  

                     Tämä ehdotus on merkittävä askel eteenpäin. Se antaa tilaa työllisyydelle tarpeellisten investointien tekemiseen. Se tuo myös joustavuutta, kun pyritään täyttämään sopimuksen ehdot.
                  

                     Täällä näyttää olevan myös kollegoja, jotka ajattelevat, ettei mitään taloussääntöjä ylipäänsä tarvittaisi, että parempi, kun ei olisi velkaantumiselle mitään rajoja. No, sehän olisi täydellinen tuhon tie. Kyllä me tarvitsemme sekä yhteisen elämän että jokaisen jäsenvaltion oman elämän kannalta myös velkaantumisessa rajat.
                  

                     Kun siihen tulee joustoa ja kun ensimmäistä kertaa otetaan myös ihmisen hyvinvointi ja sosiaalinen puoli mukaan, niin pidän erittäin perusteltuna äänestää tämän uuden sopimuksen puolesta ja toivon, että kaikki kollegat antavat tälle tukensa.
                  

Max Orville (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je veux répondre à ceux qui dénoncent un retour à l'austérité. Nous nous apprêtons à voter les règles budgétaires les plus sociales et les plus vertes que nous ayons connues, car l'investissement dans l'humain et l'investissement dans notre planète font partie des priorités communes de notre Union.
                  

                     Oui, cette réforme est aussi une réforme de responsabilités. Qui peut assumer ici de laisser une dette abyssale à nos enfants et nos petits-enfants? Face aux caricatures, nous devons trouver la voie de l'équilibre, avec des dépenses publiques saines qui permettent également une flexibilité pour les investissements stratégiques.
                  

                     Le nouveau cadre de convergence sociale, qui constitue une réelle avancée à ce titre, permettra de s'assurer que les 27 États membres s'acheminent tous sur le chemin du progrès social. Il permettra aussi de mieux cibler les réformes et les investissements sociaux en fonction des réalités. La coordination des politiques sociales dans une nouvelle gouvernance économique fera avancer l'Europe sociale.
                  

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we are in a position of a crucial decade for investments within Europe. Talking about the Green Deal and our competitiveness that we had in the previous discussion. Investments are crucial for European competitiveness and, if we look around the world, Europe is lagging behind. On defence, a lot of our colleagues are also pressing investments in defence. We need to build up Ukraine, which will be massive investments. This decade will be a decade of investments or we will lose out as a European Union. And then look what's happening. Will there be a continuation of the RF? Probably not. Countries will block it. Will there be an MFF review that will be sincere? Well, even the mid-term review was a joke. Then Capital Markets Union: it's being blocked. Will there then be any sustainable finance to guide private financing to the right sources? It's stalled and being halted and no movement there. And now on top of that, we are going to limit the possibilities of national governments to invest by this reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, we are tying ourselves down where there should be a decade of investments. This is stupidity.

France Jamet (ID). – Monsieur le Président, la souveraineté budgétaire et fiscale, principe fondateur depuis 1789, est la base sacrée sur laquelle la France a construit son pacte social et démocratique. Or, votre pacte de stabilité y contrevient. Est-il nécessaire d'assainir les comptes? Oui. Sommes-nous endettés au-delà du raisonnable? Aussi. Cependant, dire que ce pacte y apporte une quelconque solution est un mirage, car il consiste à imposer à la France, depuis Bruxelles, une austérité que les Français refusent, un saccage des services publics et l'absence de réflexion nécessaire pour recouvrer des comptes publics équilibrés, à savoir sur la fin du chaos migratoire et la lutte contre la fraude fiscale et sociale. Alors non, Messieurs les Commissaires – parce que la profondeur et la densité historiques de la France vont bien au-delà de votre pacte technocratique et mortifère qui se fait contre les peuples.
                  

Chris MacManus (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, the EU likes to say that it listens and it learns.
Well today shows that it does not listen and it does not learn regarding economic sovereignty and austerity. This deal lays the seeds for future austerity, hollows out national economic sovereignty and empowers unelected Brussels bureaucrats to further interfere in national budgets.
Ireland needs a massive investment to build schools, hospitals, houses for people and to aid the transition to a clean economy. So what does the EU propose? Hardening the austerity rules. With this plan, democratically elected governments will traipse to Brussels and ask permission to change budgets if arbitrary targets are not met. There is no exemption for building houses, but there is for building tanks.
We were promised rules to aid investment: we got a doubling down on austerity rules and the failed policies of the past. The EU has failed to learn. I stand against austerity policies and say no to these Brussels rules. They should be ripped up before they do real damage to real people.

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το λεγόμενο ενισχυμένο πλαίσιο οικονομικής διακυβέρνησης εισάγει, εν μέσω εντεινόμενης ύφεσης και υψηλών ελλειμμάτων, νέους, ακόμα πιο αντιδραστικούς κανόνες του Συμφώνου Σταθερότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Στις πλάτες των λαών φορτώνονται τα βάρη των πολεμικών εξοπλισμών για το ΝΑΤΟ και της εμπλοκής που στηρίζουν κυβέρνηση και όλα τα άλλα κόμματα, και αποτελούν από τις βασικές αιτίες για το κρατικό χρέος της Ελλάδας. Η εξαίρεση των πολεμικών δαπανών από τον υπολογισμό του ελλείμματος πριμοδοτεί την κλιμάκωση, τη στήριξη του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου ΝΑΤΟ-Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία, και της γενοκτονίας των Παλαιστινίων από το κράτος-κατακτητή Ισραήλ. Η παγίωση των ματωμένων πλεονασμάτων και του κόφτη των κοινωνικών δαπανών, με προαπαιτούμενο την επιτάχυνση των αντιδραστικών μεταρρυθμίσεων εμπορευματοποίησης σε παιδεία και υγεία, συμπληρώνεται και με τα απευθείας νέα διμερή μνημόνια ανάμεσα σε Επιτροπή και τα κράτη μέλη, με αυστηρή επιτήρηση ως και για 7 χρόνια. Λαϊκή πάλη τώρα ενάντια στον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο και τους μηχανισμούς αφαίμαξης των λαών για τα κέρδη των ομίλων, με ένα πολύ πιο ισχυρό ΚΚΕ στις ευρωεκλογές.
                  

Joachim Schuster (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Verbindliche Fiskalregeln sind in einem Binnenmarkt mit einer gemeinsamen Währung, in dem aber die Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik in nationaler Kompetenz verbleibt, unerlässlich. Ungleiche Schuldenstände im Euro-Raum strapazieren die Stabilität des Euro und sorgen zugleich dafür, dass öffentliche Investitionen für höher verschuldete Staaten mit unverhältnismäßig hohen Finanzierungskosten einhergehen. Eine Reform war insofern überfällig. Die neuen Fiskalregeln sind deutlich realistischer als die heute bestehenden, und zugleich ermöglichen die neuen Regeln viel umfassender die Berücksichtigung nationaler Besonderheiten.
                  

                     So weit, so gut. Aber auch bei den neuen Fiskalregeln bleibt die Frage ungelöst, wie zukünftig eine erhebliche Steigerung der öffentlichen und privaten Investitionen zur Finanzierung der digitalen und klimaneutralen Transformation gewährleistet werden kann. Dazu benötigen wir die Schaffung eines neuen europäischen Investitionsfonds als Fortsetzung des 2026 auslaufenden Europäischen Aufbaufonds. Eine solche europäische Fiskalkapazität muss ein zentrales Element des nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens sein.
                  

Engin Eroglu (Renew). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Herren Kommissare! Ich freue mich sehr, dass Sie beide anwesend sind. Was die Europäische Union braucht, ist eine stabile Währung. Eine harte, stabile Währung. Deswegen ist es wichtig, dass wir den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt hier diskutieren, und es ist wichtig, dass wir die Schuldenunion in den Griff kriegen. Denn den Menschen wurde laut Maastricht versprochen, dass es keine europäischen Schulden geben wird, und dieses Versprechen wurde gebrochen.
                  

                     Deswegen ist es mir ganz wichtig, dass hier tatsächlich – und das sieht man an den beiden Kommissaren, die heute auch anwesend sind – der neue Wachstumspakt eine gute Handschrift trägt. Aber er trägt auch die Handschrift von Frau von der Leyen und der Union. Deswegen werden wir Freien Wähler diesem Wachstums- und Stabilitätspakt nicht zustimmen. Denn was nicht geht, die Herren Kommissare, ist, dass jetzt hinter verschlossenen Türen statt Transparenz Frau von der Leyen mit Mitgliedstaaten eigene Schuldenpläne verhandelt und die Menschen in der Europäischen Union nicht wissen, warum und was dort verhandelt wird. Die Europäische Union braucht Stabilität, braucht Währungsstabilität und Transparenz anstatt jetzt einem neuen Mechanismus. Hinter verschlossenen Türen wird die Schuldentilgung verhandelt. Das geht so nicht, liebe Freunde!
                  

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Über 100 Millionen Europäerinnen und Europäer leben in Armut, und der Investitionsbedarf für Klimaziele und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit allein liegt in der Europäischen Union bei über 600 Milliarden Euro jährlich. Das sind keine Zahlen, die ich mir ausgedacht habe oder die aus irgendwelchen Thinktanks kommen, das sind die offiziellen Zahlen der EU-Kommission.
                  

                     Und trotzdem wollen heute hier Sozialdemokraten, Konservative und Liberale Fiskalregeln beschließen, die großen Schaden anrichten werden. Statt Zukunftsinvestitionen in bessere Schienen- oder Energienetze zerfällt unsere Infrastruktur, und Sozialkürzungen werden an der Tagesordnung sein. Verlierer sind die Menschen und das Klima.
                  

                     Das Absurde ist, dass die Schuldenregeln allerdings ja nicht einmal dazu führen werden, dass wir eine niedrige Schuldenquote erreichen werden. Denn wenn wir durch zu strenge Regeln ökonomische Entwicklung ausbremsen, dann sinken die Steuereinnahmen, und dann kommen die öffentlichen Haushalte in große Probleme.
                  

                     Klimaziele, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Verteidigungsunion, das ist nichts für wolkige Worte in Abschlusserklärungen vom Ratsgipfel. Das ist etwas, was man in der Fiskalpolitik ausgestalten muss, und dazu ist diese Reform leider nicht in der Lage. Mit den Rezepten von gestern kann man die Zukunft nicht gestalten.
                  

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, ekonomsko upravljanje Unijom može se opisati s tri riječi: bahato samouništenje i licemjerje. Unatoč kolonijalnom mentalitetu, Europa više nije centar svijeta, a cijeli Zapad tada je globalna manjina u odnosu na svijet.
                  

                     Sankcije su besmislene. Luksuzni automobili i dalje idu u Rusiju preko Kazahstana, ruska nafta dolazi u Europu preko Indije, a terminali Španjolske i Belgije otvoreno primaju ruski plin. A zbog posrednika sve je skuplje, pa imamo, eto, deindustrijalizaciju Europe.
                  

                     Pogledajmo procjene vašeg MMF-a. Europa je najbezperspektivnije područje na svijetu. Traži se rezanje emisija CO2 u Europi, dok u isto vrijeme zemlje Azije nemaju nikakvu namjeru to učiniti.
                  

                     Dozvoljava se divljanje investicijskih fondova poput BlackRocka, koji jedu demokraciju i slabe građane. U SAD-u su sada već najveći vlasnik kuća i stanova. Ne znamo zapravo tko stoji iza njih. Umjetna inteligencija poput sustava Aladin, Hazarska mafija, neki pojedinac – ne znamo, a kontroliraju imovinu veću od mnogih država članica.
                  

                     Zabranjuju se pesticidi u Uniji, ali nije problem kada se isti takav proizvod, s istim tim pesticidima po Sporazumu o slobodnoj trgovini uveze.
                  

                     Ako se Europa ne vrati građaninu, nacijama, narodima i dobrim rješenjima koje nam daje tradicija, možemo samo u još veći ekonomski nered.
                  

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, my late dear mother used to say to me: ‘Seán,’ she'd say, ‘money isn't everything. But without it you have nothing.’ And thus, she's right, we have rich countries, poor countries, rich people, poor people.
But when you have money, you must use it prudently – and if you don't, you lose it. And we found that in our country, many others, during the recession: we over borrowed and went bust. Now that we have recovered, we have to manage prudently. And as the Commissioner has pointed out, we have to reduce public debt, but, at the same time, not inhibit growth and investments – especially investments that reduce emissions – in agriculture, transport renewables are key.
So I hope that we can continue and maybe loosen state aid rules to allow those investments. The quicker they happen, the sooner you'll get a return. And without them, to use my mother's phrase, we will have nothing and will go nowhere.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnilor comisari, stimați colegi, este bine și este necesar să analizăm guvernanța economică și să consolidăm bugetul Uniunii Europene. Era necesar, sunt câteva lucruri bune făcute, care duc spre posibilitatea ca statele membre să poată să apese pe accelerația investițiilor, de exemplu, neluarea în calcul la deficit a cofinanțării pe investiții strategice.
                  

                     Nu este un model ideal, dar este un pas făcut și trebuie să ne gândim totdeauna, când modificăm această guvernanță, că statele membre nu sunt dezvoltate egal economic. Nu putem pune un pat al lui Procust. Datoriile externe sunt diferite în statele membre și, sigur, ne mai gândim și la tratat, pentru că există multă subsidiaritate aici, în politicile fiscale și în tot ce au dreptul să stabilească statele în context național, în funcție și de situația economică din acel stat membru.
                  

                     Pașii sunt buni, faptul că se ține cont și de pilonul social – să nu uităm că avem încă mulți oameni în sărăcie, mulți copii în sărăcie și trebuie să ne gândim și la acest lucru, și la coeziune socială. De aceea, cred că este doar un prim pas și trebuie continuat cu guvernanța economică, cu flexibilizarea bugetului Uniunii Europene.
                  

Jan Ovelgönne (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Die Maastrichtregeln basieren auf ökonomisch unsinnigen Zielen, haben zu einer ökonomischen Polarisierung in der EU geführt, angefeuert noch durch six-pack und two-pack im Jahr 2014. Am besten haben die Regeln dann funktioniert, wenn sie außer Kraft gewesen sind. Jetzt hätten wir die Chance, durch eine Neuinterpretation zu Kohäsion zu gelangen. Die Schuldentragfähigkeitsanalysen hätten funktionieren können, aber tiefes Misstrauen führt weiter zu Disziplinierung und Schuldenabbau als Primärzielen, obwohl wir in der EU mit der Transformation vor der größten Herausforderung der Geschichte der Union stehen.
                  

                     Ich prophezeie: Es wird wieder so sein, dass die Regeln erst dann funktionieren, wenn sie ausgesetzt sind. Wir werden viele Jahre verlieren, die entscheidend sind für Investitionen und Weichenstellungen, für die Zukunftsfähigkeit unserer Europäischen Union.
                  

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, it was more than four years ago we launched the review of our economic governance just before the outbreak of the pandemic. Our response to that substantial shock was ambitious.
The same sense of ambition is reflected in this political agreement. Adoption by the Parliament following this debate would pave the way for revised fiscal rules to enter into force by the end of April. They would then start to guide Member States' economic policies for the years to come. This would be accomplished by a simpler system and greater national ownership to ensure enhanced compliance and effectiveness.
As many of you have raised this issue, let me recall that the new framework will strengthen the social dimension within the European Semester. The new fiscal rules will serve as a cornerstone of the EU's macroeconomic and financial stability. This means acting to reduce debt and keep it at a sustainable level; ensuring sound public policies across all Member States; and building a solid base for future growth based on reforms and investments.
In conclusion, your vote today is important for ensuring a credible, modernised economic governance for all EU Member States. At such a time of record-high public debt, this is essential to maintain sound public finances and sustained economic growth across the whole EU.

Paolo Gentiloni,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this debate.
Let me again underline that what we are voting today is a compromise, and I like compromises. Today I think we can close an important process which we started indeed four years ago, just before the COVID-19 crisis, in a traditionally very controversial matter among Member States and political families.
Of course, the adoption of the new governance will not solve all our problems. I heard very much the word ‘investments’, and of course we need massive investments. This is the Commission which proposed NextGenerationEU, this is the Parliament that approved NextGenerationEU and cooperated with the Commission in its implementation and I'm sure that the next Commission and the next Parliament will discuss how to address this massive need of investments.
But the economic governance would prepare us better for the future with the new rules. Via a combination of prudent fiscal policies and growth-enhancing reforms and investment, it would ensure a gradual and realistic reduction of debt levels and foster growth and resilience in the EU.
For this reason, your vote is very important.

Markus Ferber,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe mit großem Interesse der Debatte zugehört und bin doch etwas überrascht, dass die, die heute früh noch darum gebettelt haben, dass wir hier als Demokraten in Europa zusammenarbeiten sollten, sich der Zustimmung der Fiskalregeln entziehen wollen. Und liebe Grüne, ich kann nur ganz deutlich sagen: Wer am Ende hier mit den Rechtsradikalen gegen eine stabile Währung stimmt, der sorgt dafür, dass wir nicht in der Lage sind, dass dieses Europa die Investitionen für die Zukunft leisten kann. Der sorgt dafür, dass wir nicht eine stabile Währung haben. Und mit Verlaub: Eine stabile Währung mit einer niedrigen Inflationsrate ist das Sozialste, was man überhaupt nur machen kann. Schauen Sie sich doch mal um in der Welt! Die Amerikaner haben keine Fiskalregeln, sie haben höhere Schuldenstände, sie haben höhere Neuverschuldung und zahlen höhere Zinsen und haben höhere Inflation. Was ist denn da sozial, wenn wir das auch bekommen?
                  

                     Deswegen kann ich nur appellieren: Wer hier fordert – wie die Spitzenkandidatin der Grünen –, mehr Verantwortung für Europa übernehmen zu wollen, um die radikalen Kräfte auszugrenzen, und jetzt bei den Fiskalregeln, bei dem Kernelement unserer gemeinsamen Währung, mit den radikalen Kräften mit Nein stimmt – sorry, das kann nicht verantwortungsvolle Politik sein.
                  

                     Deswegen kann ich nur appellieren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, heute, in wenigen Minuten, bei der Abstimmung im Plenum für diese Regeln zu stimmen, für einen stabilen Euro, für ein stabiles Europa, für ein Europa, das in der Lage ist, seine Zukunftsaufgaben zu bewältigen, und für ein Europa, das in der Lage ist, auch den Sozialstaat abzusichern. Niedrige Inflation ist die beste Sozialpolitik, die man machen kann. Hohe Inflation ist unsozial. Niedrige Inflation heißt niedrige Schulden. Hohe Inflation heißt hohe Schulden. Das ist die Frage, vor der wir heute stehen.
                  

Margarida Marques,
relatora. – Senhor Presidente, Senhores Comissários, Caros Colegas, já o disse, o acordo que votamos hoje representará um novo capítulo da governação económica da União Europeia. Mais espaço orçamental para o investimento, mais flexibilidade aos Estados-Membros para suavizarem os seus ajustamentos orçamentais. E temos, pela primeira vez, uma verdadeira dimensão social.
                  

                     Podemos falar, de facto, em governação económica e social e com uma abordagem caso a caso. E para os colegas que dizem que este quadro cria políticas de austeridade, o que estão de facto a fazer é a branquear os governos que desenvolvem políticas de austeridade e que justificam essas políticas com o quadro das regras europeias. Não é verdade. Este quadro não conduz à necessidade de políticas de austeridade.
                  

                     Agora, é tempo de olharmos para o futuro. Temos de criar um instrumento permanente de investimento ao nível europeu que complemente estas regras, que se junte a estas regras para concretizarmos as prioridades europeias.
                  

                     O Parlamento pode estar orgulhoso do resultado que alcançou. Tivemos um papel decisivo e conseguimos melhorar aquilo que tinha sido o compromisso do Conselho, com um acordo mais equilibrado e mais progressista.
                  

                     No ano em que o euro faz 25 anos, não podíamos deixar a moeda única europeia sem regras, exposta aos mercados e sem um futuro credível e de longo prazo.
                  

                     Queria terminar, agradecendo o trabalho de Esther de Lange, correlatora do lado do PPE, de Gaby Bishop, de todos os relatores-sombra que participaram neste trabalho e de todos aqueles que intervieram aqui neste debate. E gostaria de lembrar que este processo foi liderado, do lado do Parlamento, por quatro mulheres: três relatoras e uma presidente da Comissão da Economia.
                  

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
                  

                     Hlasovanie sa uskutoční v utorok 23. 4. 2024.
                  

(Rokovanie bolo prerušené o 11.39 h.)


SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE


Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks

4.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.03)


Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo soltanto segnalare a tutta l'Aula che oggi abbiamo qui con noi, nella balconata a seguire questo momento di voto, Patrick Zaki, un attivista per i diritti umani imprigionato in Egitto per molti anni che, grazie anche al nostro impegno qui in Aula, le risoluzioni, l'impegno che abbiamo portato avanti – l'ha portato avanti prima di tutto il Presidente Sassoli durante la sua presidenza – oggi può essere qui con noi. È libero e non è più nelle carceri egiziane.
               

                  Penso che sia importante riportarvi anche quello che mi ha detto ieri quando è arrivato qui e cioè che il fatto che lui sia qui e non sia più in carcere è la dimostrazione che le lotte per i diritti umani, per gli attivisti, che portiamo avanti in quest'Aula, a volte possono sembrarci imprese disperate, ma invece a volte portano a dei risultati, a liberare persone che sono in carcere solo per la volontà di esprimere le loro idee e di essere persone libere.
               

                  Quindi è il simbolo anche di una lotta per i diritti umani che portiamo avanti e che dobbiamo continuare a portare avanti insieme. Grazie a Patrick, grazie per essere qui.
               

Engin Eroglu (Renew). – Herr Präsident! Ich musste aus den deutschen Medien entnehmen, dass der Mitarbeiter von AfD-Spitzenkandidat Maximilian Krah vom Generalbundesanwalt inhaftiert worden ist. Ich als Freier Wähler und als Vertreter der Menschen der Europäischen Union bitte das Präsidium darum, jetzt verstärkt die Mitarbeiterüberprüfung in den Fokus zu nehmen. Es kann nicht sein, wir dürfen nicht akzeptieren, dass Mitarbeiter von Abgeordneten hier für China spionieren. Deswegen meine klare Ansage an das Präsidium: Wir brauchen härtere Kontrollen für die Überprüfung der Mitarbeiter.
               

(Beifall)


Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Zu dem gleichen Fall: Ich muss sagen, mich schockiert das. Gestern Nacht ist ein Mitarbeiter dieses Parlaments, von Maximilian Krah, festgenommen worden. Ich glaube, dieser Fall kommt nach bereits bestehenden Verdächtigungen von Korruption. Wir sehen sehr klar, dass wir mehr nachrichtendienstliche und Sicherheitszusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten brauchen. Ich glaube aber auch, dass es wichtig ist, dass wir die Untersuchung hier im Europäischen Parlament vorantreiben. Die europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger sollten das Recht haben, noch vor der Wahl zu wissen, was da vorgefallen ist. Deshalb bitte ich, an sie weiterzugeben, dass die Präsidentin sich selber darum kümmert, dass diese Untersuchung noch vor der Wahl abgeschlossen wird. Wir sehen, dass Länder wie Russland oder China versuchen, unsere Wahlen zu beeinflussen. Wir sollten da Klarheit schaffen. Das ist unsere Pflicht als Parlament gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern.
               

(Beifall)


Sēdes vadītājs. – Tas tiks nodots priekšsēdētājai.
               
5.   Voting time

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir balsošanas laiks.
               

(Balsošanas rezultātus un citu sīkāku informāciju sk. protokolā.)

5.1.   Gradual roll-out of Eudamed, information obligation in case of interruption of supply and the transitional provisions for certain in vitro diagnostic medical devices (C9-0010/2024) (vote)
5.2.   Union retail investor protection rules (A9-0162/2024 - Stéphanie Yon-Courtin) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Stéphanie Yon-Courtin,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, alors que notre marché unique existe depuis plus de 30 ans, l'Union des marchés de capitaux reste un serpent de mer. Face au besoin de financement massif pour les transitions écologique, numérique et de défense, l'argent public ne suffit pas. Il faut mobiliser l'argent privé, notamment réorienter l'épargne des Européens. C'est le but de la stratégie d'investissement de détail. En maintenant les rétrocommissions, notre accord au Parlement européen permet de préserver l'accès gratuit au conseil financier pour tous les citoyens sur tous nos territoires.
                  

                     Ce régime n'est pas parfait, il faut l'améliorer. Justement, nous mettons en place des garde-fous pour protéger les citoyens, assurer plus de transparence et garantir le rapport qualité-prix des produits financiers vendus. Nous renforçons aussi le pouvoir du superviseur pour mieux réprimer ceux qui violent les règles.
                  

                     Nos collègues socialistes et verts disent agir au nom du consommateur. Pourtant, ils ont quitté la table des négociations, privilégiant les postures politiques en période d'élection. Ils ont demandé une interdiction totale des rétrocommissions, qui aura des conséquences terribles, d'abord pour les citoyens, qui vont devoir payer des centaines d'euros pour obtenir des conseils de leur banquier, alors que jusqu'ici, c'est gratuit. Qui expliquera que seuls les plus riches auront à présent accès au conseil financier? Ensuite, ils vont fermer les agences sur nos territoires, ils vont détricoter le maillage territorial. Qui va dire aux citoyens qu'ils n'auront plus accès aux banques dans leur village? Enfin, ils favorisent les produits américains, au détriment de nos entreprises européennes.
                  

                     Chers collègues, l'approche adoptée au Parlement européen est une étape pour l'Union des marchés de capitaux, priorité de la prochaine mandature dans le pacte de compétitivité. C'est le nerf de la guerre. Pour relever tous nos défis, il est urgent d'agir et j'espère pouvoir compter sur votre soutien.
                  
5.3.   Discharge 2022: EU general budget – European Council and Council (A9-0071/2024 - Luke Ming Flanagan) (vote)
5.4.   Appointment of Karen Braun-Munzinger as a new member of the Single Resolution Board (A9-0150/2024 - Irene Tinagli) (vote)
5.5.   Recommendation for a decision not to oppose a delegated act: rules on the ratio for GAEC Standard 1 (B9-0199/2024, B9-0220/2024) (vote)
5.6.   Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Deleting Gibraltar from the table in Point I of the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 (B9-0210/2024, B9-0222/2024) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Helena Dalli,
Commission. – Mr President, Members, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive establishes a policy on third countries, and mandates the Commission to identify third-country jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regimes. In line with EU legislation, the FATF list is the baseline of the EU list of high-risk third countries.
Following the latest developments from the Financial Action Task Force, the Commission updated its list on 14 March 2024, proposing to add Kenya and Namibia, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Panama, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates. In line with EU legislation, the Commission is committed to updating its list as soon as possible after the FATF plenary.
Today, I am here to address Parliament's concerns regarding the delisting of Gibraltar, Panama and United Arab Emirates. But let me also underline the importance of this vote in recognising the investment and positive progress made by the other jurisdictions proposed for delisting in this delegated act.
The Commission, as a founding member of the FATF, has been closely involved in the delisting process of the UAE and Gibraltar within the FATF. Following on-site visits, the FATF concluded that all the shortcomings identified in the anti-money laundering / counter-terrorism financing regimes of these jurisdictions have been addressed through the implementation of their action plans.
No additional EU benchmarks were required for these jurisdictions since the Commission has assessed that the FATF action plans were sufficiently comprehensive in view of the EU delisting criteria. Therefore, in line with EU legislation, the Commission proposed to delist Gibraltar and the UAE swiftly after their delisting by FATF.
During the FATF plenary in February 2024, the Commission called on the UAE to continue improving its AML/CFT regime and to further collaborate in the field of international cooperation. The Commission is committed to closely follow developments on strengthening international cooperation in the existing structural dialogue with the UAE, in close cooperation with the European External Action Service.
Panama was already delisted by the FATF in October 2023. It was not immediately delisted because the Commission decided to impose additional requirements to those in the FATF action plan. Panama has provided evidence to the Commission on the fulfilment of the EU additional benchmarks. The Commission services have evaluated this information and shared its assessment with the European Parliament, Member States and the Council.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to delist Panama following improvements in the transparency of beneficial ownership information. Panama has notably demonstrated that its competent authorities are effectively responding to foreign requests for cooperation in identifying and exchanging basic and beneficial ownership information of legal persons and legal arrangements.
On the specific situation of the UAE, I hear your concerns. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU has imposed strong sanctions to curb Russia's war capabilities. These sanctions are applicable within the EU and to EU operators.
Russia is, as we know, actively seeking ways to circumvent our sanctions by, among others, relying on imports from third countries. EU sanctions do not apply extraterritorially. They only apply to third country operators if there is an involvement of an EU operator.
Fighting sanctions circumvention is one of our key priorities. Let me note that there is no legal basis in the EU AML/CFT framework to counter sanctions circumvention. We are addressing sanctions circumvention via other instruments. The Commission monitors trade to prevent the flow of restricted goods into Russia, and is able to identify suspicious trade routes and entities engaged in this trade. The UAE is among the third countries for which a careful monitoring of trade is being undertaken.
The Commission is in close contact with the UAE on potential sanctions evasion through its territory. EU Special Envoy for Sanctions, David O'Sullivan, has visited the country twice, in February and September 2023. Subsequently, the UAE authorities prohibited the re-export of sensitive battlefield items to Russia. This was an important step.
Additionally, two UAE-based entities have been listed in the latest EU sanctions package imposing export restrictions from the EU to these companies. It is true that signs are not encouraging and there is a lack of transparency on data from the UAE side.
Therefore, the Commission will continue to conduct political outreach and seeks to organise bilateral technical meetings between administrations to foster cooperation on suspicious trade patterns. In fact, the Special Envoy is on a visit to the UAE this week in order to further his discussions with authorities.
Finally, let me assure you that we remain proactive and vigilant. We will continue assessing the situation, and we are ready to address any risks for the efficiency of our sanctions policy and for the protection of the EU's financial system.
5.7.   Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Commission delegated regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 as regards the amount of the visa fees (B9-0216/2024) (vote)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Es ļoti atvainojos, es neiedevu vārdu Eiropas Komisijai. Es ļoti ceru, ka es laboju šo kļūdu, un aicinu jūs runāt. Varbūt, ja drīkst jūs lūgt, mazliet koncentrētāk, īsāk.
                  

- Pirms balsošanas:


Helena Dalli,
Commission. – Mr President, apology accepted. In its draft resolution objecting the delegated regulation proposing to increase the visa fee, the European Parliament states that during the inter-institutional negotiations on the digitalisation of visa procedures, the co-legislators agreed not to increase the visa fees due to estimated cost savings of a fully digitalised visa procedure.
There was however no political agreement relating to the freezing of visa fees formalised in the amending regulation introducing the digitalisation of visa procedures. In the Commission's understanding neither was there any informal agreement expressed orally during the political trilogues between the co-legislators to maintain the visa fee at its current level pending the implementation of the digitalisation of visa procedures. Digitalisation will only take place at the earliest as of 2028. And therefore the argument of cost savings is currently not relevant.
The Commission does not agree with the Parliament's statement that the proposal to increase the visa fee through the procedure provided for in Article 16(9) of the Visa Code ‘constitutes a breach of the agreement between the co-legislators reached during the inter-institutional negotiations, and, thus, undermines the principle of sincere cooperation’.
With this delegated regulation, the Commission complies with Article 16(9) of the Visa Code.
5.8.   Objection pursuant to Rule 111(3): Feedstock for the production of biofuels and biogas (B9-0218/2024) (vote)
5.9.   Measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks (Gigabit Infrastructure Act) (A9-0275/2023 - Alin Mituța) (vote)
5.10.   The transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (A9-0008/2024 - Assita Kanko) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Assita Kanko,
rapporteur. – Mr President, better justice will mean safer countries and safer homes for our citizens. This legislation is a crucial step towards better judicial cooperation and faster law enforcement. This is particularly important when investigating cross-border organised crime such as terrorism, human drugs and firearm trafficking, migrant smuggling, cybercrime or money laundering.
Together, we are about to ensure that justice in EU countries works better and faster, and that our citizens are protected and respected. As rapporteur, I would like to thank all the teams, especially Joanna and Anamaria, and all the shadows who contributed. This was good parliamentary work. This is the result – no ‘blah, blah, blah’ – and this Parliament can achieve. Thank you for your support.
5.11.   Establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of insurance and reinsurance undertakings (A9-0251/2023 - Markus Ferber) (vote)
5.12.   Amendments to the Solvency II Directive (A9-0256/2023 - Markus Ferber) (vote)
5.13.   Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (A9-0271/2023 - Maria Spyraki) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Maria Spyraki,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I will be very, very brief. Today we vote on the update of the revision of the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, which is one of the key pillars of EU chemical legislation. It is also a very, very important component of our chemicals strategy for sustainability.
The revision of CLP significantly increases the level of protection of consumers and the environment, as it introduced new hazard classes and thus increased the level of information provided for all products containing chemicals. We made the rules on marketing chemicals simpler and more transparent.
Also, we go on with digital labelling, where possible, and provide instructions in order to address risks from online sale. Providing a derogation for some substances containing more than one constituent extracted from plants or parts of plants, we support agriculture and SMEs, and safeguard the sustainability and competitiveness of the essential oil sector.
The revised regulation enhances the protection of children and the rights of the consumer, ensures the reliability of products and thus increases the safety of the European way of life. In addition, it introduces specific provisions for refill stations to ensure that risk mitigation measures are applied to minimise the exposure of humans, and provides an adequate period for industry to adapt to the new requirements.
I would like to thank all colleagues involved in this report. I would like to thank all of you and particularly ECHA, which provided a lot of information and support to us.
5.14.   Payment services and electronic money services in the Internal Market (A9-0046/2024 - Ondřej Kovařík) (vote)
5.15.   Payment services in the internal market and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (A9-0052/2024 - Marek Belka) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Marek Belka,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear colleagues, today we will vote on a topic which is very close to the hearts of Europeans – something all of us deal with virtually every day: payments.
With this file, we do not only protect consumers from various types of fraud, oblige payment service providers to deliver higher transparency levels for ATM withdrawals, or give consumers better control over who has access to their data. We also ensure that online platforms such as Meta or Google are co-responsible for payment fraud happening through them.
These are only some specific examples of what this file is dealing with. With this file, we prove to the EU citizens, even just before the elections, that we have their backs. We prove to euro-sceptics that they are wrong, and that the EU is an added value for each and every one of us.
Colleagues, files like the payments package are negotiated several months. We did it – as David Bowie would say – under pressure, in several weeks. Thank you to the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation. Thanks to my advisor, Pawel Wisniewski, for leading the technical work on this difficult, often very technical file.
I ask you to vote in favour of the Payment Services Regulation. Let us give the Parliament a strong mandate to negotiate with the Council in the upcoming term.
5.16.   Combating late payment in commercial transactions (A9-0156/2024 - Róża Thun und Hohenstein) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Róża Thun und Hohenstein,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear colleagues, this vote is our answer to the request of over 24 million SMEs on our European market. When you ask them about their main problems, they name, in first place, bureaucracy, and then second, late payments.
With this vote, we can solve the problem of late payments without creating any additional bureaucratic hurdles. For the first time, we introduce the long-expected maximum payment period, and I want to underline that those limits of 30, 60 or even 120 days are adapted to the specificities of the market, and they do not harm the principle of the freedom of contract.
I want just to remind you that 98 % of companies on our common market are the SMEs, and they call for the introduction of the maximum payment period.
Therefore, I urge you, dear colleagues, to support the amendments adopted by the IMCO Committee, and not others, and thus give a clear support to the million of those who need this support most. Let us send in the end of this term a good signal to our citizens, small and medium enterprises, and support them very clearly with this vote.
5.17.   Amending Directive 2014/62/EU as regards certain reporting requirements (A9-0152/2024 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (vote)
5.18.   Access of competent authorities to centralised bank account registries through the single access point (A9-0004/2023 - Emil Radev) (vote)

- Pēc balsošanas:


Helena Dalli,
Commission. – Mr President, in the Commission's view, the appropriate place to address the matter of Europol cooperation with financial intelligence units in relation to the joint analysis is in the context of the anti-money laundering package. The Commission underlines that any such cooperation with Europol will occur in accordance with Regulation 2016/794, in particular, the rules of Europol's tasks and on the protection of personal data laid down in that regulation.
5.19.   Regulation on import, export and transit measures for firearms, their essential components and ammunition(recast) (A9-0312/2023 - Bernd Lange) (vote)
5.20.   Ecodesign Regulation (A9-0218/2023 - Alessandra Moretti) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Alessandra Moretti,
Relatrice. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie a tutti quelli che hanno contribuito a questo risultato. Siamo molto soddisfatti per dare il via libera a un regolamento sulla progettazione ecocompatibile.
                  

                     È giunto il momento di liberarci dall'obsoleto modello ‘Prendi, produci e smaltisci’ che sta creando molti problemi al nostro pianeta, alla nostra salute e alla nostra economia. Apriamo la strada a una nuova era in cui ogni prodotto è realizzato in modo più sostenibile e in cui i consumatori possono risparmiare energia, riparare, fare scelte ambientali intelligenti. Una situazione vantaggiosa per tutti, sia per il portafoglio che per il pianeta.
                  

                     Inoltre, includendo con successo nel regolamento il divieto di distruzione insensata di tessuti e calzature invenduti, vogliamo contribuire a un cambiamento nel modo in cui i produttori di fast fashion producono i loro prodotti con una maggiore sostenibilità sociale e ambientale.
                  

                     Grazie a tutti per il lavoro. Credo che la nascita del passaporto digitale del prodotto, attraverso il quale sarà possibile fornire ai consumatori ulteriori informazioni sulla sostenibilità, farà in modo che siano i consumatori a scegliere da che parte stare e mi auguro dalla parte sempre della tutela dell'ambiente.
                  
5.21.   Temporary trade-liberalisation measures supplementing trade concessions applicable to Ukrainian products under the EU/Euratom/Ukraine Association Agreement (A9-0077/2024 - Sandra Kalniete) (vote)
5.22.   Visa exemption for holders of Serbian passports issued by the Serbian Coordination Directorate (A9-0172/2024 - Matjaž Nemec) (vote)

- Pirms balsošanas:


Matjaž Nemec,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear colleagues, this vote is an important one, and this is not a political issue, but a technical one. This is a continuation of the visa liberalisation which was adopted for Serbia already in 2009, for Kosovo since the beginning of this year.
This decision is about making people's lives better. In fact, it's about 18 000 Serbian residents of Kosovo who are holders of the special passports. Since the beginning of this year, they remain the only category of citizens in the Western Balkans who do not enjoy visa liberalisation for the European Union. I believe there is no justification for that, political or other.
This is also an issue that the EU created in 2009, and it is on us to fix it, dear colleagues. This is at its core a question of equal treatment or discrimination, and we should be against any form of discrimination. We must not allow that these citizens pay the price for the failures of their own politicians. The Council has already adopted the decision. The EEAS and the Commission strongly support it too. So, as your rapporteur, I ask for your support.
5.23.   Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement: participation of Egypt in Union programmes (A9-0175/2024 - Michael Gahler) (vote)
5.24.   Preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution (A9-0148/2024 - João Albuquerque) (vote)
5.25.   Common rules promoting the repair of goods (A9-0316/2023 - René Repasi) (vote)
5.26.   Prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (A9-0306/2023 - Samira Rafaela, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques) (vote)
5.27.   Amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (A9-0285/2023 - Malin Björk, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop) (vote)
5.28.   Effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance (A9-0439/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)
5.29.   Speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure – amending Regulation (A9-0444/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)
5.30.   Requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States – amending Directive (A9-0440/2023 - Markus Ferber, Margarida Marques) (vote)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Līdz ar to balsošanas laiks ir beidzies.
                  

(Sēde tika pārtraukta plkst. 13.01.)


ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(Η συνεδρίαση συνεχίζεται στις 13.05)

7.   Combating violence against women and domestic violence (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη αφορά:
               

                  την έκθεση της Evin Incir και της Frances Fitzgerald, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων και της Επιτροπής Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και Ισότητας των Φύλων, σχετικά με την πρόταση οδηγίας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου για την καταπολέμηση της βίας κατά των γυναικών και της εξ οικείων βίας (COM(2022)0105 - C9-0058/2022 - 2022/0066(COD)) (A9-0234/2023)
               

Evin Incir,
rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, after more than three decades of dedicated and continuous fight for women's rights by European women, we are on the brink of achieving a new milestone in the history of women in Europe. The journey has been challenging, but every moment of anger and every tear shed along the way have been worthwhile.
While the negotiation process has taken over two years, the battle for our rights and demands has been ongoing for much, much longer. The pleas from women and girls resonate throughout our Union, spanning all our Member States and reaching across the globe. Though their voices may vary, their message remains consistent: a call for freedom, safety, security and the protection of women's human rights.
No corner in our society is immune to the threat of gender-based violence. Whether it is in homes, schools, workplaces, public squares, streets or online platforms, women and girls are continually subjected to violence and abuse at the hands of men. It has occurred throughout history and in all parts of society, whether during times of war or during times of peace.
Close to one out of every three women has experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15. Approximately 5% of women in EU countries have been raped since the age of 15. Shockingly, only 0.5% of rapes result in convictions. This is unacceptable. We must put an end to this impunity.
Globally, intimate partners are responsible for up to 38% of all murders of women. Between 45% and 55% of women in the EU have encountered sexual harassment since the age of 15.
However, this issue extends beyond personal relationships and infiltrates various settings, including online platforms. Online violence against women and girls has surged in recent years, presenting significant threats to their safety and wellbeing. For example, 73% of female journalists have faced online violence in the course of their work.
As I eagerly anticipate finally being able to transition from words to action to save the lives of women and girls, I am also disheartened by certain leaders in some of our Member States, particularly the trio of men who hindered the inclusion of legislation based on consent to address rape.
The actions of the liberal President Macron in France, the liberal Minister of Justice Buschmann in Germany – who disregarded the pleas of his ministerial counterparts from the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party to incorporate legislation based on consent to address rape – and the illiberal Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary are deeply disappointing. Your betrayal and obstruction of the opportunity to implement consent-based legislation will not be overlooked and will not be forgotten.
Nevertheless, despite the resistance from these three individuals and others, we succeeded in incorporating for the first time in EU legislation the requirement for Member States to promote a culture based on consent in sexual relationships, to define non-consensual sex as a criminal offence. While this may not seem ground-breaking at first glance, the challenges faced during negotiations have revealed its truly strong and revolutionary nature.
Colleagues, let's pay attention to the request of the various European and national women's organisation. It's time to finalise – through adoption of the agreement – and embrace this historical and ground-breaking first directive aimed at combating violence against women and domestic violence in a comprehensive way. At this point, any indecision would be a betrayal of the collective efforts, aspirations and dedication of generations of women and girls.
Remember: the rights of women and girls are human rights. Let's now go from words to actions for a more secure Europe for women and girls, for a feminist Europe.

Frances Fitzgerald,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, there can be no equality without the eradication of violence against women and domestic violence. That's clear. This week, we have the opportunity to live up to one of our founding European ideals: equality between women and men.
Equality across the European Union is floundering in some places: hateful LGBTQ zones created to bully people into conformity, brutal rollback of abortion care and the ever-thundering train of domestic violence that never gets quieter, it seems, but actually – as we've seen through the COVID-19 pandemic – only gets louder.
And why are women targeted? Because there is, sadly, just beneath the surface, the belief that women are lesser. Every year, gender-based violence costs the European Union a staggering EUR 366 billion – a cost that we cannot afford economically but one we cannot afford socially, because behind these numbers we find fractured families, traumatised children and devastated women living in fear every single day.
So the opportunity that presents itself here to us today is to make a stand for the women of Europe, to adopt the directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence. This will send a strong message across the European Union to all 27 Member States and 450 million citizens: we'll not stand for violence.
We have to build on the accession of the Istanbul Convention. We are creating a robust framework. So the goal should be that Europe will be the first continent in the world to eradicate violence against women. But the adoption tomorrow is not enough. We need a robust monitoring framework and a genuine commitment across all levels of government to ensure that this is really implemented, that we tackle this with the right resources and supports.
And I would say to the ministers for justice across the European Union – and we saw ambivalence from some of them – to do your absolute utmost, learn from your colleagues across Europe what works well, exchange best practice, fight for that extra bit of budget, invest in resources and make successful tackling of this crime your legacy. We do not want to cut corners on the implementation of this legislation. Don't try and minimise it; build on it.
To the Prime Ministers and Presidents: work with your governments to make sure that this is implemented, that you build on the very best practice so you build a society that's fit for the women and girls of today and tomorrow.
And, obviously, to the European Commission – congratulations to them, to the Commissioner here and Ursula von der Leyen – be clinical in your examination of the transposition of this directive, because this really matters. And do tell us, when the time comes, what has been achieved.
I know we will have more to do because, as I have said, this is the beginning. We have come far with this directive. We should have gone further but there was huge resistance, as my colleague Evin Incir has said. But I am confident that with this directive, our Union will be a better place for its adoption.
But, again, the real work begins now. Let's make sure that that's done all over Europe. We need to go forward together, and there was great cooperation in this House when we were working on this directive. We need to go forward and achieve that secure European future that the women of Europe and the young girls of Europe deserve.
I wholeheartedly urge every Member of this House to vote in favour of this directive tomorrow. Do not be distracted. It can save and change countless lives of women right across Europe. This directive is very important. It has new offences. It has sections on prevention, on support, on protection and on prosecution. It really matters that we implement this directive after 10 long years and, indeed, decades.

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Empleo y Asuntos Sociales. – Señor presidente, cada seis horas muere una mujer en Europa. Por primera vez habrá una norma a escala de la Unión Europea para combatir la violencia contra las mujeres y la violencia doméstica.
               

                  Damos un histórico paso adelante para hacer de Europa el primer continente del mundo en eliminar la violencia contra las mujeres. Enviamos el mensaje de que no se acepta que, por ser mujeres, corramos más riesgos que si fuéramos hombres. Se penaliza, en toda la Unión Europea, la mutilación genital femenina en todas sus formas, el matrimonio forzoso, el ciberacecho, el ciberataque, la incitación al odio o a la violencia en línea y el intercambio no consentido de imágenes íntimas.
               

                  Se establecen estas normas comunes para hacernos más fuertes, pero también se facilita el acceso a la justicia. Se habla de protección y prevención. No se ha podido introducir la violación sin consentimiento. Lamentamos que algunos países no se hayan puesto en el lado correcto de la historia.
               

                  Tengo que decirles, en nombre del Grupo PPE, que todos los países donde este gobierna han votado a favor de que la violación sin consentimiento sea un eurodelito. No ha sido así en el caso —se ha dicho aquí— de países como Alemania, del Grupo S&D, o como Francia, con el señor Macron. Tendremos tiempo para enmendar este error en la próxima legislatura.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for inviting me to today's debate. From the beginning of our mandate, the Commission emphasised its strong commitment to advance gender equality and to ensure freedom from gender-based violence in its equality strategy. In this respect, the European Parliament has been very vocal – and I really, really thank you for this – in calling on the Commission to take legislative action to end violence against women. Again, I thank you for your perseverance and for your active support. In particular, I thank the co-rapporteurs, Members of Parliament Fitzgerald and Incir and your teams for your unrelenting commitment to this file and in making a difference and contributing to changing women's lives.
The work exchanges and negotiations with stakeholders, civil society organisations, Member States and EU, Swedish, Spanish and Belgian Presidencies have been intense and sometimes difficult and challenging. But through our common efforts and common aim to have for the first time EU law to protect, prevent and support women against violence and domestic violence, we managed to reach a political agreement on this instrument earlier this year. The message is clear. No longer will we accept violence against women and domestic violence in Europe. The directive represents an important step towards promoting change in social and cultural patterns of behaviour, and ultimately reducing the prevalence of all forms of violence against women and domestic violence in the EU.
Victims of violence against women and domestic violence across the EU will now benefit from the same measures of protection, support and access to justice. The directive builds upon and complements the general regime of the Victims Rights Directive by introducing provisions targeted to the specific needs of victims of violence against women and domestic violence.
The directive also provides for the EU-wide criminalisation of the most widespread forms of cyber violence against women, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, cyberstalking, cyber harassment, misogynous hate speech online and cyber flashing. It also criminalises female genital mutilation and forced marriage as such harmful practices are unacceptable.
The directive will include a strong article on prevention measures related to rape and the central role of consent in sexual relationships to promote awareness and ultimately reduce the scourge of rape in the EU. Member States have three years to implement the directive. It will require every Member State's commitment to correctly transpose the new law within that time frame. The Commission will support Member States and closely monitor that process.
I trust that this House, together with the Council, will adopt this directive in order to empower victims and help make Europe a safe place for us.

Alexandra Geese,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltsausschusses. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, sehr verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Von künstlicher Intelligenz generierte Nacktbilder, die für die ganze Welt online für immer zu finden sind – dieser Albtraum ist vor einigen Wochen für Taylor Swift wahr geworden. Aber es kann jeder von uns passieren. Und viele der so missbrauchten Frauen bekommen Angststörungen, leiden unter Depressionen oder nehmen sich sogar das Leben. Deswegen ist es ein so großer Erfolg, dass die neue Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen jetzt klar sagt: Das Veröffentlichen von Nacktbildern ohne Einwilligung der betroffenen Person ist eine Straftat.
               

                  Was mich aber schockiert, ist, dass der Rat die Hürden so hoch gemacht hat, dass der Schutz für die betroffenen Frauen wieder eingeschränkt wird. Denn jetzt muss ein schwerer Schaden nachgewiesen werden. Meine Damen und Herren, jede Frau weiß, dass die Veröffentlichung von Nacktbildern gegen den eigenen Willen die Definition des schweren Schadens ist! Was gibt es da noch nachzuweisen? Lassen Sie uns deshalb jetzt auf nationaler Ebene dafür kämpfen, dass diese perfide Form von Gewalt gegen Frauen endlich aufhört! Lassen Sie uns kämpfen für ein Europa, in dem Frauen frei und sicher leben können!
               

Manon Aubry,
Rap avis JURI. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, un viol se déroule toutes les sept minutes dans l'Union européenne, soit 100 000 chaque année. Et combien de violeurs sont condamnés? Moins de 1 %. Que dirait-on si seulement 1 % des cambrioleurs ou des voleurs étaient condamnés? Que c'est l'impunité organisée et généralisée. Cela ferait tous les bandeaux des chaînes d'information continue. Mais remarquez qu'il en est toujours différemment quand il est question des droits des femmes.
               

                  Oui, ce texte de lutte contre les violences sexistes et sexuelles va dans le bon sens; mais je ne peux m'empêcher, à l'heure de voter ce texte, d'être en colère contre Emmanuel Macron qui, aux côtés de son allié préféré, Victor Orbán, a bloqué une définition européenne commune du viol. Alors, je veux le répéter ici à cette tribune: n'en déplaise à Emmanuel Macron, à la droite et à l'extrême droite: un rapport sexuel sans consentement est un viol et doit figurer comme tel dans la loi européenne. Et nous le clamerons tant qu'il le faudra, haut et fort: le corps des femmes ne vous appartient pas, notre consentement non plus.
               

Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, cette directive constitue une véritable avancée pour protéger les femmes victimes de mutilations génitales, de mariage forcé ou encore de cyberharcèlement; mais c'est un acte manqué pour les victimes de viol. Qu'allez-vous faire de ces millions de femmes? Les laisser sur le bord du chemin? L'accord prévoit une révision dans cinq ans pour éventuellement introduire le viol. Cela ne vous met pas mal à l'aise? 100 000 femmes sont victimes de viol chaque année dans l'Union européenne; dix femmes chaque heure en France sont victimes de viol ou de tentative de viol.
               

                  C'est Emmanuel Macron qui s'est opposé le premier à inclure le viol, la plus grave des violences, dans ce texte, d'abord avec un argument juridique fallacieux, puis en contestant une définition simple: un acte sexuel sans consentement est un viol. Or, le 8 mars dernier, heureux hasard d'agenda, monsieur Macron fait volte face: il n'y a plus de problème avec la notion de consentement. Eh bien, Monsieur Macron, je vous prends au mot.
               

