Verbatim report of proceedings of 24 April 2024
Date: 2024-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate




C_202502133EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














10.4.2025







            24 April 2024
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 24 APRIL 2024
            
         
(C/2025/2133)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
6










2.

Proposals for Union acts
6










3.

Iran's unprecedented attack against Israel, the need for de-escalation and an EU response (debate)
6










4.

Resumption of the sitting
21










5.

Formal sitting - 20th Anniversary of the 2004 EU Enlargement
21










6.

Resumption of the sitting
32










7.

Voting time
34










7.1.

Amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure concerning the training on preventing conflict and harassment in the workplace and on good office management (A9-0163/2024 - Gabriele Bischoff) (vote)
34










7.2.

Objections pursuant to Rule 111(3): Novel foods – the definition of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ (B9-0225/2024) (vote)
35










7.3.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Calculation, verification and reporting of data on recycled plastic content in single-use plastic beverage bottles (B9-0226/2024) (vote)
35










7.4.

Trans-European transport network (A9-0147/2023 - Barbara Thaler, Dominique Riquet) (vote)
35










7.5.

Packaging and packaging waste (A9-0319/2023 - Frédérique Ries) (vote)
35










7.6.

Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (A9-0233/2023 - Javi López) (vote)
36










7.7.

Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0246/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
37










7.8.

Amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment of the Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0244/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
37










7.9.

Amending certain Directives as regards the establishment of the Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0245/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
37










7.10.

Schengen Borders Code (A9-0280/2023 - Sylvie Guillaume) (vote)
37










7.11.

Cross-border exchange of information on road-safety related traffic offences (A9-0396/2023 - Kosma Złotowski) (vote)
38










7.12.

Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd) (vote)
38










7.13.

Early intervention measures, conditions for resolution and funding of resolution action (SRMR3) (A9-0155/2024 - Pedro Marques) (vote)
38










7.14.

Early intervention measures, conditions for resolution and financing of resolution action (BRRD3) (A9-0153/2024 - Luděk Niedermayer) (vote)
38










7.15.

Scope of deposit protection, use of deposit guarantee schemes funds, cross-border cooperation, and transparency (DGSD2) (A9-0154/2024 - Kira Marie Peter-Hansen) (vote)
38










7.16.

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (A9-0184/2023 - Lara Wolters) (vote)
38










7.17.

Improving working conditions in platform work (A9-0301/2022 - Elisabetta Gualmini) (vote)
39










7.18.

European Health Data Space (A9-0395/2023 - Tomislav Sokol, Annalisa Tardino) (vote)
39










7.19.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2023/004 DK/Danish Crown – Denmark (A9-0171/2024 - Janusz Lewandowski) (vote)
39










7.20.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2023/003 DE/Vallourec – Germany (A9-0166/2024 - Jens Geier) (vote)
39










7.21.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2024/000 TA 2024 - Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (A9-0173/2024 - Margarida Marques) (vote)
40










7.22.

Withdrawal of the Union from the Energy Charter Treaty (A9-0176/2024 - Anna Cavazzini, Marc Botenga) (vote)
40










7.23.

Measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries (A9-0178/2024 - Loránt Vincze) (vote)
40










7.24.

Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (A9-0177/2024 - Silvia Modig) (vote)
40










7.25.

Combating violence against women and domestic violence (A9-0234/2023 - Evin Incir, Frances Fitzgerald) (vote)
40










7.26.

European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities (A9-0003/2024 - Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová) (vote)
40










7.27.

European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities for third country nationals legally residing in a Member State (A9-0059/2024 - Antonius Manders, Alice Kuhnke) (vote)
40










7.28.

Production and marketing of plant reproductive material (A9-0149/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)
40










7.29.

Production and marketing of forest reproductive material (A9-0142/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)
40










7.30.

Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans (A9-0085/2024 - Tonino Picula, Karlo Ressler) (vote)
40










8.

Resumption of the sitting
41










9.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
41










10.

The attack on climate and nature: far right and conservative attempts to destroy the Green Deal and prevent investment in our future (topical debate)
41










11.

Amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks – Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (joint debate – Banking Union)
57










12.

The sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive – Anti-Money Laundering Regulation – Establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (joint debate – Anti-money laundering)
64










13.

The European Parliament's right of inquiry (debate)
81










14.

Resumption of the sitting
87










15.

Voting time
88










15.1.

Simplification of certain CAP rules (C9-0120/2024) (vote)
88










15.2.

Approval and market surveillance of non-road mobile machinery circulating on public roads (A9-0382/2023 - Tom Vandenkendelaere) (vote)
88










15.3.

Amendment of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (A9-0035/2024 - Clara Aguilera) (vote)
89










15.4.

Transparency and integrity of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating activities (A9-0417/2023 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)
89










15.5.

Measures to mitigate excessive exposures to third-country central counterparties and improve the efficiency of Union clearing markets (A9-0398/2023 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (vote)
90










15.6.

Treatment of concentration risk arising from exposures towards central counterparties and of counterparty risk in centrally cleared derivative transactions (A9-0399/2023 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (vote)
90










15.7.

Increasing the attractiveness of public capital markets and facilitating access to capital for SMEs – amending certain Regulations (A9-0302/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
90










15.8.

Increasing the attractiveness of public capital markets and facilitating access to capital for SMEs – amending Directive (A9-0303/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
90










15.9.

Multiple-vote share structures in companies that seek the admission to trading of their shares on an SME growth market (A9-0300/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
90










15.10.

Standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application (A9-0250/2023 - Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé) (vote)
90










15.11.

Managed security services (A9-0307/2023 - Josianne Cutajar) (vote)
91










15.12.

Cyber Solidarity Act (A9-0426/2023 - Lina Gálvez Muñoz) (vote)
91










15.13.

European Union labour market statistics on businesses (A9-0054/2024 - Irene Tinagli) (vote)
92










15.14.

Amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards the scope of the rules for benchmarks, the use in the Union of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third country, and certain reporting requirements (A9-0076/2024 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
92










15.15.

Surface water and groundwater pollutants (A9-0238/2023 - Milan Brglez) (vote)
92










15.16.

EuroHPC initiative for start-ups to boost European leadership in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (A9-0161/2024 - Maria da Graça Carvalho) (vote)
92










15.17.

Company law – Further expanding an upgrading the use of digital tools and processes (A9-0394/2023 - Emil Radev) (vote)
92










15.18.

Statistics on population and housing (A9-0284/2023 - Irena Joveva) (vote)
92










15.19.

Amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks (A9-0029/2023 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
93










15.20.

Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (A9-0030/2023 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
93










15.21.

The sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (A9-0150/2023 - Luděk Niedermayer, Paul Tang) (vote)
93










15.22.

Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (A9-0151/2023 - Eero Heinäluoma, Damien Carême) (vote)
93










15.23.

Establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (A9-0128/2023 - Eva Maria Poptcheva, Emil Radev) (vote)
93










15.24.

Ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Hungary to strengthen Rule of Law and its budgetary implications (B9-0223/2024) (vote)
93










16.

Resumption of the sitting
94










17.

La Hulpe declaration on the future of social Europe (debate)
94










18.

Forging a sustainable future together: economic, social and territorial challenges for a competitive, cohesive and inclusive Europe (debate)
105










19.

Recent attempts to deny dictatorships and the risk of Europe returning to totalitarianism (debate)
113










20.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
121










20.1.

Azerbaijan, notably the repression of civil society and the cases of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and Ilhamiz Guliyev
121










20.2.

The proposed repeal of the law banning female genital mutilation in The Gambia
125










20.3.

The new security law in Hong Kong and the cases of Andy Li and Joseph John
129










21.

The anti-LGBTIQ bill passed by the Ghanaian parliament with implications for human rights, freedom of expression and democratic principles (debate)
131










22.

Advance passenger information: enhancing and facilitating external border controls – Advance passenger information: prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (joint debate – Advance passenger information)
133










23.

Explanations of vote
138










23.1.

Ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Hungary to strengthen Rule of Law and its budgetary implications (B9-0223/2024)
138










23.2.

Combating violence against women and domestic violence (A9-0234/2023 - Evin Incir, Frances Fitzgerald)
139










24.

Agenda of the next sitting
139










25.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
139










26.

Closure of the sitting
139




Verbatim report of proceedings of 24 April 2024
                  


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.02 Uhr eröffnet)

2.   Proposals for Union acts

Der Präsident. – Ich möchte Ihnen mitteilen, dass die Präsidentin gemäß Artikel 47 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung zwei Vorschläge für einen Rechtsakt der Union für zulässig erklärt hat.
               

                  Der eine (B9-0196/2024) über die Notwendigkeit, das derzeitige Verbot des Schleppnetzfischerei in europäischen Gewässern auszusetzen, eingereicht von Jorge Buxadé Villalba und drei weiteren Mitgliedern. Dieser Vorschlag wird an den Fischereiausschuss als zuständigen Ausschuss und an den Ausschuss für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit als mitberatenden Ausschuss überwiesen.
               

                  Der andere (B9-0204/2024), eingereicht von denselben Mitgliedern, über die Aussetzung des Abkommens zwischen der EU und Marokko über gegenseitige Liberalisierungsmaßnahmen für landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse und Fischereierzeugnisse. Dieser Vorschlag wird an den Ausschuss für internationalen Handel als zuständigen Ausschuss und den Ausschuss für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung, den Ausschuss für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit sowie den Fischereiausschuss als mitberatende Ausschüsse überwiesen.
               
3.   Iran's unprecedented attack against Israel, the need for de-escalation and an EU response (debate)

Der Präsident. – 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 Irans beispiellosem Angriff auf Israel und der Notwendigkeit einer Deeskalation und einer Reaktion der EU (2024/2704(RSP)).
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, we are here to discuss the Iranians' attack on Israel and the need for de-escalation, and our response to these events.
On 13 April, Iran's attack against Israel was unprecedented. It never happened before. It is the first time that Iran directly attacked Israel from its territory, with hundreds of drones and missiles. All this without forgetting the Israeli attack that preceded it, and we also condemned that when it happened.
This aerial attack represents a major escalation of an already very tense situation in the region, where we have witnessed dangerous games of attacks and retaliations, retaliations and attacks. And I want to use the same words that United Nations Secretary-General Guterres used at the Security Council. He said, the region ‘is at the edge of an abyss’.
Estamos al borde de un abismo, dijo el Secretario General. No son palabras huecas.
Ciertamente, esta continua interacción bélica conduce a la región y, con ella, a todos nosotros a una situación muy peligrosa. Ahora, últimamente, parece que nos hemos movido un poco desde el borde del abismo después de que se fueran produciendo explosiones en Isfahán, Irán. Pero ninguno de los dos lados, ni Israel ni Irán, utilizó estas explosiones como un elemento nuevo de escalada. Pero este riesgo existe todavía y nuestra obligación es llamar a la contención para que la escalada no aumente el nivel de riesgo.
Es una situación muy volátil, también en la frontera norte —entre Israel y Hezbolá—, donde hemos visto al Líbano otra vez en una situación muy frágil. Las Naciones Unidas advierten de que cualquier cálculo erróneo por una de las dos partes puede provocar otro conflicto.
En todo caso, el nivel de intercambio de fuego en la frontera del Líbano ha alcanzado niveles que no se veían desde 2006. Los veintisiete líderes de la Unión Europea —y nosotros también en el ámbito de los ministros de Asuntos Exteriores— hemos enviado un mensaje…
We the European Union, together with the Member states, we have taken a strong stance asking all actors in the region to move away from this abyss, the abyss that the Secretary-General was mentioning. We discussed it at the foreign ministers level on Monday. We all clearly condemn the Iranian attack and confirm our commitment to the security of Israel.
There is a political consensus to suspend the existing sanctions against Iran. The foreign affairs ministers in June were meeting together with the defence ministers. It took a political agreement that will be implemented in the next days.
You know that to use the sanctions regime that we already have – because from time to time, people ask for something that we already have – we have a sanctions regime against Iran for providing drones to Russia. The sanctions regime can now be used to sanction the production and potential transfer of missiles from Iran to Russia – I am saying the potential transfer, but also the production itself – and also to target Iranian delivery of such weapons in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. You know what I'm talking about in the Red Sea region. We have a navy mission to try to protect the freedom of navigation.
Let me add that sanctions are an important tool, and we have used them to send a clear message to Iran about the dangerous proliferation activities, aiming at the destabilisation of the region. However, I think that we have to understand that sanctions alone are not a policy. Sanctions are tools of a policy, and sanctions alone cannot deter Iran. This should be evident after years and years of international sanctions. Iran is, together with North Korea, the most sanctioned country in the world.
Sanctions alone cannot solve the risk of escalation, and a place has to be given to diplomacy. Diplomatic action has to be equally important. I think this is a moment for diplomacy, to deploy maximum diplomatic efforts, to act to calm down the situation, and to ask everybody to play their part.
EU Member States were in touch with key actors because the EU keeps open channels with all sides. That's what we talked about at the G7 meeting, the ministers of foreign affairs meeting in Capri some days ago. And as you know, I am regularly in touch with the Iranian Foreign Minister in order to stress to him how deplorable are these attacks and warning that we are closer to a full regional conflict.
In the past days, we also coordinated our efforts to reach out to Israel, to show restraint and to add up the Gulf countries to use their influence. We had a meeting with the ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Luxembourg – I think it was on Monday night, and immediately afterwards I came to Strasbourg to share with you the debate. This was an important occasion for the ministers of foreign affairs of the 27 and the ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council states to exchange about the situation in the Middle East.
The spiral of attacks on counterattacks might have slowed down – that's very good news – but the situation remains unstable and dangerous.
Finally, while we pay all the necessary attention to the Iranian attack on Israel and the risk of escalation, let's not forget what's going on in Gaza. You listen to the news. You read the news. Gaza remains at the epicentre of the regional tensions. It's the focus which is sending shockwaves around the region and around the world. Gaza remains at the epicentre of the regional tension, and it will be like this as long as the war continues, and more fundamentally that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not resolved.
So we have to be able to build peace and stability in the region, taking into account all the conflicts that are developing there, taking into account our absolute commitment to the defence and existence of Israel, but also taking into account the high human cost of the conflicts which are raging there.
The European voice has to be the voice of reason –trying to decrease the many humanitarian sufferings and look for a stable peace that, from our point of view, can only be obtained through a political process that leads to a two-state solution. But this is another story.

Der Präsident. – Meine Damen und Herren, dies ist eine wichtige Debatte. Dieser Wichtigkeit wurde durch Entscheidungen der Konferenz der Präsidenten über den zeitlichen Rahmen Ausdruck verliehen. Ich möchte alle bitten, sich an die Redezeit zu halten, die Ihnen von der Fraktion zugeteilt worden ist.
               

Rasa Juknevičienė,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, a few more general remarks. Why did Iran dare to attack Israel directly for the first time in history? I see two reasons: the first is deteriorating situation in Ukraine on the Eastern front and Russia's factor, the second is the lack of political will and leadership on the Western front, Washington, DC, including. In the eyes of the terrorist alliance of dictators, the US looks weakened. That is the reason why they raise their heads and attack. This is why recent decisions in the US Congress are of existential significance.
The democratic world is entering a period of political vacuum because of presidential elections in the US, European Parliament elections here in Europe. The political vacuum is a test for democracy in general and a temptation for terrorist states. However, it is not those who win this year's elections who will be mentioned in the history books, but those who fail to defeat the terrorist Russia, Iran, North Korea and others, even though they had every chance.
I still believe that we, the European Union, together with our allies, we can – that our leaders can go down in history as the ones who managed to overcome bloody regimes.

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, la espiral de acción- reacción en la que viven Israel e Irán supone un salto hacia un escenario de guerra regional que hay que frenar. La diplomacia debe imponerse ante una retórica belicista que no aporta solución y que solo generaría más miedo, más muerte y más destrucción.
               

                  Ante estos escenarios la Unión Europea debe permanecer unida. Estamos comprometidos con la seguridad de Israel ante un ataque de Irán, y no hay mejor manera que demostrar nuestra firmeza ante el régimen de los ayatolás que ampliar las sanciones contra su sistema de misiles y contra sus aliados en Oriente Próximo.
               

                  Señorías, nuestro compromiso con la defensa de Israel no puede ni debe ser incompatible con nuestra firmeza ante el Gobierno de Netanyahu por el horror que impone a Gaza desde hace medio año. Desde el salvaje ataque terrorista de Hamás todo ha ido a peor en Gaza. Más de 33 000 muertes, un millón y medio de personas hacinadas en Rafah, 17 000 menores que deambulan solos por las calles de Gaza huyendo de los bombardeos, más de 200 trabajadores humanitarios y más de 100 periodistas asesinados, más de un millón de personas en riesgo extremo de desnutrición por el uso del hambre como arma de guerra.
               

                  Señorías, ¿qué más tiene que ocurrir en Gaza para que la Unión Europea redoble la presión para poner fin a un conflicto que pagan en sangre los palestinos? No es suficiente la apertura de algún paso a Gaza. La entrada de alimentos en la franja debe ser inmediata para evitar la hambruna. Y no menos urgente es un alto el fuego que acabe con la masacre de la población palestina, que se permita la liberación de los rehenes en manos de Hamás y conduzca a la apertura de una negociación internacional para un futuro en paz.
               

                  En Gaza también está en juego el Derecho internacional. Está en juego la manera en la que las sociedades viven libremente y con dignidad. Hagamos oír nuestra voz para que Netanyahu cumpla con la resolución del Consejo de Seguridad que le exige un alto el fuego y para que la comunidad internacional cumpla con el embargo de venta de armas a Israel que ha pedido el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas.
               

                  Señor Borrell, usted es el alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad y vicepresidente de la Comisión que hizo realidad el despertar geopolítico de la Unión Europea. Es el líder que hizo posible que la Unión Europea hable el lenguaje del poder. Ahora tenemos la oportunidad histórica de hacer valer nuestro peso. La Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros tienen en sus manos el poder de forzar a una solución. Tenemos a nuestro alcance lo más noble a lo que cualquier pueblo puede aspirar: la paz. La paz que la humanidad tiene pendiente con los pueblos palestino e israelí.
               

Bart Groothuis,
namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, dat Rusland, China en Iran samen op weg zijn om een blok te vormen tegen het onze wordt ondertussen breed onderkend en het is dé kwestie van onze tijd. Vandaag is het de beurt aan Iran.
               

                  Ik wil de corapporteurs bedanken voor de eensgezindheid waarmee dit huis gisteravond in de onderhandelingen opriep tot het plaatsen van de Revolutionaire Garde op de EU-terreurlijst. Wanneer je op Europees grondgebied dertig jaar lang terreur zaait, dan heeft dat consequenties. Maar ook met betrekking tot de unanieme oproep om het Iraanse vrijheidslievende volk in Europa beter te beschermen – ook digitaal – is er veel werk aan de winkel.
               

                  In wezen, mijnheer Borrell, rekent dit Parlement af met uw beleid. Veel van wat in deze resolutie staat, had allang gebeurd moeten zijn. Een wijs Chinees spreekwoord luidt: het beste moment om een boom te planten is dertig jaar geleden. Het een-na-beste moment is vandaag. Zet dus vandaag nog de Islamitische Revolutionaire Garde op de EU-terrorismelijst. Stop de export van hightechmiddelen die in wapens tegen Oekraïne en Israël hun weg vinden. Straf mensenrechtenschenders. Maak een vuist voor het Iraanse volk, tegen autocraten.
               

Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Mr Borrell, last week, the Iranian regime celebrated its first direct strike on Israel, and it continuously violates vital provisions of the nuclear agreement.

                  ‘Sit and wait’ is no option and more diplomacy alone will not be enough. We urgently need to work on a plan B: a regional security architecture which addresses the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and preparedness for new attacks by the Iranian regime.
Frankly said, what more does this regime have to do until you finally wake up to the harsh realities? The IRGC is a terror organisation and it should be designated as such. The drones and missiles attacking Israel and our ships in the Red Sea are manufactured in Iran, and we should have sanctioned all those involved in that months ago.
Last but not least, the regime is not legitimately representing the people of Iran, and you should stop pretending it would. All these demands are included in our joint resolutions and we expect you to finally implement them.
Dear colleagues, the Middle East today is just a dangerous miscalculation away from an all-out war. It is on everyone – everyone – to stop repression and work towards de-escalation. And there are so many in the region who want nothing more than peace and an end to the suffering: babies being born orphans after airstrikes; families living in horror whilst seeking refuge from bombs night after night; tormented hostages unable to hear the voices of their loved ones; and so much more.
There are strongmen on all sides – Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah – in Israel as well as in Iran that benefit from the recent escalation. It is our collective responsibility, together with the US and regional actors, to move from this deadly balance of deterrence towards a peace-seeking balance of humanity, dear colleagues.

Charlie Weimers,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Mr Borrell, you're a liar. For a year, you've claimed that in order for the EU to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror organisation, a national authority in the EU must have found the IRGC has been involved in terrorist activity. That is nonsense!
Here I have the Council's secret legal opinion. Nowhere in this document does it say that it has to be an authority in the EU. In fact, the term ‘competent authority’ also includes authorities of third states.
High Representative, you had this document. You knew the truth. You shamelessly lied to protect the IRGC. We won't miss you, Mr Borrell, but I'm sure the mullahs will.

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Weimers. Herr Kollege Weimers, die Verwendung des Ausdruckes ‘Lügner’ ist unparlamentarisch, und ich rufe Sie deshalb zur Ordnung.
               

Marco Campomenosi,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Alto rappresentante grazie per essere qua, siamo all'ultima sessione plenaria di questa legislatura e tante delle cose che ho ascoltato in Aula oggi, le abbiamo già ripetute tante volte.
               

                  È stato citato il fatto che quest'Aula ha chiesto di mettere i pasdaran nell'elenco delle organizzazioni terroristiche. La Commissione si è rifiutata di agire in questo senso. Capisco alcune delle ragioni però, se siamo in questa situazione, non è perché oggi ci dobbiamo dividere tra chi sostiene Israele e chi sostiene la popolazione di Gaza. Io sostengo Israele, ma non è questo l'oggetto del nostro dibattito, è il comprendere come mai ci sia ancora in quell'area qualcuno che abbia tutto l'interesse a destabilizzare e ad allargare il conflitto.
               

                  Perché il primo obiettivo del regime iraniano è quello di distrarre quella parte di popolazione che ancora lo sostiene dalla repressione dei giovani, delle giovani donne e dei giovani uomini, che in questi anni con coraggio si sono opposti. C'è il tema dello scontro tra il mondo sunnita e il mondo sciita, che è stato anche magari poco analizzato. Ci sono i bombardamenti nel Belucistan, ci sono i bombardamenti e le influenze sul governo iracheno, sul popolo curdo, sui curdi iracheni. I miei amici che vivono ad Erbil mi hanno raccontato di cose molto gravi accadute lì.
               

                  È un conflitto perpetuo, ma è anche un simbolo di debolezza, perché il regime iraniano uccide molti musulmani. Dice di voler difendere gli interessi dei palestinesi, ma uccide tanti musulmani, ricordiamocelo.
               

Martin Schirdewan,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! Die Zuspitzung des Konflikts zwischen Israel und dem Iran hat die Weltgemeinschaft an den Rand eines neuen großen Krieges geführt, und die Gefahr einer weiteren Eskalation ist noch längst nicht gebannt. Das Regime der Mullahs im Iran verfolgt eine Politik der Vernichtung Israels und muss in diesem antisemitischen Wahnsinn gestoppt werden. Nach innen werden alle fortschrittlichen Kräfte brutal unterdrückt. Willkürliche Verhaftungen, die Hinrichtung Gefangener, Gewalt gegen die protestierenden Frauen sind Alltag.
               

                  Das Massaker der Hamas am 7. Oktober markiert den Tag, an dem die meisten Jüdinnen und Juden seit dem Holocaust getötet wurden. Doch der folgende Gazakrieg und die menschenrechtswidrige Kriegsführung der rechten Regierung Netanjahu hat zu einer absoluten humanitären Katastrophe geführt, ohne die Menschen in Israel und Palästina einem Leben in Frieden und Sicherheit in irgendeiner Form näher zu bringen. Parallel zu einem sofortigen Waffenstillstand im Gazakrieg, humanitärer Hilfe für die palästinensische Zivilbevölkerung und der Freilassung der Geiseln der Hamas braucht es deshalb endlich eine Wiederbelebung des politischen Prozesses. Nur so können wir langfristig die Gewalt und das Sterben in der Region beenden, den Menschen in Gaza und im Westjordanland eine Perspektive geben und antisemitischen Organisationen wie der Hamas das Wasser abgraben.
               

                  Ich fordere daher die Bundesregierung im Rahmen einer EU-Initiative zur Anerkennung eines palästinensischen Staates auf. Neben einem sicheren und souveränen Israel muss es ein sicheres und souveränes Palästina geben.
               

Kinga Gál (NI). – Elnök Úr! Határozottan elítéljük Irán Izrael ellen indított rakétatámadását. Ez azzal a veszéllyel jár, hogy a Közel-Kelet háborús zónává alakul, államok közötti háborúvá, súlyos fenyegetést jelentve Európa biztonságára.
               

                  A legfontosabb most a helyzet súlyosbodásának megakadályozása. Mindenkinek az az érdeke, hogy ez a konfliktus ne borítsa lángba az egész térséget. Ehhez minden fél részéről önmérsékletre van szükség. Magyarország elkötelezett Izrael biztonsága iránt, és a régió stabilitása mellett lép fel a nemzetközi fórumokon.
               

                  Egy kiterjedő háború katasztrofális következményekkel járó migrációs hullámot indítana el Európa irányába. Ezért sürgős többek között a libanoni helyzet, valamint a szíriai menekültkérdés rendezése is. Ahogy az Unió stratégiai érdeke a biztonságos környezet fenntartása a Földközi-tengeren. Európa és benne hazánk biztonságának záloga a Közel-Kelet békéje és stabilitása, ahogy a mielőbbi béke a szomszédunkban is. Ezért mi a béke pártján állunk.
               

David McAllister (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Hoher Vertreter, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Vor zwei Wochen haben die Mullahs alle Tabus gebrochen. Israel ist akut bedroht. Im Nahen Osten hat eine neue Zeitrechnung begonnen. Der Iran ist endgültig aus dem Schatten seiner Proxys getreten. Die einzige Demokratie in der Region ringt um ihre Existenz, und die Gefahr eines regionalen Krieges ist greifbar. Schlimmeres konnte nur deshalb verhindert werden, weil Israel eine exzellente Luftabwehr hat und weil Israel unterstützt wurde von Partnern wie den USA, Großbritannien, Jordanien und unserem Mitgliedstaat Frankreich. Ich finde, all dies erfordert eine konsequente europäische Reaktion. Die EU muss endlich zu einer Iranpolitik finden, die das Regime in Teheran als das behandelt, was es ist: ein Drahtzieher des Terrors im Nahen Osten. Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?
               

                  Herr Borrell, wir haben uns am Donnerstagvormittag im Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über die Lage unterrichten lassen, und ich möchte die Diskussion wie folgt zusammenfassen: Viele Kollegen, auch ich, haben begrüßt, dass es weitere Sanktionen gegen den Iran geben wird. Sie müssen schnell umgesetzt werden. Aber zahlreiche Kollegen haben auch aus ganz unterschiedlichen Fraktionen ihr Bedauern zum Ausdruck gebracht, dass die islamischen Revolutionsgarden nach wie vor nicht auf der Terrorliste der Europäischen Union stehen. Hier müssen wir dringend handeln.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, nakon više od 200 dana od terorističkog napada Hamasa na Izrael katastrofalnu humanitarnu situaciju u Gazi očito će trebati dodatno rješavati i hitnim smirivanjem novih sukoba koji izbijaju širom regije.
               

                  Kronično očajno stanje na Bliskom istoku sve više opterećuje umiješanost iranskih proksija koji djeluju u državama poput Libanona i Jemena. Međutim, ono što u ovom regionalnom okršaju zaista može dovesti do prijetnji globalnoj sigurnosti jest eskalacija napetosti između Irana i Izraela koje su kulminirale izraelskim napadom na iranski konzulat u Damasku, odgovorom Irana masovnim protunapadom bez presedana i, konačno, osvetničkom reakcijom Izraela prošlog tjedna.
               

                  Izrael i Iran moraju zaustaviti spiralu daljnjeg sukobljavanja jer to može samo pogoršati ionako teške sigurnosne prilike i kronično loše odnose u regiji. Upravo zato u ovakvom kontekstu ne možemo i ne smijemo biti pasivni promatrači. Očekujemo od europskih lidera djelotvornije zalaganje kako bi se smirila situacija. Svakodnevne slike užasa koji dolaze iz regije dokazi su katastrofe na koju smo odavno trebali reagirati, jedinstveno i odlučno.
               

                  Zaključno, početni korak je deeskalacija. U tom procesu Europska unija mora imati ključnu ulogu i ne smije iznevjeriti očekivanja. Uspjeh bi paralelno ojačao ideju o geopolitički utjecajnijoj Uniji, a to je projekt koji mora biti nastavljen i u sljedećem mandatu Komisije i Parlamenta.
               

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, il y a un paradoxe auquel je ne peux me résoudre et auquel je vous demande de ne plus laisser libre cours. À entendre certains discours politiques, tous les pays du monde auraient droit à la légitime défense – tous sauf Israël. Le 7 octobre, les terroristes du Hamas ont tué, mutilé, violé et pris en otages des civils parce qu'ils étaient juifs. On a pourtant entendu une députée de la France insoumise parler d'actes de résistance. Le 13 avril, l'Iran a bombardé Israël à coups de missiles et de drones. On a pourtant vu le Parti socialiste français appeler à un embargo sur les armes vis-à-vis d'Israël. Depuis toujours, la Syrie de Bachar el-Assad est hostile à Israël. Pourtant, le Rassemblement national soutient aveuglément le régime de Damas.
               

                  Qu'ont en commun le Hamas, le Hezbollah, les Houthis, les milices chiites iraquiennes et la Syrie? Leur soumission à l'Iran, leur rôle systématiquement déstabilisateur et leur haine d'Israël. Téhéran et ses auxiliaires multiplient les provocations. Aujourd'hui, éviter l'escalade au Moyen-Orient, c'est passer un message de fermeté à Téhéran. Les Gardiens de la révolution doivent être désignés comme entité terroriste et des sanctions sévères doivent être prises contre les fabricants de drones et de missiles qui sèment la peur en Israël. (Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, avec cette résolution, nous avions une occasion rare, une occasion rêvée pour sortir du ‘deux poids deux mesures’. Oui, notre honneur est de condamner avec fermeté le régime iranien. Mais nous aurions dû condamner avec la même force, avec le même engagement, le comportement du gouvernement de Netanyahou. Nous sommes passés à côté de cette occasion.
               

                  Ce qui doit primer pour les Européens, ce qui doit primer pour nous, parlementaires européens, c'est notre action pour la paix, c'est la désescalade. Nous n'avons pas le droit d'être timides dans l'exigence d'une désescalade dans la région. Si la région s'embrase, si l'attaque disproportionnée d'Israël va au-delà et touche les pays limitrophes, ce serait une catastrophe pour la région. Ce serait une catastrophe pour le monde et pour la paix que nous avons tellement chérie.
               

                  Alors il est encore temps de se rattraper et d'appeler de manière ferme, dans cette résolution, à un cessez-le-feu, condition préalable à la sortie de l'embrasement. (Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur)


Assita Kanko (ECR). – Voorzitter, hoeveel in de EU geproduceerde componenten werden gebruikt voor de bouw van de raketten die verleden week op Israël werden afgevuurd? Het heeft van november vorig jaar tot deze week geduurd voordat jullie tot actie zijn gekomen wat betreft het verbod op de levering aan Iran van componenten voor de bouw van ballistische raketten. Het bleef altijd bij intenties, maar die intenties beschermen niemand en maken de EU irrelevant.
               

                  De steun van Iran aan Hamas was blijkbaar niet alarmerend genoeg. Wat moest Iran nog doen opdat de EU op tijd in actie zou schieten en meer zou doen dan praten? Samenwerken met Noord-Korea bleek ook niet dreigend genoeg. De bedreiging van de vrije doorvaart in de Rode Zee en de gijzeling van bemanningsleden bleken ook niet genoeg. Zware mensenrechtenschendingen met alleen al in 2023 achthonderd executies evenmin.
               

                  Voor mij is het allang duidelijk wat had moeten gebeuren. De overeengekomen bijkomende sancties zijn welgekomen, maar rijkelijk laat en onvoldoende. Kwalificeer de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde als terreurorganisatie. Anders is het alsof je zelf drones aan Rusland had geleverd of die raketten zelf op Israël had afgevuurd.
               

Anders Vistisen (ID). – Hr. formand! EU har i årtier ageret som Irans nyttige idioter. I årtier har man set til, mens Iran dag for dag er kommet tættere på at udvikle atomvåben. I årtier har man ladet Iran diktere en islamistisk bevægelse uden at sætte foden ned. I dette hus tog det år, før man overhovedet ville anerkende, at Hamas er en terrororganisation. Selv i dag kan det debatteres i EU, om den iranske revolutionsgarde med al dens våbenhjælp fra Syrien til Yemen, til Hizbollah i Libanon og Hamas i Palæstina, er en terrorbevægelse.
               

                  Forestil sig, at man her i EU har en såkaldt høj repræsentant for udenrigsanliggender. En mand, der tror sig selv som EU's udenrigsminister, der går mere op i at kritisere det eneste demokratiske land i regionen, Israel, end han går op i at begrænse indflydelsen fra det islamiske Iran. Og Iran slår jo ikke kun til i Mellemøsten. Vi har eksempler i Frankrig, i Danmark, i masser af europæiske lande på, at Iran har forsøgt at ramme os med terror. Nogle gange er det endda lykkedes. Vi ved, at Iran virker her på kontinentet gennem bevægelser som Det Muslimske Broderskab og Hizb ut-Tahrir ved at sprede islamismens sygdom i Europa. Og alligevel gør vi ingenting. Vi er islamismens nyttige idioter.
               

Cornelia Ernst (The Left). – Herr Präsident! Der Nahe Osten, in dem 350 Millionen Menschen leben, ist ein Schmelztiegel der Konflikte unserer Zeit. Wer hier einen Krieg beginnt, provoziert den Flächenbrand. Und dafür steht die Ermordung und Entführung israelischer Zivilisten durch die Hamas und der beispiellose iranische Drohnenangriff auf Israel genauso wie die Vertreibung und Tötung so vieler Palästinenser in Gaza durch Israel und die Beschießung eines Konsulats. Die EU muss deshalb Druck auf alle, wirklich alle Parteien ausüben, mit der archaischen Vergeltungspolitik aufzuhören.
               

                  Zweitens die demokratische iranische Opposition konsequent unterstützen. Denn so richtig und wichtig gezielte Sanktionen sind, der Wandel im Iran braucht eine starke Zivilgesellschaft.
               

                  Und drittens: Israel muss dazu gedrängt werden, den widerlichen Krieg in Gaza endlich zu beenden. Es braucht massive Hilfe, es braucht Wiederaufbau für Gaza und die Zweistaatenlösung.
               

                  Der Nahe Osten braucht einen Neuanfang. Der erste Schritt muss heißen: Die Waffen nieder!
               

Sabrina Pignedoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vogliamo parlare di de-escalation in quest'Aula? Allora dobbiamo farlo ammettendo che l'Unione europea ha avuto un ruolo preciso nell'escalation militare in Medio Oriente per quello che non ha fatto, per l'inerzia con cui è rimasta a guardare decenni di diritto internazionale calpestato da parte di Israele che sta massacrando impunemente un intero popolo.
               

                  C'è un genocidio in atto e non siamo nemmeno capaci di interrompere un accordo di associazione. Questo ovviamente legittima qualsiasi altra nazione, compreso l'Iran, a violare il diritto internazionale, avviando una spirale di guerra. Quando accordi internazionali vengono trascurati o violati impunemente, ci troviamo di fronte a una grave delegittimazione delle istituzioni che sostengono la nostra convivenza pacifica globale.
               

                  L'Unione europea deve avere una posizione decisa. Dobbiamo insistere sul rispetto del diritto internazionale e valutare l'introduzione di sanzioni adeguate contro qualsiasi governo che violi norme, compreso Israele. Questo non è solo un dovere giuridico, ma un imperativo morale che sottolinea il nostro impegno verso la giustizia e la pace mondiale. Grazie a Josep Borrell per il lavoro che sta facendo per la Palestina.
               

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Mr President, gone are the days when some naive politicians in Europe and America thought that they could sit down with the ayatollahs, leave some sanctions, and think that the Iranian regime would no longer pose a threat to us.
Iran is a country that supplies the weapons that Putin's regime is using daily against the Ukrainian population. It is a regime that sanctions Members of the European Parliament. It is a regime that orders assassinations on European soil against those who dare to denounce them, like our friend and former Vice-President of the Parliament, Alejo Vidal-Quadras.
It is a regime that kills, tortures and oppresses those who bravely decide to participate in peaceful protests. It is a supporter of terrorist organisations in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Iraq, Yemen. It is an unreliable, autocratic government that is clearly trying to make a fool of us by continuing to pursue the development of nuclear military technology.
It is time to illegalise the Revolutionary Guard. It is time we change our approach and stay against the threat, together, of the Iranian regime.

Елена Йончева (S&D). – Г-н Председател, ще говоря на български. Уважаеми г-н Борел, колеги, Европа трябва да е лидер в инициативата за постигане на мир в Близкия изток. За огромно съжаление конфликтът се разраства и застрашава както интересите на Европейския съюз, така и сигурността на европейските граждани. Конкретен пример са дръзките атаки на йеменските хути в Червено море и взетите за заложници преди шест месеца трима европейски граждани – двама българи и един румънец.
               

                  Европейският съюз не може да остави тази битка на държавите членки. Ако говорим за лидерство, то трябва да проличи точно на терена на дипломацията със силна и с много проактивна позиция. Г-н Борел, тук опираме и до двойните стандарти. Дали ако това бяха граждани на по-големи европейски държави, щеше да се стигне дотук? Това подкопава доверието в Европейския съюз и неговите възможности да защити всички европейски граждани без разлика от тяхната националност. Обръщам се към Вас, господин Борел.
               

                  Monsieur Borrell, j'espère que vous allez soutenir une initiative diplomatique menée par l'Union européenne en vue de la libération des otages. J'invite la Commission à donner la priorité aux efforts diplomatiques, sans délai. Je vous remercie par avance pour votre réponse.
               

Guy Verhofstadt (Renew). – Mr President, colleagues, I think this is my fourth debate, Mr Borrell, about Iran with you and every time the conclusion is the same: we don't like your strategy. We want you to change your strategy. Your strategy of diplomacy and appeasement leads to nothing at all; it does nothing at all.
And you are saying, ‘no, no, no, we did sanctions’. What sanctions did we do? Only 3 or 5 people. How many? You can tell us. I think it was 3, 4 or 5 – simply for exporting weapons to Russia.
So this Parliament asks you to change the strategy, based on real sanctions against the leadership of Iran first. Secondly, recognise the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. I don't understand why you don't do it.
And finally, don't continue with diplomacy towards the regime. It's time to recognise the opposition and to have direct contacts with them. They are the real representatives of the Iranian people.

Francisco Guerreiro (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Alto Representante, tal como a instabilidade entre a Palestina e Israel não começou no 7 de outubro, também a instabilidade no Médio Oriente não começou com o ataque de Israel ao consulado em Damasco, com a resposta irresponsável e criminosa do Irão a Israel recentemente.
               

                  Recordemo-nos de que o Ocidente foi cúmplice de um golpe de Estado no Irão em 1953, com a deposição de Mohamed Mossadegh, que levou à imposição de um regime brutal e tirano do Xá que deu na Revolução Islâmica em 1979. E, hoje em dia, temos esse resultado da diplomacia do Ocidente.
               

                  Portanto, além das sanções, temos de ter duas grandes ações: apoiar os movimentos democráticos que querem estabelecer no Irão regimes democráticos e seculares e também garantir que o conflito entre Israel e Palestina termina, garantindo um processo de paz que crie dois Estados que vivam pacificamente, lado a lado.
               

                  Gostaria de só dizer que o nosso colega da extrema-direita chamou criminoso a um alto representante das instituições europeias, fez o seu TikTok e saiu para não ouvir a resposta. É típico da extrema-direita fazer vídeos para TikTok e depois sair e não ouvir resposta de ninguém.
               

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, aquí muchos se sorprenden de la posición del señor Borrell respecto a Irán, que, en un momento como el actual, realmente responde casi atacando a Israel, más que hablando de lo que sucede con el ataque iraní.
               

                  Yo les voy a decir que hace cinco años Borrell escribía un hilo en Twitter. Era el 11 de febrero de 2019 —todavía no habíamos tenido la mala idea de tenerlo aquí como alto representante de la política exterior— y en él hacía un canto a la Revolución Islámica en su cuadragésimo aniversario, hablando de todos los progresos sociales que se habían producido en la República Islámica. No hay en los siete tuits ni una palabra de crítica a un régimen que ya había matado a decenas de miles de iraníes, había asaltado a la región y es uno de los máximos enemigos, no solo de Israel —que promete destruirlo—, sino de toda la región. Esto puede explicar muchas cosas aquí.
               

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Nicht nur heute, bei meinem letzten Redebeitrag im Europäischen Parlament, stehe ich hier als freier Abgeordneter und nicht als Vertreter der AfD-Delegation, insbesondere auch, weil der Anlass der feige und hinterhältige Drohnen- und Raketenangriff des terroristischen iranischen Mullah-Regimes auf Israel ist. Aber nicht nur die AfD, sondern auch die EU: Europa muss begreifen, dass der Angriff Irans auf Israel und der Angriff Putins auf die Ukraine nur zwei Seiten ein und derselben Medaille sind. Dennoch ist die Bereitschaft, sich an die Seite Israels zu stellen, hier oft nur zögerlich ausgeprägt.
               

                  Daher ist für mich das Bekenntnis der EU-Außenminister zur Sicherheit Israels nur als halbherzig zu bezeichnen, und es ist sehr enttäuschend. Herr Borrell, das Epizentrum ist nicht Gaza, sondern der Terroranschlag am 7. Oktober auf Israel. Und die iranischen Revolutionsgarden sind eine terroristische Organisation. Natürlich sind die beschlossenen Verschärfungen der Sanktionen richtig. Aber will man wirklich im Nahen Osten stabilisierend wirken, müssen die Staaten unterstützt werden, die Israel Hilfe gewähren bei seiner Verteidigung.
               

                  Sich den westlichen Werten zu verschreiben, muss sich lohnen. Und am wichtigsten: Es braucht die feste Entschlossenheit, das iranische Nuklearprogramm zu stoppen. Atomwaffen in den Händen dieser Mullahs werden sich früher oder später nicht nur gegen Israel, sondern gegen uns alle richten.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vous demandez de nouvelles sanctions contre l'Iran parce que l'Iran a clairement violé le droit international en répliquant à la destruction de son consulat par Israël. Mais pourquoi alors n'appelez-vous pas à des sanctions contre Israël quand celui-ci bombarde la Syrie et le Liban, des hôpitaux à Gaza, un consulat iranien ou quand des missiles israéliens tombent même en Iraq?
               

                  Vous appelez terroriste une partie de l'armée iranienne, mais parlerez-vous aussi de terrorisme d'état de la part de l'armée israélienne? Vous avez envoyé des jets, des avions de chasse européens, pour protéger les bases militaires israéliennes. Mais en six mois, aucun enfant palestinien n'a mérité votre protection. Aucun. Est-ce qu'une base militaire israélienne vaut plus que la vie de 15 000 enfants palestiniens?
               

                  Alors soit le droit international vaut pour tous de la même façon, soit nous sombrons dans un monde où règne la loi du plus fort et le chaos. Nous n'avons rien à gagner là-dedans. Et votre ‘deux poids, deux mesures’ est en train de torpiller à une vitesse inouïe le peu de crédibilité qui restait encore à l'Union européenne sur la scène internationale. Franchement, nous ne pouvons pas continuer comme cela.
               

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


Assita Kanko (ECR),
question ‘carton bleu’
                     . – Cher collègue, j'aimerais juste vous poser la question suivante: comment qualifieriez-vous le Hamas? Selon vous, quel genre d'organisation est-ce? Et à votre avis, de quelle manière l'UNRWA participe-t-elle au terrorisme dans la bande de Gaza? Et enfin, selon vous, quel rôle l'Iran a-t-il joué dans le massacre qui a eu lieu en Israël le 7 octobre, et à la place d'Israël, qu'auriez-vous fait et que diriez-vous aux juifs d'Europe et du monde entier?
               

Marc Botenga (The Left),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                     . – C'est là la différence fondamentale entre vous et moi. Quand le Hamas commet des actes terroristes ou des crimes de guerre, je n'ai aucun problème à condamner cela. Mais quand Israël commet des crimes de guerre ou des actes terroristes, vous n'arrivez pas à condamner. C'est ça, votre hypocrisie. Vous parlez justement de la libération des otages israéliens, mais vous vous taisez sur les enfants palestiniens pris en otage dans les prisons israéliennes. Vous condamnez les crimes de guerre de ceux que vous n'aimez pas, mais du côté israélien, vous soutenez à fond. C'est ça, votre hypocrisie. Et c'est très facile de votre part. Vous avez une hypocrisie fondamentale, à savoir le soutien aux crimes de guerre israéliens.
               

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, (početak govora izvan dometa mikrofona) … odgovor Europe na taj napad očekivano je pristran i pokvaren. Komesar za vanjske poslove Borrell ovdje potpuno ignorira prethodni izraelski napad na iranski konzulat u centru Damaska gdje je poginulo desetak ljudi.
               

                  U zadnjih nekoliko godina bilo je tisuće raznih izraelskih zračnih napada na Siriju, suverenu zemlju. Otkad se to smiju bombardirati diplomatska predstavništva? To, naravno, smije samo Izrael i Netanyahu, koji se proglašava nekakvim izabranim narodom iako velika većina današnjeg etnosa nema veze s biblijskim vremenima.
               

                  Vlada Netanyahua ponaša se arogantno i eskalira rat kako bi izazvali zapadnu vojnu intervenciju i spasili svoj režim. U nedavnom izvješću u UN-u izneseno je kako se 700 000 Izraelaca ilegalno naselilo na tadašnju palestinsku zemlju. Tužan je i za svaku osudu nedavni veto SAD-a u Ujedinjenim narodima kojim je spriječeno priznanje Palestine.
               

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Mullahregime hat mit dem direkten Angriff auf Israel eine neue Eskalationsstufe im Nahen Osten eingeleitet. Das sollte Anlass sein, aber nicht die alleinige Begründung, endlich andere Saiten aufzuziehen gegenüber einem Regime, das repressiv ist, nach innen gegenüber der eigenen Bevölkerung, nach außen gegenüber Israel, aber auch eine Gefährdung darstellt für andere Nachbarn in der Region. Spätestens seitdem sich das Regime im russischen Angriffskrieg aktiv gegen die Ukraine engagiert – durch die Lieferung der Schahed-Drohnen und anderer Waffen –, hätte klar sein müssen, dass mit diesem Regime kein Dialog mehr möglich war, auch nicht eine vage Hoffnung, dass das Atomabkommen noch verwirklicht werden könnte. Ich hatte diese Hoffnung auch noch für eine Zeit.
               

                  Der Iran ist Teil der russisch-nordkoreanischen Terrorallianz gegen die Ukraine und natürlich auch gegen Israel geworden. Daher müssen die Pasdaran jetzt auf die EU-Terrorliste, Wirtschaftssanktionen müssen jetzt umfassend in Absprache auch mit den USA koordiniert werden, und unterstützen wir politisch und materiell die Demokratiebewegung im Iran. Women, Life, Freedom – das muss die Zukunft für die Menschen im Iran sein, die wir auch aus vollem Herzen unterstützen sollten.
               

Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, I want to start by echoing the words of the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Guterres: the region is on the edge of an abyss. The red lines are being crossed every day: unprecedented killings of civilians, media and humanitarian workers; missile attacks on other countries; foreign embassy buildings being targeted; blocking of humanitarian aid and fuel for civilians.
People in the region have been suffering for a long time, and I know it very well with my own roots from the region. We do need to condemn Iran's attacks on Israel with force, as well as condemn the attacks on a consulate building and Israel's decision to carry out a counterattack.
We need a de-escalation. De-escalation means that everyone needs to take their responsibility. We must work for de-escalation. We must work for democracy in the region, in Iran, through supporting the opposition, through supporting civil society, through putting the IRGC on the terrorist list.
As well, we need to ensure an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which is leading to escalation. It has done so for decades and is continuously doing it day by day. And we need to demand an immediate permanent ceasefire now and, of course, also an immediate release of the hostages. We need de-escalation, colleagues.

Frédérique Ries (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, il y a donc cette rhétorique qui absout et qui percole, on l'entend bien ici. La nuit du 13 avril, pour la première fois, Téhéran attaque Israël directement sur son sol, sans passer par les intermédiaires, le Hezbollah, le Hamas, les Houthis. Six mois après le traumatisme fondamental du 7 octobre, cette nuit d'horreur serait une réponse justifiée et réglerait quelque part le contentieux entre Israël et la République islamique, ce régime dont l'essence même est son obsession fondamentale de détruire l'État hébreu; ce régime en guerre contre les femmes, qui opprime, qui pend les opposants, les journalistes, les manifestants, les homosexuels et les minorités; ce régime à quelques mois, peut être, de l'arme nucléaire.
               

                  Non, l'affaire n'est pas close et les exigences de notre Parlement sont claires: mettre les Gardiens de la révolution sur la liste européenne des organisations terroristes, imposer maintenant de vraies sanctions contre tous les individus et les entités concernées, exiger la libération essentielle de tous nos otages, et enfin avoir une vraie politique européenne d'admission commune des Iraniens, qui permettra peut-être d'éviter que quatorze officiels et bassidjis ne se promènent impunément sur le sol européen, comme ce fut le cas l'an dernier à Bruxelles.
               

Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, High Representative / Vice-President, colleagues, Iran denies Israel's legitimacy in existing; the inverse is not the case. Whoever just describes recent developments as another act in the perennial cycle of action and reaction and ignores that fundamental reality is not a voice of reason, but a voice of confusion.
Unprecedented, Iran's action is not just because it hasn't happened before, but because it represents a new world in which authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, sometimes using their terrorist helpers, try to coordinate to undermine the international order.
You said, Josep Borrell, that the EU needs to speak the language of power. Do it. Why don't you put the IRGC on the terrorist list? You say sanctioning is not a policy. Not sanctioning is a policy. Act!

Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, beste collega's, Iran is dé grote destabilisator van het Midden-Oosten. Dat is al jaren zo. Met de recente grote aanval op Israël is dat beeld nog eens bevestigd. Hun hoofddoel is ook duidelijk: Israël van de kaart vegen, met gebruikmaking van terreurgroepen als Hamas en Hezbollah en dubieuze bondgenootschappen met landen als Rusland, Pakistan, China, Noord-Korea, waarmee Iran dus niet alleen een bedreiging is voor Israël, maar feitelijk voor de hele internationale gemeenschap.
               

                  De lange arm van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde reikt zelfs tot in Europa. Maar de Garde op de Europese terreurlijst plaatsen? Daar zou volgens de Raad en volgens de heer Borrell geen rechtsgrond voor zijn. Onzin natuurlijk, dit is pure politieke onwil.
               

                  De Revolutionaire Garde moet zo snel mogelijk op de terreurlijst en het sanctiepakket richting Iran moet worden uitgebreid. Het roer moet om, meneer Borrell. Israël mag er niet alleen voor staan.
               

Marcel de Graaff (NI). – Voorzitter, Israël bombardeert de Iraanse ambassade in Syrië. Als reactie bombardeert Iran twee afgelegen militaire vliegvelden in Israël en plotseling is heel de EU tegen Iran en schenden ze daar alle mensenrechten. Onzin. Iran moet blijkbaar gestraft worden voor zijn steun aan Rusland. Daarom zeg ik aan alle burgers in de EU: dit doen uw leiders in de EU: ze prijzen onze vrijheid, maar dwingen mensen tot vaccinatie; ze prijzen onze democratie, maar censureren en demoniseren de oppositie; ze prijzen onze welvaart, maar pakken ons geld af en vervangen dat door digitale spaarpunten; ze verkondigen vrede, maar onze zonen moeten straks in Oekraïne vechten en sterven voor multimiljardairs in Amerika, want na een half miljoen doden en invaliden zijn de soldaten daar op. Maar o ja, de EU discrimineert niet: ook de kinderen van immigranten mogen sterven in de hel van Oekraïne.
               

                  Dus tijdens de komende verkiezingen: stem tegen de EU.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, High Representative, colleagues, now it's revealed to the world that the Iranian regime is threatening Israel, the only Jewish State on earth, directly, not only via its proxies, like in the past, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi in Yemen and other parts of the world. The Iranian regime is also threatening us via financing terrorism and Islamism on our continent, in our cities, in our rural areas.
I'm questioning why we have not earlier designated Revolutionary Guards as what they are, a terrorist organisation. I have requested that for many years. This very parliament has voted for it with a huge majority in January last year. But the High Representative and Foreign Affairs Commissioner didn't act as nearly always. So, Mr Borrell, as I have thanked you for holding the role for some years during a different debate in this very last plenary week of this mandate, I really hope for the next Foreign Affairs Commission and High Representative not to follow your path, not to continue with these policies. We have to defend our security, that our Europeans, meaning also ally with our allies.

Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Domnule președinte, atacul Iranului asupra Israelului este un act condamnabil de agresiune, care, alături de crimele Hamas, luările de ostatici și apoi intervenția Israelului în Gaza, aprind o nouă zonă fierbinte pe harta lumii.
               

                  Uniunea Europeană trebuie să facă tot ce-i stă în putință pentru a evita escaladarea acestui conflict, pentru că un nou front acolo, nu doar că va crește numărul victimelor umane, dar va face jocul lui Putin. Rusia lui Putin va alimenta orice alt conflict care ar putea să abată atenția de la propria agresiune în Ucraina și să subțieze resursele și ajutorul acordat de Occident Ucrainei.
               

                  Intervenția diplomatică a Uniunii Europene, domnule vicepreședinte, este necesară și pentru că avem încă responsabilitatea pentru eliberarea din mâinele Houthi și Hamas a ostaticilor marinari de pe nava Galaxy Leader, printre care și un român, dar și doi bulgari, victime colaterale ale acestui conflict. Și aș vrea să știu, domnule vicepreședinte, ce demersuri face Serviciul European de Acțiune Externă pentru a obține eliberarea acestor cetățeni europeni.
               

Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Mr President, High Representative, since the October War, the world is gradually confirming the analysis that the Iranian resistance has been telling us for four decades: the Iranian regime is the head of the snake that creates war.
The Iranian regime is active part of two main wars that are threatening European peace and tranquillity. They are providing drones and missiles to kill Ukrainians, and they were the instigator of the war in Gaza, with so many casualties.
So it is high time to make Khamenei, the head of that snake, pay the price for making these wars. The European Union must immediately put IRGC on its terrorist list. We need to support the PMOI Resistance Units inside Iran and recognise the rights to fight against the regime.

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, même si se confirme la désescalade que nous espérons tous, il n'en reste pas moins que l'Iran est une menace et le restera. Une menace existentielle pour Israël qu'il a juré de rayer de la carte. Une menace pour le Liban qu'il prend en otage à travers le Hezbollah. Une menace pour nos pays, parce que oui, nos pays sont ciblés aussi par le terrorisme islamiste financé par l'Iran. Et bien sûr, une menace pour son propre peuple, le peuple iranien qui se bat avec courage.
               

                  Mais face à cette menace, en réalité, tout le monde en Europe n'a pas les yeux ouverts. Nous avons entendu, ce matin encore, l'extrême gauche chercher des excuses à l'Iran, comme elle trouvait des excuses au 7 octobre. Plus insidieux encore, le 6 avril dernier, le Parti socialiste français publiait un communiqué demandant à la France de suspendre, par un embargo immédiat, toute livraison d'armes et de munitions à Israël. Priver Israël de se défendre, c'était rendre Israël vulnérable face à l'attaque qui l'a frappé le 13 avril, une semaine plus tard.
               

                  Et je demande à M. Glucksmann, puisque ce sont les mêmes armes qui ont servi à attaquer l'Ukraine: nous devons défendre l'Ukraine, devons-nous désarmer Israël? C'est votre responsabilité de dire aujourd'hui si vous soutenez ou non… (Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur)


Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-н Борел, Иран, чрез своята мрежа за влияние, която включва Хамас, Хизбула, хутите и много други, носят отговорност за дестабилизирането на Близкия изток и региона на Червено море. Всеки път, когато има надежда за нормализиране на отношенията между Израел и арабските страни, Иран се опитва да ги торпедира, както направи, както се опитва да прави с Abraham Accords. Директното нападение срещу Израел от територията на Иран е изключително тревожна ескалация на конфликта. Застрашаването на корабоплаването и сигурността в Червено море, и оттам на световната търговия, трябва да спре.
               

                  Искам да обърна внимание на тъжния факт, че вече почти половин година 25-членният екипаж на товарния кораб Galaxy Leader е в плен на подкрепяните от Иран хути. Тези моряци, между които българи, румънци, филипинци, украинци и мексиканци, не бива да плащат цената за агресивната регионална политика на Иран, която подстрекава и подкрепя финансово действията на хутите.
               

                  Г-н Борел, обръщам се към Вас да направите всичко възможно европейските граждани, но и всички, които са заложници на хутите, да бъдат освободени колкото се може по-бързо и да могат да се върнат по домовете си. Както неведнъж сме настоявали, и Корпусът на гвардейците на Ислямската революция, който стои зад различни терористични дейности, трябва да бъде добавен в списъка на санкциите и на терористите в Европа.
               

Vasco Becker-Weinberg (PPE). – Mr President, honourable Members, Mr Borrell, on 13 April, Iran seized a Portuguese-flagged vessel along with its crew and cargo. We have little information on the conditions of detention of the crew, the vessel and its cargo.
This is an illegal and unwanted act by the IRGC. Therefore, I would second what my colleagues have mentioned about the importance of stating that the IRGC is a terrorist organisation and sanctions should be applied forthwith.
As we mark 200 days of the attack of 7 October, and after witnessing the barrage of missiles and drones launched by Iran against Israel, we must not forget the price of inaction.
Mr Borrell, Iran and Hamas do not care about the lawful right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, but only the destruction of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people. That is the context.
In the EU, if we want to be an honest broker in the region, we must be able to understand this. Only after stopping Iran will we be able to reach a two-state solution.
A last point on the issue of antisemitism in this House: we just witnessed an antisemitic speech. Measures must be taken and I will make sure that they will.

Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad y vicepresidente de la Comisión, celebramos este debate con la preocupación de una escalada en Oriente Medio.
               

                  Es verdad que Irán —con su ataque directo a Israel— ha elevado la agresión a un estado inédito y mucho más peligroso. Pero es que la escalada ya se viene produciendo por la acción de las fuerzas subsidiarias de Irán —desde Hamás a Hezbolá pasando por las milicias hutíes—.
               

                  Irán es una amenaza global que está presente activamente en todos los escenarios más conflictivos, no solamente en Oriente Medio, sino también en Ucrania. Y es verdad que las sanciones por sí mismas no son una política, pero no es menos cierto que las apelaciones a la calma por sí mismas tampoco lo son.
               

                  Irán es una teocracia apocalíptica asentada en la represión sangrienta que actúa a través de un brazo armado que tiene que ser considerado a todos los efectos una organización terrorista. Es probable que Irán posea ya la capacidad nuclear y quede pendiente la llamada militarización. Pues bien, la Resolución que vamos a votar es muy explícita sobre las consecuencias que deben seguir al incumplimiento por parte de Irán de sus obligaciones.
               

                  Finalmente está el pueblo iraní. La lucha de las mujeres y de la oposición que hay que apoyar, en vez de hacerse eco de las campañas de difamación que proceden de la teocracia iraní. Todos ellos tienen derecho a que la Unión Europea reconozca su lucha y apoye sus aspiraciones legítimas.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, this place struggles to utter the truth about who bombed who first. Israel bombed Iran first. But this place has an imperialist worldview.
How did you come to hate the people of the Middle East so much that you try to exclude them from the realm of international law? Over the past five years, EU countries have been complicit – through arms sales and direct military involvement – in the war against Yemen that killed 400 000 people, the genocide in Gaza that has killed or maimed over 100 000 Palestinians in just six months, and in the sanctions against Syria and Iran that kill tens of thousands through preventable deaths every year.
We have endless debates here about human rights, but these people you vote to crush are not afforded human rights. You pretend the EU is civilised. In your suits, you condemn people to die with your voting cards, blatantly lying to excuse your actions. The banality of evil. This place is a stain on humanity.
Mr Borrell, we respect your effort to bring some sanity to the place.

Milan Zver (PPE). – Gospod predsednik! Iran predstavlja dvojno nevarnost: najprej notranjo, saj sistematično pobijajo in kršijo človekove pravice. Gospod Borrell, nikoli se niste jasno postavili za iransko opozicijo, ki jo vodi Marjam Radžavi, in njen program v desetih točkah. Druga nevarnost je zunanja: Iran ima kapacitete, da tudi vojaško – ima odlično vojaško industrijo –, da tudi ogroža države članice Evropske unije. In tudi tukaj je odziv Evropske unije preveč bled.
               

                  Gospod Borrell, nikoli se niste postavili za nas, ki smo pristali na črni listi iranskega režima kot teroristi. Nekaj članov Evropskega parlamenta je pristalo na tej listi in danes sem imel občutek, ko sem vas poslušal, da v bistvu enačite tako Izrael kakor tudi Iran. Zato še enkrat podpiram dve zahtevi, ki so ju izrazili moji kolegi, da morate zahtevati močnejše sankcije in pa postaviti iransko revolucionarno gardo na listo teroristov.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I have to say, of all of the insane discussions that we've had in here, this one absolutely has to take the biscuit. Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel, as if Iran woke up one day and decided to strike Israel out of the blue, as if Israel's targeted attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria, which killed 16 people, a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention, had never happened. Everybody outside this room knows the cause of the escalation is Israel. Everybody knows that Israel has been trying to broaden the conflict in the region to detract from their genocidal war on Gaza, and everybody knows that the EU, who for seven months of the most proportionately destructive war in history, have failed to condemn and sanction Israel, have immediately and unanimously condemned and sanctioned Iran for a disciplined retaliation which killed nobody. The world is changing, your settler colonial project has been exposed like never before, and the world can see that the EU emperor has no clothes.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I consider the word ‘insane’, to describe this debate, as unparliamentary. Maybe you would want to make a remark.

Der Präsident. – Die Beurteilung dieser Frage werde ich der Präsidentin überlassen.
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, as Europeans we all agree that our condemnation of the attack against Israel is clear. It cannot be more clear. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to Israel's security. We all share the urgency to avoid further escalation and to work for restraint. And this call for restraint has to be addressed both to Israel and Iran.
That's what we have done at all political levels. We will continue our diplomatic engagement with all key partners in the region. We will suspend the restrictive measures against Iran by expanding the existing – already existing, it seems that you don't know – Iran-Russia related sanctions regime to the region.

(In response to heckling from the floor)

Yes, it already exists!

(After consulting with the President)

Sorry, but the President doesn't want to give you the floor.
The world does not need another war in the region, and the people in Gaza neither. If the whole region is at war, the war in Gaza will not stop, and everybody agrees that this war has to stop and the suffering of the people in Gaza has to stop. That's nothing new. This has been said in all the statements of the European Union.
About some concrete questions. The EU maintains comprehensive sanctions on Iran, including on more than 500 designated individuals – Mr Verhofstadt, not four or five, but 500! You simply forgot to multiply by 100. That is a small mistake, a small mistake. Four or five no – 500! You forgot two zeros! You have to go back to school to learn a little bit about arithmetics – 500 designated…

(In response to commotion in the Chamber)

President, what's happening here?

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Verhofstadt, ein gelegentlicher Zwischenruf ist ganz in Ordnung, aber das sollte nicht in den nutzlosen Versuch übergehen, in einen Dialog mit dem Redner einzutreten.
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – As I was saying, it was not four or five. It was 500-500 designated individuals and entities are on the comprehensive sanctions against Iran.
There is an arms embargo; there are missile technology and drone restrictions; there is a ban on equipment which might be used for internal repression for all material; there is another ban for monitoring telecommunications; there is, on top, sanctions targeting human rights violations. We will also expand the existing Iran-Russia Federation drone regimes in two directions, the possibility of including missiles in addition to drones, the expansion of the original dimension to be applied to the Iran-affiliated groups in the Middle East.
About the Revolutionary Guard: we have already listed individuals and entities of the IRGC under the Iran human rights sanctions regime, under the territorial integrity of Ukraine sanctions regime, under the Syria sanctions regime, under the Iran weapons of mass destruction sanctions regime. Moreover, the European Union has listed the IRGC in its entirety – all, in its entirety – under the Iran weapons of mass destruction sanctions regime, which already comprises an asset freeze and a prohibition to make funds and economic resources available.
In other words, listing this organisation as a terrorist organisation would have no practical effect. The addition of entities or individuals to the so-called ‘EU terrorist list’ – Common Position 931 sanctions regime – is subject to a decision by the Council by unanimity, and a national decision by the competent national authority, such as a court decision or a proscription order by an administrative authority, is a prerequisite for any additional listing. That national decision must have been taken for acts that fall under the definition of terrorist acts under the sanctions regime in question.
This is the situation.

(In response to commotion in the Chamber)

Maybe you should give the floor to these people.

President. – Colleagues, it's quite normal to have interventions with short words. Commissioner Borrell, you have been a parliamentarian. You have been the President of the House, so you should be resilient enough to stand that.
But at the end of the day, if you continue and if you do it repeatedly, colleague Neumann and colleague Verhofstadt, then it's a sort of impoliteness, and I for sure will call you to order if you continue with that.

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I can only repeat what I have said: the addition of entities or individuals to the so-called EU terrorist list – Common Position 931 sanctions regime – is subject to a decision by the Council of the European Union by unanimity. But a national decision by a competent national authority, such as a court decision or a proscription order by any administrative authority, is a prerequisite for any additional listing.
That's what the legal services tell me, tell the Council. The national decision must have been taken for acts that fall under the definition of terrorist acts under the sanctions regime in question.
That's what I have the honour to inform the honourable Members.

Der Präsident. – Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden 7 Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.
               

                  Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 25. April 2024, statt.
               

(Die Sitzung wird um 10.26 Uhr unterbrochen)


PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

4.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 10.45)

5.   Formal sitting - 20th Anniversary of the 2004 EU Enlargement

President. – Good morning to you all. Can I ask you to take your seats as we begin this momentous occasion.
Distinguished guests, dear Members, dear Europeans, it is truly an honour to welcome you to the European Parliament to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 2004 European Union enlargement – the largest single enlargement in the history of the European Union.
To start, I would like to invite you to watch a short video clip in which ten young Europeans who were born in May 2004 in the ten acceding countries speak about what it means for them to be European.

(A video was played)


                  Presidenti, Prim Ministri, Ministri, Kummissarji,
               






 



                        Mistednin distinti, Membri, kollegi,
                     










 



                        Għeżież Ewropej,
                     










 



                        Bħal mijiet ta' individwi f'din il-Kamra, u miljuni ta' Ewropej madwar il-kontinent, ma ninsa qatt fejn kont fil-lejl ta' bejn it-30 ta' April u l-1 ta' Mejju 2004.
                     





                  20 sena ilu, kont il-Belt Valletta – ma' eluf kbar ta' nies, bl-attenzjoni tagħna kollha ffukata fuq in-naħa l-oħra tal-Port il-Kbir, kif għadna kif rajna fil-filmat. Konna qed ngħoddu l-minuti u s-sekondi sakemm Malta, flimkien ma' Ċipru, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, l-Ungerija, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, il-Polonja, is-Slovakkja u s-Slovenja ssieħbu fl-Unjoni Ewropea.
               

                  Dik il-folla enormi tibqa' stampata f'moħħi għal dejjem. Pajjiż sħiħ ħerqan għal futur ta' possibilitajiet, ta' tama. Poplu li għaraf il-potenzjal tiegħu, li seta' jħares 'il quddiem b'ottimiżmu. Sentimenti li dakinhar kienu qed jinħassu minn tant nies madwar l-Ewropa.
               

                  Għal miljuni ta' persuni s-sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea fissret tiġdid, sens ta' kburija, fissret għaqda. F'daqqa waħda, l-futur ma kellux limiti. Fissret sigurtà, fissret opportunità, fissret prosperità. Għalina fissret kollox.
               

                  Niftakarni naħseb f'dawk il-ġenerazzjonijiet ta' Ewropej li għalihom, l-Unjoni Ewropea kienet biss ħolma li issa saret realtà. Kif – minkejja l-isfidi kollha – irnexxielna negħlbu l-biża' tal-passat u minflok inwittu t-triq tal-era ġdida ta' libertà, ta' paċi, ta' prosperità madwar il-kontinent. Fejn dak li qabel kien kontinent mifrud, issa sar ħaġa waħda. Mit-tramuntana għan-nofsinhar, mill-lvant għall-punent, mill-Baltiċi għall-Mediterran – magħqudin, flimkien.
               

                  U llum, f'ġenerazzjoni ġdida, huma n-nies tal-Ukrajna, il-pajjiżi tal-Balkani tal-Punent, il-Moldova u l-Georgia li qed iħarsu lejn l-Ewropa bl-istess sens ta' tama lejn futur komuni. Kif għamlet fit-tkabbir tal-2004 u fl-integrazzjoni tal-Bulgarija, ir-Rumanija u l-Kroazja fis-snin ta' wara, l-Ewropa llum ma tistax tħares in-naħa l-oħra.
               

                  Għeżież ħbieb, fl-aħħar żewġ deċennji, l-Ewropa ffaċċjat sfidi bla preċedent. Imma flimkien, irnexxielna nindirizzawhom u negħlbuhom. Kien hemm mumenti – fl-aktar ċirkustanzi diffiċli – li kien aktar faċli li nerħulha għal rasna. Imma rreżistejna. Għaliex fhimna li minkejja l-frustrazzjonijiet u l-imperfezzjonijiet tagħha, l-Unjoni Ewropea hija l-aqwa garanzija għalina lkoll.
               

                  L-effett ta' trasformazzjoni tat-tkabbir tal-Unjoni Ewropea fuq il-ħajja tal-Ewropej għadu jinħass sal-ġurnata tal-lum. Narawh u nħossuh f'kull Stat Membru. Smajna dwaru wkoll miż-żgħażagħ li jiena kburija ferm li huma kollha magħqudin magħna llum: drittijiet għal kull ċittadin, opportunitajiet għal kull persuna mill-kbir għaż-żgħir, suq wieħed li qed isaħħaħ l-ekonomiji, politika ta' koeżjoni li timplimenta l-impenn tagħna għall-ugwaljanza.
               

                  Is-sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea ma fissritx biss liġijiet ġodda. Fissret ferm aktar minn hekk.
               

                  Fl-istess ħin, l-għaqda ma tfissirx li kulħadd għandu jkun l-istess. Dik mhux l-Ewropa tagħna. Aħna kburin bid-differenzi ta' bejnietna, bit-tradizzjonijiet uniċi, bil-kulturi, bil-lingwi, bid-diversità tagħna. L-aħħar 20 sena nistgħu ngħidu li huma prova proprju ta' dan.
               

                  Pjuttost l-Ewropa tħaddan id-differenzi, filwaqt li tassigura li kulħadd ikollu l-istess opportunitajiet. Kulħadd għandu jkollu l-istess ċans, anke jekk l-opinjoni hija differenti. Dik hija s-saħħa tagħna. U għalhekk li mis-sħubija jgawdi kulħadd.
               

                  L-Ewropa biddlet kull Stat Membru mill-2004. Imma bl-istess mod, kull Stat Membru biddel ukoll l-Ewropa.
               

                  Illum magħna għandna wħud minn dawk l-individwi li kienu strumentali biex pajjiżhom jissieħeb fl-Unjoni Ewropea u li fl-istess ħin għenu biex jiktbu dan il-kapitlu straordinarju fl-istorja tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
               

                  U allura f'isem il-Parlament Ewropew, il-vuċi taċ-ċittadini Ewropej, nirringrazzjakom. Napprezzaw dak kollu li intom għamiltu. Nifhmu r-responsabilità li aħna writna biex il-ħidma, l-impenn u d-determinazzjoni tagħkom ngħadduha aħna issa lill-ġenerazzjoni li jmiss ta' mexxejja Ewropej.
               
As I mentioned earlier, we have with us here all those young people, who were either born on 1 May 2004 or just a few minutes before or after. These young people will ask, each one of them, a question to our guests.
We will start with the questions.

Eliass Orlovs,
2004. gadā dzimis Latvijas jaunietis. – Ļoti cienījamā Vīķes-Freibergas kundze! Jūs bijāt valsts prezidente 2004. gada pirmajā maijā. Kā jūs rīkojāties, lai pārliecinātu Latvijas valsts iedzīvotājus, lai viņi balsotu par savas valsts nākotni Eiropā? Un vai pārliecināšanai bija jāiegulda daudz pūļu?
               

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga,
bijusī Latvijas Valsts prezidente. – Vispirms atļauj man tevi sveikt un teikt daudz laimes dzimšanas dienā. Lai tu piedzīvotu daudz laimīgus nākošos divdesmit gadus!
               

                  Un lai tāda pati laime, kāda mūs ir pavadījusi šo pēdējo divdesmit gadu laikā, kopš esam šajā draudzīgā pārnacionālā tautu saimē. Mēs, jā, tiešām mēs smagi strādājām, te ir no mums daži klāt, kas toreiz piedalījās šai darbā, lai pārliecinātu, ka Latvijas īstā vieta ir Eiropas Savienībā.
               

                  Un nākotnē es tev novēlu un tavai paaudzei strādāt tikpat cītīgi un tikpat lepni, lai gādātu par vienotu, drošu un sekmīgu, pārtikušu Eiropu. Lai tev dzīvē veicas un lai veicas Eiropai!
               

Balázs Hangai,
2004-ben született magyar fiatal. – 2004. május 1-jén Ön volt Magyarország miniszterelnöke. Mi volt a legfontosabb ok, hogy Magyarország csatlakozott az Európai Unióhoz?
               

Péter Medgyessy,
Magyarország volt miniszterelnöke. – Két alapvető ok volt számunkra legalábbis, az egyik az, hogy a magyar nép, a magyarok mindig úgy érezték, hogy itt a helyük. Nem tettünk mást, mi – akik tárgyalásokat folytattunk a csatlakozásról Orbán Viktortól Medgyessy Péter-ig –, mi teljesítettük a nép akaratát. Ennyi. A másik ok, ami talán szintén egy kicsit meglepő, az hogy mi úgy gondoltuk, hogy a szuverenitás megerősítése az Európai Unión belül történhet meg. Szuverén az az ország tud lenni, amelyik erős. Az Európai Unió erőssé teszi Magyarországot, ezért úgy gondoltuk, hogy az a dolgunk, hogy erőssé tegyük Magyarországot az Unión keresztül, és erősítsük a szuverenitásunkat.
               

Ylenia Duncan,
żagħżugħa Maltija li twieldet fl-2004. – Inti kont il-Prim Ministru ta' Malta fl-1 ta' Mejju tal-2004, kif tiddiskrivi l-emozzjoni fil-pajjiż dakinhar u temmen li l-Maltin għadhom iħossuhom l-istess dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea llum il-ġurnata?
               

Lawrence Gonzi,
eks Prim Ministru ta' Malta. – Kif qalet il-President Metsola, kien mument straordinarju, eċċezzjonali. L-entużjażmu tal-poplu Malti li ra ħolma, li ħadem għaliha b'diffikultà – għax kienet kontroversjali f'Malta. L-affarijiet ma kienux faċli. Hawn preżenti hawnhekk nies illi jafu preċiż fuq xiex qiegħed ngħid. Imma, id-deċiżjoni ttieħdet u dak l-entużjażmu, dik it-tama li l-poplu Malti kellu dak iż-żmien sarrafniha fir-riżultati. Għaliex illum, 20 sena wara, nistgħu nħarsu lura fuq storja ta' suċċess. Malta avvanzat ekonomikament, studenti tagħna qegħdin preżenti hawn fil-Parlament Ewropew, qegħdin isaqsu l-mistoqsijiet. Għandna President fil-Parlament Ewropew, l-iżgħar pajjiż tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Kienet storja ta' tama, Ylenia, u tibqa' storja ta' tama. Aħna għandna t-tama li l-Unjoni Ewropea tibqa' rilevanti għan-nies tagħna, għalikom iż-żgħażagħ billi nġibu l-paċi, l-istabilità u l-iżvilupp għal kulħadd. Grazzi ħafna.
               

President. – Now I give the floor to Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen,
President of the Commission. – Madam President, dear Roberta, excellencies, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, when the clock struck midnight on 1 May 2004, a whole continent burst into celebration.
The flames of bonfires lit up the night in the Baltic states. A thousand fireworks coloured the sea around Malta and Cyprus and the lakes of Slovenia. And the Ode to Joy resonated in the cities of central and eastern Europe previously on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
It was not just the birth of a larger Union. It was the birth of a new era. It was a night of promise. Because Europe is promise: the promise that all Europeans can be masters of their own destiny; the promise of freedom and stability, peace and prosperity. In the 20 years that followed, this promise has been fulfilled.
Our fellow Europeans in the then new Member States have seen their countries transformed. Your economies boomed. Your cultural production has tripled. Your unemployment rates have been cut by half. The power of Europe, together with your ingenuity, has brought a true economic miracle to all your countries.
In so many different ways, Europe has made you stronger. But you have made Europe so much stronger too. People and companies across Europe have enjoyed new opportunities to study and work, export and invest in a wider Union. You have empowered our response to the geopolitical challenges we face. From our eastern Members' resolute support to Ukraine, to Cyprus's leadership in opening a maritime corridor for aid to Gaza. Thanks to you, Europe's voice on the global stage is much more powerful.
Dear friends, on 1 May 2004, my predecessor, President Prodi, who is here today, pronounced prophetic words. You, President Prodi, said, ‘Today's enlargement is the fifth and the largest in the history of the Union, and it will not be the last.’ You were so right. Since then, three more countries have joined our Union. And today, the desire to unite Europe and complete our Union is more important than ever before.
The Western Balkans is moving ever closer to us. We took the historic decision to launch negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, while the people of Georgia make no secret of their European dreams.
Honourable Members, it is right that we look forward to future enlargement as we mark the success of the last 20 years. But, at the same time, it is my duty today to pass a very stark message about the future of our Union. Because what happens in Ukraine will shape the future of our Union forever. We cannot overlook and we cannot overstate that Russia poses an existential threat not only to Ukraine, but also to Europe.
A Putin win would not only change the map, it would not only mask the face of the Ukrainian nation, but it would change the course of European history. Our Union would never be the same.
Ukraine is carrying this heavy burden on its shoulders for all of us and it is paying the ultimate price every day for that. We have seen the devastating attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and the difficult days on the battlefield. My friends, there is only one way to face up to this. There is only one language Putin understands and that is providing Ukraine with means to defend themselves.
Putin believed that we would not stand up for democracy and independence in Ukraine. He was wrong. Putin believed that US military support would not pass the US Congress. He was wrong again. The military assistance from the United States and our assistance from the European Union is an encouragement for all of us to do even more. We must be very clear about this: for Europe to win the future, just as it did 20 years ago. Ukraine must win.

(Applause)

Honourable Members, excellencies, Ukraine has made its European choice. You know what this means. And we have made our Ukrainian choice, just like we made our choice all those years ago, when we welcomed so many countries back home to our Union.
The decisions we took together in the 1990s and 2000s led to that very special ‘day of welcomes’ in Phoenix Park in Ireland. It led to one of the great European success stories. The decisions we will take in the next days, weeks and months will decide who wins the future of Europe.
So, together, let's stay united. Let's stay strong with Ukraine. Let's stay ambitious on enlargement and reform. This is how we will make good on that European promise once again, just as we did 20 years ago.
Long live the generation of 2004 and long live Europe.

(Applause)


Maciej Nysiak,
młody Polak, ur. w 2004 r. – 1 maja 2004 r. był Pan premierem Polski. Czym było dla Polaków członkostwo w Unii Europejskiej?
               

Leszek Miller,
były premier Polski, poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego. – Przede wszystkim cieszę się, że mogę Pana tutaj spotkać, i mam nadzieję, że kiedyś w przyszłości zajmie Pan jeden z foteli na tej sali, jako parlamentarzysta.
               

                  To był wielki dzień. Ale na pytanie, jakie były nastroje Polaków i czego oni oczekiwali, najlepsze wyniki przyniosło referendum, które zorganizowaliśmy mniej więcej miesiąc przed 1 maja. W tym referendum 13,5 miliona Polaków, czyli 77% wszystkich uczestniczących, powiedziało ‘tak’ dla Europy. Wtedy wyraźnie powiedzieliśmy ‘tak’ Europie, a Europa powiedziała ‘tak’ Polsce. Spodziewaliśmy się, że przyspieszymy nasz rozwój. I tak się stało. Dzisiaj polski PKB na mieszkańca jest o 40 punktów procentowych większy niż w 2004 r. Spodziewaliśmy się, że będziemy przestrzegać ściśle wszystkich wartości, na których Unia Europejska jest oparta, i dbaliśmy o nasze bezpieczeństwo. I ono niewątpliwie zostało umocnione dzięki wejściu do Unii Europejskiej. Jednym słowem, dzisiaj możemy powiedzieć: Polska jest naszą ojczyzną, a Europa jest naszym wspólnym i bezpiecznym domem.
               

Lejla Jevrić,
mlada Slovenka, rojena leta 2004. – Gospod Rop, 1. maja 2004 ste bili vi predsednik slovenske vlade. Kaj po vašem mnenju v Sloveniji izstopa kot močan simbol njenega članstva v Evropski uniji?
               

                  Draga Lejla, najlepša hvala za vprašanje in vse najboljše za rojstni dan! Kot veš, smo v Sloveniji imeli v lanskem letu hude poplave. To je bila ena največjih naravnih nesreč, ki smo jih doživeli v Sloveniji kadar koli. Uničene so bile ceste, uničena je bila infrastruktura in uničeni so bili domovi številnih slovenskih državljank in državljanov.
               

                  Evropska komisija se je odzvala hitro in odločno. Predsednica Evropske komisije je obiskala Slovenijo – še enkrat hvala za to! – in nam izrazila polno podporo in seveda tudi zelo konkretno pomoč. Slovenija je doživela solidarnost, doživela je solidarnost Evropske unije, tako kot so solidarnost doživele številne druge države članice Evropske unije in seveda tudi številne druge države izven.
               

Anton Rop,
nekdanji predsednik vlade Republike Slovenije. – Kot veš, smo v Sloveniji imeli v lanskem letu hude poplave. To je bila ena največjih naravnih nesreč, ki smo jih doživeli v Sloveniji kadar koli. Uničene so bile ceste, uničena je bila infrastruktura in uničeni so bili domovi številnih slovenskih državljank in državljanov.
               

                  Evropska komisija se je odzvala hitro in odločno. Predsednica Evropske komisije je obiskala Slovenijo – še enkrat hvala za to! – in nam izrazila polno podporo in seveda tudi zelo konkretno pomoč.
               

                  Slovenija je doživela solidarnost. Doživela je solidarnost Evropske unije, tako kot so solidarnost doživele številne druge države članice Evropske unije in seveda tudi številne druge države izven Evropske unije, tudi Ukrajina. Zato sem prepričan, da solidarnost predstavlja pomemben simbol, pomembno vrednoto Evropske unije in solidarnost predstavlja temelj za uspešno prihodnost Evropske unije.
               

Veronika Klobúčniková,
mladá Slovenka narodená v roku 2004. – Tak k 1. 5. 2004 ste boli predsedom vlády Slovenskej republiky. Ako si myslíte, že sa Slovensko zmenilo od vstupu do Európskej únie? A je to v súlade s vašimi očakávaniami, ktoré ste mali pred dvadsiatimi rokmi?
               

Mikuláš Dzurinda,
bývalý predseda vlády Slovenska . – Ďakujem pekne za otázku, Veronika. Slovensko sa zmenilo za 20 rokov a zmenilo sa k lepšiemu.
               

                  Životná úroveň väčšiny obyvateľov sa zlepšila. Zaviedli sme jednotnú menu. Vy mladí plným priehrštím využívate programy alebo projekty programu Erasmus, cestujete slobodne po Európe, študujete podľa vlastných možností, schopností.
               

                  Naše mestá dostali dediny novú, krajšiu tvár. Vďaka európskej solidarite sme realizovali projekty, ktoré umožňujú zlepšiť životné prostredie, rozvíjať cestovný ruch, ale aj stavať priemyselné parky.
               

                  Globálne krízy vrátane tej pandemickej ukázali, akým šťastím je pre Slovensko, že odpovede na tieto krízy môžeme hľadať na európskej úrovni. Vstupom Slovenska do Európskej únie sme sa naplno ako národ, ako štát emancipovali. Po tom som túžil celý svoj život. Preto dnes som veľmi spokojný a šťastný, že Slovensko je súčasťou tejto znovuzjednotenej európskej rodiny.
               

Lisbeth Taggu,
2004. aastal sündinud noor eestlanna. – Te olite Eesti välisminister 1. mail 2004. Mis oli Eesti jaoks põhiline otsus ja põhiline põhjus, miks liituda Euroopa Liiduga, ja kas te olete liiduga liitudes täitnud oma ootused?
               