                  Oui, le viol est une affaire européenne, car nous vivons dans un espace de libre circulation. Oui, ce qui est considéré comme un viol en Belgique ou en Espagne doit l'être aussi en France ou en Pologne avec des sanctions harmonisées, pour mieux protéger les victimes, quel que soit le pays où elles se trouvent, et pour lutter contre l'impunité des auteurs, quel que soit l'État dans lequel ils sévissent. Voilà pourquoi j'ai déposé, moi qui suis de droite, Madame Aubry, cet amendement qui permettra de réintégrer le viol dans ce texte. Ne trahissons pas le combat de tant de femmes et, en cet instant, je pense à Simone Veil, première Présidente de ce Parlement. Pensez-vous une seule seconde que sa main aurait tremblé?
               

                  Je le redis: cet amendement n'a pas vocation à remettre en cause l'entièreté de l'accord de trilogue. Tout au plus, il retardera son adoption de quelques mois – quelques mois seulement, mais des années si nous votons ce texte sans y inclure le viol.
               

Pina Picierno,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, con molta sofferenza devo dire che non voterò questa direttiva perché, senza giri di parole, la ritengo una enorme, gigantesca occasione persa.
               

                  Ancora una volta una mediazione al ribasso, fatta ancora una volta sul corpo delle donne. È stato svuotato un testo, un testo importante, un testo lungimirante, innovativo, che il Parlamento e la Commissione avevano approvato ed è stato svuotato a causa della miopia, dell'arroganza che è stata qui ricordata dai governi.
               

                  Ma io vi chiedo e mi chiedo come noi spiegheremo alle donne qui fuori che è stata approvata una direttiva che non contempla che senza consenso è stupro. Noi abbiamo presentato con alcuni colleghi di diversi gruppi politici un emendamento per provare a riaprire i negoziati ed includere ancora una volta l'articolo 5.
               

                  Vi chiedo, mi chiedo con quali occhi voi, noi guarderemo le donne di domani, chiedendo loro di denunciare se in questo testo hanno più forza le ragioni della cultura patriarcale che quelle del femminismo.
               

                  E allora io non voterò questo testo, perché l'unica risposta che posso dare è dire con forza e con chiarezza ‘non in mio nome’.
               

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, no hay absolutamente nada que justifique que la Unión Europea no tenga una directiva para luchar contra la violencia de género cuando, según los últimos datos de la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, cincuenta mujeres y niñas mueren asesinadas a la semana en territorio europeo víctimas de esta lacra. Por eso, es absolutamente importante que mañana saquemos adelante esta Directiva.
               

                  No hemos conseguido incorporar en ella todo lo que las víctimas se merecen para la persecución de los culpables, para la prevención de los delitos, para la asistencia a las víctimas… Pero hemos conseguido todo aquello hasta donde hemos podido llegar. La violación sin consentimiento es delito en la Unión Europea. No hemos podido incluirlo en el artículo, pero está en el artículo 36 bis de esta Directiva, en la parte de la prevención.
               

                  Sí, lamentablemente con muchos Estados grandes como Alemania, con un gobierno socialista, y con Francia, pero también con muchos otros, no teníamos mayoría suficiente. Por lo tanto, les pido que mañana a la hora de votar voten pensando en las víctimas, en las asesinadas, en aquellas mujeres que están sufriendo violencia y a las que podemos proteger, y en los millones de víctimas —mujeres y niñas— que esta Directiva puede evitar. Voten a favor, por favor.
               

Diana Riba i Giner,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, hoy es un día muy importante para todas las mujeres europeas. Es el día en que esta Cámara votará la primera ley europea contra la violencia que nos discrimina y nos mata por el simple y mero hecho de ser mujeres. Y ante la trascendencia de este voto, una siente la presión de la historia y da muchas vueltas sobre qué decir en un momento como este.
               

                  Podría dedicar el tiempo de palabra a denunciar el hecho de que el Consejo, encabezado por Gobiernos como los de Francia y Alemania, haya impedido que la violación sin consentimiento se criminalice en el ámbito europeo. La historia les juzgará, pero creo que es más honesto y justo dedicar estas palabras a todas las mujeres que llevan décadas de lucha construyendo una sociedad más justa e igualitaria, donde las mujeres puedan vivir sin miedo. Una sociedad donde no tengamos que llamar a nuestras amigas para que nos acompañen con su voz cuando andamos solas por la noche, donde no tengamos que agarrar con fuerza y rabia las llaves en el bolsillo o donde ninguna mujer tema, nunca más, a entrar en su propia casa porque su hogar ya no es su hogar, sino su infierno.
               

                  Con miedo no hay libertad. Y hoy, sin duda, damos un gran paso para romper el miedo en Europa. Tenemos la ley, la herramienta, y ahora nos toca luchar para hacerla más ambiciosa, aunque moleste a los señores del Consejo. Por todas nosotras.
               

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señorías, es dramático cuando la violencia irrumpe en el hogar y en las relaciones de supuesta confianza. Internet también nos expone a riesgos de agresiones que no deben quedar impunes. Todos debemos combatir y poner fin a la violencia doméstica y contra la mujer.
               

                  Sin embargo, vemos que la seguridad de las mujeres está cada vez más amenazada por una inmigración descontrolada. El miedo ya condiciona nuestra libertad y nuestra forma de actuar. Debemos reflexionar sobre la manera en la que se está acometiendo e incluso si no es parte del problema, porque se está dando la espalda a los principios que sustentan nuestra cultura y nos protegen, dando paso a quienes no la respetan.
               

                  Se fomenta una visión instrumentalista e hipersexualizada de la mujer que ya de por sí nos daña. La ideología de género acaba con el sentido común. Pretende reducir la violencia al hecho de ser mujer y, la agresividad, al hecho de ser hombre. Parece que hay más preocupación por enfrentarnos y generar odio hacia el varón que en acabar realmente con la violencia.
               

Annika Bruna,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, la lutte contre toutes les formes de violence faite aux femmes et aux enfants est l'un des combats que j'ai portés durant cette mandature, et je me réjouis que nous soyons enfin parvenus à un accord sur un sujet aussi grave.
               

                  Je voudrais rappeler également quelques chiffres. Plus de la moitié des femmes dans l'Union européenne ont déjà été victimes de harcèlement sexuel. Une femme sur trois a subi des violences physiques ou sexuelles. Je salue donc ce texte qui a l'ambition de renforcer les mesures en matière de prévention et de protection. Les mutilations génitales, les mariages forcés et de nombreuses formes de cyberviolence seront érigés en infractions pénales. Tout doit être mis en œuvre pour mettre fin à l'impunité des actes violents et sexuels, tant en ligne que hors ligne.
               

                  Je regrette cependant l'absence de mesures pour stopper l'arrivée d'une immigration massive, irrégulière et non assimilée sur le sol européen, qui menace sévèrement la sécurité de nos concitoyennes. J'en veux pour exemple les chiffres recensés par la préfecture de police de Paris qui, n'en déplaise à nos détracteurs, sont une triste et dure réalité. En effet, 77 % des viols connus et commis dans les rues de Paris sont perpétrés par des individus de nationalité étrangère. Pour autant, cette directive constitue le premier instrument juridique aussi complet à l'échelle de l'Union européenne. Nous voterons donc en faveur, avec mes collègues du Rassemblement national.
               

Malin Björk,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteurs and I also want to acknowledge that this directive is feminist teamwork. And when I say ‘feminist teamwork’, it's also the women that came before us who have tirelessly asked for European action to combat violence against women and gender-based violence, and now we are here.
We will have a directive against violence against women and domestic violence. Violence against women and girls and gender-based violence has no place in Europe in 2024. It limits all our lives. It takes lives and we must combat it together.
But as you know, as all feminists know, this is not only a question of law enforcement, it is a feminist project, it is actually a very long feminist project. That's why I'm very happy that this directive has strong parts on prevention, on supporting women's shelters, on supporting women and men and boys that fight violence against women and girls. It has strong provisions on rights for victims, because if we do not have access to justice and access to support and protection for victims, then we're not doing our feminist job. We have mentioned LBGTIQ+ women as well as they are also victims of gender-based violence.
So here we go: it is not a perfect directive, but it is the first one at European level and I think we should celebrate it. Feminist teamwork can deliver.

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in un'Unione europea dove una donna su tre ha subito violenza fisica o sessuale, il 75% ha subito molestie sessuali sul luogo di lavoro e dove una donna su due è stata vittima di violenza di genere online, è chiaro che è urgente agire con efficacia.
               

                  La proposta di direttiva sulla lotta alla violenza contro le donne avrebbe dovuto rappresentare un baluardo europeo contro questa piaga, ma le modifiche decise dal Consiglio hanno reso il testo meno ambizioso. Si è persa un'occasione per un cambio di paradigma ed è per questo che non possiamo votare a favore di questo testo.
               

                  Vengono infatti eliminate le norme per criminalizzare lo stupro come atto sessuale senza consenso. Vengono eliminate le molestie sessuali nel mondo del lavoro. Viene inoltre stabilita una pena detentiva generica, sanzioni penali generiche, ma non pene detentive minime.
               

                  Manca dunque ancora una condivisione piena di valori e di principi enunciati dalla Convenzione di Istanbul per offrire tutela ai diritti delle donne laddove sono maggiormente sotto attacco.
               

                  Noi donne non ci arrendiamo e continueremo ad impegnarci affinché l'Europa possa essere davvero un faro di progresso, senza compromessi sulla sicurezza e sulla libertà delle donne.
               

Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Herr talman! I Sverige har på fyra månader tolv kvinnor blivit mördade i sina hem. Det är det här som är vardagen i Sverige, men också för många kvinnor runt om i Europa. Kvinnor har fått betala det högsta priset med sin frihet och sina liv för att den förra regeringen daltat med våldsamma män och otryggheten i Sverige.
               

                  Jag är stolt över att vi nu har fått till kraftfulla verktyg här i EU för att bekämpa våldet mot kvinnor både i Sverige och i hela EU. Både Istanbulkonventionen, som jag ansvarade för att driva igenom här i Europaparlamentet, men också lagen nu som kriminaliserar våldet mot kvinnor i Europa.
               

                  Det här är jättestort, men det tog åtta månader för oss och vår moderatledda regering att få igenom Istanbulkonventionen här i EU, medan Socialdemokraterna och deras regering daltade i åtta år vid makten.
               

                  Men jag är inte nöjd. Vi hade kunnat få en samtyckeslag på EU-nivå i dag också. Men det stoppades, inte bara av Viktor Orbán, utan också av Emmanuel Macron och Olaf Scholz, Centerpartiets och Socialdemokraternas partivänner här i EU.
               

                  Jag och Moderaterna kommer att ta kampen och göra allt vi kan för att få en samtyckeslag i hela EU nästa mandatperiod. Vi har levererat den här gången. Vi kommer att göra det efter EU-valet, för Europa och Sverige måste bli tryggare för alla kvinnor.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, es el último pleno de la legislatura 2019—2014 y estamos aprobando, nada menos, que la primera ley europea contra la violencia de género, violencia sobre las mujeres. Es un orgullo, habiendo sido ministro de Justicia de un Gobierno que hizo historia poniendo en vigor una ley muy comprometida contra la violencia sobre las mujeres en España, hacerlo ahora en esta sesión solemne que aprueba definitivamente una ley en la que tanto hemos trabajado.
               

                  Si me hubieran dicho —no al inicio de esta legislatura, sino al inicio de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa con la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea— que esto iba a ser posible, me habría costado creerlo, pero lo hemos hecho posible: una ley penal que introduce el delito de violencia contra las mujeres en coherencia con el Convenio de Estambul, que además criminaliza la mutilación genital, el ciberacoso y la ciberviolencia contra las mujeres y protege a las víctimas de manera reforzada con mecanismos de prevención especial, y particularmente a las personas vulnerables.
               

                  El trabajo no estará completo hasta que no consigamos remover el obstáculo que hemos encontrado para que sea calificada como violación cualquier forma de relación sexual no consentida y, por tanto, calificar como violación cualquier forma de acceso sexual a las mujeres que no se base en el libre consentimiento.
               

                  Gracias a quienes lo han hecho posible. Ha sido un honor trabajar en esta Directiva penal contra la violencia sobre las mujeres.
               

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.
Women make up the overwhelming majority of the victims of the crime of intimate partner abuse and of serious threats, rape and sexual violence. Every week, we read about horrific stories of women being abused or murdered by someone close to them, but some politicians still refuse to accept the term ‘gender-based violence’. We have to stop excusing these crimes, we have to stop pretending they don't exist. We have to not only condemn them, but we have to address them, prevent them, and punish those who perpetrate them.
This legislation is not ideal, but it is a significant step forward for countries that have not ratified, sadly, the Istanbul Convention, like my own Slovakia. We will need to properly collect data – which is currently lacking – to create effective policies. We need trained police officers, prosecutors, judges and we need to increase victims' trust in law enforcement and authorities because experts estimate that only one tenth of the victims report sexual violence.
Dear women, please accept my apology that this law is so belated. But I promise that many men and I are with you in this fight. We will do our utmost to strengthen the fight against the gender-based violence, because we owe it to all the victims of violence across the European Union. We are with you.

Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE). – Prawie 40% kobiet w Polsce doświadcza przemocy w internecie. Kobiety są wyśmiewane, wyszydzane, obrażone. 30% takich zachowań w internecie ma charakter przemocy seksualnej. Cyberprzemoc powoduje obniżenie poczucia własnej wartości, depresję oraz pogorszenie stanu zdrowia. Kobiety aktywne zawodowo zmieniają pracę, tracą środki na utrzymanie. Kobiety aktywne politycznie lub społecznie rezygnują z tych aktywności. To wyniki badań, które właśnie przeprowadziliśmy w Polsce.
               

                  Cyberprzemoc to nowa twarz starego problemu przemocy wobec kobiet offline, używanej do przywoływania kobiet do porządku, do ich uciszania, wpływa na same ofiary, ale także na jakość naszej demokracji, na partycypację kobiet w życiu społecznym i politycznym. Dyrektywa kryminalizuje po raz pierwszy na poziomie unijnym cyberprzemoc wobec kobiet. Nie jest doskonałym prawem, ale to pierwszy krok, żeby w końcu zacząć tworzyć świat, w którym kobiety będą bezpieczne, w domu, na ulicy, w pracy, w internecie.
               

Assita Kanko (ECR). – Mr President, dear colleagues, when we speak about women's rights, we are speaking about real women and girls undergoing awful experiences and facing injustice too often.
The perpetrators feel free to continue the violence inside the homes and outside in the streets as well. Women and girls are safe nowhere for sure. We must never get used to this or be too proud of what we have achieved, because this is one step ahead and there is still so much to do.
I speak today as a politician, but above all as a woman and as a mother. We all know that this is good, but that it is not enough. Sex without consent is a criminal offence. Do you realise that we live in a Europe where we still have to fight for a sentence like this in a legislation?
Dear colleagues, I will vote for the directive tomorrow, the first-ever step towards justice and freedom for women against violence. But let's agree to that one last big thing: there is still much to do and this is only a work in progress.
As mothers, as lawmakers, we have gotten a lot from the past. What are we prepared to give to the future? This is what we must continue working on after the elections if we have the chance to pursue this work and make this still a priority.

Mathilde Androuët (ID). – Monsieur le Président, encore un texte contre les violences faites aux femmes et pourtant, toujours les mêmes chiffres depuis cinq ans. Une femme sur trois a déjà subi des violences sexuelles et psychologiques en Europe. Une femme sur vingt a souffert de viol. Chaque année, 180 000 Européennes subissent une excision.
               

                  Pour des progressistes, vous n'avez guère progressé, préférant agglomérer toutes vos causes à celle de la fin des violences faites aux femmes, ce qui explique votre échec. L'objectif d'intersectionnalité, ici explicite dans le texte, mélange la défense des femmes et, par exemple, la défense des immigrés, qui portent pourtant une part de violences sexuelles. Chiffres récents à l'appui, à Paris, 77 % des viols élucidés sont commis par des étrangers. On retrouve aussi la défense des femmes trans, qui sont par nature des hommes biologiques ayant des problématiques par essence non féminines. On parle d'excision, sans parler des origines affreuses de cette pratique monstrueuse.
               

                  Outre le fatras idéologique, la surenchère législative. Vous imposez par directive de nouvelles définitions des infractions pénales, vous outrepassez vos droits et vous créerez de l'instabilité juridique. Que la Commission européenne n'oublie donc pas qu'elle foule un continent où les femmes ont pu être scientifiques, reines, saintes, chefs de guerre, astronautes, impératrices ou encore écrivaines, et qu'à ce titre, cet héritage l'oblige. L'oblige à quoi? A minima, à éviter d'importer ou de se coucher devant des idéologies où la femme n'est qu'un ventre à remplir, un corps à voiler ou à soumettre, ou un esprit à faire taire. L'Europe a fixé le principe que la femme est le plus grand trésor de l'homme. Faites de ce principe votre dogme, protégez-la, mais protégez-la vraiment.
               

Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, no cabe duda de que esta ha sido la legislatura de las mujeres. Hemos ratificado el Convenio de Estambul, hemos reclamado la violencia de género como eurodelito, la reforma de los Tratados para incorporar los derechos sexuales y reproductivos y la violencia de género o la inclusión del aborto en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Acabamos de aprobar la modificación de la Directiva relativa a la prevención y lucha contra la trata de seres humanos y a la protección de las víctimas y mañana será el turno de la Directiva sobre la lucha contra la violencia contra las mujeres y la violencia doméstica. No podíamos continuar con datos insuficientes, sin tipos penales homogéneos o herramientas comunes para prevenir, proteger y apoyar a las víctimas.
               

                  La violación queda fuera de la parte penal, no así de la parte preventiva y de apoyo a las víctimas, porque Francia y Alemania nos han querido vender como problema jurídico lo que no es sino una incoherencia, una arbitrariedad y una gran falta de compromiso con mujeres y niñas. Pero es solo cuestión de tiempo. Dejamos una Europa más feminista y esa semilla acabará dando sus frutos.
               

                  Esta Directiva cambiará la vida de millones de víctimas, frenará el negacionismo de género e impedirá las regresiones con las que algunos sueñan. Hoy estamos salvando la vida y cuidando la salud de todas las mujeres europeas. Y podemos estar orgullosas. Gracias, compañeras. Viva el feminismo.
               

Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, durante questa legislatura abbiamo votato ben otto testi per rispondere alla piaga della violenza contro le donne e di genere.
               

                  Finalmente arriviamo in Aula con una direttiva che contiene regole chiare e uniformi per combattere questo fenomeno, purtroppo ancora troppo diffuso nella nostra società. Un accordo, tuttavia, non vale l'altro. Il muro eretto da alcuni paesi dell'Est contro l'inserimento del reato di stupro fra i crimini europei è inaccettabile. Manca anche un riferimento alle molestie sessuali nel mondo del lavoro e le donne meritano di più.
               

                  Se l'emendamento da noi cofirmato per includere nel campo di applicazione della direttiva la definizione dello stupro non sarà approvato, il Movimento 5 Stelle non sosterrà questo testo.
               

                  Faccio dunque un appello a tutti i colleghi: siate coraggiosi, non trasformate questa opportunità nell'ennesima occasione sprecata per aiutare le donne a lottare contro le mortificazioni che troppo spesso sono costrette a subire.
               

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Równość kobiet i mężczyzn, Europa wolna od przemocy wobec kobiet i dziewcząt – do tego dążymy podczas naszych prac w Parlamencie Europejskim. I to wstyd, Szanowni Państwo, że w XXI wieku cały czas my kobiety musimy walczyć o nasze prawa. To wstyd, że w XXI wieku kobiety i dziewczęta dotykają różne rodzaje przemocy. I to wstyd, że w XXI wieku cały czas widzimy polityczny opór, aby walczyć z przemocą, a gwałt wpisać na listę przestępstw unijnych.
               

                  Jednak, proszę Państwa, chcę podkreślić, że upływająca kadencja Parlamentu Europejskiego była jedną z najbardziej udanych pod względem naszych wysiłków na rzecz równouprawnienia i walki z przemocą wobec kobiet. Wykonaliśmy bardzo dobrą pracę w Komisji Praw Kobiet i Równouprawnienia. Nigdy dotąd głos tej komisji nie był tak donośny i słyszalny jak teraz.
               

                  Chciałabym złożyć gratulacje sprawozdawczyniom, które poświęciły wiele wysiłku i zaangażowania w te trudne negocjacje. A szczególnie chciałabym podziękować mojej koleżance Frances Fitzgerald za jej determinację, siłę i niestrudzoną walkę na rzecz praw kobiet. Uważam, że ta dyrektywa, mimo niedosytu związanego z faktem, że – jak mówiłam – niektóre państwa członkowskie zablokowały niektóre przepisy, np. dotyczące kryminalizacji gwałtu, uważam, że to dobry krok w walce o lepszą ochronę praw kobiet i ochronę kobiet przed przemocą. Ja i cała nasza grupa będzie głosować za tą dyrektywą Jeszcze raz bardzo Wam dziewczyny dziękuję za pracę.
               

Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Nur ein Ja heißt Ja. Das ist der Schlüssel für unser allgemeines Miteinander. Seine Grenzen hören da auf, wo ihre Grenzen anfangen. Das gilt besonders in Momenten, wo wir besonders verletzlich sind. Das gilt insbesondere bei Sexualakten.
               

                  Deshalb war es natürlich eine herbe Enttäuschung für mich, als klar wurde, dass unser neues EU-Gesetz dem ‘Nur Ja heißt Ja’-Ansatz des Europäischen Parlaments nicht wird folgen können. Zu groß war der Widerstand im Rat.
               

                  Aber wir haben mit diesem neuen EU-Gesetz sehr vieles erreicht. Wir unterstreichen: Gewalt ist nichts Privates, online wie offline. Dieses Gewaltschutzpaket ist ein wichtiger Anfang. Bei der Überarbeitung müssen wir das ‘Nur Ja heißt Ja’-Prinzip natürlich ergänzen.
               

                  Danke, Frances, danke Evin, danke Helena Dalli und danke diesen großartigen Mitstreiterinnen, dass wir dies erreichen konnten.
               

Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Det tål att upprepas: I det här rummet och i alla rum där det finns flickor och kvinnor finns det också överlevare. Mäns våld mot kvinnor har genom århundradena blivit en del av våra samhällens norm. Det är vardag, som om det vore en naturlag att män misshandlar, våldtar och dödar kvinnor.
               

                  Vi kvinnor har tvingats bära en skam som aldrig varit vår, och vi har anpassat oss, valt kläder för att minska risken, sänkt rösten för att inte provocera. Vi har sminkat över blåmärken och tigit och vi har tystnat. Det måste få ett slut!
               

                  Mäns våld mot kvinnor är ett strukturellt problem. Det får inte förminskas till att vara ett familjeproblem när det är ett samhällsproblem – och det är därför vi nu skärper lagstiftningen i hela EU.
               

Cristian Terheș (ECR). – Domnule președinte, dragi colegi, combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor este o chestiune extrem de serioasă, iar pentru că implică aspecte care țin de aplicarea legii, este imperativ ca termenele să fie expres definite.
               

                  Combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor.
               

                  Am ascultat cu foarte mare atenție ceea ce s-a spus în acest plen despre femei. Din păcate, această realitate clară, obiectivă, ontologică, diferită de un bărbat, a ajuns astăzi să fie considerată o chestiune elastică, o chestiune subiectivă. Orice bărbat astăzi, care se pretinde a fi femeie, în accepțiunea acestei legi, se dorește a fi femeie. Zilele trecute s-a votat la Bruxelles o rezoluție care privește introducerea așa-zisului drept la avort în Carta fundamentală a Drepturilor Uniunii Europene.
               

                  În respectiva rezoluție se precizează că femeile și alte persoane care rămân însărcinate trebuie să aibă dreptul la avort. Eu vă întreb ce altă persoană în afară de o femeie poate rămâne însărcinată? Pentru că dacă se vorbește despre violență împotriva femeilor, trebuie spus clar că un bărbat care se pretinde femeie nu poate fi femeie.
               

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura ‘cartonașului albastru’)


Karen Melchior (Renew),
blue-card question. – Dear colleague, you mentioned that there is flexibility between the definition of men and women. This is a scientific fact. Biology is not bipolar. There is no just women and just men. We all have chromosomes. We all have hormones. And they define how we look, how we appear, and if we're capable of having men and women and therefore men can be pregnant and women are women, even if they were appointed as boys and men when they were born, because trans women are women.

Cristian Terheș (ECR),
blue-card answer. – Well, let me reply to you in English. It is not me saying that when we talk about mankind, we talk about men and women. It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that. So go ahead and change that. Furthermore, if you claim that a man who pretends to be a woman is a woman and a man can get pregnant, please explain to the whole world how biologically that is possible. Furthermore, just a few months ago, we talked about the Istanbul Convention. The Istanbul Convention criminalises genital mutilation. So how do you apply this law to a man who doesn't have a clitoris or labia majora or minora? You explain that because everything that you say doesn't make any sense biologically, reasonably and practically.

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Już za miesiąc w wyborach europejskich zdecydujemy, czy nasz świat będzie bezpieczny, czy będzie pełen podziałów, niebezpieczeństw i antyeuropejskiej narracji narzuconej przez populistów na zlecenie Kremla. Bo Unia to nie tylko dotacje i fundusze. Unia to bezpieczeństwo, ale także ochrona przed przemocą.
               

                  Co trzecia kobieta w Unii doświadczyła przemocy seksualnej bądź fizycznej – 62 miliony Europejek. To dlatego pracowałem w tym Parlamencie wspólnie ze szwedzką posłanką Arbą Kokalari nad przystąpieniem całej Unii do konwencji Stambulskiej i doprowadziliśmy ten temat skutecznie do końca. Lepsze i zunifikowane prawo zwalczające przemoc obowiązuje w całej Europie. Otworzyliśmy unijny parasol antyprzemocowy dla ofiar przemocy domowej.
               

                  Decyzje przy urnach wpływają na to, czy nasz świat jest bezpieczny. Pamiętajmy o tym już 9 czerwca w wyborach do Parlamentu Europejskiego.
               

Διαδικασία ‘Catch-the-Eye’
                     


Caterina Chinnici (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con la direttiva sulla lotta alla violenza contro le donne e alla violenza domestica, l'Unione europea si dota finalmente di un primo fondamentale strumento legislativo per prevenire e combattere quella inaccettabile violenza che subiscono ancora troppe donne e ragazze in tutta l'Europa e che, nel caso di violenza domestica, spesso si riversa anche sui bambini, testimoni innocenti di tali gravissimi atti.
               

                  Il testo su cui ho lavorato introduce una serie di reati quali ad esempio le mutilazioni genitali femminili, i matrimoni forzati, ma anche le molestie online, e prevede norme per rispondere più efficacemente alle specifiche esigenze delle vittime, quali misure concrete in materia di prevenzione, sostegno, protezione, accesso alla giustizia. Certo, avremmo voluto ottenere di più.
               

                  Intanto però gli Stati membri dovranno adottare misure precise per prevenire lo stupro e promuovere il ruolo centrale del consenso nelle relazioni sessuali. Ma, e questo è l'importante, la direttiva, punto di partenza per un lavoro che dovrà essere completato nella prossima legislatura, sancisce definitivamente un principio fondamentale: tolleranza zero nell'Unione contro ogni forma di violenza nei confronti delle donne.
               

Radka Maxová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, právě včera byl v České republice odsouzen velmi mladý populární politik za dvojí znásilnění a jeden pokus. Byl odsouzen právě proto, že se mladé dívky, oběti, nebály vystoupit na veřejnosti a říci, že se jim to stalo.
               

                  A díky naší legislativě, kterou zítra schválíme, bude lépe. Musíme se podívat na čísla. 44 % Evropanů není ochotno zasáhnout, když vidí násilí mezi partnery. Pouze 22 % žen v Evropské unii, které zažily násilí od svého partnera, to nahlásí policii, a přes 80 % žen v Evropské unii, které zažily násilí, nevyhledá odbornou pomoc.
               

                  Náklady na genderově podmíněné násilí nás v Evropě stojí 366 miliard EUR ročně. Velká čísla. Zítřejší hlasování ukáže, že Evropskému parlamentu a Evropské unii není násilí lhostejné a že dále není přípustné, aby bylo neviditelné. Prosím, hlasujte pro, abychom šli krok dopředu a nezůstali v minulosti.
               

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner and colleagues, discrimination is where human rights cannot be enjoyed to the full, and if we continue to accept the idea that women are less safe than men on our streets, on our trains, in nightclubs, then we accept discrimination and we accept human rights abuses, and we accept second-class status for women.
Women fear public transport and dark streets and prepare defensive postures with headphones, looking over their shoulders. This is the learned behaviour generated by a society that doesn't truly value women's safety. In my work on the FEMM Committee, I was happy to support this directive.
I very much welcome, also, the announcement by the Irish Taoiseach of a special task force on safety in Dublin. There should be a women's safety adviser in this task force with expertise on safety for women in public places. In addition, a dedicated transport police is a critical element of addressing this discrimination.
Today's directive is a crucial element in delivering a safer Europe for women, and I would like to pay particular tribute to Evin Incir, the co-rapporteur, and to Frances Fitzgerald, my constituency colleague, for their excellent work over the last couple of years.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, se incrementa la violencia de género en Europa. La violencia es una lacra, es un problema estructural y hay que combatirla. En las calles, el feminismo ha dicho alto y claro que no queremos violencia. Si nos pegan a una, nos pegan a todas. Si nos matan a una, nos matan a todas.
               

                  Hemos tenido que esperar al año 2024 para tener una Directiva de estas características; una Directiva que no está completa, como decíamos hace un momento, tras el boicot de Francia y Alemania, comisaria. Yo recuerdo cuando nosotros llegamos al Gobierno en 2005 en mi país, en Galicia, e hicimos una ley contra la violencia de género que fue prioritaria. Ojalá tengamos más juzgados, más recursos, más salarios… por la libertad. Ojalá ninguna niña, ningún adolescente y ninguna mujer tengamos que tener miedo cuando salgamos de nuestras casas, cuando estemos en nuestras casas o cuando defendamos nuestra posición por ser mujeres.
               

                  Una relación sexual sin consentimiento es, sin duda, una violación. Eso lo diremos alto y claro siempre. Pero viendo el avance del neofascismo, que también niega la violencia de género, creo que es el texto menos malo que podríamos esperar. Seguramente querríamos algo más, pero lucharemos para que, en el futuro, en el siguiente Parlamento, tengamos ya una Directiva que contemple también la inclusión de la violación.
               

Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, parlate giustamente dell'orrore della violenza contro le donne che è da combattere, ma non fate nulla per contrastare il dramma di milioni di donne oppresse dal velo islamico. Un velo che troppo spesso viene indossato anche da bambine nemmeno ancora sviluppate.
               

                  Per questa ragione ho presentato una risoluzione al Parlamento in cui si esorta la Commissione a invitare gli Stati membri a vietare il velo islamico nelle scuole. In Europa questo strumento di sottomissione va contrastato, non promosso in chiave positiva, come fate voi.
               

                  È nostro dovere fare una battaglia culturale per difendere i nostri valori, la nostra libertà, per garantire i diritti delle donne e delle bambine, difendendole da imposizioni vergognose.
               

                  Lo ribadisco con forza: il velo islamico è una prigione per le donne e chi lo nega tira uno schiaffo alle tante donne che quel velo non possono toglierlo, non possono vivere liberamente vestendosi come vogliono. Serve una svolta in Europa. Non dobbiamo sottometterci. Vietiamo il velo islamico nelle scuole.
               

Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μία στις τρεις γυναίκες έχει βιώσει τον εφιάλτη της έμφυλης βίας και μία στις είκοσι έχει πέσει θύμα βιασμού, συχνά χωρίς δικαίωση, στήριξη και προστασία από την πολιτεία. Στην Ελλάδα μόνο το περασμένο έτος, κατήγγειλαν βία 10.000 γυναίκες και διαπράχτηκαν δεκαπέντε γυναικοκτονίες. Σήμερα, είναι μία ιστορική ημέρα για την προστασία των γυναικών και των παιδιών. Η οδηγία δεν είναι τέλεια, είναι όμως το πρώτο βήμα. Θα τη θέλαμε πολύ πιο φιλόδοξη. Είναι, όμως, η πρώτη ευρωπαϊκή οδηγία που ψηφίζουμε για την καταπολέμηση της βίας κατά των γυναικών και της ενδοοικογενειακής βίας και ποινικοποιούμε οριζόντια σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη μορφές βίας, όπως ο ακρωτηριασμός των γυναικείων γεννητικών οργάνων, ο καταναγκαστικός παιδικός γάμος και η έμφυλη βία στο διαδίκτυο. Ενισχύουμε την πρόληψη, την προστασία των θυμάτων και την πρόσβασή τους στη δικαιοσύνη, σε υπηρεσίες υγείας και εξειδικευμένη υποστήριξη. Και είμαι πολύ υπερήφανη που συνέβαλα με τις παρεμβάσεις μου και με την έκθεσή μου, μαζί με όλες τις προοδευτικές δυνάμεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, και πετύχαμε αυτή την ιστορική εξέλιξη.
               

Nicolae Ștefănuță (Verts/ALE). – Domnule președinte, nu pot, ca român, să stau aici, în Parlamentul European, și să accept ceea ce a fost spus în această dezbatere. Este inacceptabil! Domnul Terheș de la AUR a spus că ‘așa-zisul drept la avort […]’, a vorbit despre ‘așa-zisul drept la avort’. Cum, adică, așa-zisul drept la avort? Ce se întâmplă cu ‘așa-zisele’ victime, milioane, care au căzut victime în comunism și în alte timpuri extremiste, din cauză că unii ca el au spus că este un ‘așa-zis’ drept, și nu un drept fundamental al femeii.
               

                  În al doilea rând, nimeni nu trebuie să moară pentru o poză. Sunt tată de fată. În școlile noastre este durere. Din cauza unei poze circulate ilegal, oamenii și tinerii ajung să-și pună capăt zilelor. Așa că mă bucur că această directivă oprește cyber bullying, harassment și toate aceste nesimțiri care au loc în ziua de astăzi. Și mai spun ceva, părții aceleia de extremă dreapta din această sală. Nu urâți ceea ce nu înțelegeți! Lăsați transfobia deoparte! Lăsați oamenii să fie ei înșiși, așa cum sunt!
               

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας ‘Catch-the-Eye’)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this important debate. This is, as was mentioned here, indeed a feminist project and I thank those who came before us and paved the way.
I reiterate my sincere gratitude to the honourable Members of Parliament for your continued support and determination to combat gender-based discrimination. Thank you again Evin – who is here – Frances Fitzgerald and Rosa, your commitment to gender equality has been invaluable in the negotiations on this file. Together, we have delivered on a key commitment in the 2020-2025 Gender Equality Strategy to advance gender equality and to ensure women and girls across Europe can live their lives free from gender-based violence.
I want to underline once more the added value of this directive and take a look at what we have achieved: a comprehensive set of measures of protection, support and access to justice applicable to victims wherever they live, travel, work or study – measures which are tailored to the specific needs of victims of violence against women.
There is also the EU-wide criminalisation of the most widespread forms of cyber violence – which is an urgent issue to address given the exponential spread and dramatic impact of violence online – and the strong and encompassing measures of prevention, including specific measures for the prevention of rape and the promotion of the central role of consent in sexual relationships.
Against this background, I invite all Members to support this much-needed directive. We owe it to the victims of violence against women across the EU to act now and to improve their plight.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident


Evin Incir,
föredragande. – Herr talman! Kollegor! Vi står här tack vare generationer av kvinnor före oss som har säkerställt de rättigheter vi har i dag med blod, svett och tårar. Verkligheten talar sitt tydliga språk: Året är 2024, och vi kvinnor och flickor berövas än i dag våra liv och vår frihet.
                  

                     Vänner! Kvinnorörelsen har krävt detta lagpaket i över 30 år, och jag är bland de första att säga att vi ville ha mer! Men på grund av liberala president Macron och den liberala justitieministern Buschmann och den illiberala premiärministern Viktor Orbán så var det hit vi kunde gå. Men det här visar på vikten av att vi fortsätter att kavla upp våra ärmar.
                  

                     Arbetet är alltså inte färdigt, men direktivet är ett viktigt steg framåt. Det kräver att medlemsstaterna steppar upp sitt förebyggande arbete, ger skydd och stöd till överlevare, åtalar gärningsmännen och gemensamma brott på EU-nivå. Det rör offline och online.
                  

                     För alla som på riktigt vill rädda kvinnors och flickors liv borde det vara en självklarhet att rösta för det här förslaget. Jag måste säga att jag är så förbannad över att vissa försöker att göra det här till en nationell och inhemsk politisk diskussion. Lägg alla nationella, inhemska politiska diskussioner åt sidan. Sätt kvinnors och flickors liv och frihet i centrum!
                  

                     Till den moderata parlamentarikern Arba Kokalari, som försökte sig på historierevisionism, vill jag säga: Glöm inte att Moderaterna i vår moderna historias tid gång på gång har röstat emot varje progressivt förslag som socialdemokratiska regeringar har lagt fram.
                  

                     Och till Centerpartiet måste jag faktiskt säga att jag skäms över att ni gör ett politiskt jippo och riskerar hela lagpaketet när ni nu vill skjuta upp förslaget till nästa mandatperiod och låta den illiberala Orbán få bestämma över kvinnors och flickors livsöden.
                  

                     Det räcker nu. Lyssna på kvinnorörelsen och rösta ja till detta viktiga lagpaket! Det är nu eller kanske aldrig.
                  

Frances Fitzgerald,
rapporteur. – Mr President, today is another stage in a long process and tomorrow is the vote. Many, many people have been involved in getting us to this point where we have a strong directive. It's not an end, but it is a very strong beginning, and the women of Europe need it. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Many people have been involved. Let me say a very big thank you to the shadow rapporteurs and all their teams for the incredible work they did in getting us to this point. It has not been easy. It's been complicated, particularly by the reaction of certain Member States, of course. Nevertheless, we all feel this is an extremely worthwhile directive and we want a ‘yes’ vote on it tomorrow. It is strong.
The Council presidencies played their part, as did President von der Leyen, Vice-President Jourová and Commissioner Dalli. It shows the importance of women in leadership positions that we have this on the table in the first place, having waited decades. But it's there now.
I want, in particular, to thank my own team. I want to thank Una Clarke for her tireless work. I want to thank Conor and Michael. I want to thank the EPP team of Xenia, Chris and Santa, the FEMM Secretariat, the EP press, the lawyers and lawyer-linguists, the LIBE Committee and the many male champions who supported us. I've said time and time again: it is so important to have male champions. We need even more of them, as I've said, in every Member State across this EU.
But I do want to make a point about those who spoke against adopting this directive here today. Let me say that we should not let national politics in a very few Member States distract us from supporting this directive. Let us not let untrue assumptions about what is possible in this Parliament, in another trilogue, distract us from supporting this important directive tomorrow. Let's adopt this directive. Let's not turn away from the women of Europe, who need this directive now.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, 24. April 2024, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Marc Angel (S&D),
in writing. – For far too long, women and girls have been victims of patriarchy, not only in their private life but also in their professional life. Domestic violence, genital mutilation, sexual harassment and cyber-violence are concrete examples of what too many women experience in their daily lives. It can happen to our mothers and our daughters. In Europe, every six hours, a woman is killed. Two in ten women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a partner or a friend; three in ten by a relative or family. This must stop!
As Socialists and Democrats, we want a Europe where women in all their diversity can live free from fear. By adopting the new directive on violence against women, we will have stronger legislation when it comes to forced marriage, female genital mutilation and cyber-violence. This directive is a first positive step for change; a catalyst to move forward in building a strong Union of Equality.

Lívia Járóka (NI),
in writing. – Congratulations to the rapporteurs, they have had their work cut out for them to establish such a report that provides a strong legal basis for the protection of women and all victims of domestic violence and reached a compromise that is in line with most Member States legal systems with leaving our differing ideologies out of the conversation. Studies have identified five main barriers to assistance for women from marginalised Roma communities who are experiencing domestic violence. These are (1) prejudice and discrimination, (2) downplaying and secondary victimisation by professionals, (3) unawareness of assistance opportunities among Roma, (4) inaccessibility of specialised services for victims of domestic violence, (5) and, finally, multiple marginalisation of Roma women caused by poverty, community pressure, long-term unemployment, geographical isolation, and low standard of living. This agreement addresses most if not all of these areas. Recent events in Hungary have proved we still have a long way to go, but I believe that with this directive we can take a stand, protect women and all victims of domestic violence.

Romana Jerković (S&D),
napisan. – Novim pravilima EU-a za suzbijanje nasilja nad ženama radi se na sprječavanju rodno uvjetovanog nasilja i zaštiti žrtava, posebice žena i žrtava nasilja u obitelji.
                  

                     Nažalost, žene u Hrvatskoj najnezaštićenija su skupina, koju izrazito patrijarhalno društvo tretira kao drugotna bića. Svako malo u vijestima čujemo za još jedan, novi slučaj femicida i taj problem zanemaruje se već godinama. Sve dok postoje takvi primjeri, naša borba će trajati.
                  

                     Poražavajuće je da se danas neki koji pretendiraju na vlast u Hrvatskoj zalažu za deratifikaciju Istanbulske konvencije. Zbog takvih, sada upornije nego ikada, moramo donijeti još stroža pravila koja će žrtvama ponuditi bolju potporu i zaštitu, a nasilnicima osigurati strože kazne.
                  

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE), γραπτώς. – Η σημερινή ημέρα είναι ιστορική για την καταπολέμηση της βίας κατά των γυναικών και της ενδοοικογενειακής βίας. Για πρώτη φορά, νομοθετούμε σε επίπεδο ΕΕ για την αντιμετώπιση του αποτρόπαιου φαινομένου της έμφυλης βίας. Η νέα νομοθεσία αποτελεί την πρώτη συμφωνία του είδους της μεταξύ των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμικών οργάνων που περιλαμβάνει μέτρα για την πρόληψη του βιασμού, αυστηρότερους κανόνες σχετικά με τη βία στον κυβερνοχώρο και βελτιωμένη υποστήριξη στα θύματα. Σε ολόκληρη την ΕΕ θα ισχύουν κανόνες που ποινικοποιούν ορισμένες μορφές διαδικτυακής βίας με βάση το φύλο και παρέχουν καλύτερη πρόσβαση στη δικαιοσύνη, την προστασία και την πρόληψη. Τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν, χωρίς καθυστέρηση, να ευαισθητοποιήσουν τους πολίτες τους ότι το μη συναινετικό σεξ θεωρείται ποινικό αδίκημα και να χαράξουν ολοκληρωμένες και συνεκτικές πολιτικές για την εξάλειψη της βίας κατά των γυναικών και την προστασία των θυμάτων. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα ηγήθηκε των εργασιών για την ολοκλήρωση της νέας νομοθεσίας που ψηφίζουμε σήμερα, η οποία συνιστά ένα καινοτόμο βήμα για να κάνουμε την Ευρώπη την πρώτη ήπειρο στον κόσμο που θα εξαλείψει τη βία κατά των γυναικών. Η έξαρση του φαινομένου διεθνώς, ειδικά μετά την περίοδο της πανδημίας, απαιτεί άμεση δέσμευση αλλά και δράση για την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή της νέας νομοθεσίας.
                  
8.   European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities – European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities for third country nationals legally residing in a Member State (joint debate – Disability cards)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über
               






—



                        den Bericht von Frau Ďuriš Nicholsonová im Namen des Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten über den Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Einführung des Europäischen Behindertenausweises und des Europäischen Parkausweises für Menschen mit Behinderungen (COM(2023)0512 – C9-0328/2023 – 2023/0311(COD)) (A9-0003/2024) und
                     










—



                        den Bericht von Herrn Manders im Namen des Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten und Frau Kuhnke im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres über den Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Ausweitung der Richtlinie [XXXX] auf Drittstaatsangehörige mit rechtmäßigem Aufenthalt in einem Mitgliedstaat (COM(2023)0698 – C9-0398/2023 – 2023/0393(COD)) (A9-0059/2024).
                     





Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová,
Spravodajkyňa. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážená pani komisárka Dali, vážení kolegovia, ako iste viete, ľudia so zdravotným postihnutím v Únii čelia neustále nerovnému boju za získanie zamestnania, boju proti chudobe, ako aj prekážkam v ich slobodnom pohybe. Členské krajiny, ktoré navštívia v rámci krátkodobého pobytu, im nepriznávali zľavy a benefity v oblasti dopravy, parkovacích miest, kultúrnych podujatí, centier voľného času, športových centier alebo služieb, zábavných parkov a cestovného ruchu. Robili im prekážky všade tam, kde priznávali rovnaké benefity svojim vlastným občanom. Táto smernica má odstrániť nerovný prístup. Je krokom k naplneniu zmluvného záväzku Európskej únie o voľnom pohybe pre všetkých Európanov, nielen pre tých, ktorí sú zdraví alebo bohatí. To znamená, keď hovorím pre všetkých, myslím tým aj ľudí so zdravotným postihnutím. A ja hovorím: ‘Konečne.’
               

                  Ľudia so zdravotným postihnutím bojovali za túto legislatívu pätnásť rokov. Som veľmi rada, že predbežná dohoda vznikla medzi všetkými troma inštitúciami Európskej únie a je veľmi ambiciózna a je veľmi vyvážená. A špeciálne by som sa teda chcela poďakovať ako raportérka všetkým tým, ktorí boli pri týchto rokovaniach, pretože od úplného začiatku bol nadštandardný vzťah medzi všetkými troma inštitúciami, pokiaľ ide o tento file. Pre mňa ako pre spravodajkyňu bolo absolútne kľúčové, aby ľudia so zdravotným postihnutím boli v každom okamihu v centre nášho záujmu a v centre našej snahy.
               

                  Európsky preukaz pre osoby so zdravotným postihnutím bude slúžiť ako doklad o uznanom postavení osoby so zdravotným postihnutím v celej Európskej únii. Jeho držiteľa bude oprávňovať, aby počas krátkodobého pobytu v inom členskom štáte mal úplne rovnaký prístup k osobitným podmienkam alebo preferenčnému zaobchádzaniu, aké ponúkajú súkromné subjekty alebo verejné orgány príslušného členského štátu pre svojich štátnych príslušníkov so zdravotným postihnutím. Obdobne európsky parkovací preukaz umožní osobám so zdravotným postihnutím prístup k rovnakým parkovacím podmienkam, aké sú k dispozícii v inom členskom štáte pre ich občanov.
               

                  Parlament počas rokovaní dosiahol niekoľko zlepšení pôvodného textu Komisie, aj keď musím povedať, že text, ktorý vzišiel z Európskej komisie, bol sám o sebe veľmi fajn. Po prvé sa Európskemu parlamentu podarilo rozšírenie rozsahu pôsobnosti preukazov nad rámec krátkodobých pobytov do troch mesiacov aj na účastníkov programov mobility Európskej únie. To znamená, že napríklad osoby so zdravotným postihnutím, ktoré študujú v zahraničí v rámci programu Erasmus, budú môcť kartu používať počas celého trvania svojho štúdia v zahraničí. Toto je veľká vec. Parlament tiež zabezpečil, že preukaz zdravotne postihnutému musí byť vydávaný a obnovený bezplatne. Toto nebolo úplne samozrejmé pre všetky členské štáty Európskej únie, na strane Rady sme videli, ako sa tomu bránia.
               

                  Komisia do jedného roka od uplatňovania smernice posúdi všetky zostávajúce nedostatky, ktoré sa týkajú voľného pohybu osôb so zdravotným postihnutím, aby sa toto posúdenie zohľadnilo pri rozhodovaní o ďalších opatreniach Európskej oblasti Európskej únie v tejto oblasti a ja pevne verím, že tie ďalšie kroky budú nasledovať. Členské štáty sa môžu rozhodnúť, či budú parkovací preukaz vydávať bezplatne alebo za poplatok, ale v prípade, že sa rozhodnú vyberať poplatky, Parlament opäť zaviedol poistku, že prípadné poplatky nesmú presiahnuť administratívne náklady.
               

Antonius Manders,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, commissaris, voordat ik inga op deze richtlijn wil ik eerst Alice Kuhnke bedanken voor de samenwerking, alsook mijn medewerkers en de medewerkers en de adviseurs van de EVP-fractie. Want wij zijn er weer in geslaagd om een stukje vrij verkeer te verbeteren. In dit geval het vrij verkeer voor personen met een handicap. Iedere keer weer opnieuw boeken wij een kleine stap vooruitgang waarmee wij de waarden en normen van de Europese Unie verder kunnen uitbreiden.
               

                  Vanmorgen hadden we een bijeenkomst met een aantal collega's en toen werd er gezegd: ‘Dit is eigenlijk maar een parkeerkaart voor toerisme en tijdelijk bezoek aan andere lidstaten.’ Maar ik heb geleerd in mijn tijd in dit Parlement dat hier iedere keer een hele kleine stap wordt gemaakt en in het volgende mandaat wordt die parkeerkaart veel groter. De grote winst nu is dat deze gehandicaptenparkeerkaart wordt erkend door alle lidstaten. Dat is een belangrijke zaak.
               

                  Vervolgens is deze richtlijn ook heel belangrijk voor een inclusievere samenleving. We willen geen discriminatie op basis van een beperking. Globaal is de Europese Unie altijd degene die met het vingertje zwaait en andere continenten zegt dat wij heel graag willen dat ze de waarden en normen van mensenrechten, noem maar op, respecteren. Maar binnen de Europese Unie kan er nog heel veel verbeterd worden. En vandaag maken wij een kleine stap.
               

                  Ook wordt deze parkeerkaart ingevoerd voor burgers uit derde landen en dat is voor ons ook heel belangrijk, want iedereen in Europa moet op dezelfde manier benaderd worden en moet het recht hebben om zich te kunnen verplaatsen. Deze gehandicaptenparkeerkaart is een goed voorbeeld van het versterken van de uitoefening van het recht op vrij verkeer van personen en dit is een fundamenteel Europees recht, dat Jacques Delors ooit heeft voorgesteld, een van de vier vrijheden. Dit is belangrijk voor het goed functioneren van de interne markt.
               

                  In het Europees Parlement heb ik me al jaren voornamelijk gericht op het versterken van die interne markt, want daar verdienen we onze middelen, die we vervolgens kunnen besteden aan het verbeteren van de rechten voor iedereen.
               

                  Ik heb altijd geprobeerd de politiek te verbinden met mensen. Het gaat niet alleen over grote dossiers. Dit is een klein dossier, maar wel een heel belangrijk dossier. Het gaat vaak over kleine, praktische dingen waar we het hier in huis vaak over hebben en daar halen we de pers niet mee. Er zijn een hele hoop praktische dingen waarvan ik vind dat er meer aandacht voor moet komen. Ik noem bijvoorbeeld deze Europese gehandicaptenkaart en de Europese parkeerkaart voor personen met een handicap. Ik noem de universele oplader, de IBAN-naamcheck, de pincode op creditcards, de opleidingsvergoeding voor beroepsvoetballers, et cetera.
               

                  Vaak worden grote dossiers in de media groot uitgelicht, maar ik denk dat wij nieuwe wegen moeten vinden om de burgers te laten horen, te laten zien en ervan te overtuigen dat er in Europa heel veel goede dingen worden gedaan die betrekking hebben op het dagelijks leven van mensen. In dit geval hebben we het over het verbeteren van de situatie voor mensen met een handicap, maar er zijn veel meer zaken.
               

                  Ik wil ook nog even de aandacht vestigen op wat bredere zaken die van belang zijn. Ik heb, behalve aan deze richtlijn, gewerkt aan milieucriminaliteit, de batterijverordening, betere bescherming rond videogames en de betalingsachterstand, waar we vandaag nog over gestemd hebben. We moeten zoeken naar nieuwe wegen om Europa in een positieve zin bekender te maken bij de burgers. We hebben binnenkort verkiezingen en ik merk dat wij er onvoldoende in slagen om bijvoorbeeld zo'n kleine stap zoals deze voldoende kenbaar te maken naar de burgers toe en te tonen dat wij goede dingen doen waar we trots op kunnen zijn.
               