Kristiina Ojuland,
endine Eesti Vabariigi välisminister. – Eesti jaoks paljude muude põhjuste hulgas üks olulisemaid oli julgeoleku küsimus ja see küsimus on ka täna kõige tähtsam. Tegelikult president von der Leyen rääkis väga palju neid mõtteid ära, mida ma kavatsesin täna siin saalis välja öelda. Täna on Ukraina kõige tähtsam teema ka Eesti jaoks. Kui seda liitumist ei oleks olnud 2004. aastal, siis minu arvates suure tõenäosusega Eesti oleks täna seal, kus on Gruusia või kus on Ukraina. Seetõttu sõja võitmine Ukrainas on meie kõigi südametunnistuse asi. Ukraina peab sõja võitma. Ma soovin, ma õieti palun Euroopa Liidu riikide poliitikuid, liidreid tegema neid vajalikke otsuseid, et aidata Ukrainat sõjaliselt. Sest uskuge mind, pange mu sõnu tähele, kui me seda ei tee, kui me ei aita Ukrainat võidule ja kui me ei võta vastutusele sõjakurjategijaid, siis kümne aasta pärast me ilmselt siin ei istu teiega koos või vähemalt mõned meist. Meie riigid ei ole siin laua taga.
               

President. – I now give the floor to Mr Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament.

Pat Cox,
former President of the European Parliament. – Madam President, Members of the European Parliament, Madam President von der Leyen and Members of the European Commission, Representatives of the Belgian Presidency, distinguished guests young and, like myself, less young, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and privilege for me to be here today, to mark and to celebrate the 20th anniversary of our Union's Big Bang enlargement of 20 years ago, in the presence of so many persons whose leadership and dedication, as those who went before them, were indispensable to the realisation of that great enlargement. Thank you, President Metsola, for proposing this initiative today.
At a flag raising ceremony on 3 May 2004, here in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, we welcomed the parliamentary speakers and the nominated Members of this Parliament of the ten new Member States from central, eastern and southern Europe. In a Europe finally breathing on its two lungs, east and west. Symbolically, the ten new flagpoles were made in, and travelled from, the shipyards in Gdansk. These were a gift from the Polish nation, which the then Prime Minister of Poland, my friend Leszek Miller, offered at my request. I thank you here today, Leszek, for that gift, whose passage from Gdansk to Strasbourg symbolised our continent's journey from an imposed post-war Soviet domination to each nation's right to choose.
Permit me to share my regret that the United Kingdom chose to leave our Union. But it revealed one powerful truth about who and what we are, namely, a voluntary union of free and sovereign peoples. Free to join. Free to leave. As war returns to our continent, what a total contrast to Russia's aggression against Ukraine, where the imperial and deceitful unity proposed by Vladimir Putin is coming from the barrel of a gun. The blast of a ballistic missile, or the indiscriminate impact of deathly drones.
In the 1990s and the 2000s, waves of positive stimulus were released globally and in Europe. Key among them, the fall of the Iron Curtain, the integration of post-communist states of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU, German reunification and the entry of China into the World Trade Organisation. We live today in different times, in a new age of contest and uncertainty, one where Europe's collective interests and values can be expressed effectively on the world stage. Only through coherent vision and European unity of purpose. The European Union is heavily invested in post-war norms and institutions. From the outset, our values and interests have been well served by them. The defence, reform and promotion of effective multilateralism is central to our strategic goals, but it is set to be challenged more in the future than the past.
I believe our multipolar world is transforming into a multi-order world of contested multilateralism and, moreover, for our continent, unsettled by the war in Ukraine. The comfort blanket of US security guarantees, whether they remain in place or not, are unlikely to be cost free in terms of EU policy choices. Public opinion, politics and governments in the West today, with the possible exception of combating climate change, seem to be more focussed on vulnerabilities than the benefits associated with interdependence than in the early decades of this century. That is why here in Europe, the USA and elsewhere, the world is now facing the most consequential elections of the modern era. Hovering between contested continuity or drastic discontinuity.
This Parliament, and I don't need to tell you, has always been a parliament of minorities. No group ever held a majority in this House on its own. Policy here is built on de facto coalitions. I would call on all those political forces who have been reliably and consistently European, to rally once more to the cause of coherence and unity of purpose after the parliamentary elections. Your collective wisdom and capacity to influence still will be essential to what comes next.
Madam President, as we acknowledge a successful past enlargement here today, let us remember, as you have done in your speech, all those states now are waiting their hour of European self-expression. The next mandate of both the European Parliament and of the European Commission, needs to assist their transitions towards membership and simultaneously to prepare our Union's institutional and financial capacity to absorb them.
I have just returned from the latest European Parliament Democracy Support mission to Ukraine last weekend. Thanks to you, Madam President. At this time of profound and unrelenting stress, Ukraine needs the reassurance of our solidarity and of our openness, in due course, to embrace its entry into the Union.
Concerning future enlargements, and I will conclude with this, today's event recalls, we have done this before successfully, and today's message should be and must be that we can and we will do this again. To paraphrase the Schuman Declaration, in order to underwrite our Union's sustainable success, we will need and you in this Parliament will need to make creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten us.
Madam President, behind you, we have our European flag and symbol as it sits before us who look at the speaker's podium. You will see that it is a circle which in heraldry represents harmony. We see that it is the stars which everywhere in our literature and poetry invites us to dream our dreams. But we see most of all about this harmonious circle, that it is open and not closed. And the message must be it is open to all those European states who share our fundamental values and who wish to be, as the ten states we celebrate today, part of our family and to be welcomed home.

Κυριάκος Γιαλλουρίδης,
νέος από την Κύπρο που γεννήθηκε το 2004. – Την 1η Μαΐου του 2004 ήσασταν υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Κύπρου. Μπορείτε να μας περιγράψετε τις προσδοκίες που είχαν οι Κύπριοι κατά την προετοιμασία της ένταξης της Κύπρου στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Πιστεύετε ότι ικανοποιήθηκαν;
               

Γεώργιος Ιακώβου,
πρώην Υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Κύπρου. – Χαίρομαι που σε βλέπω, Κυριάκο. Έχεις το ίδιο όνομα όπως ο προπάππους μου, ο πατέρας μου, ο γιος μου, ο οποίος είναι σήμερα μαζί μας εδώ. Σε ευχαριστώ που είσαι εδώ. Η μικρή μας η χώρα, η Κύπρος, αναγνώριζε πάντοτε πόσο εκτεθειμένη ήταν, τόσο οικονομικά όσο και γεωπολιτικά. Πάνω από όλα, οι Κύπριοι ήλπιζαν για ασφάλεια και σταθερότητα. Σήμερα νιώθουμε ότι έχουμε και τα δύο. Πιο πρακτικά, οι νεαροί Κύπριοι ήταν ιδιαίτερα ενθουσιασμένοι με την ευκαιρία να σπουδάζουν, να εργάζονται, να ζουν οπουδήποτε στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, και σήμερα μας κάνει περήφανους το γεγονός ότι η ροή των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών είναι και προς τις δύο κατευθύνσεις. Τέλος, είναι αδύνατο να μην κάνω αναφορά στο γεγονός ότι πολλοί Κύπριοι ήλπιζαν πως η ένταξη θα γινόταν ταυτόχρονα με την επανένωση της Κύπρου. Αυτό δεν συνέβηκε και η Κύπρος ενταχθήκε σαν χώρα διχασμένη. Όμως, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χαρακτηρίζεται από την κατεδάφιση των συνόρων, και πρώην εχθροί να γίνονται συνεργάτες και φίλοι. Κυριάκο, είμαι ηλικιωμένος πλέον, και ελπίζω κατάκαρδα ότι η δική σου γενιά θα καταφέρει κάποια μέρα αυτό που η δική μου δεν κατάφερε. Σε ευχαριστώ που είσαι εδώ.
               

Milda Bartašyté,
jauna lietuvė, gimusi 2004 m.. – 2004 metų gegužės pirmąją dieną Jūs buvote Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministras. Noriu paklausti, ką ryškiausiai prisimenate iš šios dienos?
               

Antanas Valionis,
buvęs Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministras. – Na, aišku, džiaugsmas nueito didelio kelio, atlikto darbo pojūtis ir supratimas, kad reikia žengti toliau. Čia pas mus, Strasbūre, Saint Pierre le Jeune katedroje yra freska: tautos eina prie kryžiaus, visi joja žirgais. Galai, frankai, lenkai taip pat. Na, ir gale eina Lietuva ir vedasi ‘Orients’ – Rytus kartu su savimi. Tai Europos Sąjunga mums davė žirgą, su kuriuo mes atjojame į situaciją, kuomet esame taip pat turtingi, kaip ir kiekviena vidutiniška Europos Sąjungos tauta.
               

                  Esame civilizaciškai išsprendę savo egzistencinę problemą – sugrįžimą prie Europos kultūros, Europos identiteto. Ir iš tikrųjų BVP padidėjo kelis kartus. Mūsų studentai, turbūt ir Jūs, turi tokias galimybes studijuoti kur tik nori Europos Sąjungoje. Mes pastebėjau Vilniuje net vairuojame automobilius kitaip. Taip, kad linkiu Jums sėkmės, gimtadienio, o baigdamas taip pat primenu, kad Lietuva ir toliau veda ‘Orients’, Rytus, tik dabar jau ne prie kryžiaus, kaip toje keturioliktojo amžiaus freskoje, o į demokratiją. Ir mes nežinom iš tikrųjų, kur mes būtume buvę, jeigu nebūtume įstoję. Bet mes matom, kur yra mūsų bičiulė Ukraina. Ir todėl aš dabar įsitikinęs, ką girdžiu nuolat ir ką šiandien išgirdau, mes šimtą kartų stipresni padėdami Ukrainai ir padėdami jai mes padedame sau. Jūs tęskite šiuos darbus.
               

Židek Filip,
mladý Čech narozený v roce 2004. – V roce 2004 jste byl vyjednavač pro přijetí Česka do Evropské unie a poté komisař. Čeho chtěli Češi dosáhnout členstvím v Evropské unii?
               

Pavel Telička,
bývalý hlavní vyjednavač pro jednání o přistoupení České republiky k EU. – Filipe, děkuji, já doufám, že mi dovolíte v prvé řadě poděkovat za zorganizování této slavnostní události paní předsedkyni, milé Robertě. Je skvělé vidět tolik bývalých kolegů nejenom z Parlamentu, ale i z Komise, bývalého šéfa a ostatně i kolegy z Coreperu a sdílet s vámi se všemi tento slavnostní okamžik.
               

                  Filipe, v roce 1996 Česká republika podala přihlášku za člena tehdy Evropských společenství. Byli jsme jedinou zemí, která k té přihlášce, která normálně může mít pár vět, připojila vysvětlující memorandum o několika stránkách. Já jsem měl tu čest být jedním ze dvou spoluautorů a my jsme se vlastně snažili už tehdy jasně vysvětlit, a tím i odpovídám na Vaši otázku, co nás vede k tomuto kroku, a to jak doma, tak i našim partnerům v Evropských společenstvích.
               

                  Samozřejmě, že jsme chtěli nabídnout našim občanům, našim podnikům a naší celé zemi výdobytky tohoto bezprecedentního integračního procesu. Samozřejmě, že jsme chtěli být integrováni do jednotného vnitřního trhu, chtěli jsme těžit z volného pohybu zboží, osob, služeb, kapitálu, to znamená z toho, co nastartuje dynamický rozvoj ekonomických sil.
               

                  Ale my jsme chtěli mnohem víc. My jsme chtěli, aby Česká republika byla jednou provždy ukotvena v prostoru, kam po dlouhou dobu patřila. Jsem přesvědčen, že patří do prostoru se zeměmi, se kterými sdílíme historii, hodnoty, tradice, ale i záměry.
               

                  Ale my jsme chtěli ještě něco víc. My jsme chtěli, aby Česká republika byla schopna a připravena participovat na dalším rozvoji Evropy. Pokud Václav Havel zde na tomto místě mimo jiné řekl, že Česká republika se vrací do Evropy, tak tím měl na mysli, že se vracíme nejenom tam, kam patříme, ale že máme ambici Evropu dále rozvíjet, převzít za ni spoluzodpovědnost a de facto převzít zodpovědnost za směřování ve všech těch oblastech, které na nás mají dopad, ale na které jsme jako nečlenský stát neměli vůbec žádný vliv.
               

                  Já si myslím, že je dobré, když vaše generace, generace 2004, bude schopna vlastně tento cíl dále rozvíjet, když postupně tuto zodpovědnost či spoluzodpovědnost převezmete, a já vám v tom držím palce a těším se, až se toho žezla ujmete třeba i na této půdě.
               

President. – I now give the floor to Mr Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission.

Romano Prodi,
ex Presidente della Commissione europea. – Signora Presidente del Parlamento, signora Presidente della Commissione, sono davvero commosso di partecipare a questa meravigliosa cerimonia di ricordo di un grande avvenimento.
               

                  Noi celebriamo i vent'anni di un evento che ha cambiato la storia dell'Europa. Abbiamo sentito tutte le testimonianze, adesso, testimonianze non di retorica ma di soddisfazione di come sono andate le cose dopo l'allargamento dell'Unione.
               

                  Dieci nuovi paesi sono entrati, otto dei quali erano in precedenza appartenenti al Patto di Varsavia. E anche questo è stato un momento complicato e, con Günther, abbiamo lavorato tanto perché questo avvenisse senza tensioni e senza problemi. Non era facile ottenere questo e l'abbiamo ottenuto.
               

                  È stato un grande accordo, raggiunto con uno spirito di collaborazione, con tanta pazienza ma anche con tanta condivisione. Pazienza e condivisione che hanno giocato assieme per costruire il nuovo dell'Europa: lunghi mesi di colloqui con spirito costruttivo. Non abbiamo esportato la democrazia ma abbiamo fatto un contratto democratico, in cui chi entrava e chi apriva le porte era in situazione di totale parità. Un unico esempio al mondo: chi pensava di imporre la democrazia ha compiuto solo dei disastri.
               

                  E io ricordo un momento emozionante di questo, quando una parlamentare di un paese che entrava nell'Unione, membro di una minoranza, disse: ‘Il mio paese vuole entrare in Europa perché l'Europa è un'unione di minoranze.’ Ed è bellissimo vedere qui le massime autorità che rappresentano l'Europa, del più grande paese europeo e del più piccolo paese europeo.
               

                  Qui è un fatto simbolico non è un fatto astratto: è concretamente l'Europa che è cresciuta così in questo modo. Vi sono state difficoltà, vi è stato scetticismo, ne abbiamo avuti di problemi e di discussione sui singoli punti, sugli aspetti che riguardavano i vari momenti della vita politica e abbiamo anche dovuto procedere a tanti adattamenti, sia politici che economici, ma questi si sono temperati nel tempo, non sono diventati più gravi. Il processo di convergenza a cui noi aspiravamo è stato ottenuto. Questo è il risultato maggiore che ci fa celebrare questo 20o anniversario con grande soddisfazione.
               

                  I tragici avvenimenti degli ultimi anni hanno dimostrato che il difficile, paziente e diligente lavoro della Commissione ha dato frutti di pace e di prosperità. Certo, abbiamo ancora dei problemi. Vi sono stati paesi e movimenti politici che non hanno accettato pienamente le regole che si stavano costruendo, ma, appunto, la pazienza, la comprensione e lo spirito di adattamento sono stati l'arma migliore della nostra Europa.
               

                  Ecco il processo democratico, e quindi anche la costruzione europea, devono andare avanti perché la democrazia non è ancora stata completata in tutta l'Europa. E oggi abbiamo sentito il desiderio di nuovi paesi che vogliono entrare, desiderio a cui noi dobbiamo dare una risposta positiva.
               

                  Però, voglio ricordare al Parlamento che, quando noi operavamo per unificare l'Europa, vi era anche un condiviso impegno di cambiare le regole con le quali l'Europa opera: cambiarle per essere più efficace, per essere più unita, per essere più forte nel mondo. Questo impegno è stato mantenuto in parte ed è ora di completarlo e credo che oggi, nel celebrare il passato, noi dobbiamo prendere tutti assieme un impegno per il futuro.
               

                  Questo è il compito del nuovo Parlamento, questo è il compito di tutti noi se vogliamo riacquistare il ruolo che l'Europa deve avere nel mondo e che oggi sarebbe così importante che potesse esercitare in maniera forte nel mondo.
               

                  Questo è il compito da adempiere, in modo da celebrare nel modo più degno quello che avvenne venti anni fa e che io non posso dimenticare, quella notte, prima nel confine fra l'Italia e la Slovenia e poi nella celebrazione comune il giorno dopo a Dublino, quel senso di grande felicità che c'era; ecco, la felicità riguarda il passato ma riguarda il presente e riguarda soprattutto i propositi per il futuro.
               

President. –
Grazie. I will now give the floor to the political group leaders for two minutes each, starting with the EPP Group. I give the floor to Jerzy Buzek – a former President of the European Parliament and a current Member.

Jerzy Buzek,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie i Panowie Premierzy! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Wielkie rozszerzenie 20 lat temu było de facto europejskim zjednoczeniem. Kraje naszej części kontynentu, które zostały wbrew ich woli odcięte od Europy, znów stały się jej pełnoprawną częścią. Gdy byłem młody, wydawało się to nierealne, a stało się faktem. Jak z tego wynika, należy marzyć i pozostawać przy swoich marzeniach.
               

                  1 maja 2004 r. Europa zaczęła oddychać dwoma płucami. Przez te dwadzieścia lat, jak w dużej rodzinie, poznaliśmy się dogłębnie przez wspólne działania i cele. Byliśmy razem w zdrowiu i w chorobie, na dobre i na złe. Różnimy się, czasem sprzeczamy, ale nie oddzielamy się nowymi kurtynami i tych podziałów musimy unikać. Utrzymać jedność, spójność, solidarność. Ja właśnie jestem politykiem Solidarności, związku zawodowego, bo dla Unii dziś jest wciąż trudny czas. Za chwilę mamy również wybory. Stawiamy więc pytanie o przyszłość. Unia Europejska musi stać się silniejsza i sprawniejsza, jeśli chce się liczyć na świecie. Unia Europejska musi także stać się bliższa ludziom. Trzeba uzmysłowić Europejczykom, jak wiele nas łączy. Zbliżyć ich do siebie. A w warstwie gospodarczej klucze to konkurencyjność i innowacyjność. Większe nakłady na zieloną i sprawiedliwą transformację, badania, edukację, nowe technologie, sztuczną inteligencję. Musimy budować unię obronną w ramach NATO. Ani na chwilę nie wolno nam zapominać o walczącej Ukrainie.
               

                  Drodzy przyjaciele! Dziś całe pokolenie Europejczyków nie zna już innej rzeczywistości niż zjednoczona Europa, ale każde pokolenie jest w stanie zrozumieć i ponieść tę solidarność, która zmieniła oblicze Europy. W niej jest też recepta na naszą wspólną przyszłość i nowe rozszerzenie: Ukraina, Mołdawia, Gruzja, Bałkany – to wielkie wyzwanie i równie wielka szansa. Wykorzystajmy ją. Życzmy sobie z okazji dwudziestolecia następnego takiego kroku, jaki poczyniliśmy dwadzieścia lat temu.
               

Leszek Miller,
w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Koleżanki i koledzy! Dwadzieścia lat temu w Phoenix Park w Dublinie patrzyłem, jak biało-czerwone barwy narodowe mojego kraju zakwitają na masztach obok 15 flag krajów członkowskich i złotych gwiazd Unii Europejskiej. Miałem poczucie, że jest to jedna z tych unikalnych historycznych chwil, kiedy patos i głębokie wzruszenie są nie tylko usprawiedliwione, ale konieczne.
               

                  Oto wreszcie Europa godziła własną historię z własną geografią. I na naszych oczach rodziła się nowa europejska wspólnota. To, co wówczas się wydarzyło, nie było przecież zwykłym kolejnym rozszerzeniem, ale ponownym zjednoczeniem Europy. Jestem zaszczycony i dumny, że mogłem być premierem polskiego rządu w tej właśnie chwili.
               

                  Polska droga do Unii była trudna i długa. Na tej drodze spotkaliśmy wielu sojuszników, o różnych orientacjach politycznych, także wielu lewicowych polityków, którzy w tamtych czasach dominowali w rządach unijnej piętnastki. To w dużej części dzięki nim wchodziliśmy do Unii na zasadach ‘wolni z wolnymi i równi z równymi’.
               

                  Jest oczywiste, że obecna Unia nie jest taką samą, do której Polska wstępowała. Ale i Polska nie jest tym samym krajem. Potężny impuls modernizacyjny przeniósł nas na inny poziom cywilizacyjnego rozwoju. Brexit, covid, agresja Rosji na Ukrainę zmieniają przyszłość Europy. Wierzę, że Parlament wybrany w czerwcu, jak i inne instytucje poradzą sobie ze znanymi i jeszcze nieznanymi trudnościami, także ze szkodliwym trójpodziałem na państwa członkowskie, instytucje unijne oraz obywateli – podziałem, który stał się jedną z istotnych przyczyn blokujących postęp na drodze dalszej integracji.
               

                  Drodzy przyjaciele! To moje ostatnie wystąpienie na forum naszego Parlamentu. Nie kandyduję na następną kadencję, ale pragnę podziękować wszystkim za współpracę, z którą miałem do czynienia. Szczególne podziękowania kieruję do mojej grupy politycznej Socjalistów i Demokratów i naszej przewodniczącej Iratxe Garcíi Pérez.
               

Dita Charanzová,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear Presidents, dear Prime Ministers, dear Ministers, dear colleagues, 24 years ago Václav Havel addressed this Parliament and spoke about European identity and enlargement. He spoke of turning Europe's turbulent history into one of a profoundly fair and peaceful order, based on the principle of equality and cooperation by all sides, where understanding and general consensus guide Europe. Four years later, he lived to see his dream fulfilled with the enlargement to the Czech Republic and nine other European countries.
My country joining the European Union was one of the proudest moments in my life. The barrier between the East and West – gone. Yet the discussion continued after enlargement: new versus old Member States, EU-10 versus EU-15, east versus west.
Twenty years on, I am truly glad that there is no longer an ‘us’ or ‘them’, but only a ‘we’. We still have national interests, but we are all equal members of the same club. We are one European Union.
Twenty years on, we must not give in to those that wish to take us back. We must not give in to those who speak of Brussels or Strasbourg as something to fight against. If you don't like it, then reform it – but we must refuse to go back to nationalism. We must refuse to go back to the divided Europe of our parents.
Havel's dream didn't end with enlargement 20 years ago. He dreamed of the continent as a whole being united. Now is the time to continue his dream, and I look forward to welcoming more members to our club, where dialogue replaces hate and wars.
I am a proud Czech and I am a proud European. Twenty years on, I am proud to be both at the same time, and for this I will always be grateful.

Marcel Kolaja,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, President of the Commission, Commissioners, honourable guests, colleagues, today we celebrate a historic milestone, a day in which millions of us – me included – were reunited with European society after decades of forced isolation.
It is a day we longed for since regaining our freedom in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember feeling immense pride at our countries that, after decades in shadows of oppressive communist regimes, in just 15 short years we were welcomed in the European Union.
Reflecting on the past two decades, I am struck by the remarkable progress we have made. I see the spread of our shared democratic values across the continent. A beacon of hope in a nowadays world with a ruthless aggressor just at our borders.
Personally, I have witnessed not only improvements in our living standards, but also in the quality of our environment in our cities and villages back home. Yet we must not rest on one's laurels, an idiom which we say a lot in Czechia. We face attempts for disintegrating the Union from the inside, attacks on its core values and principles, erosions of the rule of law and attempts to curtail democracy in several European countries.
We must continue to strive for an ever-closer Union: one that is inclusive, sustainable and prosperous. A Union capable of swift actions. A Union which is immune to blackmail, not only from the outside, but mainly not from the inside. A Union that stands as a major global player.
For that, we need a strong, united political will, a will I sense daily in this Parliament and we hope to feel equally from our prime ministers and political leaders.
Only together we stand stronger. Long live Europe.

Nicola Procaccini,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per noi conservatori europei l'Europa non è mai stata un insieme di uffici e di regole, ma un concetto storico e culturale. Per questo ciò che accadde venti anni fa non fu un semplice allargamento ma una riunificazione. Fu il giorno in cui, come auspicato anni prima da Giovanni Paolo II, il nostro continente poté tornare a respirare con due polmoni: quello occidentale e quello orientale.
               

                  Questa riunificazione fu possibile grazie alla sconfitta del comunismo, che tagliava in due il nostro continente, idealmente e fisicamente. Lo ricordo perché trovo curioso che gli orfani di quella sconfitta pretendono di dare lezioni di europeismo a noi che ci battevamo per una Unione europea, mentre loro si battevano per l'Unione Sovietica. Per fortuna abbiamo buona memoria e per questo respingiamo l'approccio centralista e dirigista che si vorrebbe imporre agli europei di oggi.
               

                  Per questo conserviamo intatto il desiderio ardente di un'alleanza europea di nazioni legate indissolubilmente da un patto di pace, collaborazione e sviluppo. Ciò che avvenne nel 2004 fu l'epilogo di ciò che avvenne il 9 novembre, 15 anni prima. La scelta di riunire dieci nuovi Stati alla nostra comunità geopolitica fu dunque giusta, doverosa e lungimirante.
               

                  Oggi, in questo momento di commemorazione, il mio pensiero va agli uomini e alle donne di Budapest, agli Jan Palach e ai ragazzi di Praga, agli operai di Danzica, ai prigionieri dei gulag, ai martiri delle foibe e a tutti coloro i quali hanno lottato per la loro patria, per la loro libertà, per l'Europa.
               

Jaak Madison,
fraktsiooni ID nimel. – Suur aitäh, austatud president, komisjoni president, endine välisminister Ojuland! Väga meeldiv teid näha siin saalis. Kahtlemata keegi ei kahtle siin saalis, et Euroopa Liidu laienemine oli suur samm. See oli väga suur samm uute liikmesriikide jaoks. See oli oluline ka Eestile, sest Eesti jaoks on olnud ja jääb alati olema kõige tähtsamaks küsimuseks julgeolek.
               

                  Kuidas olla kaitstud, kuidas olla turvaline, kuidas säilitada oma iseseisvust? Ja seda me näeme ka täna loomulikult Ukrainas, et kogu julgeolek baseerub sellel, kas me suudame tagada jõu balansi, et Venemaa ei saaks oma ambitsioone jälle ellu viia oma imperialismiga. Ja siin loomulikult jõu balanss on paigast ära, sest et Euroopa on võib-olla ise olnud naiivselt mugav kolmkümmend aastat ja arvanud, et kõik uued maailmasõjad on võimatu, see mitte kunagi enam uuesti ei juhtu.
               

                  Venemaa on meie partner, nii nagu ka Saksamaa mõtles mitukümmend aastat praeguse komisjoni presidendi juhtimisel, kui tema oli kaitseminister, et Venemaaga on hea teha äri, aga täna me näeme selle hinda. Samas oma häid kolleege siin saalis võib-olla natuke raputada ja maa peale tagasi tuua, siis Euroopa Liit on väga kompleksne asi. Me liitusime majanduse liiduga. Enamus inimesi uutes liikmesriikides, ka Eestis, enamus inimesi tahtsid liituda liiduga, mis on rahvusriikide liit, mis on vaba turumajandusega, vaba liikumisega, õpivõimalustega, reisimisvabadusega. Aga nad ei liitunud liiduga, kus tulevad ühel hetkel päevakorda küsimused roheäärmuslusest, ühisest migratsioonipoliitikast, ühistest maksudest. See ei olnud see liit, millega inimesed liitusid, ja lihtsalt toestamaks oma väiteid ka numbritega, siis ka Eestis, minu koduriigis, on tehtud ju arvamusuuringuid. Julgelt üle seitsmekümne viie protsendi inimestest toetab Euroopa Liitu kuulumist.
               

                  Kuid samas, kui küsitakse inimeste käest, et kas te toetate näiteks ühiseid makse, et saada omavahendeid Euroopa Liidule, siis kaks kolmandikku hoolimata haridustasemest, sissetulekust, ükskõik kas on linnaelanik, maaelanik, siis kaks kolmandikku inimestest ei toeta. Kas te toetate ühist immigratsioonipoliitikat – ei toeta! Kas toetate rohkem võimu andmist Euroopa Parlamendile või Euroopa Komisjonile – ei toeta! Ehk see näitab, et me oleme liitunud rahvusriikide liiduga, ja järgmise parlamendikoosseisu ülesanne, mis saab olema tunduvalt parem, konservatiivsem, ongi viia tagasi meid juurte juurde selle liidu suunas, millega me liitusime kakskümmend aastat tagasi. Aitäh teile ja ma soovin ilusat pidupäeva!
               

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, γιορτάζουμε σήμερα μια σημαντική επέτειο, την τελευταία μεγάλη διεύρυνση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, πριν 20 χρόνια. Ένας από τους λόγους που αποφάσισα να ασχοληθώ με την πολιτική πριν μισό αιώνα ήταν το όραμα μιας ενωμένης, δημοκρατικής Ευρώπης των λαών, που να προάγει την ειρήνη, να υπηρετεί τη δημοκρατία, να καταπολεμά τις ανισότητες, να υπερασπίζεται το κράτος δικαίου και το κοινωνικό κράτος. Τα οράματα του Spinelli. Όσα έκαναν πράξη προηγούμενες ευρωπαϊκές ηγεσίες. Ξεχωρίζω αυτή του Jacques Delors.
               

                  Αυτή τη στιγμή πρέπει να σκεφτούμε και το μέλλον, αντλώντας διδάγματα από το παρελθόν. Και το μέλλον και οι προκλήσεις του μάς διδάσκει ότι η διεύρυνση πρέπει να πηγαίνει χέρι-χέρι με την πολιτική εμβάθυνση. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να επιτευχθούν οι στόχοι της κοινής αγοράς χωρίς μια ισχυρότερη και ταχύτερη πολιτική ενοποίηση, χωρίς έναν πιο ισχυρό κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό, χωρίς μια πιο δημοκρατική και αποτελεσματική και γρήγορη λήψη αποφάσεων, ιδιαίτερα στο Συμβούλιο που κινδυνεύει συχνά με παράλυση. Είναι η τελευταία ολομέλεια στην οποία μετέχω, καθώς μετά από τρεις θητείες στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και δέκα χρόνια στο Προεδρείο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, έχω αποφασίσει εδώ και χρόνια να δώσω τη σκυτάλη στις νεότερες γενιές. Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τους συναδέλφους όλων των πολιτικών πτερύγων για τη συνεργασία. Και ως σταθερός οραματιστής, ευρωπαϊστής της σύγχρονης Αριστεράς, θα ήθελα να πω ότι το όραμα της ενωμένης δημοκρατικής Ευρώπης θα κινδυνεύσει αν δεν αγωνιστούμε πιο αποτελεσματικά όλοι για να υπερασπιστούμε τη δημοκρατία, την πολιτική ενοποίηση της Ευρώπης, απέναντι στα φαντάσματα του παρελθόντος που απειλούν την ίδια την ιδέα της Ενωμένης Ευρώπης και της δημοκρατίας.
               

President. – That brings us to the end of this celebration. However, before you all go, I invite you to stand for the European anthem, ‘Ode to Joy’, performed a cappella by the ‘Voix de Stras’ Choir.

(The Choir sang the European anthem)


(The sitting was suspended at 12.08)

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.11)


Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, le samedi 24 avril 1915, à Constantinople, capitale de l'Empire ottoman, 600 Arméniens furent raflés et assassinés sur ordre du gouvernement. Ce fut le début d'un génocide, au cours duquel les trois quarts de la population arménienne de l'époque ont péri. La communauté internationale n'a pas réagi.
               

                  Il y a quelques mois, l'Azerbaïdjan a chassé par la force 100 000 Arméniens du Haut-Karabakh. Le peuple arménien a le triste privilège d'avoir connu à la fois le premier génocide du XXe siècle et le premier nettoyage ethnique du XXIe siècle. Une fois encore, notre réaction n'a pas été à la hauteur.
               

                  Alors, en ce jour de commémoration du génocide arménien, Madame la Présidente, je ne vous demande pas une minute de silence; je demande au contraire à tous les Européens de parler et d'agir pour que le peuple arménien ne soit plus jamais menacé.
               

Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, nous voterons dans quelques instants l'approbation du Parlement européen sur le traité pour la préservation de la biodiversité en haute mer. Ce moment est historique. Les États de la planète ont compris que leur avenir dépendait de l'océan, de l'oxygène qu'il fournit, du carbone qu'il stocke et des ressources qu'il abrite. C'est un bien commun, menacé, qui doit être régénéré.
               

                  Ce traité concerne les eaux internationales, mais l'océan ne connaît pas de frontières. Sa préservation et son utilisation durable sont aussi un enjeu essentiel dans notre espace maritime, le premier de la planète. C'est pour cela que l'océan doit être une priorité du prochain mandat. Merci à la rapporteure, Silvia Modig, et merci à tous pour votre engagement.
               

Malin Björk (The Left). – Madam President, colleagues, this week is Lesbian Visibility Week. Just as we have IDAHOBIT and Trans Awareness days, this is an important moment to acknowledge the special discrimination and realities of lesbians.
It is a fact that, as lesbians, we have been largely made invisible throughout history, be it inside the women's movement or inside the LGBTI movement. And this despite the fact that lesbians have been at the forefront of both of these struggles and in so many other movements. Let me tell you, if you scratch the surface just a little bit, you are likely to find an energetic lesbian everywhere, busy to make this world a better place.
But the historic fear of lesbians has been used to discipline all women, to say ‘don't be too free’, ‘don't be too independent’, ‘don't say that you can do without patriarchal presence, then we will call you out as a lesbian.’
               
But I say that being a lesbian is a little bit like having a superpower. It automatically makes you have to look for more freedom, more independence and strive to create that independence, equality for everyone.

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, this is not a point of order. This is a point of thank you. It's a bit emotional. It was 14 July 2009. Shortly after 8.00, I entered this hemicycle for the very first time and went to my assigned seat, 566. There I sat, almost alone, wondering at the fact that I had become a Member of the only – only – transnational parliament in the world, one of the 732 people in charge of legislating for half a billion Europeans. The pride and sense of duty that I felt there and then never, ever left me for the last 15 years.
Back then, I told my voters and the members of my party that I would seek two or maximum three terms in this House. They granted me my wish, and I will forever be thankful to them for their trust. But three terms are not four; now is the time to leave.
At this moment, I want to thank you, my present and former colleagues, for those 15 years. They've been, frankly, the brightest part of my professional career. For sure, we were not always on the same side of the argument, but I would say that, by and large, our debates were worthy of a vibrant democracy. I am also thankful to the staff of this institution. They make sure that we have everything it takes to discharge our duties to the benefit of all citizens.
It would be my pleasure – because it's not just thank you, it's an invitation – it would be my pleasure to see you tonight at 20.00 in la rotonde, to share drinks together to celebrate my departure and that of so many other MEPs who don't have the chance to speak. Thank you for your respect.
But, if I may, before leaving, I just want you to allow me a few share to share a few thoughts on the way forward.
Thank you for your respect! As we could see, the European Union was built as a response to two totalitarianisms: Nazism and Soviet communism. Those had in common an utter contempt for the life and dignity of human beings.
It is not by chance that the first value lying at the foundation of this Union is human dignity. This has to remain our common compass; everything we do here must contribute to the possibility for every human being, present and to come, to live a dignified life. Nowadays, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes are once again on the rise, including at our own borders. At the same time, we see clear and present danger to human dignity within our Union. And at the global level, climate change reminds us that our economic system is putting the lives and livelihoods of humanity as a whole at risk.

(Objections from certain quarters)

I'm finishing! Be patient. In 15 years, I've never made a point of order, right? Never once. So allow me to finish.
The challenges ahead are daunting, but I have an unwavering faith in the collective wisdom, creativity and resources of the European citizens. If human dignity is our compass, the motto of our European Union provides the key to unlock these collective capabilities: unity. Because together we only represent 6 % of the global population and we live on just 2 % of the land. This alone should remind us that only if we act together, will we be able to have a grip on our present and our future, what everyone here calls sovereignty. Divided, we are bound to become the playthings of others, of our events beyond our control.
Diversity. Because no single individual, no single group of people, no single discipline, no single school of thought, no single culture alone can grasp the complexity of our world. It is only when we look at it from different perspectives that we stand a chance of making it better.

(Loud protests from certain quarters)

Dear colleagues, I'm finishing. One sentence.
Dear colleagues, only if it embodies the values and the motto of the European Union will this Parliament be a beacon of hope in Europe and beyond.
7.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

7.1.   Amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure concerning the training on preventing conflict and harassment in the workplace and on good office management (A9-0163/2024 - Gabriele Bischoff) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Gabriele Bischoff,
Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir stimmen jetzt gleich über eine Änderung der Geschäftsordnung ab, um verpflichtende Kurse zur Prävention von Konflikten und Belästigung am Arbeitsplatz einzuführen. Das Präsidium des Europäischen Parlaments hatte das bereits im Juli 2023 beschlossen und uns beauftragt, im AFCO-Ausschuss eine entsprechende Änderung der Geschäftsordnung vorzulegen.
                  

                     Denn das Europäische Parlament ist nicht nur ein Ko-Gesetzgeber, sondern eben auch ein Arbeitgeber von mehr als 10 000 Beschäftigten hier. Als Arbeitgeber ist es klar, dass wir eine Fürsorgepflicht haben und für das Wohlergehen auch der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter verantwortlich sind. Und wir sehen ganz genau mit dem Anstieg der gemeldeten Fälle, dass unsere bisherigen Regeln nicht ausreichen.
                  

                     Deshalb appelliere ich an alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen, diesem Bericht zuzustimmen. Es geht hier nicht um links oder rechts oder Mitte. Es geht tatsächlich um Prävention von Belästigung und um gutes Management in diesem Haus. Deshalb bitte ich um ihre wohlwollende Unterstützung.
                  

– Before the vote on Amendment 3:


Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Madam President, yeah, I know, because it was my fault. I mean, we were wrong in indicating the vote for Amendment 2 because we confused it with Amendment 8. Is it possible to…

(The President cut off the speaker)


President. – We cannot repeat the vote.
7.2.   Objections pursuant to Rule 111(3): Novel foods – the definition of ‘engineered nanomaterials’ (B9-0225/2024) (vote)
7.3.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Calculation, verification and reporting of data on recycled plastic content in single-use plastic beverage bottles (B9-0226/2024) (vote)
7.4.   Trans-European transport network (A9-0147/2023 - Barbara Thaler, Dominique Riquet) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Barbara Thaler,
Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir verabschieden heute ein Gesetz, das die Grundlagen für das größte zivile Bauprogramm Europas festlegt. Unser transeuropäisches Verkehrsnetz umfasst die größten 426 Städte Europas, die größten Häfen und Flughäfen, über 100 000 Schienenkilometer und so weiter und so fort. Auf 1,5 Trillionen Euro schätzt die Kommission die Baukosten. Das sind 10 % der gesamten europäischen Wirtschaftsleistung.
                  

                     Was wir heute beschließen, prägt unseren Kontinent über die nächsten Jahrhunderte – von Kyjiw bis Lissabon, von Oslo bis Sizilien. Und ja, unser transeuropäisches Verkehrsnetz schließt auch unsere Nachbarn mit ein. Wir wachsen zusammen, Distanzen schrumpfen, das europäische Verkehrsnetz macht Verkehr schneller, einfacher und günstiger. Es eröffnet ein Mehr an Chancen, es ermöglicht ein Mehr an Freiheit, und Freiheit ist unsere Zukunft. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, es lebe Europa!
                  

Dominique Riquet,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, nous allons voter l'accord de trilogue sur le RTE-T, qui représente une grande avancée pour l'Europe. Déplacer les personnes et les marchandises assure la cohésion territoriale et l'unité de l'Europe. En cela, les transports manifestent l'Union en acte.
                  

                     Cet accord vise à mettre nos infrastructures en conformité avec nos nouveaux objectifs de décarbonation du Pacte vert. Les gains pour l'Europe seront grands. Il s'agit de provoquer un choc de report modal en faveur du ferroviaire, de connecter les grands ports et aéroports, de doter l'Union d'une vraie stratégie pour le déploiement de terminaux multimodaux, et d'intégrer les grandes métropoles au dispositif. C'est aussi la logique et la gouvernance européennes, et non uniquement nationales, dans le déploiement des réseaux qui seront assurées.
                  

                     Enfin, cet accord renforce le caractère stratégique des infrastructures, dans leur dimension militaire pour la maintenance, mais aussi la résilience face au changement climatique, et une meilleure surveillance des investissements étrangers directs, notamment pour nos ports et nos terminaux.
                  

                     En tant que rapporteur, je tiens à remercier ma corapporteure, madame Thaler, toute l'équipe de négociation du Parlement, la collégialité du travail qui a permis d'aboutir à un bon accord.
                  
7.5.   Packaging and packaging waste (A9-0319/2023 - Frédérique Ries) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Frédérique Ries,
rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, avec cette législation sur les emballages et les déchets d'emballage, nous mettons enfin ce gigantesque secteur européen sur les rails de la circularité, en misant sur le recyclage et sur le réemploi. Je suis particulièrement fière, parmi tous les éléments que nous avons réussi à mettre à bord de ce règlement, que le Parlement, ensemble, nous ayons réussi à imposer l'interdiction des PFAS dans les emballages alimentaires. C'est une première mondiale que nous réalisons ici pour ces produits chimiques éternels, particulièrement polluants, nocifs pour la santé et pour l'environnement. C'est aussi une victoire pour les consommateurs européens.
                  

                     Une loi européenne doit être équilibrée. C'est pourquoi il était essentiel que nos ambitions environnementales rencontrent la réalité économique. C'est chose faite avec un accord de trilogue aussi, qui garantit une dérogation horizontale pour toutes les petites entreprises de moins de dix salariés. Il reste un point technique à préciser – ce sera Monsieur le Commissaire Sinkevičius qui s'en occupera dans un instant.
                  

                     Je voudrais conclure, Madame la Présidente, si vous me le permettez, car c'est également ma dernière intervention dans cet hémicycle où je siège depuis 25 ans maintenant – dear colleagues, I promise, no tears, 20 seconds.
                  

                     J'ai beaucoup appris à vos côtés. Ce qui nous rassemble, au-delà de nos divergences, de nos différences de couleurs, c'est la défense de la liberté, c'est la tolérance, c'est la solidarité, des valeurs qui sont bousculées dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, ce monde globalisé, ce monde multipolaire. Face aux Cassandre qui nous annoncent le pire, je veux moi continuer de croire au meilleur, ce meilleur qu'ensemble nous n'avons cessé d'inventer depuis le début, mais toujours, toujours et encore pendant la crise de la COVID.
                  

                     Alors que maintenant nous continuons de forger notre solidarité pour nos alliés ukrainiens, alors avec Gramsci – eh oui, une libérale cite un communiste, ce sont des choses qui arrivent – avec Gramsci je continue, après 25 ans et plus que jamais, à croire à l'optimisme de la liberté, à croire à l'optimisme de la volonté. Et je cède la parole au commissaire.
                  

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, let me begin by sincerely thanking everyone involved and in particular the lead rapporteur, Ms Ries, with her shadow rapporteurs, as well as the rapporteurs in the three associated committees.
The text of the new packaging and packaging waste regulations represents a balanced package of measures. This outcome of negotiations will contribute significantly to reducing packaging waste and promoting the transition to a circular economy in the European Union. It will also largely harmonise the conditions for placing packaging on the EU market. Naturally, in view of the broad scope of application of this legal act, there will be a need for follow up work to ensure its smooth and pragmatic implementation in the interests of the public authorities, operators and citizens.
Let me be very clear that the Commission stands ready to make every effort to support the implementation of the rules agreed by the co-legislators and ensure that they deliver economic and environmental benefits on the ground. In the past weeks, specific concerns about the economic constraints and environmental issues were brought to our attention regarding the reuse targets for transport packaging. These concerns are related to the feasibility of achieving a 100 % reuse of pallet wrappings and straps – and indeed, based on the impact assessment carried out, the Commission did not include such a requirement in its proposal.
In the light of the concerns and calls for action, I confirm that the Commission will launch an assessment of this issue by the end of this year, and address it as a matter of priority upon the entry into force of the regulation.
To this aim, the Commission will adopt, without any delay, a delegated act to exempt plastic pallet wrapping and straps from the scope of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Article 29, provided the assessment concludes that the conditions laid down in paragraph 18 thereof are fulfilled.
So, to conclude, the replacement of the old directive by a modern regulation with predictable, meaningful and harmonised rules is urgently needed in the interest of the environment, but also for the EU economy and internal market.
7.6.   Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (A9-0233/2023 - Javi López) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Javi López,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, durante esta legislatura que ahora acabamos, hemos vivido la crisis sanitaria más importante que ha vivido Europa en un siglo.
                  

                     Confinamos a la población y se hibernaron nuestras economías. Fue una dramática situación, pero de la que extraemos algunas importantes lecciones. Primero, que el valor más preciado que tiene nuestra sociedad es la salud de nuestros ciudadanos. Segundo, que el mayor y más importante instrumento para diseñar políticas públicas es la ciencia. Y tercero, que, probablemente, el colectivo profesional al que más tengamos que reconocer, escuchar y seguir sean los profesionales de la salud pública.
                  

                     Justamente eso es lo que hoy vamos a hacer con la nueva Directiva relativa a la calidad del aire ambiente y una atmósfera más limpia en Europa, que va a establecer nuevos límites para la contaminación y va a combatir la polución —que según la Agencia Europea del Medio Ambiente es la mayor amenaza medioambiental para la salud pública y provoca 300 000 muertes directas e indirectas al año—. En Europa, en los últimos diez años, tenemos 6 319 muertes de niños menores de un año directamente relacionadas con la polución.
                  

                     Se trata de una nueva ley ambiciosa, pero, al mismo tiempo, es fruto de un acuerdo equilibrado con el Consejo, y permitirá flexibilidades, monitoreará mejor y reflejará mejor la realidad de todo el territorio, va a acompañar a las administraciones locales en su aplicación y en la implementación. Esta nueva ley va a proteger la salud pública y de nuestros ciudadanos, porque sabemos que el aire limpio no es solo un lujo; es, sobre todo, un derecho que debemos garantizar con esta nueva Directiva.
                  

                     Por todo ello, les pido un masivo apoyo a esta Directiva por el aire limpio.
                  
7.7.   Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0246/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
7.8.   Amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment of the Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0244/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
7.9.   Amending certain Directives as regards the establishment of the Single Market Emergency Instrument (A9-0245/2023 - Andreas Schwab) (vote)
7.10.   Schengen Borders Code (A9-0280/2023 - Sylvie Guillaume) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Sylvie Guillaume,
rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, nous allons passer au vote sur le code frontières Schengen. Le sujet est à la fois porteur de l'identité de l'Union et, en même temps, objet de controverses. Le vote d'aujourd'hui ne fait pas exception, surtout pas à l'avant-veille des élections.
                  

                     Chers collègues, le texte nous satisfait-il à 100 %? Non, évidemment. Comment en serait il autrement? C'est souvent ce à quoi nous sommes confrontés, après des mois et des mois de discussions entre nous, parlementaires, mais encore plus avec les représentants des États membres. Nous avons toutefois abouti ici à un équilibre sur l'harmonisation des contrôles aux frontières, leur durée et les critères qu'ils devront respecter, afin que la libre circulation ne soit plus victime d'une mosaïque de réponses différentes dans l'Union, notamment en cas d'urgence de santé publique à grande échelle.
                  

                     Avec cet accord, nous protégeons la libre circulation des personnes, tout en répondant aux défis auxquels l'espace Schengen a été confronté au cours de ces dix dernières années. Notre Parlement doit prendre ses responsabilités en regard des préoccupations des citoyens européens.
                  

                     C'est pour moi aussi la dernière prise de parole des trois mandats que j'ai exercés au Parlement européen. En effet, j'ai décidé de ne pas me représenter en juin prochain, permettant ainsi à de nouvelles générations d'élus de venir siéger dans notre enceinte. Ces quinze années ont défilé très vite. Elles ont été remplies, parfois, de déconvenues, de joies et de combats politiques. Elles ont surtout été un moment où les convictions se sont confrontées, la plupart du temps dans le respect, dans une grande diversité culturelle et de pratiques politiques. Elles ont constitué un énorme défi personnel et je voudrais témoigner ma gratitude à cette institution.
                  

                     Mes remerciements vont également à mes équipes d'assistantes, les meilleures du monde et sans lesquelles je n'aurais pas pu exercer mes mandats. Merci au personnel de mon groupe, pour leur soutien et leur professionnalisme. Merci de même au personnel du Parlement, avec lequel j'ai collaboré comme vice-présidente. Merci à mes collègues du Parlement et, bien entendu, tout spécialement à mon groupe, pour son soutien et sa confiance. Merci aussi aux chauffeurs, huissiers, interprètes, traducteurs et agents techniques et audiovisuels, qui nous accompagnent dans l'ombre avec prévenance.
                  

                     On nous dit, enfin, que le Parlement de l'après-9 juin devrait prendre une tonalité plus brune. Le pire n'est jamais certain et j'espère que les démocrates européens sauront poursuivre la magnifique aventure de la construction européenne, dans le seul souci de répondre aux attentes de nos concitoyens.
                  
7.11.   Cross-border exchange of information on road-safety related traffic offences (A9-0396/2023 - Kosma Złotowski) (vote)
7.12.   Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed (A9-0014/2024 - Jessica Polfjärd) (vote)
7.13.   Early intervention measures, conditions for resolution and funding of resolution action (SRMR3) (A9-0155/2024 - Pedro Marques) (vote)
7.14.   Early intervention measures, conditions for resolution and financing of resolution action (BRRD3) (A9-0153/2024 - Luděk Niedermayer) (vote)
7.15.   Scope of deposit protection, use of deposit guarantee schemes funds, cross-border cooperation, and transparency (DGSD2) (A9-0154/2024 - Kira Marie Peter-Hansen) (vote)
7.16.   Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (A9-0184/2023 - Lara Wolters) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Lara Wolters,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, collega's, het is vandaag elf jaar geleden dat Rana Plaza instortte. En als wij zo meteen op het rode of op het groene knopje drukken, maken wij een fundamentele keuze.
                  

                     Accepteren wij dat mensen aan de andere kant van de wereld onder onveilige omstandigheden en voor een paar euro per dag onze T-shirts maken? Accepteren wij dat grote oliebedrijven mensen van hun land zetten en natuurgebieden vernietigen? Vergis je niet, daar gaat het vandaag over. Kiezen we voor mens en milieu en voor een duurzame economie of laten we megabedrijven wegkijken van het onrecht waar zij financieel van profiteren?
                  

                     Het is tijd om paal en perk te stellen aan cowboybedrijven en als Parlement hebben wij de macht om dat nu hier samen te doen. Door de jaren heen ben ik dit de anti-wegkijkwet gaan noemen en ik hoop dat jullie nu – nu het erop aankomt – niet wegkijken. Laat ons besluit van vandaag een eerbetoon zijn aan alle mensen die worden uitgebuit en aan de slachtoffers van Rana Plaza.
                  
7.17.   Improving working conditions in platform work (A9-0301/2022 - Elisabetta Gualmini) (vote)

– Before the vote:


Elisabetta Gualmini,
relatrice. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio moltissimo i relatori ombra, i colleghi che mi hanno sostenuta in questo negoziato difficilissimo e uso un eufemismo.
                  

                     Abbiamo dimostrato che quando il Parlamento europeo agisce con determinazione, unione e unità, l'Unione europea riesce a toccare la carne viva delle persone, a cambiare in meglio la vita dei suoi cittadini, in questo caso a proteggere oltre trenta milioni di lavoratori. Sono orgogliosa che proprio oggi, nell'ultima sessione plenaria della legislatura, mettiamo questo bel timbro, un bel segnale che rimarrà fermo lì, nella storia di questo Parlamento.
                  

                     E, grazie al Commissario Schmit, che ha voluto questa direttiva sui lavoratori delle piattaforme digitali, si introduce un meccanismo per combattere il falso lavoro autonomo, quasi sei milioni di lavoratori che sono a tutti gli effetti subordinati eppure trattati da imprenditori indipendenti. E in questo modo ribadiamo che la subordinazione, quando le condizioni oggettive di lavoro sono quelle, non è né obsoleta né uno scandalo, senza ovviamente impedire il vero lavoro autonomo.
                  

                     Ma soprattutto, normiamo per la prima volta al mondo gli algoritmi nel mercato del lavoro. Chiediamo trasparenza e diciamo che i sistemi automatizzati non devono agire al di fuori della supervisione umana. Non può più succedere in Europa che un ragazzo addetto a una consegna muoia in un incidente e venga licenziato da un messaggio automatico dopo essere morto. Questa è disumanizzazione del mercato del lavoro. Ti dismettono l'account perché non hai consegnato la pizza e noi a questo diciamo ‘no!’.
                  

                     Noi non ci opponiamo al cambiamento tecnologico, sarebbe stupido. Vogliamo cavalcare lo sviluppo digitale, ma in una società buona e la società buona è quella che rispetta le aspettative minime di ognuno di noi, tra le quali avere un lavoro dignitoso.
                  

                     Bene il mercato, ma bene anche la società, e oggi abbiamo dimostrato che l'Unione europea non è solo un gigante regolatore, ma può anche cambiare la vita delle persone.
                  
7.18.   European Health Data Space (A9-0395/2023 - Tomislav Sokol, Annalisa Tardino) (vote)
7.19.   Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2023/004 DK/Danish Crown – Denmark (A9-0171/2024 - Janusz Lewandowski) (vote)
7.20.   Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2023/003 DE/Vallourec – Germany (A9-0166/2024 - Jens Geier) (vote)
7.21.   Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2024/000 TA 2024 - Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (A9-0173/2024 - Margarida Marques) (vote)
7.22.   Withdrawal of the Union from the Energy Charter Treaty (A9-0176/2024 - Anna Cavazzini, Marc Botenga) (vote)
7.23.   Measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries (A9-0178/2024 - Loránt Vincze) (vote)
7.24.   Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (A9-0177/2024 - Silvia Modig) (vote)
7.25.   Combating violence against women and domestic violence (A9-0234/2023 - Evin Incir, Frances Fitzgerald) (vote)
7.26.   European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities (A9-0003/2024 - Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová) (vote)
7.27.   European Disability Card and European Parking Card for persons with disabilities for third country nationals legally residing in a Member State (A9-0059/2024 - Antonius Manders, Alice Kuhnke) (vote)
7.28.   Production and marketing of plant reproductive material (A9-0149/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)
7.29.   Production and marketing of forest reproductive material (A9-0142/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)
7.30.   Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans (A9-0085/2024 - Tonino Picula, Karlo Ressler) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 13.10)


VORSITZ: JAN-CHRISTOPH OETJEN


Vizepräsident

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.14 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

9.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

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

                  Gibt es Einwände?
               

                  Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt.
               
10.   The attack on climate and nature: far right and conservative attempts to destroy the Green Deal and prevent investment in our future (topical debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über ein aktuelles Thema (Artikel 162 der Geschäftsordnung) über den Angriff auf Klima und Natur: Versuche der extremen Rechten und der Konservativen, den Grünen Deal zu zerschlagen und Investitionen in unsere Zukunft zu verhindern.
               

                  Ich möchte die Kolleginnen und Kollegen darauf hinweisen, dass bei dieser Aussprache weder spontane Wortmeldungen noch blaue Karten akzeptiert werden, da es sich um eine Aussprache gemäß Artikel 162 der Geschäftsordnung handelt.
               

Bas Eickhout,
author. – Mr President, thank you. And also, thank you for the applause before I even spoke. Last Monday, this Monday, it was Earth Day 2024, and also, again, the European State of the Climate Report has been published and it is full of very clear messages: 2023 was the warmest year on record; again, the average sea surface temperature across Europe was the highest on record; the Alps, which have seen glaciers lose around 10% of their remaining volume; and in the past 20 years, heat-related deaths are estimated to have increased by 94%.
Weather- and climate-related economic losses in 2023 are estimated at more than EUR 13.4 billion. That's the state of the climate, and we're only at the beginning because every emission that we are still doing is piling up in this atmosphere and is building up impacts that we are still going to see.
Remember 2015, when we signed up to the Paris Agreement, where we promised the world, ‘We want to stay below a warming of 1.5 degrees’? Remember 2019, when this whole House said, ‘We support the Green Deal. We work for climate neutrality’? Remember 2020, when this House in a full majority said, ‘There is a state of climate emergency’? Those were the days.
Those were the days where also the conservatives were very clear, making the point, ‘We need urgent action on climate’, and what have we seen? We've seen stalling. We've seen pressuring. We've been watering down: on nature restoration, on deforestation, on pesticides, on packaging, on electric vehicles. On all these files, we have seen conservatives and the right weakening, pressuring down and watering down legislation. And they are giving false promises.
This afternoon we will vote on agriculture again, and here the right will say, ‘We are going to weaken your environmental provisions because then everything will be fine for you’. But is that what is the problem of our farmers? The problem of our farmers is not environmental legislation. It is that they're not getting a fair price for their production.
So I will challenge you. We have amendments this afternoon where we are going to ask for transparency in the food chain so that we know what farmers can get. We have amendments that are capping the subsidies so that our subsidy system will not go to the big farms, but to the small farmers. We are challenging you. Are you willing to really pick up a fight for our farmers, or are you just making sound and not helping any farmer at all?
And we will see the same on industrial policy. In industrial policy, the right is talking about the problems of competitiveness. What are the real problems? The real problem is a lack of a European strategy, a lack of European investments, and a lack of clarity that the Green Deal is our future industrial deal. That clarity, that is lacking.
So therefore, dear colleagues, these elections will be about the Green Deal, the future of the Green Deal, the future of European competitiveness, the future of a real fair income for our farmers. And therefore we are calling, ‘Let's make these elections the Green Deal elections’, and let's make sure that we are continuing our fight because we need to pick it up. And it is time that the right is getting his head out of the sand again and start working. We will do so.

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, j'espère attiser autant d'énergie dans les quelques mots que je vais prononcer dans un instant. J'ai quelques doutes, néanmoins, je vous l'avoue.
               

                  Monsieur le Président, honorables députés, chers commissaires, je souhaite tout d'abord rappeler quelques faits sur lesquels se fondent les politiques publiques européennes et sur la base desquels nous avons bâti le Pacte vert. Tout d'abord, le changement climatique s'accélère et son coût pour la société et l'économie ne cesse d'augmenter. Ainsi, la décennie 2011-2020 a été la plus chaude jamais enregistrée. Par ailleurs, les effets de ces perturbations sur la biosphère, en particulier les phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes, ne cessent de s'aggraver et leur coût sur la santé des populations et sur l'économie ne cesse de croître, comme le démontre le rapport alarmant de l'Agence européenne pour l'environnement sur l'évaluation des risques climatiques en Europe.
               

                  Avec le Pacte vert et le paquet ‘Ajustement à l'objectif 55’, l'Union européenne a pris les devants. Nos actions nous permettent non seulement de respecter nos engagements dans le cadre de l'accord de Paris, mais permettent aussi à notre économie d'effectuer le tournant nécessaire pour jouer un rôle moteur dans la transition verte. À cet égard, la présidence belge du Conseil de l'Union européenne est heureuse d'avoir pu contribuer, en excellente collaboration avec la présidence espagnole qui l'a précédée, à l'aboutissement de plusieurs textes appartenant au paquet du Pacte vert.
               

                  Cependant, c'est vrai, nous devons également tenir compte de l'évolution du contexte international dans lequel nous élaborons nos lois et nous les mettons en œuvre. Depuis le débat qui s'est tenu dans cette assemblée au début du mois de février, beaucoup a été fait pour prendre en compte les inquiétudes légitimes du secteur agricole. Nous devons maintenant nous atteler à améliorer nos outils et à soutenir au mieux notre économie, en ouvrant la voie à une véritable durabilité compétitive. L'enjeu pour l'Union européenne est d'offrir à l'ensemble des acteurs économiques, y compris les agriculteurs, un cadre stable et prévisible, avec un accompagnement pour faire face aux défis climatiques et environnementaux, qui ne vont pas disparaître.
               

                  Il s'agit désormais de continuer à développer les conditions permettant de saisir les chances qu'offre une économie neutre en carbone et circulaire, dans le cadre d'un nouveau pacte européen pour la compétitivité. L'objectif est de combiner le marché intérieur et l'environnement, et non de les opposer. Cette question fondamentale a fait l'objet d'une discussion approfondie lors du Conseil européen de la semaine dernière. Je peux vous garantir que la présidence du Conseil est heureuse de pouvoir contribuer à la poursuite de ces travaux dans les prochaines semaines.
               

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, State Secretary, honourable Members, the European Green Deal was originally designed as a growth and innovation strategy from the start and it continues to be an essential driver for securing lasting prosperity.
We remain committed to our climate and environmental objectives, because becoming more resource-efficient and energy-independent makes Europe stronger in the face of geopolitical tensions and challenges, such as energy market volatility, while preserving the results of decades of social development.
Individual citizens and communities are increasingly exposed to natural disasters and health risks and energy prices have soared because we were too dependent on energy from important fossil fuels. Therefore, slowing down our efforts is not an option, as the cost of inaction would be disproportionately high compared to the investments needed to act.
The figures prove this: the EU reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 32.5 % in 2022 compared with 1990, while its gross domestic product grew by 67 % over the same period. Environmental policies have been wrongly portrayed as exacerbating social divisions and leading to decreased EU competitiveness. However, the transition to sustainability and trying in the European Green Deal remains the only viable response to the undeniable reality – and this reality is that extreme weather events resulting from intensifying climate change, critical changes in Earth systems, pollution and degradation of natural ecosystems pose significant risks to our well-being. This assessment comes straight from the business community and it is supported by the annual risk report of the World Economic Forum.
We also have strong support from citizens. According to the 2023 Eurobarometer, 93 % of Europeans believe climate change is a serious problem facing the world and over half think that the transition to a green economy should be sped up. Doing nothing and waiting is not an option. The cost of inaction would be simply too high. And according to the climate risk assessment, a conservative estimate is that climate change-related impacts could reduce EU GDP by about 7 % by the end of the century.
What about biodiversity? Biodiversity loss is one of the biggest threats to agricultural production and food security and it also affects climate, our health and water security. Nature is our first ally and nature-based solutions are the most efficient way to face the increasing risk from climate change. And they are very cost-efficient solutions. From the beginning of this mandate, the European Green Deal has tackled the interlinked risks of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It has set in motion the transformation of our society and economy to make it more modern, resource-efficient, climate neutral, resilient, prosperous and competitive.
Honourable Members, the handprint and contribution of the European Parliament to the vision and concrete legislation of the European Green Deal has been of utmost importance. The set of policies and regulation adopted over the last four and a half years provide clarity on the direction of travel for the EU's green transition.
We hear prominent European industries and companies are making strong calls to strengthen the industrial dimension of the European Green Deal and better promote industrial competitiveness. The Commission agrees. Climate neutrality by 2050, increased competitiveness and resilience of our industry and a transition that is socially fair and inclusive go hand in hand. The economy and the environment cannot be disconnected one from the other and we need robust productivity to ensure public services can be financed. Competitiveness, sustainability and social support go together.
We are fully committed to supporting citizens and businesses in this transition. The recent simplification proposal in implementing the Common Agricultural Policy, or the ongoing work to reduce the administrative burden of companies, are examples of how we support the implementation in light of evolving circumstances.
We also work together with Member States to support them in addressing skills gaps, ensuring people have the skills required for the new technologies. Implementation is the key word for the next years.
The first fruits of EU actions are already visible, for example, the value of the EU's net-zero start-ups ecosystem in 2021 is over EUR 100 billion, doubling since 2020. Renewables provide 45 % of our power in 2023. Over 1.5 million electric vehicles were sold in the EU in 2023. The EU budget 2021-2027, including both the Multiannual Financial Framework and the NextGenerationEU instrument, are currently projected to contribute almost EUR 600 billion to climate action and 7.5 % of the EU budget in 2024 and 10 % in 2026 and 2027. They are also dedicated to biodiversity objectives.
At the same time, we will continue to develop strong partnership with like-minded partners while ensuring security of our energy systems and supply chains and reducing external dependencies.
We need to listen. We need to talk to each other. We need to avoid polarisation that creates divisions amongst us. We may not convince each other on all points, but we need to cooperate sincerely and find compromises that take us forward.
European citizens, they ask that their politicians take a longer-term perspective, while ensuring the competitiveness of European economy and supporting the vulnerable groups within society. This is what the European Green Deal is about.

Peter Liese,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die EVP steht zum Green Deal. Wir haben – jetzt die Grünen bitte mal zuhören, das ist eine Tugend, die ich Ihnen wünsche – nicht nur die meisten der einschlägigen Gesetze mitgetragen, sondern wir haben viele auch federführend vorangebracht. Ich nenne als Beispiel den Klima-Sozialfonds und das Emissionshandelssystem. Und alle sollten sich auch noch einmal daran erinnern, dass das Emissionshandelssystem II am Anfang von den Rechten, von den Linken, von den Sozialdemokraten und den Grünen komplett abgelehnt wurde. Bitte nicht vergessen!
               

                  Wir haben aus gutem Grund einige Gesetze abgelehnt, und ich bin froh, dass wir das auch erfolgreich getan haben beim Pflanzenschutz. Danke an Ursula von der Leyen, dass sie das zurückgezogen hat. Die Bilanz der Grünen ist so, dass sie weniger Green Deal-Gesetze in der Schlussabstimmung unterstützt haben als die EVP. Ich nenne das Klimaschutzgesetz, Euro 7, Pflanzenschutz, neue Züchtungsmethoden, Gas und den ganz schwarzen Tag, den 8. Juni 2022, als Sie gemeinsam mit den Rechten meinen Bericht zum Emissionshandelssystem versenkt haben. Wir konnten das reparieren, aber bitte auch daran mal zurückdenken.
               

                  Also wir sind schon bei einer Zahl von sieben nicht unterstützten Gesetzen, und ich höre, morgen kommt ein achtes dazu, der Net Zero Industry Act. Und das finde ich wirklich ein Problem. Gemeinsam haben wir der Industrie nach vielen Schwierigkeiten ambitionierte Ziele gegeben. Jetzt müssen wir sie aber auch in die Lage versetzen, durch Beschleunigung der Verfahren, durch weniger Bürokratie klimaneutrale Fabriken auch wirklich zu bauen. Und das steht in dem Act.
               

                  Also Grüne, bevor ihr euch weiter aufregt: Heute Abend in der Fraktion beschließen für Net Zero Industry Act! Dann kommen wir gemeinsam beim Klimaschutz voran.
               

Mohammed Chahim,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, radicaal rechts verkondigt graag met enig gevoel voor drama dat we aan de vooravond staan van een ingrijpende groene revolutie. Maar we zitten daar al middenin. Overheden en bedrijven investeren volop in wind— en zonneparken en in allerlei groene technologieën om juist de industrie te helpen vergroenen.
               

                  Ik was de afgelopen week in het gebied Puertollano en je ziet daar gewoon de toekomst. Je ziet hoe Spaanse en Nederlandse bedrijven investeren in groene ammoniak en groene waterstof, juist om de industrie te vergroenen. Ook China en de VS staan niet stil. Waar we misschien vijf jaar geleden ambitieus waren, lopen we nu zelfs achter als het gaat om groene investeringen.
               

                  Rechts kan zijn neus ophalen voor de klimaatcrisis, maar een meerderheid in Nederland en Europa neemt die crisis heel erg serieus. En ze moet wel. Vraag het aan de inwoners van La Roche, waar onlangs een overstroming was. Vraag het aan de inwoners van Limburg, waar een aantal jaar geleden ook een overstroming was. Vraag het aan de boeren in Zuid-Frankrijk, die te maken krijgen met droge grond die wegschroeit voor hun ogen. Vraag het aan de boswachters in de Maasduinen in Limburg, die in een paar uur tijd vijf hectare grond zagen opgaan in brand.
               

                  Rechtse politici kunnen het klimaatbeleid proberen te shredden zoveel ze willen, maar daar helpen ze niemand mee en zeker niet hun kleinkinderen. Wij moeten nu de basis leggen voor groen industriebeleid, gecoördineerd met alle lidstaten, om een vuist te maken en onze industrie toekomstbestendig te maken.
               

Pascal Canfin,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, alors que se termine cette législature, je pense que l'on peut être extrêmement fiers du travail accompli sur le Pacte vert. Lorsque nous avons commencé, nous n'étions absolument pas alignés sur nos objectifs climatiques; aujourd'hui, nous avons adopté toutes les règles du jeu sur la mobilité, sur les énergies et sur les industries pour respecter nos engagements pour le climat.
               

                  Nous l'avons fait ensemble et nous l'avons fait en sortant des caricatures, et non pas en diminuant nos solutions, mais au contraire en les additionnant. C'est notre position, au sein de la délégation Renaissance et au sein du groupe Renew, d'additionner les solutions, plutôt que de les soustraire. Nous avons voté avec la gauche le développement des énergies renouvelables, mais nous avons voté avec la droite le développement du nucléaire. Nous avons voté avec la gauche les solutions basées sur la nature et nous avons voté avec la droite les solutions basées sur la technologie, comme les nouvelles techniques génomiques, parce que nous avons besoin de toutes les solutions, de manière pragmatique, ambitieuse et non dogmatique.
               

                  Je voudrais conclure, parce que la droite, en cette fin de mandat, a tendance à rejoindre les caricatures de l'extrême droite en disant que le Pacte vert serait un programme décroissant, mais ce qui est décroissant en matière agricole, chers collègues de la droite et de l'extrême droite, c'est par exemple le fait qu'en Andalousie, il ne pleuve plus. Il ne pleut plus et cela veut dire qu'il y a 50 % de production d'huile d'olive en moins en Andalousie. C'est ça qui est décroissant, en deux ans.
               

                  Ce n'est pas le Pacte vert qui est décroissant; c'est l'impact du dérèglement climatique, qui va rendre nos productions agricoles instables, voire impossibles, et qui va ruiner et limiter notre souveraineté agricole. Donc sortez des postures, sortez des caricatures, rejoignez-nous dans l'action pour la nature et le climat, qui est aussi une autre action pour la souveraineté, pour la compétitivité de nos entreprises et pour nos emplois.
               

Marie Toussaint,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je vous demande d'ouvrir les yeux. Vous verrez les inondations qui ravagent des territoires entiers, des maisons fissurées sous l'effet du dérèglement climatique, des vies de labeur qui partent tout entières en fumée sous l'effet du dérèglement climatique. Vous verrez le foncier dévalorisé par les pollutions industrielles que vous refusez de combattre, les cancers des enfants exploser, à cause des pesticides que vous refusez de réduire, et l'eau qui disparaît et est progressivement rendue impropre à la consommation, à cause des produits toxiques que vous refusez d'interdire.
               

                  Alors voilà, nous sommes en période électorale et, pour préserver le statu quo, vous organisez la grande régression environnementale: le moratoire pour les uns; la pause réglementaire pour les autres; pour l'extrême droite, l'abrogation du Pacte vert. Mais dans quel monde vivez-vous? Camarades socialistes, avec qui nous avons mené tant de combats, avez-vous déjà oublié vos promesses, en votant pour l'austérité plutôt que pour l'investissement d'avenir, pour le détricotage de la PAC, les méga camions et, pour la moitié d'entre vous, pour les OGM?
               

                  De nombreux jeunes Européens sont aujourd'hui ici, à Strasbourg, pour nous demander une chose: d'accélérer la transition écologique dans la justice sociale. Alors, pendant que vous vous liguez pour détruire notre avenir commun, nous continuerons à nous battre pour la justice, pour la paix et pour l'écologie.
               

Beata Szydło,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo ! W tej kadencji Parlamentu było już bardzo wiele kuriozalnych debat, ale w tej chwili lewicowi radykałowie przeszli samych siebie. Co to w ogóle ma być, Szanowni Państwo? To są kpiny z demokracji, z parlamentaryzmu. To jest przede wszystkim obrażanie Europejczyków. Nie mówicie o ochronie klimatu, nie mówicie o tym, co dzieje się w tej chwili w Europie – brak konkurencyjności, protesty rolników. Uważacie, że ci ludzie, którzy bronią swoich gospodarstw, bronią swojej przyszłości, to są skrajni prawicowcy? Co z gospodarką europejską, Szanowni Państwo? Czy ona jest coraz bardziej konkurencyjna? Czy dyskutujecie o przyszłości Europejczyków? Jak się im będzie żyło? Ludzie zamykają swoje firmy, bo nie stać ich na opłacenie rachunków. Ludzie nie widzą dla siebie perspektyw. To jest właśnie Zielony Ład. Tak, i o tym będą te wybory. I wiecie doskonale, że ta ideologia, zielona ideologia, którą zafundowaliście Europejczykom, wcale im nie pomaga i nie stwarza perspektyw dobrej przyszłości.
               

                  Tak, trzeba rozmawiać o tym, co dzieje się w Europie. Trzeba rozmawiać, jak chronić środowisko, jak chronić klimat, ale wy to robicie kosztem ludzi. Wy to robicie kosztem gospodarki europejskiej. Wy to robicie kosztem bezpieczeństwa europejskiego. I o tym będą te wybory.
               

                  My stoimy po stronie Europy i Europejczyków, po stronie europejskiej gospodarki, po stronie europejskiego rolnictwa. Nie pozwolimy wam doprowadzić Europy do upadku.
               

Silvia Sardone,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con le ecofollie di questi anni state finanziando il declino dell'Europa. Il Green Deal e le vostre assurde leggi per la transizione ecologica ci stanno costringendo a smettere di investire in ciò che ci rende autonomi, per sostenere tutto ciò che ci rende dipendenti da paesi come la Cina o altri.
               

                  Auto elettrica, pannelli solari, pompe di calore: tutta tecnologia che non è in mano nostra. Con le case green volete spremere i più poveri che pagheranno per una svolta che non avrà alcun effetto. La vostra ideologia uccide inoltre il nostro agroalimentare, aprendo alle importazioni dall'estero, imponendo il riposo dei terreni e autorizzando la produzione e la vendita di carne e pesce sintetici.
               

                  Le vostre politiche verdi distruggono agricoltura e industria. Lo volete capire o no? Alle prossime elezioni europee si gioca il futuro del nostro continente. Solo con la disfatta di Verdi e Sinistra ci sarà la salvezza dell'Europa.
               

Silvia Modig,
The Left-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Green Deal on ollut merkittävä saavutus koko EU:lta. Puutteistaan huolimatta vihreä siirtymä on mahdollistanut historiallisen suunnanmuutoksen, ja olemme asettaneet EU:n kurssille kohti kestävää tulevaisuutta ja mahdollistaneet kestävää talouskasvua.
               

                  Ilmastonmuutos on valitettava tosiasia – piti siitä tai ei. Toki te siellä oikealla olette vapaita laittamaan pään puskaan ja kieltämään tosiasiat, mutta tosiasioita te ette sillä muuta, että te tarjoatte äänestäjille älyllisesti epärehellisiä vastauksia.
               

                  Ilmastonmuutos on se suurin uhka viljelijöille tällä hetkellä, ja vihreällä siirtymällä me mahdollistamme myös eurooppalaisen ruuantuotannon tulevaisuuden. Kriisi ei ole kadonnut, vaan tilanne on koko ajan pahempi. Tarvitsemme vahvaa ilmastopolitiikkaa ja Green Deal II seuraavalle kaudelle, joka jatkaa tällä kaudella aloitettua työtä.
               

                  Mikäli nyt pyritään romuttamaan jo tehtyä ilmastolainsäädäntöä, tulevat kustannukset ja seuraukset olemaan niin inhimillisesti kuin taloudellisesti todella kovat kaikille eurooppalaisille, ja se ei ole eurooppalaisten etu.
               

Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da due anni a questa parte la destra – e ahimè spiace constatare – anche alcuni membri della Commissione hanno deciso di utilizzare l'ambiente come arma per la prossima campagna elettorale.
               

                  Sui giornali amici sono state diffuse fake news, è stata manipolata la protesta degli agricoltori e sono stati bloccati provvedimenti che fino a qualche mese prima erano considerati inamovibili.
               

                  Nel 2019, anche grazie all'impegno del Movimento 5 Stelle, l'Europa aveva preso la forte direzione della transizione ambientale e sostenibile. Negli ultimi due anni, invece, c'è stato il tentativo di dietrofront e questo ha creato incertezza in primis al sistema produttivo e imprenditoriale europeo.
               

                  Abbiamo intrapreso con forza e coraggio la strada dell'elettrificazione del sistema dei trasporti pubblici e privati. Le case automobilistiche stanno facendo investimenti forti in questo settore. Non possiamo dire ‘scusate, abbiamo scherzato, è questa la strada giusta’. L'Europa non torni indietro ma guardi avanti.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, a extrema-esquerda vem agora na 25.a hora do mandato procurar corrigir os seus erros. Por um lado, procura a velha técnica da amálgama: fazer de conta que todos os que não seguem os seus ditames são o mesmo, humanos retrógrados que procuram esgotar os recursos naturais e destruir o meio ambiente. A velha técnica, confundindo intenções com resultados e emoções com soluções. Grupos que se chamam ‘verdes’, mas que foram o grupo com mais votos contra os atos legislativos do Pacto Ecológico Europeu.
               

                  Pois não. Aqui, não. Não passarão. As suas supostas boas intenções, da esquerda radical, não trazem resultados. Aqui, estamos bem cientes do que é preciso fazer para travar as alterações climáticas e conservar o meio ambiente, a biodiversidade e todo o planeta. Portanto, não aceitamos uma propaganda, uma campanha feita de propaganda e emoções que não se traduz em moções.
               

                  Precisamos, sim, de apostar na inovação, nas tecnologias limpas, na economia circular, nas energias renováveis. Precisamos de lideranças políticas que saibam o que é fundamental e não se percam em escaramuças políticas. Precisamos que a esquerda radical, nesta sessão plenária, aprove o Regulamento Indústria de Impacto Zero. Esta é uma aposta na criação de empregos de qualidade e crescimento, uma aposta na competitividade da indústria europeia de impacto zero para não perdermos toda a nossa indústria para outros países, como a China.
               

                  Precisamos que a esquerda, ao contrário do que fez neste mandato, quando votou contra a Lei Europeia do Clima, saiba distinguir a esperança e as soluções de utopias ideológicas e meras proclamações. Aqui, somos claros – termino já, Senhor Presidente –, estamos a favor do clima, estamos a favor do planeta, a favor das pessoas e a favor do crescimento económico. Estamos a favor do futuro.
               

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, it's a point of order, really, to the debate, not speaking time. We have invited activists from the Fridays for Future movement. Some of them have been here already, in 2019, and they want to follow the debate. The services are not letting them in. I think they have the right to follow the debate about climate and to follow the debate about the future. This is unacceptable for us. Let them in.

President. – Thank you, colleague, for this point of order. We will have a look at the issue.

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Eigentlich wäre es doch gut, wenn wir in dieser letzten Plenarsitzung mit versöhnlichen Worten auf die Erfolge beim Green Deal zurückblicken könnten. Denn wir sind ja ambitioniert gestartet, aber leider sind wir im Moment nicht mehr wirklich gut dabei. Und, lieber Peter, ich glaube, wir hatten hier gerade Greenwashing verboten. Deswegen finde ich deine Argumentation zum EVP-Verhalten in der Umweltabstimmung doch eigentlich sehr überraschend. Denn ich muss dich leider daran erinnern, dass gerade ein wichtiger Teil der Klimakrise auch die Biodiversitätskrise ist. Da habt ihr als EVP alles dafür getan, dass wir nicht mehr Renaturierung bekommen, und ihr habt mit Fake News gearbeitet, die sich wirklich nicht sehen lassen können. Das muss man hier erwähnen.
               

                  Du hast das Emissionshandelssystem erwähnt. Wir waren immer dafür, ein System zu schaffen, das sozial gerecht ist, das nicht dafür sorgt, dass diejenigen, die sich mehr Klimaschutz nicht leisten können, am Ende des Tages zurückgelassen werden. Das Heizen und Autofahren teurer zu machen und es nur den Reichen zu überlassen, ist keine soziale Lösung. Deswegen haben wir hier auf der linken Seite des Hauses für einen Klima-Sozialfonds gekämpft, der im Moment leider nur ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein ist. Es wird in der nächsten Wahlperiode gemeinsam darum gehen müssen, alle Kräfte zusammenzuhalten, sozial gerechten Klimaschutz und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu verbinden und den Green Deal zu einer Erfolgsgeschichte für Europa zu machen. Das wird nur gemeinsam gehen. Ich hoffe, das wird nach dem Ende dieser Debatte sehr klar sein.
               

Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, el Pacto Verde Europeo es la respuesta a retos y amenazas reales: la amenaza del cambio climático.
               

                  Pero es un acuerdo. Claro, un acuerdo es algo diferente a una imposición. Un acuerdo es eso, lo que define un acuerdo: que varios se ponen de acuerdo en algo. ¿No? Bien.
               

                  Hay dos amenazas a los acuerdos: los terraplanistas negacionistas que dicen que no pasa nada, que esto es normal; que si hace calor, fenomenal, menos ropa. Y después los savonarolas ideológicos, que también los hay, los de la hoguera de las vanidades verdes. Porque hay jemeres rojos, jemeres verdes y terraplanistas climáticos.
               

                  Entonces, hay que seguir avanzando a pesar de los extremistas, que son ustedes. Porque en el fondo utilizan esto como un arma ideológica para marcar perfil ideológico y les importa muy poco o nada el verdadero impacto que tiene el cambio climático sobre la gente.
               

                  Es todo para la gente sin la gente, todo para los ciudadanos sin los ciudadanos. Y los ciudadanos sí que tienen problemas también, porque sus decisiones y las nuestras tienen impactos y tenemos que corregirlos, porque hay dos amenazas —repito—: aquellos que no ven a los ciudadanos y sus problemas y aquellos que los utilizan para marcar un perfil ideológico.
               

                  Para acabar, un acuerdo no es una imposición, es un punto de encuentro. Y la mejor forma de garantizar el combate contra el cambio climático es garantizando la sostenibilidad ambiental, pero también la social y la económica.
               

David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, il s'agit d'un rappel au règlement. Monsieur Cañas, dans son discours, a parlé de Khmers rouges et de Khmers verts. Je voudrais lui rappeler que les Khmers sont les auteurs d'un génocide, et qu'ils ont massacré le quart de la population du Cambodge. Utiliser ce genre d'image dans cet hémicycle est absolument indigne et je condamne fermement ces propos.
               

President. – Mr Cañas, I will not give you the floor. It's not a point of order and this is not a debate – no, no.
You want to make a point of order? Colleague, do you want to make a point of order as well? Mr Cañas. Jordi. Listen to me. Jordi, listen to me please.
If you want to take a point of order as well, you have the right to make a point of order. You do not have the right to answer a point of order, but you can make a point of order yourself.
So, I give you the floor for a point of order – a short one.

Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, primero, hay algo peor que los terraplanistas y los savonarolas: los canceladores. Es peor la cancelación, el ataque a la libertad.
               

                  ¿Sabe quién se autodefine como jemer verde? Una colega suya que se sienta ahí. Claro, claro. Entonces, atiendan ustedes. Intenten no imponer. No impongan. Están ustedes acostumbrados a definir lo correcto, el ideal de lo correcto, el perfil de lo correcto. ¿Y saben lo que pasa? No tienen razón.
               

President. – Thank you, colleague. Point taken. We now move on in the debate.

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Vor viereinhalb Jahren hat das Europäische Parlament – und haben übrigens auch die Konservativen – hier den Klimanotstand ausgerufen. Wir haben den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern versprochen, dass wir ihren Ruf nach echtem Klimaschutz und Modernisierung erhören. Und heute? Heute attackiert eine fossile Allianz von Konservativen bis ganz Rechten den europäischen Klimaschutz. Übrigens auch beim Emissionshandelssystem, im Verkehrsbereich, im Gebäudebereich.
               

                  Wenn es nach euch gehen würde, dann würden wir die Klimaziele nicht erreichen. Ihr wollt den Green Deal und unseren Wohlstand abwürgen. Aber ich sage euch: nicht mit uns!
               

                  So geht man nicht mit der Zukunft, mit den Schicksalen von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, mit dem Planeten und unserem Wohlstand um.
               

                  Auf der Zuschauertribüne sollten eigentlich die Aktivistinnen von Fridays for Future sitzen. Sie haben den Green Deal erkämpft, und diese Geschichte wird weitergehen. Und auch wenn sie hier nicht da sein und diese demokratische Debatte verfolgen dürfen, ist ihr Call doch klar: Wir müssen endlich unser Geld für Klimaschutz und Gerechtigkeit ausgeben statt für Kohle, Öl und Gas.
               

                  Aber auf der Tribüne sitzen auch Rita und Rosmarie von den KlimaSeniorinnen. Sie haben mit Herzblut einen zivilisatorischen Fortschritt vor Gericht erkämpft: Klimaschutz ist jetzt ein Menschenrecht. Und es stimmt: Klimaschutz ist Menschheitsschutz.
               

                  Die Europawahl entscheidet darüber, ob es damit weitergeht. Rettet den europäischen Klimaschutz! Rettet den Green Deal!
               

Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Pane předsedající, pamatuji si živě, jak nám Frans Timmermans, dříve než se odebral na volební porážku domů, vášnivě sděloval, že Green Deal je bible. Není. Je to jen politický koncept, který se vyvíjí, opravuje, přizpůsobuje realitě. Výsledky Fransovy misionářské činnosti jsou ubohé. Američané inovují, Číňané vyrábějí a my to v Evropě jen platíme. Stále více lidí si uvědomuje, že to takhle dál nejde.
               

Green Deal je třeba uvést do souladu s realitou, ekonomickými možnostmi a sociální únosností. Nálepkovat kritiky jako krajní pravici nebo z toho dokonce obviňovat Putina je fakt intelektuálně líné. A adorovat ty, kteří se lepí k silnicím nebo v galeriích ničí obrazy, je úplně mimo. Věřím, že příští Parlament bude respektovat realitu více než tento a že k tomu samozřejmě přispěje i posílení realistické pravice na úkor zelené a ideologické levice.
               