Alice Kuhnke,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I hope you would agree that the EU is only socially just once we ensure access to rights and opportunities for all without discrimination. This week, I hope we will take a major step towards achieving this. With these two proposals, establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities, we now have the chance to adopt measures that will have a significant impact in improving the lives and facilitating the mobility of persons with disabilities across the EU.
For years, civil society as well as politicians have been calling for increased efforts to ensure and secure the rights to free movement and mobility for persons with disabilities. The mutual recognition of disability status is a long awaited step to increase access to rights, combat discrimination and promote diversity across the EU. And this is why the introduction of both these cards is so important.
The right to free movement applies to all EU citizens equally, but can also apply to non-EU citizens legally residing in a Member State. As the rapporteur, together with Mr Mendes for the directive extending the main directive to third-country nationals legally residing in a Member State, I am proud to have negotiated an agreement that will have a significant impact on the possibility for thousands of European residents to fully enjoy their right to experience everything that the EU has to offer.
However, this is only the beginning. These proposals will not solve all of the current problems. Persons with disabilities face many barriers when travelling between Member States, and not all of them will be addressed through these new measures. This week we will make progress. But as legislators, we must continue our work to abolish all barriers for persons with disabilities, to freely move and to fill in the gaps in EU legislation that still persists. The fight for equal rights is a fight for inclusive societies that are able to accommodate the needs of Union citizens and residents in all of their diversity.
I look forward to listening to my colleagues' interventions into this debate, and I also would like to express my big thanks for the work. It was a great work and great negotiations.

Linus Glanzelius
föredragande av yttrande från utskottet för transport och turism. – Herr talman! Kommissionär! Ledamöter! I dag står jag här för att min företrädare inte längre är med oss. Det är på många sätt en ära. Erik Bergkvist var transportutskottets förhandlare för denna lagstiftning, som äntligen är på väg att förverkligas. Jag vill å hans vägnar tacka samtliga skuggföredragande i transportutskottet för deras arbete.
               

                  Den som reser med funktionsnedsättning ska kunna lita på att det går att ta del av assistans och anpassningar. Dessutom ska information finnas tillgänglig längs vägen. Därför lanserar vi nu också en webbplats med all information samlad. Den som behöver ska kunna ha med sig sin assistent, få hjälp på flygplatsen eller ta del av tillgängliga hjälpmedel utan att stöta på en massa onödiga byråkratiska hinder i det land man besöker.
               

                  Oavsett om man reser för jobb eller studier eller för att semestra och upptäcka nya delar av vårt vackra Europa ska det vara tillgängligt för alla EU:s medborgare. I dag hade Erik varit en extra stolt europé.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you honourable Members and the rapporteurs for the two directives, Lucia Nicholsonová, Antonius Manders and Alice Kuhnke, and to all shadow rapporteurs. Thank you very much. I also acknowledge the important contribution of the late Eric Bergkvist, rapporteur for the TRAN Committee, and express my condolences to those close to him.
The commitment of the Council and the Spanish and Belgian Presidencies to this file has been, I would say, unwavering. These two directives deliver on one of the flagship initiatives of the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The first directive establishes the European Disability Card, as proof of a disability status or proof of entitlement to specific services based on disability, an improved European Parking Card for persons with disabilities as proof of the right to parking conditions and facilities reserved for persons with disabilities.
The second directive will ensure that third country nationals legally residing in a Member State whose disability status has been recognised by that Member State, will also be able to use the cards. These cards will be recognised throughout the EU and the Commission welcomes the provisional agreements as balanced, but also ambitious. This mutual recognition will contribute to social inclusion and to implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The cards will facilitate the free movement of persons with disabilities, and have a direct impact on the lives of persons with disabilities in the European Union. They will ensure legal certainty that a person's disability status will be recognised when travelling in the EU.
The directives will also grant persons with disabilities access to special conditions and preferential treatment with respect to a large variety of services, activities and facilities. They will improve the situation of persons with disabilities when travelling to, or visiting, other Member States in the context of a short stay.
The compromise text also takes into account the specific situation of students and other participants of mobility programmes. I welcome that the co-legislators were able to agree that the European Disability Card will be issued free of charge. No one should be deterred from obtaining a card.
Finally, the reporting obligation will include an analysis of specific situations resulting from intersectional discrimination and an assessment on any remaining gaps relating to the free movement of persons with disabilities. That assessment will be considered when deciding whether further action at Union level is required to address any such gaps.
The Commission remains committed to improve living conditions of persons with disabilities, and your continued support in achieving that objective has been invaluable during this Parliament's mandate.

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Derechos de la Mujer e Igualdad de Género. – Señor presidente, en el último período parcial de sesiones de esta legislatura es un honor que se vote la Directiva para que entre en vigor la Tarjeta Europea de Discapacidad y la Tarjeta Europea de Estacionamiento para personas con discapacidad.
               

                  Supone un reconocimiento mutuo de la condición de discapacidad en todos los Estados miembros, con formato accesible y digital y con un diseño común. Garantiza lo que es la piedra angular de la Unión Europea: la libre circulación de las personas con discapacidad. Hace que todo el colectivo de personas con discapacidad pueda tener acceso principalmente a la cultura, al ocio, al deporte, al transporte, a visitas guiadas, personalizadas, etcétera.
               

                  No hay ninguna duda de que las personas con discapacidad no cambian por cruzar una frontera, sus derechos no cambian y, por eso, con esta tarjeta, la accesibilidad, la inclusión y la igualdad se reconocen como derechos fundamentales de la Unión. Las tarjetas no son el final, son el principio de un gran camino por recorrer. Hoy es un gran día con la aprobación de esta Directiva.
               

David Casa,
f'isem il-grupp PPE. – Sur President, waħda mill-aktar drittijiet fundamentali li tagħtina l-Unjoni Ewropea hija l-moviment liberu. Neħħejna l-barrieri bejn il-pajjiżi, imma l-ostakoli għadhom jeżistu għal miljuni ta' persuni, illi għaliex jgħixu b'diżabilità, għadhom isibu xi jfixkilhom meta jivvjaġġaw.
               

                  Nisimgħu bi stejjer ta' disability cards nazzjonali li mhumiex rikonoxxuti f'Pajjiżi Membri oħrajn – li fil-fehma ta' ħafna minna, mhi xejn ħlief diskriminazzjoni. Hija sitwazzjoni li flimkien nistgħu ntemmuha minnufih, u nsaħħu l-qagħda tal-individwi u l-familji, b'messaġġ qawwi: li m'aħniex ċittadini tat-tieni klassi, li dawn in-nies qegħdin jgħidulna. U allura President, bid-Disability Card se noqorbu lejn soċjetà aktar ugwali, se nsaħħu d-drittijiet, u niżguraw li jiġu mħarsa.
               

                  U għalhekk nappella għal vot favur dak ix-xogħol kollu li għamilna dwar din id-Disability Card. Dawn mhumiex drittijiet ġodda, imma dritt li ilu jiġi miċħud lil dawn in-nies, li fl-aħħar għandna soluzzjoni ġusta. Iva, tajjeb illi fl-aħħar se jkollna Disability Card li taħdem fuq livell Ewropew. Imma xogħolna jrid ikompli anke wara għada, il-għaliex jeħtieġ insaħħu s-sustanza tad-drittijiet fil-Pajjiżi Membri. M'għandhiex tkun tellieqa għall-qiegħ, imma opportunità għal bidu ġdid għall-persuni b'diżabilità.
               

                  Allura dan ifisser li jkollna Ewropa soċjali, waħda, imsejsa fid-dinjità umana, li taħdem permezz tal-kooperazzjoni, biex fl-aħħar noffru benefiċċji konkreti u pożittivi għal ħajjet iċ-ċittadini tagħna.
               

                  Naturalment, nirringrazzja lin-negozjaturi kollha li kellna f'din il-Card għaliex ħdimna verament bħala tim u naħseb dan il-Parlament kien verament magħqud biex niġġieldu favur il-persuni b'diżabilità.
               

João Albuquerque,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, que satisfação poder estar aqui hoje, neste plenário, para darmos um passo que é, sem dúvida, histórico e decisivo. Aquilo que muitas pessoas, muitas organizações, clamavam há várias décadas, pode ser agora uma realidade.
               

                  A aprovação do cartão europeu das pessoas com deficiência e do cartão de estacionamento para pessoas com deficiência é tão só e apenas o reconhecimento de um princípio de igualdade, de que não há cidadãos de primeira, nem cidadãos de segunda e que, dentro desta União Europeia, independentemente das forças que lá fora e aqui dentro o tentam negar, temos todos direitos iguais.
               

                  Mas depois deste passo histórico, deste passo decisivo e simbólico, aquilo que temos de fazer é também pensar no futuro. E eu espero que, no próximo mandato, possamos dar continuidade a este trabalho desenvolvido ao longo destes últimos cinco anos e garantir que este Parlamento continue a ser composto por uma maioria de pessoas que acreditam que, apesar das dificuldades e apesar das diferenças com as quais nascemos, somos todos verdadeiramente iguais.
               

                  Espero ver este Parlamento representado de acordo com aquilo que é a presença de pessoas com deficiência na sociedade, garantir-lhes um lugar de fala, dizer-lhes que o lugar delas não é só a votar, é também aqui dentro.
               

                  Temos uma agenda de direitos para fazer avançar e fazer aprovar. E eu espero que aqueles que segurem a bandeira da Europa no próximo mandato estejam à altura dessa responsabilidade e o saibam fazer.
               

Nicola Danti,
a nome del gruppo Renew. – Signor Presidente, Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la Carta europea della disabilità sarà presto realtà e questa è una bella notizia per un'Europa senza ostacoli.
               

                  Accesso prioritario per i trasporti pubblici, ingresso libero o tariffe ridotte per attività culturali, sportive, assistenza personale e tanti altri diritti che d'ora in poi non avranno confini.
               

                  Con questa direttiva le persone disabili avranno accesso alle stesse condizioni speciali e trattamenti preferenziali dei residenti del paese in cui stanno viaggiando. Inoltre, con un unico contrassegno di parcheggio europeo, sarà garantito in ogni Stato anche il diritto all'utilizzo dei parcheggi riservati e l'accesso alle ZTL.
               

                  Una battaglia importante su cui abbiamo fatto sentire la nostra voce in commissione trasporti. Avremmo voluto un provvedimento ancor più ambizioso, così da rendere automatico il riconoscimento delle carte di disabilità, per estendere anche a chi si trasferisce per motivi di studio e di lavoro.
               

                  Ma questo è senza dubbio il primo tassello di una grande norma di civiltà, un passo avanti per la parità e la libertà delle persone disabili in tutta l'Unione europea. Questa è l'Europa che serve.
               

Katrin Langensiepen,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kommissarin Helena Dalli, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben verdammt viel erreicht im Rahmen dieser EU Disability Card, und wir waren ein richtig cooles Team, das muss ich auch mal hier an dieser Stelle sagen. Das zeigt, dass man auch über die Fraktionen und Grenzen hinaus sehr gut zusammenarbeiten kann.
               

                  Ein europäischer Schwerbehindertenausweis – wozu braucht man den eigentlich? Was haben wir da eigentlich gemacht? Den braucht man für den Nachteilsausgleich. Nachteilsausgleich – hätte ich keine Nachteile, bräuchte ich auch keinen Nachteilsausgleich. Ich glaube, da müssen wir – ich fange am Ende an und nicht am Anfang – hin. Es ist egal, in welchem Land ich mich befinde, wenn meine Behinderung nicht plötzlich aufhört, sondern dann die Nachteile plötzlich wegfallen und ich mit der Bahn fahren kann. Es ist egal, ob ich jetzt eine Behinderung in Deutschland erworben habe oder in Frankreich.
               

                  Natürlich auch noch mal, um Wasser in den Wein zu gießen: Was nützt mir der Ausweis, wenn ich nicht in die Bahn komme? Da war dann immer die Frage: Ja, was kostet denn der ganze Spaß? Das hat mich mega genervt. Die ersten Fragen, die immer kamen: Was kostet uns dieser EU-Ausweis? Dann denke ich: Was habt ihr für ein Bild von behinderten Menschen? Nein, natürlich – Achtung, Ironie: Wir verabreden uns, 100 Millionen Menschen mit Behinderungen in der Europäischen Union verabreden sich am gleichen Tag, zur selben Uhrzeit, um die Dienstleistungen in dem anderen Land zu missbrauchen und zu fluten. Ich hoffe, dass dieser Ausweis in den Mitgliedstaaten etwas verändert im Denken und in der Sichtweise, die behinderte Menschen haben, und dass wir eines Tages gleichgestellt sind – wie alle anderen auch.
               

Elżbieta Rafalska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Europejska karta osoby z niepełnosprawnością i europejska karta parkingowa dla osób z niepełnosprawnościami to z pewnością dokumenty, rozwiązania, na które długo i cierpliwie czekały środowiska osób z niepełnosprawnościami, które, co tu mówić, ciągle mimo zmian i poprawy, mają ograniczony dostęp do edukacji, ochrony zdrowia, rynku pracy, zatrudnienia, kultury, sportu. A więc to są oczekiwane rozwiązania.
               

                  Co było głównym celem tej dyrektywy i tym celem pozostaje? Otóż poprawienie mobilności, poprawa dostępności, żeby osoby z niepełnosprawnościami, które jadą do innego kraju członkowskiego, podczas pobytu krótkoterminowego trwającego do trzech miesięcy mogły korzystać z rozwiązań, z których korzysta dany kraj członkowski. Czy negocjacje były łatwe? Nie. Czy są problemy? Tak. One wynikają ze zróżnicowanego orzecznictwa w krajach członkowskich. Ale karta otwiera Europę.
               

Elena Lizzi,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, devo fare prima un appunto prima di dire che siamo d'accordo su questo pacchetto che abbiamo contribuito a creare.
               

                  Lei ha detto: la Commissione resta impegnata nei confronti delle persone con disabilità e io questo lo capisco. Però, forse Lei non sa, e questo è stato detto durante una commissione lavoro e affari sociali, che la Commissione non ha risposto alle domande della Corte dei conti su quanti dipendenti disabili ha incardinato e assunto. E questa è una cosa che deve essere assolutamente riparata perché l'ente o l'istituzione che decide quali sono le linee guida deve essere di esempio, così come lo è il Parlamento europeo.
               

                  Voglio quindi ringraziare i relatori per il lavoro svolto e raccogliere con favore la proposta di direttiva che istituisce la Carta europea della disabilità e il contrassegno europeo di parcheggio per le persone con disabilità, perché il governo italiano questo provvedimento l'ha voluto e sostenuto. Tra le nostre proposte, che rientrano ora nel testo della direttiva, vi sono la gratuità della tessera, la lotta alla contraffazione e lo sviluppo di un QR Code e di altri strumenti digitali.
               

                  Io ho avuto l'onore di portare in questi locali, non proprio in questi ma in quelli di Bruxelles, una persona che sta affrontando una terribile malattia, la SLA, si chiama Stephanie Zilli Bellisario. È stata ricevuta dalla Presidente Roberta Metsola e ha usato la forza della sua disgrazia, della sua malattia, per chiedere a questo Parlamento di occuparsi anche delle cause della disabilità e quindi di occuparci anche di SLA.
               

José Gusmão,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, o Parlamento foi, neste processo, uma força para que se aumentasse o âmbito do cartão da deficiência, que se garantisse a sua gratuitidade, no caso específico do cartão da deficiência, que se assegurasse a informação em plataformas acessíveis às pessoas com deficiência sobre os direitos que passarão a ter e que se assegurasse, também, a representação das organizações das pessoas com deficiência.
               

                  O Parlamento teve, por isso, um papel muito importante nestas negociações, que empurrou este compromisso, no bom sentido, contra o que era uma posição muito mais restritiva da parte do Conselho Europeu. Penso que agora devemos refletir sobre como partir daqui para conquistar mais direitos.
               

                  É verdade que o cartão da deficiência vai assegurar um princípio elementar da vida independente que é o acesso à mobilidade e, neste caso, à mobilidade internacional. Mas precisamos também de assegurar que, em todos os Estados-Membros, esses serviços, essas instalações, esses transportes, estejam muito mais adaptados do que estão ainda hoje.
               

                  A verdade é que o paradigma da vida independente ainda não predomina nas políticas para a deficiência na União Europeia e tem de passar a ser a grande orientação para todos os Estados-Membros. E, para isso, é também preciso que o financiamento da União Europeia para as políticas de deficiência seja todo canalizado para esse paradigma da vida independente, para que todas as pessoas com deficiência possam ser cidadãos efetivos e inteiros. E essa é uma escolha que todos temos de fazer.
               

Ádám Kósa (NI). – Elnök Úr! 15 évvel ezelőtt, amikor első siket képviselőként átvettem az EP-képviselői mandátumomat, még csak álom volt az, hogy a fogyatékossággal élők mindennapjait megkönnyítő szolgáltatásokat az EU minden állampolgára élvezhesse.
               

                  Bár tragikusnak találom azt, hogy erre 15 évet kellett várni, mégis örülnünk kell neki. A fogyatékossággal élők ugyanis a mai napig másodrendű állampolgárok. Még mindig vannak fontosabb témák, amikre az EU fókuszál. Ideje ennek véget vetni, és ideje erőforrásként tekinteni rájuk. Főleg azokban az országokban, ahol a munkanélküliség alacsony, és még mindig nagyon sok munkavállalót keresnek. Ideje elősegíteni, hogy a fogyatékossággal élők mobilitása megvalósuljon, biztosítani számukra a fogyatékossági kártyákat, amellyel az egész Európai Unióban igazolni tudják a fogyatékos státuszukat.
               

                  Ezzel bárhol az EU-ban a fogyatékossággal élők mindennapjait segíteni tudjuk. Amennyiben rendelkezésre áll a kártya, ingyen vagy kedvezményesen utazhatnak, kulturális rendezvényeken vehetnek részt, vagy elsőbbségi belépésre ad nekik jogosultságot, esetleg személyre szóló segítséget kaphatnak. Itt az ideje kimondani, a fogyatékossággal élők értékesek a társadalmunk számára.
               

Dennis Radtke (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Brüssel und Straßburg – das merken wir jetzt gerade wieder im anfangenden Wahlkampf – gelten ja häufig als Synonym dafür, komplizierte Dinge noch komplizierter zu machen. Das Epizentrum der weltweiten Bürokratie. Und was machen wir jetzt hier im Europäischen Parlament beim Thema Disability Card? Wir nehmen dieses Klischee und kehren es ins Gegenteil um. Denn mit der Disability Card wird es für Millionen Menschen in Europa einfacher werden, auch wenn Klischees über Europa meistens das Gegenteil behaupten.
               

                  Ich finde, was wir jetzt in dieser Woche auf den Weg bringen, ist ein echter Meilenstein. Die Berichterstatterin hat darauf hingewiesen: 15 Jahre haben Menschen darauf gewartet. Ich kann mich erinnern, dass 2014 im Europawahlkampf ein schwerbehinderter Mensch aus meinem Wahlkreis gesagt hat: Wann passiert da was? 2019 hat er die Frage gestellt: Wann passiert da jetzt was? Und 2024 im Europawahlkampf kann ich sagen: Wir haben jetzt endlich geliefert. Die Europäische Union geht voran, wenn es um das Thema geht, unseren Lebensraum inklusiver zu gestalten, und die Europäische Union kümmert sich um die, die auch wirklich unsere Unterstützung brauchen. Darauf bin ich stolz, und dafür bin ich den Berichterstattern und den Schattenberichterstattern ausgesprochen dankbar.
               

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Sur President, Kummissarju Dalli, irrid ngħix f'soċjetà fejn l-iktar nies vulnerabbli jsibu s-support u s-sostenn tagħna lkoll. Soċjetà li ma tħarisx lejn dak li ma nistgħux nagħmlu iżda li tħares lejn l-abbiltajiet ta' kulħadd u li toħloq qafas fejn kulħadd jista' jilħaq il-potenzjal kollu tiegħu.
               

                  Irrid nirringrazzja lir-rapporteurs tax-xogħol kbir illi għamlu, jien, bħala shadow rapporteur, ridt nara li l-inklużjoni u l-intersezzjonalità ta' kulħadd tkun riflessa f'din il-liġi, illi tagħti qawwa u protezzjoni kbira lil kulħadd. Ridt nara li kulħadd ikun inkluż f'din il-liġi tant importanti li tagħti l-libertà taċ-ċaqliq ħieles tal-persuni madwar l-Unjoni Ewropea kollha. Għoxrin sena ilu, qed nara lil David, flimkien miegħu u oħrajn, ikkampanjajna madwar għaxar pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea sabiex 75 miljun ċittadin Ewropew ieħor jingħaqdu mal-400 miljun Ewropej sabiex bħala ċittadini Ewropej ikollna d-dritt fundamentali ħieles tagħna lkoll madwar l-Unjoni Ewropea kollha. Illum qed niżguraw illi l-persuni b'abbiltajiet differenti madwar l-Ewropa kollha, din tkun realtà għalihom kollha mingħajr ma jitilfu l-ebda dritt il-mument illi jiċċaqalqu minn pajjiż għall-ieħor tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
               

                  Kummissarju Dalli, dan huwa l-aħħar opportunità tiegħi, probabli, f'din il-kamra sabiex nirringrazzjak tax-xogħol illi għamilt għall-ugwaljanza fil-Kummissjoni Ewropea. Nemmen illi meta nħarsu lura, dan il-mandat huwa l-iktar mandat b'saħħtu tal-Kummissjoni u tal-Parlament kif ukoll tal-Kunsill favur l-ugwaljanza. Grazzi lilek u lit-tim kollu tiegħek għax-xogħol illi għamiltu.
               

Bergur Løkke Rasmussen (Renew). – Hr. formand! I dag er en dag, hvor vi kan være stolte af os selv, for i dag stemmer vi aftalen om det europæiske handicap kort endeligt igennem. Med kortet tager vi et vigtigt skridt mod et markant mere inkluderende samfund, hvor vi gør det nemmere for EU's borgere at dokumentere deres handicap på tværs af landegrænser. Det nye fælles kort vil bane vejen for øget tilgængelighed og lige muligheder i EU's medlemslande. Jeg er især glad for, at jeg i lovgivningsarbejdet kunne yde mit til, at kortet nu bliver en realitet – også for de tredjelandsborgere, der nu får mulighed for at gøre brug af det. Lad os sammen bruge kortet som springbræt til at fortsætte med at fremme værdighed og respekt for alle europæere. Tak for ordet.
               

Chiara Gemma (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, l'emozione che sto provando è la stessa degli 87 milioni di persone che, con varie forme di disabilità, hanno sempre combattuto per il riconoscimento dei loro diritti.
               

                  Finalmente avranno uno strumento in più per realizzare i propri sogni e le proprie aspirazioni. Con il voto di domani segniamo un risultato storico. Per questo non posso che ripensare al percorso che ci ha portato fino a questo punto e a quanto abbiamo imparato da queste donne e da questi uomini straordinari nell'affrontare le difficoltà della vita con forza, ma soprattutto con grande dignità.
               

                  Il mio pensiero va anche alle loro straordinarie famiglie, a tutti i volontari, a tutte le associazioni che si battono per l'affermazione di una vita indipendente. Ripenso a tutte le ragazze e i ragazzi con disabilità e nello spettro autistico che, nel corso di questa legislatura sono riusciti a sfidare mille problemi ed imprevisti, arrivando dalle regioni del Sud Italia per svolgere nel mio ufficio un tirocinio.
               

                  Promuovere il riconoscimento della loro dignità è sempre stata una mia responsabilità, un impegno, una missione che ho intenzione di continuare verso tutti coloro che sono più fragili e vulnerabili. Lo devo ad ognuno di loro, nessuno escluso.
               

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Równość i prawo do swobodnego przemieszczania stanowią fundamentalne zasady zapisane w traktatach Unii Europejskiej i Karcie praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Niestety osoby z niepełnosprawnościami często nie mogą z nich skorzystać ze względu na brak dostępności odpowiednich usług, a także istnienie barier, które utrudniają ich codzienne funkcjonowanie i przemieszczanie się.
               

                  Jestem przekonana, że ustanowienie europejskiej karty osób z niepełnosprawnością oraz aktualizowanie europejskiej karty parkingowej dla osób z niepełnosprawnościami, nad którymi miałam przyjemność pracować jako kontrsprawozdawczyni Komisji Transportu i Turystyki, przyczyni się do eliminacji przeszkód i poprawi warunki podróżowania, a dzięki wzajemnemu uznawaniu statusu osoby z niepełnosprawnością zapewni dostęp do usług i udogodnień związanych z parkowaniem na terenie całej Unii Europejskiej podczas pobytu w innym państwie członkowskim na takich samych zasadach co obywatele tego państwa. Cieszę się, że uda nam się przyjąć te przepisy przed upływem obecnej kadencji. Jesteśmy to winni tym, których reprezentujemy w Parlamencie Europejskim. (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)


Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Domnule vicepreședinte, stimată doamnă comisară, dragi colegi, Cardul european pentru cetățenii cu dizabilități ar trebui să fie doar începutul unei serii de instrumente care să stea la dispoziția cetățenilor cu dizabilități, pentru a le asigura șansa de a se implica în societate, pentru a face parte cu adevărat din Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  Avem multe de făcut pentru acești oameni care pot și vor să-și aducă o contribuție de valoare la societatea noastră. Avem multe de făcut pentru a le asigura condiții decente de trai, de călătorie, de muncă. Pe lângă lupta lor cu diferite dizabilități, pe lângă provocările cu care se luptă, acești oameni se confruntă zilnic cu o infrastructură și cu reguli sociale care au fost făcute fără să îi ia în considerare.
               

                  Avem puterea și datoria de a armoniza condițiile pentru cetățenii cu dizabilități, așa încât Uniunea Europeană să fie și Uniunea lor, și Uniunea noastră, și Uniunea tuturor cetățenilor de aici.
               

Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Herr talman! Kommissionär! Kollegor! Att få vara sig själv är en mänsklig rättighet. Ändå hindras personer med funktionsnedsättning från just detta. Jag ser det i politiken. Jag ser det i trafiken. Jag ser det i det här huset, i skolorna, på universiteten, på arbetsplatser.
               

                  Vi har byggt in otillgänglighet i våra samhällen, och vi har utgått från majoritetsnormen, och nu är det dags att rulla tillbaka denna hemska utveckling. Därför behövs funktionsrättskortet, men det räcker inte. Det finns partier i Sverige som vägrar erkänna alla människors lika rätt och värde, såsom Sverigedemokraterna, som konsekvent röstar emot all denna typ av lagstiftning här i Europaparlamentet. Det finns partier hemma i Sverige som i dag sitter vid makten och som menar att just sådana insatser kostar för mycket, det är en kostnadsfråga.
               

                  Men vi i Centerpartiet, vi vägrar ge med oss, och vi kommer att hålla gränsen; hålla gränsen för funktionsrätten, hålla gränsen för friheten, hålla gränsen för att alla ska inkluderas i demokratin. Alla ska få en chans till ett självständigt liv. För det måste vi hålla gränsen.
               

                  Det här är ett första steg, men kampen för allas lika rätt och värde, kampen för tillgänglighet, är långt ifrån över.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Radka Maxová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, čísla hovoří opět jasně. Průzkum Barometr z roku 2019 ukázal, že 52 % osob se zdravotním postižením se cítí být diskriminováno. V roce 2002 mělo 27 % obyvatel EU starších šestnácti let nějakou formu zdravotního postižení. To je každý čtvrtý obyvatel Evropy. Karta pro osoby se zdravotním postižením a parkovací karta, můj hlavní volební slib občanům České republiky, je nyní na stole a jsem ráda, že o ní hlasujeme a usnadňuje život mnoha občanům.
               

                  Oceňuji také, že se jedná o směrnici, kterou musí státy implementovat, a věřím v její rychlou implementaci. Volný pohyb osob a rovné příležitosti jsou přece základní hodnotou Evropské unie a na té bychom měli stavět. Takže děkuji za práci a pochopení všem kolegům, Komisi, Parlamentu a těším se na implementaci.
               

Francesca Peppucci (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea è forte quando ci sono regole comuni, quando non ci sono differenze, quando le persone sono messe sullo stesso piano e i loro diritti sono riconosciuti indipendentemente dal loro luogo di provenienza. Con la Carta europea della disabilità e il nuovo contrassegno di parcheggio, l'Europa fa un grande passo in avanti per riconoscere dignità e pari diritti alle persone con disabilità.
               

                  La condizione di disabilità non cessa di esistere se ci spostiamo da uno Stato all'altro. Pertanto, riconoscere le stesse opportunità e gli stessi diritti in tutto il territorio dell'Unione rappresenta un'importante dimostrazione di consapevolezza verso differenze che ad oggi non dovrebbero assolutamente esistere.
               

                  Un percorso che non termina però con l'approvazione di domani ma che dovrà continuare in informazione e divulgazione e soprattutto attuazione per centrare l'obiettivo delle pari opportunità. Con il voto di domani vincono le persone con disabilità e vincono anche le loro famiglie.
               

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora Dalli, cien millones de personas con discapacidad no aspiran a obtener de este Parlamento Europeo una respuesta de trato preferencial, sino una remoción de toda forma de discriminación, como ordena el artículo 21 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y, específicamente, el artículo 26, en relación con las personas con discapacidad.
                  

                     Y este Parlamento Europeo, al aprobar por fin este instrumento legislativo, la Tarjeta Europea de Discapacidad —que asegura derechos de movilidad, asistencia personal, transporte público y gratuidad en el acceso a servicios públicos en función del grado de discapacidad—, está cumpliendo con su deber removiendo barreras de discriminación. Ya iba siendo hora, porque la primera vez que lo hizo se remonta nada menos que a 1998 y la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea entró en vigor nada menos que en 2009.
                  

                     Por tanto, es un instrumento absolutamente oportuno y pertinente que merece ser saludado, especialmente en este último período parcial de sesiones en el que estamos marcando el mensaje de compromiso del Parlamento Europeo con la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea en violencia de género y en la lucha contra los tráficos ilícitos, pero también en los derechos de las personas con discapacidad.
                  

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, last Friday, I had the honour of meeting with the Disability Federation of Ireland and being the first politician to sign their disability pledge.
This commitment, on my part, signifies prioritising disability issues and actively working in Parliament on equality and inclusion. The Disability Federation of Ireland welcomed the European Disability Card, but they stressed that it is not enough, it is just a start. We must fulfil the EU strategy on the rights of persons with disabilities. We must improve electoral accessibility to ensure disabled participation in EU politics and, most importantly, to ensure full accessibility and freedom of movement across the EU through legislation.
However, like many other marginalised groups in our society, people with disabilities are fearful of the rise in right-wing populism and what the next mandate may bring. They stressed to me that continuity in the next mandate is vital for people with disabilities.
So, as they need representatives who will uphold their rights, people with disabilities tell me that they need the European Union, there is no other regional political entity in the world that stands up for people with disabilities in the way that the European Union does.

Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, o direito à mobilidade da população, em geral, e das pessoas com deficiência, em particular, é fundamental numa sociedade inclusiva, mas está longe de ser concretizado na vida de muitos cidadãos. Há muito que as pessoas com deficiência e as suas organizações representativas reivindicam o cartão europeu de deficiência e o cartão europeu de estacionamento para pessoas com deficiência.
                  

                     É agora necessário que os critérios de atribuição dos dísticos de estacionamento visem o seu alargamento tendo em conta necessidades específicas. Consideramos, ainda, que é também necessário reforçar, junto da população, que o parqueamento indevido em lugares reservados a pessoas com deficiência ou mobilidade reduzida acarreta a limitação do direito destas pessoas à mobilidade, que, de outro modo, ficariam impedidas de aceder a espaços e locais.
                  

                     A aprovação deste cartão não dispensa uma política que garanta o direito à mobilidade da população, em geral, e das pessoas com deficiência, em particular, designadamente pela garantia de transportes públicos com qualidade, com horários e percursos que sirvam as necessidades e a preços acessíveis.
                  

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Spoštovana predsednica! Hvala za besedo. Svoboda gibanja je ena izmed temeljnih svoboščin ter način evropskega življenja, ki sta zapisana v pogodbah Evropske unije.
                  

                     Za več kot 101 milijon ljudi z invalidnostjo v Evropski uniji svoboda gibanja žal ni samoumevna, saj se v vsakodnevnem življenju pri potovanju v drugo državo srečujejo z dodatnimi ovirami.
                  

                     Evropska kartica ugodnosti za osebe z invalidnostjo ter evropska parkirna kartica sta prvi, več kot zgolj simbolični korak k njihovi mobilnosti. Vsaj med kratkotrajnim bivanjem, delovno ali študijsko izmenjavo se bodo osebe z invalidnostjo zaradi vztrajnega boja Evropskega parlamenta lahko počutile enakovrednejši drugim državljankam in državljanom Unije.
                  

                     Evropska unija mora tudi kot pogodbenica Konvencije Združenih narodov o pravicah oseb z invalidnostjo narediti še več ter za polno uživanje evropskega državljanstva vsem osebam z invalidnostjo omogočiti avtomatično priznavanje njihovega statusa, dostop do socialne varnosti ter asistence v drugih državah članicah.
                  

                     Ker se dejanska moč Evropske unije skriva v solidarnosti, enakosti in svobodi za vsakogar. Hvala.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, with regards to the question posed by the honourable Elena Lizzi about collection of data on employees with disabilities in our institutions, under applicable rules, the Human Resources departments are not informed of employees disabilities unless the employee concerned voluntarily provides the information. So this, of course, then results in a lack of sufficient data, as pointed out by the European Court of Auditors.
I want to thank you for your cooperation on this very important file, and this directive will ensure easier recognition of disability status and equal access to special conditions and preferential treatment across the EU. With them, the EU delivers significant and tangible improvements, I would say, in the life of persons with disabilities. The most important measures announced in the strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will have been executed by the end of 2024. So I am glad that I could count on you to advance on our objective of getting closer to this reality of a Union of equality.
I also want to take advantage of this debate to thank you all. This Parliament, led by many champions of equality amongst you, has been an extraordinary partner. And together we have made important steps towards a Union of equality.

Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová,
Spravodajkyňa. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ďakujem veľmi pekne za túto debatu, veľmi pozitívnu debatu. Pevne verím, že nás počúvali aj ľudia so zdravotným postihnutím.
                  

                     To, čo sa dosiahlo v rámci tejto legislatívy, sme dosiahli spolu. Dosiahli sme to, že život 100 miliónov ľudí so zdravotným postihnutím v Európe sa aspoň o niečo zlepší. Je to však naozaj len prvý krok na ceste k zrovnoprávneniu a odstráneniu všetkých foriem diskriminácie voči ľuďom so zdravotným postihnutím. Nás ešte čaká veľmi veľa práce.
                  

                     Dovoľte mi, aby som sa v tejto chvíli poďakovala všetkým tieňovým spravodajcom za ich spoluprácu, belgickému predsedníctvu a Komisii. Bola to naozaj spolupráca, ktorá sa len tak nevidí.
                  

Antonius Manders,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, ik dank iedereen ontzettend hartelijk voor het feit dat de richtlijn voor de gehandicaptenparkeerkaart voor Europeanen en niet-ingezetenen van harte en breed wordt ondersteund. Ik heb geen enkele wanklank kunnen horen en dat doet mij deugd en daar ben ik trots op, want Europa staat voor onze waarden en normen.
                  

                     Aangezien dit mijn laatste toespraak is in deze plenaire zaal – want ik zet vanaf juli een punt achter mijn werk als Europarlementariër – is het aan de volgende generatie om te bouwen aan een betere Europese Unie. Ik wil graag een boodschap meegeven aan de opvolgende collega's: blijf omkijken naar mensen die moeite hebben om aan te sluiten. Blijf kijken naar de oudere generatie die de huidige EU heeft opgebouwd. Een hele belangrijke boodschap – en die wil ik ook meegeven aan commissaris Dalli: probeer een gezondheidsunie op te bouwen waar een gezonde leefstijl en actief ouder worden belangrijk zijn om welvaartsziekten te voorkomen. Welvaartsziekten zijn onze toekomstige dreiging in de Europese Unie. Laten we strijden voor een Europa waar jong en oud nog meer van elkaar kunnen leren, een Europa waar we trots op zijn. Ik ben niet alleen een trotse Brabander of een trotse Nederlander, nee, ik ben ook een trotse Europeaan.
                  

                     In 1989 zei Jacques Delors: ‘Van de interne markt kun je niet houden’. Nou, ik ben vijftig jaar samen met mijn vrouw Jacqueline. Niet alleen omdat ik een economisch samenwerkingsverband heb, maar we houden ook van elkaar. Dus je moet wel proberen om die emotie en identiteit ook uit te dragen. Europeanen moeten meer gaan houden van Europa en trotser zijn om Europeaan te zijn. Om die reden roep ik de Commissie en ook mijn collega's van het nieuwe Parlement op: investeer in Europese emotie en identiteit, waardoor we ons veel meer verbonden gaan voelen met de Unie waar we in leven.
                  

                     Ik ben dankbaar voor de mooie twintig jaar in dit huis waarin we met veel collega's samen hebben kunnen werken en heel veel hebben kunnen bereiken. Bovenal wil ik mijn familie, mijn vrouw, kinderen en vrienden bedanken voor de prachtige jaren en voor alle steun die ik van hen heb mogen krijgen. We moeten niet achteruitkijken, maar vooruit. En laten we niet vergeten dat deze Unie over vrede gaat, over waarden en normen en natuurlijk ook over een sterke Europese interne markt. Hier staat een trotse Europeaan en ik dank jullie allemaal hartelijk.
                  

Alice Kuhnke,
föredragande. – Fru talman! Kommissionär Dalli! Så här i valtider vill jag som föredragande understryka två saker avslutningsvis.
                  

                     Det ena är hur väl vi samarbetade mellan de olika partigrupperna under arbetet med den här lagstiftningen, hur vi stöttes och blöttes och kompromissade under förhandlingarna. Jag vet att många vill förpassa Europaparlamentet till en bråkande diskussionsklubb. Det är inte sant, och vi visade det under förhandlingarna.
                  

                     Det andra handlar om det som många har understrukit under den här debatten – att detta bara är början, att väldigt mycket återstår, att diskrimineringen fortgår och att det kommer att krävas väldigt mycket mer av nästa parlament – att faktiskt göra mer och bättre.
                  

                     Om det blir så kommer valresultatet att visa. Tyvärr finns det många politiker som inte är beredda att göra det som krävs för att riva hinder och skapa ett EU där den fria rörligheten är för alla. Så tänk på vad du röstar på!
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Die gemeinsame Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, 24. April 2024, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171 GO)



Jarosław Duda (PPE),
na piśmie. – Szanowni Państwo. Równość jest zapisana jako jeden z fundamentów prawa UE. Jednak bardzo często korzystanie z tego prawa jest fikcją dla osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Dlatego chciałbym wyrazić ogromną radość z powodu przyjęcia dyrektywy o Europejskiej Karcie Osoby Niepełnosprawnej. To prawdziwa satysfakcja, że dzieje się to podczas sprawowania przeze mnie mandatu posła do Parlamentu Europejskiego, bowiem od wielu lat zabiegałem o wprowadzenie tego dokumentu. W Parlamencie Europejskim potrzeba wprowadzania karty była najczęściej wyrażana w petycjach składanych przez obywateli. Jako członek komisji petycji i przedstawiciel mojej grupy politycznej odpowiedzialny za sprawy społeczne wielokrotnie miałem do czynienia z problemami obywateli, które ta karta skutecznie rozwiązuje. Jestem przekonany, że Europejska Karta Osoby Niepełnosprawnej przyczyni się do zniesienia dyskryminacji osób podróżujących i ułatwi korzystanie z usług i przywilejów, które przewidują krajowe przepisy dotyczące osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Mam nadzieje, że wdrożenie dyrektywy przebiegnie sprawnie.
                  

Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris. – În UE există aproximativ 87 de milioane de persoane cu dizabilități, care sunt adesea ținta unui tratament incorect sau a discriminării. Accesul la un loc de muncă este, din păcate, în continuare foarte redus, în timp ce doar 30 % dintre persoanele cu dizabilități au studii superioare, rezultând un risc major de sărăcie sau de excluziune socială.
                  

                     În acest context, este esențial ca persoanele cu dizabilități să aibă acces la servicii care să le permită să participe pe piața muncii și în societate, precum și la un mediu de lucru adaptat nevoilor lor, asigurându-le totodată o viață demnă. În consecință, susțin crearea Cardului european pentru dizabilitate care va asigura accesul egal la condiții speciale sau la tratament preferențial pentru persoanele cu dizabilități, asistență și locuri de parcare rezervate pe durata șederilor scurte oriunde în UE, precum și facilitarea mobilității medicale, oferindu-le astfel mai multe șanse de a accesa tratamentul de care au nevoie.
                  

                     Prin promovarea acestei măsuri, persoanele cu dizabilități vor beneficia de un prim set comun de drepturi la nivelul UE și vom putea identifica împreună soluții pentru ca peste tot în statele membre să reușim să le oferim acestora un viitor mai bun.
                  

Stefania Zambelli (PPE),
per iscritto. – Grazie Presidente, gentile Commissario, cari colleghi, era il gennaio 2021 quando per prima presentavo un'interrogazione sulla creazione di una Carta europea della disabilità.
                  

                     Oggi, dopo tre anni, dopo un lungo progetto pilota che ha visto l'Italia protagonista, approviamo finalmente uno strumento che renderà la vita più semplice a chi, purtroppo, deve affrontare molte difficoltà. Finalmente in tutta Europa verrà riconosciuta e adottata la Carta della disabilità, non importa in quale Stato ci troviamo.
                  

                     Non si faranno più code ai musei, si avranno priorità nei mezzi pubblici, parcheggi riservati, tariffe ridotte o addirittura gratuite per ogni servizio: questi sono solo piccoli esempi dei grandi benefici che questa Carta avrà per tutti i cittadini europei con disabilità.
                  

                     Oggi è un grande giorno: ringrazio tutti coloro che hanno sostenuto la mia proposta e sono fiera di affermare che oggi l'Europa è più inclusiva.
                  
9.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung wurde verteilt.
               

                  Gibt es Einwände?
               

                  Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung ist genehmigt.
               
10.   EU's response to the repeated killing of humanitarian aid workers, journalists and civilians by the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Vizepräsidenten der Kommission und Hohen Vertreters der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu der Reaktion der EU auf die wiederholte Tötung von humanitären Helfern, Journalisten und Zivilisten durch israelische Streitkräfte im Gazastreifen (2024/2701(RSP)).
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, Excellencies, more than six months after the Hamas terrorist attack that we continue condemning in the strongest possible terms, the war started in Gaza. This is a watershed moment for the Middle East. We had yesterday the meeting with the Gulf countries, and this was very high on our agenda.
The recent Iranian strike on Israel was also a clear escalatory attack. But we must not forget, at the same time, the gravity of human suffering in Gaza. The figures are there. More than 34 000 people killed, mostly civilian women, children. Twice this number wounded. 75 % of the population displaced, on the brink of famine. We know that dozens of children have already been starved to death.
The cities in Gaza have been more destroyed than the German cities during the Second World War – just imagine the comparison. A recent interim damage assessment by the World Bank and by the United Nations, supported financially by the European Union, assessed the direct damage to be about 19 billion – this will be the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure of Gaza the way it was at the end of January, so imagine now much worse. We can say that more than 60 % of the physical infrastructure has been damaged and 35 % fully destroyed.
At least 249 aid workers have been killed – I'm talking about aid workers – according to the United Nations, since 7 October, among them 181 United Nations staff. And I think that we have to pay tribute to all eight agencies, including UNRWA, which alone has lost 178 employees.
Then come these Israeli strikes against the convoy of the World Central Kitchen that killed 7 humanitarian workers while they were delivering aid to the most vulnerable in Gaza. But keep in mind, we were very moved by these 7 people being killed, but before them there were 249 also killed. And maybe we were not as moved. And people around the world say, yes, that's very bad. These 7 humanitarian workers deserve all our homage, but keep in mind that together they were 249 more. Together with Commissioner Lenarčič, we publicly call for a credible investigation.
We are also appalled by the number of journalists and media workers which has been killed by the strike in Gaza. About 100 journalists and media workers, as Reporters Without Borders recount, in less than six months. This is unprecedented. Journalists are civilians and their voices are crucial to keeping this information at bay and citizens being informed. And we are also concerned about the newly adopted legislation giving temporary power to the Israeli Government to prevent foreign media networks from operating in Israel. This, coupled with the lack of access to foreign media to Gaza, raises further concern about what we know about what's going on there.
We have to repeat once again that Israel must respect international law, implement the International Court of Justice provisional measures, ensure the protection of all civilians, allow humanitarian workers to do their lifesaving job without being targeted. For the first time, the Israeli Defence Forces recognises that it was a dramatic error, that it was a mistake, the killing of these humanitarian workers. The question is: how many mistakes have been happening before without being recognised?
We insist on the fact that journalists have to be protected, and on granting access to Gaza to ensure the freedom of press. The European Union Council has insisted – and I am here representing the common ground of all Member States, in line with the conclusions of the European Union Council – that an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages and the provision of humanitarian assistance are the guidelines of the European Union, as decided by the European Council on 17 April 2024.
But we have to do more and ask everybody to do more to protect civilians and alleviate a humanitarian catastrophe by increasing the flow of humanitarian aid, which is not an impediment, which is not an obstacle. Yes, there are obstacles. And yesterday, my colleague Lenarčič was explaining the number of conditions that this aid has to fulfil in order to be allowed to come into Gaza.
We need more access by land roads, more access points. The recent decision by Israel to open the Ashdod port and the Erez crossing point is positive news, but they have to be implemented – it is not a matter of announcing, it is a matter of doing. And at the time being, it is being done at a very slow pace and in very low quantity. This is a fact. Quicker checks and better distribution remains crucial to alleviate people's suffering. And it's crucial for Israel to comply with the United Nations Security Council binding Resolution 2728, demanding full humanitarian access. And on that, also, the Europeans are fully behind.
Finally, a ground operation in Rafah must be avoided. There are more than 1.3 million people on the streets of Rafah with no more shelter than a piece of plastic over their heads. And humanitarian consequences would be catastrophic. Everybody is saying that – the US, the European Union, Member States. We insisted in the G7. We insisted in the Foreign Affairs Council. Let us say that this is not going to happen.
And then we have to say that the work of UNRWA has to be supported. And yesterday the former Minister Catherine Colonna report that Secretary-General Guterres tasked her to do was issued. And I think that it's important to read this report. It is important to know what this very independent and very professional group of people have been studying and what they tell us.
I think there is a strong convergence of views between the analysis and recommendation of this independent review group with the measures that we have been discussing at the European Union institutions. We are now waiting to see how we continue our cooperation with UNRWA, because what the report says is that they haven't found any proof of the accusations against some workers of UNRWA. And that, yes, there are some problems of political neutrality. But this is one thing. And another thing is to participate in the terrorist attacks of 7 October. We welcome the UNRWA cooperation and, as Minister Colonna said, it is an irreplaceable safety line for hundreds of thousands of people. Calling the international community to fund UNRWA in order to allow this institution to continue their work.
I have to pay tribute to the 7 humanitarian workers killed when they were working for the World Central Kitchen, but also to the 249 people who were killed before. I have to pay tribute to all the victims of the Hamas attack and the Israeli army against Gaza. To more than 100 journalists and media reporters.
And we have to ask for this tragedy to end. And I repeat, the European Union Council asked for the implementation of the United Nations resolutions, asked for immediate release of the hostages, asked for more access for humanitarian support, asked for a humanitarian pause that brings about a permanent ceasefire and, most importantly, asked to look for a political solution.
We cannot say this is just a humanitarian problem – it is, and it has to be immediately faced – but it is a political problem. And we have to join our forces, as we agreed to do yesterday with the Gulf countries, in order to look for a political solution that can only be based, I believe, we believe at the European Union, on the two-state solution. And if there is someone who doesn't believe in that solution, then they have to tell us which is the alternative. You don't want the Palestinians to have their own state, in order to live in peace and security side-by-side with Israel? You don't want this solution? Then you have to tell the international community which other solution you have in mind in order to ensure peace, prosperity and security for these two peoples that for too many years have been fighting for the same land.
We condemn all terrorist activities, but we want humanitarian law to be respected and we want the hostilities to stop, humanitarian support to come in, the hostages to be released and a political process to be put in place in order to look for a political solution to this dramatic war.

Antonio López-Istúriz White,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the tragic events when seven staff members of the World Central Kitchen were killed by an Israeli strike are regrettable and unacceptable. The distinction that we have to make is the reaction.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist attacks butcher innocent civilians and show absolutely no regret, a democratic country, Israel, which is fighting a difficult war to neutralise terrorist groups and recover their abducted civilians, shows accountability and regret. Israel admitted its terrible mistake. It carried out an investigation that showed that the officers in charge of the strike were convinced that the cars were being used by Hamas, something that happens often. It dismissed and reprimanded officers involved in the operation.
This will, of course, not bring back those who tragically lost their lives. But at least we know clearly what happened, and hopefully a similar tragic mistake like this will not happen again. This is what democracies do.
The attempt of many to use this episode to argue that Israel is deliberately targeting workers of these organisations, like those who easily use the word genocide, are wrong, irresponsible and shameful.
What we do not know, or if there are any regrets or investigation, is after the bombing by Islamic Jihad of a hospital at the beginning of the war. Hundreds died. Where is the investigation? Where is the regret?
Abuse, rape and torture of Israeli women – where is the investigation? Where is the regret? I have not heard anything, here also in this Parliament, from many. What we do not know is where hundreds of hostages are.
I think that we should focus on what we can do to reduce suffering in the Middle East. This will not happen only by accusing Israel of being a genocidal country who is deliberately killing aid workers. It is not true.

Evin Incir,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Den humanitära katastrofen i Gaza, katastrofen i Gaza. Nästan 40 000 människor har berövats sina liv. Över 70 procent är kvinnor och barn, helt oskyldiga. Detta är bland de högsta dödssiffrorna även för humanitära hjälparbetare och journalister i vår moderna tid. Mer än 250 humanitära hjälparbetare och 122 journalister har berövats sina liv.
               

                  Det är inget annat än en skam för mänskligheten att detta får fortgå i mer än sju månader. Det är en skam att EU:s medlemsstater under perioder frusit stöd till UNRWA utan att Israel har behövt lägga fram några som helst bevis. Det är en skam att det finns dem här i Europaparlamentet som inte vill skicka humanitärt stöd till civilbefolkningen i Gaza. Det är en skam att det tog lång tid för det här parlamentet att kräva omedelbar, permanent och ovillkorlig vapenvila.
               

                  Det finns ingen tid för business as usual. Frys EU:s och Israels handelsavtal, återuppta det endast när Israel upphör med sitt folkrättsvidriga agerande, öka stödet till alla de oskyldiga i Gaza som just nu svälter!
               

                  EU bildades för att få ett slut på täta och blodiga konflikter på vår kontinent, men det verkar finnas de som tycker att det är okej med täta och blodiga konflikter utanför vår kontinent. Det är en skam!
               

Hilde Vautmans,
namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mijnheer Borrell, collega's, al maanden krijgen we de meest afschuwelijke berichten vanuit Gaza. Beseffen we eigenlijk wel hoe ernstig het is? Meer dan een miljoen Palestijnen zijn ondervoed, onder wie honderdduizenden kinderen. Er dreigt een massale hongersnood met duizenden doden tot gevolg. En dat in 2024. Hallucinant. Er komt nog steeds veel te weinig humanitaire hulp en voedsel Gaza binnen en de mensen die Gaza binnengeraken om hulp te verlenen, worden vermoord – al meer dan 200. Hulpverleners, journalisten en burgers mogen nooit een doelwit zijn. Israël moet het internationaal recht respecteren. Ook oorlog heeft zijn regels.
               

                  Mijnheer Borrell, niet alleen wij als Europees Parlement zeggen dit, maar ook de VN-Veiligheidsraad en het Internationaal Gerechtshof. Wij vragen al weken om een permanent staakt-het-vuren en het vrijlaten van alle gijzelaars door Hamas. Dat is de enige manier om verder leed te voorkomen. Ik hoop, mijnheer Borrell, dat u Israël zo snel mogelijk namens de hele Europese Unie duidelijk maakt dat als het zich niets blijft aantrekken van deze oproep en van de internationale gemeenschap, onze relatie op het spel staat.
               