Anders Vistisen (ID). – Hr. formand! EU's grønne omstilling har været en katastrofe. En menneskelig katastrofe for de mange europæere, hvis job bliver sendt til Asien og til USA. En menneskelig og personlig katastrofe for de mange europæere, der hver eneste dag kæmper med høj inflation, har svært ved at betale regningerne på deres energipriser og knap nok har råd til mad. Og en personlig katastrofe for den ungdom, I har gjort så bange, at de nu taler om, at de ikke engang tør få børn. Sandheden er jo, at jeres omstilling har været hovedløs. Den har sendt job, vækst og beskæftigelse til Asien og USA, mens vi her i Europa bare har betalt regningen for jeres bureaukrati, jeres beskatning og jeres forbud. Men sandheden er jo også, at EU nu udleder mindre end 7 % af den globale udledning, mens Kina nærmer sig de 30. Så det eneste I har vundet ved jeres grønne omstilling, det er, at I har gjort os allesammen fattigere. Det er dumt, det er dårligt. Og dem, der sidder her i salen og buher og klapper mest, det er jo jer, der har nedlagt den europæiske atomkraft og kæmper for at få den udryddet i de sidste lande. Så jeres omsorg for den grønne omstilling går jo ikke længere end jeres egen næsetip. Det er skændigt, og det er forkert!
               

Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non possiamo ignorare la scienza. Gli scienziati hanno suonato tutti gli allarmi, già da troppo tempo. Siamo in una fase di emergenza. Il cambiamento climatico, l'aumento delle temperature peggioreranno e il degrado degli ecosistemi non si fermerà. Dobbiamo agire adesso.
               

                  Siamo in ritardo perché la natura non aspetta. E dobbiamo tenere presente che il costo di non agire e di non applicare politiche ambientali è molto maggiore del costo di agire. Ma c'è un'altra cosa che non possiamo ignorare: se non condividiamo equamente i costi di questa gestione, di queste politiche ambientali in modo socialmente giusto, non raggiungeremo le maggioranze politiche necessarie per fare tutti questi cambiamenti urgenti.
               

                  Se le classi popolari lavoratrici, i gruppi più vulnerabili della popolazione percepiscono che grava su di loro una quota sproporzionata di questi costi, non ce la faremo. Per questo motivo dobbiamo riuscire a convincere i più vulnerabili a non andare contro il Green Deal, perché andare contro il Green Deal significa andare contro il benessere dell'intera società, ma soprattutto delle persone e delle regioni più vulnerabili.
               

Norbert Lins (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Neulich ist der deutsche Landwirtschaftsminister von den Grünen unter die Erfinder gegangen. Er hat die Bambusbiene erfunden. Was war passiert? Er stand auf seinem Balkon, hat seinen Bambus zurechtgeschnitten und hat behauptet, dass er jetzt die Futtergrundlage für die Bienen legt. Das kann ja mal passieren. Jeder weiß, dass ein Bambus ein nutzloses Gewächs für die Bienen ist, aber blöderweise steht das symbolisch für Ihre Naturschutz- und Klimapolitik. Viel Meinung, wenig Ahnung von Gottes Schöpfung.
               

                  Anders die Obstbäuerinnen und Obstbauern in meiner Region am Bodensee. Die haben es geschafft, in den letzten zehn Jahren beim Schmetterlingsmonitoring positiv abzuschneiden. Mehr Artenvielfalt, mehr Schmetterlinge, sowohl in Qualität als auch Quantität. Das zeigt: Klimaschutz geht mit den Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Biodiversität geht mit den Bäuerinnen und Bauern und nicht gegen sie. Das ist unsere Politik. Im Gegensatz dazu steht Ihre verfehlte Politik.
               

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! 2019 gick vi socialdemokrater till val om en grön giv i Europa; en grön giv för att minska Europas utsläpp, stärka vår natur och göra omställningen rättvis. Vi har under den här mandatperioden, tillsammans här i EU, beslutat om det historiskt största klimatpaketet. Och vi har gjort det. Trots en pandemi, ett krig i Europa och en energikris har vi fördubblat det förnybara, och nu minskar utsläppen i Europa.
               

                  Men trots det ser vi hur de högerextrema krafterna mobiliserar för att stoppa den gröna given. Jag ser det i mitt Sverige: Sverigedemokraterna går till val på att riva upp EU:s klimatpolitik. Det är högerpopulisterna som är det största hotet, både mot en fred i Europa och en fred för det ukrainska folket, och ett hot för att vi ska nå våra gemensamma klimatmål.
               

                  Därför blir EU-valet den 9 juni ett val om vår framtid – och jag säger bara: Vi gör det för våra barns och barnbarns skull. Heja Green Deal!
               

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vedci nás už roky upozorňovali, že smerujeme do klimatickej katastrofy, že nám pred očami miznú desiatky, stovky druhov včelí, ďalšie opeľovače. Upozorňujú nás, že sa deti rodia s toxickými látkami v krvi. A my nepočúvame, hovoríme o tom, že to je ideológia, hovoríme, že sú to hoaxy, podobne ako sme zažili pri korone.
               

                  Vidíme obrovské škody na majetku a ľudských životoch. Ale keď to nejdeme robiť pre to, aby sme chránili život, ak to nejdeme robiť preto, aby sme chránili majetok, tak si povedzme iné dôvody, prečo potrebujeme robiť Green Deal. Pretože je to príležitosť, aby sa ľudia v Európe mali lepšie, aby sme boli nezávislejší od dovozu fosílnych palív, a môže to byť od Putina alebo od arabských šejkov, vyberte si, preto, aby sme mali viac pracovných miest, preto, aby nám nezomierala pred očami naša pôda.
               

                  Čo ma úplne znepokojuje, je to, ako sa tvárime, že sa nič nedeje, ako vlastne hovoríme, že nemusíme už viac nič robiť. Ale čoho sa najviac hrozím sú kolegyne a kolegovia, ktorí hlasovali za tieto opatrenia a teraz hovoria, že vlastne hlasovali proti.
               

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Verts/ALE). – Hr. formand! Europa skal være verdens grønneste kontinent. Vi skal have et Europa, der kører på grøn energi, passer på planeten og genopretter naturen i stedet for at smadre den. Vi skal være dem, der sætter klimabarren højest, så resten af verden er nødt til at følge med. Men der er nogen, der prøver at stoppe os. Nemlig de Konservative og den liberale gruppe med Venstre, Radikale Venstre og Moderaterne. Mens temperaturerne stiger, vil de stoppe grønne fremskridt og sprede mere gift i vores natur. De vil afløse Europas miljølov, udvande den første naturlov i EU nogensinde. De vil tillade farlig kemi, så vi ikke kan få de børn, vi drømmer om. Venstre har stemt nej til at beskytte naturen og jorden mod sprøjtegift. Radikale har også stemt nej til mindre gift i naturen, og de har fjernet de få miljøkrav, der er til landbruget. De sidste fem år har jeg siddet i den grønneste parlamentsgruppe i EU. Vi har nået meget, men fremskridtene er under pres. Derfor er det afgørende, at vi alle kommer ned og stemmer den niende juni for et grønt Europa, der fortsætter fremskridtene.
               

Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, Signor Commissario, Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, voglio ringraziare i promotori di questo dibattito surreale, perché con questa iniziativa hanno chiarito, una volta di più, chi in questi cinque anni ha lavorato per desertificare l'Europa agricola, l'Europa industriale, l'Europa manifatturiera, e chi invece si è battuto per difendere imprese e cittadini dalla folle ideologia green.
               

                  In questi anni avete costantemente violato il principio di neutralità tecnologica, condannandoci ad una nuova drammatica dipendenza strategica dalla Cina, senza migliorare affatto le condizioni dell'ambiente che ci circonda. Lo avete fatto perché accecati dall'ideologia, quella che vi ha impedito di ascoltare il grido di dolore di cittadini e imprese tacciati come noi di negazionismo climatico.
               

                  E lo avete fatto perché da tempo siete più attenti alle ragioni della grande finanza speculativa che a quelle delle imprese, che perdono competitività per la vostra burocrazia verde, e a quelle dei lavoratori che rischiano il posto di lavoro. Ma l'8 e il 9 giugno gli europei diranno finalmente che questa stagione è finita.
               

Philippe Olivier (ID). – Monsieur le Président, alors que l'impopularité de votre Pacte vert croît dans toute l'Europe, vous tentez d'imputer, je cite, à l'extrême droite la révolte des opinions européennes contre vos folies vertes. J'y vois une forme de complotisme qui prête à sourire, puisqu'il émane de ceux qui ont fait de ce terme la riposte mécanique à toute révélation de leurs turpitudes, même avérées. J'y vois une incapacité au débat qui caractérise l'Union européenne, qui voudrait nous faire croire qu'il n'y a jamais d'autre alternative que ce qu'elle propose. Le there is no alternative est la négation même de la démocratie et du libre choix des gens et des peuples.
               

                  J'y vois enfin le début de la victoire idéologique de ceux qui refusent votre logique wokiste, cette vision auto-flagellatrice et destructrice, qui entend considérer l'être humain comme un oppresseur de la nature, comme un prédateur des autres espèces, comme une espèce à reléguer et même à écraser. Nous, nous défendons une haute vision de l'homme, d'un homme responsable et éclairé. C'est une vision fondamentalement humaniste, la vision qu'a toujours portée l'Europe plurimillénaire et que l'Union européenne veut remettre en cause.
               

Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, nemyslím si, že niekto chce zničiť Zelenú dohodu, že niekto chce zničiť Európu, to nie je pravda. Jednoducho Green Deal musia všetci rešpektovať, uznávať z toho dôvodu, že je to niečo krásne, je to niečo teda dobré. Ale tí, ktorí projektovali Green Deal, si musia uvedomiť, že má množstvo, množstvo nedostatkov, množstvo chýb, ktoré sú neakceptovateľné. Treba si to jednoducho teda priznať a pokračovať ďalej.
               

                  Ale čo je dôležité: dôležité je to, že posledný krát vystupujem v tomto Parlamente a želal by som celému Parlamentu, celému svetu, celej Európe, na Ukrajine, Rusom a Ukrajincom želal by som im mier, a z toho dôvodu, dovoľte mi, dovoľte mi vypustiť holubicu mieru na znak toho, že Európa potrebuje mier. (Rečník vypustil do komory bielu holubicu) A nech táto holubica mieru lieta nad celou Európou. Nech táto holubica mieru nás všetkých spája. Nech táto holubica mieru je signálom toho, že to, čo najviac potrebujeme, je mier.
               

                  Give peace a chance.
               

(The President interrupted the speaker)


                  We need peace. All of Europe needs peace.
               

President. – Thank you colleague.

(Referring to the dove released in the Chamber) Can you catch it as well?
Now a point of order, I guess?

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, un rappel au règlement concernant l'utilisation d'un animal mis dans sa banane comme un simple objet, aujourd'hui, pour faire une déclaration, un message de paix. Vous allez faire comment, maintenant, pour récupérer cet animal, Monsieur? Où est le bien-être animal dans le geste qu'a fait cet intervenant? Je trouve cela absolument inacceptable.
               

Le Président. – Merci, chère collègue, je suis d'accord avec vous et nous allons rapporter cet incident à notre Présidente, et nous espérons que l'animal va bien s'en sortir.
               

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame Roose, je partage votre sentiment. Aujourd'hui, dans ce débat aberrant, nous voilà attaqués parce que nous avons réussi à obtenir que l'Europe soutienne enfin nos agriculteurs. Nous voilà mis en accusation parce que nous attaquerions le climat.
               

                  La vérité, chers collègues des Verts, chers collègues de la gauche, chers collègues macronistes, c'est que l'attaque vient de vous: attaque contre nos emplois, qui ont été fragilisés directement par les choix industriels désastreux que vous aurez portés; attaque contre notre souveraineté et notre indépendance, avec votre obsession contre le nucléaire; attaque contre notre prospérité, avec le programme de décroissance économique et agricole que vous n'aurez cessé de mener, malgré nos avertissements; attaque enfin contre le climat lui-même, parce que le climat n'est pas mis en danger, aujourd'hui, par ceux qui travaillent et qui produisent en Europe et qui respectent les règles environnementales les plus exigeantes au monde. Les deux tiers des émissions mondiales sont faites par dix pays, dont un seul est européen.
               

                  La vérité, c'est que tout ce que nous avons fait, tout ce que vous avez porté pour empêcher les Européens de produire chez eux ce dont nous avons besoin, vous l'avez fait pour offrir des parts de marché sur notre continent à ces modèles de production qui détruisent le plus la planète. Il faut revenir à la rationalité. Votre responsabilité sera immense. Le 9 juin, les électeurs voteront et nous remettrons l'Europe à l'endroit.
               

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege, und für alle interessierten Kolleginnen und Kollegen der Hinweis, dass die Taube eingefangen wurde und in die Freiheit entlassen wird.
               

Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, representantes del Consejo, estamos al final de la legislatura y es bueno hacer una evaluación de cómo ha ido una de las cuestiones y programas más importantes: el Pacto Verde Europeo.
               

                  Yo creo que es bueno hacer esa reflexión: qué ha pasado y en qué hemos fallado. En unas cosas ha ido mejor y en otras peor.
               

                  Yo creo que posicionarse en contra de la lucha contra el cambio climático o la neutralidad cero son un auténtico error. Por tanto, todos debíamos apoyar mayoritariamente estas propuestas. Pero, a lo mejor, algunas cuestiones no se han hecho adecuadamente.
               

                  Para la necesaria transición ecológica y los objetivos ambiciosos que nos hemos propuesto en la Unión Europea, hay que seguir trabajando. Pero hay que coger de la mano a los sectores industrial, agrario y pesquero, y explicarles la necesidad de los cambios, ayudarles en esos cambios y, desde luego, que los vean necesarios.
               

                  A todos ellos hay que decirles que esta tarde que tenemos una reforma necesaria de la PAC. Es simplificación. No se restan los objetivos climáticos. Por favor, que ni la derecha radical —con su no presencia— ni los verdes —con su radicalidad— tergiversen unos objetivos que son prioritarios para todos los europeos, incluidos los sectores agrario, pesquero e industrial.
               

                  Pero hay que ir de su mano.
               

Ondřej Knotek (Renew). – Pane předsedající, kolegové, prosím vás, přestaňte se vztekat a přijměte fakt, že lidé i firmy napříč Evropou zkrátka chtějí upravit Green Deal. Ta původní dohoda byla reagovat efektivně na klimatickou změnu, ale také udržet konkurenceschopnost a nějakou společenskou a i regionální spravedlnost. A také umožnit členským státům si tu klimatickou politiku dělat dle svých možností, podle svého. A to by fungovalo. Ale stal se pravý opak. Zeleně progresivní většina v Evropském parlamentu využila slabého a naivního českého předsednictví premiéra Petra Fialy a rozjela dlouhou zelenou party.
               

                  A teď co se vlastně děje? Evropa se z té party pomalinku probouzí a začíná kocovina. Co to znamená? Evropa ztrácí konkurenceschopnost na úkor Číny, na úkor Spojených států. Emise ve světě zkrátka neklesají, spíše rostou. Vy jste slibovali ochranu klimatu a prosperitu, přitom jste jenom lidem zdražili život. Tak se, prosím vás, nedivte, že lidé zkrátka chtějí tuto věc opravit a ty největší nesmysly, jako je zákaz spalovacích motorů či uvalení povolenek na domácnosti, po volbách zrušit.
               

Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Kommissionär! Varje gång som jag har varit här i Strasbourg har jag haft den här broschen på mig som visar hur mycket koldioxid det finns atmosfären. För fem år sedan hade vi precis passerat 410 miljondelar. Jag tror att det stod 411 på den första gången jag var här i september 2019. Nu står det 425.
               

                  För varje miljondel ytterligare koldioxid i atmosfären går den globala uppvärmningen allt snabbare. Det här är vetenskaplig fakta. Den typen av fakta verkar den högra delen av parlamentet ha väldigt svårt att ta till sig, och man blandar ihop vad som är fakta med politiska åsikter och så vidare. Det är väldigt, väldigt allvarligt.
               

                  Med nuvarande ambitioner kommer vi att närma oss 500 runt 2050 då vi säger att vi ska vara klimatneutrala. Vi kommer att passera tvågradersmålet innan det.
               

                  Det är väldigt allvarligt, men minst lika allvarligt är det motstånd som vi har stött på från den högra sidan, både här i parlamentet och i hemländerna, till exempel hemma i Sverige, när det gäller den väldigt, väldigt viktiga naturrestaureringslagen. FN:s klimatpanel är tydlig med att det är det enskilt viktigaste vi kan göra nu. Det är också det mest kostnadseffektiva.
               

                  Under nästa mandatperiod måste vi höja ambitionerna på alla de här områdena och se helheten.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, ustedes se creen que somos como esos del Partido Popular, que al primer golpe se echan para atrás.
               

                  Ustedes deberían estar pidiendo perdón por el Pacto Verde Europeo y montan un debate para acusar a la extrema derecha y los conservadores de ser un riesgo para el clima y la naturaleza. Ustedes son un meme.
               

                  Por supuesto que vamos a derogar su Pacto Verde Europeo y, por supuesto, vamos a borrar de la historia su diabólica Agenda 2030, que no es más que un plan de despido masivo contra los trabajadores, las clases medias y las empresas europeas.
               

                  Hoy mismo, este Parlamento ha aprobado millones de euros para 2 300 trabajadores que van a ser despedidos como consecuencia de sus políticas. Han devastado el sector primario, condenando a miles de explotaciones agrarias al cierre, condicionando las ayudas de la PAC, inundándoles de burocracia, restricciones, prohibiciones, y promoviendo la competencia desleal de terceros países.
               

                  Nosotros sí que votamos en contra de su PAC, votamos en contra del Pacto Verde Europeo, votamos en contra de sus estrategias y de la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza. Y, por supuesto, lo vamos a derogar.
               

                  Con la Agenda 2030 y con el Pacto Verde Europeo haremos… (el presidente retira la palabra al orador).
               

President. –
(reacting to the printed sheets of paper held up by the speaker) Sorry, colleague, but that is not the way we proceed here. So thank you – your time is over.

Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, posledných 25 rokov vládnu v Európe socialisti, kresťanskí demokrati a teraz najnovšie s nimi aj progresívci a liberáli. A vidíme, kam ste to s Európou dotiahli s imigráciou, so zdražovaním, s Green Dealom.
               

                  Zlyhali ste vo všetkom a napriek tomu nemáte ani štipku sebareflexie a prichádzate do Parlamentu s bodom, ktorý sa volá, že útok na prírodu, pokus krajnej pravice zničiť Green Deal a zabrániť investíciám do budúcnosti. No ja len žasnem.
               

                  To akože teraz všetci tí farmári, ktorí protestujú proti Green Dealu sú krajná pravica? Všetci tí občania, ktorí nesúhlasia s likvidáciou poľnohospodárstva, s vyzabíjaním stád dobytka, s emisnými povolenkami pre domácnosti alebo so zákazom spaľovacích motorov, to všetko sú extrémisti? Počúvate sa vôbec, ako vám tá arogancia a ten pocit nadradenosti udreli do hlavy?
               

                  Ja si nemyslím, že je hrozbou pre Európu sú tí ľudia so zdravým rozumom tam vonku, ale práve naopak, politici odtrhnutí od reality.
               

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Inszenierung der Grünen für diese Plenardebatte schockt mich wirklich, denn sie haben es auch nach fünf Jahren immer noch nicht begriffen: Klima- und Umweltschutz macht man nur mit breiten gesellschaftlichen und parlamentarischen Mehrheiten. Sie aber wollen offensichtlich spalten.
               

                  Ursula von der Leyen hat 2019 mit dem Green Deal die Priorität richtig gesetzt, und wir haben mit Mehrheiten in der Mitte wichtige Pfeiler eingeschlagen, Kollege Liese hat sie genannt. Und wir als EVP haben darauf geachtet, dass daraus auch ein Modernisierungs- und Wachstumsprogramm und damit ein echter Deal für unsere europäische Wirtschaft wird.
               

                  Klima- und Umweltschutz macht man nicht nur für eine Elite und in Ignoranz der wirtschaftlichen Lage vieler Bürger und der Wirtschaft, sondern mit ihnen zusammen. Klimaschutz muss handwerklich sauber und finanziell unterstützt sein, und er muss weltweit stattfinden, um Erfolg zu haben.
               

                  Liebe Grüne, kommen Sie mit auf unseren inklusiven Weg. Denn nach der Europawahl werden wir genug zu tun haben, um Maßnahmen für Umwelt- und Klimaschutz gegen diejenigen zu verteidigen, die das Problem leugnen und ignorieren wollen.
               

Dan Nica (S&D). – Domnule președinte, una dintre promisiunile care au rămas neîndeplinite în cadrul Pactului Verde o reprezintă sprijinul pentru industria oțelului europeană, care să producă oțel curat, oțel cu emisii reduse de dioxid de carbon.
               

                  În locul acestor măsuri, pe care cu toții le așteptam, pe lângă lipsa de finanțare și lipsa de bani pentru această industrie, industria oțelului, și mă refer la cea care era cea mai afectată, cu o scădere de 40 de milioane de tone anul trecut în Uniunea Europeană, am constatat o creștere a importurilor din țări care nu sunt membre ale Uniunii Europene și care produc cu emisii mari de dioxid de carbon.
               

                  Deci, pe de o parte, am reușit să distrugem în bună parte o industrie care funcționa bine, iar pe de altă parte, am reușit să creștem emisiile de dioxid de carbon și acest lucru pe fondul unei lipse de acțiune din partea Comisiei Europene.
               

                  Săptămâna trecută am trimis o scrisoare împreună cu ceilalți colegi ai mei din grupul S&D Comisiei Europene, cerându-i un plan de acțiune concret, bani, măsuri care să poată să ajute la decarbonizarea industriei oțelului și, în același timp, măsuri pentru ca să reducem sau să eliminăm aceste importuri din țări care nu sunt membre ale Uniunii Europene și care au emisii mari de dioxid de carbon.
               

                  Și vreau să știți că niciun comisar nu va primi aprobarea Parlamentului European în viitorul mandat, dacă nu vine cu acest plan de acțiune pentru industria oțelului.
               

Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Von der Theorie zur Praxis: Mein Landwirtschaftsbetrieb liegt im Süden Österreichs. 2022 hatten wir mit einer massiven Dürre zu kämpfen. 2023 hat ein Wirbelsturm eine Schneise der Verwüstung durch meinen Wald gezogen. Letzten Sonntag hatten wir 30 Grad plus –Mitte April, im Süden Österreichs. Seit gestern schneit es. Während ich hier vor Ihnen stehe und spreche, bricht bei mir zu Hause der Wald zusammen, denn er steht bereits im vollen Laub.
               

                  Und Sie von der Europäischen Volkspartei und von der Österreichischen Volkspartei haben nichts anderes zu tun, als Klimamaßnahmen zu verhindern, zu verzögern, Maßnahmen abzuschwächen und gewisse Gesetze überhaupt zu verhindern. Und für wen tun Sie das? Für die Fossilindustrie tun Sie das, und für die Agrar-Chemieindustrie tun Sie das.
               

                  Und das ist zum Schaden der österreichischen und europäischen Bevölkerung. Es ist zum Schaden künftiger Generationen, und es ist zum Schaden der Bäuerinnen und Bauern, was Sie hier tun. Konfrontieren Sie sich damit, und Sie werden bei der Wahl auch die Rechnung dafür präsentiert bekommen!
               

César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, como me han dejado el último —de coche escoba, decimos en España— aporto algunas conclusiones.
               

                  Ha quedado claro que el negacionismo existe y que es muy fuerte, y dependerá de la gente entre el 6 y el 9 de junio que no sea mayoritario en esta Cámara porque el PP está asomando el hocico hacia el negacionismo.
               

                  La crisis planetaria, que es doble —climática, de calentamiento, de biodiversidad, de ecosistemas y, no nos olvidemos, de la biodiversidad—, es un hecho, es una evidencia. Existe. Y yo creo que es bueno que le digamos a la gente que esta crisis pone en riesgo la supervivencia de la vida humana en el planeta, no a largo plazo, sino a corto y medio plazo.
               

                  Por tanto, creo que los negacionistas mienten. Vamos a ver si podemos sacar eso como conclusión de este debate: mienten y ponen en peligro la vida humana en el planeta.
               

                  Yo creo que no basta con tener la razón científica, señorías. Tenemos que tener la razón democrática. El Pacto Verde Europeo tiene que ser la gran política de la legislatura que viene. No puede ser un dogma, nunca lo ha sido. No puede serlo. Tiene que ser una política flexible. Y sobre esa política tienen que girar todas las demás.
               

                  Creo que el hecho de ser el último ha hecho que la presidencia me otorgue más tiempo del que creo que tenía establecido. Lo aprovecharé para decirles a los miembros del Consejo, pero, sobre todo, a Hungría, Polonia y Austria que hay una gran ley de futuro, que se llama Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza, que está pendiente de su aprobación. Y también es una cuestión de razón democrática. Este Parlamento hizo sus deberes. Ahora lo tiene que hacer el Consejo. Y, si no tenemos una ley prontito, sería un poco vergonzoso.
               

                  Así que a vencer a los negacionistas. De momento lo estamos haciendo, pero no hay que confiarse. Y esto no es solo para los de dentro, sino para los de fuera.
               

Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Ein Geschäftsordnungsantrag: Ich möchte mich hiermit ganz klar beschweren, dass wir als Parlamentsgruppe vorgeschlagen haben und empfohlen haben, dass bei allen Debatten blaue Karten und auch spontane Wortmeldungen möglich sind. In dieser Debatte war es nicht möglich, weil das Präsidium so entschieden hat. Ich finde es einen unerhörten Zustand, der unsere Debattenkultur wirklich dezimiert und kaputt macht.
               

                  Gerade diese Debatte hat gezeigt, dass es notwendig gewesen wäre, ganz klare Nachfragen zu stellen, da, wo Lügen verbreitet wurden, sich aber auch interessante Debatten hätten entwickeln können, da, wo Angebote von teilweise anderen widersprechenden Fraktionen waren, worauf man hätte reagieren können.
               

                  Gerade bei so einem wichtigen Thema ist es wichtig, eine Debatte in diesem Haus zu haben. Und zwar eine Debatte, die mehr ist als einfach nur Leute, die sich vorne hinstellen und für eine Minute reden. Ich halte es auch nicht für richtig, dass dann, um dem Ganzen auszuweichen, vom Präsidenten selber empfohlen wird, doch einfach einen Geschäftsordnungsantrag zu stellen, um anderen Leuten zu widersprechen. Deswegen fordere ich das Präsidium auf, in Zukunft stets blaue Karten und spontane Wortmeldungen zu ermöglichen.
               

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Nienaß. Ich möchte Sie darauf hinweisen, dass gemäß Artikel 162 unserer Geschäftsordnung bei allen Aussprachen, die nach Artikel 162 der Geschäftsordnung beantragt werden, unabhängig davon, von welcher Fraktion sie beantragt werden, gemäß unserer Geschäftsordnung blaue Karten und spontane Wortmeldungen nicht zulässig sind. Das ist grundsätzlich so, und das Präsidium hat da auch keinen Spielraum, das anders zu machen, weil das die Regeln sind, die dieses Haus sich selber gegeben hat. Wenn das Haus selber seine Regeln ändert, dann können wir das auch für die Aussprachen ändern, aber die Regeln für Aussprachen gemäß Artikel 162 sind hier eindeutig, und von daher sind spontane Wortmeldungen und blaue Karten nicht zugelassen, und ich gebe Ihnen jetzt auch nicht erneut das Wort.
               

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate, which is very timely ahead of the European elections. Let me use this opportunity and address at least some of the more concrete issues you raised during this debate.
First of all, as regards Ms Bentele, Mr Canfin, Mr Liese, you all said, and it is absolutely true, that the most of the Green Deal legislation was approved in this House by a large majority. The Green Deal achievements of this mandate are our joint achievements, and we should say this loudly and clearly.
But the reality is that there are also important pieces in this puzzle still missing, and without these pieces, like the Nature Restoration Law, we will miss crucial tools to meet the binding targets we have jointly agreed and subscribed in the EU Climate Law. We would discard an indispensable instrument that can help us becoming more resilient towards the devastating effects of climate change. So I therefore urge Member States to now fully take their responsibility and get this law over the finishing line.
Unfortunately, many interventions today show that we still tend to overlook the value of nature. Let me recall some additional figures and facts. In 2019, the economic value provided by the wider set of ecosystem services in the EU amounted to EUR 243 billion. The UN calculated that losing the benefits provided by the healthy ecosystems could cause a decline in global GDP of USD 2.7 trillion annually by 2030.
And finally, the European Central Bank points out that nearly 75% of all bank loans in the euro area go to companies that are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service, and severe losses of functionality in those ecosystems would cause critical problems for those companies.
No, climate and biodiversity policies are not a threat to our economies, but quite on the contrary, the cost of clean-up, for example, of the Slovenian floods, stands at over 16% of Slovenian GDP: 16%! So more than a tenth of what Slovenians earn altogether had to go to clean up damages of the event that may well be repeated. These are concrete reminders of the costs at stake. These are real figures, and behind these figures there are these are real people whose lives are affected.
Let me also say a few words on farming because this is also extremely important. But listening to claims that farmers were protesting against the Green Deal means not listening to farmers demands, because if you look concretely at what farmers asked, there were demands concretely going as regards the common agricultural policy and Gaia-X implementation and trade measures, which if we implement the Green Deal and if we ensure that the Green Deal is implemented outside the EU, the farmers will have a level playing field.
When it comes to CAP, let's not forget that the CAP, which was finalised in this mandate, was proposed by the previous Commission, so it is way behind the Green Deal was actually introduced. Let's be clear. Let's listen to our farmers demands, and try to implement the exact steps needed so that they would be competitive, that they would receive a fair price for their hard work.
That's the core of the Green Deal. The Green Deal does not go against the farmers' interest. On the contrary, if there is no clean water, if the ecosystem is degraded and the soil is not fertile, we won't have any farmers, and that would be the biggest disaster.
Dear Members of the Parliament, once again, thank you very much for this encouraging debate. The last European Council adopted extremely important points on supporting Europe's competitiveness. Nevertheless, the Green Deal is recognised that it ensures competitiveness of EU industry and increases Europe's energy independence and resilience.
So the Commission looks forward to continuing cooperation with the European Parliament and all its Members, both in this mandate and the new one to come, because we are committed to finding the best solution for European citizens and European businesses.

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers membres de cette Assemblée, merci pour ce débat vraiment riche en observations et en commentaires. Évidemment, j'ai pris note, au nom du Conseil, de l'ensemble des commentaires.
               

                  Je voudrais, puisque nous avons été sollicités sur l'évolution du travail sur la loi sur la restauration de la nature, vous confirmer que le règlement sur la restauration de la nature doit chercher un équilibre entre la restauration des écosystèmes agricoles et les intérêts des agriculteurs. L'article 9 a été rédigé avec soin, afin de garantir que le respect du règlement repose sur les efforts déployés, et non nécessairement sur les résultats obtenus. Permettez-moi de vous assurer que la présidence déploie tous ses efforts pour permettre l'adoption de ce texte législatif crucial.
               

                  Ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this legislature, it has become clear that we were wise in embarking on a historic green and fair transition, including an extensive road map of actions that aim to make the EU carbon neutral by 2050.
               

                  It is equally clear that our Green Deal should be complemented with an industrial deal and a renewed commitment to our competitiveness. But these are not actually mutually exclusive ambitions. They cannot and should not be. We need a clear path to decarbonise the industry in a way that brings predictable and competitive conditions for our companies and that creates jobs.
               

                  This week, this Parliament will vote on a host of legislation that further cements our commitment to a Green Deal, including reducing packaging waste, microplastic pollution, water pollutants and improving ambient air quality.
               

                  Crucially, this Parliament will vote on the Net-Zero Industry Act, which is set to bolster EU production in green technologies. The law will simplify the permitting process, setting maximum timelines for projects to be authorised depending on their scope and output. The quality of our legislation can and will make a huge difference, as well as a firm financial basis from both public and private sources.
               

                  We must move away from a climate of polarisation in which we pit industry against nature, but also agriculture against nature or agriculture against industry. In terms of agricultural policy, Europe has the levers to upgrade the position of farmers to focus on innovation and invest in more sustainable sustainability.
               

                  We can overcome the contradictions that are put to us. We can be a continent where there is room for nature that is rapidly decarbonising with profitable and prosperous agriculture and industry. That must remain our collective ambition as we approach a new legislature.
               

                  In short, I can therefore assure you of the Council's continued commitment to the objectives of the green transition and that the Council will continue to pursue work on current files.
               

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               
11.   Amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks – Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (joint debate – Banking Union)

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






—



                        dem Bericht von Jonás Fernández im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung über den Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2013/36/EU im Hinblick auf Aufsichtsbefugnisse, Sanktionen, Zweigstellen aus Drittländern sowie Umwelt-, Sozial- und Unternehmensführungsrisiken und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2014/59/EU (COM(2021)0663 – C9-0395/2021 – 2021/0341(COD)) (A9-0029/2023) und
                     










—



                        dem Bericht von Jonás Fernández im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 575/2013 im Hinblick auf Vorschriften für das Kreditrisiko, das Risiko einer Anpassung der Kreditbewertung, das operationelle Risiko, das Marktrisiko und die Eigenmitteluntergrenze (Output-Floor) (COM(2021)0664 – C9-0397/2021 – 2021/0342(COD)) (A9-0030/2023).
                     





Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, (start of speech off mic) … blue cards and catch-the-eye in this debate.

President. – Yes, in this debate there are blue-cards and catch-the-eye.

Jonás Fernández,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, iba a decir Consejo, pero ya no hay nadie; se han ido, tristemente. Y yo creo que han hecho bien en irse, o que se hayan ido tiene una explicación. Y la explicación es que este Parlamento ha logrado en estas últimas semanas terminar el mandato aprobando importantes dosieres legislativos vinculados al avance de la unión bancaria y acuerdos en los cuales el Consejo ha sido incapaz hasta el día de hoy de tejer pactos entre ellos mismos.
               

                  La semana pasada, votamos en el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios —muchas gracias, vicepresidente Karas— la propuesta para tener un seguro de depósitos europeo. Y esta misma mañana, el pleno ha aprobado su posición negociadora para revisar toda la gestión de crisis bancarias. Ambos informes legislativos son clave y aún no tenemos ninguna posición del Consejo. Y parece que el Consejo no quiere escucharnos. En fin, hacen mal.
               

                  En cualquier caso, hoy hemos discutido aquí también la implementación de la revisión del marco prudencial de las entidades bancarias. Aquí ya sí contamos con un acuerdo con el Consejo y con la Comisión. Quiero dar las gracias al conjunto de ponentes alternativos y a nuestros equipos técnicos, que han acompañado la negociación durante —podríamos decir— largos años.
               

                  Yo creo que, desde el punto de vista del Parlamento, podemos estar razonablemente satisfechos tanto con nuestra posición inicial como con el acuerdo final con el Consejo. Este Parlamento quería implementar lo más cercanamente posible a sus recomendaciones las opiniones del Comité de Basilea.
               

                  Creíamos y creemos que algunas entidades bancarias que usan modelos internos para calibrar sus requerimientos de capital necesitaban mejores instrumentos para mejorar su solvencia. Hemos alcanzado ese acuerdo para fijar un mínimo de requerimientos de capital para aquellos bancos que usan modelos internos. Además, lo hemos acompañado con medidas transitorias para permitir que la economía europea vaya acercándose hacia los estándares regulatorios y prudenciales que tanto necesitamos.
               

                  También quería destacar que hemos avanzado aún más rápido de lo que el Comité de Basilea nos recomendaba en el ámbito de internalizar riesgos climáticos. Antes discutíamos sobre los efectos del cambio climático, y yo creo que es justo reconocer que necesitamos dar más pasos para analizar cómo esos riesgos climáticos pueden impactar en los balances bancarios. Hemos hecho algo en esta propuesta y deberemos hacer más en el futuro.
               

                  También hemos introducido en la normativa europea un tratamiento prudencial para las exposiciones a los criptoactivos en el caso de los de los balances bancarios.
               

                  Hemos avanzado también en mejorar la gobernanza de las entidades bancarias, los procesos de selección, de nombramiento de los miembros de los consejos de administración, de las posiciones clave de las entidades bancarias… Y, como digo, yo creo que podemos celebrar un gran acuerdo que acompañará una votación esta tarde, donde considero que se va a reflejar esa mayoría amplia en esta Casa.
               

                  Me muestro contento y satisfecho de ese avance para mejorar la solvencia de las entidades bancarias en Europa y en la unión bancaria. Nos hubiera gustado ir un poco más allá en este ámbito para facilitar la locación de liquidez y capital en el conjunto de la unión bancaria, pero lo haremos en la próxima legislatura.
               

                  Por supuesto, como digo, es un debate oportuno y necesario, porque el voto de esta mañana para revisar el marco de gestión de crisis bancarias y el de la semana pasada sobre el seguro de depósitos europeo permiten a este Parlamento que nos presentemos a las próximas elecciones europeas con todos —todos, repito, todos— los deberes cumplidos.
               

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, colleagues, I just want to recall, before I go into my official remarks, that it is quite fitting that this debate is happening at the end of this mandate. It was a topic – Basel implementation – at my hearing in October 2020. So we've delivered, and we've delivered together – just to mark that. I certainly will not forget the challenge of delivering, but also the opportunity it provides.
I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fernandez, who has just resumed his seat, and the many colleagues in the Chamber who have contributed to getting this agreement in place.
It is a significant milestone that we have political agreement on the banking package, and it is a huge achievement for the European Union. Just to recall that this allows for the implementation of the final elements of the Basel III reforms, completing the banking reforms which started after the 2018 global financial crisis. I think many of us – I hope all of us – remember the immense difficulties caused by that crisis.
We should never forget the horrific implications for our countries, our society and our citizens. Some have never fully recovered. Our economies came close to collapse. A number of financial institutions failed or had to be bailed out by taxpayers. Many people lost their homes and their livelihoods. The Basel reforms are about fixing the problems in the banking system that contributed to that catastrophe.
Now to the specifics of what we are discussing today. The main goal in finalising the implementation of Basel III is to restore confidence in risk-based capital requirements. In other words, our rules should make sure that banks hold capital in proportion to the risks of their activities. We stayed faithful to the Basel agreement, showing our commitment to international regulatory cooperation.
We did use the flexibility within Basel to make some targeted adjustments to reflect the characteristics of the EU economy and banking sector. EU banks are especially important for lending to corporates and providing mortgages to homeowners, so there are transitional arrangements for activities like these.
We've also avoided unnecessary burdens for small banks. The EU applies these rules to all of our 4 500 banks, and not just to the large and internationally active banks. We have ensured that there is no significant increase in overall capital requirements. So the result of our work is a balanced compromise, which keeps our banks resilient and competitive. This banking package will make our banks more resilient to future economic shocks and ensure banks can continue to fund the EU economy, including in times of crisis.
So, again, my appreciation and thanks to Parliament for your very significant contribution to this ambitious outcome. Parliament's negotiating team – in particular rapporteur Jonás Fernández and the shadow rapporteurs – deserve, and have, our appreciation.
I do recall seeing Othmar Karas in the Chamber. Ah! ‘He's behind you’, as they say at the pantomime. Just a word for Othmar, if I may – and I'm sure colleagues will not be upset if I mention Othmar, as a colleague, a friend, and a very significant parliamentarian, who has made a huge contribution to banking regulation over the last 25 years in this House. I think your work is hugely appreciated and, indeed, the way you go about your work is, I think, an example for new Members.
We all together have done our work, and I think now is not the time to rest. We have to implement, and this is the next stage of that process. The Commission will also take the co-legislators' mandate to review the single market for banking very seriously. So to that end, I want to make the following very clear statement.
The Commission undertakes to carry out a fair and balanced assessment of the state of the single market for banking, taking into consideration, in particular, prudential requirements, including the level of application of the output floor, and the provisions on the waiver of capital and liquidity requirements.
It will carry out this mandate based on inputs from the European Banking Authority, and from the European Central Bank and the Single Supervisory Mechanism, and will consult with interested parties to ensure that the various perspectives are appropriately considered. The Commission will, where appropriate, present a legislative proposal based on the report.
So I think it is appropriate, as this Parliament concludes its five-year mandate, that we are debating financial regulation, because this is not a dry, disconnected debate about percentages and risk-based. This is core to the wellbeing of our society and our economy.
And I will recall the votes on EDIS and CMDI. I'll mention them further in my concluding remarks. You have done a lot of work in this mandate to move the process of banking union, and indeed, I hope, capital markets union a step forward. I look forward to hearing your views.

Othmar Karas,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Eine gemeinsame Währung, die global glaubwürdig sein möchte, benötigt einen starken, sicheren, widerstandsfähigen Finanzmarkt, gemeinsame Instrumente und ein umfassendes Paket an Maßnahmen. In den 25 Jahren, in denen ich dem Europäischen Parlament angehören darf, und den mehr als 50 Berichten, die ich mitverhandeln durfte, haben wir ständig an diesem großen Projekt gearbeitet. Es ist uns gemeinsam viel gelungen, aber wir sind noch lange nicht fertig. Wir dürfen nicht auf halbem Wege stecken bleiben.
               

                  Weil wir noch keine vollendete Banken- und Kapitalmarktunion haben, verbleiben 320 Milliarden Euro an Ersparnissen nicht in Europa, sondern gehen großteils in die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Hätten wir eine vollendete Banken- und Kapitalmarktunion, dann könnten wir zusätzlich 470 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr in der Europäischen Union investieren. Die Berichte von Enrico Letta und Mario Draghi zu Binnenmarkt- und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit dürfen nicht in der Schublade verschwinden, sondern sie müssen zu Eckpfeilern des Arbeitsprogramms der nächsten Kommission werden.
               

                  Das Europäische Parlament – das wurde schon angesprochen – geht zügig voran. Letzte Woche haben wir im Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung nach langem Diskussionsprozess den Bericht zur dritten Säule der Bankenunion, der Einlagensicherung, beschlossen. Heute haben wir die Bankenabwicklung im CMDI auf die Wege gebracht, und am Abend beschließen wir das Bankenpaket. Wir reduzieren Risiken, berücksichtigen unsere strukturellen Besonderheiten, erweitern die Proportionalität und beseitigen unnötige Bürokratie.
               

                  Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, mein Herzenswunsch für die Zukunft ist: Spielen wir nationale Interessen nicht gegen Europa aus. Vollenden wir, was wir uns längst vorgenommen haben. Lasst uns gemeinsam wieder mutiger, entschlossener, effizienter werden. Fahren wir mit 100 % statt nur mit 50 bis 70 %.
               

                  Ich danke Jonás Fernández, Mairead McGuinness, allen Verhandlungsteams für die Fortschritte, die wir gemeinsam erreicht haben.
               

Margarida Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, gostaria de começar por agradecer e felicitar o meu colega Jonás Fernández por este relatório e, sobretudo, pelos discursos que nós ouvimos agora, aqui, nas últimas intervenções, pelos progressos que fizemos em matéria de União Bancária.
               

                  Foi tudo o que queríamos? Não foi, mas conseguimos ter e resolver e avançar em alguns pilares no que diz respeito à União Bancária. Mas a conclusão da União Bancária é um passo crucial e é eternamente adiado. É crucial para garantir a estabilidade e reduzir o risco sistémico do setor bancário da União Europeia. Mas não só.
               

                  A União Bancária é uma peça essencial na galáxia de instrumentos e iniciativas que temos de ter no terreno para conseguirmos assegurar os recursos necessários para atingirmos as prioridades da União Europeia, para garantirmos um crescimento económico robusto de longo prazo que não deixe ninguém para trás.
               

                  Não podemos ver a União Bancária de forma isolada. As novas regras orçamentais da União Europeia, aprovadas ontem, irão dar mais flexibilidade e margem de investimento nos orçamentos nacionais, mas precisamos de avançar na criação de uma capacidade de investimento permanente após 2026.
               

                  Temos de implementar a União do Mercado de Capitais para diversificar as fontes de financiamento das empresas. E, claro, temos, por fim, de concluir a União Bancária, uma união para assegurar a solidez do sistema bancário e a circulação dos recursos financeiros entre Estados, empresas e mercados financeiros.
               

                  Não podemos esperar mais dez anos. Todos estes mecanismos a trabalhar em conjunto e de forma completa, para potenciar o mercado interno e maximizar o volume e as fontes de financiamento, são necessários.
               

                  Saúdo aqui o acordo alcançado na semana passada na Comissão da Economia sobre o EDIS. É um primeiro passo e um sinal político de compromisso dado pelo Parlamento ao Conselho para avançarmos finalmente para um verdadeiro seguro europeu de depósitos. Mas temos outros desafios pela frente para completar a União Bancária.
               

Gilles Boyer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, l'union bancaire que nous appelons de nos vœux reste inachevée, mais nous progressons dans ce paquet bancaire, que nous voterons ce soir, je l'espère. Nous avons veillé à concilier quelques préoccupations majeures: d'abord, assurer la sécurité de notre système financier; ensuite, préserver la compétitivité des banques européennes sur la scène mondiale; enfin, garantir le financement de l'économie, en préservant l'accès au crédit pour les PME et pour les ménages.
               

                  Par ailleurs, le paquet CMDI, que nous avons adopté aujourd'hui même, renforce notre capacité européenne à anticiper et à gérer des crises bancaires, ainsi qu'à préserver, dans ces situations tragiques, les garanties pour les épargnants européens. Ce sont de belles réussites du mandat qui s'achève, mais il nous restera du travail, étape par étape, pour parachever l'union bancaire. Ce sera un chantier parmi d'autres pour la mandature suivante.
               

Jan Ovelgönne,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute haben wir über die neuen Krisensicherungsregeln im Bankensektor abgestimmt. Es ist ganz entscheidend, dass die Steuerzahlerinnen und Steuerzahler nicht noch einmal wie in der Finanzkrise vor 15 Jahren für die Rettung der Banken zur Kasse gebeten werden. Deswegen brauchen wir strenge Regeln für Banken in der Krise.
               

                  Wir hätten aber auch lernen sollen daraus, wie es z. B. die Regionalbanken seit Jahrzehnten schaffen, eine Stütze der europäischen mittelständischen Realwirtschaft zu sein, und das mit systematischer Sicherung ihrer Institute und Risikominimierung zu verbinden. Ihre Institutssicherungssysteme sind subsidiäre Sicherungssysteme. Sie können unangetastet innerhalb der strengeren Regeln für die Einlagensicherung parallel bestehen.
               

                  Alles, was zur Sicherung und Stabilität im Bankensektor beiträgt, muss erhalten bleiben. Aber die jetzt beschlossene Harmonisierung der Systeme um der Harmonisierung willen schwächt am Ende die bewährten Institutssicherungssysteme. Für die vielen Regionalbanken ist das das Gegenteil dessen, was CMDI eigentlich erreichen will.
               

PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA


Vice-Presidente


Presidente. – Caros Colegas, é com muita honra e confesso que também com alguma emoção que assumo hoje, pela última vez, a presidência do plenário deste Parlamento Europeu.
                  

                     Permitam-me que aproveite a ocasião para agradecer profundamente a vossa confiança, bem traduzida na eleição e, depois, na reeleição como Vice-Presidente do Parlamento Europeu, com a posição mais elevada na hierarquia deste Parlamento alguma vez exercida por um português, desde a adesão de Portugal.
                  

                     Foi um privilégio inesquecível trabalhar com todos vós na diversidade que faz a riqueza da democracia europeia. E foi um enorme prazer cooperar não apenas com a atual Presidente do Parlamento, mas também com o nosso querido Presidente David Sassoli, que recordamos com tanta saudade.
                  

                     Agradeço também ao secretariado, aos intérpretes e, em geral, aos serviços do Parlamento por todo o apoio prestado. Foi uma honra, sobretudo, ter tido a oportunidade de servir este extraordinário projeto europeu na vice-presidência da única instituição europeia eleita diretamente pelo voto livre e democrático dos cidadãos.
                  

Johan Van Overtveldt,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, thank you. Let me first express my surprise at the title of this debate because Basel III, as such, has nothing to do with the European Banking Union. You can have a European Banking Union with or without Basel III, and you can have Basel III with or without a European Banking Union.
That being said, basically, for Basel III is that banks should have sufficient capacity to absorb shocks and continue lending. It is therefore of the greatest interest of the EU and its banking sector to be fully compliant with Basel III. The European Banking Authority has estimated the impact of the watered down CRR text that we will vote later on, and that is substantially below pure Basel standards.
Unfortunately, the deviations from Basel III leave significant risk uncovered and on an international level, the EU might end up as the sole large jurisdiction with a watered down Basel implementation. That will not only negatively affect the reputation and the credibility of both EU banks and supervisors, but will also lead to higher financial stability risks for the entire EU economy, higher funding costs for the banks and a weakened influence in global standard setting bodies.

France Jamet,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, la crise de 2008 a révélé les failles du capitalisme de connivence, mettant dans le même sac l'État fédéral américain et de grandes banques d'affaires. Malgré quelques efforts, rien n'a véritablement été fait pour rendre à la finance sa vocation première: trouver des capitaux pour nos entreprises et nos entrepreneurs, qui créent de la richesse et de l'emploi ici, chez nous. La multiplication, par exemple, des critères ESG (environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance) dans la gestion bancaire ne contribue en aucune façon à servir l'économie réelle.
                  

                     Pour lutter contre les collusions entre les dirigeants des grandes banques et la haute fonction publique, limiter les effets de levier des banques et veiller à ce qu'elles ne créent pas des bulles spéculatives, comme on l'a vu en 2008, il faut remettre notre économie au service des hommes et des territoires – réellement, concrètement, sérieusement et vite.
                  

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε —παλιά συνάδελφε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο— σας καλωσορίζω. Λυπάμαι, αλλά η απουσία του Συμβουλίου σε μια συζήτηση που έχει έναν παραπλανητικό τίτλο —Banking Union— νομίζω ότι τα λέει όλα. Το 2008, μετά την κρίση, αποφασίστηκε να ανοίξει μια συζήτηση για να έχουμε μια πραγματική τραπεζική ενοποίηση και μια ενιαία ευρωπαϊκή αγορά κεφαλαίων. Το έχουμε πετύχει; Όχι. Απέχουμε πάρα πολύ από αυτό. Και ο μεγάλος υπεύθυνος είναι το απόν Συμβούλιο. Εγώ προσωπικά είμαι εδώ και 10 χρόνια σκιώδης εισηγητής στην οδηγία για το EDIS, το ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα ασφάλισης καταθέσεων, που είναι μια πρόταση της Επιτροπής, την οποία υποστηρίζει και η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και την οποία σκοτώνει επί 10 συνεχή χρόνια το Συμβούλιο. Ποιον κοροϊδεύουμε; Πριν λίγες ημέρες έγινε μια σύνοδος κορυφής και παρουσιάστηκε η έκθεση του Enrico Letta, οι προτάσεις του Mario Draghi για το πώς θα προχωρήσουν αυτά τα πράγματα, χωρίς τα οποία δεν μπορούμε να έχουμε πραγματική τραπεζική ενοποίηση και ενιαία αγορά κεφαλαίων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, σε βάρος των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων, των πιο αδύναμων κρατών που έχουν μεγάλο handicap σε σχέση με τις μεγάλες επιχειρήσεις των πλούσιων κρατών μελών. Είναι η τελευταία μου ομιλία στην Ολομέλεια. Και έχω μάθει να λέω αλήθειες. Μην κοροϊδεύουμε τον κόσμο. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να τρέχει η ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση σαν λαγός εκεί που βολεύει τα συμφέροντα των ισχυρών και να πηγαίνει σαν χελώνα ή σαν τον κάβουρα, όπου ο εθνικός εγωισμός και τα στυγνά συμφέροντα ορισμένων χωρών εμποδίζουν την τραπεζική ενοποίηση. Να είμαστε ειλικρινείς.
                  

Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Eine Bankenunion, die sich bei der ersten Säule, nämlich bei der Frage der zentralen Aufsicht, auf 120 Banken abstützt, die sich bei der zweiten Säule, nämlich dem einheitlichen Abwicklungsmechanismus, auf ein paar hundert Banken abstützt und sich gleichzeitig bei einer Einlagensicherung auf alle 8 000 Banken abstützen soll, die steht schief. Da gibt es noch einiges zum Nachdenken und zum Überdenken, und ich hoffe, dass wir das in Ruhe und Gelassenheit in der nächsten Wahlperiode tun können.
                  

                     Lassen Sie mich aber auch ein paar Sätze zu dem sagen, worüber wir heute noch abstimmen werden, nämlich zur Finalisierung der Baseler Regeln. Ich bin doch etwas überrascht, dass etwas, was 2017 im Wesentlichen auf Wunsch der Amerikaner verabschiedet wurde und eher auf das amerikanische Banken- und Finanzmodell passt als auf das europäische, jetzt von uns übertragen wird, während in den USA darüber diskutiert wird, keine zeitnahe Umsetzung dieser Regeln vorzunehmen. Deswegen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen: Es ist richtig, dass wir es tun, es ist richtig, wie wir es tun, und wir sollten die Zeit, die wir uns gegeben haben, im Übergang auch nutzen, damit wir an unserer Wirtschaft keinen Schaden nehmen. Aber, Frau Kommissarin, achten Sie auch darauf, dass es in anderen Teilen dieser Erde ordentlich umgesetzt wird.
                  

Roman Haider (ID). – Herr Präsident! Zuerst zur Bankenunion: Es ist mir völlig unverständlich, warum die EU sich entschlossen hat, so erheblich von den Basel-III-Regeln abzuweichen. Dadurch wird nur die regulatorische Unsicherheit für die Anleger erhöht.
                  

                     Insgesamt muss man von einer Überregulierung der EU-Banken sprechen. Die Branche wird gezwungen, völlig verrückte Vorschriften einzuhalten, einschließlich dieser Anforderungen an ESG und die Umweltberichterstattung. Das wird insgesamt nur zu einer Erhöhung der Kosten für die Bankkunden führen.
                  

                     Abschließend noch kurz zum Anti-Geldwäsche-Paket: Hier werden wieder höchst problematische Regelungen unter dem Deckmantel der Geldwäschebekämpfung verpackt. Die EU greift dabei weit in die Kompetenzen der Mitgliedstaaten ein. Die Freiheit der Bürger wird weiter massiv eingeschränkt.
                  

                     Die EU geht immer mehr den Weg eines sozialistischen Überwachungsstaats, in dem der Privatbesitz eingeschränkt, reglementiert, dokumentiert oder – wie im Falle des Bargelds – zunehmend verhindert werden soll. Ein schlechter Weg.
                  

Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your work. Almost 12 years ago to the day, 25 April 2012, the then ECB President stood in front of this House and called for the long overdue integration of European banking policy – in short, banking union.
We are 12 years on and we have made great strides, but our banking union is missing its third pillar. This week we're finalising our position on the updated crisis management framework. Last week, the ECON Committee finally supported a proposal for an initial European deposit insurance scheme.
Time is no longer a luxury if we want to show that European economic integration can indeed provide the conditions for a stable and innovative banking industry. While we have reduced the risk, many of the problems we face 12 years ago are still with us. Bank debt and sovereign debt are still too closely intertwined in some countries.
A European approach would bring more competition and better value for people. It would make a real difference in the lives of our citizens, and that is what is important. We need to complete the banking union. In the end, we only regret the chances we didn't take.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, during the economic crisis, we heard phrases like ‘banks too big to fail’, and they did fail and they failed everybody. But thankfully, as a result of the measures taken here at European Parliament level and Commission, we don't hear that anymore. We now have more resilient banks, and thankfully they're not going bust, and people aren't going bust as a result. We have made progress, which is good, and today we are celebrating that.
But I think the point made by my good friend Othmar Karas when he says the lack of a completed banking union and the lack of a capital markets union is costing us EUR 470 billion per year, and if the Council is the problem, then in the next mandate, we have got to, as they say in America, ‘kick ass’ to ensure that it actually happens, because we need the investments, especially if we are to complete the Green Deal, if we have investments in renewable energy, retrofitting of buildings, etc.
So I think a wake-up call today for the Council: Parliament and the next Commission are going to come after you. We'll kick ass because we have to get this union completed.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you very much, and thank you for your words at the opening of this debate, because I worked with you on the Bureau and enjoyed very much our working relationship. So thank you for marking this occasion. I suppose it is the end for many and it is only the beginning for some. So it is good to be here.
My colleague, Seán Kelly, used rather flowery language about kicking ass, but Cad é an Ghaeilge ar an bhfocal seo a Sheáin, an bhfuil a fhios agat, b'fhéidir? Táim ag caint as Gaeilge.

Sorry, I'm speaking Irish.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Tá sé níos deise as Gaeilge: cic sa tóin. It's nicer in Irish: cic sa tóin!

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – You heard it first in the European Parliament as Gaeilge! Go raibh míle maith agat, Sheáin.
Thank you all for your contributions. This is a really serious debate and all of you who have contributed are very serious players in this Parliament, and your work reflects that. But, of course, the next step is to implement and certainly, from our point of view in the Commission, we are already working with the European Banking Authority on the many technical standards and measures required to see effective implementation.
To the reference from my former colleague, Markus Ferber – just to recall that the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the final Basel III standards in other major jurisdictions, and in the area of market risk, the Commission is empowered to address level playing field issues by adopting delegated acts, if needed.
On the overall framework, our long transitional arrangements and phasing provisions give us time to adapt to international developments. Beyond the current uncertainty on the international front, we are confident that the final elements of Basel III will be implemented globally.
Just to note that the Basel Committee celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and it does continue to be instrumental for international cooperation on bank supervision and regulation – and it is in the interest of banks themselves that consistent rules are applied globally. It is in the European interest to finalise implementation of these international standards. Yes, it will require a lot of effort from banks, their supervisors and all related stakeholders. But one thing is very clear: Basel will be implemented.
My thanks again to this House and in particular to Rapporteur Jonás Fernández and the shadow rapporteurs. Together we are providing regulatory stability to our banking system, ensuring its resilience and its continued ability to serve citizens and businesses.
Looking ahead to the next mandate, I note and welcome that this House has just adopted its position on the review of the crisis management and deposit insurance framework. The CMDI reform will further preserve financial stability and protect taxpayers and depositors. It also takes due account of the specificities in the national banking sectors while maintaining a level playing field. I'm confident that an agreement on this reform early in the next mandate will open the way to completing the banking union, including a European deposit insurance scheme. After almost 10 years of stalemate on this topic, we are happy to see that the European Parliament is ready to move forward, while the Commission reserves its position at this stage.
Ambitious reforms on banking union, as well as on capital markets union, will bolster the EU's financial stability and competitiveness. I would issue a warning here that the status quo will not deliver for the Europe of the future. We need funding to invest in the green and digital transition, and, therefore, we need work on capital markets union and banking union.
To quote the long-serving (25 years) First Vice-President of the European Parliament, Othmar Karas, ‘let us not play national interests against Europe. Let us be more decisive, more ambitious.’ I just recall that we had marked 30 years of the single market last year, and yet we have failed to deliver a single market for capital, which means that we have an opportunity – and let's grasp that opportunity.
I hope that voters ask questions about this. It is not a remote topic. It is about their very lives and livelihoods, and they should know what's happening or, indeed, what's not happening.
So I thank you for this debate. I think we have done good work together, but, of course, we will have to implement. I can guarantee from the Commission's perspective that we will implement faithfully and effectively.

Jonás Fernández,
ponente. – Señor presidente, en primer lugar, agradezco esta discusión en la que hemos analizado el Acuerdo de Basilea III, pero también hemos hablado de la evolución de la unión bancaria.
                  

                     He terminado mi primera intervención diciendo que podemos estar razonablemente satisfechos como Parlamento por el trabajo hecho en esta legislatura. Pero, sin duda, no podemos ser complacientes, porque los retos siguen frente a nosotros y porque la unión bancaria sigue sin estar completada.
                  

                     En lo referido a la implementación del Acuerdo de Basilea —y siguiendo las explicaciones de la comisaria—, es cierto que lo que nos queda por delante es un esfuerzo importante. Hay mucha normativa de nivel II que necesitamos desarrollar, y me gustaría hacer referencia a la necesidad evidente de implementar estas reglas a tiempo el 1 de enero del próximo año tal y como están aprobadas en este Reglamento y en esta Directiva.
                  

                     Cuando se habla de competitividad y se usa la competitividad para reclamar en algunos casos menos regulaciones, estamos invocando un objetivo de una manera errónea, porque si realmente estamos convencidos de que con esta regulación mejoramos la seguridad de los bancos, realmente estamos elevando la competitividad del sector bancario europeo y del conjunto de la economía real, porque no hay nada peor para la competitividad que crisis bancarias como las que hemos sufrido en los años de las crisis financieras.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, es necesario implementar el Acuerdo de Basilea a tiempo con independencia de lo que hagan otras jurisdicciones, porque eso eleva la competitividad de la economía europea.
                  

                     Permítanme que despida este mandato dando las gracias especialmente a los ponentes alternativos que me han acompañado en esta negociación: Othmar Karas, Gilles Boyer, Johan, Ville. Entre todos creamos un buen entorno de negociación con la Comisión. Doy las gracias a la comisaria por su trabajo y, por supuesto, quedo muy contento por participar en esta discusión en este período parcial de sesiones. Quiero despedir de alguna manera también a nuestro querido vicepresidente Pedro Silva. Muchas gracias por todo, Pedro. Pues nada, muchísimas gracias y a seguir con los debates.
                  

Presidente. – O debate conjunto está encerrado.
                  

                     A votação, como sabem, terá lugar ainda hoje.
                  
12.   The sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive – Anti-Money Laundering Regulation – Establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (joint debate – Anti-money laundering)

Presidente. – O próximo ponto da ordem do dia é o debate conjunto sobre o combate ao branqueamento de capitais:
               






—



                        o relatório do Deputado Niedermayer e do Deputado Tang sobre a proposta de diretiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativa aos mecanismos a criar pelos Estados-Membros para prevenir a utilização do sistema financeiro para efeitos de branqueamento de capitais ou de financiamento do terrorismo e que revoga a Diretiva (UE) 2015/849 [COM(2021)0423 - C9-0342/2021 - 2021/0250(COD)] - Comissão dos Assuntos Económicos e Monetários – Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos.a sexta Diretiva Antibranqueamento de Capitais (A9-0150/2023),
                     










—



                        o relatório do Deputado Heinäluoma e do Deputado Carême sobre a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo à prevenção da utilização do sistema financeiro para efeitos de branqueamento de capitais ou de financiamento do terrorismo [COM(2021)0420 - C9-0339/2021 - 2021/0239(COD)] - Comissão dos Assuntos Económicos e Monetários – Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos (A9-0151/2023), e
                     










—



                        o relatório da Deputada Poptcheva e do Deputado Radev obre a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que cria a Autoridade para o Combate ao Branqueamento de Capitais e ao Financiamento do Terrorismo e altera os Regulamentos (UE) n.o 1093/2010, (UE) n.o 1094/2010 e (UE) n.o 1095/2010 [COM(2021)0421 - C9-0340/2021 - 2021/0240(COD)] - Comissão dos Assuntos Económicos e Monetários – Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos (A9-0128/2023).
                     





Luděk Niedermayer,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I guess this long speaking time is reflecting the hundreds of hours we spent on the anti-money-laundering file. But I hope I will not use all the four minutes.
Let me start by saying that that money laundering, financing of terrorism is a very serious crime. This is something that is at the end of the criminal behaviour, but at the same time, ease with which money can be laundered is also stimulating the crime. Fighting money laundering is a continuous process because criminals are all the time trying to find a better way how to do it. So that's why we have already six evolution of Anti-Money Laundering Directive and we are still trying to close the loopholes and make the system better. This time I'm grateful that the Commission had made some systemic changes. This change consists of, first, dividing the directive between the directive and the regulation, and at the same time creating the AMLA body that will oversee the quality of the anti-money laundering framework.
It took more than two years. During that time the word has changed. We witnessed a terrible Russian attack on Ukraine and it has also some financial consequences. We try to find out where the assets of criminals sanctioned people are, and we found that it's not easy. So this was another impact to our work. And I'm grateful the Commission accepts the fact that that we want more than was originally proposed.
So what did we did do in file I was responsible for? Inter alia, we accept that we are living in the digital age, so we must make sure that the data are used digitally and exchange in a readable form that will make the fight against money laundering easier and more effective. We look very much at real estate, because the system in some countries are, I don't want to say from the Middle Ages, but definitely are not up to the current situation. And we made a significant improvement. We are aiming to improve the quality data for beneficial ownership. Parliament was proposing to create the registers for planes, boats or similar assets, but we end up after the agreement with the Council with so-called threshold-based reporting that will look after ability to identify who owns such data.
We also tried to improve the interaction between competent authorities and oblige entities, but making sure, for example, how quickly they will react on the suspicious transaction report. We also harmonised the sanctions, and this is just a short list of what we did.
So I hope the system will improve the situation. I hope the system will close some loopholes and make sure that the weakest point of the anti-money-laundering system will become stronger.
So let me, finally, thank the Commission for being responsive to the demands of Parliament. Let me thank the Council and especially the Belgian Presidency, who did a very good job in finalising the agreement. That would not be possible without really very great and very intense work of our people, our teams and EP staff. I hope that this file will get the support because I believe it deserves it.

Paul Tang,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Commissioner and her team, dear colleagues, today marks a pivotal moment in our collective efforts to fight dirty money and bolster financial integrity in the European economy.
As we stand on the brink of voting on a groundbreaking legislative package, I am humbled and proud to have been part of the negotiations that have led us to this pivotal moment. I want to thank dear co-rapporteurs Luděk Niedermayer, Eva Poptcheva, Emil Radev, Eero Heinäluoma and Damien Carême.
The scandals that tarnished our financial systems in recent years – think of Danske Bank to the Cyprus Confidential files – served as stark reminders for the negotiators to act decisively and move forward. And yet we had to witness another scandal of incredible scale when Putin invaded Ukraine and Russian oligarchs massively flew and drove their private jets, sports cars and super yachts outside the EU.
This added up to the already existing urgent need – often voiced by the European Parliament – to address the fragmented and poorly coordinated national rules that have allowed nefarious actors to exploit regulatory gaps and evade detection.
It is a pivotal moment for two reasons. First, the package is more European, more coordinated than ever before and this is needed since national borders do not deter, but even help criminals and terrorists. The new authority is a strong symbol for European coordination, but also the first AML regulation underlines this approach.
Second, the package is more targeted than before. Parliament's efforts have paid off: the registration of high-value assets like cars, boats and planes; the single access point for real estate and land; the vigilance for high net-worth, high-risk individuals and so on. As proud as we are of this result, we must recognise, as Luděk Niedermayer emphasised already, that the fight against money laundering is ongoing and ever evolving. There is still work to do.
First, on access to the BO register: the directive lays down the principles for access requiring easy access for those with a legitimate interest and introducing mutual recognition. Yet the current situation is chaotic at best and hampers access for journalists, researchers and NGOs. Their access needs to be restored as soon as possible and I call on the Member States to restore access as soon as. Get it done, now! Don't wait for the legislation!
Second, in Parliament I have worked intensively on fighting both tax evasion and money laundering. I have always found it very confusing that despite all the similarities – similar constructions, similar actors – there are two different silos of institutions and legislations. This is confusing but also ineffective.
So I call on the Commission to eradicate the barriers between the two silos and have a more integrated approach. The Commission can start with ensuring the exchange of data and information among the institutions, like FIUs and tax administrations. In the modern economy, data and information are becoming more and more important and this holds especially for the fight against tax evasion and money laundering. Please Commission, get started.
As we prepare to cast our votes, let us do so with the knowledge that we are enacting meaningful change this week, not just for ourselves, but for future generations of Europeans. Let us stand firm in our resolve to uphold the values of transparency, integrity and justice that lie at these proposals but also at the heart of the European Union.

Eero Heinäluoma,
Esittelijä. – Arvoisa puhemies, rahanpesun ja terrorismin rahoituksen torjuntaa koskeva lakipaketti on yksi tämän vaalikauden keskeisistä hankkeista. Se tulee tekemään Euroopan unionista kansalaisillemme turvallisemman ja reilumman paikan elää.
               

                  Iltapäivän äänestys on koko vaalikauden kestäneessä matkassa viimeinen askel. Maailman tapahtumat, erityisesti Venäjän hyökkäys Ukrainaan ja venäläisen rahan liikkeet Euroopasta, ovat tehneet tiukemmista rahanpesusäännöksistä myös välttämättömyyden turvallisuuspoliittisesti. Rikollista rahaa on liian kauan virrannut Eurooppaan ja sitä on käytetty myös vaikutusvallan ostamiseen.
               

                  Rahanpesun ja terrorismin rahoituksen torjuntaa koskevat säännöt ovat tänään tärkeämpiä kuin kenties koskaan aikaisemmin. Unionin on nyt tehtävä ryhtiliike näiden miljardien eurojen rahavirtojen lopettamiseksi. Uusilla säännöillä tulemme varmistamaan paitsi sen, että rahoituslaitokset noudattavat huolellisuus- ja raportointivelvoitteita, myös sen, että viranomaisilla on käytössään riittävät työkalut epärehellisten toimijoiden löytämiseen ja saattamiseen vastuuseen.
               

                  Muutama näkökohta esityksestämme. Ensiksi saamme uuden asetuksen myötä yhtenäiset rahanpesun ja terrorismin rahoittamisen vastaiset pelisäännöt koko unionin alueelle. Näissä asioissa direktiivien aika on ohi. Samat säännöt kaikille koko unionissa. Yksi kaikille yhteinen sääntökirja tehostaa sääntöjen täytäntöönpanoa ja parantaa yhteistyötämme rahanpesun lopettamiseksi. Rehellisille toimijoille ja liike-elämälle tämä on hyvä päivä, oligarkeille ja rikollisille huono päivä.
               

                  Toiseksi, vastaisuudessa yhä useampi toimija tulee olemaan velvoitettu noudattamaan rahanpesun vastaisia sääntöjä. Tämä koskee yhtä hyvin kryptovaluutan kauppiaita, sijoittajaviisumien välittäjätahoja, ylellisyystuotteiden, kuten jalokivien, luksusautojen, lentokoneiden ja huvijahtien kauppiaita, myös suuria, ammattimaisesti toimivia jalkapalloseuroja.
               

                  Kolmanneksi, uudet säännöt auttavat meitä paremmin näkemään, ketkä ovat todellisia edunsaajia monimutkaisten yritysrakenteiden takana. Avoimuus lisääntyy, rekisterit tulevat julkisiksi kansalaisten ja toimittajien ulottuville. Avoimuuden lisääminen on tärkeätä, koska silloin näemme, kuka loppupeleissä näistä rahavirroista todella hyötyy. Tämä koskee myös unionin ulkopuolelle sijoittautuneita yrityksiä. Jos he haluavat toimia unionin alueella, on heidän yhtälailla ilmoitettava todelliset omistajat ja edunsaajat. Säännöt takaavat sen, etteivät varakkaat, vaikutusvaltaiset kolmansien maiden kansalaiset voi sijoittaa rahojaan unioniin esimerkiksi talouspakotteita kiertäen.
               

                  Rahanpesun mahdollistavien järjestöjen laatimiseksi rikolliset saavat monenlaista apua. Vastaisuudessa keskeiset asiantuntijat, kuten lakimiehet, eivät voi vedota salassapitovelvollisuuteen, vaan heidän tulee ilmoittaa asiakkaistaan, jos heiltä haetaan neuvontaa juuri rahanpesutarkoituksessa.
               

                  Lopuksi, EU ei ole saari eikä ulottumattomissa kolmansien maiden rikollisilta rahavirroilta. Jotta uusi kehikko toimii, tarvitsemme tiukkoja rahanpesunvastaisia sääntöjä myös kolmansille maille. Komissiolla on vastaisuudessa valta tunnistaa suuririskisiä kolmansia maita ja puuttua näiden toimintaan. Uudella kunniahimoisella lakipaketilla lunastamme vaalikauden alussa antamamme lupauksen.
               

                  Tänään äänestettävä kokonaisuus on puoluerajat ylittävän hyvän yhteistyön tulosta. Kiitän kaikkia kollegoitani, erityisesti Damien Carêmea, kaikkia tiimejä, kaikkia neuvottelijoita. Kiitos kuuluu myös Ruotsin, Espanjan ja erityisesti Belgian EU-puheenjohtajuuksille. Ja kiitos kuuluu komissaari McGuinnessille ja komission hienolle henkilökunnalle, joita ilman tämä esitys ei olisi tänään tullut maaliinsa. Kiitokset myös avustajilleni Miguel Carapetolle ja Jan Moensille, olette tehneet hienoa työtä.
               

Damien Carême,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, chers citoyens et citoyennes européens ici présents, des criminels, des terroristes, des fraudeurs du fisc, des clubs et agents de football, des oligarques, des trafiquants d'armes ou encore des amateurs d'art ou des hommes ou des femmes politiques, voici la liste non exhaustive des adeptes du blanchiment d'argent, autant d'exploiteurs avisés des lacunes des législations européennes. Pas moins de cinq directives européennes se sont succédé en 30 ans, avec un succès très mitigé.
               

                  La partie émergée de l'iceberg, ce sont les scandales à répétition: Pandora Papers, LuxLeaks, Suisse Secrets, ou encore Cyprus Confidential il y a quelques semaines. Je veux ici prendre pour preuve des déboires européens le montant estimé du blanchiment d'argent. Selon les estimations de la Commission européenne, les transactions impliquant de l'argent sale représentent près de 130 milliards d'euros, soit la moitié du budget de la France.
               

                  Le trou dans la raquette le plus béant reste l'inefficacité manifeste des sanctions européennes contre la Russie. Comment peut-on prétendre soutenir l'Ukraine, alors que des oligarques russes proches de Poutine détiennent des villas luxueuses sur la Côte d'Azur ou des méga yachts dans nos ports? L'argent sale salit tout, jusqu'à la lie. Il entache notre économie et surtout la confiance des citoyennes et citoyens dans leurs gouvernements et leurs représentants.
               

                  Il nous fallait agir de manière décisive et nous doter d'un système robuste à la hauteur des enjeux. Le vote d'aujourd'hui est l'occasion de s'affranchir de ce bilan en demi-teinte et d'engager une nouvelle bataille européenne contre le blanchiment d'argent, en nous dotant de nouvelles armes. Les textes soumis au vote aujourd'hui se proposent de remédier aux failles européennes, avec deux exigences simples: d'une part, harmoniser les législations au sein de notre Union et, d'autre part, renforcer la surveillance des secteurs et des personnes particulièrement sujettes au blanchiment.
               

                  Harmoniser les législations nationales, cela veut d'abord dire que les abus manifestes et les complaisances évidentes de certains États membres à l'égard du blanchiment doivent prendre fin. La première de ces complaisances, c'est la vente de visas, voire de passeports européens, en échange d'un investissement financier. L'Union européenne ferme ses portes, refoule et laisse mourir des milliers de chercheurs de refuge qui fuient la guerre et la misère. Par contre, dès qu'il s'agit de personnes fortunées, criminelles ou pas, nous les accueillons à bras ouverts et leur vendons titre de séjour et nationalité. Ce ‘deux poids, deux mesures’ est insupportable. Entre 2011 et 2019, au moins 130 000 ressortissants de pays tiers, dont des Russes et Biélorusses faisant l'objet de sanctions, ont bénéficié de visas dorés. Ces programmes ont généré plus de 20 milliards d'euros pour certains États membres, notamment Chypre et Malte. Ces pays sont les passagers clandestins de la lutte contre le blanchiment. Ils s'enrichissent aux dépens du reste et mettent en péril notre système financier. Pour y mettre un terme, les textes qui sont mis au vote aujourd'hui prévoient un encadrement très restrictif de ces pratiques. Il faudra vérifier la source des fonds de toute personne concernée et s'assurer qu'elle ne figure pas sur la liste des personnes sanctionnées, évidemment.
               

                  La lutte contre le blanchiment commence aussi par la définition commune, claire et objective des pays tiers qui posent des risques particuliers de blanchiment de capitaux pour l'Union européenne. Nous l'avons encore vu hier, avec le retrait des Émirats arabes unis, heureusement rejeté par un Parlement européen uni: la liste de la Commission européenne est ultrapolitisée et très perméable aux pressions et aux enjeux géopolitiques. Pour éviter que ces cas ne se reproduisent, l'Union disposera enfin d'une liste autonome de pays tiers à haut risque. Nouveauté aussi, la nouvelle autorité anti-blanchiment sera en mesure de signaler les banques problématiques, ceci pour éviter le cas, par exemple, du Crédit Suisse.
               

                  Tous les secteurs doivent être couverts. Désormais, clubs et agents de foot, où les scandales sont monnaie courante, négociants de biens de luxe – jets privés et yachts en premier chef – et fournisseurs de crypto-actifs rejoignent la liste des entités soumises au devoir de vigilance et de signalement, au même titre que les banques et agents immobiliers. L'objectif est simple: partout où les risques sont avérés, les contrôles doivent être renforcés.
               

                  De même, toutes les personnes représentant des risques doivent être identifiées: les oligarques et les criminels, mais pas seulement; élus et responsables politiques doivent aussi faire l'objet d'une surveillance renforcée, tant la gestion irréprochable de l'argent public est une composante essentielle de la confiance des citoyens. Parce qu'on ne compte plus les frères et sœurs d'oligarques russes propriétaires de villas luxueuses, les membres de la famille des personnes à risque devront eux aussi être étroitement surveillés. Derrière ces prête-noms, une réalité: les plus riches, russes ou non, bénéficient de montages juridiques compliqués et de passe-droits, quand les citoyens normaux doivent, eux, satisfaire toutes les exigences de transparence. Cette injustice fiscale et sociale doit cesser.
               

                  Chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, après des années d'atermoiements et de complaisance, ces avancées sont à même de consolider efficacement et durablement le cadre européen de lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent. Cette réforme ambitieuse signe le début de la fin pour les criminels terroristes et autres oligarques russes qui trouvaient dans l'Union européenne un terrain fertile à la dissimulation de leur argent bien mal acquis.
               

Eva Maria Poptcheva,
ponente. – Señor presidente, nadie pensaba que lo íbamos a conseguir, pero aquí estamos, en el último período parcial de sesiones de la legislatura para aprobar el paquete legislativo contra el blanqueo de capitales y la financiación del terrorismo. Y, sobre todo, para crear la ALBC, la nueva Autoridad de Lucha contra el Blanqueo de Capitales y la Financiación del Terrorismo.
               

                  Han sido tres años de negociaciones difíciles. Primero dentro del Parlamento, y después con los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros. Y es que no siempre es fácil llegar a acuerdos en esta Unión compuesta por tantas sensibilidades distintas.
               

                  En la lucha contra el blanqueo de capitales y la financiación del terrorismo no ha sido distinto. Los que hemos trabajado en este paquete somos conscientes del impacto tan monumental que tendrá para la integridad y estabilidad de nuestro mercado único, así como para la seguridad de los ciudadanos europeos, porque no olvidemos que el dinero sucio proviene de los crímenes más repugnantes, como la trata, el tráfico de drogas o de armas, o el terrorismo.
               

                  Se estima que cada año en torno al 1 % del producto interior bruto de la Unión Europea procede de fuentes ilícitas y se blanquea para introducirlo en nuestro sistema financiero. El riesgo se ha disparado con una guerra en nuestras fronteras. Durante demasiado tiempo, la responsabilidad de prevenir el lavado de dinero ha recaído exclusivamente en los Gobiernos nacionales.
               

                  En la última década, Europa ha sufrido escándalos graves. Seguro que les sonarán los papeles de Panamá. También se acordarán del caso Danske Bank, que llegó a gestionar 200 000 millones EUR —la mitad del PIB de Dinamarca— en transacciones sospechosas, apoyándose en su filial en Estonia. En este caso, los supervisores de ambos países hicieron la vista gorda durante años. Y es que el blanqueo de capitales puede resultar muy lucrativo para un país, lo que ha llevado a un nacionalismo económico.
               

                  Estos escándalos nos han ayudado a entender, por fin, que la única forma efectiva de luchar contra el blanqueo de capitales es con una estrategia netamente europea, no nacional, liderada por una autoridad europea. Esta estrategia —tan ambiciosa como suena— se enmarca precisamente en el nuevo paquete legislativo que aprobamos hoy. Este paquete incluye la creación de la nueva Autoridad de Lucha contra el Blanqueo de Capitales y la Financiación del Terrorismo (ALBC).
               

                  La ALBC supervisará directamente las cuarenta entidades financieras de la Unión Europea más expuestas a ser utilizadas para el blanqueo y supervisará a los supervisores nacionales para asegurarse de que todos aplican los estándares europeos. También reforzará la supervisión del sector no financiero que muchas veces se ha visto instrumentalizado. Además, la ALBC desempeñará un papel fundamental en la implementación de las sanciones financieras, como las impuestas en los trece paquetes aprobados contra Putin y sus colaboradores. A partir de ahora, eludir sanciones no será tan fácil.
               

                  La ALBC estará situada en Fráncfort (Alemania). De nuevo: herzlichen Glückwunsch. La selección de la sede ha sido un hito para el Parlamento Europeo. Por primera vez, la sede de una agencia europea ha sido elegida conjuntamente por el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo mediante una votación conjunta. Gracias al Parlamento Europeo, por primera vez establecimos criterios objetivos para la selección vinculados a la actividad de la futura agencia. Quiero agradecer de nuevo a las nueve ciudades que presentaron su candidatura su compromiso a lo largo de este proceso, también en la audiencia pública en el Parlamento Europeo. Fue grato ver a ministros y alcaldes presentar las candidaturas con tanto empeño. Es una pena que algunos países no defendieran su candidatura con el mismo empeño en el Consejo.
               

                  Le quiero dar las gracias a mi coponente, Emil Radev, quien ha sido un formidable compañero de viaje; a mis compañeros del equipo negociador del Parlamento Europeo, Isabel Benjumea, Pedro Marques, Paul Tang, Ramona Strugariu, Ernest Urtasun, Rasmus Andresen, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield y los demás; a la comisaria Mairead McGuinness, quien ha sido clave para forjar este acuerdo con su experiencia negociadora y su talante institucional.
               

                  Le quiero dar las gracias a todo el equipo técnico del Parlamento, de la Comisión y del Consejo; a mis asistentes, Victoria y Gabriel; a las Presidencias sueca y belga, y especialmente, a la Presidencia española y al embajador Marcos Alonso; y, muy especialmente, a mi predecesor, Luis Garicano, que fue quien exigió a la Comisión la creación de una autoridad europea contra el blanqueo. Sin tu impulso y ambición, querido Luis, todo esto no hubiera sido posible.
               

                  Debemos estar orgullosos porque, desde hoy, Europa ya no será un destino fácil para blanquear dinero ni para financiar el crimen.
               

Емил Радев,
докладчик. – Уважаеми г-жо Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, уважаеми дами и господа, когато започнахме работа по пакета за борба с изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма, бе очевидно, че не сме готови за битка, а трябва да водим война. Днес имам увереността, че с новото законодателство даваме на Европейския съюз арсенал, с който ефективно да защитава финансовата си стабилност.
               

                  Във време, в което престъпният свят става все по-изобретателен, а новите технологии разшириха инструментариума, който той ползва, за да пресича граници и да заобикаля закони, мръсните финансови потоци генерират загуби за милиарди. Разкриваемостта на тези престъпления обаче е едва 1%. Общоевропейските правила, които създадохме и днес ще бъдат гласувани от Европейския парламент, са здрава основа за адекватен отговор на глобалните финансови заплахи.
               

                  Успяхме да създадем орган, който ще направи борбата с изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма по-ефективна. Очакванията към бъдещата агенция, която предстои да заработи в средата на следващата година, са огромни. Смятам, че успяхме да подсигурим необходимите правомощия и капацитет, така че да бъде гарант за повече финансова сигурност чрез по-добро сътрудничество с националните надзорни органи и звената за финансово разузнаване в трансгранична среда, където рисковете непрекъснато растат.
               

                  За първи път в Европейския съюз AMLA ще упражнява пряк надзор върху най-рисковите компании във финансовия сектор, които работят в поне шест държави членки и имат висок остатъчен риск, както и върху доставчиците на криптоактиви. AMLA ще подпомага звената за финансово разузнаване с анализа на съмнителни трансакции и откриването на случаи на изпиране на пари. Радвам се, че тук беше възприет подход, с който оценката на финансовите и кредитните институции се извършва въз основа на остатъчния риск.
               

                  AMLA ще наблюдава и мерките, които рискови субекти от финансовия сектор под нейн пряк надзор прилагат за спазването на целевите финансови санкции, каквито например Европейският съюз е предприел спрямо Русия. За останалите задължени субекти надзорът, свързан с борбата срещу изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма, ще остане предимно на национално ниво. Въпреки това AMLA ще може да се намесва при пропуски на националните надзорни органи.
               

                  За ефективността на новата агенция е важно да разчитаме на засиленото сътрудничество с другите агенции като Европол, Евроюст, Европейската прокуратура и Европейската служба за борба с измамите.
               

                  Предвидили сме въвеждането на механизъм за сигнализиране при нередности. AMLA също така ще играе ролята на медиатор по искане на финансов надзорен орган, като в случаи на продължаващо неразбирателство нейното решение ще има задължителен характер.
               

                  Нека не забравяме, че за първи път Европейският парламент участва в избора на седалище на агенция. Това бе исторически момент за нашата институция и се надявам ролята на Парламента да продължава да се задълбочава.
               