Jordi Solé,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the tragedy of Gaza seems to have no end. Just when it looks impossible for the suffering of Palestinians to increase, reality grounds us with children killed in a playground or with mass graves and the razed hospitals.
No, the terrible massacre of 7 October should never have happened, and neither should the carnage in Gaza, a disproportionate response that may amount to an unlawful collective punishment. We have seen in horror how aid workers have been targeted and killed by the IDF, how desperate citizens trying to collect something to eat were gunned down, how more than 100 journalists were assassinated, how indiscriminate bombings caused massacres of innocent civilians and unprecedented destruction.
We have seen severe restrictions on humanitarian aid that deprive civilians of what they need to survive, putting them on the brink of famine. International law and international humanitarian law have been trampled upon.
No, Hamas atrocity atrocities can never be justified: it was a horrendous terrorist crime. But Israel's conduct is unacceptable. International justice will have to rule on the possible war crimes committed by all the parties, and perpetrators will have to be held to account. The only way to truly weaken Hamas and ensure Israel's long-term security is by granting the two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, the right to have their country.
By neglecting the conflict while keeping going with the occupation, today Israelis have less security and Palestinians less hope. So stop the war, release the hostages and restore a political horizon to achieve the only viable and fair solution: two states for two peoples.

Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, se dice aquí: ‘Paren la guerra y suelten a los rehenes’. ¿Por qué no lo hacemos al revés? Que suelten a los rehenes, que quizás se para la guerra. Pero aquí la campaña contra Israel es absolutamente imbatible. Y, desde luego, a su gran adalid lo tenemos también aquí.
               

                  Realmente han pasado cosas inauditas en Europa. En Occidente hemos logrado que las calles de todas nuestras capitales se estén llenando de inmigrantes, de islamistas gritando que quieren destruir Israel, que quieren Palestina desde el río hasta el mar, es decir, liquidar a Israel. Eso es lo que hemos logrado como reacción en todas las capitales europeas con estas acusaciones que se han hecho a Israel con tan poco fundamento.
               

                  Israel se está defendiendo, se está defendiendo contra Irán, contra ese Irán que ha protegido usted, señor Borrell, durante tantísimo tiempo. Durante estos cinco años ha estado protegiendo al régimen más criminal de la región, a ese régimen que mata a los suyos, que tortura los suyos, que mata a sus mujeres y que quiere destruir Israel. Y usted está protegiendo en este momento tanto a Irán como a Hamás.
               

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, rendons tout d'abord hommage aux victimes des atrocités du 7 octobre et ayons une pensée pour les 130 personnes qui, selon des informations datant du mois d'avril, seraient toujours retenues en otage par le Hamas. Ce chiffre, d'ailleurs, serait une estimation. Elles doivent être libérées sans délai.
               

                  Sur la situation humanitaire dramatique, en mars, l'Organisation mondiale de la santé relayait l'alerte d'une famine imminente dans le nord de la bande de Gaza. L'acheminement de l'aide humanitaire doit s'effectuer dans les meilleures conditions possibles au regard des circonstances. En date du 9 avril, le Financial Times notait qu'Israël avait annoncé que 322 camions étaient entrés dans la bande de Gaza dimanche, soit le nombre quotidien le plus élevé depuis le début de la guerre. Il rappelait aussi que la route reste le moyen le plus sûr, le plus efficace et le plus rentable pour acheminer l'aide. Ces évolutions doivent se poursuivre pour que les convois puissent être menés avec un niveau de sécurité optimal pour le personnel et pour qu'une aide suffisante, en quantité comme en qualité, puisse effectivement être distribuée.
               

                  De même, je me suis souvent exprimée dans cet hémicycle sur la protection des journalistes. Ceux-ci ne sauraient exercer leur mission d'intérêt général au péril de leur vie ou de leur intégrité physique.
               

Manu Pineda,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, ayer intentamos incluir en el orden del día de este Pleno un debate sobre qué medidas va a llevar a cabo la Unión Europea para implementar la Resolución de la ONU y el dictamen de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Y la mayoría de este Parlamento votó en contra, impidió que se llevara este debate a efecto porque la respuesta es que no va a implementar ninguna medida.
               

                  Les da vergüenza que se sepa que no van a implementar ninguna medida. Hoy estamos discutiendo sobre cómo están asesinando a trabajadores humanitarios, cómo están asesinando a periodistas y a miembros de la sociedad civil.
               

                  Os tengo que decir que lo que no hace esta Unión Europea lo están haciendo ahora mismo más de mil activistas —la Flotilla de la Libertad — en Estambul, que van a zarpar para llevar a la Franja de Gaza más de 5 000 toneladas de ayuda humanitaria. Pero están varados allí porque Israel ya ha dicho que los va a atacar, lo mismo que atacó a los del Mavi Mármara y asesinaron a diez compañeros turcos.
               

                  ¿Va a hacer algo la Unión Europea para proteger a los más de quinientos europeos que van en esa flotilla?
               

                  Israel es un tumor en Oriente Medio, un tumor que se está convirtiendo en metástasis, que quiere convertir este genocidio en un conflicto regional para apartar el foco, para que no hablemos de genocidio, para que hablemos de una guerra entre árabes y judíos en la que nosotros nos metamos.
               

                  Israel es la mayor fuente de desestabilización en la zona. ¿Y qué vamos a hacer nosotros sobre eso? Han bombardeado el Consulado de Irán en Damasco. ¿Y qué es lo que hace la Unión Europea? Sancionar a Irán en vez de a quien ha bombardeado. Que sepan los pueblos de Europa que… (La presidenta retira la palabra al orador).
               

Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Madam President, just a point of order.
I want to make you aware of the statement given by my colleague calling Israel ‘a cancer in the Middle East’. I would like you to investigate this as an anti-Semitic speech, because I, myself, who is from the region, do not accept that kind of speech towards Israel.

President. – Thank you. We will investigate this in the bureau.

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'orrore del massacro di civili a Gaza non risparmia chi aiuta una popolazione che soffre ogni genere di privazione o chi documenta la tragedia in atto: sono circa 200 gli operatori umanitari uccisi e 100 i giornalisti, mentre sono ben oltre 30.000 i morti tra i civili palestinesi.
               

                  Il Parlamento europeo ha condannato la risposta sproporzionata dell'esercito di Israele dopo gli attacchi del 7 ottobre. Ma a poco è servito. L'Unione deve passare allora dalle parole ai fatti, se vuole essere un attore credibile come costruttore di pace e custode del diritto internazionale umanitario.
               

                  Servono sanzioni mirate, serve la sospensione dell'accordo di associazione UE-Israele, come invocato dalla relatrice delle Nazioni Unite sulla Palestina. Ma serve anche lo stop immediato all'export di ogni tipo di arma o munizione europea, che mai dovrebbe essere fornita a chi si sta macchiando di crimini di guerra.
               

                  Il futuro ruolo dell'Unione nel mondo e nelle relazioni con i Paesi vicini dipenderanno dalla nostra capacità di agire ora senza attendere ulteriori carneficine.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, High Representative Josep Borrell, first of all, let me say, while I disagree nearly in each policy area with you and your policies, no matter whether it was Russia in the past, the Middle East, the Western Balkans, whatever, and since this is the final plenary setting of this mandate, I thank you for your contribution to this European project, and I encourage you to listen to the Parliament and to the people more, so that we can go forward.
For the region, the Middle East, we had a positive period of time when the Abraham Accords were spread. It was a time where peace was available, I would say, and we have to go back there. Israel will go back there. I have no doubt on that. And I'm sure that it's revealed now to the world that the Iranian regime has been behind this for many years, behind Islamism, terrorism, anti-Semitism all over the world via its different proxies.
What is the future perspective for the region? High representative, it's demilitarisation, or better to say, the de-weaponisation of all Palestinian territories, because it's not a regular State structure, it's de-weaponisation, then creating a civil society, then make sure that not the whole world for decades have to pour money in like it was in the past, then creating economic strength for the region itself, and then a security guarantee for Israel, the only democracy in the region, our partner state, and then the two-state solution in more than ten years or beyond could be possible. But for the time being, there is no bothsideism. Correct, if I listen to some speakers in this Parliament, what we need is a strong alliance with Israel.

César Luena (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, vaya lindezas que le dedicaba el neofranquista, que después se ha marchado; no debía tener mucho interés en escuchar su réplica… Pero ¿por qué lo hace? Bueno, pues porque yo creo que se han entendido los dos lenguajes que ha habido en la Unión Europea. Yo, desde luego, prefiero el suyo antes que aquella romería que hicieron la señora Metsola y la señora Von der Leyen.
               

                  Creo que en su lenguaje debe volver a incorporarse la contundencia necesaria para decir que viene una masacre en Rafah y que eso sí que va a ser un desastre humanitario. Segundo: sanciones. Vamos a hablar de sanciones al Gobierno de Israel, que es de quien se está hablando, y de establecer una nueva relación diplomática más restrictiva. Y tercero, y lo más importante: Estado palestino. Esa es la respuesta que va a entender Israel, el Estado palestino, como está defendiendo, por cierto, el Gobierno de España. Y esa creo que es la tarea a la que usted se ha dedicado estos años y que, espero, en los próximos meses pueda culminar.
               

Salima Yenbou (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, six mois de guerre, six mois de désastres humains, 34 000 morts dont 14 500 enfants, plus de 76 000 blessés, 129 otages, famine, manque de soins, démolition des habitations, des écoles et des hôpitaux, 1,7 million de Palestiniens en exode, 257 travailleurs humanitaires tués, la colonisation et la violence qui s'amplifient en Cisjordanie, et 105 journalistes tués – le conflit le plus meurtrier et dangereux pour les journalistes selon l'ONU. Nous devons tout mettre en œuvre pour stopper ces horreurs et l'embrasement régional qui menace déjà.
               

                  Le droit international, par la résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU de mars dernier, doit être appliqué pour obtenir enfin un cessez-le-feu immédiat et durable, la libération des otages et l'acheminement de l'aide humanitaire. Je tiens d'ailleurs, au passage, à saluer le travail effectué par le rapport Colonna, qui vient reconnaître le rôle irremplaçable et indispensable de l'UNRWA pour le peuple palestinien.
               

                  La solution politique à deux États est l'unique voie pour une paix durable qui garantisse la sécurité et la dignité de tous. Nous devons avoir le courage d'œuvrer pour un avenir où la paix et la sécurité prévalent pour les deux peuples.
               

Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, hoge vertegenwoordiger, elke dag worden burgers, journalisten en humanitaire werkers in Gaza vermoord. Honger wordt ingezet als wapen, ziekenhuizen worden aangevallen, vele massagraven worden gevonden.
               

                  Nooit meer oorlog en genocide: dat is het fundament van onze Europese samenwerking. En toch staan we al maandenlang oogluikend toe dat Israël een aanvalsoorlog voert tegen Gaza, waarover het hoogste hof van de VN heeft geoordeeld dat er een plausibel risico bestaat op genocide.
               

                  Het is hoog tijd voor maximale druk op Israël, voor een permanent staakt-het-vuren, humanitaire hulp en volledige naleving van de uitspraak van het Gerechtshof en van de VN-resolutie. Dat vereist minimaal een stop op wapenleveranties, mogelijke opschorting van de associatieovereenkomst en zeker ook erkenning van de staat Palestina. Want de belofte ‘nooit meer oorlog en genocide’ is niks waard als we dat wel toestaan in Gaza.
               

Teuvo Hakkarainen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, tässä ollaan tekemässä taas uutta holokaustia, verhottuna tämmöiseen kysymykseen ja moneen muuhunkin toimintaan, joita täällä tehdään.
               

                  Golda Meir sanoi aikanaan, että jos arabit riisutaan aseista, alueella on rauha, mutta jos israelilaiset riisutaan aseista, Israelia ei enää ole. Hamasin terroristien piilottelu aseineen siviilien seassa johtaa väistämättä ulkopuolisiin uhreihin. Hamas on piilottautunut sinne siviilien sekaan, sairaaloihin, kouluihin, avustusjärjestöjen selän taakse. Totta kai tulee uhreja silloin, koska terroristit on saatava vastuuseen siitä hyökkäyksestä, minkä he tekivät Israeliin lokakuussa.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, what has been seen cannot be unseen. And the world can now see exactly what European values really are: 200 days of Israel systematically wiping Gaza from the earth; 505 bombs a day; 21 an hour; doctors executed; mass graves in hospitals; journalists murdered.
And all the while with not just the silence, but the active complicity, of the European Union. The European Union who flew the flag of the oppressor from day one; whose countries axed the funding to a starving Palestinian population, despite any evidence of any wrongdoing from anyone against UNRWA; who increased the flow of weapons to Israel tenfold since they started the genocide – weapons to slaughter Palestinians.
So keep your hand-wringing and your crocodile tears. It couldn't have happened without your complicity. It's continuing now because of it. European values: same as it always was. Murdering colonialists: you'll never be forgotten!

Jérôme Rivière (NI). – Madame la Présidente, Israël est une démocratie, le Hamas est une organisation terroriste. Israël est une démocratie, le Hamas est une organisation terroriste. ‘Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde’, écrivait Albert Camus.
               

                  Israël est une démocratie, le Hamas est une organisation terroriste. Les combats qui ont lieu à Gaza après les atrocités perpétrées contre des civils en Israël, le 7 octobre dernier, ne sont pas une guerre entre Israéliens et Palestiniens, mais un nouveau chapitre dans le combat incessant entre la liberté, la démocratie et les forces noires de l'obscurantisme.
               

                  Dans quelques jours, nous célébrerons la chute du nazisme. La capitulation totale de ce régime odieux était la seule voie possible pour que notre continent – à l'Ouest immédiatement, en tout cas – renoue avec la liberté. Les horreurs de la guerre totale pour les populations allemandes n'ont heureusement pas arrêté nos alliés américains.
               

                  Composer avec l'obscurantisme, même affaibli, c'est assurer sa renaissance rapide. La capitulation du Hamas est un objectif souhaitable, pas seulement pour Israël, mais pour la préservation de l'idéal de liberté incarné par la démocratie. Israël est une démocratie, le Hamas est une organisation terroriste.
               

Ana Miguel Dos Santos (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caro Senhor Alto Representante Borrell, temos de ser claros, sem medo das palavras: a Europa não está do lado dos terroristas. A Europa está ao lado da paz. O Hamas é um grupo terrorista. Os líderes do Hamas abandonaram os seus cidadãos, vivem como príncipes em ambientes de luxo, a assistir pela televisão a toda esta destruição. O Hamas não está verdadeiramente preocupado com os palestinianos. O Hamas só está preocupado com a sua sobrevivência.
               

                  A Europa tem o dever moral e histórico de pressionar o Hamas para libertar os seus reféns. E há três tipos de reféns: os reféns palestinianos, que são o seu próprio povo, os reféns israelitas, sequestrados desde o dia 7 de outubro, e a comunidade internacional e a ajuda humanitária, que são as vítimas colaterais desta ditadura terrorista.
               

                  Caros Colegas, a Europa é um agente da paz e é por isso que a Europa deve estar na primeira linha da defesa da democracia. Se tivesse que escolher apenas uma, a Europa teria só uma bandeira de duas cores: a da paz e da dignidade humana.
               

                  Mas não há liberdade sem segurança. E não nos podemos distrair. O grande desafio do nosso tempo, o grande desafio das democracias é, e será, defender a paz, garantir a democracia, ao mesmo tempo que asseguramos a segurança dos cidadãos, e nunca esquecendo, sem dar tréguas ao terrorismo.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Alto representante, é a última vez que me dirijo a Vossa Excelência nesta condição e permita-me que, neste momento, sublinhe aqui o meu total acordo, o meu apoio e o meu reconhecimento por tantas vezes ter sido a voz mais lúcida entre as vozes da União Europeia na abordagem do recrudescer do conflito no Médio Oriente.
               

                  40 000 mortes, entre as quais mais de 200 jornalistas, mais de 90 trabalhadores humanitários são números que retratam bem a carnificina em curso na Faixa de Gaza. O denominado Ocidente, dito civilizado, está há seis meses sentado sobre todos os tratados e todas as convenções a assistir em direto, debaixo de ar condicionado e sobre alcatifa, ao genocídio do povo palestiniano.
               

                  Só há uma forma de pôr termo a isto: partir para uma resolução assente na solução de dois Estados e parar com esta carnificina. Mas parar com esta carnificina implica duas coisas: o embargo ao fornecimento de armas, e começarmos, com celeridade, a rever o acordo de associação entre Israel e a União Europeia.
               

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, High Representative and colleagues, the Colonna report states that the Government of Israel provided no evidence to support its claim that UNRWA staff were members of Hamas. Nevertheless, these claims led to an avalanche of condemnation of UNRWA by EU Member States, an avalanche of calls to suspend funding of UNRWA, regardless – it seems – of either the devastating humanitarian consequences or the absence of evidence.
And if it's never the wrong time to do the right thing, then the right thing for Austria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden is to acknowledge that suspension was a mistake and that UNRWA is indispensable. To make matters worse, the US Congress last week passed a bill providing USD 26 billion in support to Israel and banning aid to UNRWA until 2025.
It's difficult not to lose faith in the face of these circumstances, but as this will be my last speech on this issue – in this mandate at least – let me express my pride in the approach of the Irish Government: increasing aid to UNRWA, recognising Palestine and calling for a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, y a-t-il une limite à l'impunité? C'est avec cette question que Netanyahou nous défie tous les jours, à chaque bombardement, à chaque nouvelle escalade régionale: 35 000 morts, 10 % des journalistes tués à Gaza, des humanitaires et des hôpitaux ciblés, des fosses communes, la famine et ce siège qui réduit tout espoir. Chaque jour, le gouvernement d'Israël semble confirmer un peu plus sa volonté génocidaire. Il ignore les injonctions de la CIJ et de la communauté internationale. Il s'isole dans une folie meurtrière.
               

                  Il y a urgence à se tenir aux côtés des pacifistes et de la population civile. Condamnons tous les responsables d'exactions et les colons, sanctionnons, suspendons l'accord d'association et soutenons sans réserve l'UNRWA, cette agence internationale victime à tort d'allégations non prouvées. Monsieur le Haut Représentant, pour finir, merci d'avoir tenu bon, merci d'avoir porté nos valeurs, merci d'avoir participé à nous préserver un tant soit peu d'honneur.
               

Younous Omarjee (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur Borrell, que faut-il de plus qu'un génocide pour que madame von der Leyen agisse enfin et suspende l'accord d'association avec Israël? Que faut-il de plus que 34 000 morts, dont plus de 12 000 enfants assassinés? Hier encore, une fosse commune a été retrouvée à Khan Younès avec plus de 200 morts. Tout cela n'est-il toujours pas suffisant, pour madame von der Leyen, pour suspendre l'accord d'association?
               

                  Si je vous pose la question, c'est que j'ai écrit à la présidente de la Commission et j'ai reçu, le 5 avril, un courrier en réponse à ma demande de suspension de l'accord d'association. La présidente von der Leyen conclut son courrier par: ‘l'Union européenne n'envisage actuellement pas de suspendre l'accord d'association avec Israël’. Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir. C'est aussi la réponse qui a été faite à la demande que vous aviez formulée devant notre Parlement européen pour dire que vous lanceriez une enquête pour voir si les clauses des droits humains étaient violées. Je crois qu'elles le sont et je crois qu'aujourd'hui l'Union européenne, Madame la Présidente, doit suspendre cet accord, sauf à perdre définitivement tout honneur et tout crédit auprès des peuples européens.
               

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, devo ancora parlare di Gaza, dei 13.000 bambini palestinesi morti innocenti, delle donne, dei civili uccisi senza pietà, massacrati da Israele, dalla politica criminale di Netanyahu. Devo parlare dei milioni di ebrei che in tutto il mondo manifestano contro Netanyahu e i suoi crimini, e non perché sono antisemiti ma, al contrario, perché sono orgogliosi di essere ebrei e si indignano per l'orrore di cui il loro Paese oggi è responsabile.
               

                  Io ne parlo da mesi: ma in questo palazzo raccontare la verità su Gaza sembra un tabù. E questo mi spaventa. Come mi spaventa quanto sta succedendo in Italia, dove lo scrittore Antonio Scurati viene censurato dalla tv pubblica perché antifascista, proprio alla vigilia del 25 aprile, la festa della liberazione dal fascismo.
               

                  E allora voglio salutare questo palazzo, ricordando che è nostro dovere lottare per la libertà e la verità, chiedere che la Palestina sia libera e in pace e supportare chiunque, come Scurati, subisca la censura di chi non sa ancora nel 2024 dirsi antifascista.
               

                  Lo dico io: viva l'Italia antifascista, viva l'Europa antifascista, viva la libertà!
               

President. – You know the rules of the House, so please respect them. I will report that to the President.

Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, despite all the tragic pictures from the region, we need not to forget that the main problem in the region is terrorism: Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iran. The fight against terrorism, which is occupying cities and regions, always was bloody.
Let's compare liberation of Mosul in 2017 and situation in Gaza today. Mosul city had up to 12 000 ISIS terrorists, which were fighting against liberation of the city by American-led coalition. Liberation took 10 months, the city was destroyed by heavy bombing, up to 40 000 civilians were killed.
Today, Hamas has up to 40 000 active fighters in Gaza. Numbers of casualties during liberation of Gaza are not very different from the numbers in Mosul. Liberation of Mosul was welcomed by all the western democratic world.
If somebody knows how to avoid civilian casualties in the battles against terrorists who are occupying big cities, tell us. The victory in such a battle is needed not only for security of Israel, but also for the future of Palestinian people.
In order to create the proper future for Palestinian people, first of all, the security of Israel should be guaranteed. That is why terrorism needs to be defeated. The Abraham Accords, guaranteeing mutual security and development, need to be signed, and Palestinian Arabs need to be helped to heal from paradigm of terrorism and influence of Iran. And only then, with the help of a secure Israel, we shall be able to assist the Palestinians in developing their ability to govern themselves. It is a long way to peace in the region, but the only way.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Spoštovana predsednica! Spoštovani visoki zbor! Vojna v Gazi poteka že več kot sedem mesecev. Število žrtev je že preseglo 34.000. Samo pretekli vikend je v zračnih napadih umrlo 139 ljudi. Tarča so še vedno tudi begunska taborišča.
               

                  Izraelska vojska se je umaknila iz juga Gaze, a še vedno območja napada iz zraka.
               

                  Izraelu zahodne države pa še naprej dostavljajo orožje. Nasilje se vse bolj stopnjuje tudi na Zahodnem bregu.
               

                  Provokacije Izraela se nadaljujejo tudi preko meja. Vsi pozivi k trajnostnem premirju pa so še naprej neuslišani. Resolucija Varnostnega sveta se ne spoštuje, tudi sodišča v Haagu ne. Izrael še naprej krši mednarodno pravo.
               

                  Poročilo iz preiskave glede delovanja UNRWA je pokazalo, da Izrael nikoli ni podal dokazov o hudih obtožbah. Nikoli. Te pa so vodile v zamrznitev sredstev za njeno delovanje.
               

                  Vse to in še več se odvija pred očmi svetovne javnosti. Svet le nemočno opazuje in ne ukrepa. Dovolj je dovolj. Zahtevamo premirje in izpustitev talcev. Zahtevamo neovirano dostavo humanitarne pomoči. Zahtevamo ustavitev dobav orožja ter zahtevamo ustavitev provokacij.
               

Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, let me first establish some basic truths. The State of Israel has a right to exist, it has the right to defend itself, but Netanyahu does not equal the entire Israel. Palestinian children, men and women have the right to survive, to live, to thrive in peace and in dignity. Hamas does not equal the entire Palestine. Human rights is not a cake. One people's human rights does not mean that other peoples have to die.
The ICJ, the world's highest judicial authority, has imposed provisional measures on the State of Israel not once but twice. Measures that the State of Israel is obliged to follow. This House is not a court, but we can all see it. The ICJ has seen it. What is the world doing about it? What are we doing about it? If we have any morals left, or ethics, or even the slightest piece of empathy, the smallest thing that we can ask for and demand is a ceasefire, now.

Ciarán Cuffe (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, High Representative Borrell, a genocide is unfolding in Gaza and EU hypocrisy is on full display. We're increasing sanctions against Iran for its attack on Israel, but when will Israel be sanctioned? Bombing civilians, killing journalists and aid workers, using starvation as a weapon – these are war crimes! Illegal and expanding settlements. A policy of apartheid. Enough is enough. When will you, as foreign policy chief, support efforts to recognise the State of Palestine? When will you convince countries to resume UNRWA funding? When will you suspend the EU-Israel agreement and ban arms exports? As long as the EU fails to act, it is complicit in the Gaza genocide. It makes a mockery of the values that we preach to the world and exposes us as hypocrites. History will not be kind.

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin! Auch jetzt, sieben Monate nach dem Krieg in Gaza, gab es einige Reden hier im Parlament, die einem wirklich die Sprache verschlagen. Deshalb will ich es in aller Deutlichkeit sagen: Das, was wir gerade in Gaza erleben, hat nichts mit Selbstverteidigung zu tun. Wenn Häuser, Universitäten, Krankenhäuser zerstört, 33 000 Menschen getötet werden, wenn 1,5 Millionen Menschen gerade tatsächlich unter dem Hungertod leiden, dann ist das, was dort passiert, nichts weiter als ein Massaker. Wenn die USA in all diesen Monaten einen Waffenstillstand blockiert haben und Deutschland und die USA Waffenausfuhren an Israel verzehnfacht haben, dann haben sie tatsächlich eine Mitverantwortung für das, was gerade in Gaza passiert.
               

                  Manche hier meinten, Israel sei die einzige Demokratie in der Region. Ich will es in Deutlichkeit sagen: Wir haben es mit einer ultrarechten, reaktionären Regierung in Israel zu tun. Wir haben es nicht mit Kollateralschäden zu tun oder einigen kleinen Grenzüberschreitungen. Wir haben es mit einer brutalen Kriegsführung zu tun, die das Ziel hat, tatsächlich ein eigenständiges Palästina zu verhindern und hierfür jeglichen Widerstandswillen der palästinensischen Bevölkerung zu verhindern. Deshalb sage ich in aller Deutlichkeit: Wenn hier behauptet wird, wir stehen für eine Zweistaatenlösung, dann müssen jetzt endlich Schritte für ein gleichberechtigtes Palästina unternommen werden, und es darf nicht noch Monate gewartet werden. Es braucht Gerechtigkeit für die Palästinenser! Es braucht einen sofortigen Waffenstill… (Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort)


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, while the war in Gaza was sparked by Hamas's vicious terrorist attack in Israel, the situation in Gaza has now reached a critical juncture, and it is glaringly obvious that the principles of humanitarian law are being flagrantly disregarded.
The disproportionate response by the Israeli authorities has led to the destruction of Gaza and the loss of countless of innocent lives, including women and children. This cannot be justified under any circumstances. Defence has been replaced by vengeance, and humanity replaced by callousness.
In Aleppo, we saw entire neighbourhoods levelled. Putin continued his disregard for human life again in Ukraine. How is the indiscriminate bombing in Gaza any different?
Netanyahu and his government seem hell-bent on destroying not just the lives of Palestinians, but also everything that makes up Palestine. The horrifying discovery of mass graves at Nasser Hospital may just be the tip of the iceberg. We must halt this madness and halt this endless cycle of destruction. We need a ceasefire, and we need it now.
Ireland and Spain asked the Commission in mid-February to examine whether Israel is respecting its human rights obligations in the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Why has the Commission done nothing about this request? Why the silence?
Netanyahu has turned his back on the international community, and I speak for many of my constituents when I say that the EU cannot be complicit in Israel's disregard for innocent lives. A ceasefire, and a ceasefire now.

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Alto Representante, a condenação da comunidade internacional, em geral, e da União Europeia, em particular, relativamente aos atropelos do direito humanitário internacional, praticados pelas forças de defesa de Israel na Faixa de Gaza, tem subido de tom e conseguiu mesmo levar à aprovação de uma resolução das Nações Unidas, apelando a um cessar-fogo humanitário.
               

                  No entanto, no terreno, os números da catástrofe cívica e humanitária não param de subir. Cada dia mais agentes humanitários, jornalistas, civis, sobretudo mulheres e crianças, são feridos ou perdem a vida numa guerra que parece não reconhecer fronteiras éticas e legais.
               

                  Sejamos práticos, Senhor Alto Representante, com a coragem e a lucidez que lhe reconheço em todo este processo, em que me revejo, e que hoje aqui lhe agradeço, temos que nos questionar.
               

                  Vamos agir para impedir o enfraquecimento reportado quotidianamente pela UNRWA e impedir situações como a que levou à suspensão das atividades da World Central Kitchen? Como e quando? Vamos rever a conformidade da aplicação, por Israel, do artigo 2.o do Acordo de Associação com a União Europeia? Quando e como? Vamos suspender o fornecimento de armas e banir o comércio com colonatos ilegais? Quando e como? O povo de Gaza, as vítimas deste conflito, esperam as nossas respostas.
               

Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Spoštovana predsednica! Prihodnost Palestine in palestinskega naroda ostaja kljub tragediji, ki smo jo priča, ključ do miru in stabilnosti na Bližnjem vzhodu. Izraelska vojaška operacija je, čeprav je bila že od vsega začetka obsojena na neuspeh, zašla v slepo ulico, saj vprašanje Palestine nima vojaške rešitve in nima rešitve v nasilju. Če bi jo imela, bi po vsej preliti krvi sedaj že obstajala.
               

                  Kar vidimo danes, je nepotrebno trpljenje in umiranje nedolžnih. Nekateri govorijo o genocidu, drugi o vojnih zločinih. A o vsem tem bo na koncu odločalo pravo in ne politika. Ne v tej ne v kateri drugi zgradbi.
               

                  Dejstvo je, da še tako dramatični govori in virtualni protest na socialnih omrežjih ne rešujejo ključnega: kako prekiniti krog nasilja in prelivanja krvi?
               

                  Edino upanje ni virtualno, ampak je to dolgočasna in zelo analogna diplomacija. Ta mora nujno doseči politični dogovor o trajnem humanitarnem premirju in izpustitvi vseh talcev brez vsakršnih pogojevanj in izsiljevanj. Nato pa se lahko začnejo pogovori o prihodnosti, o dveh državah in vrsti drugih zadev, a najprej se mora ustaviti nasilje.
               

Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Verden har ikke i min tid set et værre angreb end Israels på Gaza med sult, tørst og medicin som våben, oven i de vedvarende bombardementer og skyderier. 34 000 meldes dræbt, halvdelen af dem børn. Ingen rædsel overgår dette. Med drab på nødhjælpsarbejdere mister vi arme og ben i katastrofeområdet, men også vores øjne blændes. At Israel nægter journalister adgang til Gaza betyder jo, at vi kun har dem, der var der i forvejen. Og her er grotesk mange, sikkert hundreder blevet dræbt. Snart har vi alene Hamas som nyhedskilde. Israel må presses til omgående at lade journalister komme ind. Vi har alle brug for deres øjne, så vi kan se, hvad der reelt sker, og EU må straks få Gazas og Vestbreddens journalister inkluderet i EU's Media Freedom Rapid Respons, ligesom Ukraines journalister. Det haster også med at få en uafhængig undersøgelse af de mange drab på journalister og de ansvarlige israelere på EU's sanktionsliste. Straffrihed er en pest i konflikten mellem Israel og Palæstina.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, é preciso pôr fim ao genocídio que Israel está a cometer em Gaza. É preciso pôr fim à barbárie. Israel é responsável, em apenas seis meses, pela morte de mais de 34 000 palestinianos, 76 000 feridos, a maioria mulheres e crianças. Matou dezenas de jornalistas, mais de uma centena de pessoal humanitário, centenas de pessoal de saúde.
               

                  Israel impede o acesso à água, a alimentos, medicamentos, atrasa e ataca operações humanitárias. Israel destrói habitações, infraestruturas, cerca e ataca hospitais, ameaça uma ainda maior agressão em Gaza, que coloca a população palestiniana entre a morte ou a expulsão. Israel impõe uma escalada de confrontação no Médio Oriente de consequências imprevisíveis.
               

                  Que profunda hipocrisia a da União Europeia nesta matéria! Onde está a enérgica condenação a Israel? Onde estão as sanções? Basta de palavras mansas e de proclamações espúrias. É preciso exigir um cessar-fogo imediato e o acesso incondicional a apoios humanitários, formalizar o reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina soberano e independente, com as fronteiras de 1967 e a capital em Jerusalém Oriental, a efetivação do direito de retorno dos refugiados, como determinam as resoluções da ONU.
               

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, collega's, 34 000 levens heeft de gruwelijke oorlog in Gaza al opgeëist, waaronder 12 000 kinderen, en er dreigen nog duizenden kinderen te sterven door honger omdat Israël humanitaire hulp blijft blokkeren. En de gruwel gaat maar door.
               

                  Het gebrek aan actie, ook vanuit Europa, is onaanvaardbaar. Welk signaal geven we aan de families van de ruim 280 doden die afgelopen weekend werden gevonden in een massagraf, aan het jonge meisje dat water moet drinken aan een regenpijp of aan de families van de hulpverleners en de journalisten die het leven lieten terwijl ze probeerden mensenlevens te redden? Wat zeggen we tegen die mensen?
               

                  We moeten actievoeren. En dat betekent uiteraard een onmiddellijk, permanent en onvoorwaardelijk staakt-het-vuren. Maar we hebben nog iets anders dat we kunnen gebruiken: onze economische macht. Het wordt hoog tijd dat we de associatieovereenkomst op de tafel leggen, ze opschorten en ervoor zorgen dat ze echt een hefboom wordt om Israël te forceren om te doen wat het moet doen: stoppen met deze oorlog.
               

Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Voorzitter, meer dan zes maanden – we zijn al een heel eind – en ik zie nog steeds geen significante ontwikkelingen in positieve zin. Ik zie nog steeds niet dat het geweld is gestopt en ik zie nog steeds niet dat kinderen en onschuldige mensen niet het slachtoffer zijn van deze verschrikkelijke oorlog. Integendeel, ik zie het tegenovergestelde.
               

                  Verschillende verslagen zijn naar buiten gekomen, verschillende analyses zijn gemaakt en alsnog komen er geen positieve resultaten. Ik ga het nu maar voor de eerste keer publiekelijk zeggen: wat ik aanschouw, wat ik zie, is dat er een genocide gaande is. Het is ongelooflijk hoe mensen aan het uitsterven zijn, hoe mensen aan het lijden zijn. De internationale gemeenschap slaagt er maar niet in om dit te stoppen. Het kan zo echt niet verder.
               

                  En wat betreft UNRWA: nog steeds is er geen bewijs. Onacceptabel. Kom dan een keer met bewijs, is de oproep aan de Israëlische regering, want je kan niet met dit soort aantijgingen blijven komen terwijl er maar geen bewijs is. Dus ook hier moeten we eisen: of er komt bewijs, of het klopt gewoon niet.
               

Silvia Modig (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, yli 200 avustustyöntekijää ja yli 100 toimittajaa on kuollut Israelin sotatoimissa Gazassa. Kansainvälinen oikeus velvoittaa suojelemaan siviilejä. Israelin toiminta taas osoittaa täyttä välinpitämättömyyttä siviilejä kohtaan. Siitä todistaa myös sotatoimissa kuolleiden palestiinalaisten määrä, joista suurin osa on siviilejä – lapsia ja naisia.
               

                  Nämä luvut kertovat joko tarkoituksellisesta siviilien tappamisesta tai täydestä välinpitämättömyydestä, koska Israelin armeija on yksi maailman kehittyneimpiä ja sillä olisi kyky suojella siviilejä, jos sillä olisi siihen tahtoa. Sen sijaan Israel on pommittanut niin sairaaloita, ambulansseja kuin avustussaattueita, kaikki selvästi merkittyjä.
               

                  Israel on tehnyt mahdottomaksi niin siviilien auttamisen kuin riippumattomien medioiden raportoida tapahtumista. Tämä on käsittämätöntä ja häpeällistä. EU:n on asetettava laajat taloudelliset pakotteet Israelia kohtaan, kunnes tämä kohtuuton julmuus saadaan loppumaan. Jäsenvaltioiden, kuten kotimaani Suomen, on pidättäydyttävä kaikesta asekaupasta Israelin kanssa, kunnes Israel noudattaa kansainvälistä oikeutta, kansainvälisiä sitoumuksiaan ja kansainvälisiä sodankäynnin sääntöjä. Tulitauko ja kahden valtion malli.
               

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, più di 34.000 morti e più di 77.000 feriti: ed è solo un bilancio parziale, l'ultimo, dopo centinaia di giorni di guerra a Gaza e la strage continua. Sette operatori umanitari dell'ONG World Central Kitchen sono stati recentemente uccisi dall'esercito israeliano. Va detto con chiarezza: è un crimine di guerra che condanniamo e per il quale servirà un'indagine approfondita che punisca i colpevoli.
               

                  Sono poi numerosissime le vittime tra gli operatori dell'agenzia ONU che si occupa dei profughi palestinesi, accusata dal governo di Netanyahu di aver partecipato all'attacco del 7 ottobre. Non ci sono prove a sostegno delle accuse: una recente analisi indipendente della ex ministra degli Esteri francese, Catherine Colonna, afferma chiaramente che l'Agenzia è insostituibile e indispensabile. Ma noi lo sappiamo, lo abbiamo detto anche in questo Parlamento.
               

                  Serve che l'Europa agisca adesso per evitare che continui un'escalation e per ottenere un immediato cessate il fuoco e la liberazione incondizionata di tutti gli ostaggi ancora nelle mani di Hamas. Lavoriamo per una Conferenza internazionale di pace e per una missione ONU a Gaza. Lavoriamo per fermare il massacro.
               

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Spoštovana predsednica! Hvala! Tokrat vam ne bom pokazala grozljivih fotografij iz Gaze. Pa ne zato, ker se bojim, da bi me kdo prekinil. V tem primeru me sploh ne ganejo pravila te hiše.
               

                  Ampak samo zato, ker vam bom tokrat s številkami opisala realnost, pred katero se ne morete skriti niti tisti, ki ste si tudi ob mojih fotografijah takrat zatiskali oči. Tisti, ki ne priznavate nenormalne brutalnosti genocida, ki ga Izrael izvaja v Palestini.
               

                  Številke, torej. Več kot 34.000 mrtvih Palestink in Palestincev, več kot 120 mrtvih novinark in novinarjev, več kot 220 mrtvih humanitark in humanitarcev. To je realnost. Vedno hujša.
               

                  Neupravičena bombardiranja niso nenadzorovana. Izrael svoje napade zelo ciljno usmerja v bolnišnice in na območja delovanja humanitarnih delavcev.
               

                  Prav tako ciljno napade usmerja v novinarje v obliki usodne in dokončne cenzure. Ker, kaj, če o dejanjih izraelske vlade nihče ne poroča, jih ni?
               

                  Sram naj bo tiste, ki to omogočate. In sram naj vas bo, ker lahko tako mirno spremljate razpad človečnosti.
               

                  Ne bom tiho.
               

Idoia Villanueva Ruiz (The Left). – Señora presidenta, Rafeef Ziadah: ‘Hoy mi cuerpo fue una masacre televisada, una masacre televisada para caber en un audio digital y límites de palabras. No menciones las palabras apartheid y ocupación. Esto no es político. Así que les di resoluciones de la ONU, estadísticas, condenamos, deploramos, rechazamos. Y estos no son lados iguales. Ocupadores y ocupados. Y entre eso, cuento cien muertos, doscientos muertos, mil muertos, treinta mil muertos. ¿Hay alguien ahí? ¿Escuchará alguien? Hoy, mi cuerpo fue una masacre televisada.’
               

                  Y, déjame decirte: no hay nada que tus resoluciones de la ONU hayan hecho en absoluto sobre esto. Nosotros enseñamos vida después de que ellos han construido sus asentamientos y muros de apartheid más allá de los últimos cielos. Nosotros, los palestinos, nos levantamos cada mañana para enseñar al mundo vida, Señor.
               

                  Termina una legislatura europea cubierta de complicidad, indecencia y de vergüenza, sin una sola acción concreta para terminar con el genocidio y la impunidad de Israel. Quiero dar las gracias a la ciudadanía movilizada por Palestina. Podéis estar seguros de que seguiremos luchando desde las calles y volveremos a exigir, con más fuerza, justicia para Palestina.
               

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Madam President, Saifeddin, Zomi, Damian, James Kirby, John, James Henderson and Jacob all killed in a single Israeli airstrike while they were doing their work in Gaza. But we were told that it's fine. The IDF informed everyone that it was a mistake, so now they expect that all should be forgiven, as if nothing ever happened. But let me send a clear message. We will not be swayed by hollow apologies. Your empty promises. No, we do not buy the notion that this was mere collateral damage. In a so-called mistake. 34 000 innocent lives have been lost in Gaza. And here is a fact for those who try to always put this down, find excuses. Oh, they're not even here. The EPP, ECR and the far right. The fascists are not here today, but 34 000 lives in Gaza. To put this in context, is 1 400 000 lives in Germany, 1 100 000 lives in France, 1 million lives in Italy, 9 000 in my country, Malta. But even if it were just one life, we would stand up for that life to be counted. How many more lives need to be lost until we wake up to this genocide? Justice must be served. Justice means a ceasefire. Justice means that we recognise Palestine as a State, so that Palestinians can live freely in peace and be able to live their lives to the full.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Milan Brglez (S&D). – Spoštovana predsednica! Več kot pol leta trajajoča brezvestna brutalnost oboroženih spopadov in najhujši mednarodni zločini v Gazi postavlja pod vprašaj našo kolektivno humanost in obstoj mednarodnega prava.
               

                  Po poročanju organizacije Save the Children iz Združenih držav Amerike je v tem konfliktu življenje izgubilo več kot 200 humanitarnih delavcev, kar je najvišje število humanitarnih žrtev v času sodobnih konfliktov. Med otroki pa je bilo več žrtev kot v vseh spopadih na globalni ravni v zadnjih štirih letih.
               

                  Evropska unija in njene države članice so zmožne in dolžne izkoristiti vse pravne, politične, diplomatske in gospodarske vzvode, da spodbudijo Izrael k spoštovanju vseh relevantnih zavezujočih resolucij Varnostnega sveta ter k uresničevanju začasnih ukrepov, namenjenih preprečevanju zločina genocida, ki jih Izraelu nalaga Meddržavno sodišče.
               

                  Zato sem prepričan, da so prizadevanja za mednarodno priznanje Palestine kot države pomemben korak k enakopravnejšim odnosom in dialogu med Izraelom in Palestino.
               

                  Prav tako pozdravljam predlog resolucije Varnostnega sveta za polnopravno članstvo Palestine v Združenih narodih ter verjamem, da navkljub tokratnemu vetu ZDA, predstavlja pomemben premik na poti k zagotavljanju trajnega miru na Bližnjem vzhodu. Hvala lepa.
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (Renew). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oltre 200 operatori umanitari, quasi 100 giornalisti, più di 33.000 civili, quasi la metà erano solo bambini. Un inferno che dura da sette mesi sotto i nostri occhi, un inferno di brutalità. Ma dietro a questi freddi numeri ci sono storie, storie di sofferenze atroci, famiglie spezzate, bambini che non diventeranno mai adulti. Ed è intollerabile che ogni giorno ne vengono scritte altre centinaia.
               

                  Stalli e tatticismi devono finire ora. Occorre far ripartire immediatamente i negoziati per un cessate il fuoco immediato e duraturo. Bisogna tornare a finanziare l'UNRWA prima che sia troppo tardi. Così come è indispensabile che i primi nemici del popolo palestinese, i terroristi tagliagole di Hamas, acconsentano alla liberazione immediata degli ostaggi israeliani. Ed è parimenti necessario che Netanyahu rinunci all'attacco a Rafah, rinunci a un attacco che causerebbe solo il definitivo collasso umanitario nella regione e annunci il ritiro delle proprie truppe dalla Striscia di Gaza.
               

                  Le leadership da ambo le parti si sono dimostrate totalmente incapaci di agire per il bene dei loro popoli. Il nostro compito sarà accompagnare quelle del futuro verso una conferenza di pace vera, verso l'unica soluzione possibile, quella politica: due Stati liberi, indipendenti, in pace e in sicurezza. Ceasefire, now!
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, tenemos que parar este genocidio. Las calles europeas nos están diciendo, día tras día, semana tras semana, que hay que parar este genocidio.
               

                  Señor Borrell, usted sabe que el Parlamento Europeo le ha pedido que haya más acción, sanciones, reconocimiento de Palestina, que se apoye a la ayuda humanitaria y expulsión de las embajadas de Israel, al igual que ellos no nos permiten entrar en su territorio a los diputados europeos. También medidas contundentes de respeto y de ayuda humanitaria.
               

                  Israel, Netanyahu, no quieren que haya ojos, no quieren que haya testigos. Miren esa fotografía que acaba de ganar un premio: una madre con un niño muerto en sus brazos debería ser la vergüenza de Europa. Debería ser la vergüenza de nuestros pueblos que acabemos esta legislatura europea y no se haya conseguido el alto el fuego.
               

                  Israel no tiene límites. Esas fosas humanitarias, esos trabajadores humanitarios perseguidos… No se ha visto nada igual. Yo no quería dejar esta legislatura que se acaba esta semana sin decir que basta ya de impunidad, que pidamos un alto el fuego y el reconocimiento del Estado palestino.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, over six months and more than 100 000 casualties in Gaza, and now you want to talk about an EU response. The EU response is to funnel weapons to the genocidal apartheid regime, provide diplomatic cover for their crimes and cry crocodile tears for the massacred children while defending and occupying powers non-existent right to attack the people of the land they occupied.
With Russia, you all remembered how to apply international law and more. It extended to Russian novelists, dog shows, any sport you can imagine. But as Israel murders more children than in any other global conflict, and all of it in the last five years, you couldn't even muster one sanction. This is the EU's Madeleine Albright moment. Is the slaughter of tens of thousands of children a price worth paying to maintain EU interests? It looks like the answer is yes. Sadly, settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide are integral to the order that built and sustains the EU.

Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, ce sera sans doute ma dernière intervention et je n'aurai pas pu éviter de parler de la situation à Gaza aujourd'hui – avec beaucoup de tristesse, et je sais que vous partagez cette tristesse.
               

                  Nous sommes aujourd'hui témoins d'un génocide. Ce n'est pas nous qui le disons: ce génocide a été qualifié par la Cour internationale de justice et par la Rapporteure spéciale des Nations Unies sur la situation des droits de l'homme dans les territoires palestiniens occupés depuis 1967. Pour avoir qualifié cette action de génocide, elle a été menacée aujourd'hui pour avoir dit la vérité sur ce qui se passe aujourd'hui à Gaza.
               

                  Alors être témoin est une chose; être complice en est une autre. Aujourd'hui, malheureusement, l'Union européenne est complice de ce génocide, parce qu'elle n'agit pas contre ce génocide. Nous devons impérativement prendre des mesures. Je sais que vous ne ménagez pas vos forces, mais le Conseil doit pouvoir mettre fin à cet accord d'association. Il faut arrêter de livrer des armes à Israël. Il faut continuer à mener des enquêtes internationales sur les crimes qui sont commis aujourd'hui à Gaza. Pour cela, il devra y avoir des poursuites contre tous ceux qui n'auront pas utilisé tous les moyens qui sont en leur pouvoir pour lutter contre ce génocide qui est en train d'arriver à Gaza.
               

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, quiero agradecerle su trabajo y también la coherencia y valentía de su voz. Menos mal que, al menos en estos oscuros momentos, hemos contado con su voz.
               

                  Hay un plausible genocidio en curso, según la Corte Penal Internacional, que el ejército de Israel está cometiendo, posiblemente en Gaza. A partir de esta declaración, todos los firmantes de la Convención para la Prevención y la Sanción del Delito de Genocidio deberían haber adoptado las medidas cautelares para prevenirlo. Y esas medidas cautelares no son otras que suspender el envío de armas, imponer sanciones a Israel y, por supuesto, en nuestro caso, suspender cualquier acuerdo de asociación.
               

                  No lo hemos hecho y hoy los tanques están a las puertas de Rafah. Si entran, nada será equiparable al horror que hemos conocido. Pero tenemos que ser conscientes de que, si Israel lo hace, es porque tiene colaboradores necesarios. Hoy la gente que está dentro nos dice que no hay palabras para describir el horror, pero no me cabe duda de que la historia contará lo que está sucediendo y colocará a los responsables de los crímenes y a sus colaboradores ante los tribunales.
               

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies


Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, écoutez, aujourd'hui, à Gaza, tous les jours, on découvre des charniers et des fosses communes, qui sont le symbole de tout génocide. Des centaines de corps, parfois en uniforme médical, parfois apparemment menottés, exécutés de manière sommaire. On voit des images d'enfants déchiquetés autour d'un babyfoot.
                  

                     Que fait l'Union européenne par rapport à cela? Il y a des collègues ici qui ont le courage de soutenir Israël. Franchement, ayez honte, rentrez chez vous et ne sortez plus. Mais surtout, l'Union européenne, que fait-elle? Elle a promis des millions additionnels à Israël. Elle n'a pas imposé d'embargo sur les armes. Pourtant, elle peut le faire, parce que ces dernières années, on a imposé des embargos et des sanctions militaires à la Biélorussie, à la République centrafricaine, à la Chine, à l'Iran, à la Libye, au Myanmar, à la Corée du Nord, à la Russie, à la Somalie, au Soudan, au Soudan du Sud, à la Syrie, au Venezuela, à la Turquie, au Yémen, au Zimbabwe. Mais à Israël, non. Eux, ils sont immunisés. Pourquoi sont-ils immunisés? Parce que leur projet colonial est soutenu par l'impérialisme européen – il faut le dire, dans les faits – avec des armes et avec des millions. C'est pour cela que le massacre des Palestiniens, qui ne serait pas possible sans la complicité européenne, continue.
                  

Mónica Silvana González (S&D). – Señora presidenta, no me quiero ir de este Pleno sin darle las gracias al señor Borrell por sus claros mensajes que, junto con la apuesta del Gobierno de España por el Estado palestino, dan un poco de luz cuando salimos a la calle a pedir la confianza de los ciudadanos europeos hacia el nuevo Parlamento que se constituirá a partir de julio.
                  

                     Pleno tras pleno, denunciamos crímenes de guerra, destrucción de hospitales, el uso del hambre como arma de guerra, la muerte de periodistas y de trabajadores humanitarios. Sin embargo, todavía no se ha tomado ninguna medida concreta contra el Gobierno de Israel. Lo único que puede entender el Gobierno de Israel es la presión sostenida e inequívoca de la comunidad internacional. Somos la Unión Europea uno de los mayores donantes, tanto de cooperación como de ayuda humanitaria, pero también debemos utilizar nuestro poder económico para ejercer aún más presión sobre Israel.
                  

                     Urge incrementar la financiación al UNRWA, pero urge también valorar el Acuerdo de Asociación con Israel y suspenderlo. A solo semanas de las elecciones europeas, no podemos seguir teniendo dobles vara de medir. Tras seis meses, pasemos a las acciones concretas. Lo mismo que hicimos con Rusia o con Venezuela o con otros tantos.
                  

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Josep Borrell Fontelles,
vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Estamos hablando de un tema extraordinariamente sensible y emotivo. Estamos hablando de la vida y de la muerte de muchas personas. Estamos hablando de un conflicto que enfrenta a dos pueblos que se proclaman, cada uno de ellos, como propietarios de una tierra. Y eso dura ya casi cien años.
                  

                     Es natural que la emoción esté a flor de piel y que se utilicen a veces descalificaciones que no vienen a cuento. Es inevitable —o es natural-que, a veces, la emoción supere a la razón. Y eso que a nosotros no nos han matado a nadie, no hemos sido víctimas de un ataque terrorista ni han matado a los miembros de nuestra familia o destruido nuestras casas.
                  