                  Всички сме наясно, че правната рамка е фундаментът за провеждане на политики, но съвременната среда е твърде динамична и не можем да си позволим да гледаме на което и да е законодателство като на затворена страница. В този контекст нормативният акт, който предстои да гласуваме, може и да не е съвършен, но обединява държавите членки в общ фронт срещу мръсните пари. С новото законодателство за борба с изпирането на пари въвеждаме нови по-ефикасни правила с главната цел да защитим финансовата стабилност на нашия Съюз.
               

                  И накрая, но не на последно място, бих искал да изкажа своята лична благодарност към Комисар Макгинес, която изключително много допринесе за днешния успешен край.
               

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you, I think today really marks a very significant moment for the European Union's ongoing fight against money laundering and terrorism financing.
And yet, I look to the galleries and I'm glad to see there are citizens listening to this debate, because this matters to you, your family and your society. And I hope you've listened to the colleagues who have already contributed, because this has been an enormous effort, because we were all focused on doing the right thing and doing it in a timely way.
I want to thank the co-legislators and I want to list you in the order in which you have spoken: Luděk Niedermayer, Paul Tang, Eero Heinäluoma, Damien Carême, Eva Poptcheva and Emil Radev, the final speaker. I hold you all in equal esteem for the fact that you worked so well together and that we've arrived at this moment.
I also thank the negotiating teams in ECON and LIBE, the chairs of ECON, Irene Tinagli, and of LIBE, Juan Ferdnando López Aguilar, and of course the presidencies: the Czech, the Swedish, the Spanish and finally the Belgian Presidency that got this over the line with you.
When we started this effort, we knew it was not going to be easy, but there was an absolute imperative to improve significantly on the current situation. The scale of these reforms is unprecedented and the changes – the very necessary changes – we proposed are an ambitious departure from the status quo. I've said that we did our work in a timely and effective manner, and this was a priority for Parliament, Council and the Commission. So we did our work. So thank you for making sure we close this mandate with a reform that is truly transformative of Europe's regulatory and interinstitutional setup, where we tackle money laundering and terrorism financing, because dirty money finances terrible crimes. And they've been listed already by colleagues: drug trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, terrorism.
And I want to now briefly note how broad the scope is of this package. So from cash to crypto, from real estate to luxury goods and football clubs, we are targeting all areas where there is a real risk of illegal activity.
The private sector will benefit from common EU rules, including on the sharing of information. National authorities will be able to cooperate with each other and to investigate suspicious activities and we have a new anti-money laundering authority with very broad powers, specifically to guarantee consistent application of the rules across the single market, to support early detection of suspicious cases and report to law enforcement to supervise the highest risk entities directly.
And the reform benefits other areas of policy. Most obviously, it benefits our work together on sanctions. There are new provisions on implementing sanctions, on mitigating the risks of sanctions evasion and on strengthening cooperation between AML and sanctions authorities.
So I think, overall, this demonstrates the EU delivering to our financial system, our economy and the security of our citizens. So once again, my deepest gratitude for this work and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

President. – I would ask you all to stick to the allocated time. Otherwise, we will have a substantial delay in our voting session. I will not be able to allow blue-cards for this debate and now consider closed the requests for catch-the-eye.

Niclas Herbst,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltsausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Ich werde mich beeilen und will hier auch gar nicht die allgemeinen Dinge aufzählen. Das werden sicherlich die Kolleginnen und Kollegen schon machen, aber aus Sicht des Haushaltsausschusses einige wenige wichtige Punkte, insbesondere zum Thema Personal: Wir haben es geschafft, auch mit Änderungsanträgen, der AMLA eine vernünftige personelle und finanzielle Ausstattung zu gewähren. Beim Vorstand ist es extrem wichtig, dass er mit der notwendigen Autonomie bei der Personalrekrutierung ausgestattet ist.
               

                  Gut ist hier auch – und ich hoffe, da sind wir uns im Parlament einig – die Abschaffung des Vetorechts der Kommission bei den wichtigsten Verwaltungsentscheidungen. Bei den Kosten werden die Gebühren so berechnet, dass stabile Einnahmeströme entstehen. Wichtig ist auch – das sage ich hier sehr deutlich –, dass die Einnahmen aus den Gebühren zukünftig planbar sein müssen, da sie direkte Auswirkungen auf die Finanzierung aus dem EU-Haushalt haben. Sie haben Verständnis dafür, dass wir das als Haushaltsausschuss als sehr wichtig ansehen. Mit unserer Entscheidung hier im Plenum wird die AMLA eine hohe Transparenz erhalten, was die Einnahmequellen betrifft. Wir haben parlamentarische Kontrolle, und die Rechenschaftspflichten sind verbessert.
               

Caterina Chinnici,
relatrice per parere della commissione per il controllo dei bilanci. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, ‘pecunia non olet’, dicevano i latini ‘il denaro non ha odore’, ma quando il denaro è frutto del traffico di armi, droga e di esseri umani o di violenze, estorsioni, truffe e frodi, e viene poi reimmesso nel mercato, alle vittime di quei reati se ne aggiungono altre: gli imprenditori onesti che non possono reggere la concorrenza sleale dei capitali illeciti.
               

                  E, come dice anche l'EPPO, le organizzazioni criminali che reinvestono i loro profitti nell'economia legale, inquinandola, sono le stesse che stanno dietro ai crimini più gravi e violenti, per questo è fondamentale spezzare il circolo vizioso del riciclaggio.
               

                  Con questi nuovi provvedimenti superiamo le lacune e le criticità del quadro attuale e rafforziamo l'uniformità e l'efficacia delle norme. Con l'istituzione dell'AMLA poi, realizzeremo la supervisione europea coordinata che fin qui è mancata.
               

                  Se la percentuale dei profitti illeciti che oggi riusciamo a recuperare è ancora troppo bassa è anche a causa di sistemi di riciclaggio sempre più sofisticati. Prevenire e ostacolare tali sistemi è quindi un altro fondamentale tassello per colpire i gruppi criminali dove più possiamo nuocere loro nelle tasche.
               

Helmut Scholz,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor fast acht Jahren genau haben Investigativjournalistinnen und -journalisten die sogenannten Panama Papers veröffentlicht. Das war kurz nach den Erschütterungen der weltweiten Finanzkrise. Sie legten offen, wie extrem reiche Personen komplizierte Eigentumsgeflechte oder auch unüberblickbare Firmenstrukturen nutzen, um ihr Geld vor der öffentlichen Kontrolle zu schützen, um Steuern zu vermeiden oder eben auch, um Geld zu waschen.
               

                  So wie diese Netzwerke der Reichen und Mächtigen global agieren, ist es daher wichtig, dass auch die Bekämpfung von Geldwäsche länderübergreifend stattfindet. Aus der Perspektive des Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen begrüße ich ausdrücklich, dass mit dem vorliegenden Trilog-Ergebnis die notwendige Voraussetzung für eine EU-weite Zusammenarbeit der nationalen zentralen Meldestellen geschaffen wird, dazu das entsprechende Personal aufgebaut wird und auch die neuen digitalen Medien genutzt werden.
               

                  Bedeutsam ist ferner der notwendige Ausbau der Transparenzregister hinsichtlich der wirtschaftlichen Eigentümer. Durch stärkere Kontrollen und das Schließen von Lücken bekommen Behörden, Bürgerinnen und Bürger und natürlich auch Journalisten ein klarere Regelungen schaffendes Instrument an die Hand. Ohne Zweifel ein weitreichender Schritt, auch wenn sicherlich noch weitreichendere Befugnisse wichtig gewesen wären.
               

Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Heute ist ein sehr guter Tag für unseren Kampf gegen Geldwäsche. Nach drei Jahren harter Verhandlungen bringen wir nun europäisch einheitliche Anti-Geldwäsche-Regulierungen auf den Weg. Hiermit können wir verhindern, dass die organisierte Kriminalität unterschiedliche Anti-Geldwäsche-Gesetze in den Mitgliedstaaten ausnutzt und gegeneinander ausspielt. Dabei haben wir praxistaugliche Regelungen gefunden, die einerseits in der Lebenswirklichkeit umgesetzt werden können und andererseits zusammen mit unserer neuen Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde in Frankfurt ein solides Fundament im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche in Europa schaffen.
               

                  Wenn wir in der EU Hand in Hand arbeiten und dabei jederzeit unseren rechtschaffenen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Luft zum Atmen geben, werden wir erfolgreich gegen die organisierte Kriminalität vorgehen können. Freiheit und Sicherheit sollten dabei jederzeit auf einer Stufe stehen. Eine Barzahlungsobergrenze von 10 000 Euro sowie die Ausnahme von Bürgermeisterinnen und Bürgermeistern in kleineren Städten, aber die Aufnahme von Familienmitgliedern der Regierung zeugen von Balance. Setzen wir diese gemeinsam um.
               

Pedro Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Caras e Caros Colegas, Cara Comissária McGuinness, o crime financeiro não conhece fronteiras. É por isso que este é um dos casos onde a Europa pode fazer mesmo a diferença.
               

                  Hoje, aprovaremos regras mais apertadas de combate à lavagem de dinheiro, tanto para os bancos como para o setor não financeiro. E, mais importante, criamos uma nova autoridade europeia para garantir uma supervisão apertada e exigente em toda a União, em particular para as grandes instituições. Combater o dinheiro sujo é uma questão de justiça, mas também de respeito para com os milhões de pessoas que cumprem a lei e obtêm os seus rendimentos de forma honesta.
               

                  Há quem fale e há quem faça. Para um parlamentar, o mundo não mudará para melhor, não deixaremos qualquer tipo de marca apenas com discursos inflamados, mas também com trabalho de gabinete, com trabalho de detalhe, com muita vontade, com muita colaboração, através da Câmara.
               

                  É por isso, com um gosto enorme, nesta minha última intervenção neste Parlamento nesta legislatura, que eu – que também fiz o meu quinhão de discursos inflamados sobre temas muito importantes para a Europa, acredito eu –, deixo também este testemunho de um trabalho concreto, de um resultado concreto, feito em colaboração com os meus colegas – a quem agradeço –, de várias bancadas parlamentares, deixando assim como legado também de todos nós, nesta legislatura, nestas últimas sessões de votação, a criação da autoridade europeia contra a lavagem de dinheiro.
               

                  É também uma satisfação, Senhor Presidente, fazer este meu último discurso enquanto preside a esta sessão. Caros Colegas de delegação, Colegas até do Comité Económico, amigos de há muitos anos, Senhora Comissária – também nossa colega na Comissão ECON no início deste mandato –, esta é, por isso, uma boa forma de terminar este mandato.
               

                  Sim, trabalhámos, fizemos as nossas proclamações, mas entregamos resultados aos europeus. E como disse, e bem, a Senhora Comissária há pouco, é bom que os europeus saibam que aqui se entregam resultados concretos que mudam a nossa vida para melhor.
               

Ramona Strugariu,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, dragi colegi, încep ultimul meu discurs din acest mandat prin a spune că sunt onorată să fie despre unul dintre cele mai importante pachete legislative la care am avut bucuria să contribui în acești ani.
               

                  Împreună cu colegii mei am depus peste 3 000 de amendamente care au îmbunătățit substanțial propunerea Comisiei și vreau să le mulțumesc în mod special acelor colegi care sunt undeva acolo sus, Cristina Arion și Horia Lupu, care au fost extraordinari, ca toată echipa noastră de negociere, și acei asistenți și experți care ne-au stat aproape. Ei sunt oamenii cărora le datorăm foarte mult din această muncă.
               

                  Vouă, dragi colegi, vreau să vă mulțumesc pentru că nu am renunțat și că am făcut o echipă extraordinară pentru un rezultat ambițios, deși n-a fost simplu. Vreau să-i mulțumesc doamnei comisare McGuinness, comisiei și întregii echipe de negociere fără de care știm că acest rezultat nu ar fi fost posibil, dar și Consiliului cu care, chiar dacă am avut pe alocuri viziuni diferite, am reușit să ajungem la un acord.
               

                  Mă bucur că jurnaliștii și toți cei care au interes legitim, cu o interpretare largă, au acces la beneficiarii reali astăzi. A fost o bătălie importantă pentru mine.
               

                  Angajamentul nostru a fost și rămâne protejarea cetățenilor europeni, a economiei Uniunii și restabilirea încrederii în instituțiile noastre financiare. Dar, mai ales, ne-am angajat să le arătăm oamenilor că Uniunea Europeană este unită, puternică și eficientă în lupta împotriva criminalității organizate, spălării de bani, corupției împotriva camarilei putiniste și a rețelelor sale în Europa. Nu a fost ușor, dar am reușit și vă sunt recunoscătoare pentru asta.
               

Rasmus Andresen,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Was hat der FC Bayern München mit den neuen Geldwäscheregeln der EU zu tun? Ganz egal, ob über Spielerberater, Sponsoring oder Ticketverkäufe, immer wieder finden Ermittlungen im Umfeld von Fußballvereinen statt, und der Profisport ist einer der Hotspots für Geldwäsche. So in etwa auch bei den Bayern, wo mindestens ein russischer Oligarch sich in den letzten Jahren öfter hat blicken lassen.
               

                  Überall, wo mit Millionen jongliert wird, sind Finanzkriminelle nicht weit, und der finanzielle Schaden allein ist mit über 250 Milliarden Euro für die Europäische Union sehr groß. Aber nicht nur der finanzielle Schaden, sondern auch der Schaden für unsere Demokratie ist bei Finanzkriminalität von extrem großer Bedeutung.
               

                  Wir legen jetzt mit dem Anti-Geldwäsche-Paket Finanzkriminellen das Handwerk. Das Geldwäschepaket formuliert klare Regeln, erst einmal auch verbindlich für Fußballvereine, aber auch für Luxusyachten oder auch für extrem teuren Schmuck oder aber beispielsweise auch für Kryptowährungen.
               

                  Wir gehen wichtige Schritte voran. Und wir schaffen eine Behörde, die in Zukunft von Frankfurt aus für die Koordinierung im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche zuständig sein wird. Heute ist ein guter Tag gegen Finanzkriminalität und ein guter Tag für Europa.
               

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner,
ECR-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, käymme taistelua säälimätöntä vastustajaa eli rahanpesua vastaan. Europolin arvioiden mukaan jopa noin prosentti EU:n vuotuisesta bruttokansantuotteesta on kytköksissä epäilyttävään taloudelliseen toimintaan, terroristijärjestöjen rahoitus mukaan luettuna.
               

                  Käsittelyssä oleva direktiiviehdotus toimii suojamuurina niitä voimia vastaan, jotka pyrkivät kylvämään kaaosta ja tuhoa keskellemme, mikä uhkaa yhteiskuntamme rakennetta ja kansalaistemme turvallisuutta. Meidän tulee päättäväisesti tukkia kaikki porsaanreiät, joita rikolliset ja terroristit tällä hetkellä käyttävät hyväkseen.
               

                  Tämä ei ole pelkkä byrokraattinen toimi. Kysymys on perimmiltään elämän suojelemisesta sekä vapauden ja demokratian periaatteiden puolustamisesta. Vahvistamalla rahanpesun vastaisia toimiamme ja tehostamalla jäsenvaltioiden välistä yhteistyötä iskemme terroristiverkostojen ytimeen ja häiritsemme niiden kykyä rahoittaa rikollista toimintaansa.
               

Gunnar Beck,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Unter dem Vorwand der Geldwäsche und Terrorbekämpfung geht es hier im Kern um die Einführung einer Barzahlungsobergrenze von 10 000 Euro. Ferner soll der Erwerb von Gold und Krypto erschwert werden und damit Möglichkeiten, sich gegen hohe Inflation und Eurowährungsverluste abzusichern. Alle deutschen Kartellparteien unterstützen diesen Akt weiterer finanzieller Repression.
               

                  Gleichzeitig blockiert die deutsche Politik und Topjustiz die Bekämpfung der Finanzgroßkriminalität. Die leitende Staatsanwältin im größten deutschen Steuerskandal, dem Cum-Ex-Skandal, trat diese Woche zurück. Ihre Begründung: Kleine hängt man, Großkriminelle machen und gestalten die Politik.
               

                  Bargeld und Investitionen in Krypto und Edelmetalle sind Freiheiten, sich staatlicher Überwachung und gewollter Inflation zu entziehen. Mit welchem Recht nehmen Sie uns diese Freiheiten?
               

Martin Schirdewan,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! Von 10 Milliarden Euro könnte allein in Deutschland jährlich ein kostenloses Schul- und Kindergartenessen finanziert werden, oder jede Rentnerin und jeder Rentner könnte einen jährlichen Zuschlag von 500 Euro erhalten. 10 Milliarden Euro, das ist genau die Summe, die dem deutschen Staat durch Geldwäsche an Steuereinnahmen entgeht. Die Kommission geht davon aus, dass in der EU bis zu 210 schmutzige Milliarden Euro jährlich am Fiskus vorbeigelenkt und gewaschen werden.
               

                  Deshalb muss die EU bei der Bekämpfung der Geldwäsche endlich ans große Geld heran. Wer einen Hai fangen will, der darf nicht nur im flachen Wasser fischen. Nur so können Korruption, organisierte Kriminalität und Oligarchen ernsthaft bekämpft werden. Und dafür braucht die EU endlich ein aussagekräftiges Transparenzregister. Die Eigentümer hinter Kapitalgesellschaften und verschachtelten Firmenkomplexen müssen umfassend offengelegt werden.
               

Golden visas, also das Recht, sich legal eine europäische Staatsbürgerschaft zu erkaufen, sollten nicht nur besser reguliert, sondern gänzlich verboten werden. Aber stattdessen wird mit der vorliegenden Regulierung querbeet mehr Kontrolle und Überwachung bei Bargeldzahlungen eingeführt.
               

                  Die erzielte Einigung ist kein großer Wurf, aber immerhin hat sich die EU in zähen Verhandlungen durchgerungen, überhaupt einen Schritt zu machen. Dennoch empfehle ich nach der Europawahl in den Eurostar oder TGV, aber bitte nicht in den ICE einzusteigen – dann können Sie nämlich auch gleich laufen –, um vorwärtszukommen. Sonst wird das zu unseren Lebzeiten nichts mehr mit einer effektiven Geldwäschebekämpfung in der Europäischen Union.
               

Sabrina Pignedoli (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie a tutti coloro che hanno lavorato a questa nuova direttiva contro il riciclaggio di denaro sporco.
               

                  Secondo gli ultimi dati di Europol, quasi il 70 % delle reti criminali operanti in Europa ricorre al riciclaggio per occultare i propri beni e finanziare le proprie attività. C'è un altro dato preoccupante che spesso viene sottovalutato, ma che in realtà segue di pari passo quello sul riciclaggio. Si tratta della corruzione praticata da circa il 60 % delle reti criminali per insinuarsi non solo nel tessuto economico e finanziario, ma anche in quello politico e istituzionale.
               

                  Lo ha detto recentemente la Procuratrice europea: le mafie e la criminalità organizzata devono essere combattute non solo nelle loro pratiche visibili, come quelle della violenza, ma anche quando si rendono invisibili, infiltrandosi nell'economia sana e alterando la nostra democrazia.
               

                  Quindi ribadisco il mio plauso per questa direttiva, con l'obiettivo che gli Stati membri si dotino di una normativa antimafia simile a quella italiana per combattere le organizzazioni criminali in modo efficace. Il fenomeno è transnazionale e nessuno Stato può ritenersi esente.
               

Ralf Seekatz (PPE). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich freue mich, dass wir nun nach fast dreijähriger Verhandlung heute endlich über dieses Geldwäschepaket abstimmen können. Ich bedanke mich wirklich herzlich bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen für die gute Zusammenarbeit. Ein sehr großes Lob an die belgische Ratspräsidentschaft, die dafür gesorgt hat, dass wir letztendlich zum Schluss das Paket auch noch schlussverhandeln konnten.
               

                  Wir haben ein ambitioniertes europäisches Rahmenwerk geschaffen, ohne dabei Maß und Mitte zu verlieren. Entscheidend war, dass sich letztendlich auch ein risikobasierter Ansatz durchgesetzt hat. Dadurch vermeiden wir unnötigen Prüfungsaufwand und verhindern Wettbewerbsnachteile für unsere europäischen Unternehmen.
               

                  Es ist entscheidend, dass Geldwäschebekämpfung auch in der Praxis umsetzbar ist und unsere Bürger und unsere Wirtschaft nicht unverhältnismäßig mit Bürokratie überfordert werden. Einen wichtigen Beitrag zu dieser effektiven Geldwäschebekämpfung wird sicherlich auch künftig die Geldwäschebehörde AMLA in Frankfurt leisten. Ich freue mich, dass die Behörde in Deutschland angesiedelt wird.
               

Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Geldwäsche kostet uns nicht nur exorbitant viel, Geldwäsche gefährdet und zersetzt auch unsere Demokratie und unsere Sicherheit. Auch deswegen ist das Anti-Geldwäsche-Paket absolut wichtig. In Zukunft wird es uns gelingen, Oligarchenspielzeuge wie Jachten, Privatjets und auch Fußballklubs näher zu beleuchten. Zu den Highlights gehört die AMLA, die EU-Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde. Denn Geldwäsche kennt nun einmal keine Grenzen.
               

                  Wie wichtig diese neue EU-Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde ist, wird vor allem dann klar, wenn Banken wie zum Beispiel die Raiffeisen Bank International in Österreich ihre Geschäfte in Russland auch noch ausweiten – mit über 2 000 neuen Mitarbeitern vor Ort und mehr Geld –, das ist grotesk. Wenn wir also an den anhaltenden Angriffskrieg Putins denken, wenn wir Demokratie schützen und verteidigen wollen, dann müssen wir Geldwäsche konsequent bekämpfen. Dazu ist unser Geldwäschepaket mehr als geeignet.
               

Dragoș Pîslaru (Renew). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară McGuinness, dragi colegi, știați că în fiecare lună fiecare cetățean român, fiecare cetățean al Uniunii Europene pierde cel puțin 150 de euro din cauza spălării banilor? Suma poate părea mică pentru cei care au venituri mari, dar pentru cei care se află în vulnerabilitate este o sumă enormă.
               

                  Cum ar fi ca acești bani să fie direcționați către servicii medicale, educație și investiții în infrastructură? Spălarea banilor nu este doar o infracțiune, este o amenințare abilă, sofisticată și periculoasă, din ce în ce mai evidentă la adresa principiilor fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene: transparența, justiția și libertatea individuală.
               

                  Economia noastră a fost afectată de bani proveniți din activități ilegale, punând guvernele în dificultate de a obține fondurile care ar fi putut fi folosite pentru reforme și investiții, în loc să finanțeze activitățile dăunătoare.
               

                  Sunt onorat că am putut să fiu raportor din partea din partea Renew și din partea echipei care a creat acest pachet. Regulamentul împotriva spălării banilor e primul care va promova practici unificate și consolidate pentru a contracara activitatea ilegală din acest sector. Trebuie să lucrăm împreună pentru a apăra fondurile și valorile noastre și pentru a construi un viitor mai sigur și mai prosper pentru Uniunea Europeană.
               

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα μεγαλύτερα σκάνδαλα ξεπλύματος χρήματος πολύ συχνά εντοπίζονται στο σημείο επαφής μεταξύ του βαθέως πλούτου και του δήθεν φιλανθρωπικού έργου που κάνουν ορισμένες ΜΚΟ. Είναι γνωστός, άλλωστε, ο γεωπολιτικός ρόλος που παίζουν οι ΜΚΟ του Soros, για παράδειγμα, τόσο στην Ανατολική Ευρώπη όσο και στην Κεντρική Ασία. Αυτές οι ΜΚΟ πλήττουν και την εθνική μας κυριαρχία αλλά και τους θεσμούς. Στο Αιγαίο, μιλάμε ξεκάθαρα για λαθροδιακινητές. Μιλάμε για λαθρέμπορους που μεταφέρουν είτε λαθρομετανάστες είτε ακόμη και ναρκωτικά. Καθόλου τυχαίο δεν είναι επίσης ότι υπάρχουν ΜΚΟ στο Αιγαίο που εκφράζουν αυτούσιες τις θέσεις της Τουρκίας, από την οποία άλλωστε και πληρώνονται. Για εμάς, αυτό που απαιτείται είναι η άμεση διακοπή της δραστηριότητας όλων αυτών των ΜΚΟ, ιδίως σε περιοχές όπου υπάρχουν ευαίσθητα εθνικά συμφέροντα.
               

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, najveća praonica novca u jugoistočnoj Europi zove se Hrvatska demokratska zajednica. Naime, prema procjenama, ukradeno je, oprano cca 50 milijardi EUR, uglavnom za vrijeme ratova u bivšoj Jugoslaviji.
               

                  Kriminalne elite dobro su surađivale, dok je sirotinja ginula i ostajala bez svega. Operacije su podupirale obavještajne službe, štitili političari, provodila mafija. To je cijela kriminalna mreža, kriminalni tranzicijski sistem, a procesuiran je tek jedan njezin manji dio, odnosno bivši premijer Ivo Sanader, ali nitko tko je sjedio ni lijevo ni desno od njega.
               

                  Novac je došao iz ratnog kaosa bivše Jugoslavije kao pokraden, pohranjen je u europske banke i onda ste nam ga vi vratili kao opranog. Poznata je afera austrijske Hypo banke. Hypo banku zamijenila je ruska Sberbanka koja u Uniji sjedište ima upravo u Austriji, u Beču i koja je preuzela njezine klijente.
               

                  Nakon invazije 2022. Plenković na brzinu nacionalizira hrvatsku Sberbanku i sakriva tragove. Austrijske, njemačke, pa i ruske banke i s njima povezani moćnici oprali su taj novac za naše lopove. I mnogi se onda pitaju zašto nam Unija ne pomogne procesuirati te ljude i korupciju. Mislim da se odgovor sam nameće.
               

Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Europäische Union hat schon seit Langem ein Geldwäscheproblem und insbesondere ein Bekämpfungsproblem. Es gibt Schätzungen, dass das Volumen einen bis zu dreistelligen Milliardenbetrag umfasst. Und wir sollten uns nichts vormachen: Geldwäsche hat immer auch etwas mit organisierter Kriminalität zu tun. Wenn wir also Sicherheit in Europa garantieren wollen, organisierte Kriminalität bekämpfen wollen, dann müssen wir auch Geldwäsche bekämpfen.
               

                  Die Probleme sind hinlänglich bekannt. Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie hat dazu geführt, dass in jedem Mitgliedstaat die Dinge etwas anders gemacht wurden. Es macht Sinn, dass wir hier einheitlich agieren. Das beste Beispiel ist die deutsche Financial Intelligence Unit, die der frühere Bundesfinanzminister und heutige Bundeskanzler geschaffen hat, die nicht in der Lage ist, die Aufgaben ausreichend zu erfüllen.
               

                  Es gibt also gute Gründe, den Kampf besser auf der europäischen Ebene zu koordinieren. Das Ganze in Frankfurt zu machen, macht Sinn. Dort werden auch die internationalen Banken kontrolliert durch den einheitlichen Aufsichtsmechanismus. Wir erhoffen uns da große Synergieeffekte.
               

Franco Roberti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, al termine di tre anni di lavoro, finalmente oggi dotiamo l'Unione europea di un nuovo assetto normativo di prevenzione e contrasto al riciclaggio di denaro e al finanziamento del terrorismo.
               

                  La nuova legislazione è un enorme passo avanti nella strategia europea contro la criminalità transnazionale, perché consentirà finalmente di armonizzare le norme nazionali esistenti, al momento ancora troppo frammentate e scarsamente coordinate. Farà luce su chi realmente possiede o controlla strutture giuridiche opache e consentirà adeguati controlli antiriciclaggio sulle transazioni di valore elevato. Particolare attenzione sarà data al settore delle criptovalute, delle società di calcio e ai rischi derivanti dai visti d'oro dell'Unione europea.
               

                  Il punto di svolta è segnato dalla nascita della nuova autorità antiriciclaggio, che vigilerà sulle 40 entità finanziarie più rischiose e avrà la supervisione sia del settore finanziario che di quello non finanziario a livello nazionale. L'Autorità garantirà una migliore cooperazione con le autorità di vigilanza nazionali e le unità di informazione finanziaria in un ambiente transfrontaliero dove i rischi crescono a un ritmo costante, colpendo l'intero mercato interno e, in ultima istanza, le nostre democrazie.
               

José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). –Señor presidente, señora comisaria, voy a hablar de Gibraltar, pero no se alarmen ustedes, no voy a hablar de soberanía, porque si eso no le preocupa al Gobierno español, no sé por qué le va a preocupar a mi amigo Markus Ferber, que vive en Bavaria. Voy a hablar de paraísos fiscales y de blanqueo de capitales.
               

                  El único acuerdo entre el Reino Unido y España después del Brexit es el acuerdo fiscal. Se preguntarán ustedes: ¿modificó el régimen privilegiado cuasicaribeño de Gibraltar? La respuesta es no. Y no lo hizo a pesar de que en Gibraltar no se pagan ganancias de capital, no se pagan impuestos sobre los beneficios obtenidos fuera del Peñón, no existen impuestos indirectos, ni generales, ni especiales, y las tasas de juego en línea son tan favorables que el Peñón absorbió el 40 % del comercio mundial. Esto tiene consecuencias importantes en el territorio comunitario y en el territorio español circundante.
               

                  Hoy en Gibraltar hay 32 000 gibraltareños, pero 30 000 sociedades — una sociedad por gibraltareño, incluyendo los bebés—. No hay industrias manufactureras y el turismo es limitado. Sin embargo, tiene la tercera renta más alta per cápita del mundo, una renta que — gracias a estos privilegios— es diez veces más elevada que la del pueblo español más cercano.
               

                  Ayer se habló sobre la lista gris de países que pueden favorecer el blanqueo de capitales y se pidió que la Comisión lo excluyera. Ahora viene un acuerdo que se está negociando en plena opacidad y corresponderá a este Parlamento corregir estos excesos que perjudican enormemente los intereses financieros de la Unión y ponen en cuestión el sistema financiero total de nuestros países.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, o branqueamento de capitais é um crime que esconde outros crimes e entre estes está o financiamento do terrorismo. Numa Europa que queremos mais justa e mais segura, não podemos ceder um milímetro no combate à corrupção.
               

                  Esta semana celebramos a democracia. Ao evocarmos o 25 de Abril de 1974, recordamos que a democracia não é um dado adquirido, mas uma conquista que se alcança todos os dias com decisões concretas. Por isso, é tão importante defender a transparência, seja dos políticos ou dos clubes de futebol.
               

                  Quem tem o poder de decidir tem o dever de prestar contas. Onde circulam milhões, tem de haver prevenção e escrutínio. Assim, defendemos a democracia que Portugal inaugurou, a 25 de Abril de 1974. Sem gritaria, sem escândalo, com diálogo, com trabalho.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, money laundering is a terrible crime because, it has been said, it finances the worst people in the world – criminals of all sorts, Russians, people smugglers, drug barons, you name it – and using legitimate businesses to so do. So, if we did nothing else in this mandate, we will be doing a great service to our citizens in Europe if we could at least limit hugely the opportunity for money laundering.
The fact that it costs us 1 % of GDP per year – that is almost equal to the entire EU budget. And I think the rapporteurs who worked on this for the last couple of years have huge credit, as does the Commissioner, Mairead McGuinness, and others. Looking at where the loopholes are and eliminating them and putting a maximum of EUR 10 000 in cash seems to me to be very sensible. So my question to Mairead is: how confident can we be that that 1 % is reduced by 50 % or 60 %, and when will we say that our work is done, no more money laundering?

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente Pedro Silva Pereira, quiero dar la enhorabuena al equipo negociador del Parlamento Europeo —cuyos nombres no puedo enunciar uno a uno— por este trabajo bien hecho; por haber puesto en hora el sistema normativo contra el blanqueo del dinero procedente de negocios ilícitos y contra la financiación del terrorismo y toda forma de criminalidad organizada. Han puesto fin así a las divergencias nacionales, creando una autoridad europea con capacidad de supervisión y refuerzo de la cooperación entre las unidades de inteligencia financiera que identificarán a los beneficiarios finales con un registro compartido, además de apuntar a la verdadera identidad de los clientes de las transacciones financieras.
               

                  Con este sistema normativo europeo contra el blanqueo, el Parlamento Europeo no podía poner un mejor broche final a una legislatura plena de rendimientos útiles para la ciudadanía. Un mensaje contra el blanqueo, contra la financiación del crimen organizado, y con una autoridad europea que esperamos que se ponga en marcha cuanto antes.
               

Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Domnule președinte, majoritatea infracțiunilor de corupție implică și spălarea de bani și la o simplă căutare pe Google ‘politicieni corupți în România’, o să găsim nume super celebre, o să găsim foști premieri, miniștri, dar chiar și europarlamentari. Dosare la fel de celebre: dosarul Zambaccian, dosarul Microsoft sau dosarul Gala Bute, în care chiar un parlamentar care a stat aici în acest Parlament a fost condamnat pentru corupție.
               

                  Dar ce-i leagă pe toți? Mă rog, în afară de procurori câteodată. Faptul că averile sunt pe numele familiei sau ale altor interpuși. Câteodată scapă prin sfânta lor prescripție, cadou de la CCR, altă dată, când fac un pic de pușcărie, averea rămâne în familie. Haideți să ne uităm la acea avere. Haideți să verificăm averile acestor interpuși și să nu-i mai lăsăm să spele bani, pentru că dacă le luăm banii din averile nejustificate, nu mai au ce să spele și ne rezolvăm și problema de spălare de bani.
               

                  Așa că, dragi colegi, haideți să includem în atribuțiile acestor instituții europene și verificarea acestor averi și confiscarea averilor nejustificate.
               

Patrick Breyer (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Barzahlungen über 10 000 Euro werden verboten, anonyme Barzahlungen nur noch bis 3 000 Euro erlaubt, anonyme Bezahlkarten eingeschränkt und virtuelles Bargeld, also Kryptowährung, darf überhaupt nicht mehr anonym verwahrt werden. Unter dem Deckmantel der Geldwäschebekämpfung führen Sie doch in Wahrheit einen Krieg gegen das Bargeld, das seit Menschengedenken unsere finanzielle Privatsphäre sichert.
               

                  Sie wollen unsere Finanzen in ein gläsernes und immer wieder wackeliges Bankenwesen drängen, das uns jederzeit Karten und Konten sperren kann und das Negativzinsen einführen kann. Das werden wir noch bereuen. Ich sage Ihnen: Wer sich am Bargeld vergreift, vergreift sich an unserer finanziellen Freiheit.
               

                  Für uns Piraten ist ganz klar: Die Finanzen unbescholtener Bürger gehen Sie überhaupt nichts an! Finger weg von unserem Bargeld und unseren Digitalwährungen. Wir Piraten sagen Nein zu dieser schleichenden finanziellen Entmündigung.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the EU proposals for an Anti-Money Laundering Regulation need further scrutiny and should not be adopted. The regulation proposes an EU-wide limit for cash payments in commercial transactions to be set at EUR 10 000.
Commissioner, you said the proposed measures would mean that funeral services above EUR 10 000 would have to be paid for through card or via a bank. A lot of people I know still use cash, including myself, and penalising them for using over EUR 10 000 for something like a funeral seems draconian and hardly proportionate. The regulation also seems totally at odds with the Commission's proposal in 2023 to protect cash, which stated that the proposal will ensure that everyone in the euro area is free to choose their preferred payment method and has access to basic cash services. It will ensure the financial inclusion of vulnerable groups, who tend to rely more on cash payments, such as older people.
You say, Commissioner, that they are targeting illegal activity, but you know that successive Irish governments have refused to tackle the illegal financial activity of NAMA, the biggest financial scandal in Ireland's history. Will big corruption still be ok or are things going to change?

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I'm conscious of the time constraints, so just to appreciate the debate that we've had. From our side in the Commission, the next step is to make sure we have effective implementation of what we've agreed, particularly in setting up the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority. It needs to be adequately staffed and established so that it can do its work.
I'm glad I was quoted by my colleague to my left, who's on his left, in relation to cash, and can I just dismiss this idea that is being put out in this Chamber by a very few, that we are doing anything to restrict the right of access to cash? If anything, the European Commission is insisting on the right of citizens to use cash. But, of course, I think all citizens want to make sure that the cash we used is not dirty money, and we have strong support for that in this House.
So I will just finish by saying it was a real privilege to work on this package. It was enormously difficult to get it to where it is today, and we will have to see the fruits of it, and I hope the next Parliament continues to monitor all aspects of our anti-money laundering. And to the question raised by Seán Kelly – the truth is in this area, Seán, we will never finish our work because the criminals, the elites, those with deep pockets, will find ways of trying to evade our laws – and it is up to you and this Commission and the Council to keep ahead of them.

IN THE CHAIR: MARC ANGEL


Vice-President


Luděk Niedermayer,
rapporteur. – Mr President, there is not so much to add. This was a great demonstration of unity of Parliament over this topic. This was not just unity of those who spoke here, but also we worked very well as the team. Obviously we haven't agreed on anything, but we easily find the consensus. I wish that this is more often in this House in the future.
Let me just say one more thanks to all the rapporteurs that are here, but also thank our team that was negotiating on that remarkable long night when we reached agreement with the Belgian Presidency around 2.30, with our Commissioner, with Irene. Let me very much thank Paul Tang.
I guess this is a great success for Parliament. This is a great success for European citizens. But the war is not over. We must make sure that we keep checking the loopholes and we make sure that dirty money has no place in our Union.

Paul Tang,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I think this debate shows that we had a great team in the European Parliament finding broad support in a European Parliament. I'm glad for that, though the contributions by Mike Wallace and Patrick Breyer also show that we need to strike the balance between privacy and financial integrity. But I think that we did that, and it's enshrined in this House and in the work of the Commission.
President, at the end of this debate I would like to also mark the end of my ten years in the European Parliament. I feel privileged to have worked at the heart of a cross-border democracy that is unique in the world, and that stands for the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. I expect the new Members of the European Parliament to defend democracy and to uphold these values, and I wish them the very best in trying to do that.
This Parliament is like a big city to me, where people come from all directions, from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and different opinions, and yet find a way to work and to live together. It's been a privilege and a pleasure to work with many, many of you over those ten years, to my colleagues, assistants, Commissioners, Commission staff, drivers, interpreters and to many, many others and of course to my great team. I would like to say from the bottom of my heart, thank you, duizend maal dank, tot ziens.

President. – Thank you very much, Mr Tang. Your ten years here have been very much appreciated by all the colleagues. Good luck for the future of your career.

Eero Heinäluoma,
rapporteur. – Mr President, this discussion was, I would say, one of the most constructive ones in our Parliament during recent months and years. Happy to know this, that I would say as my conclusion that obviously nearly all the political groups are backing this proposal, which is a really important thing, and I'm pretty sure that our voters are appreciating it.
Now the time is to go to the vote. I hope that we will get really good figures to accept this proposal, and after that, the thing is the implementation. Here we have one thing which is also worth mentioning, and that is that this Parliament must do its work so that the new agency, AMLA, will have the real resources and real possibilities to really do the work which they have been authorised to in this EU legislation. After that, we can look at the results and be sure that we will have more money in the hands of the welfare societies and not in the hands of criminals and oligarchs.

Damien Carême,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, merci pour vos retours et contributions. Je tiens aussi à remercier chaleureusement mon corapporteur, Eero, pour ce travail de longue haleine que nous avons mené conjointement, mais aussi tous les rapporteurs fictifs pour leurs discussions très constructives au cours de ces échanges et, surtout, nos assistants et conseillers, à qui revient tout le mérite.
                  

                     Le Parlement européen est uni dans sa volonté de mettre un terme au fléau que représente le blanchiment d'argent, et je m'en réjouis. Force est de constater qu'il vaut mieux, dans cette assemblée, parler d'argent que d'humanité pour trouver une majorité progressiste. Puisqu'il faut parler d'argent, laissez-moi en conclusion vous rappeler un chiffre: 2 000 milliards d'euros par an, c'est le montant du blanchiment d'argent dans le monde selon les estimations de l'ONU.
                  

                     Ce chiffre nous rappelle que la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux est un double impératif et qu'elle est doublement avantageuse: d'une part, elle empêche des activités criminelles, la fraude fiscale, la corruption et les trafics en tous genres; d'autre part, elle permet de récupérer des fonds et d'améliorer ainsi les finances publiques des États. Au vu des montants en question, il y a de quoi financer des services publics au bénéfice de tous, des politiques sociales et économiques généreuses, et la nécessaire transition de nos sociétés. À l'heure où la crise sociale et écologique prend de l'ampleur, il est urgent de récupérer ces sommes. C'est l'autre enjeu du vote de cet après-midi. C'est seulement ainsi que nous pourrons construire une société plus juste, plus résiliente et plus durable pour toutes et tous.
                  

Eva Maria Poptcheva,
rapporteur. –Mr President, dear colleagues, while people are having difficulties to struggle also economically because of inflation, criminals are using our financial system in order to wash their dirty money.
And the European Union, as we all know, has had a lot of scandals, has had a hands-off approach and it is high time that we cracked down on it. And AMLA will be a game changer in this. So this is why this package is extremely important in the creation, at the European level, of a European authority that is going to tackle precisely this economic nationalism that we have seen by Member States that make it very difficult, also for them, to really crack down on these practices. This is why this is so important.
And I just want to again repeat my big thanks to this incredible team of rapporteurs. We have worked very well together. We have been extremely united. Again, thank you very much to Commissioner McGuinness, who has been absolutely key in order to forge this agreement between the Parliament and the Council and also, of course, presenting an excellent proposal on behalf of the Commission.
Also a big, big, big thank you to the staff of the European Parliament of the Commission and also of the Council for supporting us throughout this process. To my assistants, Victoria, Gabriel, Clara and Andres. And also to Luis Garicano, who was absolutely key, who actually asked the Commission back then at the Commissioner hearings to make a proposal, a legislative one, for an anti-money-laundering agency. Thank you very much, Luis. Without you, this wouldn't be possible.
So thank you again also to the Spanish Presidency, the Belgian and the Swedish one.
And what is extremely important is that the European Parliament, from now on, is going to have a clear say and going to take the decision, together with the Council, on the selection of any seat of any European agency.

Емил Радев,
докладчик. – Г-н Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, уважаеми колеги, заедно с колегата ми Ева Мария Попчева и докладчиците в сянка, с Председателството и Комисията извървяхме пътя докрай. Но дължим благодарност към всички, които участваха в този тежък законодателен процес. Благодаря на докладчиците по другите досиета от пакета за борба с прането на пари, на председателите и на секретариата на комисиите ECON и LIBE, на нашите съветници, на моя екип, и специално на Николинка.
                  

                     Разгледахме стотици изменения, стотици бяха и часовете на преговори, което само потвърждава политическата ни ангажираност и положените усилия да търсим работещи дългосрочни решения за резултатна борба с изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма. Този законодателен текст е еднакво важен за всички държави членки и съм уверен, че AMLA ще докаже своята роля за по-голям надзор, по-добра координация, повече оперативност и в крайна сметка повече сигурност в Европейския съюз.
                  