                     Y, a pesar de eso, la emoción y la confrontación están presentes en este debate. Conque imagínense ustedes lo que puede ocurrir a los que son las víctimas de este drama de un lado y del otro. Por eso, mi papel aquí tiene que ser aportarles a ustedes información lo más precisa posible para que se formen su criterio y su acción política.
                  

                     Se ha hablado hoy mucho por aquí, por ejemplo-y yo también he hablado—, del informe de la señora Colonna. Nuestra antigua colega del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores francés ha hecho un informe encargado por las Naciones Unidas que, como ella misma dice, no se debe confundir con otro informe que está llevando a cabo la Oficina de Servicios de Supervisión Interna sobre las acusaciones contra personas concretas, contra individuos del personal del UNRWA.
                  

                     Lo que creo que dice el informe de la señora Colonna —y lo que hay que retener— es que el UNRWA es una organización indispensable e irremplazable para proveer servicios a todos los palestinos que habitan en la región, y son millones de personas. Y lo recalca; eso tiene que ser dicho.
                  

                     El informe también dice que el UNRWA tiene un sistema de procedimientos y mecanismos de control que, desde el punto de vista de su neutralidad y su funcionamiento interno, son comparables con los de otras agencias de las Naciones Unidas. Señala, asimismo, ocho áreas en las que es posible mejorar a través de cincuenta recomendaciones porque, como dice Catherine Colonna, siempre es posible mejorar.
                  

                     Pero también dice en su informe que Israel no ha proporcionado evidencia de las acusaciones de que un cierto número de agentes del UNRWA sean miembros de organizaciones terroristas. Lo leo: […].
                  

                     ‘The claims that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations […] Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this.’
                  

                     Todavía eso tiene que ser demostrado. Por lo tanto, atengámonos a los hechos, sabiendo —como la ministra dice— que hay dos informes distintos y que no deberíamos mezclarlos.
                  

                     Sobre la realidad del terreno, ustedes la han descrito: las cosas son realmente terribles. Yo lo he dicho muchas veces: un horror no justifica otro horror. Y todos tenemos que trabajar para superar estas dramáticas circunstancias a través de las tres cosas que podemos intentar hacer: que haya una suspensión de las hostilidades que conduzca a un alto el fuego permanente; que la ayuda humanitaria entre masivamente —y en este momento no lo hace—; que pongamos en marcha la liberación de los rehenes —obviamente hay que recordarlo y repetirlo—, y que se ponga en marcha un proceso político que permita buscar una solución a esta lucha secular para que los dos pueblos que reclaman la misma tierra puedan vivir en ella. Que vivan separados porque no parece que juntos puedan hacerlo, pero construyendo juntos una paz y seguridad comunes. En eso es en lo que estamos trabajando, con todas las limitaciones que tenemos.
                  

                     Ya saben ustedes que este es un tema muy divisivo en la Unión Europea, que no todos los Estados miembros votan igual cuando llega el momento de votar en las Naciones Unidas, y lo veremos dentro de pocos días cuando se vote la propuesta para que Palestina sea reconocida, no como un observador, sino como un miembro de pleno derecho de las Naciones Unidas.
                  

                     Mientras tanto, intentemos superar las emociones y construyamos desde la razón, desde el derecho y desde el respeto de los derechos humanos. Intentemos superar esta terrible tragedia que a todos nos llena de emoción. Y cuanto más se ven las imágenes, más todavía. Una emoción compartida, una condena a todas las actividades terroristas que causan y han causado también víctimas civiles, y una llamada a que un Estado democrático —sí, democrático— como es el Estado de Israel utilice su fuerza al ejercer su derecho a la defensa, de manera que sea compatible con el Derecho internacional y el Derecho humanitario.
                  

                     La gran pregunta que ustedes se han hecho hoy y que, lógicamente, se hace la comunidad internacional es si es así o no. Para eso tenemos instituciones; para eso tenemos la Corte Internacional de Justicia; para eso tenemos tribunales, que tienen la capacidad de analizar sobre el terreno lo que ocurre, cosa que yo no tengo y ustedes tampoco. Tenemos instituciones para poder hacer algo más que una declaración llena de emoción: un análisis riguroso de los hechos como son.
                  

                     Y eso es lo que creo que este Parlamento y todas las instituciones de la Unión Europea tienen el deber de intentar hacer. Ojalá que ese debate haya servido para eso. Seguramente es el último que este Parlamento hace sobre esta cuestión. Conjurémonos, pues, para dentro y fuera de esta Casa donde los pueblos de Europa están representados a trabajar para que palestinos e israelitas puedan vivir en paz y en seguridad, cada uno en su propio Estado.
                  

Puhemies. – Paljon kiitoksia korkea edustaja.
                  
11.   The use of Russian frozen assets to support Ukraine's victory and reconstruction (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission varapuheenjohtajan / unionin ulkoasioiden ja turvallisuuspolitiikan korkean edustajan julkilausuma Venäjän jäädytettyjen varojen käyttämisestä Ukrainan voiton ja jälleenrakentamisen tukemiseen (2024/2702(RSP)).
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, as we have been speaking about the situation in Gaza, in another part of the world, Ukraine continues its courageous self-defence against Russian aggression. There at least we have new goods. At least from my point of view, when the US Congress have finally finished an agreement. This was very timely, because in the meantime Russia is escalating its bombardment against Ukrainian towns, against civilians, against thermal power plants, even against dams, flouting basic international rules and standards. The news from the front line is also worrying. Wars are also one of morale, and the US support package will also boost the morale of courageous Ukrainian defenders. We know that the next weeks will be difficult. But perhaps more dangerous even for Ukraine and European security. Especially we Europeans, we can, and we must do more. We can and we must do more because it is a matter of European strategic responsibility. When we talk about a strategic responsibility it means that we have to take our part, because there is ‘no business as usual’ in Europe since the war started in February 2022. We have done a lot, but I'm sure that we can do more and quicker.
We have to be more audacious. We have also failed to plan for the midterm. We have always looked at the curve of the latest Russia escalation against Ukraine before we take our own decisions. And I said several times, and I have to repeat today in the last session of this Parliament. Unhappily, this is a war of attrition. And Putin will continue this war to conquer as much as Ukraine as he can. So it's not going to finish soon.
Putin will try to subjugate the freedom of Ukrainian people. And maybe go beyond Ukraine. Well, at least that's what the propagandists and some Russian leaders say all the time. So our policies for this war have been many times ad hoc. And now we have to put them in a more stable and more sustainable footing in order to support Ukraine in the long term. When they got started, nobody could expected it to last two years. For Putin, the plan was only a couple of weeks. Two years later, we are in a situation that he could never have imagined. We have to think deeper. We have to prepare ourselves for a war that will require our efforts, our commitment, our actions. You have to continue supporting Ukraine, but not only by words and not only for tomorrow, and maybe not only for next year. Our commitment to support Ukraine, which is fighting for our values and their security, will require unprecedented actions. It will require more boldness. And the topics of today are one example.
At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, we immobilised, together with our G7 members and other partners, the assets of the Russian Central Bank. We immobilised these assets. These assets are today being managed by the central securities depositories and generate extraordinary revenues. Because the interest rate has increased a lot. So this capital is providing much bigger revenues. After long discussions, after studying carefully, the rule of law that can be used in order to assess what we can do and what we should not do. We reached the conclusion that these extraordinary revenues could be used to support the immediate needs of Ukraine to defend itself. And how to do that? Well, I have to confess that this has been an unchartered territory and we need to innovate. We decided to pursue the goal of using these revenues for the support of Ukraine, with a stepwise approach.
In the first step, adopted by the Council in February, we introduced rules for the central security depositories that generate these revenues, to keep them aside, to identify them, to keep them aside and account for them separately. And these revenues, now they are on separate accrual accounts. We expect this mechanism could provide approximately EUR 3 billion annually. And in addition, we increase the legal certainty by making clear that this revenue does not belong to Russia, since they are not sovereign assets, but make a clear difference between the capital and the revenues. I am talking about the revenues and now we are advancing with the next step.
A month ago, as High Representative, who is entitled by the Treaty to make proposals to the Council, I proposed to the Council to use these revenues to support Ukraine with military means through our European peace facility. And in order for you to clarify which was my proposal as High Representative, supported by the Commission through a Council regulation, I want to stress three main points here. First, Ukraine urgently need weapons and ammunition to defend itself and its people against Russian missiles, drones, glide bombs and constant attack. We initially envisaged to use these revenues to support Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction, but I think that before thinking about reconstruction, we have to think about avoiding destruction.






—


para evitar más destrucción. Lo haremos a través del Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz, que —como ustedes saben— ha sido utilizado desde el principio de la guerra para apoyar a Ucrania con ayuda militar. El otro 10 % será asignado al presupuesto de la Unión para medidas de reconstrucción y medidas de apoyo a la industria de la defensa, porque —como ustedes saben—, hasta que no haya mejor criterio, el presupuesto de la Unión no puede ser utilizado para comprar armas.




Y por eso diseñamos el Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz, que no es parte del presupuesto de la Unión, sino de un fondo intergubernamental que no está sometido a esta limitación.
En segundo lugar, quiero reiterarles que esta iniciativa se refiere única y exclusivamente al uso de las rentas generadas por estos activos inmovilizados, no a los activos en ellos mismos, no al capital, sino a la renta producida por este capital.
Podemos pensar otras acciones, pero, de momento, creemos que esto es algo que se sostiene legalmente y que, por lo tanto, podemos coger estos ingresos —estas rentas— y asignarlos como les he dicho antes: 90 % al Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz y 10 % al presupuesto de la Unión.
Finalmente, esta iniciativa ha sido tomada en plena coordinación con los otros Estados del G–7, en cooperación con nuestros socios internacionales. Esta propuesta ha sido elevada al Consejo a través de una propuesta de Decisión del Consejo propuesta por el vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, que es quien puede hacerlo, de acuerdo con el Tratado. Esta propuesta está acompañada de una propuesta conjunta de la Comisión y de mí mismo para ver de qué manera se puede aplicar esta Decisión si el Consejo la adopta.
El Consejo las está discutiendo. Espero que su discusión se acabe pronto porque necesitamos estos recursos para seguir manteniendo nuestra ayuda a Ucrania en un momento decisivo de la agresión de Rusia.

Andrius Kubilius,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, every day brings new damages to Ukraine, the amount of which goes far beyond the EUR 400 billion. Russia needs to pay fully for those damages. The victory of Ukraine demands a Western annual military support up to EUR 100 billion. According to Vice-President Borrell, the measures on Russian assets currently on the EU table allow to generate only around EUR 3 billion per year, while frozen Russian financial assets amount to nearly EUR 300 billion.
That is why the EU should use the internationally recognised instruments of countermeasures, enabling Member States to seize all the frozen assets – not only the profits or revenues they generate – and use them to support Ukraine's reconstruction and military needs.
The fears that such confiscation is prohibited by the international principle of legal immunity applicable to state assets are totally wrong, since the recommendations of the international law and United Nations foresee that the states may use the countermeasures instrument in response to the internationally wrongful act of another state. That is exactly the case.
The similar mechanism was used by the United States against Iranian state funds in 1981, as well as against Iraqi state funds in 1992, to compensate the damages inflicted on Kuwait. The same mechanism will be implemented by the US administration now, after the US Congress approved the confiscation of USD 20 billion of Russian frozen assets.
It is time for the EU to make a bold decision on countermeasures and to confiscate all the EUR 300 billion of frozen Russian assets.

Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, High Representative. Not often are the moral, legal, political and economic arguments for action as strong as in the case for confiscating Russia's state assets to help Ukraine. Far too much time has been spent on the separate issue of taxing profits from those assets. Europe needs to seize all of Russia's underlying assets, and it must do so now.
Morally, everyone agrees that Russia must pay for its crimes. A lot of legal analysis arrives at the same conclusion we reached in the European Parliament a couple of months ago. On Saturday, the US House of Representatives adopted a bill authorising the US President to do that. From a political perspective, the time to seize these assets is also now, not in some distant future as part of peace negotiations. If we wait, we are unlikely to ever do so.
Some critics of confiscating state assets say that doing so would disrupt financial markets and lead to the withdrawal of assets by countries like China, but where would these assets go? It doesn't make sense at all. However, the idea of transferring to Ukraine the expected ten or more years-worth of profits can also be studied.
Finally, let us also consider the consequences of the failure to seize these assets. Ukraine may simply run out of money to sustain its defensive efforts. Plus, the post-war economy and situation in this country, with hundreds of thousands of veterans struggling to find jobs, looking for jobs and to reintegrate into society. Europe needs to anticipate the potential political consequences. For all the talk of strategic autonomy in recent years. It would be ironic if even on an issue like this, nothing happened until the US made a move.

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, the aggressor must pay and suffer significant financial damage, and the attacked party is entitled to fair compensation. This is a principle of international law that must fully apply to Russia, which brutally attacked Ukraine. So full confiscation of state assets must come.
The delay in using Russian state assets to rebuild Ukraine is incomprehensible, unjustified and even risky. It gives no hope of justice and does not send a strong message to the aggressor side. We must stop hesitating about the volatility of the decision and take very concrete steps. Even the expropriation of the annual interest would be in Ukraine's advantage, and, if continued for at least a decade, would represent a significant financial burden for Russia.
Given the scale of the losses and destruction caused by military aggression in Ukraine, we must mobilise all possible financial resources for the future reconstruction and modernisation of Ukraine now.

Sergey Lagodinsky,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ich bin unglaublich erleichtert. Die Entscheidung des US-Kongresses, ein weiteres sehr großes Hilfspaket für die Ukraine zu schnüren, ist ein Hoffnungsschimmer für das Land und für uns alle. Viele von uns möchten nun auch das in der EU gelagerte russische Vermögen zur Unterstützung der Ukraine nutzen. Die Frage ist: Wie schaffen wir es auf eine Art und Weise, die rechtlich und politisch vertretbar ist?
               

                  Dieses Haus hat vor einigen Monaten eine Grundlage dafür geschaffen, private Vermögen russischer Oligarchen auf eine kluge und rechtlich abgesicherte Weise zu konfiszieren. Nun sollen wir auch hier ähnlich klug und rechtsstaatlich verfahren. Das bedeutet dreierlei: Wir unterstützen voll und ganz die Entscheidung des Rates, die Zinserträge auf eingefrorene Vermögen an die Ukraine weiterzuleiten. Sie müssen aber dann auch wirklich an die Ukraine weitergeleitet werden. Wir versperren uns keinesfalls der Suche nach einem geeigneten Weg, die russischen staatlichen Vermögen legal zu nutzen.
               

                  Bis dahin, bis diese Lösung gefunden ist, gilt Folgendes: Das russische Staatsvermögen muss eingefroren bleiben, und zwar bis alle Schäden durch Russland beglichen sind. Diese werden schon jetzt registriert. Künftig soll ein Tribunal über diese Ansprüche entscheiden. Bis dahin ist unsere Rolle, unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern zu erklären, dass wir für die Ukraine bezahlen und finanziell an der Seite der Ukraine stehen müssen.
               

Ryszard Czarnecki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Wysoki Przedstawicielu! Ta debata jest na pewno uważnie słuchana w Moskwie, bo słów potępienia, sankcji słownych Rosja się nie boi. Ale uderzenia po kieszeni boi się, bo to jest instrument, który rzeczywiście może Moskwie i rosyjskiemu imperializmowi zaszkodzić.
               

                  Trzeba powiedzieć bardzo wyraźnie tym, którzy mówią o świętym prawie własności, że ci, którzy w ostatnich dwóch latach, a także wcześniej, dokonywali grabieży ziem ukraińskich, a także przecież zajęli część terytorium Gruzji i de facto część terytorium Mołdawii, że oni się prawem własności nie przejmowali.
               

                  Tym bardziej trzeba zastosować środki adekwatne i takie, które sprawią realną szkodę tym, którzy w XXI wieku chcą osiągać korzyści poprzez wojnę, największą od II wojny światowej. Oczywiście diabeł tkwi w szczegółach, więc musimy bardzo precyzyjnie określić, na co pójdą te zamrożone środki. Bo także w tej naszej debacie mieliśmy różne zdania i one są czymś oczywistym i naturalnym. Czy te środki posłużą odbudowie Ukrainy po tym, jak nastanie pokój, a raczej po zawieszeniu broni, które nie wiadomo, kiedy zastąpi? Czy też raczej będą wspierać wysiłek wojenny naszego – Unii i także mojego kraju, Polski – wschodniego sąsiada? Musimy być precyzyjni, ale z całą pewnością aktywa rosyjskie muszą być zamrożone. Nie ma alternatywy.
               

Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vojna je určite porušením medzinárodného práva, ale takisto to, čo my tu dnes navrhujeme a o čom tu rozprávame, je podľa môjho názoru porušenie medzinárodného práva.
               

                  Sám ste to povedali, pán Borrell, že je tu nejaká inovatívna myšlienka, že musíme inovovať a vymýšľať spôsob, ako to urobiť, pretože nám je od začiatku jasné, že to nie je správne, a myslím si, že aj keď som tu asi ojedinelým hlasom, ktorý bude toto hovoriť, že musíme emócie, ktoré sa nás všetkých dotýkajú, nahradiť naozaj pragmatizmom a zdravým rozumom. Nemôžeme nahrádzať porušenie medzinárodného práva porušením medzinárodného práva. Európska únia nie je Robin Hood.
               

                  My sme inštitúcia, ktorá sa zakladá na právnom štáte, na práve zákona a na jasných pravidlách a fungujúcom systéme. Hlavne tá istota práva, ktorú Európska únia zastáva a ktorú sa snaží prezentovať, je v tomto prípade veľmi ohrozená a nemyslím si, že, aj keď by sme to všetci možno radi urobili, že toto je správny spôsob, ktorý máme použiť.
               

                  Nemôžeme takto inovovať, pán predseda a podpredseda Európskej komisie, a tak isto som veľmi rada, že v tejto debate ste konečne priznali, že Európska únia nemá kompetenciu kupovať zbrane, a preto ste si vymysleli mierový nástroj, aby ste to mohli využívať, pretože to je v tejto debate takisto veľmi dôležité, nemôžeme ohýbať právo, ako sa nám to momentálne páči.
               

Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Kolēģi! Beidzot ASV Kongress ir atbalstījis 61 miljarda dolāru atlīdzību Ukrainai. Taču Krievijas nodarītie zaudējumi jau tagad sasniedz astoņreiz lielāku summu, un tā pieaug, jo Ukrainas pilsētu un civilās infrastruktūras iznīcināšana sistemātiski turpinās.
               

                  Pašlaik Eiropā ir iesaldēti 300 miljardi Krievijas aktīvu. Tie ir jāatsavina un jānodod Ukrainai, taču Eiropas Savienība vilcinās pieņemt šo lēmumu. Man un daudziem nav saprotamas atrunas, ka tas būtu bīstams juridisks precedents, ka sekotu Kremļa prettrieciens un tā tālāk.
               

                  Kopš kara sākuma prettrieciens jau faktiski notiek. Krievija nevilcinoties prettiesiski atsavina un piesavinās Eiropas uzņēmumus un investīcijas, kuras tās ekonomikā ir ieguldītas gadu desmitiem.
               

                  Krievijas agresija ir rupjš starptautisko tiesību pārkāpums, kas šiem ieguldījumiem atceļ valstisko imunitāti un neaizskaramību. Turklāt nav ko lolot ilūzijas, ka pēc Ukrainas uzvaras Krievija maksās reparācijas. Kā to pierāda vēsture, tad impēriskā Krievija to nemēdz darīt.
               

                  Tāpēc mēs nedrīkstam slēpties aiz juridiskām atrunām. Eiropai ir jārīkojas taisnīgi un pareizi. Iesaldētie Krievijas aktīvi ir jāatsavina un jānodod Ukrainai, lai tā uzvarētu šajā karā un atjaunotu izpostīto valsti.
               

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kommissionen! Kampen i de ukrainska skyttegravarna, den handlar om Ukrainas rätt till frihet och demokrati, men också om vår frihet i Europa, i mitt Sverige, om vår trygghet och säkerhet och om att försvara vårt sätt att leva.
               

                  För det är allvar nu. Putin håller på att bygga upp en ny järnridå i Europa. Barn och civila mördas. Och när Ukraina varnar för att de saknar tillräckligt med ammunition för att försvara sig, ja, då måste vi agera.
               

                  Vi har infört sanktioner. Vi har ökat stödet, men det är uppenbart att det inte räcker. Tack vare sanktionerna har vi kunnat frysa ryska tillgångar för miljarder. Det är hög tid att använda dessa pengar på det sätt vi kan, för att stötta Ukraina med både vapen och ammunition.
               

                  Det är dags att låta Putin betala för sitt vidriga krig. Det handlar om Ukrainas folk. Det handlar om fred och frihet också i vårt Europa.
               

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, collega's, mijnheer Borrell, u zei het zelf: de oorlog duurt al langer dan twee jaar. Al twee jaar discussiëren we hier over het gebruik van die Russische tegoeden voor Oekraïne – tijd die de Oekraïense burgers niet hebben. Maandenlang vragen we ons af: hoe ver kunnen we gaan volgens het internationaal recht? En intussen trekt het dictatoriale regime van Poetin zich niks aan van welk recht dan ook. Het Russische leger bombardeert elke dag burgerinfrastructuur, energiecentrales, wooncomplexen …
               

                  Dit debat maakt het duidelijk: natuurlijk moeten we het geld van Rusland gaan gebruiken voor de wederopbouw, maar ook voor de leveringen van wapens en munitie. De Russische oligarchen, die medeverantwoordelijk zijn, moeten meebetalen. Maar de topprioriteit, mijnheer Borrell – ik richt mij toch echt tot u – is volgens mij dat die luchtafweer nu geleverd moet worden. Ik weet dat mijn collega Guy Verhofstadt meermaals met u contact heeft gehad. Wanneer kunnen we nu eindelijk overgaan tot de leveringen van die noodzakelijke luchtafweer?
               

(De spreker weigert een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag van Miapetra Kumpula-Natri)


Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, gerbiamas Vyriausiasis įgaliotini, kolegos, Kremlius valosi kojas į tarptautinę teisę jau daugelį metų. Hibridinės atakos, suvaidinti referendumai, nekaltų žmonių žudymas ir civilinės infrastruktūros naikinimas. Galima vardinti ir vardinti Rusijos nusikaltimus. Tuo metu mes jau kelis metus svarstome, ar galime panaudoti Rusijos pinigus jos pačios padarytai žalai sumažinti. Reikia baigti kalbėti ir daryti. Panaudokite visus tris šimtus milijardų eurų Rusijos centrinio banko, ne tik gautas pajamas iš jų. Dar daugiau, jau dabar turime daryti žingsnius, priverčiant Rusiją sumokėti už visą žalą, padarytą Ukrainai po to, kai Ukraina laimės šį karą. Negalime leisti, kad agresoriai galvotų, jog jų veiksmai nieko nekainuos.
               

Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, hoge vertegenwoordiger, collega's, de VS hebben vorige week een militair steunpakket van 57 miljard euro voor Oekraïne bekrachtigd. Zelfs Winston Churchill wist het al: ‘You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing – after they have exhausted all the other options.’
               

                  Ik herhaal mijn oproep: we moeten ook vanuit Europa al het mogelijke doen – en dat is meer dan we vandaag doen – om Oekraïne te steunen in die strijd voor vrijheid en tegen de Russische agressie. Wat de Russische tegoeden betreft, heb ik maanden geleden al het voorstel gedaan om die tegoeden te gebruiken als onderpand voor een langlopende en omvangrijke lening aan Oekraïne. Dat is niet confisqueren. Laat Rusland de steun aan Oekraïne maar meebetalen. Trouwens, vanochtend heeft Poetin laten horen dat dit toch wel gevoelig ligt. Ik zou zeggen: goed zo.
               

                  Vergis u niet: het gaat in Oekraïne over veel meer dan enkel de oorlog ter plaatse. China, Iran en Noord-Korea steunen de agressie van Poetin actief, zowel financieel, economisch als militair. Als Poetin zou winnen, zou dat neerkomen op een geweldige, maar desastreuze overwinning van de toonaangevende dictaturen in de wereld. We moeten er alles aan doen om dat te voorkomen.
               

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, колеги, г-н Борел, има една българска поговорка ‘Който чупи, той ще купи’. Логично е тези, които с бомби, танкове, дронове, оръжие разрушават цивилна инфраструктура, болници, училища, жилища, културни институции и безброй други сгради, да носят и финансовата отговорност за възстановяване на щетите, които те са причинили. В правото е пределно ясно – който нанесе щети на чуждо имущество, носи отговорността да възстанови тези щети. Няма по-логично от това руските активи да се използват за възстановяването на Украйна. Човешкият живот, за съжаление, не може да се върне и огромните страдания, предизвикани от Путин, няма как да бъдат изплатени, но може поне инфраструктурата да бъде възстановена.
               

                  Кремъл започна тази война. Не Украйна, не Европейският съюз, не НАТО. И затова Русия носи пълна отговорност, включително и финансова, за възстановяване на нанесените щети.
               

                  Стига бавене, г-н Борел. Моментът е критичен и трябва да се действа бързо, категорично и смело. Всички активи на Руската федерация, които се намират в демократичния свят, било то на централната или на местната власт, трябва да бъдат използвани за възстановяването на Украйна.
               

                  Mr Borrell, you say you need a sustainable legal base. There are more than two years now of this terrible war. Please find a way – I know it's difficult – but find a way to support and to mobilise also Russian assets for Ukraine.
               

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Austatud istungi juhataja! Head kolleegid! Kümme aastat tagasi, kui Venemaa annekteeris Krimmi, ei mõistnud Euroopa selle sammu tõsidust ja tegi liiga vähe. Kaks aastat tagasi algas Venemaa täiemahuline sissetung Ukrainasse ja sestpeale on Euroopa teinud palju rohkem. Me oleme teinud asju, mida me ei olnud kunagi varem teinud ja me oleme selle üle uhked. Aga ikkagi pea igale otsusele on eelnenud pikad kõhklused ja ettekäänded, miks üks või teine asi on võimatu. Hiljem on selgunud, et võimatu on siiski igati võimalik, kui vaid jätkub nutikust ja meelekindlust. Paraku on igal viivitusel Ukraina rahva jaoks karm hind. Täna hääletab USA senat kuuekümne miljardi dollari suuruse abipaketi üle, mille juurde kuulub ka Venemaa külmutatud varade kasutamine Ukraina ülesehitamiseks. Meie Euroopas oleme sama küsimust arutanud üle kahe aasta, aga abivajavate ukrainlasteni ei ole agressori varad siiani jõudnud. See, et agressor peab tekitatud kahju hüvitama, on moraalselt ja juriidiliselt ainuvõimalik. Me ei saa kauem viivitada, vaid peame leidma õiguslikult pädeva viisi, kuidas Venemaa külmutatud varad täies mahus Ukraina abistamiseks kasutusele võtta.
               

Urmas Paet (Renew). –Austatud istungi juhataja! Lugupeetud kolleegid! Lisaks Ukraina inimeste tapmisele ja sandistamisele on Venemaa ulatuslikult hävitanud Ukraina linnu, asulaid ja taristut ning ukrainlaste vara. Ja see hävitustöö jätkub. Ukraina tuleb aga uuesti üles ehitada. Nii õigus kui õiglus ütlevad, et seda tuleb esmajärjekorras teha agressori ja hävitaja rahaga, ehk Venemaa peab oma hävitustöö eest maksma. Euroopa Liidu riikide ja teiste õigusriikide kontrolli all on ka Venemaa vara ja võimalikult palju sellest tuleb kasutada Ukraina ülesehitamiseks. Sellelt varalt teenitava intressi kasutamine on esimene samm, kuid kaugeltki mitte piisav. See pole ei õige ega õiglane, et Venemaa tekitatud varaline kahju jääb ukrainlaste või Euroopa riikide kanda. Aga selleks, et iga päev ei sünniks uut kahju ja inimesed ei hukkuks, on vaja, et Venemaa lõpetaks Ukraina vastase sõja ja lahkuks Ukrainast. See on kõigi normaalsete inimeste ja normaalsete riikide ühine pingutus.
               

Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Uważam, że nie ma nic bardziej charakterystycznego dla reakcji Unii na agresję rosyjską niż ta dyskusja. Po 2 i pół latach brutalnej wojny prowadzonej przez Rosję, rabującą i niszczącą, dyskutujemy o tym, czy możemy przyjąć zyski z pieniędzy rosyjskich zamrożonych w Europie. Po 2 i pół latach. Owszem, wysyłamy już broń, za późno i za mało, nie skąpimy słów poparcia. Jeżeli chodzi o pieniądze i o gaz, zwłaszcza gaz skroplony, panuje zadziwiająca powściągliwość i niemożność. Powinniśmy się więc spieszyć, bo sądząc po medialnych doniesieniach, za chwilę może zostać zamrożona sama wojna i rozpoczną się negocjacje z Putinem.
               

                  Myślę, że sprawa ta pokazuje, jak silne są ciągle wpływy rosyjskie w Europie, i to w samym centrum władzy. Ale czy można się dziwić, skoro politycy, jak tacy jak na przykład Manuela Schwesig, obecnie przewodnicząca Bundesratu w Niemczech, ciągle są w tych centrach obecni. I dopóty tacy politycy będą obecni w centrach władzy, to się nie będzie nic zmieniać. Apeluję do niemieckich kolegów, żeby to wzięli pod uwagę.
               

Krzysztof Brejza (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! 60 mld dolarów amerykańskiej pomocy pozwoli Ukrainie bronić się dłużej, ale na stole leży znacznie większa kwota. To prawie 300 mld skonfiskowanych na początku agresji Moskwy na Kijów, 300 mld zdeponowanych na kontach w Amsterdamie, Berlinie, Paryżu czy Brukseli. Czy Państwo wyobrażacie sobie, ile mogłaby zdziałać Ukraina, gdyby przekazać jej te pieniądze? Wydatki Rosji, budżet obronny to jest około 110 mld w ubiegłym roku.
               

                  Jestem przekonany, że przekazanie tych pieniędzy odmieniłoby los wojny. I gdy słucham aparatczyków putinowskich, którzy grożą nam, by tego nie robić, przypominam sobie, gdy debatowaliśmy o wysyłaniu Patriotów, wysyłaniu czołgów, przekazaniu samolotów F-16. Nie ulegajmy groźbom Kremla, nie ulegajmy temu. Jeżeli temu ulegniemy, Rosja będzie postępować w głąb Ukrainy, a za nią pojawi się nowa Bucza, nowy Irpień. Europa nie może ulegać. Europa nie może zamienić się w Europę strachu. Europo – jedności, Europo – wspólnotowości, Europo – odwagi!
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad y vicepresidente de la Comisión, sabe usted que desde el inicio de la ilegal y criminal agresión de Putin contra Ucrania ha contado usted con una clara, contundente y sostenida mayoría de este Parlamento Europeo en favor de todo lo que se pueda hacer contra los intereses rusos en la Unión Europea, empezando por la confiscación de sus bienes.
               

                  La primera medida fue congelarlos y, por supuesto, la apoyamos: 300 000 millones EUR. Pero el Consejo ha tardado su tiempo y hasta febrero no decidió que es posible aprovechar los intereses de esos 300 000 millones EUR en los próximos cuatro años —unos 17 000 millones EUR— para, por fin, confiscarlos y utilizarlos en ayuda efectiva para Ucrania, tanto en armamento y munición —que tanto necesita— como en financiación para su reconstrucción. Y, por tanto, es imprescindible eliminar todas las dificultades bancarias, diplomáticas y técnico-jurídicas que vamos a encontrar para movilizar todo el activo financiero congelado, confiscarlo efectivamente y movilizarlo en favor de Ucrania.
               

                  Quizás no consigamos disuadir lo suficientemente a Putin en su agresión criminal, pero sin duda alguna, será muy útil la ayuda en acciones por Ucrania, que tanto las necesita.
               

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


Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D),
blue-card question. – Thank you, Chair. I think the speaker also referred to the fact that we have to overcome technical problems to do this, because we can see the criminalities Russia has posed in Ukraine in its civil work, in the humanitarian crisis, every day, for more than 760 days.
You said that the Council is moving too slow and we have to support it. Don't you believe that because we have coordinated all the sanctions together with many other countries, also on frozen assets, USA is moving first and we can move and ask also G7 countries to work together on this one, because I don't see any other reason for not to give that than a threat to Europe's stability. So work internationally together. What do you think of the idea?

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D),
blue-card answer. – I do agree and I appreciate your suggestion – everything at hand, but beginning with us making up our mind. It is about time!
Yes, of course we are encountering technical requirements and difficulties of all kinds – naturally, because this is the first time we are seeing a situation like this. It is unprecedented. The whole thing is unprecedented.
But yes, we are on the move. We need only to make the decision as to freeze the assets, but also to get those assets on the move in actual help, active help to Ukraine. It takes confiscation, and it takes the translation of those frozen assets into actual aid to Ukraine, both in terms of ammunition and guns, but also in terms of financing the reconstruction.
Thank you for your question.

President. – I have to make a confession: normally we do not give a blue-card question to a Member from the same Group – but I did it.

Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Ukraine is fighting heroically against the genocidal aggression. And as President Zelenskyy told us, this is not just a fight for Ukraine's future, but for democracy's future. Those in Europe who say that Putin will stop at Ukraine's borders are either shockingly naive or complicit. The truth is that we are all in danger and Ukraine is our last line of defence
Yet the West is not doing enough to financially support Ukraine. What we see happening in both Europe and the US is that Putin's Trojan horses are sabotaging financial aid. That's what Donald Trump's allies have been doing at the US Congress, and that's what Viktor Orbán has been doing at the EU Council. In this House, we have been calling for the confiscation of all Russian state assets for years. And I repeat this call today.
I am happy to hear that, finally, there is a chance for at least the profits from the assets to be redirected to Ukraine. But it came too late and it was weakened by Orbán, who yet again abused the veto threat and allowed to only go through in a weakened way. Can it be more obvious that he is representing Russian interests?
So there is no way around it: to help Ukraine, we have to fight Putin's autocratic allies at the ballot box, in Europe and in the US as well.

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Hoher Vertreter und Außenkommissar! Schön, dass Sie in dieser finalen Plenarwoche so viel da sind und die Position der Bürgerinnen und Bürger hören, die im Parlament demokratisch legitimiert vertreten wird. Wir sprechen heute über eingefrorene russische Vermögenswerte, und da ist es wichtig zu betonen, dass dieser Kontinent, diese Europäische Union, im Speziellen, die Zone der Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf diesem Planeten ist. Jeder soll sich darauf verlassen können, jede und jeder, dass in Europa Recht gilt und Recht gesprochen wird. Alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger und auch alle Welt.
               

                  Ich schicke das deshalb voraus, weil sich Europa nicht die Blöße geben wird, sich vorwerfen zu lassen, dass eine Konfiszierung russischer Vermögenswerte nicht rechtsstaatlich wäre. Wir verteidigen die Rechtsstaatlichkeit damit, dass wir Sanktionen machen, eine unblutige Verteidigung gegen den blutigen Angriffskrieg. Und wir halten die Rechtsstaatlichkeit hoch in der Verhängung von Sanktionen, auch in der Konfiszierung russischer Vermögenswerte und ganz im Sinne dessen, was die Kommissionspräsidentin am 1. März 2022 zu Kriegsbeginn gesagt hat: dass wir die Hand ausgestreckt lassen müssen an das andere Russland. Und das wird so bleiben.
               

                  Ganz im Sinne dessen sei gesagt: Nicht alle Menschen in Russland müssen Sorge haben über die Konfiszierung von Vermögenswerten, sondern wo Verbrechen geschehen – Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Kriegsverbrechen – und wo solche Verbrechen unterstützt werden, dort sollen Vermögenswerte konfisziert werden. Und selbstverständlich sollen sie wie die anderen Hilfen sowohl zur Landesverteidigung als auch zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine verwendet werden, um den Menschen in der Ukraine zu helfen. Wir verteidigen gemeinsam unsere Zivilisation.
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, High Representative. Europe and the United States have shown unity in supporting the independence of Ukraine in front of the Russian aggressor. Beyond the support that has been decided recently by both sides of the Atlantic, indispensable for Ukraine to survive and protect the eastern flank, one of the key measures is related to frozen assets.
The EU today applies restrictive measures in respect of 20 individuals and entities. Altogether, EUR 21 billion in assets are frozen in the EU, and more than EUR 300 billion in assets from the Central Bank of Russia are blocked in the G7 and EU countries. Despite this fact, Russian oligarchs and entities still escape the imposed restrictive measures and more needs to be done in order to make sure that they are being applied effectively across Europe, including to those working or doing business with Russia.
Now we need to make full use of these assets by using them to protect and reconstruct Ukraine, compensate the victims and support the frontline countries affected by the war. Those responsible for this war have to pay the cost, and we have to make sure, as legislators, that this happens as soon as possible.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (Renew). – Signora Presidente, Alto rappresentante, onorevoli colleghi, dal primo giorno della criminale invasione del regime di Putin, la nostra storia ci ha chiamato a una scelta sacrosanta: schierarci al fianco dell'Ucraina.
               

                  Bene aver già stanziato 144 miliardi di euro di aiuti umanitari, finanziari e militari, ma possiamo e dobbiamo fare molto di più. Gli strumenti li abbiamo già, sono nelle nostre mani. Utilizziamo gli oltre 300 miliardi di euro di beni russi congelati come legittima compensazione da dare al popolo ucraino per supportare il suo presente e il suo futuro.
               

                  Basta indugi e tatticismi. Utilizziamoli per rafforzare la Ukraine Assistance Facility, fornendo a chi coraggiosamente lotta al fronte il sostegno necessario per difendere la propria libertà. Utilizziamoli per dare ancora più sostanza allo strumento per l'Ucraina, gettando le basi per la ricostruzione del Paese, per dare respiro all'economia di Kyiv, per tenere in vita e rilanciare la sua imprenditorialità, scommettendo sul dinamismo e sulla resilienza delle piccole e medie imprese che sono ben più difficili da bombardare per i russi.
               

                  Nessuno dei nostri Paesi ha il diritto di parlare di fatica di guerra di fronte ai sacrifici immani del popolo ucraino: tutti abbiamo il dovere di fare la nostra parte per sostenere chi da due anni sta lottando per la libertà, non soltanto la sua, ma anche la nostra. Slava Ukraini.
               

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, at the beginning let me share – and most of the colleagues share – dissatisfaction with the approach of the Council and Commission. Continuing the support for Ukraine is a must for us. This war is also about our security and about our values. In this context, it is really hard for me to understand the hesitation about money of the Russian state deposited in European banks or financial institutions – and I am here not talking about the revenues or interest; I am talking about money itself.
I am very surprised to hear that such a move would harm our credibility or our legal position, and I am surprised to hear it from the ECB. If someone is of this opinion, this opinion really deserves very careful consideration in a broader context. I strongly believe that those who are acting clearly against the most important principles of the international order and cooperation cannot seek the protection of the same order and its rules. So I strongly urge you to really reconsider the situation, because it is really hard to sustain it.

Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, Venäjä jatkaa julmaa hyökkäyssotaansa Ukrainaan jo kolmatta vuotta. Kun ukrainalaiset käyvät rohkeaa taistelua paitsi oman myös meidän kaikkien eurooppalaisten vapauden puolesta, on myös Euroopan unionin oltava rohkea.
               

                  Venäjän sotatoimien aiheuttama kärsimys on käsittämätöntä, niin Ukrainan siviileille kuin koko yhteiskunnalle. Siksi Venäjän sotatoimien aiheuttamat kärsimykset on oltava Venäjän valmis korvaamaan.
               

                  Ukrainan itsemääräämisoikeuden palauttamiseksi ja jälleenrakentamisen mahdollistamiseksi on Euroopan unionin viivyttelemättä otettava käyttöön Venäjän jäädytettyjä varoja ja niiden tuottoja. Euroopan parlamentti on pitkään peräänkuuluttanut jäädytettyjä varojen käyttämistä Ukrainan tukemiseen.
               

                  Nyt on aika tehdä todellisia päätöksiä. Komission esitykset ovat tärkeitä askeleita vastuullisuuden tiellä.
               

Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Dārgā priekšsēdētājas kundze! Dārgie kolēģi! Dārgā Komisija! Krievijas agresijas nodarītie postījumi Ukrainā ir satriecoši. Tur tikai dokumentētie zaudējumi vien ir jau sasnieguši vairāk nekā 400 miljardu eiro, un miljoniem ukraiņu ir zaudējuši savas mājas un iedzīvi.
               

                  Krievija ir jāsauc pie atbildības par šīm zvērībām, un mūsu pienākums šeit ir nodrošināt, lai Ukraina un tās iedzīvotāji saņemtu kompensāciju. Šim nolūkam mums vispirms ir jākonfiscē tie aptuveni 300 miljardu eiro Krievijas valsts aktīvu, kas ir Eiropas kontos un jānodod tie starptautiskajam kompensācijas fondam.
               

                  Taču ar to vien ir par maz. Ir pilnīgi skaidrs, ka ne mazākas summas par šo atrodas dažādu Krievijas oligarhu kontos, kuri joprojām legāli darbojas Eiropā. Mēs nedrīkstam būt naivi un iedomāties, ka mums ir darīšana ar kaut kādiem vienkārši uzņēmējiem.
               

                  Tie ir cilvēki, kuri par savu bagātību ir pateicību parādā Kremlim un ir jau gadiem ilgi darbojušies kā Kremļa ietekmes aģenti, tai skaitā, izplatot dezinformāciju un visāda veida ‘krievu pasaules’ iniciatīvas. To skaitā ir propagandisti, specdienestu aģenti un Putina kliķei personiski pietuvinātas personas. Arī šo personu aktīvi ir iesaldējami un nododami Ukrainas atjaunošanas fondā.
               

                  Tas tad arī ir tas, ko es gribēju pateikt. Slava Ukraini!


Riho Terras (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the use of profits currently generated from the frozen assets is a step in the right direction. But we must be more ambitious and use the assets themselves to compensate Ukraine for war damage caused by Russia.
Estonia is already working on a draft law to this end, and the EU as a whole should do the same. Frozen Russian assets should be liquidated, and the resulting money sent to Ukraine as an advance payment for war damages. Instead of waiting until the end of the war, the payment of reparations on an ongoing basis will also serve as a deterrent to the aggressor against continuing this war. There is a readiness in the G7, from the part of the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, to do this. European members of the G7, namely Germany, France and Italy, need to stop dragging their feet and get on board with this important project. I urge Members of this House to convey to the European leaders the message that we will hold the Putin regime responsible for its crimes. Slava Ukraini!


Marek Belka (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Wiceprzewodniczący Komisji! Europejczycy zadają sobie coraz częściej pytanie: dlaczego mamy płacić za wojnę spowodowaną przez Rosję, skoro do dyspozycji są środki tego państwa, państwa agresora? Czas, żeby wykorzystać te środki. Jakie są najważniejsze argumenty przeciwko temu? No cóż, spadek wiarygodności euro.
               

                  Tak się zastanawiam, czy pani prezes Narodowego Banku Rosji Nabiullina jako retorsje wobec Europy przetransferuje swoje rezerwy walutowe na dolary? To będzie prawdziwa zemsta na rosyjskiej gospodarce. My się boimy przejmować środki państwa rosyjskiego. Rosjanie nie mają tych skrupułów, przejmują, nacjonalizują aktywa firm zagranicznych albo zmuszają je do sprzedaży oligarchom rosyjskim za ułamek ich wartości. Mam wrażenie czasami, że my gdzieś z tyłu głowy sądzimy: to się wszystko szybko skończy i wrócimy do business as usual. Ja sobie tego nie mogę wyobrazić.
               

Александър Александров Йорданов (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, г-н Борел, всички замразени руски активи трябва да бъдат използвани за компенсиране на щетите, нанесени на Украйна. Необходимо е да се използва т.нар. инструмент на противодействие, който позволява да се изземват замразени активи чрез национални законодателни и изпълнителни актове. Съветът предлага да се предадат на Украйна приходите от доходите от руските активи. Но те са под 3 милиарда евро годишно, докато към момента документираните щети за Украйна се изчисляват на 400 милиарда евро. Нима цял век ще възстановяваме Украйна?
               

                  И сега внимание. В България, на брега на прекрасното Черно море, т.е. на европейската граница, се намира една територия от близо 470 000 квадратни метра, която е изцяло собственост на кметството на град Москва. Тя е по-голяма от Ватикана. Руската столица е придобила тази собственост преди близо 20 години и постепенно е изградила на нея център за прокарване на своите интереси в Европа. Сергей Лавров определи тази руска база, като ‘идеален образец’ на руската ‘мека сила’, която е в основата на концепцията ‘Руски свят’. А това е концепцията, която днес е аргумент на Русия за агресията срещу Украйна.
               

                  Предлагам Комисията да проведе незабавно срещи с българското правителство и в най-кратък срок да се вземе национално отговорно решение за отнемане на този руски актив. На територията на нашия Европейски съюз не трябва да съществуват руски бази.
               

Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – Madam President, I think it is very disrespectful if you don't take your headset and hear what colleagues are saying. You removed your headset when Mr Yordanov talked. I don't understand why you don't want to hear what colleagues are telling you.

President. – I also noticed that some colleagues go and talk to High Representatives when other colleagues are speaking, so it is both ways.

Ana Miguel Dos Santos (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caros Colegas, nós vamos ganhar, só falta saber quando e a que preço. Ouvi esta frase pela boca de Igor Zhovkva, assessor diplomático de Zelensky, no dia 9 de junho de 2022, há quase dois anos, quando estive em Kiev, depois da invasão da Rússia, abrupta, à Ucrânia. E nunca imaginei que, quase dois anos volvidos, continuássemos a assistir à agonia do povo ucraniano. Um povo que tem resistido de forma absolutamente trágica às investidas bárbaras de um regime autocrático e opressor.
               

                  Há poucos dias, um colega nosso relembrou aqui nesta tribuna aquilo que é tão óbvio, tão óbvio e que ninguém compreende que ainda não esteja a acontecer. Porque é que a Europa, que dispõe de 100 mísseis Patriot, não dispensa sete à Ucrânia? Do que é que estamos à espera? Porque é que não utilizamos os bens russos congelados para financiar armamento para os ucranianos se poderem defender?
               

                  Meus amigos, Caros Colegas, quanto mais rápido ajudarmos a Ucrânia, mais rápido a Ucrânia vencerá. Quanto mais rápido ajudarmos a Ucrânia, mais vidas salvaremos. O tempo está a correr a favor da Rússia e contra os ucranianos. O tempo está a atrasar a liberdade e a democracia. O tempo, meus amigos, não é para discursos. O tempo é de ação e o tempo é tempo de ajudarmos a Ucrânia a vencer a guerra. E já agora, agora.
               

Inese Vaidere (PPE). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Dārgie kolēģi! Nedrīkst būt nekādu šaubu, ka mums jāatbalsta Ukraina līdz uzvarai un arī pēc tās, lai Ukrainas valsti pilnībā atjaunotu. Ukrainai steidzami – tagad un nekavējoties – ir nepieciešama palīdzība gan ieroču veidā, gan arī, lai tā varētu attīstīt savu militāro rūpniecību.
               

                  Aicinu tās valstis, kuras vēl nav sniegušas tādu palīdzību, kādu varētu nodrošināt viņu ekonomikas potenciāls, piemēram, Francija, Spānija, to palielināt nekavējoties. Kavēšanās var dārgi maksāt visai Eiropai.
               

                  Tomēr nepietiek ar to, ka Ukrainai palīdz demokrātiskā pasaule – ASV, Eiropas Savienība. Krievijai, agresorvalstij, ir pašai jāmaksā par nodarītajiem postījumiem, tāpēc iesaldēto Krievijas aktīvu peļņa ir bez šaubīšanās jānodod Ukrainas rīcībā. Ar Krievijas aktīvu peļņu vien nepietiks. Ir jākonfiscē iesaldētie Krievijas oligarhu un Krievijas valsts aktīvi – no nekustamiem īpašumiem, jahtām līdz pat Krievijas centrālās bankas iesaldētajiem aktīviem.
               

                  Pirms vairāk nekā gada izstrādāju pilotprojektu ‘Kā konfiscēt Kremļa darboņu un oligarhu īpašumus ukraiņu atbalstam’. Eiropas Komisija strādā, bet es vēlos ātrāk redzēt tās darba rezultātus, nebaidoties arī no drosmīgiem risinājumiem un atceroties, ka Krievija šajā karā ir pārkāpusi visus starptautiskos un arī cilvēcības likumus.
               

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas aukštasis įgaliotini, mes sveikinam Jūsų pastangas padėti Ukrainai. Jūs paminėjote, kad mes sveikiname Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Atstovų Rūmų sprendimą dėl paramos, bet prisipažinkime – jis yra vėluojantis. Mes sveikiname panaudojimą pajamų nuo užšaldytų Rusijos jos turtų, bet jos yra per mažos. Jūs pats paminėjote, kad Putinas nesustos ties Ukraina, ir vienintelis efektyvus būdas, kuris galėtų jį sustabdyti – tai įšaldyto turto konfiskacija ir panaudojimas. Ir panaudojimas ne tik atstatymui Ukrainos, bet panaudojimas dabar Rusijos agresijos sulaikymui ir agresoriaus išvijimui iš Ukrainos. Ir tik tada mes galėsime atstatyti Ukrainą, kai Rusijos agresorius bus išvytas iš Ukrainos teritorijos. Todėl priimkime tą sprendimą dabar, nes kiekviena diena kainuoja turtą, kainuoja pinigus ir kainuoja žmonių gyvybes. Šlovė Ukrainai!
               

President. – I am aware that the High Representative needs to leave soon. We of course want to hear him, so one minute each.

Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, Consiliul se gândește, Consiliul vorbește, dar nu se întâmplă nimic, practic. Americanii deja au luat banii lui Putin și ai interlopilor din jurul lui. În timpul ăsta ce se întâmplă la noi? La mai bine de doi ani de război și peste 30 și ceva de ani de la revoluția română, există politicieni care, cu tupeu maxim în fața camerelor de luat vederi, spun: ‘Sunt interlop’; fără nicio consecință, fără nicio verificare și fără nicio confiscare de avere nejustificată.
               

                  Să vă zic ceva: știm toți că sunteți interlopi, știm toți că aveți averi nejustificate, făcute din bani furați de la cetățeni, știm toți că sunteți oligarhi. Și, dacă tot ne-am pus de acord cu chestia asta, să vă mai zic ceva: până la urmă tot o să vă confiscăm banii și tot o să vă luăm banii ăia furați înapoi, chiar dacă voi nu sunteți de acord cu asta.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, so now we've had people in here demanding the unilateral seizure of Russian state assets to give to Ukraine when every single piece of legal advice, internal and external, has said, don't go there. It's state piracy. It's against international law. It will only invite retaliation. It's against the rule of law that ye constantly say ye standby.
But like everything else, the US, fresh from its banditry of their EUR 7 billion heist of Afghan assets, has passed a law to take Russian ones, and the EU wants to blindly follow suit. Now I know the High Representative talks about a somersault where we will just take the interest, we won't take the assets – again, theft, which will be a massive own goal. And on top of that, you want the money not for Ukraine's reconstruction, for its but for its victory. There is no victory on the battlefield. Only 10 % of Europeans believe that now. What's needed is a ceasefire and negotiations. And every day we prolong it wrecks Ukraine further.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, muchas gracias al alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad y vicepresidente de la Comisión, Josep Borrell, por su presentación. Yo creo que, a la vista del debate, podemos concluir que hay una amplísima mayoría en la Cámara a favor de utilizar los beneficios de los activos congelados para la defensa y la reconstrucción de Ucrania —como ha señalado el alto representante y como la gran mayoría aquí apoyamos-pero que también hay que ir a la utilización de los activos subyacentes.
               

                  No se puede, en mi opinión, invocar en Derecho un derecho absoluto —en este caso la inmunidad de jurisdicción— particularmente por un Estado agresor que está condenado en esa calidad por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.
               

                  Soy de la opinión de que la doctrina de las contramedidas ofrece una base jurídica más que suficiente para actuar también sobre los activos subyacentes y no solamente sobre los beneficios, como —por otro lado— acaba de aprobar el Congreso de los Estados Unidos.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, (start of speech off mic) … will only contribute to further lawlessness and a complete breakdown of multilateralism. Perhaps that's the point. It looks like the US would rather burn the world to the ground than see the end of their dominance over it. Even the IMF and Christine Lagarde have warned that the US bank proposals to use the frozen assets to finance the war risked breaking international law.
You say that you're only taking the revenue and you're not taking the capital of the assets, but this recklessness will open a Pandora's box, and just like the sanctions, this could easily rebound on the EU. This recklessness will undermine your own Western capitalist financial system.
Now, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dead. Russia is gaining territory against the demoralised and exhausted, ageing army of conscripts. More reports are coming out detailing how close we were to a peace deal in April 2022. Why are we still pushing for war? How many more Ukrainians must be sacrificed in this stupid, avoidable war?

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, it's difficult to conclude a debate where there are such different approaches. For some of you, it's absolutely necessary to seize the capital, and for others, it is completely against international law and you don't want it to happen.
Well, for the time being, we are going to take the revenues of the capital, which, according with the legal services, is in full accordance with international law. We can do that. That's what I've been advised to do. And for the time being, we are not going to seize the capital because there is not enough clarity about what we can and cannot do.
And certainly if we say that everything has to be done in accordance with international law, and the aggression against Ukraine is against international law, we cannot do something that is against international law unless we are sure that it is not against international law, because international law is international law, for one thing and for the other, and I cannot support the international law when it is on my side and not support it when it is not on my side. Otherwise it would be double standards – have you heard about double standards?
So we do what we believe we can do, and we will continue studying and requiring legal advice in order to see what else we can do. Certainly, we would be very happy if we could take EUR 300 billion, but we have to act according with what we believe we could do.
I understand there are differing opinions – it's life. Thank you very much for your interesting contributions and for the permanent attention that you have been paying to this debate, staying in the chamber until the end of this debate in order to be able to listen to my final intervention.

Puhemies. – Paljon kiitoksia arvoisa korkea edustaja.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)



Eva Maydell (PPE),
in writing. – Russia's war against Ukraine comes with the loss of uncountable lives, the destruction of invaluable cultural heritage sites, and the annihilation of critical infrastructure, government buildings, and homes. To illustrate this dreadful trend: since the beginning of the war, Russia has destroyed over 1 700 medical facilities, including 200 large hospitals.
Russia clearly has the imperative to pay for this on international legal and plain moral grounds. However, the aggressor will not pay willingly for the near future.
The EU has a unique duty and opportunity to bridge the gap between Putin's obligations and his actions. Over 260 billion euros of frozen Russian assets lay unused in several Western banks. The EU can and should tap into these funds to counteract a small bit of the inhumane destruction of this war.
At the very least, we must redirect the profits of the assets to help Ukraine as quickly as possible. Moreover, we must seriously consider using the actual funds to help our neighbours defend themselves.
Nothing we can do can fully right the wrongs committed by Russia. We must, however, do what we can – including using Russia's funds.

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR),
kirjallinen. – Jo kolmatta vuotta Venäjä jatkaa hyökkäyksiään Ukrainan kaupunkeja, siviilejä ja energiainfrastruktuuria vastaan ja viis veisaa kansainvälisistä säännöistä ja sopimuksista.
               

                  Euroopan on osoitettava päättäväisyyttä. Putinille on näytettävä, että EU ja sen jäsenmaat ovat sitoutuneet Ukrainan voittoon. Meidän on tehtävä kaikkemme, että Ukraina lyö miehittäjän ja palauttaa hallintaansa kansainvälisesti tunnustetut valtiolliset rajansa.
               

                  Putinin terrorijoukot ovat saaneet suunnatonta tuhoa ja hävitystä aikaan. Ukrainan jälleenrakentaminen on välttämätöntä sodan jälkeen. Selvää on, että maa tarvitsee paljon apua palauttaakseen maansa ja ihmistensä elämän sotaa edeltävälle tasolle.
               

                  Venäjän on maksettava aiheuttamansa hävitykset täysimääräisesti. Siksi pidän moraalisesti tärkeänä, että Venäjältä jäädytettyjä varoja ja niiden tuottoja käytettäisiin Ukrainan voiton ja jälleenrakentamisen tukemiseen. Olen tyytyväinen, että Yhdysvalloissa on otettu askelia tähän suuntaan ja toivon, että Euroopankin pääkaupungeissa riittää rohkeus toimia samansuuntaisesti.
               

Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Po rozpoczęciu pełnoskalowej inwazji Rosji na Ukrainę w lutym 2022 r. prawie połowa rezerw zagranicznych Moskwy została zamrożona. 200 z 300 miliardów znajduje się na terenie Unii Europejskiej. Środki pieniężne uzyskane z konfiskaty majątków rosyjskich oligarchów i przedstawicieli putinowskiego reżimu powinny sfinansować odbudowę Ukrainy. Unia Europejska zamroziła w swoich granicach rosyjskie aktywa, które według prognoz mają wygenerować od 15 do 20 miliardów euro zysków po opodatkowaniu do 2027 r. Musimy wykorzystać te aktywa celem ukarania Rosji za jej zbrodniczą politykę. Agresja Rosji na Ukrainę stanowi rażące naruszenie jej zobowiązań międzynarodowych zapisanych w Karcie Narodów Zjednoczonych. Na Rosji spoczywa obowiązek zadośćuczynienia za szkody wyrządzone Ukrainie i jej narodowi. W obliczu utrzymującej się agresji Rosji oszacowanie pełnego zakresu reparacji należnych Ukrainie pozostaje wyzwaniem. Najnowsze szacunki Banku Światowego wskazują, że jest to kwota rzędu 411 miliardów dolarów. Mam nadzieję, że rozmowy z partnerami z G7 pozwolą wypracować prawnie uzasadniony mechanizm, który umożliwi zmobilizować większość aktywów znajdujących się w Unii Europejskiej, nie tylko zysków kapitałowych. Rosyjskie elity mają poczucie bezpieczeństwa i bezkarności. Nie obchodzą ich masowe straty ponoszone przez hordy ich żołnierzy. Dopóki to poczucie nie zostanie zachwiane, Rosja nie cofnie się przed dalszymi próbami ekspansji. Aby wstrząsnąć Rosją, musimy uderzyć bezpośrednio w interesy finansowe jej elit na Zachodzie.
               
12.   Delegated acts (Rule 111(6)) (action taken)

Puhemies. – Minulla on joitakin ilmoituksia täysistunnolle. Ensinnäkin kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunta on jättänyt käsiteltäväksi suosituksen päätökseksi olla vastustamatta delegoitua säädöstä.
               

                  Suosituksesta ilmoitetiin eilisen istunnon alussa, eikä sitä ole vastustettu 24 tunnin määräajassa, joten työjärjestyksen 111 artiklan 6 kohdan mukaisesti suositus katsotaan täten hyväksytyksi ja se julkaistaan istunnon hyväksytyissä teksteissä.
               
13.   Corrigenda (Rule 241)(action taken)

Puhemies. – Ja sitten toinen ilmoitus. Työjärjestyksen 241 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti saatetaan tiedoksi, että eilen istunnon avaamisen yhteydessä ilmoitettujen IMCO- ja LIBE-valiokuntien sekä ECON-valiokunnan oikaisujen osalta ei ole pyydetty, että asiasta äänestetäään. Näin ollen oikaisut katsotaan hyväksytyiksi.
               
14.   Attempts to reintroduce a foreign agent law in Georgia and its restrictions on civil society (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission varapuheenjohtajan / unionin ulkoasioiden ja turvallisuuspolitiikan korkean edustajan julkilausuma pyrkimyksistä esittää jälleen ulkomaisia agentteja koskevaa lakia Georgiassa ja lain kansalaisyhteiskuntaa koskevista rajoituksista (2024/2703(RSP)).
               

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, over the past weeks, thousands of citizens of Georgia have taken to the streets to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration, demanding once again that authorities withdraw the law on transparency of foreign influence.
We have seen impressive scenes from Georgia last year already: citizens of all ages holding Georgian and European flags, showing their strong attachment to democracy, to our shared European values and to Georgia's path towards the European Union. At the time, the ruling party and the government made a public pledge to the Georgian citizens that such legislation would never come back.
I urge the political leaders of Georgia to withdraw the draft law. As it was the case last year, it is clear that this legislation is incompatible with EU norms and values. If adopted, it would jeopardise Georgia's progress on the EU path. Georgians have a future in the European Union. The candidate status that was granted last December has brought our relations closer than ever before. Our door is open. So I urge the Georgian leaders to mirror the expectations of the citizens and not derail the country from the EU path.
The work of civil society and media organisations is crucial to any democracy. Georgia has a vibrant and diverse civil society that has contributed to the country's successful progress towards EU membership. The proposed legislation would limit the capacity of civil society and media organisations to operate freely. It would limit freedom of expression and unfairly stigmatise organisations that deliver benefits to the citizens of Georgia. This would also impact the EU's support to the Georgian people, as a part of it is channelled through NGOs.
Transparency should not be used as an instrument to limit civil society's capacity to operate freely. The Commission stressed in its enlargement report the work that Georgia needs to undertake and in particular the nine steps. As an EU candidate country, Georgia is expected to comply with the Copenhagen criteria, which specifically require adherence to principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Only meaningful and irreversible progress in these fundamental areas determine the opening and the overall pace of accession negotiations.
Finally, the EU urges the Georgian leaders to foster national consensus around the goal of joining the European Union. It is imperative for all political leaders to reduce polarisation and engage positively and constructively with each other and with civil society.
Enlargement is a success when the whole country is behind this goal. It is also a strategic choice of any country that decides to embark on this path. It is a commitment to align not only with our norms, but also with our values.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO


Vicepresidente


Miriam Lexmann,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the governing Georgian Dream party has once again reintroduced the act on agents of foreign influence. The plain fact is that this law, currently in the Georgian Parliament, is the same text withdrawn because it violated Commission recommendations on Georgia's candidate status. It is the same text modelled on that one of Putin's Russia.
Rather than strengthening transparency and the fight against the malign influence of Kremlin and other authoritarian regimes, the proposed law will undermine the work of civil society and independent media. Should this law be adopted against the aspirations of Georgian people, and in violation of the Commission recommendations, then our response should be clear.
First, we must freeze any opening of accession negotiations of Georgia. Second, any future financial assistance to Georgia must be made conditional on scrapping this damaging law. And finally, I once again call on the Council to impose targeted sanctions against the oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili and free Misha Saakashvili.

Sven Mikser,
fraktsiooni S&D nimel. – Austatud istungi juhataja, head kolleegid! Gruusia rahva absoluutne enamus näeb oma riigi tulevikku Euroopa Liidus. Ka Gruusia tänane valitsus ja valitsev partei Gruusia unistus on sõnades deklareerinud, et Euroopa Liiduga liitumine on nende eesmärgiks. Paraku räägivad võimupartei teod sootuks teist keelt. Gruusia, kelle euro-püüdlused olid veel hiljuti eeskujuks teistele idapartneritele, on demokraatia ja õigusriikluse vallas viimastel aastatel teinud vähikäiku. Probleemidele, mis seonduvad kodanike põhivabaduste, kohtuvõimu, sõltumatuse, ajakirjandusvabaduse ja LGBTQ+ õigustega, on järjepidevalt tähelepanu juhtinud nii Euroopa Parlament kui ka teised Gruusia demokraatlikud partnerid, samuti Gruusia tsiviilühiskonna organisatsioonid. Paraku on valitsuse poliitika muutunud üha illiberaalsemaks ja ebaeuroopalikumaks. Välisagentide seadus, mida on tabavalt nimetatud ka Vene seaduseks, on järjekordseks lüliks selles kurvas ahelas, olles karjuvas vastuolus Gruusia valitsuse poolt antud lubaduste ja endale võetud kohustustega. Vastuvõtmise ja jõustumise korral pärsib see seadus tugevalt kodanikuühiskonna tegevusruumi, piirab sõnavabadust ja ähvardab diskrimineerimisega vabakonna eestkõnelejaid. Gruusia võimupartei peab arvestama, et euroopalikest väärtustest eemaldumisel ja demokraatia ning õigusriikluse põhimõtete eiramisel, mille üheks kõnekamaks näiteks seesama välisagentide seadus ju on, on Gruusia euro-püüdluste jaoks tagajärjed. Gruusia sai Euroopa Liidu kandidaadi staatuse tingimuslikult ja meil tuleb selgesti öelda, et kui see seadus vastu võetakse ja ellu rakendatakse, ei maksa Gruusial loota liitumisläbirääkimiste alustamisele Euroopa Liiduga.
                  

Urmas Paet,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, by adopting the foreign agent law despite huge protests from its citizens, the Georgian Government uses Russian tactics to oppress civil society, opposition and anyone critical of the government's doings. This law is only the latest in a series of recent actions that include the persecution of journalists, political opponents like Saakashvili, spreading disinformation about the EU and reversing efforts of anti-discrimination.
The actions of the Georgian Government show that it is not taking seriously its ambition to join the European Union. The Georgian Government should focus on the immediate implementation of all the measures that are necessary in order for Georgia to continue moving towards EU membership, which the Georgian people overwhelmingly support. Unfortunately, this law will derail Georgia's bid to join the European Union. The Georgian people need to be supported in their European aspirations and to be able to live in a country free of corruption and respecting fundamental freedoms.

Markéta Gregorová,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, a year ago, many of us expressed that the passing of foreign agents law would hinder Georgia's EU prospects. Yet, after getting the candidate status, the government broke its promises and is forcing the law through. In addition, there are plans to restrict LGBT+ rights in Georgia and peaceful protesters are facing repression once again, this time from Zviad Kharazishvili, head of Special Tasks Department.
All of this violates EU norms and values. Allow me to offer one comparison. Where one country occupied and attacked by Russia does everything to get closer to European values – and by that I mean Ukraine, obviously – it's ever more painful to watch Georgia get closer and closer to Russia's system. The candidate status is not a permanent achievement, and there can be financial consequences. Please don't take away from your citizens the European path too.

Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we granted the candidate status to Georgia, acknowledging the will of the Georgian people. The will of the Georgian people has been heavily violated already by reintroduction of the so-called foreign agents law. They should not be punished further. We have to consider targeted sanctions, possibly against the oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, and call for the release of Mikheil Saakashvili.

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, if I had five minutes speaking time, we would indeed repeat one by one your speech because I fully subscribed to what you have said and you have said it all. Indeed, there are obligations that the Georgian Government has undertaken and which they are blatantly violating by introducing this law.
Well, actually, my impression is if it is about foreign agents, the only foreign agents that are involved in this is those in the ruling party, who copy Russian laws and are promoting the way Russia rules at home, and perhaps even on behalf of that. And if I look at the Prime Minister, Kobakhidze, some time ago, they were still with the S&D group and were there complimented out for right reasons. But, in the meanwhile, he will be going to Budapest to a very right-wing conference and appear there as a speaker together with Mr Wilders and others. So I really wonder where this country is heading and where this ruling party is heading.
We support the will of the people. We are in full solidarity with those protesters with Georgian and European flags, and apart from that, we once again also demand the release of Mr Saakashvili and also to see to it that we can get hold of Mr Ivanishvili and sanction him because he is the one in the background who is actually guiding the agenda there.

Marina Kaljurand (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner. Today is my last address to the plenary in my capacity as chair of the South Caucasus Delegation, co-chair of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee (PAC) and a friend of Georgia. I have two messages: firstly, to the politicians of Georgia, and in particular to the governing Georgian Dream party. Please stop jeopardising Georgia's European aspirations. It is not only about this law. Unfortunately, it is a much longer process of undermining democratic EU principles and values. You have a historic opportunity to fulfil your people's dream of closer integration with the EU. Do not disappoint the people.
Secondly, I want to assure Georgian people that you have our unwavering support for your European aspirations, and I am sure that the next European Parliament will continue to support you in your fight for a place in the European family. But you have to do your part. Go to elections in October and elect a truly pro-European and progressive national parliament.

Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me, on behalf of all of us, welcome present in this House, Nika Gvaramia, one of the opposition leaders in Georgia. Thank you, Nika, for your dedication and your fight for a better future for Georgia.
Colleagues, the repeated attempts by the ruling party in Georgia to pass a law on foreign influence are an example of its intent to control civil society, to influence media and the forthcoming parliamentary elections. All of this runs against Georgia's status as an EU candidate country, its commitment and the spirit of political reforms. Attempts to justify the oppressing law by applying so-called ‘western practice’ are simply pathetic. Such law is the key to return to Russian authoritarianism. At the same time, I warmly welcome the Georgian people in their opposition to such a move. The civic activism defends the country's Western future.
Colleagues, taking this opportunity, I call on EU institutions to apply targeted sanctions on Georgian individuals undermining democratic processes and organising the persecution of peaceful demonstrators, in particular Zviad Kharazishvili and Vazha Siradze – those people are acting against the will of Georgian people.

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, dear guests from Georgia, every time I think the Georgian Dream has hit rock bottom, they surprise me by falling even lower because the Georgian Dream is actually a Russian dream. When 83 MPs unanimously vote for the Russian law, it is no longer a democracy, it is a puppet show. And the puppet master of these 83 button pushers is Ivanishvil. And the puppet master's puppet master sits in the Kremlin. The oligarch receives a single instruction from his Russian owners, ‘drag Georgia back into the Russian swamp’, destroy the country's European future, and make it part of the ugly Russkiy Mir.
To please Putin, Ivanishvili and his puppets will do anything, violate the constitution, beat up the people, betray the country. But the Georgian people will not just sit back and take it. The youth are leading the way because those are born in freedom, they will not accept the Russian shackles. We stand with the brave people of Georgia in their fight for their and our European future.

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señora presidenta, el camino hacia la libertad es muy difícil en todas partes. Lo es mucho más cuando se está cerca de Rusia, de la Rusia actual de Putin. La Ley sobre agentes extranjeros en Georgia es simplemente una prueba más de que esas esperanzas de un desarrollo sin traumas hacia unas libertades occidentales son muy difíciles de conseguir y tienen muchos reveses. La tentación rusa está ahí, y la tentación de todos estos dirigentes de protegerse a través de las zarpas rusas están ahí.
                  

                     Nosotros tenemos que demostrar que Georgia puede salir de esa situación crítica actual. Puede salir de una forma pacífica y disuadir a Rusia de volver a repetir las sangrientas aventuras que ya tuvo en Georgia y que en este momento tiene en Ucrania.
                  

Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues. First of all, it is absolutely clear that the government of Georgia introduced a Russian-style ‘Agents of Foreign Influence’ Act in order to deliberately derail Georgia from the path towards the European Union.
Second, it is absolutely clear that such a step is done by the Georgian Government because they deliberately want to show the Kremlin that they are implementing the Kremlin's hybrid agenda.
Third, we need to say very clearly that as long as such legislation is part of the Georgian legal order, any decisions leading to recommending the launch of accession negotiations should be permanently suspended.
Fourth, we need to help the Georgian people to defend themselves from Kremlin hybrid influences on Georgia through the introduction of an EU Public Instrument of Russian Hybrid Influence Index, which will catalogue politicians and political parties in the EU and EU candidate countries according to their connections to the Putin regime and their involvement in spreading Kremlin narratives.
Fifth, we should call on the Council to supplement the Copenhagen criteria for EU accession with the conditionality of a candidate country's ability to stand up against Russia's hybrid influence.
Sixth, we should be very clear: the major obstacle on the European path of Georgia towards the EU is not the Georgian people, but the Georgian Dream Government. The same was happening with Slovakia, in 1997, when because of the Vladimír Mečiar government's behaviour, Slovakia was invited to start negotiations only when Slovakia voters voted down that government.

(The speaker ended his intervention with a phrase in a non-EU language)


Michael Kauch (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wenn man mit jungen Georgiern in Berlin spricht, dann ist die Motivation, nach Deutschland und in den Westen Europas zu kommen, nicht, dass sie mehr Wohlstand wollen. Es ist vor allen Dingen, dass sie Freiheit wollen, dass sie sagen: Russland gewinnt immer mehr Einfluss in unserem Land; das wollen wir nicht. Diese Politik, die dort gefahren wird, führt zu einem Braindrain in diesem Land, und das ist sehr schade für Georgien auf dem Weg nach Europa.
                  

                     Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass es nicht nur das Gesetz über ausländische Agenten ist, sondern auch das Gesetz, das jetzt in Vorbereitung ist, gegen Lesben, Schwule und Transgender. Hier geht es darum, dass man Transpersonen geschlechtsangleichende Maßnahmen verweigern will, dass man gegen die Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte Geschlechtsangleichungen verbieten will. Dass man Homopropaganda, wie immer man das nennt, wie in Russland verbieten will.
                  

                     Und genau das ist der Weg, für den sich Georgien entscheiden muss: Europa oder Russland. Beides zusammen wird nicht gehen.
                  

Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, we have been here before, exactly a year ago, when we clearly laid out that the foreign agents law cooked up in Vladimir Putin's Russia is deeply anti-democratic. Its sole purpose is to crush civil society. It is incompatible with EU values. And if Georgian leaders are serious about their European path, they should revoke it. A year ago, they did revoke it, and now it's introduced again. Sadly, this tells us a lot about the EU's credibility to spur democratic reforms in accession countries. Our demands are just not taken seriously.
And colleagues, it is clear where this credibility gap is coming from. We know that sadly this law has been copied not only by autocrats outside the EU, but also inside the EU. In 2017, Viktor Orbán's government passed an exact replica of this law and it took the European Court to strike it down. And then last December, the so-called sovereignty protection bill was passed, which is in spirit the very same oppressive tool.
It is crystal clear to be able to credibly stand as a force for democracy and the rule of law, we have to have our own House in order.

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, aš visiškai palaikau Jūsų poziciją. Iš tikrųjų ne kartą šituose Rūmuose mes buvome susitikę. Ir ne tik čia, su Gruzijos atstovais, su Sakartvelo žmonėmis bendravome pačiame Sakartvele ir visą laiką girdėjome jų norą būti Europos dalimi. Sakartvelui suteikimas kandidatės statuso buvo pavyzdys, kaip valdžia bando eiti tuo keliu. Tačiau šiandien mes girdime apie pasiūlymą priimti rusų agentų įstatymą, kuris visiškai yra priešingas mūsų vertybėms. Todėl niekaip negalima leisti, kad dabartinė dauguma sustabdytų Sakartvelo žmonių norą būti mūsų šeimos nariais. Mes turime paremti kartvelus, kad jie galėtų jungtis į mūsų Europos šeimą. Ir turime pritaikyti sankcijas tiems, kurie nuo antros automobilio sėdynės bando vairuoti dabartinę daugumą. Ponui Ivanašviliui iš tikrųjų turi būti pritaikytos Europos Sąjungos sankcijos.
                  

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, it has to be said the EU has some neck lecturing Georgia on rule of law when we're sending weapons into a genocide and German police are cracking down on civil society like 1930s Nazi Germany. Transparency International has called for sanctions against Georgia to defend democracy. They couldn't care less about Georgian democracy; they care about the money they get paid to interfere in it.
Through NGOs, the EU and US used our wealth to set up parallel publics in non-EU countries like Georgia. These influential, yet unelected, NGO representatives have access to resources and politicians in Brussels and Washington, hold sway in institutions, effectively spread propaganda and police the terms of debate. The stir up protest and destabilisation in order to forward the strategic aims of their foreign paymasters.
The foreign agents law is flawed, but if it is enacted it would be a result of anti-democratic EU and US meddling in Georgia. You have pushed too hard for too long.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, so here we go again, giving out about foreign interference in Georgia while brazenly interfering ourselves. We never talk about the reality of life in a country where almost a quarter of the population lives abroad, driven out by abject poverty and non-existent labour rights. The median wage in Georgia is about EUR 360 a month.
Emigration is the main thing Georgians expect from EU membership. They're not starry-eyed believers in our values, they have much bigger problems to worry about. And while the EU zealously runs the rule of law over every aspect of Georgian law and society to see if it measures up to our values, it does absolutely nothing to improve wages or conditions in Georgia. You couldn't care less about them.
Georgia's NGO class is absolutely maximalist when it comes to liberal reforms but, like the EU, is meekly minimalist when it comes to the building blocks of a decent life: workers' rights, minimum wages and social security. That's what happens when your grassroots movement is led from the top and powered by grant money. You'd see deeper roots on an Astroturf pitch. Would we stop interfering and allow the Georgians to stead up their own future.

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members, this debate today demonstrates that we share the wish of seeing Georgia succeed in its reforms and on its European path. And this is also the wish of the people of Georgia. And now, we need Georgian leaders to deliver, to work hard on the reforms to advance on its chosen European path. Being a candidate country requires a new level of efforts and also increases the responsibilities of the government, the opposition and civil society.
Ahead of the next enlargement report this autumn, the EU will continue to monitor the reforms put forward. We stand ready to support the country in all reform efforts, but we will clearly denounce any decision that might undermine democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is all for the benefit of the Georgian people and we are today denouncing the attempt to reintroduce the law that we have already condemned last year.

Presidente. – Comunico di aver ricevuto cinque proposte di risoluzione a conclusione della discussione conformemente all'articolo 132, paragrafo 2, del regolamento.
                  

                     La discussione è chiusa.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 25 aprile 2024.
                  
15.   Situation in Haiti (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza sulla situazione ad Haiti (2024/2708(RSP)).
               

                  Ricordo agli onorevoli deputati che per questa discussione si terrà un unico giro di interventi e non è prevista la procedura ‘catch the eye’.
               

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, the political, social and humanitarian crisis in Haiti continues unabated, with the dire situation exacerbated by the surge in violence perpetrated by armed gangs, notably in the past few months.
This rampant insecurity, which severely hinders the capacity of state institutions to function, is alarming. Reports from the UN Integrated Office in Haiti paint a bleak picture. Lawless gang violence has permitted all aspects of daily life, particularly in Port-au-Prince, where human rights abuses have reached unprecedented levels. Approximately 80 % of the capital is under the direct control of gangs, leading to the closure of major ports and the airport. The consequences of these closures on the imports of food and medical supplies are disastrous.
Regional dynamics also play a crucial role, with illicit firearms fuelling gang-related activities and drug trafficking across the Caribbean and towards Europe. Violence has also spread to rural areas and essential services, with hospitals and schools becoming targets of violence.
Haitian women bear a disproportionate burden of this crisis, with cases of gender based violence and rape increasing dramatically. The situation has forced the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, including a significant number of children. This violence has translated into an acute humanitarian crisis, and millions of Haitians require urgent humanitarian assistance.
We continue to support the people of Haiti by any means in our power, working with humanitarian partners. Despite huge security and logistic challenges, the EU has committed nearly EUR 40 million in humanitarian aid in the last two years and is committing EUR 20 million more in 2024.
In April, an EU humanitarian air bridge was launched and it has successfully delivered 62 tonnes of medical supplies and relief items from our stockpile in Panama to Haiti. It is also imperative to curtail the flow of illicit arms and strengthen law enforcement and border control measures. The EU supports the training, equipment and customs control efforts of the Haitian National Police through our EUR 3 million contribution to the UNDP Managed Basket Fund.
Amidst this crisis, political negotiations continue – although maybe too slowly. We congratulate our partners in CARICOM for their continuous efforts in bringing the main Haitian stakeholders together to pursue this dialogue. Progress has been made, with the power-sharing agreement reached in Kingston, Jamaica, on 11 March on the establishment of a transitional governance structure with the appointment of a new Transitional Presidential Council and of its members.
This is an important step, as it opens the way for the deployment of a multinational security support mission to strengthen the efforts of the Haitian National Police in its fight against the gangs, restore the rule of law and the basic security conditions in the country, and ultimately pave the way for the holding of free and fair elections. The EU stands ready to provide its support to the broader objectives of this mission.
The process is not yet complete. We urge all Haitian political forces to continue the work by appointing an interim prime minister and government, as well as selecting members for the Provisional Electoral Council. As a longstanding partner of Haiti, the EU is determined to remain engaged and to accompany Haitians during these difficult times.

Leopoldo López Gil,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, Haití se encuentra sumido en un estado de emergencia grave. La inseguridad es una lacra extendida por todo el país, a todos los niveles de la sociedad. Nadie está a salvo de la violencia, la precariedad o la inestabilidad política e institucional. Esto ha provocado el éxodo de más de dos millones de haitianos, es decir, más del 15 % de su población, que han tenido que abandonar su país para labrarse un futuro en países como los Estados Unidos, la República Dominicana o Chile.
               

                  Es inaceptable que el país esté dominado por bandas armadas, pandilleros que no tienen respeto por la vida humana, que actualmente controlan a más del 80 % de Puerto Príncipe, su capital. Son inadmisibles la corrupción que inunda las instituciones públicas y la privación de los derechos sociales y políticos de todos los haitianos, quienes no han acudido a las urnas para elegir a sus representantes desde las elecciones de 2016. Ese año hubo una participación de solamente el 20 % de sus habitantes registrados, lo que nos da a entender que hay una falta de confianza de los ciudadanos en sus instituciones. Además, su Asamblea Nacional está vacía desde 2023.
               

                  Desde el Parlamento Europeo hacemos un llamamiento urgente al Consejo Presidencial de Transición para restaurar el orden y nombrar un presidente interino que pueda llevar al país a un proceso electoral democrático mediante el cual los haitianos puedan elegir a sus representantes.
               

Carlos Zorrinho,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o Haiti é um Estado politicamente e institucionalmente estilhaçado nas mãos de gangs organizados e com uma população exposta a um sofrimento brutal. Em particular, desde 2018, o assassinato do presidente Jovenel Moïse, o devastador terramoto de 2021 e o escalar permanente da violência conduziram a um contexto de profunda catástrofe humanitária.
               

                  A violência, a escassez de bens alimentares e a falência dos sistemas de saúde e de educação fazem com que se estime que 45 % da população do Haiti esteja em estado de necessidade. Não podemos ignorar que, ao longo deste mandato, várias vezes debatemos a situação do Haiti nas comissões deste Parlamento, no Plenário e concluímos sempre, com largo consenso, pela necessidade de uma ação urgente.
               

                  No entanto, não obstante as nossas intenções expressas, as ações foram restritas e a situação no terreno nunca se inverteu, muito pelo contrário, continuou a degradar-se. É preciso garantir que o Conselho de Transição, cujo objetivo será designar um novo primeiro-ministro, assegurar a estabilização institucional e garantir a realização de eleições presidenciais imparciais até fevereiro de 2026, tenha o apoio necessário para exercer a sua missão.
               

                  Para isso, a rápida constituição e intervenção de uma missão apoiada pelas Nações Unidas é determinante para conseguirmos um contexto de segurança, para que seja cumprido o calendário de normalização institucional. É também fundamental para permitir a reabertura dos portos e aeroportos, ação decisiva para fazer face à catástrofe humanitária, à fome e à carência de medicamentos. Chega! Chega de palavras. É tempo de agir. O Haiti não pode ser mais uma crise esquecida.
               

Max Orville,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, viols, kidnappings et famine, tel est le quotidien des Haïtiens et tels sont les terribles supplices qu'utilisent les gangs comme arme de guerre, ciblant en premier lieu les femmes et les enfants. Les Nations Unies ont encore rappelé la semaine dernière que la crise alimentaire en Haïti est l'une des pires au monde, touchant 44 % de la population.
               

                  Face à l'effondrement de la situation politique, humanitaire et sanitaire, nous devons agir. L'Union européenne doit être au rendez-vous de la paix et de la démocratie. D'abord, en appuyant la mise en œuvre de l'embargo des Nations Unies sur les armes, lesquelles prolifèrent; ensuite, en adoptant des sanctions européennes massives contre tous les soutiens aux gangs, y compris au sein de la société civile, de la police et des institutions publiques et politiques; enfin, avec un audit et un rapport précis de la Cour des comptes européenne sur la manière dont les fonds de l'Union sont dépensés en Haïti.
               

                  Rien ne pourra avancer si nous ne nous attaquons pas au nœud du problème: les gangs. Le peuple haïtien doit pouvoir compter sur le soutien des Européens.
               

Caroline Roose,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, la crise en Haïti a encore franchi un cap. Entre le 1er janvier et le 20 mars, plus de 1 400 personnes ont perdu la vie dans les violences liées aux gangs. Plus de cinq millions d'Haïtiens, dont trois millions d'enfants, dépendent de l'aide humanitaire pour leur survie. La création d'un conseil présidentiel de transition est une bonne chose, vous l'avez dit; mais sa composition suscite des inquiétudes parmi la société civile. Nous devons rester vigilants et soutenir une véritable transition démocratique.
               

                  Nous pouvons aider Haïti avec trois mesures concrètes: appliquer fermement l'embargo de l'ONU sur les armes, instaurer un moratoire sur les expulsions d'Haïtiennes et d'Haïtiens – malgré la situation critique dans le pays, près de 300 000 personnes ont été expulsées vers Haïti depuis 2021 – et enfin, imposer des sanctions ciblant les gangs et les membres de la classe politique qui les soutiennent.
               

                  Pendant trop longtemps, la communauté internationale s'est appuyée sur les élites corrompues qui ont contribué à l'impasse actuelle. Elle doit changer d'approche, promouvoir la démocratie en Haïti et s'appuyer sur la société civile et les accords de Montana.
               

Maxette Pirbakas (NI). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, que s'est-il passé depuis notre dernier débat sur Haïti? Les meurtres ont augmenté de 50 % au premier trimestre, selon l'ONU. Plus on parle d'Haïti, plus les bandes armées y sèment la terreur et la mort. Le gouvernement haïtien est tombé, ce qui va dans le sens de l'apaisement. Le Conseil de transition a timidement commencé ses travaux pour dessiner une issue politique à la crise, mais sa légitimité est faible. Il n'y a même pas de femme parmi ses membres titulaires.
               

                  L'urgence aujourd'hui est humanitaire: plus de 1,6 million d'Haïtiens sont confrontés à une insécurité humanitaire aiguë. C'est en leur faveur que l'Union européenne doit agir. Je tiens à saluer le pont aérien ponctuel mis en place par la Commission. C'est peu, mais c'est bien. J'appelle en revanche à mettre en place un pont aérien permanent doté d'une logistique pérenne. Si nous voulons faire de l'Europe une puissance géopolitique, nous devons être capables de mettre en place ce style de grande opération.
               

                  Notre diplomatie humanitaire doit être capable de penser à moyen et à long terme. Nous devons remplacer la réaction face à l'urgence par une logique d'accompagnement dans la durée. Je souhaite qu'Haïti serve de laboratoire à cette nouvelle ambition de l'Union européenne. Je compte sur vous.
               

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members, the debate that we have just held illustrates the complexity and the gravity of the multidimensional crisis in Haiti. From a political and humanitarian perspective, the situation remains one of the most tragic and visible crises in the Americas.
Unfortunately, we must also acknowledge that the humanitarian situation is not receiving an adequate international response. More robust collective efforts are needed to enhance the delivery of lifesaving aid to Haitians.
A genuine Team Europe approach is crucial at this point to take up this challenge, and the European Commission is determined to play its part. At the same time, we very much hope the transition plan, as was agreed, will be viable and sustainable as this is currently the best hope for the country.
It will therefore be vital to see this political breakthrough quickly translating into concrete results on the ground. In this process, the Haitians will continue to be able to count on us.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
               
16.   Withdrawal of the Union from the Energy Charter Treaty (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla raccomandazione di Anna Cavazzini, Marc Botenga, a nome della commissione per il commercio internazionale, commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia, concernente il progetto di decisione del Consiglio relativa al recesso dell'Unione dal trattato sulla Carta dell'energia (06509/2024 - C9-0059/2024 - 2023/0273(NLE)) (A9-0176/2024).
               

Anna Cavazzini,
Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der März 2024 war der zehnte wärmste Monat in Folge seit Beginn der Wetteraufzeichnungen. Das Jahr 2023 war mit Abstand das heißeste Jahr aller Zeiten. Ein Rekord jagt den nächsten, eine Naturkatastrophe die andere. Wir müssen dringend handeln, schnellstmöglich von fossilen Energien wegkommen und in erneuerbare Energien investieren. Die EU hat sich mit dem Green Deal auf den Weg zum klimaneutralen Kontinent begeben.
               

                  Doch es gibt viele Hindernisse. Der Vertrag über die Energiecharta ist das beste – oder soll ich vielleicht sagen: das schlimmste – Beispiel für eine Struktur, die uns an Fossile fesselt und die dringend notwendige Energiewende verteuert und verlangsamt. Der Vertrag ist das Investitionsschutzabkommen, unter dem es bei Weitem am meisten Klagen gab. Bis Dezember 2023 waren es 162. 162 Klagen gegen den Kohleausstieg, gegen den Ausstieg aus Öl und Gas. 162 Klagen gegen den Green Deal. Das Verrückte: Die meisten dieser außergerichtlichen Klagen laufen innerhalb der EU. Dabei sind wir zu Recht stolz auf unser ausgefeiltes, funktionierendes Rechtssystem.
               

                  Unternehmen können also einfach unsere ordentlichen Gerichte umgehen und sich an ein privates Tribunal wenden. So forderten RWE und Uniper von der niederländischen Regierung 2,4 Milliarden Euro Schadensersatz wegen des Kohleausstiegs bis 2030. Italien musste dem britischen Ölkonzern Rockhopper 250 Millionen Euro Entschädigung zahlen, weil Italien die Erschließung von Offshore-Ölvorkommen entlang der Küste verboten hat. Die Liste könnte fortgesetzt werden. Das ist doch Wahnsinn, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen!
               

                  Genau deshalb hat dieses Parlament schon längst den Austritt der EU und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten aus diesem fossilen Knebelvertrag gefordert. Deshalb hat dieses Parlament schon längst festgestellt, dass die vorgeschlagenen Reformen dieses Vertrages alles nur verschlimmbessern würden. Es waren lange Jahre der Debatten, der Kampagne, der sehr konstruktiven Zusammenarbeit hier im Europäischen Parlament. Viele Initiativen von Richterverbänden und von der Zivilgesellschaft. Ich kann es immer noch nicht glauben, denn zwischendurch schienen die Widerstände zu hoch. Aber jetzt steht der Austritt der EU aus dem Energiechartavertrag kurz bevor, und das ist wahrlich historisch. ‘Private Schiedsgerichte verstoßen gegen die Demokratie’, sagte mal ein ehemaliger deutscher Verfassungsrichter. Mit der Abstimmung morgen holen wir uns die Demokratie wieder zurück.
               

                  Zwar hätte ich mir einen koordinierten Austritt mit allen EU-Mitgliedstaaten gewünscht. Aber ich erkenne die Realität an, dass es dafür momentan im Rat keine Mehrheit gibt. Immerhin sind schon zahlreiche Mitgliedstaaten, unter anderem Deutschland dank des grünen Wirtschaftsministers Robert Habeck, aus dem Vertrag ausgestiegen.
               

                  Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, stimmen Sie morgen dem Austritt der EU aus dem ECT zu – für die Demokratie und für einen effektiven Kampf gegen den Klimawandel.
               

Marc Botenga,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, l'année passée, une multinationale de l'énergie fossile, Klesch, décide d'attaquer en justice l'État allemand, le Danemark et l'Union européenne. Pourquoi? Parce que ces autorités avaient discuté et voulu instaurer, potentiellement, des taxes sur les surprofits. On se dit qu'on marche quand même sur la tête. Comment est-ce possible?
               

                  Nous vivons aujourd'hui dans une Union européenne où des multinationales peuvent attaquer en justice et demander des dédommagements et des compensations financières parce que des États prennent des mesures d'intérêt public, que ce soit pour favoriser l'énergie renouvelable ou pour avoir un peu d'argent, récupérer un peu de ces surprofits et les investir ailleurs. C'est quand même absolument dingue que des multinationales aient le droit de se plaindre du fait que cela diminuera peut-être leurs profits, ou qu'elles gagneront moins. Franchement, personne en dehors de cette assemblée ne pourrait comprendre ça. Vous sortez de cette assemblée, vous allez expliquer ça aux gens, ils vont vous dire: ‘mais qu'est-ce qu'ils font là, l'Europe?’ Effectivement, c'est complètement absurde.
               

                  Je me suis intéressé à la question de savoir comment il est possible de signer ce genre de traité en tant qu'Union européenne. Mais c'est qu'en fait, même dans le traité européen, à la base, il y a un peu la même logique: comme on donne la priorité absolue aux marchés, aux grands et à la concurrence, forcément, on doit donner des droits aux multinationales. Alors, on se retrouve avec des choses comme en Belgique, par exemple, où à un certain moment, il y avait Femarbel, propriétaire de maisons de repos, à qui on avait demandé un minimum de soignants et un plafonnement des coûts. La Cour européenne de justice est carrément intervenue pour dire qu'il fallait ouvrir tout ce secteur à la concurrence, au détriment donc des résidents, au niveau, au moins, du prix. Aux Pays-Bas, on a eu des promoteurs immobiliers qui ont estimé que les loyers plafonnés de logements sociaux représentaient une menace pour leurs profits. En Slovaquie, la Commission européenne a jugé qu'interdire à des assureurs privés de distribuer des profits à des actionnaires, plutôt que d'utiliser ces profits pour les investir dans les soins de santé, était contraire à la libre circulation des capitaux. C'est quand même dingue.
               

                  Donc on a une logique, au sein de l'Union européenne, qui est de donner le droit à des grandes entreprises d'attaquer des États quand ils prennent des mesures sociales ou environnementales. Et on va exporter au niveau international, au niveau de la politique commerciale de l'Union européenne, la même logique. On va dire qu'on va conclure un traité ou une charte sur l'énergie qui fait qu'en fait, pendant qu'on parle tous de Pacte vert, pendant qu'on parle tous d'énergies renouvelables, ce seront potentiellement les travailleurs qui, à travers l'argent public, devront payer pour garantir les profits des multinationales.
               

                  Alors, logiquement et heureusement, une grande partie des citoyens européens et de la société civile s'est mobilisée, et se mobilise toujours, pour que l'on rompe avec cette logique et pour qu'on sorte de ce traité. Aujourd'hui, c'est un premier pas. Finalement, ça a pris des années et des années de lutte, mais ça montre qu'on peut gagner et qu'on peut imposer une autre voie pour reprendre le volant, publiquement, de notre politique énergétique pour sortir de ce traité.
               

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Honourable Members of the European Parliament. I am pleased to be here today at this debate. The Energy Charter Treaty is a multilateral trade and investment agreement applicable to the energy sector which was signed already 30 years ago, in 1994, and entered into force in 1998. The Treaty sets up a framework for international cooperation in the energy field between its contracting parties.
Nevertheless, since 1998, the Treaty has not been substantially updated while the EU's investment policy and energy and climate goals have been updated. As a consequence, in 2018, the EU and its Member States called for a modernisation of the outdated Treaty and carried out the negotiations between 2019 and 2022, in order to align the Treaty to Union law and policy, notably on investment protection and energy and climate goals.
Whereas the negotiations were successful in modernising the Treaty, despite efforts on all sides, the Council unfortunately did not back the Commission proposal on the adoption of the modernised Energy Charter Treaty at the end of 2022. In the meantime, some Member States started the process of withdrawing from the treaty. Italy, France, Germany and Poland have already left, and Luxembourg, Portugal and Slovenia are in the process of withdrawal.
Remaining in this Treaty exposes the Union to the adverse impact of an unreformed Treaty, which is incompatible with our energy and climate goals, as well as the principle of autonomy of Union law. In view of the situation, in July last year the Commission proposed for the Union to withdraw from the Treaty. Parliament also supported the Union's withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty in its resolution on of 24 November 2022.
The Commission's position was to ensure a uniform withdrawal of the EU and all Member States jointly, in view of the exclusive competence on investment that the Treaty covers and the coherence of our international representation, including to uphold our energy and climate goals.
Mindful of the urgent need to ensure a swift withdrawal from the nature of the treaty, in March this year, the Commission made a complementary proposal to allow the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty. This proposal makes it possible to unblock the current stalemate and ensures swift withdrawal of the EU from the Energy Charter Treaty, but also shortens the sunset clause significantly.
Following the EU's withdrawal, the Commission – in its right of initiative – would discuss and assess the conditions and modalities for individual Member States to remain in a modernised treaty. Against this background, both the EU withdrawal and the modernisation proposal should move in parallel and be adopted by the Council as a package, if the European Parliament gives its consent to the proposal for the Union withdrawal from the Treaty.
I welcome the positive vote in the joint INTA and ITRE committee to recommend to the Parliament to give its consent to proceed with an EU withdrawal from the Treaty that is not aligned with our energy and climate agenda. The Union remaining in this Treaty is not an option. I am looking forward to your debate and to the vote tomorrow.

Danuta Maria Hübner,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, we all agreed that the current Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is outdated and is not compatible with the EU Green Deal objectives, and that is why the EPP has always supported the EU collective exit from the ECT, but linked to the modernisation of the treaty.
Unfortunately, two years ago, political conditions for the ECT modernisation at the Council and at the EP level did not exist. Now, the new approach proposed by the European Commission opens the possibility for the EU to withdraw from the ECT.
Parliament is expected to give its consent for the Council decision on the withdrawal and the EPP is supportive of the withdrawal decision of the Council. For the modernisation to take place during the November ECT Conference, Member States wishing to stay in the ECT should not prevent its modernisation.
We expect the Council to accept this approach and hope that this agreement regarding the authorisation procedure will not become a stumbling block for those states that would like to remain members of the modernised treaty. We also understand that the Commission and the Council will take into account the fact that after the notification of the withdrawal, the EU will have only one year of grace period. We also expect to be informed as soon as possible about the inter se agreement.

Inma Rodríguez-Piñero,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, nos enfrentamos a unas elecciones dentro de nada, como todos sabemos. Lo más importante es ofrecer a los ciudadanos seguridad y coherencia, y para ofrecerles seguridad y coherencia tenemos que defender los principios objetivos de la transición ecológica y de la lucha contra el cambio climático.
               

                  Y estoy muy de acuerdo con lo que ha dicho, señora comisaria: quedarse en el Tratado no es una opción. Mi grupo político ha defendido siempre la modernización del Tratado si cumplía todos y cada uno de los requisitos que pedíamos. Yo reconozco los esfuerzos y mi grupo reconoce los esfuerzos que ha hecho la Comisión en la modernización, pero no han sido suficientes. Evidentemente, dentro de las cincuenta y tres partes contratantes no todos comparten las ambiciones de la Unión para combatir el cambio climático. Ya lo sabíamos, y en la Resolución de este Parlamento de 2022 lo dijimos claro.
               

                  Es fundamental conseguir mañana un voto masivo a decir no al mantenimiento en este Tratado; no a un sistema de protección de inversiones basado en el arbitraje privado que permita a los inversores demandar a los Gobiernos por la eliminación de los combustibles fósiles.
               

                  Hoy hay 35 000 millones USD pendientes en litigios contra Gobiernos por esta razón y tenemos que decir no a los obstáculos a la lucha contra el cambio climático, algo que es absolutamente incompatible con los objetivos de París. Por eso creemos que es fundamental dar mañana un mensaje alto y claro de que somos coherentes, de que defendemos lo que decimos y lo que proponemos, y de que esta salida del Tratado de la Unión será efectiva.
               

                  Y otra cosa que pido, en este caso al Consejo, es que permita que las reclamaciones intracomunitarias dejen de tener lugar en virtud de ese Tratado y vayan a donde deben ir, que es a los Tribunales de Justicia de la Unión.
               

Marie-Pierre Vedrenne,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, sortir des énergies fossiles est une impérieuse nécessité et une obligation pressante. Bâtir notre souveraineté énergétique est un défi commun et une exigence impérative. Cela correspond à des enjeux de sécurité, de prospérité et de liberté pour les Européens. Ce défi ne pourra être atteint qu'avec la sortie coordonnée de l'Union européenne du traité sur la charte de l'énergie.
               

                  Dans cet hémicycle, avec plusieurs collègues, depuis le premier jour de cette mandature, nous avons affirmé avec force que nous ne pouvions rester signataires de ce traité dépassé et incompatible avec notre objectif de neutralité carbone. Au cours de ce mandat, notre Parlement européen a adopté à la majorité cette ambition, poussant plusieurs États membres à faire ce choix. À raison et sous notre pression, ils sont sortis individuellement de ce traité obsolète.
               

                  Nous ne pouvons accepter qu'un de nos États membres soit attaqué par des puissances ou entités étrangères qui placent leurs intérêts économiques avant nos objectifs d'indépendance et de neutralité carbone. Avec la nouvelle affirmation de ce vote, nous devons enfin concrétiser la sortie coordonnée de l'Union européenne du traité sur la charte de l'énergie. Ainsi, nous passerons définitivement de la parole aux actes, des discours à la défense concrète de nos ambitions et de nos intérêts européens. Il est plus que temps.
               

Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE),
Verts/ALE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, se, että nyt päätämme Euroopan unionina erota energiaperuskirjasta, kertoo, kuinka pitkälle olemme ilmastotoimissa tulleet.
               

                  Tämä sopimus on ollut ainoita asioita, mitä fossiiliyhtiöillä on ollut jäljellä, kun ne ovat yrittäneet epätoivoisesti hidastaa Euroopan murrosta kohti hiilineutraalia ja puhdasta energiaa.
               

                  Viime vuosina olemme käynnistäneet satojen miljardien, ellei jopa tuhansien miljardien eurojen investoinnit puhtaaseen energiaan ja puhtaaseen vihreään siirtymään. Voi sanoa, että kansainvälisen energiajärjestön mukaan Euroopasta vihreän siirtymän avulla on luotu Euroopan kasvusta kolmekymmentä prosenttia viime vuosina, kun globaalisti vihreän kasvun osuus on kymmenen prosenttia talouskasvusta.
               

                  Tämä on siis se asia, missä olemme edenneet ja se, että nyt eroamme tästä fossiilisia suojaavasta peruskirjasta, on tärkeä askel sille, että jatkamme työtämme siitä, että Eurooppa ja Euroopan unioni on ensimmäinen, joka pääsee kokonaan eroon fossiilisesta energiasta, ja tämä on myös viesti siitä, että vauhditamme investointeja puhtaisiin ratkaisuihin.
               

Beata Kempa (ECR),
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Miliony ludzi w Europie już dzisiaj odczuwają skutki polityki energetycznej. Miliony Europejczyków z własnej kieszeni płacą za marzenia eurokratów. Od 2026 r. każdy z nas będzie dotknięty wzrostem cen energii elektrycznej. Nasz kontynent przestanie się rozwijać, a Europa pozostaje w tyle za gospodarkami Chin i Stanów Zjednoczonych.
               

                  To wynik zielonego szaleństwa narzuconego państwom członkowskim niestety przez Komisję Europejską. Zielony Ład dławi naszą gospodarkę. Inwestycje w panele słoneczne, pompy ciepła czy wiatraki to w 90% wysyłka pieniędzy do Chin, bo to ich firmy przodują w tych technologiach. Mało tego, gdy my niszczymy nasz przemysł węglowy i zamykamy kopalnie, to w Azji powstaje co tydzień nowy blok węglowy.
               

                  Zielony Ład doprowadzi do biedy i bezrobocia. Zamiast rozwijać swoje firmy, staniemy się montowniami dla chińskich producentów. Zamiast stawiać na dostępne w Europie surowce, uzależniamy się od chińskich dostaw. A jak bardzo to boli, pokazała pandemia.
               

                  Czas zmienić kierunek. Czas przywrócić Europę jej mieszkańcom. Czas zatrzymać Zielony Ład i cieszyć się suwerennością gospodarczą, bogactwem i rozwojem. Chcemy żyć i oddychać czystym powietrzem. Chcemy żyć w przyjaznym środowisku, ale to wszystko musi być i odbywać się zgodnie z regułami, powoli i nie kosztem, i nie przymusem dla mieszkańców Europy.
               

Thierry Mariani (ID),
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, la France a fait le choix de se retirer du traité sur la charte de l'énergie. Les États membres en ont fait de même collectivement il y a un mois. Nous voterons donc en faveur d'une sortie de l'Union européenne décidée par le choix souverain des États.
               

                  Toutefois, contrairement aux grandes déclarations que nous entendons ici, le retrait du traité sur la charte de l'énergie n'est ni une avancée idéologique ni une assurance du succès de notre politique énergétique. Il n'y a aucun exploit à voter la sortie d'un traité abandonné par tous. Il y a simplement quelques gouvernements qui, comme celui d'Emmanuel Macron, excusent l'échec de leur politique énergétique en incriminant un traité qui arriverait de toute façon à son terme. Oui, Madame Vedrenne, vous souriez, mais vous savez que c'est la réalité. Il est facile de dénoncer uniquement le traité sur la charte de l'énergie pour ne pas dire aux peuples européens que l'Union européenne ne tient pas ses promesses en matière énergétique.
               

                  Vous le savez bien, la meilleure manière de convertir notre modèle énergétique est de soutenir massivement les investissements dans le domaine nucléaire. Il n'y a pas d'autre manière pour espérer atteindre nos objectifs climatiques. Pourtant, pendant cinq ans, le Rassemblement national a dû batailler sur tous les textes afin de défendre le nucléaire français, sur le financement de l'hydrogène comme sur les aides directes des États pour nos centrales. Nous avons été les premiers à encourager l'hydrogène bas carbone, celui que la France peut produire avec un avantage comparatif déterminant. Malheureusement, l'Union européenne rechigne encore à en faire l'atout majeur du développement du secteur de notre continent.
               

                  Les Français sont toujours privés de l'accès à une électricité peu chère, à cause des règles absurdes du marché européen de l'électricité. Notre pays est condamné à subir des variations de prix du gaz, plutôt que de pouvoir bénéficier librement de la production de ses centrales nucléaires. Encore une fois, l'Union européenne de Macron et de von der Leyen a fait primer les intérêts de l'Union européenne sur ceux de nos compatriotes. L'idéologie décroissante, qui tient lieu de boussole énergétique à la Commission, nous condamne au déclassement économique et industriel. Vite, réformons cette Union européenne pour qu'elle devienne celle de la croissance et du soutien au nucléaire.
               

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, as chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I have had many discussions on the Energy Charter Treaty, and we had debates inside the committee, and a couple of months ago, together with my coordinators, we came to the decision that it is time to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty.
In our discussions, two major reasons appear always: the current climate mitigation will demand an acceleration of the phase-out of fossil fuels and a rapid transition to renewable energy, and the fact that the number of investor-state dispute settlement cases is rising each year.
We have cooperated fruitfully with the other EU institutions to adopt legislation aimed to ensure the transition of our energy systems and achieve the strategic goals of energy security, energy efficiency and decarbonisation. Moreover, as long as the European Union is still a member of the ECT, even the EU Member States that have already left the ECT can still be sued for pursuing EU policies.
Last but not least, the Charter needs to be modernised and aligned with the Paris Agreement, the EU Climate Law and our climate objectives. It is clear that we need to have a balanced transition. We will still need gas for our transition, but we need to support strongly renewables and clean technologies for a more competitive and better future of the European Union.

PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK


podpredseda


Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Hr. formand! Hvor grådig har man egentlig lov at være ? For to år siden bankede energipriserne opad, og staterne måtte give varmechecks og holde hånden under dem, der var ramt hårdest. Så var der andre, der tjente kassen. En af dem var Klesch Group, der bl.a. ejer raffinaderier i Danmark og Tyskland. Nu har virksomheden sagsøgt den danske og tyske stat for et eksorbitant milliardbeløb, fordi virksomheden mener, at den er blevet beskattet unfair i en ekstraordinær situation. Med energicharteret i hånden vil Klesch Group have pengene tilbage. Det må simpelthen stoppe. Energicharter-traktaten er blevet et værktøj for fossile selskaber til at beskytte deres beskidte forretning og hive penge ud af statskasserne. Det skal være slut med, at fossile selskaber kan bruge charteret på den måde. Derfor bør det være slut med charteret. Alle EU-lande bør træde ud, og at EU nu som blok træder ud og siger nej tak til energicharteret. Det er kun et skridt i den rigtige retning, og det er kun godt.
                  

Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, 200 millions d'euros, c'est le montant versé par l'Italie pour dédommager une compagnie pétrolière. La raison: elle avait simplement refusé un permis de forage en mer. Aujourd'hui, nous devons dire stop à ce traité liberticide.
                  

                     En cohérence avec nos engagements climatiques, j'appelle toute cette assemblée à soutenir la sortie coordonnée du traité sur la charte de l'énergie. Sortons de ce système délétère qui protège les investissements dans les énergies fossiles. Mettons fin à cette épée de Damoclès qui pèse sur nos gouvernements dans leur action climatique. Et enfin, économisons des millions, voire des milliards, d'euros de dédommagement et mettons-les plutôt au profit des énergies propres, des entreprises et des citoyens européens.
                  

Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, le traité sur la charte de l'énergie a déjà fait bien trop de dégâts et a permis à bien trop de multinationales des énergies fossiles d'obtenir des milliards de compensations des États. La décision de l'Union européenne de se retirer de ce traité est donc une véritable victoire pour la protection des populations et la lutte contre le dérèglement climatique, ainsi qu'une victoire contre les lobbies des énergies fossiles.
                  

                     Cette décision a fait l'objet d'une grande unanimité au sein de ce Parlement; il faut le saluer, de même que le travail de notre collègue Anna Cavazzini. Cette victoire est aussi celle de la société civile. Elle dénonce les dérives d'un traité qui permet à l'industrie de dicter ses lois aux États. Preuve donc que la mobilisation citoyenne, de la rue aux pétitions, fait la différence.
                  

                     Avec le vote d'aujourd'hui, nous mettons à l'abri l'Union européenne, Euratom et les États membres qui veulent quitter ce traité climaticide, et nous levons un obstacle à la transition écologique et sociale. Si ce vote est donc une étape clé pour l'ensemble de l'Union européenne, le combat pour un traité de non-prolifération des énergies fossiles ainsi que pour une sortie définitive des subsides et des investissements dans les énergies fossiles doit se poursuivre.
                  

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, mevrouw de commissaris, toen ik in het begin van deze legislatuur het Energiehandvestverdrag onder ogen kreeg in de Commissie internationale handel, was mijn verbazing redelijk groot.
                  

                     Hoe kon het dat we lid waren van zo'n club met oude methodes zoals ISDS, waarvan we toch duidelijk hadden gezegd: ‘Dat soort private geschillenbemiddeling willen we niet meer.’ Maar nog erger eigenlijk: het was begin van de legislatuur van de Green Deal. Er was één weg voorwaarts. Dat was zorgen dat we emissievrij zouden zijn tegen 2050 en dat in de energiesector alles zou worden gezet op hernieuwbare energie, energie-efficiëntie enzoverder. Dit akkoord stond en staat daar helemaal haaks op.
                  

                     Ik vond toen al dat we er moesten uitstappen, maar we hebben de Commissie laten werken aan een mogelijke modernisering. Dat heeft tot niets geleid, dus ben ik bijzonder tevreden dat we op het einde van deze legislatuur morgen die belangrijke stemming hebben. En dan ga ik ervan uit dat de Raad er heel snel werk van maakt om ook uit dat Energiehandvestverdrag te stappen. Want dat hangt als een zwaard van Damocles boven ons, de lidstaten en onze energiesector. Laten we hier nu maar snel werk van maken.
                  

Claudia Gamon (Renew). – Herr Präsident! Der Ausstieg aus dem Vertrag über die Energiecharta besiegelt endgültig den Anfang vom Ende vom fossilen Europa. Freiheit statt Abhängigkeit. Ich finde, es ist auch ein schöner Schlusspunkt für unsere Arbeit zur Energiewende. Wir haben Erneuerbare zur Grundlage einer zukünftigen Energieunion gemacht, Infrastrukturen neu organisiert, den Strommarkt modernisiert, Gas dekarbonisiert und alle Schranken für Offshore geöffnet.
                  

                     Das fossile Zeitalter ist endgültig vorbei. Zukunft statt Vergangenheit und eine Zukunft auch für die Europäerinnen und Europäer, die bedeutet, dass sie in Zukunft günstigen, verlässlichen Strom aus Erneuerbaren kriegen werden.
                  

                     Das ist meine letzte Rede hier, und ich möchte mich bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, bei der Kommissarin, bei meinem Team dafür bedanken, dass ich Teil der Energiewende und Teil des Green Deal sein durfte. Es war mir eine große Ehre.
                  

Predsedajúci. – Veľmi rád by som pozdravil návštevnícku skupinu zo Slovenska a dúfam, že sa vám páči.
                  

Jakop G. Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Äntligen, äntligen är Europa på väg att kliva bort från energistadgefördraget. Det här är ett uselt fördrag som EU har varit en del av och som möjliggör att om vi avskaffar fossil kraft såsom kol eller gaskraftverk har vi kunnat bli stämda. Det är orimligt. Därför är det välkommet att EU nu äntligen är på väg att ta det här beslutet. Det har vi gröna kämpat för väldigt, väldigt länge.
                  

                     Det är dags att lägga den fossila kraften på historiens skräphög. Kolkraften, gaskraften ska läggas ner och istället ska den förnybara energin blomstra med vindkraft, solkraft och vattenkraft. Det här blir nu äntligen möjligt för oss att oreserverat tas i nästa steg i den förnybara energilagstiftningen.
                  

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señor presidente, al fin —al fin—, después de años de negociaciones, vemos la salida del túnel del Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía.
                  

                     Europa está en una transición energética y eso nos exige decir no a los combustibles fósiles. Si estamos ante esta transición queremos salir del Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía porque son políticas climáticas contrarias.
                  

                     Este Tratado es contrario a la lucha climática que abanderamos en la Unión Europea. Además, la salida por parte de la Unión Europea tiene base científica. El propio panel del clima lo ha dicho: va a favorecer y favorece a los combustibles fósiles. Además, supone una amenaza a nuestra soberanía y una amenaza a las tecnologías limpias que debemos desarrollar.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, llamo al conjunto de la Cámara a decir no al Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía, a abrazar nuevos tratados: por una carta renovable europea, por una carta verde europea. Esto va de nuestro futuro: o nos descarbonizamos o nos descarbonizan. Por lo tanto, sigamos adelante con nuestra ambición verde.
                  

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I very much welcome today's debate because it confirms our direction of travel. Remaining in the unmodernised Energy Charter Treaty exposes the Union to the adverse impact of an unreformed treaty, which is incompatible with our energy and climate goals, as well as the principle of autonomy of Union law.
It is the Commission's expectation that, after your consent, the Member States will swiftly proceed with a whole package of our proposals for the Union's withdrawal and for the modernisation of the treaty and, after the package has been adopted, the Union's withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty should be notified to the depositary of the ECT.
I thank you once more for today's debate and I count on Parliament's consent to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty.

Anna Cavazzini,
rapporteur. – Mr President, thanks so much to everyone who took part in this debate. I think indeed it showed great, great unity, except, of course, the ridiculous and very destructive far right. But we know about that. That's the usual case. I think the rest of Parliament was quite clear, and I hope the vote tomorrow will be also quite clear.
I also want to use now my final spot to thank the Commission for the leadership in this matter. And I really, really hope that also next term, the Commission will push forward and reforming our whole idea of how we design our investment policy, because also still in other investment protection treaties, we include fossil fuel, and I think we need another, you know, reform approach there. But I trust you in this.
I also want to thank, of course, my co-rapporteur, Mr Botenga, and especially all the shadows from the INTA committee, because it's of course not only the vote today, it was five years of work. It was five years of intensive work in the monitoring group of investment policy and also on our own initiative report on the future of investment policy, where we also asked already for the ECT exit.
So I want to thank Danuta Hübner from the EPP, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero from the S&D, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne from Renew, Geert Bourgeois from the ECR, and Emmanuel Maurel from the Left. It was really, really a great cooperation, very constructive discussions and it makes for me a lot of hope that we can work together in this Parliament across groups and also in a very fact-based manner, and I hope this will continue next term.

Marc Botenga,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, nous sommes tous d'accord pour mettre fin à cette absurdité, mais soyons clairs: ce n'est qu'un traité et ce n'est qu'une règle. Je le considère comme un pied de biche, un pied dans la porte, avec lequel il faut ouvrir le débat sur toute la politique commerciale et la politique socio-économique de l'Union européenne, pour laquelle effectivement il faut inverser la logique et dire qu'aujourd'hui, ce qui est prioritaire, c'est le social et c'est le climat.
                  

                     Nous avons besoin de beaucoup d'investissements publics parce que sinon, cette transition ne sera ni sociale ni suffisante pour le climat. Cela veut dire qu'à un certain moment, il faudra aussi poser la question: pourquoi est-ce que dans l'Union européenne, les libertés économiques ont priorité sur les droits sociaux ou sur les investissements publics, y compris en matière environnementale?
                  

                     Nous ne lâcherons rien. Nous sommes encouragés et renforcés par cette victoire, qui est la victoire d'une grande mobilisation, de beaucoup de pression et de beaucoup de travail. Croyez-moi, on va continuer à mener ce combat sur toute la politique de l'Union européenne, toute la politique commerciale et toute la politique socio-économique.
                  

                     Permettez-moi aussi de renforcer le message de remerciement, tout d'abord à Anna Cavazzini et à toute l'équipe de la commission INTA, qui a travaillé là-dessus, à mes collègues de la commission ITRE – aux rapporteurs fictifs, mais aussi au président de la commission, M. Bușoi – et évidemment aussi à la Commission européenne, qui a mis sur la table ce qui était devenu absolument inévitable grâce à la pression des gens et de la mobilisation. Merci beaucoup et bon vote demain.
                  

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
                  

                     Hlasovanie sa uskutoční v stredu 24. apríla 2024.
                  


Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)



Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – O Tratado da Carta da Energia foi assinado em Lisboa em 1994. Portugal é o depositário desse Tratado, mas já denunciou o acordo multilateral que produzirá efeitos a partir de 2025. Passaram quase 30 anos desde a assinatura do Tratado.
                  

                     No plano da energia e das tecnologias estamos hoje numa nova era. A modernização do acordo falhou no seu alinhamento com o Acordo de Paris e com os objetivos do Pacto Ecológico Europeu.
                  

                     No final de 2022, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou uma resolução, recomendando à Comissão Europeia o início imediato do processo coordenado de saída dos países da UE do Tratado, de forma a minimizar os seus efeitos negativos e a litigância potencial associada à cláusula de caducidade. Saúdo a proposta da Comissão, hoje em apreciação, e exorto a que a saída da União Europeia do Tratado da Carta da Energia seja aprovada.
                  

                     A saída coordenada dos Estados-Membros que ainda não o fizeram deve continuar a ser uma prioridade, designadamente promovendo um acordo entre eles de forma a assegurar que o Tratado da Carta da Energia não se aplique em eventuais disputas entre investidores e Estados-Membros, neutralizando dessa forma a cláusula de caducidade numa base de reciprocidade.
                  
17.   EU-Egypt strategic and comprehensive partnership and agreements with key third countries (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je vyhlásenie Rady a Komisie o strategickom a komplexnom partnerstve medzi EÚ a Egyptom a dohodách s kľúčovými tretími krajinami (2024/2706(RSP)).
               

Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I'm really pleased to be here with you for this important debate. The Arab Republic of Egypt and the European Union have an historical relationship, and they are bound together for millennia. That's why it makes perfect sense to have a mutually agreed partnership and relationship raised at the level of strategic and comprehensive character based on the values of equity, mutual respect and trust.
On 17 March on her visit to Egypt, President von der Leyen, accompanied by the Prime Ministers of Greece, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy and Austria, in an unprecedented joint visit of European leaders, signed a joint declaration launching this strategic and comprehensive partnership between the EU and Egypt.
What we are aiming for with this partnership is to recognise Egypt's unique and vital geostrategic role as a pillar of security, moderation and peace in an increasingly unstable region of the Mediterranean, the Near East and Africa. Amid a rapidly deteriorating economic and fiscal situation over the last months, Egypt has been experiencing significant balance of payment pressure, with a very large exposure to the economic effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza and the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
Our strategic partnership with Egypt identifies six areas of cooperation: political relations, macroeconomic stability, trade and investment, migration and mobility, security, and demography and human capital. Let me spare a few words for these chapters.
First, on economic stability, the European Union is ready to support Egypt's 2030 development agenda to secure long-term macroeconomic stability and sustainable economic growth based on jointly-defined priorities and reform objectives. Financing will support and accompany progress along these jointly-defined common priorities and objectives, which we also think will be able to unlock significant private sector investment.
On investments more specifically, we are committed to enhance aspects of cooperation with Egypt in multiple fields of the modern economy. The new geopolitical and energy market reality requires deepening our existing partnership to support our energy security. The EU and Egypt agreed to step up the cooperation with a particular focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, as well as the cooperation on other safe and sustainable low carbon technologies.
Building on Egypt's significant potential for cost-effective expansion of renewable power generation, we are attributing special importance to emblematic projects such as the electrical GREGY interconnector linking Egypt and Greece, as well as supporting the work of the East Med Gas Forum with a view to strengthening energy cooperation and security of gas supply in the region, and through the region with the EU.
On migration and mobility, guided by the principles of partnership, shared responsibility and burden sharing, Egypt and the European Union adopt a holistic approach to governing migration. The Union will further provide the necessary financial support to assist Egypt on migration-related programmes, including on legal migration pathways and mobility schemes such as the Talent Partnerships. Our aim is to tackle the root causes of irregular migration, combating smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons, as well as strengthening border management. Equally, we find it is important to ensure dignified and humane return and integration. The EU and Egypt will continue to cooperate in order to support Egypt's efforts in hosting refugees, and we are both committed to the protection of migrants and refugees.
To underpin this overall level of partnership, the EU is proposing a significant EUR 7.4 billion of financial and investment support for Egypt until 2027. Out of this money, EUR 5 billion will be macro-financial assistance and EUR 2.5 billion will be from the Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument funds. This is a game changer.
Honourable Members of the Parliament, the aim of the EU strategic and comprehensive partnership with Egypt is to elevate our relations with this important strategic partner – but doing it based on the values of equity, mutual respect and trust. This is equally important for us as it is for them. Especially in these dark, turbulent, unstable times, this partnership has a win-win potential.

Francisco José Millán Mon,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, agradezco al vicepresidente Schinas su muy completa presentación.
               

                  La Unión Europea atraviesa una situación muy grave. En los últimos dos años, la injustificada guerra de Rusia contra Ucrania ha concentrado nuestros esfuerzos, pero no puede hacernos olvidar la vecindad meridional.
               

                  El grave riesgo de escalada en Oriente Medio, las dificultades que atraviesan los países de la vecindad meridional o la situación en el Sahel son profundos desafíos que la Unión Europea no puede ignorar. Tenemos que actuar.
               

                  Los acuerdos con Egipto o los recientes con Túnez y Mauritania van, pues, en la buena dirección. Egipto es un vecino muy importante, con un relevante peso geoestratégico. La declaración conjunta del 17 de marzo, promovida por la presidenta Von der Leyen, eleva a estratégica nuestra asociación con Egipto. Facilitará así el diálogo político al más alto nivel, contribuirá a reforzar la estabilidad del país y mejorará su capacidad para afrontar las actuales amenazas económicas y de seguridad. Egipto vive, en efecto, una situación económica muy difícil, marcada por una alta deuda pública, la elevada inflación y una grave escasez de divisas.
               

                  Espero que esta asociación contribuya a estabilizar la economía del país y a promover las reformas estructurales necesarias. Esta asociación abarca otros temas tan importantes —nos lo decía el vicepresidente Schinas— como las inversiones en energía, la cooperación en el ámbito migratorio o los intercambios de estudiantes —Erasmus +—, entre otros.
               

                  En la asociación con Egipto está también presente la promoción de la democracia y de los derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales.
               

                  Señorías, Egipto tiene mucha capacidad de interlocución con Israel y con Palestina. En las difíciles circunstancias actuales en la zona, Egipto debe continuar trabajando para conseguir un alto el fuego y la liberación de los rehenes y seguir facilitando que llegue la ayuda humanitaria a Gaza.
               

                  La Unión Europea no puede aspirar a ser un actor global si en su propia vecindad no es capaz de defender activamente sus intereses y valores y actuar de forma cohesionada y eficaz. Tenemos que contribuir decisivamente a la estabilidad y a la prosperidad de nuestra vecindad, que hoy vive una etapa muy difícil.
               

Margarida Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, há cerca de um mês, nesta sala, como membro da Comissão dos Orçamentos, manifestei-me frontalmente contra o recurso a um procedimento urgente para disponibilizar 150 milhões de euros à Tunísia. Ficámos surpreendidos. Em março deste ano, o processo repete-se, agora com o Egito, no valor de 7,4 milhões de euros.
               

                  Empréstimos, investimentos e ajudas a programas ligados a migrações. Tudo isto sem que este Parlamento exerça o seu papel de escrutínio democrático. É inaceitável a forma como a Comissão Europeia contornou este Parlamento na celebração destes acordos. É inexplicável – e permanece inexplicado – como é que acordos desta natureza, que devem ter tido uma longa preparação, não passam pelo Parlamento?
               

                  Queremos saber quais as condicionalidades – para além das condicionalidades gerais – que a Comissão estabeleceu com estes acordos com a Tunísia e agora com o Egito. Havia urgência? Não podemos validar estes acordos sob o argumento de urgência, porque isso não é verdade. Temos hoje um novo pacto de asilo e migrações.
               

                  O Parlamento Europeu deu provas durante toda a 9.a legislatura de que pode agir com rapidez. Fizemo-lo, por exemplo, na resposta europeia à COVID-19. O Parlamento Europeu é a autoridade orçamental. Não abdica dos seus poderes e não podemos pensar que é através de desembolsos urgentes que nos vamos tornar relevantes na vizinhança do sul. Esta é uma visão muito limitada e muito pouco estratégica do problema.
               

Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ägypten ist für uns als Europäische Union historisch schon lange ein wichtiger Partner in der Region. Und es ist richtig, dass wir Abkommen mit solchen strategischen Partnern treffen, die allumspannend sind und die alle Politikbereiche betreffen.
               

                  Mir ist aber besonders wichtig, auch zu betonen, dass festgelegt ist, dass die finanzielle Unterstützung für Ägypten daran gebunden ist, dass Konditionen eingehalten werden. Die Konditionen, die dort genannt sind, sind konkrete Schritte in Richtung effektiver demokratischer Mechanismen. Und es ist genau richtig, dass es solche Konditionen gibt, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Leider ist es zu wenig konkret, wie es hier aufgeschrieben ist, aus meiner Sicht.
               

                  Klar ist: Heute gibt es so gut wie keine Möglichkeit für eine Zivilgesellschaft in Ägypten, sich offen und kritisch zur aktuellen Regierung zu äußern. Strukturelle Reformen für mehr Menschenrechte und für einen funktionierenden Rechtsstaat sind aus meiner Sicht in Ägypten dringend notwendig. Und für das Migrationsmanagement muss aus meiner Sicht auch völlig klar sein, dass Menschenrechte nicht verhandelbar sind, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen.
               

                  Die dokumentierten Misshandlungen, die es auch in Ägypten gibt, beispielsweise von Flüchtlingen aus dem Sudan, müssen aufgeklärt sein und dürfen nicht Basis für eine Kooperation zwischen der Europäischen Union und Ägypten sein.
               

Mounir Satouri,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, il semblerait que le Parlement défende un peu trop les droits humains pour la Commission. L'anomalie, c'est qu'après deux résolutions votées ici qui condamnent l'action du gouvernement de Sissi, vous ayez décidé de contractualiser pour 7,5 milliards. En tant que rapporteur permanent sur l'Égypte de cette institution, je n'ai cessé de demander des conditionnalités fortes et précises concernant ce régime.
               

                  À vos jeux de passe-passe, madame von der Leyen a fini par recevoir une recommandation très claire de la part du Conseil. Le Conseil vous demande de mettre en place des conditionnalités concrètes dans votre rapport au régime de Sissi. Si vous n'avez pas d'idées, je vais vous en dire: lever la censure sur les médias indépendants, libérer les 60 000 prisonniers, faire cesser les pressions sur la société civile et les oppositions, protéger l'égalité sexuelle et les droits des minorités, des migrants et des réfugiés.
               

                  Aujourd'hui même, Monsieur le Commissaire, 18 femmes ont été arrêtées par le régime de Sissi parce qu'elles manifestaient devant le bureau des Nations unies avec une simple pétition sur la situation à Gaza et au Soudan. Où sont les droits humains dans ce pays? Où sont les engagements de ce régime? Après avoir méprisé le Parlement, madame von der Leyen va-t-elle aussi mépriser le Conseil et ses recommandations?
               

                  Arrêtez votre agenda caché. Arrêtez ce projet morbide qui vise à transformer l'Union européenne en Banque mondiale des dictatures et des régimes autoritaires. Soyez enfin au rendez-vous de nos valeurs et de nos principes.
               

Thierry Mariani,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, l'Égypte est un partenaire essentiel de la France et de l'Union européenne en Afrique. Le Caire fait aujourd'hui face à des défis immenses. L'Égypte doit viser la souveraineté alimentaire, énergétique, économique et financière, au milieu d'un voisinage particulièrement dégradé. L'Union européenne a donc tout à gagner à être à ses côtés.
               

                  Si chacun constate l'action déterminante du Caire dans la recherche de la paix en Terre sainte, l'action de l'Égypte est également bénéfique ailleurs, pour sa région comme pour l'Union européenne. Au Soudan, l'Égypte joue d'ailleurs un rôle humanitaire et diplomatique essentiel, tout en accueillant les réfugiés de la guerre civile qui déchire le pays. À sa frontière libyenne, l'Égypte assure la lutte contre le terrorisme, comme elle l'a fait pendant des années dans le Sinaï.
               

                  Alors que les heures sombres de la domination du pays par les Frères musulmans de Mohammed Morsi sont à peine estompées, Le Caire a retrouvé son rôle capital dans les négociations internationales. Je ne peux donc que me réjouir de la participation de l'Égypte au programme Horizon Europe. J'espère que cette avancée en annonce d'autres, notamment en matière de partenariat pour la prévention des migrations.
               

                  C'est aussi un excellent signal pour les entreprises européennes, qui bénéficient des nouvelles perspectives qui s'ouvrent sur ce territoire. La France est déjà en pointe dans les travaux liés au métro du Caire, mais gagnerait à s'investir davantage dans les marchés égyptiens en cours de développement, à l'image de la construction de la ville du nouveau Caire. En Égypte, en raison de la forte pression démographique de la population, des chantiers immenses fleurissent, dans lesquels nos entreprises doivent être soutenues. Alors que la concurrence fait rage avec les groupes chinois, américains et arabes, il importe que les sociétés européennes tiennent un rôle de premier plan dans le pays.
               

                  Au cœur de l'émergence d'un monde multipolaire, l'Union européenne doit soutenir l'intensification de ses relations avec ses partenaires historiques. Alors que cette législature a été marquée par plusieurs résolutions, particulièrement mal ressenties par le Parlement égyptien et de nombreuses associations, je ne peux que me réjouir de terminer cette ultime session plénière par une bonne nouvelle pour nos relations avec l'Égypte.
               

Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! In welcher Demokratie leben wir eigentlich, wenn die Kommissionspräsidentin mit ihren Busenfreunden durch die Welt fährt und Deals mit Autokraten macht, die wir dann auch noch bezahlen müssen? Wie demokratisch ist es, wenn dem Europäischen Parlament lediglich die Rolle eines Claqueurs bleibt? Für das Militärregime in Ägypten sollen Milliarden Gelder fließen, um einen nützlichen Polizeistaat am Leben zu erhalten. Ein Polizeistaat, der Oppositionelle als Verbrecher in Gefängnisse einsperrt und bei der Todesstrafe zu den führenden Staaten in der Welt gehört. Demokratie und Freiheitsrechte werden gewissenlos der Abschottung Europas geopfert, wohl wissend, dass kein einziger dieser miesen Deals, weder der mit der Türkei noch mit Tunesien und Mauretanien, Menschen daran hindert, nach Europa zu kommen, und weiterhin tausende Menschen das Leben kosten wird.
               

Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner. People who flee war and persecution need safety and reception, not pushbacks and violence. Yet this Commission seems convinced that by paying authoritarian leaders, we can stop people from seeking safety. After the Tunisia deal, the arrivals in Italy did not drop, but the violence, pushbacks and repression in Tunisia increased. It strengthened the dictator Saied and left our allies in society out in the cold.
Egyptian dictator el-Sisi is the next in line to receive an EU blank check without any conditions. El-Sisi has effectively destroyed opposition NGOs and critical journalists, and refugees and migrants are being pushed back. Even the Sudanese refugees are being pushed back, attacked and abandoned. This deal will again reinforce everything that the EU should be fighting.
Dear Commissioner, let me remind you that our Treaty obliges you to promote human rights and democracy worldwide, and not to demolish them.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Spoštovani predsednik. Spoštovani komisar, spoštovani visoki zbor. Komisija in prenovljena ekipa Evropa sta se z Egiptom dogovorili okoli skupne deklaracije. Ta dogovor z Egiptom je problematičen z več vidikov.
               

                  Prvič, ker gre zopet zgolj za nekakšno izjavo za javnost in ker ne gre za mednarodni sporazum z EU. Popolno preziranje Evropskega parlamenta in nenazadnje njegove proračunske funkcije je očitno postala stalnica Komisije.
               

                  Drugič pa je ta dogovor potencialno sporen, saj ta očitno nima nikakršne pravne veljave, prav tako ne vsebuje nobenih varovalk glede spoštovanja človekovih pravic. Nemogoče se je znebiti občutka, da Unija znova brezpogojno financira avtokrata.
               

                  Egipt je zagotovo strateško izjemno pomembna država, tudi za Evropo. A s tovrstnimi praksami mora Komisija prenehati. Zavedamo se izzivov, s katerimi je soočen Egipt. In prav je, da Evropa svojim partnerjem tudi pomaga. A moramo se vprašati, ali je Evropa del rešitve ali del problema. In na čigav račun sklepa tovrstne dogovore in komu morebiti škoduje.
               

                  Nedopustno bi bilo, da bi Evropa brez ustreznih varovalk na kakršenkoli način prispevala h kratenju človekovih pravic in tlačenju demokracije in vladavine prava. Hvala lepa.
               

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 7 miliardi e 400 milioni di euro. Questo è il valore dell'accordo tra Unione europea ed Egitto, stipulato a marzo alla corte di al-Sisi con Giorgia Meloni in compagnia di Ursula Von der Leyen. Saranno ben 200 i milioni utilizzati per fermare le partenze dei migranti, esternalizzando ancora il controllo delle frontiere europee e ignorando i diritti umani.
               

                  Questo accordo non solo è stato firmato bypassando il vaglio del Parlamento europeo, ma ignora completamente la grave situazione dello Stato di diritto in Egitto. La cooperazione, infatti, con questo paese non può prescindere dalla nostra richiesta di rispettare i diritti umani garantendo libertà di espressione, scarcerando le persone detenute arbitrariamente e terminando la repressione delle minoranze.
               

                  Ce lo ha ricordato proprio in questi giorni, qui al Parlamento europeo, la presenza di Patrick Zaki, detenuto per mesi dal regime egiziano e oggi finalmente libero, che ci ha detto ‘se sono qui è perché anche voi in queste aule avete creduto che combattere per la mia libertà fosse una battaglia da vincere’.
               

                  Ce lo chiedono anche i genitori di Giulio Regeni, morto più di otto anni fa in Egitto e per il quale stiamo ancora cercando la verità. Una verità che le autorità egiziane continuano a insabbiare e che il governo italiano e le autorità europee dovrebbero pretendere con molta più forza.
               

                  Ebbene sì, combattere per la libertà e per la verità è una battaglia da vincere. E come Europa dovremo continuare a farlo. Certamente il Parlamento europeo dovrà evitare che questo tipo di impegno venga bloccato da intese senza monitoraggio, senza trasparenza, portate avanti dai governi in maniera assolutamente inaccettabile.
               

Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me thank you for your views and let me make three points to conclude this debate.
First, on the content of the agreement itself. Let me repeat that we value this partnership as a partnership that is based on the values of mutual respect, equity and mutual strategic interest between the European Union and the country with whom we have historic relations and which has been proving a stable partner in a very unstable region at a very unstable moment. I have the fullest respect for the opinion of this House. I have myself served as a Member of the European Parliament. I understand your points but, frankly, I wouldn't describe that five democratically elected prime ministers from three political families can be simply presented as Ursula and her friends. With all due respect, we are the European Union. We have elected leaders, and elected leaders have a stake in democracy as anybody else.
Let me also assure you that the role of the European Parliament will be fully respected. The political support of this House for our common action is indispensable in the different aspects of this agreement. I want to assure Parliament that this House will be involved in all the important stages of the implementation of the macro-financial assistance. I want to stress that we will use the procedure of the regular macro-financial assistance, during which you will be consulted to keep you updated on the latest development and on the short-term MFA operation. And obviously, the Commission will remain at your disposal to debrief and inform this House and its committees at the different stages of the implementation of all aspects of the programme, both as regards preparation and implementation.
Dear President, honourable Members, thirdly, this is the last address to this plenary for me in the current political cycle and I would like to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly thank this House for the support that I have received for the past five years. Together, we have achieved truly historic breakthroughs and successes. We have successfully navigated the pandemic. We modernised our pharma legislation. We invested in our health resilience and built a new ecosystem to fight cancer. We increased the Erasmus funds, three times. We grew a European alliance of universities and we set the stage for a common European degree. We invested in people and helped train 3.5 million workers. We made our Union more secure both online and offline, significantly reinforcing our cybersecurity legislation and critical infrastructure threats. We are overhauling the way the European Union manages migration with a new pact that you have voted massively last week, epitomising a firm but fair Union firmly rooted in our values. And we have shown unwavering support and commitment to Ukraine and its people, opening our doors and our hearts, and showing a simple fact: that the European way of life is not just something to be envied, but it's also something to be shared.
Honourable Members, these are all your successes. They are Europe's successes. And I personally feel uniquely honoured to be able to share all these successes with you. Because whatever happens, whatever any of us do next, we will have done all this together. And of this, I'm really proud.

President. – Thank you, Vice-President, in the name of this House, for the really great cooperation over the duration of this parliamentary term, and we look forward to the future.

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
               
18.   Production and marketing of plant reproductive material – Production and marketing of forest reproductive material (joint debate – Plant and forest reproductive material)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je spoločná rozprava o:
               






—



                        správe, ktorú predkladá Herbert Dorfmann v mene Výboru pre poľnohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka o výrobe a uvádzaní rastlinného množiteľského materiálu na trh v Únii, o zmene nariadení Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/2031, (EÚ) 2017/625 a (EÚ) 2018/848 a o zrušení smerníc Rady 66/401/EHS, 66/402/EHS, 68/193/EHS, 2002/53/ES, 2002/54/ES, 2002/55/ES, 2002/56/ES, 2002/57/ES, 2008/72/ES a 2008/90/ES (nariadenie o rastlinnom množiteľskom materiáli) (COM(2023)0414 – C9-0236/2023 –2023/0227(COD)) (A9-0149/2024), a
                     










—



                        správe, ktorú predkladá Herbert Dorfmann v mene Výboru pre poľnohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka o produkcii a uvádzaní lesného reprodukčného materiálu na trh a o zmene nariadení Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/2031 a (EÚ) 2017/625 a zrušení smernice Rady 1999/105/ES (nariadenie o lesnom reprodukčnom materiáli) (COM(2023)0415 – C9-0237/2023 –2023/0228(COD)) (A9-0142/2024).
                     





                  Samozrejme, na úvod poprosím pána spravodajcu Herberta Dorfmanna, aby predniesol túto správu.
               

Herbert Dorfmann,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor zehn Jahren sind wir hier in diesem Haus gescheitert, als wir der Europäischen Union ein modernes Saatgutrecht geben wollten. Wir sind damals mit einem schlechten Vorschlag der Kommission gestartet, und das Ganze ist schlecht geendet. Diesmal sind wir mit einem besseren Vorschlag gestartet. Ein Vorschlag, der zehn heute bestehende Verordnungen zu einem einheitlichen und leserlichen Text zusammenfasst. Ich glaube, wir haben in den letzten Monaten eine sehr konstruktive Arbeit gemacht, und ich möchte all jenen, die mitgearbeitet haben, dass wir so weit gekommen sind, wo wir heute sind, auch herzlich für diese Zusammenarbeit danken.
               

                  Die Landwirtschaft braucht hochwertiges, zertifiziertes Saatgut, und ich glaube, die neuen Kontrollmechanismen und der neue Weg für die Zertifizierung, die in diesen zwei Verordnungen festgelegt werden, sind ein guter Weg dorthin. Gutes Saatgut, gute Jungpflanzen sind eine Grundvoraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche Landwirtschaft. Nachhaltigkeitstests wie VSCU-Tests sind dort sinnvoll, wo sie auch einen wirklichen Mehrwert bringen. Ich glaube, dass im Bereich von Obst und Gemüse diese Tests vorerst freiwillig bleiben sollten.
               

                  Ebenso sehen wir in der Verordnung, im Vorschlag vor, dass das Vermehrungsmaterial für die Biolandwirtschaft weiterhin in der Bioverordnung geregelt werden soll, dort, wo sie heute geregelt ist und wo wir erst vor wenigen Jahren eine neue Bioverordnung auf den Weg gebracht haben.
               

                  Das politisch heikle Thema – und das war auch vor zehn Jahren schon so – sind aber die Ausnahmen im Bereich der Erhaltung und Vervielfältigung von alten Sorten, der Erhaltung von Biodiversität. Die Kommission hat einen Weg vorgeschlagen, und ich würde sagen, wir haben diesen Weg, diese Ausnahmen nun weiter verfeinert.
               

                  Um es ganz klar zu sagen: Wer Genmaterial vor dem Aussterben rettet, wer alte Sorten weiter vermehrt, Landrassen vermehrt, der macht eine wichtige Aufgabe für die Biodiversität in der Europäischen Union, der schützt auch die Kultur einer Region und die Vielfalt in einer Region. Diesen Menschen und auch den Netzwerken gehören nicht unnötige Prügel in die Wege gelegt, sie gehören gefördert und nicht mit Auflagen und Bürokratie zugeschüttet.
               

                  Natürlich dürfen diese Regelungen nicht ausgenutzt werden, um Parallelmärkte zu schaffen. Aber ich denke, meine Änderungsanträge 353 bis 355 werden diese Gefahr weiter minimieren. Oder glauben wir wirklich, dass durch jemanden, der 500 Gramm Samen im Jahr verkauft, in Maximalmengen von 20 Gramm je Packung, dort ein Parallelmarkt entsteht? Ich denke eher nicht. Ich bitte auch den Änderungsantrag 352 von Renew nicht zu unterstützen. Der würde diesen Ansatz der Biodiversität nämlich letztendlich zerstören.
               

                  Lassen Sie mich noch zwei Worte sagen zum forstlichen Reproduktionsmaterial. Unsere Wälder sind derzeit unter Druck. Stürme, Parasiten und vor allem Borkenkäfer zerstören Wälder, und wir werden in den nächsten Jahren viel forstliches Reproduktionsmaterial brauchen, auch weil wir in der Forststrategie ja festgelegt haben, dass wir 3 Milliarden neue Bäume setzen wollen. Deswegen brauchen wir das Material, und wir müssen die Staaten unterstützen, wenn sie dieses Material herstellen. Bei forstlichem Reproduktionsmaterial gibt es ja im Unterschied zum pflanzlichen Reproduktionsmaterial auch kaum eine Binnenmarktrelevanz. Das heißt, meistens werden die Jungbäume dort ausgepflanzt, wo sie auch produziert werden. Deswegen glaube ich, dass wir entwickelte gute Praktiken in den Mitgliedstaaten nicht behindern sollten, sie nur weiter verstärken sollten. Wir sollten alles tun, damit unsere Wälder dem Klimawandel trotzen können, sich anpassen können und resilient werden. Ich bin sehr zuversichtlich, dass die neue Verordnung diesem Ansatz nachkommt.
               

Christophe Clergeau,
rapporteur pour avis de la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais d'abord remercier le rapporteur, ma collègue Isabelle Carvalhais, Martin Häusling et les autres députés qui ont fait cet excellent travail au sein de la commission AGRI, lequel permet d'avoir, vous l'avez rappelé, un succès là où, il y a dix ans, il y avait eu un échec.
               

                  Ce succès est notamment lié à la capacité collective à apporter un cadre juridique qui sécurise la reproduction par les agriculteurs des semences pour leurs propres besoins et les échanges entre eux. C'est un élément clé et ce Parlement va devoir résister à la ridicule pression de dernière minute du Copa-Cogeca, qui fait déposer des amendements contre ce volet.
               

                  Le deuxième point d'équilibre que nous avons trouvé tous ensemble, c'est un point d'équilibre entre l'innovation et la protection de la disponibilité des semences dans leur diversité. C'est cette biodiversité qui est la principale ressource pour adapter l'agriculture au changement climatique. Bien plus que les nouveaux OGM, c'est la biodiversité et le combat contre la mainmise sur le vivant qui permettront d'aider l'agriculture à s'adapter au changement climatique. Je suis heureux d'avoir pu, avec la commission ENVI, apporter notre contribution à cette réussite collective.
               

Wopke Hoekstra,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am replacing my dear colleague and friend, Commissioner Kyriakides, and I am honoured to be here on behalf of the Commission.
President and honourable Members, our plant and forestry reproductive materials are central to our agrifood system and, of course, to food security. And with our proposals, we have aimed to ensure the quality, the identity and the resilience of this material throughout the value chain and whether they are for farmers, gardeners or foresters.
With these two proposals, we bring the current legislation up to date and we essentially do three things: we strengthen sustainability considerations, we support the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and, last but not least, we align the legislation with the latest scientific and technological developments. And let me thank the committees of agriculture and environment for their amendments and for the swift adoption of their reports.
Honourable Members with the proposal on plant reproductive materials, we want to ensure that farmers will have suitable varieties – varieties that will help them avoid crop losses, mitigate the impact of climate change and strengthen food security. The obligatory examination for value for sustainable cultivation and use for all species is, of course, crucial to this. A longer transitional period than the two years we proposed might be needed, and I stress that it might be needed for vegetables and fruit varieties, where systematic examination is in fact a new requirement.
But only a voluntary examination for vegetable and fruit varieties, as proposed, would actually lead to very limited testing or no testing at all for these species. The opportunity to comprehensively assess new varieties for sustainability will be lost, to the detriment of farmers and the environment. So therefore, our proposal aims to ensure consistency with the proposal for new genomic techniques.
Furthermore, we aim for a regulatory framework that supports the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and actually does give new opportunities to small farmers as well as to local initiatives. This is promoted by the proposed derogations for conservation varieties, conservation networks, marketing to final users and the exchange of seed in kind between farmers.
However, these derogations should be specific to each of these activities and within the scope of the legislation, in order to retain a minimum level of traceability and quality.
Wider exemptions from the scope of the legislation will lead to parallel and actually uncontrolled markets, reduce quality and increase – and this is the word I've been practising a lot, so let me try to get it right – phytosanitary risks.

Franc Bogovič,
v imenu skupine PPE. – Spoštovani predsednik! Govorimo o zelo pomembnem poročilu. Se pravi, razpravljamo o rastlinskem in gozdnem razmnoževalnem materialu. Vsi vemo, da so semena, sadike ključni za tako na eni strani zagotavljanje prehranske varnosti, za inovacije, za razvoj, dvig pridelkov, po drugi strani pa tudi zelo pomembno za prilagajanje na podnebne spremembe.
               

                  Danes vidimo, da se vreme spreminja, zato je treba poiskati, tudi s pomočjo novega sadilnega materiala, odporne sorte tako na klimatske spremembe, pozebe, pa po drugi strani tudi na odpornost na pesticide. Kar se tiče tega poročila, ga podpiram. Mislim, da je v njem pravo ravnovesje med tem, da je na eni strani podpora tako inovacijam, konkurenčnosti na tem področju, da resnično lahko odgovorimo na te velike izzive.
               

                  Po drugi strani pa, da tudi skrbimo za biodiverziteto, da so posebna pravila za ekološko semenarstvo, ki je urejeno posebej zunaj tega. Da je pravzaprav potrebna tudi sledljivost vsega materiala, da so jasno označeni tudi tisti materiali, kjer so te nove genomske tehnike uporabljene.
               

                  Po drugi strani – tudi zelo pomembno, da omogočimo menjavo teh semen, prodajo v malih količinah, kajti ti mali proizvajalci nikakor ne smejo biti prizadeti s to uredbo. In mislim, da je Herbert Dorfmann – in ostali – pri pripravi tega poročila to zelo dobro upošteval. Zato ga bom podprl in predlagam tudi kolegom in kolegicam, da poročilo podprejo.
               

Isabel Carvalhais,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, Senhor Relator, Caros Colegas Relatores, a circulação de sementes e de material de propagação agrícola é algo de interesse comum que serve diversos objetivos bem descritos, aliás, na proposta legislativa da Comissão, tais como garantir a qualidade e a diversidade de escolha dos materiais de reprodução vegetal disponíveis aos agricultores e contribuir para a conservação e a utilização sustentável dos recursos fitogenéticos e da agrobiodiversidade.
               

                  Ao contrário do que alguns afirmam, estes objetivos complementam-se, não se antagonizam. Todos os objetivos – entre eles, os que enunciei –, são importantes e a todos devem ser dadas as condições necessárias para a sua efetiva prossecução. Só neste equilíbrio se garante o melhor resultado possível para todos os agricultores europeus, no pleno respeito pelas suas opções de sistema de produção agrícola e pela diversidade de realidades da agricultura europeia.
               

                  Ora, eu penso que conseguimos assegurar este equilíbrio, depois de intensas negociações ao nível da Comissão da Agricultura, num texto que eu espero que seja aqui defendido e acredito que teremos, assim, um mandato forte do Parlamento Europeu para a negociação em futuros trílogos.
               

                  Senhor Presidente, sendo esta a minha última intervenção em plenário, porque termino aqui o mandato, permita-me e permitam-me todos que eu agradeça sobretudo aos nossos intérpretes e, em especial, à cabine portuguesa, que vai celebrar a língua portuguesa já no próximo dia 5 de maio. Que bom é poder dizer muito obrigada a todos e a todas em português.
               

Irène Tolleret,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, les deux rapports sur les matériels de multiplication sur lesquels nous voterons demain sont d'une importance capitale pour la lutte contre le changement climatique. Il est question notamment d'améliorer la résilience des variétés végétales, mais également du matériel forestier, et de promouvoir la biodiversité. Je salue d'ailleurs les plans d'urgence nationaux pour les forêts européennes, et je vous invite à soutenir le texte issu de la commission de l'agriculture.
               

                  En revanche, en ce qui concerne les matériels de reproduction des végétaux, le document sur la table est déséquilibré, en raison de l'ampleur des dérogations qui sont prévues dans la législation que nous proposons, qui permet la circulation de grandes quantités de matériel sans aucune garantie quant à leur qualité ou à leur capacité de lutte contre certains parasites. Cela pourrait conduire à des marchés parallèles et à des fraudes.
               

                  Je suis favorable à ce que nous trouvions un équilibre qui offre un cadre juridique pour l'ensemble du matériel végétal, tout en garantissant un nombre significatif d'exceptions pour faciliter les opérations visant à promouvoir la biodiversité et la conservation. Je pense donc qu'il faut apporter des modifications significatives à ce rapport, sans écarter un assouplissement de la proposition initiale de la Commission.
               

Martin Häusling,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kollegen! Ich finde, wenn wir uns daran erinnern: Vor zehn Jahren ist ja die Vorlage der Kommission für ein neues Saatgutrecht gescheitert. Warum? Weil hier, glaube ich, viele gefunden haben, es ist zu sehr in Richtung der Industrie gegangen.
               

                  Der neue Vorschlag der Kommission war und ist besser. Ich glaube, in den Verhandlungen mit Herbert Dorfmann – wir haben ihn noch besser gemacht, als er war. Warum? Weil wir in Zukunft mehr Vielfalt brauchen, weil wir in Zukunft noch mehr Züchter brauchen, die sich mit dieser Vielfalt auf dem Acker beschäftigen. Warum? Wir haben in den letzten Jahren schon viele Sorten verloren – immer mehr eine immer größere Konzentration auf wenige Saatgutunternehmen. Dem müssen wir entgegenhalten. Dies ist auch deshalb so wichtig, weil wir diese Vielfalt brauchen, um dem Klimawandel zu begegnen. Wir müssen uns dieser Herausforderung stellen. Deshalb ist es auch so wichtig, dass wir Erhaltungszüchtungen einfacher machen und denen, die sich seit Jahren darum bemühen, nicht noch Steine in den Weg legen.
               

                  Saatgut ist auch ein Stück weit Kulturgut, und deshalb müssen wir alles dafür tun, dass diese Erhaltungszüchtungen gestärkt werden. Herbert Dorfmann hat zu Recht darauf hingewiesen: Wir haben in der Ökoverordnung schon einen Weg gewiesen, und das sollten wir nicht infrage stellen, sondern sollten das auch ausweiten auf diejenigen, die im konventionellen Bereich so züchten.
               

                  Wir stärken auch die Möglichkeiten der Bauern, Austausch zu betreiben. Auch das ist wichtig. Ich sehe nicht die Gefahr von Parallelmärkten. Ich sage das hier ganz außerordentlich, und ich sehe auch nicht eine Gesundheitsgefahr für das Saatgut. Das bleibt alles in den bestehenden Regeln erhalten. Ich darf mich ganz herzlich bei Herbert Dorfmann bedanken für den konstruktiven Austausch, bei den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die daran mitgewirkt haben. Wir unterstützen diesen Vorschlag, und ich hoffe, wir tragen damit zu mehr Vielfalt und Sicherheit bei.
               

Bert-Jan Ruissen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, beste collega's, goed en gezond uitgangsmateriaal is de basis voor een goede teelt. Dat vereist een goed werkend systeem dat garanties geeft. Dat hebben we en dat functioneert prima. Kijk naar het resultaat: uitgangsmateriaal van zeer hoge kwaliteit.
               

                  Ik leg daar zo de nadruk op, omdat ik me grote zorgen maak over de voorstellen die nu op tafel liggen. Voorstellen die het goed functionerende systeem dreigen te ondermijnen. Zo worden er verregaande uitzonderingen voorgesteld.
               

                  Op de verspreiding van uitgangsmateriaal via informele netwerken of gebruikers onderling is er bijvoorbeeld in geen enkele controle voorzien. Met alle risico's van dien voor de verspreiding van plantenziekten. Dergelijke uitzonderingen maken het bovendien wel erg gemakkelijk voor kwaadwillenden om parallelle markten te starten.
               

                  En dan willen verschillende fracties ook nog eens ongecontroleerde import toestaan vanuit buurlanden zoals Belarus of Turkije. Ik zie hier grote fytosanitaire risico's. Niet doen dus.
               

                  Wat betreft het cultuur— en gebruikswaardeonderzoek voor groenten en fruit zet het Parlement wel een juiste stap, namelijk door te kiezen voor vrijwilligheid. Maar met voorstellen die het huidige solide systeem ondergraven, kan ik onmogelijk instemmen.
               

                  Alleen als we de hoge kwaliteit en gezondheid van het uitgangsmateriaal blijven garanderen, kan de Europese land— en tuinbouw blijven excelleren.
               

Ivan David,
za skupinu ID. – Pane předsedající, návrhy, které se týkají reprodukčního materiálu rostlin, mají dvě obecné vady. První je snaha o řešení široké problematiky jedním nařízením a následně neúměrně velké zmocnění Komise k přijetí delegovaných prováděcích předpisů, o kterých dopředu nevíme nic. Hrozí vznik roztříštěné a nepřehledné legislativy.
               

                  Druhou obecnou chybou je snaha o jednotné řešení navzdory skutečnosti obrovských rozdílů v klimatických a půdních podmínkách v různých zemích Evropské unie.
               

                  Neexistuje žádný rozumný důvod měnit v řadě zemí dobře fungující praxi a zasahovat do výběru reprodukčního materiálu, který se v daných podmínkách osvědčil. Daleko lepším řešením by byla modernizace dosavadních směrnic. Tříletá lhůta pro implementaci je neúměrně krátká a její prosazení přinese v praxi značné potíže. Rovněž neúměrná je snaha o kontrolu dodržování podmínek, která povede ke značné administrativní a finanční náročnosti. Navrženou praxí užití heterogenního materiálu a výměnou osiv mezi farmáři dojde k ohrožení ochrany práv chráněných odrůd. Rovněž se tím zvýší riziko fytosanitárních problémů.
               

                  Zavedení povinných zkoušek užitné hodnoty odrůd zeleniny a ovoce povede k finanční, časové a organizační náročnosti procesu. Nelze souhlasit ani s vynucováním přístupu do lesních školek a k zásobám reprodukčního materiálu lesních dřevin. Děkuji za pozornost, i když jde o marnou snahu.
               

Maxette Pirbakas (NI). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je salue la volonté d'unifier la réglementation européenne sur la production et la commercialisation des semences, des boutures, des arbres, etc. Je souscris également à la volonté affichée de permettre aux usagers d'accéder à une large variété de matériels de reproduction adaptés aux usages actuels et aux conditions climatiques à venir.
               

                  Malheureusement, vous confondez unification des règlements et standardisation des produits. Les matériels de reproduction sont, comme tout organisme vivant, adaptés à un milieu ou un environnement. Chez moi, dans les outre-mer, en Guadeloupe – je suis guadeloupéenne – ils sont encore plus spécifiques et jouent un rôle spécifique de conservation de la biodiversité. Comme on le sait, on a 80 % des richesses ultramarines dans les cinq départements d'outre-mer français.
               

                  Donc, quand vous permettez le déploiement dans toute l'Europe de catalogues standardisés, quelques multinationales semencières se frottent les mains, mais pas les petites structures et les usagers. Il est donc indispensable de laisser une marge de manœuvre supplémentaire aux États membres, afin que ceux-ci assurent la diffusion des matériels n'entrant pas dans les standards. L'utilité de ces matériels pour les agriculteurs et la biodiversité n'est plus à démontrer et je suis pour un certain degré de liberté dans leur choix. Je vous remercie et je compte sur vous.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Vážený pane předsedající, kolegyně a kolegové, návrhy, které Komise předložila k produkci rozmnožovacího materiálu rostlin a reprodukčního materiálu lesních dřevin, jsou důležité, ale k naplnění očekávání odborné veřejnosti mají daleko.
               

                  Já chci poděkovat kolegům, panu kolegovi Dorfmannovi a dalším, kteří na zprávě Evropského parlamentu pracovali a snažili se reagovat na nedostatky návrhu Komise a na kritiku odborné veřejnosti. Mezi těmi nedostatky, které se bohužel nepodařilo odstranit, je například krátká lhůta pro provedení nařízení, velké množství ustanovení, která zmocňují Komisi k přijetí delegovaných aktů, u které skutečně zatím nevíme, jakou budou mít podobu a jaký budou mít konkrétní dopad, rušení stávající kategorie obchodních osob, ohrožení systému ochrany práv a s tím spojený negativní vliv na produkci a využívání certifikovaného rozmnožovacího materiálu. Zkrátka návrh je liberální v oblasti certifikace, ale naopak velmi striktní v oblasti označování.
               

                  Mohla bych jmenovat i další obavy, například z fytosanitárních dopadů. V každém případě navržená legislativa představuje nárůst administrativní i finanční zátěže pro producenty osiva. Dnes jsou tito producenti garanty kvality a nabídky širokého sortimentu. Některé nedostatky se bohužel nepodařilo odstranit přijatými pozměňovacími návrhy, protože jde o koncepční nedostatek návrhu Komise. Já bych chtěla vyzvat Komisi, aby začala více zohledňovat názory odborné veřejnosti již při přípravě legislativy, v tomto případě zejména malých a středních podniků a producentů osiv.
               

Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, dopo dieci anni dal rigetto della precedente proposta, il Parlamento si appresta a votare una posizione chiara sul futuro della produzione del materiale riproduttivo. Merito della proposta della Commissione che, insieme al nuovo regolamento sulle nuove tecnologie genomiche, rappresenta la base per mettere a disposizione dei nostri agricoltori piante in grado di produrre di più, in modo più sostenibile e consumando meno.
               

                  È merito, soprattutto, dei colleghi che hanno lavorato a questo dossier, da Herbert Dorfmann a Isabel Carvalhais, che ringrazio, lasciando un segnale politico sull'importanza di garantire la resilienza del settore e regole chiare sia per i produttori europei che per quelli dei paesi terzi.
               

                  Si tratta dell'avvio di un lavoro che, insieme alla nuova normativa che finalmente autorizzerà anche in Europa l'utilizzo di biotecnologie sostenibili, consegniamo al futuro Parlamento affinché possa risolvere le criticità aperte e consentire ai nostri agricoltori di proseguire il percorso verso sistemi produttivi sempre più sostenibili e competitivi.
               

Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Pane předsedající, kvalitní osivo a sadba jsou základem každého zemědělsko-potravinářského systému. Kvalitní osivo je důležité pro všechny zemědělce bez ohledu na to, jestli jsou malí nebo velcí, ekologičtí nebo konvenční, zda pěstují obilniny či zeleninu.
               

                  Na Výboru pro zemědělství byl bohužel přijat návrh nařízení o rozmnožovacím materiálu rostlin, který umožňuje, aby se na trh dostávalo nekontrolované osivo, sadba a řízky. Tím se fakticky vytváří paralelní trh, na který se nevztahují pravidla, povinnosti ani žádný dohled. To není ve prospěch malých a středních evropských osivářských a šlechtitelských firem a zemědělců. Paradoxně to podpoří jen obrovské nadnárodní společnosti, které osivo vyprodukují mimo Evropu a sem ho draze dovezou, protože malé a střední osiváře v Evropě zlikvidujeme. Pokud se návrh výrazně nezmění, prosím, neměli bychom ho podpořit.
               

Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le secteur européen des semences végétales est florissant. Il représente 20 % du marché mondial des semences, avec une valeur estimée à près de 10 milliards d'euros et l'implication de 7 000 entreprises, en majorité des PME. Il faut donc le moderniser sans l'affaiblir. C'est l'objet de la proposition de règlement dont nous débattons aujourd'hui.
               

                  Son objectif est de donner aux agriculteurs un accès à des semences diversifiées, de grande qualité et résistantes au changement climatique. Je lui accorde le bénéfice du doute, car je pense qu'on a tiré les leçons de l'échec d'une précédente tentative de modernisation en mars 2014, qui était moins bien pensée. Le respect de la diversité des semences est bienvenu, mais beaucoup dépendra des futurs actes délégués et actes d'exécution de la Commission, comme trop souvent.
               

                  Je suis en revanche hostile à la proposition de règlement sur les semences forestières, car la France est, comme les autres États membres de l'Union européenne, parfaitement capable de gérer ses forêts sans avoir besoin de la tutelle de la Commission. La gestion forestière est d'ailleurs une compétence nationale.
               

                  Cette intervention en hémicycle étant la dernière de mon mandat en ce qui concerne l'agriculture, j'en profite pour saluer les syndicats agricoles avec lesquels j'ai travaillé et pour remercier tous les agriculteurs qui m'ont reçu et qui m'ont honoré de leur confiance. Servir l'agriculture européenne, et plus particulièrement l'agriculture française, aura été un grand honneur.
               

Maria Angela Danzì (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario, le sementi e il materiale riproduttivo vegetale rappresentano un pilastro fondamentale per la nostra sicurezza alimentare e la biodiversità agricola.
               

                  Negli ultimi cento anni abbiamo perso il 75 % delle varietà di colture disponibili. Nessun passo falso ulteriore è tollerabile. Per accompagnare i nostri agricoltori nella sfida della transizione dobbiamo consentire loro lo scambio di una minima quantità di materiale riproduttivo vegetale, senza che questa buona pratica, che afferisce alle nostre tradizioni, sia considerata attività commerciale.
               

                  Dobbiamo permettere alle banche genetiche di donare agli agricoltori i semi delle loro collezioni. Dotarci di regole eque è nell'interesse di tutti e mitigherà il rischio associato al mercato dei prodotti di massa, dominato da solo quattro aziende, che controllano il 51 % delle vendite globali di sementi.
               

                  Tutelare l'agrobiodiversità è un dovere per l'Europa. Prendiamo questo impegno e lasciamo ai nostri figli un sistema alimentare sicuro e resiliente.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, the proposed replacement of directives governing the production and marketing of plant and forest reproductive material is an important step towards enhancing agro biodiversity and restoring our forest ecosystems.
Allowing for greater diversity of plant material available on the market will bolster agro-biodiversity and promote sustainable agriculture. A notable inclusion is provisions to facilitate the exchange of plant reproductive material among farmers, enabling them to access a broader range of genetic resources for cultivation. This will not only support the conservation of plant genetic resources, but also foster innovation and resilience within the agricultural sector. It makes sense that we see more cooperation between Member States in this area to ensure the availability of forestry productive material for reforestation projects, particularly in areas affected by extreme weather events. In addition, by improving traceability and labelling requirements for forest reproductive material, we inject a quality and authenticity insurance of planting stock used in forest restoration efforts.
Lastly, I support measures that allow professional operators, and not only national authorities, to issue official labels accompanying forest reproductive materials. It is important that we enable the sector to modernise and effectively respond to the climate change challenges faced by land managers and farmers.

Mazaly Aguilar (ECR). – Señor presidente, las semillas de alta calidad son fundamentales en cualquier sistema agroalimentario, productivo y competitivo. Ofrecen mayores rendimientos, garantizan la sanidad vegetal, proporcionan resiliencia frente a las plagas y enfermedades y mejoran la eficiencia del uso del agua y los fertilizantes.
               

                  Esto —todos lo sabemos— es crucial para los agricultores independientemente del tamaño de su explotación o de su ubicación geográfica. En Europa, más del 30 % de la pérdida de rendimiento de los cultivos se atribuye a esas plagas y enfermedades.
               

                  La votación que está programada para mañana sobre el refuerzo de los requisitos fitosanitarios para la agricultura resalta la importancia de la sanidad vegetal. Sin embargo, las propuestas que se están presentando disminuyen —en mi opinión— las garantías para los agricultores y reducen esos controles tan importantes. Dejar la puerta abierta con la excusa de la biodiversidad a semillas sin control y sin certificar es correr un riesgo innecesario.
               

                  Aprovecho la oportunidad también para decir desde aquí que ha sido un privilegio trabajar en la Comisión de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural y conocer a tantos y tan buenos colegas, tan buenos profesionales y gente extraordinaria. Y, por supuesto, han representado un privilegio y un honor defender los intereses de los agricultores y ganaderos de España.
               

Wopke Hoekstra,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you very much for all your insights. And as many of you have underlined, this proposal is about promoting the sustainable use of our natural resources while at the same time supporting producers and our farmers. Let me briefly reiterate two things.
One is that if we want a more sustainable agri-food chain, all species should be covered by obligatory value for sustainable cultivation and use requirements.
Two, we should have derogations that support the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources without undermining quality and without creating wide exemptions that would actually lead to parallel and uncontrolled markets.
So please let us keep these key elements of the proposal as we move forward. Thank you.
And, Chair, if you allow me, there were a couple of speakers who said that they were here for the very last time. And, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to thank them for what they did. As many of us are aware, public service is not always easy. Public service is not always fair, and public service is not always rewarded. But I think what we do share with all the differences in political opinions is that it is always, truly, always tremendously meaningful. So thank you.

President. – Thank you for the kind words, Commissioner.

Herbert Dorfmann,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte mich abschließend noch einmal ganz herzlich bedanken bei allen, die in den letzten Monaten dazu beigetragen haben, dass wir dorthin gekommen sind, wo wir heute sind: dem Verfasser der Stellungnahme im Umweltausschuss, aber besonders auch meinen Schattenberichterstattern, die ja jetzt auch hier während der Debatte das Wort ergriffen haben. Ich denke, wir haben nun eine gute Parlamentsposition. Darüber werden wir hoffentlich morgen in den wirklich letzten Stunden dieser Amtszeit abstimmen und damit eine gute Voraussetzung schaffen, sodass in der nächsten Amtszeit dann auch ein Trilogergebnis und ein Übereinkommen mit dem Rat gefunden werden kann und Europa ein modernes Saatgutrecht bekommt.
               

                  Ich glaube, letztendlich ist es wichtig – und das haben viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen hier gesagt –, dass Bauern ein gutes Saatgut und pflanzliches Reproduktionsmaterial und forstliches Reproduktionsmaterial zur Verfügung haben, dass aber andererseits jene, die sich um Biodiversität kümmern, die sich um alte Sorten kümmern, das auch tun können. Ich glaube, das ist letztendlich auch im Interesse der Züchter, weil Biodiversität ja auch Ausgangspunkt ist für neue Züchtungen. Ich bin da sehr zuversichtlich, sehe auch überhaupt nicht – ich habe das vorher schon gesagt –, dass hier Parallelmärkte entstehen. Man muss sich die Mengen anschauen, von denen wir hier reden. Da ist keine Gefahr, dass Parallelmärkte entstehen. Und mit Verlaub, Samen sind auch nicht unbedingt etwas, wo phytosanitäre Probleme weiterverbreitet werden können. Diese Gefahr sehe ich also auch nicht.
               

                  Ob das meine letzte Rede hier von diesem Podium aus ist, weiß ich nicht. Ich weiß, dass es meine letzte Rede in dieser Amtszeit ist, und ich möchte deshalb auch allen ganz herzlich danken für die konstruktive und für die freundschaftliche kollegiale Zusammenarbeit in den letzten Jahren.
               

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
               

                  Hlasovanie sa uskutoční v stredu 24. apríla 2024.
               
19.   Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je rozprava o správe, ktorú predkladá Tonino Picula v mene Výboru pre zahraničné veci a Karlo Ressler v mene Výboru pre rozpočet, o návrhu nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady, ktorým sa zriaďuje Nástroj na podporu reforiem a rastu pre západný Balkán (COM(2023)0692 – C9-0408/2023 – 2023/0397(COD)) (A9-0085/2024).
               

Tonino Picula,
rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Mr Karlo Ressler, and all the shadow rapporteurs, as well as Secretariat and staff, but also the Council and Commission for an excellent cooperation we had on this important dossier. If I would have to describe the negotiations, I would say they were tough but constructive. We managed to strongly defend Parliament's position by keeping united front from our side, which is something I very much commend.
The Facility is the centrepiece of the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans, published by the Commission in November last year. The Facility will cover the period from second half of the current year to 2027, and is expected to provide up to 2 billion in grants and 4 billion in loans to the European Union Western Balkan partners. It will complement the existing Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III), considerably increasing financial assistance to partners in the region.
As the co-rapporteur from AFET, I would definitely like to emphasise some foreign policy and enlargement points that we have achieved throughout the negotiations. It is important to underline that for European Parliament, alignment of the Western Balkans countries with our Common Foreign and Security Policy was a main point. A reference to the CFSP is kept in the text as this is, for us, one of the key components of the overall policy framework on the enlargement processes.
Eventually, convergence with the Council was reached on the following points: a reference to full alignment with the CFSP, including restrictive measures in Article 3, objectives 13 and 14, Reform Agendas. Related to this, a reference was added to fight disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference, and moving forwards, harmonisation of visa policies with the Union.
The placement of the text on Serbia-Kosovo dialogue remained in the Article 5 precondition, with the updated wording from the European Parliament. The Commission initially objected to the European Parliament wording in Article 5.2. Preconditions that the Commission shall also take into account recommendations of relevant international bodies, including the Venice Commission, Council of Europe or OECD. Finally, it was added to the text in the article after free and fair elections, which is especially important considering the recent elections in Serbia. We also managed to agree to add Commission Rule of Law Reports into the text as a part of the definition of the enlargement policy framework in Article 2.
I also want to reiterate that the European Parliament went through a process in a uniquely unprecedented speed, having such a short time to come to negotiate in view of reaching an agreement, has proven very challenging, both on the political and technical level. The outcome in such a quick procedure has to be considered as an achievement. However, the European Parliament should not agree to such an extremely rushed procedure in the future. I believe that support for enlargement will continue in the next mandate. We, as the European Parliament, also stress the consistent message that enlargement can go hand in hand with internal EU debates. Therefore, I would like to point out several key points.
Every candidate country should be judged on their merit. Our fundamental values, such as the rule of law and democratic standards, must be the pillar of our assessment if the country is ready to join the European Union. Building bridges, tunnels and highways is welcome, but respect for fundamental values must be a precondition for that. The European Union is more than an economic union, it is a union of values and shared risks. Once the candidate country fulfils all the criteria, there should be no political delays to its accession. EU enlargement is one of the most successful EU policies and it must continue.
Dear colleagues, we have always supported EU enlargement and believe that our cooperation with Western Balkans countries is of crucial importance. But we always stress that joining the club is about adhering to certain values and norms that the Union represents. We need to deliver, but Western Balkan countries need to deliver too. Having said that, the waiting room before the European Union door is now completely full. The time has come to finally change that and start to fulfil the enlargement ambitions.
As the mandate is ending, I am also proud to have authored the Parliament's recommendations on the new EU strategy for enlargement. Revived enlargement policy will be an excellent legacy for this term and a message for the future. Thank you once again for your support.

Ana Collado Jiménez,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señorías, en primer lugar, quiero felicitar a los ponentes de este informe: mi compañero Karlo Ressler —que hoy no nos puede acompañar— y el señor Picula. También quiero destacar el trabajo de los ponentes alternativos y del secretariado.
               

                  Los mecanismos son instrumentos que responden a situaciones excepcionales y, por tanto, su financiación y gobernanza deben rendir cuentas por completo ante la autoridad presupuestaria.
               

                  Recientemente, hemos tenido que recurrir a esta herramienta como consecuencia de situaciones excepcionales que todos tenemos en mente: la guerra de Ucrania o la pandemia de la COVID–19. Hemos aprendido muchas lecciones sobre cómo debe ser el diseño de este tipo de herramientas y cómo debe ser su ejecución y control. De modo que, con este Mecanismo de Reforma y Crecimiento para los Balcanes Occidentales, potenciaremos las cosas que han funcionado bien y trataremos de minimizar los errores aprendidos de estas experiencias.
               

                  La política de ampliación a los Balcanes Occidentales tiene importancia geoestratégica para la seguridad, la paz y la estabilidad del continente. A la luz de los cambios de dinámica en el entorno internacional, esto es indiscutible. Precisamente, la agresión de Rusia a Ucrania ha conferido un nuevo sentido e ímpetu a esta Unión Europea.
               

                  No obstante, la senda de los países de los Balcanes Occidentales hacia la adhesión a la Unión debe estar firmemente anclada en avances tangibles y concretos en sus reformas. Esta es una región prioritaria para la Unión y la Unión es necesaria para esta región.
               

                  No podemos escatimar recursos ni esfuerzos diplomáticos dirigidos a lograr su total integración. No podemos olvidar que su posición geográfica en el mismo corazón de Europa hace de esta región el objeto de deseo para potencias extranjeras que quieren parasitar sus instituciones.
               

                  En este sentido, la Comisión adoptó una comunicación sobre un plan de crecimiento para los Balcanes Occidentales basado en cuatro pilares: promover la integración en el mercado único de la Unión, impulsar la integración económica y regional, profundizar en las reformas destinadas a acelerar el desarrollo integrador y sostenible en la región, y establecer un nuevo instrumento de financiación: el Mecanismo de Reforma y Crecimiento para los Balcanes Occidentales.
               

                  Este Mecanismo se propone como objetivo apoyar estas reformas internas con inversiones estratégicas para que pronto se sientan los beneficios en áreas clave del mercado único europeo, incluyendo la libre circulación de bienes, servicios y trabajadores, el área de pago único en euros o el transporte, la energía o el mercado digital único.
               

                  Este Mecanismo complementará el enfoque de asignación temática del Instrumento de Ayuda Preadhesión, centrándose en motores específicos para el crecimiento económico y social. Pero, mientras que el otro instrumento sigue un proceso de programación basado en los resultados, el procedimiento de este Mecanismo se basa en condiciones ex ante y combinará subvenciones con préstamos.
               

                  Esta condicionalidad ex ante implica que los recursos financieros pueden ingresarse en los presupuestos nacionales solo después de que se hayan implementado las reformas. El plan de crecimiento es verdaderamente un incentivo para lograr los avances en este sentido, que son fundamentales para la sociedad y la economía de estos países.
               

                  Es decir, en este caso, el control será real y exhaustivo. No habrá inversión sin previa y correcta previsión. Y, como reclamó este Parlamento y aquí se ha dicho, los pagos siempre estarán sujetos a condiciones estrictas relativas a la realización de las reformas establecidas en el programa acordado con cada uno de los socios.
               

                  Este fondo, sin duda, tiene un enorme potencial: podría duplicar la economía de los países candidatos en los próximos diez años. Pero, además, entre los objetivos clave está la armonización con la política exterior y de seguridad europea —incluidas las sanciones contra el régimen ruso—.
               

                  Con esto mandamos un mensaje claro: es imperante armonizar la actitud ante la agresión contra Ucrania y nuestra acción conjunta en el marco de las sanciones contra Rusia. No hay otro camino que la Unión Europea.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, as you are well aware, the growth plan for the Western Balkans is accompanied by a proposal for an increase of financial assistance through a new instrument, namely, the Reform and Growth Facility, which consists of EUR 6 billion split into loans and grants. I appreciate the outcome of the final trilogue and I want to thank the European Parliament, especially Mr Picula and Mr Ressler, for the very good cooperation, which was absolutely vital for the adoption of this facility. This is a great achievement and a very positive development, eagerly awaited in the region, a new element in our toolbox that will help the Western Balkans partners grow faster and prepare better and quicker for EU membership one day.
The final text represents a balanced agreement maintaining efficiency during the implementation of the facility, while providing unparalleled transparency and oversight to the Council and to the Parliament. The facility has a novel design where payments are linked to the implementation of socio-economic reform and reform related to the fundamental of the enlargement process, including rule of law and democracy. Each Western Balkan government is currently preparing a reform agenda that specifies a list of priority reforms, and I am pleased to share that we have made significant progress in developing these agendas together with our Western Balkan partners. They are working hard to finalise them.
Following the political agreement on the regulation, we are working on a fast turnaround to adopt the reform agenda as to the final regulation text. We concentrate on defining measurable steps towards achievement of each reform. Importantly, each step will have a financial value that reflects its political importance and relevance to progressing on the enlargement path.
We have therefore asked the Western Balkan governments to take into account the new objectives and the expanded policy framework of the facility, which create a stronger link to the enlargement process and priorities, without diminishing the whole focus on the immediate socio-economic growth of the region. This will help realise the objectives of the Growth Plan to speed up efforts for a European future for the Western Balkans. We are also stepping up consultations, which is also one of the requirements of the co-legislators. Each beneficiary is organising consultations with national stakeholders and on our side we are consulting civil society organisations and international financial institutions.
We have also stepped up the preparation of the Western Balkans Investment Framework Investments pipeline, and have organised a number of joint stocktaking missions. It is critical now to keep up the highest ambition for reforms and ensure that we maintain the high momentum created. We have set up for ourselves a challenging timeline that should lead to start implementation already this summer. Of course, much will depend on the finalisation of the agendas and for that we need the beneficiaries to continue delivering on the last mile with the same high level of commitment demonstrated so far.
The Commission will share the reform agendas with the Parliament and the Council as soon as they are available. The Commission will also share the facility and loan agreements with the Parliament and the Council, and provide strong oversight through the various provisions included in the final agreement, be it through annual reports on implementation and biannual presentations of payments and commitments, the public scoreboard on implementation, or the list of final recipients published by each beneficiary.
In the spirit of compromise, the Commission also agreed to make available to the Council and the Parliament information on commitments and payments, both affected and planned under the Western Balkans Facility per beneficiary on a bimonthly basis. We, however, regret that despite these strong transparency and budgetary oversight provisions, the Council and Parliament still intend to adopt a joint declaration to review the budgetary nomenclature of the facility, setting up a budget line per beneficiary, for a facility that pre-foresees the exact amounts each beneficiary will receive if they fulfil all conditions, makes very limited sense. Any such changes to the budgetary nomenclature would unduly interfere with the proper conduct of the budgetary procedure, and could potentially affect the implementation of the facility. Anyway, we are overall happy that we were able to reach a balanced final agreement in record time, which is eagerly awaited in the region.

Helmut Scholz,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für internationalen Handel. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Die Länder des sogenannten Westbalkans waren ungeachtet der seit Langem laufenden Beitrittsverhandlungen aus dem Blickfeld und notwendigen gesellschaftlichen Debatten geraten. Lassen Sie mich deshalb das Ergebnis des letzten Gipfeltreffens vom 13. Dezember noch einmal unterstreichen: ein klares Bekenntnis zum Beitritt und vor allem die Beschleunigung des langwierigen Prozesses bei gleichzeitiger Sicherstellung der nötigen Reformen.
               

                  In diesem Zusammenhang kann die Reform- und Wachstumsfazilität für den Westbalkan wichtige Unterstützung leisten. Für eine angestrebte Konvergenz der Lebensverhältnisse zwischen der EU und den Ländern des Westbalkans muss deshalb eines klar sein: Wir brauchen gerecht verteiltes Wachstum. Heute ist jeder Fünfte in der Region von Armut bedroht. Statt weißer Elefanten brauchen wir Investitionen, die die eigene Wirtschaftstüchtigkeit der Westbalkanstaaten stärken und bei denen Menschenrechte und Umweltstandards eingehalten werden, auch hinsichtlich des Green Deal-Gesetzes wie der Lieferkettenrichtlinie. Neben aller wichtigen Konditionalität senden wir mit dieser Fazilität eine klare Nachricht an unsere Partner auf dem Westbalkan: Wir haben euch nicht vergessen.
               

Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος,
Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, η ένταξη των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι κομβική, προασπίζοντας έτσι τη σταθερότητα και την ειρήνη, την οικονομική ανάπτυξη, τις πολιτικές μεταρρυθμίσεις και την κοινωνική ευημερία της περιοχής. Η Ελλάδα στηρίζει σταθερά και αταλάντευτα την ενταξιακή προοπτική των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων. Είμαστε σταθεροί υπέρμαχοι της ανάγκης οι χώρες των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων να ενταχθούν στην ευρωπαϊκή οικογένεια, προχωρώντας πάντα στις απαραίτητες και σημαντικές προσαρμογές στο ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο και με βασικό προαπαιτούμενο τον σεβασμό του κράτους δικαίου και την ισονομία προς όλους. Το νέο αυτό ταμείο μεταρρυθμίσεων που ψηφίζουμε σήμερα είναι το νέο μέσο για την επιτάχυνση των προετοιμασιών των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων για ένταξη στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, προωθώντας ορισμένα από τα οφέλη πριν από την ένταξη, με άμεσο αντίκτυπο για τους πολίτες και τις επιχειρήσεις. Τέλος, είμαι ιδιαίτερα περήφανος γιατί το κείμενο αυτό αντικατοπτρίζει όχι μόνο τη βούληση για πρόοδο, αλλά και τις ανάγκες για περιφερειακή και διασυνοριακή συνοχή. Ενισχύει την ανταλλαγή καλών πρακτικών και εμβαθύνει στους στόχους που έχουμε θέσει ως Επιτροπή Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης και ως Κοινοβούλιο ευρύτερα.
               

Андрей Ковачев,
от името на групата PPE. – Г-н Председател, колеги, г-жо Комисар, в последните години Европейският съюз предложи много инициативи и инструменти, за да мотивира европейската интеграция на страните от Западните Балкани. Инструментът за реформи и растеж е поредният такъв пример.
               

                  Управляващите в тези страни трябва да бъдат по-смели в реформите и преодоляване на пречките от миналото. Шестте милиарда евро от този инструмент се очаква допълнително да стимулират реформите, и ако мога да използвам македонския диалект, да охрабрят политическия елит на Западните Балкани колкото се може по-бързо да работят за интересите на техните граждани. Ще се спра обаче на ситуацията на българите в Република Северна Македония и в Сърбия, която за съжаление е изключително тревожна.
               

                  В Република Северна Македония не можеш да си намериш работа, ако открито заявиш своята българска идентичност. Това е реалността. Ако разберат за нея, намират причина да те уволнят, тормозят семейството ти и си обект на обиди и подигравки. Това е нетърпимо и не може да има членство в ЕС докато тази дискриминация продължава. Тормозът над българите е залегнал и в последния доклад на Държавния департамент на Съединените щати за правата на човека в Северна Македония, който беше публикуван вчера. Продължава и антибългарската кампания в публичното пространство, която се надявам също да спре колкото се може по-бързо.
               

                  В Сърбия, за съжаление, също виждаме системно и увеличаващо се потъпкване на правата и езика на омраза срещу българското малцинство в медиите, в научните и историческите среди, както и в изказвания на политици, които са създали образа на България като нещо негативно. Ограничава се преподаването на български език по всякакъв начин, пречи се на опазването на българското културно наследство.
               

                  Сърбия и Република Северна Македония не трябва да се съдят само по техните думи, но и по действията, не само по усвояването на европейските средства, които те харесват, но и по спазването на европейските ценности.
               

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la ampliación —especialmente después de la guerra de Rusia contra Ucrania— ha vuelto a lo más alto de nuestra agenda política. Por ello la aprobación final de este plan de crecimiento y reformas para los Balcanes Occidentales es tan importante.
               

                  Con estos 6 000 millones EUR para el período 2024—2027, demostramos una vez más nuestro compromiso con esta región y damos un impulso definitivo a una agenda de reformas muy necesarias para encarar de la mejor manera posible la futura ampliación.
               

                  Respecto al Estado de Derecho, democracia, igualdad, medioambiente o políticas sociales son áreas prioritarias para la Unión Europea y, por lo tanto, son también parte esencial de este Reglamento.
               

                  Además, la mitad de estos fondos se va a canalizar a través de una plataforma de inversiones que va a movilizar financiación para invertir en áreas de transporte, de digitalización, de educación o de desarrollo de habilidades.
               

                  Con este Reglamento ponemos punto final al intenso y buen trabajo que hemos realizado esta legislatura en la Comisión de Presupuestos. Pero ponemos punto final con una mirada hacia el futuro.
               

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, for the 20 years since the Thessaloniki summit, the EU has pretended that it wants to enlarge to the Western Balkans, while the Western Balkan countries have pretended that they are conducting a reform to join the Union. That has to stop. We need a fundamentally different Balkan policy. In 2024, Europe and the world are so different. We need a new approach. Kosovo visa liberalisation was long overdue and finally only granted in January this year. It should serve as the beginning of restoration of the EU's credibility in the region. This facility must be a continuation.
Firstly, only those governments which respect EU values democracy and the rule of law above all should get EU money from this part. Secondly, the war on our doorstep requires solidarity with Ukraine, also from the Western Balkan countries. Weapons sanctions, assistance to Ukraine in order to get the money. All this can be a game changer in the Western Balkans.
We need to finally tell to Mr Dodik and Banja Luka, stop your actions and align with the EU, or there will be no money for you and you will feel the consequences. The same goes to all the other Balkan autocratic rulers. The EU membership promise must become credible again and that is our task now. Strict conditionality and oversight and not a free lunch paid by the facility. If the EU cannot play a pivotal role in the region, then our dream of becoming a geopolitical union and delivering on Ukraine will indeed be just a dream.

Dorien Rookmaker,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, ieder jaar wordt over de Balkanlanden een enorme voortgang gerapporteerd, maar van toetreding is geen sprake. Hoe kan dat nou?
               

                  We hebben maatstaven, de Kopenhagencriteria, maar we hebben geen duidelijke normen. En dus blijven de Balkanlanden in de wachtkamer hangen. Moeten de Balkanlanden allemaal tienen scoren op alle onderdelen of mogen er ook onvoldoendes staan in het rijtje van de te beoordelen onderdelen? Misschien – en dit is maar een gedachte – moeten we de toetredingscriteria eens gaan herzien. Misschien vervangen we ze of vullen we ze aan met een impactanalyse. De impact van grote landen als Turkije of Oekraïne is immers veel groter dan die van landen als Albanië. Deze landen zijn qua risico niet te vergelijken. Een land met drie miljoen inwoners zou niet dezelfde normen moeten hoeven halen op de Kopenhagencriteria als een land met dertig miljoen inwoners. Dat stel ik gewoon.
               

                  De extra steun die de Europese Commissie van plan is te geven aan de Westelijke Balkanlanden baart me ook zorgen. Ik kan mij niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat deze steun deels wordt gegeven ter compensatie van het lange verblijf in de wachtkamer van de EU. Maar grote sommen geld kunnen corrumperend werken en bovendien kunnen interne spanningen tot een kookpunt raken bij grote kapitaalinjecties zonder duidelijk doel. Wil men de Westelijke Balkanlanden toch financieel steunen, dan bij voorkeur in de vorm van infrastructurele en tastbare projecten, zodat voor iedereen duidelijk is waar het geld aan wordt besteed en zodat het nuttig wordt besteed en niet – zoals in het verleden – aan megalomane beelden of andere onnutte zaken.
               

                  Ten slotte merk ik op dat een snelle toetreding van de Balkanlanden zal bijdragen aan vrede en voorspoed in de EU en daarbuiten.
               

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο ευρωπαϊκός προσανατολισμός των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων αποφασίστηκε πριν 21 ολόκληρα χρόνια, κυρία Dalli, στη Σύνοδο της Θεσσαλονίκης —και σε αυτά τα 21 χρόνια δεν έγιναν και πολλά πράγματα. Και τώρα με αυτό το εργαλείο, τη διευκόλυνση για τα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια, 4 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ επιδοτήσεις και 2 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ δάνεια, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δίνει με καθυστέρηση 20 χρόνων ένα σήμα ότι θέλει να ενθαρρύνει αυτόν τον ευρωπαϊκό προσανατολισμό. Και πρέπει να τρέξουμε όλες οι πλευρές γρηγορότερα. Οι χώρες των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων που θέλουν κάποια στιγμή να γίνουν μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να προχωρήσουν τις μεταρρυθμίσεις που απαιτούνται, αλλά και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η Επιτροπή, το Συμβούλιο —γιατί το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο το θέλει σε όλο του το πολιτικό φάσμα— να δείξει ότι δεν σκοπεύει να αφήσει στην αναμονή και στην καθυστέρηση τα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να τρέχει με ταχύτητα λαγού η ένταξη της Ουκρανίας και να τρέχει με ταχύτητα χελώνας η ένταξη των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων. Χθες, μετά από πρόταση μου, το Προεδρείο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου αποφάσισε ομόφωνα να δημιουργήσει μια αντένα, μια παρουσία του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια. Θέλουμε από την Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο να στηρίξουν αυτό το μήνυμα που στέλνει ενωμένο το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Όχι λόγια, αλλά πράξη.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn wir heute über die Westbalkanfazilität sprechen, sollten wir in Erinnerung rufen, dass in allen sechs Staaten des Westbalkans die Europäische Union der größte Geldgeber ist, die größte Geldgeberin. Das sei besonders den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Serbiens gesagt, die manchmal von ihrer eigenen Regierung ein anderes Bild vermittelt bekommen. Nein, es ist nicht China, es ist schon gar nicht Russland, es ist auch keine andere Quelle auf dieser Welt, sondern die Europäische Union ist es, die Serbien am meisten unterstützt, genauso wie Bosnien und Herzegowina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Nordmazedonien und Albanien.
               

                  Und es ist die Europäische Union, die jetzt die längste Zeit in ihrer Geschichte hinter sich hat ohne Beitritt, seit 2013. Und es ist die Europäische Union, die in dieser Zeit sogar einen Austritt erlebt hat: das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland. Und es ist die Europäische Union, die seit 2008 die längste Zeit in der Geschichte, jetzt bald 16 Jahre, keinen neuen Vertrag, keine EU-Reform geschafft hat, obwohl sich die Welt geändert hat.
               

                  Das eine hängt mit dem anderen zusammen. Wenn wir Sicherheit wollen für die Europäerinnen und Europäer, wenn wir ein starkes Europa auf dieser Welt wollen und wenn wir Prosperität, Wohlstand, soziale Sicherungssysteme, auch für die kommenden Generationen, wollen, dann brauchen wir eine Reform der Europäischen Union, damit sie überhaupt aufnahmefähig wird. Und selbstverständlich brauchen wir die Aufnahmefähigkeit der Westbalkanstaaten und aller anderen Staaten des europäischen Territoriums in ihren verschiedenen Stadien.
               

                  Geld zu geben ist das eine, das ist in unserem eigenen Interesse, das sind keine Geschenke. Aber politische Reformen im Interesse dieser Generation und kommender Generationen voranzubringen, das ist das andere.
               

Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Die Erweiterung hat das Potenzial, ein neues Kapitel der Erfolgsgeschichte der Europäischen Union zu schreiben. Die Länder am Westbalkan brauchen Europa, so wie Europa diese Länder braucht. Und sie haben bereits viele der notwendigen Voraussetzungen erfüllen können. Die im Eiltempo durchgebrachte Vereinbarung ist eine weitere Grundlage, um notwendige Reformen für Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Transparenz und auch Sozial- und Wirtschaftsstandards umzusetzen. Kohäsion ist Herzstück unserer Europapolitik.
               

                  Die regionalen Fördermaßnahmen haben auf sozioökonomische Effekte abzuzielen. Bei der Schaffung von Arbeit und guten Lebensbedingungen muss es auch um Bildung, Mobilität, Digitalisierung oder Gesundheitsversorgung gehen. Vor allem der Kreativ- und Kultursektor sowie die Entwicklung einer nachhaltigen, wertschöpfenden Tourismuswirtschaft sind zudem zu berücksichtigen, und dies vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Entwicklung der Infrastruktur deutlich unter dem EU-Durchschnitt liegt.
               

                  Europa muss sein Erweiterungsversprechen halten. Die Europäische Union wird einmal mehr beweisen, dass sie für Aufschwung, Stabilität, für wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Fortschritt zu sorgen imstande ist. Europa darf am Westbalkan nicht versagen. Europa wird nicht versagen und keinesfalls russischem Einfluss Türen und Tore öffnen.
               

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Spoštovani predsednik! Dober večer spoštovana komisarka, spoštovani poročevalci. Jutri obeležujemo dvajsetletnico velike širitve Evropske unije, katere del je bila tudi moja Slovenija. Kolega poročevalca prihajata iz Hrvaške, ki je lani proslavila desetletnico vstopa v EU.
               

                  In v obeh državah je bil v teh letih narejen zelo velik napredek, ki koristi predvsem državljankam, državljanom naših držav. Izkoristili smo zgodovinsko priložnost in končno je sedaj tudi večja pripravljenost v Evropski uniji za širitveni proces, kajti zopet se zgodovina piše na novo in nekateri dogodki so tudi Evropsko unijo pripeljali do tega, da je resnično odprla vrata širše kot doslej.
               

                  Zagotovo je ta ukrep, s katerim zagotavljamo 6 milijard dodatnih sredstev za države Zahodnega Balkana, več kot dobrodošel. Z njim moramo priti do ljudi. V teh državah je večkrat občutek, da o usodi preveč odloča samo politični vrh. Premalo se dotaknemo ljudi.
               

                  Zato so ukrepi, katere bomo speljali za dodatne reforme, po drugi strani tudi za gradnjo infrastrukturnih objektov, transformacijo energetike in podobno, to, kar ljudje v tem delu Evrope potrebujejo, in to, kar tudi razumejo – da bo z vstopom v EU se njihov položaj izboljšal.
               

                  Iz tega dela Evrope se je mnogo mladih že izselilo, zato moramo tudi to zaustaviti, kajti kohezivnost posamezne države in celotne Unije bo tudi večja, če bodo mladi ustvarjali prihodnost v domačih okoljih. Z veseljem bom podprl to poročilo in upam, da se to zgodovinsko okno državam Zahodnega Balkana čim prej odpre in da pripravljene s spoštovanjem evropskega prava pridejo tudi v Evropsko unijo.
               

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Spoštovani predsednik! Spoštovani visoki zbor. Zahodni Balkan je v zadnjem obdobju znova visoko na agendi Evropske unije. Svež veter širitvene politike so doprinesle številne pozitivne odločitve evropskih institucij in tako je tudi prav.
               

                  Da Evropa misli resno, dokazuje tudi z novim finančnim instrumentom za regijo, ki ga potrebujemo. Jutri! In ta instrument tudi zelo pozdravljam. Socialisti in demokrati, na čelu s poročevalcem, smo odigrali ključno vlogo, da smo med predpogoje izplačil umestili dosledno spoštovanje vladavine prava in izvajanje reform.
               

                  Dosegli smo, da bo načrt spodbujanje demokracije, človekove pravice in enakost spolov v regiji. Obžalujem pa, da Komisija, navkljub vztrajanju Evropskega parlamenta in držav članic, ni sprejela dogovarjanja z izvajanjem skupne zunanje in varnostne politike.
               

                  Gre za slepomišenje, da bodo države, kot je na primer Srbija, ki danes udobno in strateško krmarijo med več globalnimi akterji, tako iskreno branile tudi evropske interese. Neusklajeno delovanje na področju zunanje politike pomeni namreč spodjedanje kredibilnosti Unije, pa tudi njenih strateških interesov.
               

                  Brez usklajenih sankcij ni denarja. Torej, zato gre moj poziv vsem institucijam, da o tem vidiku znova tehtno premislijo. Hvala lepa.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate. The Commission has a formal statement in relation to this file, which is being sent to the Parliament's services for inclusion in the verbatim record of this debate. It is now crucial to ensure a swift entry into force of this regulation for the beneficiaries to be able to submit the reform agendas and allow the preparatory stages of implementation to start. This will represent a vital and credible commitment of the Union to the beneficiaries.

Ana Collado Jiménez,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, comencé diciendo que los mecanismos de este tipo son para situaciones excepcionales y urgentes o sobrevenidas. Creo que en este debate tanto la excepcionalidad como la urgencia han quedado demostradas. Eso sí, no podemos decir que sea sobrevenido porque, como también se ha mencionado, llevamos ya veinte años —desde la Cumbre de Salónica en 2003— prometiendo la incorporación a esta región.
               

                  Pero está claro también que redunda en el interés común de la Unión y de los países de los Balcanes Occidentales avanzar en los esfuerzos para reformar los sistemas políticos, jurídicos y económicos de estos con vistas a su futura, esperemos que pronta, adhesión a la Unión. Es una meta común a la que debemos llegar de la mano.
               

                  La perspectiva de la adhesión a la Unión tiene, sin duda, un poderoso efecto transformador y supone un cambio positivo en los ámbitos democrático, político, económico y social. Créanme, como española que soy, soy testigo sincero del gran avance que supuso para mi país la adhesión a la Unión Europea y cualquier Estado miembro puede compartir esa experiencia histórica, como también ha compartido el compañero de Serbia. Ahora, sin duda, es momento de pasarles a ellos el testigo, de pasar el testigo a estas nuevas incorporaciones y hemos de trabajar todos juntos.
               

                  Estado de Derecho, derechos fundamentales, gobernanza económica, refuerzo de las instituciones democráticas y reforma de la administración pública: son condiciones para la adhesión, pero también serán vigiladas una vez ya incorporados a este club, a esta Unión Europea. Esto no va solo de cumplir un día. Tenemos que trabajar por la democracia todos y cada uno de los días.
               

                  Estas son y serán las claves de este proceso de adhesión, que, en palabras de la propia presidenta Roberta Metsola, es nuestra mejor herramienta geopolítica. La adhesión es nuestra mejor herramienta geopolítica. Por eso, porque es un win-win: ganamos todos.
               

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
               

                  Hlasovanie sa uskutoční v stredu 24. apríla 2024.
               


Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)



Dominique Bilde (ID),
par écrit. – Chers collègues, Le projet d'élargissement de l'Union européenne, dont les contours ont été esquissés en 2003 lors du sommet de Thessaloniki, n'a pas abouti aux résultats que l'Union européenne escomptait. Sur le plan de la ‘convergence socio-économique’ , le niveau des Balkans occidentaux ‘exprimé en PIB par habitant en standards de pouvoir d'achat se situe entre 30 et 50 % de la moyenne de l'UE’ , selon les termes de la proposition de règlement. Comment imaginer que cette nouvelle facilité et ses six milliards d'euros environ de ressources — dont deux milliards sous forme de soutien non remboursable — pourrait contribuer à combler ce gouffre ? Il est, du reste, notable que le processus a été un échec en matière de réformes, par exemple sur le plan de la gouvernance et de l'état de droit. Ainsi, un rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne notait sans ambages que ‘bien que l'action de l'UE en faveur des réformes dure depuis des années, la captation de l'État et la corruption généralisée n'ont pas été maîtrisées’ . Il est donc urgent de mettre un terme à ce processus, auquel mes concitoyens sont opposés. Je vous remercie.
               

Andor Deli (NI),
írásban. – Annak ellenére, hogy szólamok szintjén fontosnak tartja a régió országainak uniós csatlakozását, az Európai Unió már jó ideje mostohán kezeli a Nyugat-Balkán térségét. A várakozás több tagjelölt esetében már több mint egy évtizede tart, és a polgáraik uniós csatlakozásba vetett bizalma is megingott. Ezért is fontos, hogy az Európai Parlament mostani mandátumának utolsó plenáris ülésén megerősítésre kerül Nyugat-balkáni Reform- és Növekedéstámogató Eszköz, ami nemcsak a csatlakozás gyorsítását, hanem az EU megtépázott hitelességének helyreállítását is segítheti a mintegy 6 millárd eurós támogatási csomaggal. Ez az új pénzügyi eszköz kiemelten fontos és biztató jelzés lehet a régió irányába. Ugyanakkor a pénzügyi támogatások lehívásához reális és objektív feltételeket kell kapcsolni és azok nem válhatnak a brüsszeli politikai nyomásgyakorlás eszközkévé, mint ahogyan azt az elmúlt időszakban az Európai Parlament tette Szerbia irányában. Az ilyen magatartás eltávolíthatja és elbizonytalanítja a balkáni tagjelöleket, ezt pedig az EU nem engedheti meg magának ebben az összetett geopolitikai helyzetben. A Reform- és Növekedéstámogató Eszköz egész Európa biztonságát erősíti.
               

Kinga Gál (NI),
írásban. – Magyarország elkötelezett a Nyugat-Balkán bővítése és a régió gazdasági felzárkóztatásának felgyorsítása mellett. Az EU-nak ez történelmi felelőssége, ráadásul a térség integrációja immár nem pusztán hitelességi kérdést jelent. Európa ugyanis nem tud a világméretű versengésben továbblépni a régió integrálása nélkül, és nem fogja tudni garantálni a Nyugat-Balkán stabilitását sem, amely Európa geopolitika érdeke, egyúttal békéjének egyik legfontosabb biztosítéka is. Akkor gyorsítható fel a bővítés folyamata, ha azokra a nagy kihívásokra, amelyek egyszerre érik a Nyugat-Balkánt és Európát, közösen keresik a választ, legyen szó energiaválságról vagy migrációról is. A Nyugat-Balkán országai ugyanis Európa szívében helyezkednek el, a régió tranzitcsomópont, így a migrációs nyomás is évről-évre egyre súlyosabb. Elfogadhatatlan, hogy a térségben felfegyverszett férfiakból álló migránsbandák támadnak határőrökre, hogy az Unió határellenőrzését bűnszervezetekhez hasonlóan működő embercsempészek veszélyeztetik. Magyarország Kormánya Brüsszellel is szemben régóta kiáll amellett, hogy az Unió külső határainak védelme olyan prioritás, amelyből nem engedhetünk. A Nyugat-Balkán-Eszköz ezért is bír kulcsjelentőséggel, mert döntően járulhat hozzá a térség országainak csatlakozásához, valamint a határvédelmi, energetikai és gazdasági együttműködés elmélyítéséhez is. A támogatási programmal a Nyugat-Balkán országai alapvető és forrásigényes reformokat hajthatnak végre. Egyúttal már most részesedhetnek a belső piac bizonyos előnyeiből, amely különösen az Unió szomszédos tagállamai, így Magyarország gazdasága számára is kedvező lehet.
               
20.   Explanations of vote

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je vysvetlenie hlasovania.
               
20.1.   Preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution (A9-0148/2024 - João Albuquerque)

Ústne vysvetlenia hlasovania


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tiny plastic pellets have the power to cause huge destruction. Some 230 000 tonnes of plastic pellets fall into the ocean every year. We speak of microplastics, but this is no micro-level environmental destruction. These pellets are ending up in our oceans, in our soil and in our food.
This proposed regulation strikes a good regulatory balance. It places obligations on EU and non-EU carriers to not only prevent spills, but also to contain and clean up in the event that a spill does occur, while also seeking to mitigate administrative burdens on SMEs.
Here we have the opportunity to really tackle an urgent issue and, for that reason, vótáil mé ina bhfabhar.
20.2.   Common rules promoting the repair of goods (A9-0316/2023 - René Repasi)

Ústne vysvetlenia hlasovania


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, I voted in favour of the right to repair as it will result in savings for consumers, boost the circular economy and support the objectives of sustainable consumption and of the European Green Deal by reducing waste.
Many of us want to consume more responsibly, but we are not being enabled or empowered to do so. Directives like these are a step forward in changing the culture around how we regard our belongings. Replaceable becoming repairable; replaceable becoming repairable.
Along with the new European online repair platform that will be established as provided under this directive, consumers will be able to easily locate repairers in their Member States.
Is maith an rud é sin agus vótáil mé ina bhfabhar.
20.3.   Prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (A9-0306/2023 - Samira Rafaela, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques)

Ústne vysvetlenia hlasovania


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i bhfabhar toirmeasc a chur ar tháirgí a dhéantar le saothar éigeantais ar mhargadh an Aontais. Measann an ILO go bhfuil thart ar 27.6 milliún duine ar fud an domhain i gcás saothair éigeantais. Níl áit ar bith d'earraí a dhéantar le saothar éigeantais i margadh aonair an Aontais Eorpaigh agus tá áthas orm tacú le Rialachán an Aontais Eorpaigh a leanann le dul chun cinn a dhéanamh maidir le dul i ngleic le sáruithe ar chearta an duine ar fud an domhain. Tá an cur chuige seo ar aon dul go maith le hionstraimí idirnáisiúnta eile, rud a fhágann go bhfuil muinín agam go mbeimid in ann dul i ngleic le saincheist an tsaothair éigeantais ar bhealach comhleanúnach agus éifeachtach. Tá sé seo an-tábhachtach agus míle buíochas leat as an seans a thabhairt dom é a mhíniú.
                  

President. – Thank you for bringing Gaelic into this Chamber.
20.4.   Amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (A9-0285/2023 - Malin Björk, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop)

Ústne vysvetlenia hlasovania


Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Domnule președinte, 63 % din victimele traficului de persoane sunt femei și fete. Traficul de persoane înseamnă abuz, înseamnă violență și poate duce chiar la omor. Dar dacă în anno Domini 2024, există oameni care, în mod public, declară că victima este de vină, că o femeie este abuzată sau poate să fie abuzată pentru că și-o cere sau, pur și simplu, pentru că este frumoasă, înseamnă că avem o problemă uriașă în societatea noastră și se numește, nu că ești evlavios dacă dai vina pe victimă, dacă îndemni la ură, la discriminare și la violență, ci se numește că ești bolnav și ai o problemă foarte mare dacă faci chestia asta.
                  

                     Una din trei femei a fost victima unui abuz și una din cinci femei este victima violenței domestice. Acestea sunt niște cifre reale astăzi, astăzi când abia acum avem prima directivă împotriva violenței împotriva femeilor și asta ar trebui să ne trezească, pentru că, deși avem directiva, trebuie să o și aplicăm și trebuie să avem grijă că se aplică, pentru că altfel o să rămână doar o chestie pe hârtie și statisticile acestea care sunt femei și fete în lumea reală, o să continue să se întâmple.
                  

Predsedajúci. – Tento bod programu je ukončený.
                  
21.   Agenda of the next sitting

Predsedajúci. – Nasledujúce rokovanie sa uskutoční v stredu 24. apríla 2024 o 9.00 h.
               

                  Program schôdze bol uverejnený a je k dispozícii na webovom sídle Európskeho parlamentu.
               
22.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Predsedajúci. – Zápisnica z tohto rokovania bude predložená Parlamentu na schválenie v stredu 24. apríla 2024 po hlasovaní.
               
23.   Closure of the sitting

(Rokovanie sa skončilo o 21.16 h)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)