President. – The joint debate is now closed. I thank all the speakers for their input, and also the Commissioner and everyone who took part. The vote will be held today at 17.00.
13.   The European Parliament's right of inquiry (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on






—


the oral question to the Commission on the European Parliament's right of inquiry by Salvatore De Meo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Rainer Wieland, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Damian Boeselager, Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (O-000006/2024 - B9-0013/24) (2024/2598(RSP), and










—


the oral question to the Council on the European Parliament's right of inquiry, by Salvatore De Meo, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Rainer Wieland, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Helmut Scholz, Damian Boeselager, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Commission (O-000007/2024 - B9-0014/24) (2024/2598(RSP).





Domènec Ruiz Devesa,
Ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales. – Señor presidente Marc Angel, gracias a los presentes, también a los compañeros del equipo negociador de este informe en el Parlamento, particularmente a los que han mantenido una línea de coherencia, como Helmut Scholtz.
               

                  Nos vemos obligados a adoptar esta medida de plantear unas preguntas orales al Consejo y a la Comisión sobre este asunto porque el derecho de investigación del Parlamento, los poderes de investigación del Parlamento están regulados actualmente por una Decisión del año 1995. El Consejo no tiene mucha prisa por corregir esta situación.
               

                  En el Tratado de Lisboa se dice que hay que adoptar un nuevo Reglamento sobre la materia, que debe proponer el Parlamento y que luego debe obtener el consentimiento o la aprobación, tanto del Consejo como de la Comisión. El Parlamento hizo una propuesta en el año 2014 y estamos aquí diez años después. Todavía no hemos desarrollado una base legal que está en el Tratado de Lisboa. Por tanto, es una obligación.
               

                  Y lo que estamos viendo es que, de las tres instituciones, hay una que está trabajando para desarrollar y cumplir con esa obligación, con esa base legal, y hay dos que no lo están haciendo. Hay dos que no lo están haciendo. Y las dos tienen una responsabilidad grave en la cuestión.
               

                  Para empezar, la propia Comisión. Es verdad que la Comisión hasta ahora ha dicho ‘bueno, obtenga usted el apoyo del Consejo y luego yo ya diré lo que considere’. Incluso se ha llegado a decir que la Comisión es un mediador imparcial, pero no es verdad. Señora McGuinness yo sé que usted está aquí sustituyendo al señor Šefčovič y dirá: ‘qué cosas más raras me dice este diputado’. Pero es que es verdad. Ustedes no son un mediador imparcial porque ustedes pueden ser objeto de una investigación del Parlamento, de la misma manera que los Estados miembros. Por tanto, la Comisión es parte interesada, no es un mediador imparcial. Pero, al mismo tiempo, se da la circunstancia de que la Comisión es la guardiana de los Tratados y, por tanto, ustedes están obligados a ayudar a que esa base legal del Tratado se desarrolle, pero no se han tomado mucho interés y no han apoyado al Parlamento en esa tarea. Se han mantenido al margen a la espera de lo que hiciera el Consejo.
               

                  Pero el Consejo también tiene una parte muy importante de responsabilidad porque este Parlamento ha hecho —empezando con la propuesta del año 2014— ha hecho hasta tres propuestas. Y las tres no solo han sido rechazadas por el fondo, por parte del Consejo, sino indirectamente también por parte de la Comisión: porque la Comisión todavía está a tiempo de valorar positivamente la última propuesta del Parlamento —lo puede hacer hoy a lo mejor, salvo que la señora McGuinness venga con instrucciones muy estrictas—.
               

                  El Consejo ha rechazado la última propuesta que hemos hecho. Ya digo, la tercera, en enero, con una carta que no está motivada, desde el punto de vista jurídico no está motivada. El Consejo ha dicho reiteradamente que para abrir una negociación con el Parlamento tendríamos que aceptar once objeciones a la propuesta inicial, modificada posteriormente en el año 2018. El Parlamento le hizo una propuesta —que, por cierto, me costó mucho trabajo porque hay dos grupos importantes en esta Cámara que, según el día, adoptan una posición y la contraria o según con quién hable respecto del grupo—. Y me costó mucho trabajo que se aceptara en el Parlamento que unilateralmente, antes de abrir una negociación con ustedes, aceptáramos sus objeciones. De las once —tome nota, señora McGuinness—, de las once objeciones que tenía el Consejo, nosotros hemos aceptado nueve. Nueve. De once, nueve. Y quedaban dos que no hemos aceptado, porque, aceptarlas, incluso antes de abrir una negociación, supondría —en nuestra opinión— que estaríamos empeorando el acervo comunitario. Estaríamos en una situación peor que en el año 1995.
               

                  Por lo tanto, yo creo que la propuesta que les hemos hecho, señor ministro, es muy razonable. Una propuesta para negociar, ni siquiera para que acepten, sino para sentarse a negociar. Una propuesta que resuelve nueve de sus once objeciones. En fin, ¿qué más quiere que hagamos? Desde luego, no vamos a empeorar el actual marco legal del año 1995. Eso no lo podemos hacer de ninguna manera. Por tanto, yo les animo a que reconsideren su posición. La propia presidenta Metsola, por cierto, a la que agradezco su colaboración, planteó la cuestión en las últimas reuniones del Consejo Europeo. Igual alguno de ustedes se acuerda. Creo que no ha pasado nunca. Porque, claro, diez años después, la cosa empieza a ser realmente muy grave.
               

                  Yo les animo hoy a que adopten una posición constructiva, porque no la han tenido hasta ahora, señor ministro, no la han tenido. Cuando uno rechaza tres propuestas y ni siquiera las negocia —no digo ya que las acepte, ni siquiera las negocia— no está siendo constructivo, está violando la obligación de cooperación leal, señor ministro. Y también la Comisión. Si hemos resuelto nueve de las once objeciones… Termino, presidente, pero es que es muy importante esto. Si hemos aceptado nueve de las once objeciones del Consejo, yo creo que a la Comisión le debería valer, señora comisaria, le debería valer. No se entiende que ustedes tampoco quieran aceptar la propuesta del Parlamento ni que estén imitando al Consejo.
               

                  Yo les digo: yo no sé si estaré aquí la próxima legislatura, pero no veo otra solución —si ustedes siguen sin abrir negociaciones con el Parlamento respecto de la última propuesta— que llevarles a ambos al Tribunal de Justicia. Porque ya no hay una alternativa política. El Parlamento, en mi opinión, no va a hacer una nueva propuesta que empeore el acervo comunitario, es decir, que nos sitúe —antes incluso de abrir una negociación— en peor lugar que en el marco legal del año 1995.
               

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Mesdames et Messieurs les parlementaires, merci de me donner l'occasion d'aborder avec vous cette question importante qu'est le droit d'enquête du Parlement européen et de faire ensemble le bilan des derniers événements survenus dans ce dossier.
               

                  En préambule, je souhaite ici vous assurer que le Conseil reconnaît l'importance des commissions d'enquête parlementaire. Elles sont un instrument de responsabilité démocratique, qui doit permettre aux parlements nationaux ainsi qu'au Parlement européen d'exercer un contrôle politique au sein de notre Union, en conformité avec les valeurs de démocratie et d'état de droit. De ce point de vue, le Conseil est pleinement conscient de l'attachement du Parlement européen à cette question et à ce dossier en particulier, qui est à la fois complexe juridiquement et sensible politiquement.
               

                  De son côté, je ne doute pas que le Parlement soit conscient des inquiétudes politiques et juridiques sérieuses du Conseil sur un certain nombre de dispositions reprises dans les propositions du Parlement, y compris dans les dernières propositions informelles en date. Depuis le rapport initial adopté en 2012, qui constitue encore à ce jour la proposition officielle du Parlement, le Conseil a examiné une longue série de propositions, plus ou moins informelles, dans un esprit constructif et de coopération loyale. Comme cela a été exprimé à de nombreuses reprises par le Conseil, mais aussi par la Commission, la proposition initiale du Parlement européen, tout comme ses propositions successives, soulève de sérieuses préoccupations politiques et juridiques au regard de l'article 226 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.
               

                  La dernière en date, reçue par le Conseil le 10 octobre 2023, a été dûment examinée par les États membres durant les mois de novembre et de décembre, sous la présidence espagnole. Il est ressorti de cet examen que la proposition informelle du Parlement, bien qu'elle comporte un certain nombre de pas dans la bonne direction, ne permettait pas de résoudre les nombreuses préoccupations soulevées par le Conseil depuis 2012. Celles-ci ont été clairement réitérées dans la lettre de réponse adressée à M. De Meo, président de la commission AFCO, le 18 janvier dernier.
               

                  Plus largement, il semble que ce dernier échange épistolaire vienne, comme les précédents, se heurter à une conception différente de nos institutions concernant l'interprétation de l'article 226 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne. Celui-ci ne peut pas, de notre point de vue, donner aux commissions d'enquête du Parlement européen des pouvoirs quasiment judiciaires qui ne trouveraient, en vérité, pas d'équivalent dans un grand nombre d'États membres. Il semble pourtant que ce soit la vision défendue par le Parlement européen, dans un sillon tracé par sa proposition de 2012 qui, après plus de douze ans dans l'impasse, ne paraît pas permettre de réaliser des avancées concrètes sur ce sujet important pour notre démocratie européenne.
               

                  Je note en outre avec une certaine inquiétude les amendements que le Parlement a récemment apportés à son règlement intérieur en matière de droit d'enquête. Ceux-ci semblent reprendre plusieurs des éléments les plus controversés de sa proposition. Bien que le règlement intérieur soit évidemment un texte qui est propre au Parlement et ne lie pas les autres institutions, cet épisode ne contribue pas à sortir de l'impasse actuelle sur ce dossier.
               

                  Ainsi, en l'état, je ne peux donc que réitérer les réserves maintes fois exprimées, tout en affirmant la disponibilité du Conseil à examiner toutes les propositions émanant du Parlement à l'avenir, fût-ce un autre texte informel ou une nouvelle proposition en bonne et due forme, dans un plein esprit de coopération loyale et sincère. Je regrette évidemment que cette mandature n'ait pas été celle qui ait permis un accord et j'espère que de plus amples progrès seront possibles lors du prochain cycle institutionnel.
               

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, colleagues, time is of the essence, so I will be quick. I am here on behalf of EVP Šefčovič, but I want to state on his behalf and, indeed, on behalf of the Commission, that we recognise absolutely the importance of the European Parliament's right of inquiry.
I can speak of my own experience as an MEP, just how important that right of inquiry is. I chaired a committee of inquiry in 2006, on the collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and our work identified issues around weak financial regulation on which there was follow-up action.
But it is also worth noting that this right of inquiry must be exercised by Parliament within the limits of the powers in the Treaties, and in line with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out there.
In 2012, the Parliament adopted its proposal to revise the 1995 Decision that now governs the exercise of Parliament's right of inquiry. Since then, regrettably, there has been little progress. The Commission has never objected to engaging in any interinstitutional dialogue. In fact, it is quite the opposite. As stated on several occasions during structured dialogues with AFCO and in previous debate on this topic in June 2021, the Commission has always been open to constructive trilateral discussions to address any remaining issues before giving its consent according to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Just to recall, this is a special legislative procedure. While it is for Parliament to make the proposal, the procedure requires the consent of both Council and Commission. So therefore, in the spirit of sincere cooperation, any Parliament position or proposal, including non-papers, should be transmitted to both Commission and Council.
The Commission takes note of the updated non-paper received from Parliament, which aims to take, and I quote, ‘a considerable step towards the Council's position, after which no further substantial concessions from the Parliament's side could be possible’. The Commission acknowledges some progress in this updated non-paper; of note, deleting the provision allowing Parliament, in effect, to impose sanctions in the case of a failure to fully cooperate with a committee of inquiry.
But there are still outstanding issues which should be further discussed in interinstitutional negotiations. These include the conduct of investigations, hearings of members of EU institutions, hearings of EU officials and other staff, hearings of other individuals, and requests for documents.
In addition, the Commission regrets that Parliament recently decided unilaterally to introduce some amendments to its Rules of Procedure that relate to Parliament's inquiry powers. Amendments like this risk interfering, or even being incompatible, with the procedure established by the Treaties on adopting detailed provisions on exercising the right of inquiry. As I explained, these provisions should be determined by the Parliament in a regulation after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission.
In any event, I do want to assure you that the Commission will cooperate, and continue to do so, with Parliament's committees of inquiry, in full compliance with the Treaties and the 1995 Decision on Parliament's right of inquiry.

Ana Collado Jiménez,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor Michel, comisaria McGuinness, señorías, cuando yo llegué aquí hace unos meses, les expliqué a mis hijos que este Parlamento era el guardián de la democracia europea. Les expliqué que en democracia el poder lo tienen los ciudadanos, que se organizan a través de sus representantes —que somos todos nosotros—, y que hay unas reglas básicas para resolver los conflictos y también para gestionar lo de todos, lo común. A ellos no les puedo hablar de John Locke o de Montesquieu porque todavía son muy pequeños. Pero a los ciudadanos sí debemos hablarles como lo que son, como adultos, y explicarles que esas normas básicas están recogidas en los Tratados europeos, que consagran la separación de poderes.
               

                  Por eso, el artículo 14 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea recoge la prerrogativa de este Parlamento para controlar al poder ejecutivo en las distintas formas que adopta en la Unión: la Comisión, el Consejo, el Banco Central Europeo u otras agencias. Y para eso tenemos distintas herramientas, entre otras las comisiones de investigación, que son una herramienta clave de control político que se usa con total naturalidad y normalidad en los Parlamentos nacionales de prácticamente todos los Estados miembros. Pero especialmente en este Parlamento, el Consejo lleva desde el año 2014 ignorando todos los intentos por conseguir una norma que sea directamente aplicable y totalmente vinculante.
               

                  Debo confesarles que mis expectativas durante la Presidencia española a propósito de cualquier cosa que tuviera que ver con separación de poderes o con control no eran muy elevadas. Pero lo que, desde luego, no me explico es cómo podemos estar en esta situación tras dos mandatos enteros, dos legislaturas enteras y más de catorce años desde que entró en vigor el Tratado de Lisboa. ¿Cómo quieren que les expliquemos esto a los ciudadanos?
               

Cyrus Engerer,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, nous célébrons aujourd'hui un triste 10e anniversaire: celui du refus du Conseil et de la Commission de réformer les droits d'enquête de ce Parlement. L'attitude de vos institutions est totalement inadmissible et irrespectueuse envers nous, mais aussi envers les citoyens européens qui nous ont directement élus. Je ne comprends pas ce qui est si innovant ou scandaleux. Ce droit d'enquête est pourtant totalement normal pour un Parlement dans ses fonctions de contrôle.
               

                  Que dira la Commission dans ses rapports sur l'état de droit si un gouvernement refuse un tel dialogue au niveau national? Est-ce la peur d'un nouveau scandale à la Santer? Le Conseil a-t-il peur que ce Parlement mette au jour des éléments problématiques? En effet, votre collaboration avec notre commission d'enquête sur les logiciels espions a été déplorable. Davantage de transparence et de contrôle institutionnel sont essentiels dans une démocratie.
               

Maite Pagazaurtundúa,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. –Señor presidente, señorías, hay un dicho popular en español para casos como el que nos trae aquí. En cuanto al derecho de investigación del Parlamento Europeo, ustedes, el Consejo: ni una mala palabra, ni una buena acción.
               

                  Lo que está en cuestión es la cooperación leal del Consejo con respecto a unas especialísimas atribuciones del Parlamento Europeo. La Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales ha sido paciente y ha mostrado buena fe durante más de dos mandatos —doce años. Y en los dos mandatos y pico —y en la parte que a mí me toca, diez años—, nos han tomado el pelo y nos han entretenido hasta llegar al punto ciego del final de cada uno de los mandatos.
               

                  Es mi percepción personal, pero a mí me parece que a ustedes solo les interesa rebajar nuestras competencias investigadoras y, en algunas cosas, parece que quieren que seamos como un rebaño de corderos.
               

                  El Parlamento no puede tolerar violaciones de sus prerrogativas en materia de investigación. Ni tan siquiera se cumple plenamente el marco legal vigente desde 1995. Y en lo demás, el rechazo a las tres propuestas sin negociar. Y hoy nos han dicho lo mismo.
               

                  El Parlamento debe actuar con una sola voz, y el nuevo Parlamento —esta vez sí— no puede dejar pasar otros cinco años con buena fe. Si no hay un acercamiento por parte del Consejo, deberá activar el procedimiento para llevarlo ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea por la violación del principio de cooperación mutua sincera entre instituciones. Es bueno que esto se sepa fuera de la Comisión AFCO, es bueno que se sepa en toda esta Cámara.
               

                  Sin más, me despido de todos ustedes porque hoy es mi último día. Esto ha sido todo, amigos.
               

Damian Boeselager,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, thank you colleagues for coming to this important debate about constitutional affairs. I'm very happy that you made this a priority in your busy days.
But I have to tell you, this is a priority. This is about our right, our right of inquiry. And about – many, many years now – we haven't been given the right to summon people here. This is a crucial right of a parliament, to be able to ask people to come here, to ask company CEOs, but also ministers and national governments, to come here and to explain themselves.
We have cases amongst ourselves where we have team members taking bribes from Russia, where we hire, apparently, Chinese spies. All of these topics, we need to be able to follow up with a commission of inquiry. And this is what this is about. We are being denied a crucial right: the right of inquiry.
And so I think next mandate, we need to sue the Council for inactivity, for not providing this right of inquiry, for not working on our electoral law and for not opening the Treaties as they should under our treaty obligations.

Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, l'article 226 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne donne au Parlement européen le pouvoir de créer des commissions d'enquête temporaires. Le Parlement européen voudrait qu'un règlement renforce ce droit d'enquête. J'y suis favorable, s'il s'agit de contraindre la Commission à répondre à ces questions, car j'observe que la Commission a parfois fait preuve d'arrogance en refusant de collaborer avec ces enquêtes, comme par exemple dans l'affaire du PfizerGate.
               

                  Je vous mets cependant en garde contre deux dérives auxquelles un tel renforcement exposerait l'Union. La première consisterait à dévoyer le droit d'enquête pour le transformer en moyen de pression politique sur le Conseil ou sur certains États membres, comme la Hongrie et la Pologne en ont déjà fait l'expérience. La seconde consisterait à l'utiliser pour diffamer des adversaires politiques, comme la commission d'enquête sur les ingérences étrangères, présidée par M. Glucksmann, l'a déjà fait à l'encontre du Rassemblement national, sans voir le Qatargate, qui impliquait des socialistes.
               

                  En conclusion, chers collègues, je comprends et partage les réticences du Conseil à vous accorder l'augmentation de pouvoirs que vous réclamez.
               

Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin McGuinness, Herr Staatssekretär! Artikel 14 Absatz 1 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union ist sehr deutlich: Das Parlament erfüllt ‘Aufgaben der politischen Kontrolle’. Als der Vertrag von Lissabon in Kraft trat, war ich gerade ein paar Monate lang Abgeordneter hier im Europäischen Parlament. Seitdem haben wir versucht – vertraglich die Möglichkeit, und ich finde, auch das Recht und verdammt die gesetzgeberische Pflicht –, eine uneingeschränkt verbindliche und unmittelbar anzuwendende Verordnung zu erlassen. Diese soll die Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung, die bisher das parlamentarische Untersuchungsrecht regelt, ersetzen und nicht weiter zusammenschrumpfen.
               

                  Seitdem haben wir viel daran gearbeitet und haben immer wieder versucht, den Rat in die Frage mit einzubeziehen, wie wir gemeinschaftlich einen wichtigen Pfeiler für die demokratische Ausgestaltung und notwendige transparente Arbeit der EU-Institutionen verankern können. 14 Jahre später, nach meinen ersten Arbeiten an diesem Thema, werde ich mit der kommenden Wahl aus dem Europäischen Parlament ausscheiden. Und noch immer hat der Rat – und leider auch die Kommission – es nicht geschafft, angemessen auf den Vorschlag des Parlaments zu reagieren. Das ist nicht akzeptabel, und nach all den Jahren ist es mehr als überfällig, dass das Parlament nach den Europawahlen zu seiner 10. Legislaturperiode ernsthaft und verbindlich alle politischen und rechtlichen Wege prüfen muss, um mit – oder juristisch gestützt auch ohne – den Rat die Umsetzung der Vertragsverpflichtungen hinsichtlich des vollen Untersuchungsrechts zu gelangen.
               

Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als Mitglied im Pegasus-Untersuchungsausschuss habe ich in der heutigen Debatte ein Déjà-vu. Das Parlament hat eine Entschließung mit unbedingt notwendigen Maßnahmen zum Schutz unserer europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger, zur Sicherung und Stärkung von Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit beschlossen. Wie haben Kommission und Rat reagiert? Sie haben gebetsmühlenartig festgestellt: Es sind keine neuen Rechtsakte erforderlich.
               

                  Parlamentarismus ist Fundament der Demokratie. Dazu gehört das Recht auf Kontrolle. Abgeordnete sind von den europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern gewählt, und ihr Mandat muss ihnen Zugang zu Dokumenten sicherstellen, auch wenn diese als Verschlusssache eingestuft werden. Grundlage für effektive Aufklärung ist es auch, Zeugen vorladen zu können, die unter Eid auszusagen haben.
               

                  Seit zehn Jahren drängen die Abgeordneten auf eine neue Verordnung über das Untersuchungsrecht des Europäischen Parlaments. Die aktuellen Befugnisse reichen schlichtweg nicht aus. Das wird in unserer Kontrollarbeit, zu der wir als Mandatare verpflichtet sind, immer wieder deutlich.
               

                  Wann handelt der Rat und wird endlich dem bindenden Grundsatz der loyalen Zusammenarbeit der Organe gerecht? Und wann können wir als Abgeordnete unser Untersuchungsrecht auch wirklich handlungsfähig ausüben?
               

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as Shakespeare said, brevity is the soul of wit. Two comments I have to make in conclusion. The Commission is ready to engage in trilateral discussions to allow us to clarify all remaining points of concern before giving consent to any proposal.
And secondly, let us resume this important work under the next Parliament with a solutions-orientated approach. Agreement is possible. Your right of inquiry is important and let us work to achieve success in that matter.

Mathieu Michel,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you for this frank and open exchange, which has certainly enabled us to clarify our respective positions.
Allow me once again to reaffirm the importance that Council attaches to the role of parliamentary committees of inquiry in our European democracy. An adequate level of control and political accountability is essential, and the current legal framework is a solid foundation.
Let me be very clear. The Council has always acted in full respect of the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation on this file. Over the last 12 years, it has duly and carefully examined each and every Parliament proposal, and has continuously acted in a constructive spirit with a view to achieving progress.
Parliament and Council are therefore not co-legislators here and they are not meant to enter trilogue negotiations. It is in fact up to Parliament to put forward a proposal that has reasonable chances to obtain consent from its counterparts. In this perspective, the European Parliament is well aware of the serious political and legal concerns which the Council and the Commission raised very early on.
I acknowledge the many proposals the European Parliament has made over the years, but those have unfortunately resulted insufficient to alleviate many of the concerns raised. As set out in our last letter, the latest Parliament proposal fails to address many of the serious political and legal concerns previously raised by the Council.
These relate in particular to incompatibilities, Article 5, conduct of investigation, Article 12, and despite investigations and fact finding missions, Article 13, hearing of officials and other servants of the Union, Articles 15 and 17, of members of Member States governments, Article 16, and of natural persons, Article 18, requests for documents, expert reports.
I will not go into more detail here, although I wish to further convey, as expressed by many Member States, that the prerogatives proposed by the European Parliament would go much beyond those of many EU national parliaments. In that sense, the powers which the European Parliament is willing to confer upon its committees of inquiry would go beyond the spirit and scope of Article 226 of the TFEU, which is a fundamental red line for the Council.
Our dialogue may continue and the Council stands ready to examine any further Parliament proposal. There is always room for improvement, and I hope that the next legislature will enable us to make progress on this issue. It is certainly in our common interests to guarantee all stakeholders a clear, up-to-date legal framework in keeping with the rule of law and the treaties.

President. – The sitting is now suspended for a few seconds and it will resume with the votes.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)


VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin

14.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 17.11 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)


Christophe Clergeau (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, la Présidente du Parlement va recevoir un courrier de la commission de l'environnement pour saisir l'EFSA sur les effets cocktails liés aux pesticides. Cela concerne un enjeu de santé publique majeur, le couple co-formulant / principe actif, mais aussi les doses faibles qui, combinées, ont des effets importants sur la santé.
               

                  J'ai demandé, avec le soutien du groupe S&D, deux choses à l'EFSA: une revue de littérature scientifique, mais aussi l'élaboration de lignes directrices pour l'évaluation de ces effets cocktails. Seule la première demande a été retenue par la réunion des coordonnateurs en commission ENVI.
               

                  Dans le cadre de l'article 147, paragraphe 2, du règlement intérieur, il vous revient de décider de la nature de la saisine de l'EFSA. Je vous demande donc de revoir cette position et de solliciter l'EFSA sur les deux volets de ma demande. Cette démarche est non partisane, elle est utile pour faire avancer la science et protéger l'environnement et la santé humaine.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, a chairde, an tseachtain seo, chuir póilíní na Gearmáine stop le himeacht dlúthpháirtíochta don Phalaistín ag an Reichstag i mBeirlín. Dúradh leis na gníomhaithe go bhfuil sé mídhleathach teangacha seachas an Ghearmáinis agus an Béarla a labhairt ag agóidí. D'ordaigh na póilíní bratacha na hÉireann agus póstaeir Ghaeilge a bhaint anuas.
               

                  Is bagairt náireach é seo don cheart tionóil sa Ghearmáin. Níl sé seo ceart ar chor ar bith.
               

                  Madam President, all EU languages are supposed to be equal, as are all minority languages. This institution should stand for linguistic equality and defend our fundamental rights. It is shameful that Germany, after outlawing pro-Palestinian gatherings, is censoring people from speaking their own language, whether it is Irish or Arabic.
               

                  Seasann Éire leis an bPalaistín. Tiocfaidh lá na Palaistíne.
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I want to thank all the workers of this Parliament. I want to thank you in all the languages.

(The speaker said ‘thank you’ in several languages)


Die Präsidentin. – Den Antrag zur Geschäftsordnung habe ich daraus jetzt nicht erkennen können, aber für die letzte Sitzung mag das in Ordnung sein.
               
15.   Voting time

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmung.
               

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll.)

15.1.   Simplification of certain CAP rules (C9-0120/2024) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Benoît Biteau,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je souhaite faire un point d'ordre au titre de l'article 200 du règlement intérieur. Depuis des mois, les paysans manifestent parce qu'ils n'arrivent pas à vivre de leur travail, parce qu'ils sont soumis à la concurrence déloyale, parce qu'ils voient l'agro-industrie et la grande distribution se remplir les poches sur leur dos. Nous avons des solutions: en finir avec l'accord Mercosur, plafonner les aides de la PAC pour mieux les redistribuer, réintroduire des outils de régulation des prix et instaurer la sécurité sociale de l'alimentation.
                  

                     Hélas, cette réforme votée en catimini, sans débat, dans l'urgence, bien loin des normes démocratiques, à la limite de la légalité si j'en crois cette note des services juridiques, ne fait que vider la PAC de ses quelques mesures de protection de la nature. Chers collègues, à qui profite votre croisade contre le Pacte vert? En tout cas, pas aux paysans, car sans nature, plus de paysans et plus de souveraineté alimentaire.
                  

                     Alors, avant que cette assemblée ne commette l'irréparable, je demande, Madame la Présidente, le report du vote au nom du groupe Verts/ALE.
                  

(Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab)

15.2.   Approval and market surveillance of non-road mobile machinery circulating on public roads (A9-0382/2023 - Tom Vandenkendelaere) (vote)

– Nach der Abstimmung:


Nicolas Schmit,
European Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Vandenkendelaere, and the shadow rapporteurs, for their constructive approach to the Commission proposal.
To provide reassurances to concerns as regards the coverage of towed machinery equipment, the Commission wishes to make the following statement. Towed machinery equipment is normally towed by motor vehicles under the scope of Regulation 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The Commission will address the need for establishing, under Regulation 2018/858, detailed technical requirements relating to the road safety of the specific category of towed machinery equipment, insofar as such equipment is not subject to such requirements under the existing rules.
Furthermore, the Commission wishes to make the following statement on the early application of this regulation. While supporting the overall outcome of the negotiations, the Commission regrets that the European Parliament and the Council agreed on an early application clause in Article 53, second paragraph, of the regulation in a domain that is not yet subject to harmonisation. The Commission considers that this clause risks creating legal uncertainty, as the regulation will not be applicable in its entirety, which will in particular be the case of the rules and procedures of market surveillance.
15.3.   Amendment of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (A9-0035/2024 - Clara Aguilera) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Clara Aguilera,
ponente. – Señor comisario, ha intervenido usted muy bien. Merece ser el candidato de los socialistas a las próximas elecciones.
                  

                     Señorías, la Ley de Sanidad Vegetal se aplica en su totalidad desde 2019. Hoy vamos a aprobar una serie de modificaciones técnicas destinadas a agilizar el funcionamiento con el fin de mantener un elevado nivel de protección fitosanitaria en todo el territorio de la Unión Europea. Estos cambios son necesarios debido a la experiencia que de 2019 se tiene en la fitosanidad, la salud de las plantas, también muy importante. Es verdad que con la Comisión no hemos estado de acuerdo en la creación del equipo de emergencia que consideramos fundamental, como así sucede con la sanidad animal.
                  

                     Para terminar, únicamente quisiera decir que es muy importante que aprobemos esta mejora porque todo lo que redunde en la sanidad vegetal será mejor para nuestra alimentación futura. Por tanto, pido la máxima aprobación de todos y doy las gracias a todos los grupos políticos por los esfuerzos para llevar a cabo esta iniciativa y que hayamos aprobado la reforma de la PAC también.
                  
15.4.   Transparency and integrity of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating activities (A9-0417/2023 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Aurore Lalucq,
rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, je suis assez d'accord. Je trouve que le commissaire Schmidt ferait un excellent président de la Commission européenne. Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la mission première des critères ESG consiste à fournir aux investisseurs des informations quant aux performances extrafinancières d'une entreprise en matière écologique, sociale et de gouvernance, l'idée étant de favoriser un investissement durable et responsable.
                  

                     Pour cela, il faut des outils infaillibles et il faut créer de la confiance. Or, comme à chaque fois que la pratique se développe avant la législation, on trouve un peu de tout: des évaluations parfaites et d'autres trompeuses. On se rappelle par exemple du scandale d'ORPEA, une maison de retraite très bien notée, mais dont la presse avait révélé le mauvais traitement de ses pensionnaires.
                  

                     Il fallait donc légiférer vite, à la demande du secteur, des ONG et des superviseurs. Je suis donc très fière que le Parlement européen s'apprête à adopter, aujourd'hui, la première législation dans ce domaine, un texte ambitieux qui défend les agences européennes et qui laisse de côté l'approche best in class. Si l'on a pu légiférer aussi vite, c'est grâce à toutes les équipes du Parlement européen, grâce à la présidence belge, grâce aux négociateurs qui ont été absolument constructifs et formidables, grâce aux équipes de la commission ECON, – pas grâce à un pays qui a eu un comportement absolument inadmissible – mais grâce aussi à deux personnes en particulier qui nous ont ouvert la voie: en matière de finance durable, M. Paul Tang, et pour tout ce qui concerne le volet extrafinancier, M. Pascal Durand. Je voudrais les remercier infiniment, parce qu'ils ont été deux députés incroyables au service des Européens et j'espère que tout le monde sera à leur hauteur un jour. Merci à tous les deux.
                  
15.5.   Measures to mitigate excessive exposures to third-country central counterparties and improve the efficiency of Union clearing markets (A9-0398/2023 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (vote)
15.6.   Treatment of concentration risk arising from exposures towards central counterparties and of counterparty risk in centrally cleared derivative transactions (A9-0399/2023 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (vote)
15.7.   Increasing the attractiveness of public capital markets and facilitating access to capital for SMEs – amending certain Regulations (A9-0302/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
15.8.   Increasing the attractiveness of public capital markets and facilitating access to capital for SMEs – amending Directive (A9-0303/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
15.9.   Multiple-vote share structures in companies that seek the admission to trading of their shares on an SME growth market (A9-0300/2023 - Alfred Sant) (vote)
15.10.   Standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application (A9-0250/2023 - Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé,
rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, 25 millions de transfusions sanguines, 35 000 transplantations de cellules souches, un million de cycles de procréation médicalement assistée sont effectués chaque année au sein de l'Union européenne. Ces chiffres montrent à quel point cette réglementation sur laquelle nous sommes sur le point de nous prononcer est essentielle.
                  

                     Assurer la qualité et la sécurité des dons de substances d'origine humaine est indispensable à la survie et au rétablissement de nombreux patients à travers l'Union européenne. Ce règlement répond à de réels enjeux de santé publique en garantissant le principe du don volontaire et non rémunéré et la non-marchandisation du corps humain, la sécurité des donneurs et des receveurs, le renforcement des systèmes de collecte nationaux afin de diminuer les risques de pénurie qui touchent de nombreux patients.
                  

                     Je souhaite remercier mes collègues rapporteurs fictifs pour leur travail et ce travail collectif. Je souhaite remercier mes collègues députés pour tout leur soutien et je souhaite bien sûr remercier mes collaborateurs et mes assistants pour ce qui constitue une étape supplémentaire et essentielle dans la construction de l'Europe de la santé.
                  
15.11.   Managed security services (A9-0307/2023 - Josianne Cutajar) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Josianne Cutajar,
rapporteur. – Madam President, today we are voting on a targeted amendment to the Cybersecurity Act. We are introducing a cyber certification scheme for managed security services. This is a crucial step towards preventing market fragmentation and establishing the EU Cybersecurity Reserve.
I'd like to first thank all the shadow rapporteurs and their respective teams for the collaboration. As the lead negotiator in this file, I understood well the pivotal role of MSS companies in supporting SMEs and local authorities, which often lack in-house expertise and resources.
As Parliament, we succeeded with a new provision that acknowledges the importance of providing solid financial and technical support, such as through the Digital Europe Programme. Through this Act, which champions skilling, transparency, accountability to the European Parliament and all stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of the certification scheme, as well as offering more legal clarity in the definition.
Over the past five years, I made it my mission to forge a digital policy that prioritises the needs of the most vulnerable. Let us not forget that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In this era of digitalisation, coupled with geopolitical turbulence, this Parliament's commitment to a comprehensive, safe and inclusive digital transition for all citizens and businesses alike, irrespective of where they live, must remain a priority. Thus, whilst I urge you to vote in favour, may I conclude in my mother tongue, Maltese.
Nagħlaq bil-lingwa Maltija billi nirringrazzja lil dawk il-kollegi kollha illi ħdimt magħhom matul dawn il-ħames snin, mhux biss il-Membri Parlamentari Ewropej imma anke l-ħaddiema kollha f'dan il-Parlament u lit-tim tiegħi. Jien mhux ħa nkun qed nerġa' nikkontesta l-elezzjonijiet li ġejjin, imma minn qalbi nawgura lil dawk kollha li ħa jkunu rieletti jew eletti biex ikomplu bil-ħidma pożittiva, ħidma sfiqa ta' Unjoni Ewropea iktar soċjali, iktar reżiljenti u iktar sostenibbli. Grazzi.
15.12.   Cyber Solidarity Act (A9-0426/2023 - Lina Gálvez Muñoz) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Lina Gálvez Muñoz,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, cada día en Europa sufrimos más ciberataques. Solo el pasado mes de diciembre, más de cien millones. Y es que cada vez que avanzamos en la digitalización de nuestras administraciones, nuestras sociedades o nuestras economías, nos volvemos más vulnerables. Cada ataque a nuestros Gobiernos, a nuestros hospitales, a nuestras infraestructuras críticas, mina la confianza de la ciudadanía en nuestras democracias. Y es eso precisamente lo que buscan los ciberdelincuentes. No debe extrañarnos que, desde la invasión rusa de Ucrania —que, sin duda, es una guerra híbrida—, los ciberataques hayan aumentado en número e intensidad.
                  

                     Por ello, es más necesario que nunca avanzar en una inteligencia europea de ciberseguridad, en un ecosistema industrial europeo que requiere de una buena regulación, de medios suficientes, de una población bien formada, y, sin duda, y lo más importante, de la cooperación entre los Estados miembros.
                  

                     Y todo ello se contempla en esta Ley europea de Cibersolidaridad que, sin duda, es una ley que responde a los nuevos tiempos, tiempos de digitalización y tiempos en los que la seguridad se abre también paso en el proceso de construcción europea. Esta Ley despliega todo un engranaje de cooperación e intercambio de información, lo que permitirá una digitalización más robusta, lo que —sin duda— es muy importante para conseguir la seguridad económica, la autonomía estratégica y la integridad de nuestras democracias.
                  

                     Agradezco a todos los equipos negociadores que han participado en la elaboración de esta Ley, sin duda, a contrarreloj. Pero es que verdaderamente urge proteger nuestras instituciones, nuestras infraestructuras críticas y también nuestras democracias y el propio proyecto europeo. Por eso les pido, por favor, que den un voto positivo a esta Ley.
                  
15.13.   European Union labour market statistics on businesses (A9-0054/2024 - Irene Tinagli) (vote)
15.14.   Amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards the scope of the rules for benchmarks, the use in the Union of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third country, and certain reporting requirements (A9-0076/2024 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
15.15.   Surface water and groundwater pollutants (A9-0238/2023 - Milan Brglez) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Milan Brglez,
poročevalec. – Gospa predsednica. Voda je žal postala odlagališče umetnih kemičnih snovi, ki ogrožajo ne samo ekosisteme in naravo v celoti, ampak tudi naše zdravje in celo življenja. Tega se prepogosto ali premalo zavedamo, saj je za pretežni del naše družbe čista in pitna voda skorajda nekaj samoumevnega.
                  

                     Poročilo, ki je pred vami, v svojem bistvu posodablja sezname snovi in njihove mejne vrednosti, ki so jih države članice dolžne nadzirati za ocene onesnaženosti naših voda. Seznam onesnaževal je sicer potrebno posodobiti vsakih šest let, a je bil zadnjič posodobljen pred desetimi leti. To pomeni, da ne odraža več realnega stanja onesnaževanja evropskih voda, v katerih najdemo kritična in nova sodobna onesnaževala, vključno s strupenimi PFAS kemikalijami, farmacevtskimi izdelki, mikroplastiko in širokim spektrom pesticidov.
                  

                     Poleg tega predlog revizije pomembno krepi čezmejno sodelovanje in pripravljenost držav članic na usklajen odziv pri preprečevanju večjih ekoloških katastrof, kot smo jim bili priča na reki Odri pred dvema letoma. Verjetnost tovrstnih naravnih katastrof bo, ne samo zaradi onesnaževanja, temveč tudi zaradi učinka podnebnih sprememb vse večja in zato je nujno, da okrepimo sistem varstva voda v Evropski uniji.
                  

                     Septembra lani je ta Parlament izkazal nedvoumno široko podporo poročilu, za kar se zahvaljujem konstruktivnemu skupnemu delu s kolegicami in kolegi poročevalci v senci. Zato vas, spoštovane kolegice in kolegi, vabim k ponovni podpori tega poročila, da s tem zapečatimo pozicijo parlamenta v prvem branju in zagotovimo kontinuiteto naših prizadevanj v naslednjem mandatu.
                  
15.16.   EuroHPC initiative for start-ups to boost European leadership in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (A9-0161/2024 - Maria da Graça Carvalho) (vote)
15.17.   Company law – Further expanding an upgrading the use of digital tools and processes (A9-0394/2023 - Emil Radev) (vote)
15.18.   Statistics on population and housing (A9-0284/2023 - Irena Joveva) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Irena Joveva,
poročevalka. – Gospa predsednica. Smo pred glasovanjem o uredbi o evropski statistiki, o prebivalstvu in stanovanjih, ki v procesu pogajanj s Svetom ni imela večje politične pozornosti. Povsem neupravičeno.
                  

                     Zgodil se je brexit, soočili smo se s pandemijo, naslavljamo podnebne spremembe in migracijske trende. Začeli smo se pripravljati na digitalno preobrazbo. Živimo v času, ko se iz leta v leto žal soočamo z novimi krizami in za njihovo ustrezno naslavljanje in oblikovanje ustreznih ukrepov potrebujemo pravočasne, pogostejše in podrobnejše podatke – statistiko. In s to uredbo bomo vzpostavili skupen evropski zakonodajni okvir, ki bo prvič pripeljal do poenotene definicije prebivalstva v vseh državah članicah. Pridobili bomo resnično primerljivost zbranih podatkov, kar je ključno za oblikovanje z dokazi podprtih zakonodajnih predlogov in akcijskih načrtov ter ozaveščenega odločanja o njih. Z boljšimi podatki bomo ustvarili kakovostnejše politike, ki bodo koristile vsem državljankam in državljanom.
                  

                     Zbirka podatkov o prebivalstvu pa se začne pri vključujočem zbiranju podatkov. Vsak človek šteje, zato moramo prešteti vsakogar. Ravno zato smo v besedilo umestili zahtevo po vključevanju ranljivih in težko dosegljivih skupin, ki so pogosto, prepogosto spregledane. Vključujemo tudi pomemben vidik zbiranja podatkov o energetski učinkovitosti stavb in možnosti razčlenjevanja po invalidnosti.
                  

                     V mandatu Parlamenta za zbiranje podatkov v ospredje jasno postavljamo uporabo upravnih virov in evidenc za zbiranje podatkov, pri tem pa spodbujamo tudi razvoj in napredek pri razvoju novih metod zbiranja podatkov. Pri tem bo državnim statističnim uradom na voljo tudi tako finančna kot tehnična podpora s strani Unije.
                  

                     Kljub vsem našim res velikim naporom v času pogajanj zaradi pomanjkanja prožnosti in neprilagajanja držav članic s Svetom, kompromisa nismo uspeli doseči. Žal. Zato je izredno pomembno, da danes potrdimo to močno stališče Parlamenta, s katerim bomo v nadaljevanju pogajanj lahko spremljali kvalitetno statistiko in s tem njeno osrednjo vlogo pri oblikovanju politik Unije.
                  
15.19.   Amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks (A9-0029/2023 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
15.20.   Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor (A9-0030/2023 - Jonás Fernández) (vote)
15.21.   The sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (A9-0150/2023 - Luděk Niedermayer, Paul Tang) (vote)
15.22.   Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (A9-0151/2023 - Eero Heinäluoma, Damien Carême) (vote)
15.23.   Establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (A9-0128/2023 - Eva Maria Poptcheva, Emil Radev) (vote)
15.24.   Ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Hungary to strengthen Rule of Law and its budgetary implications (B9-0223/2024) (vote)

Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.
                  

(Die Sitzung wird um 17.55 Uhr unterbrochen)


IN THE CHAIR: MARC ANGEL


Vice-President

16.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 17.59)

17.   La Hulpe declaration on the future of social Europe (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on Council and Commission statements on the La Hulpe declaration on the future of social Europe [2024/2707(RSP)].

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, très chers parlementaires, Monsieur le Commissaire, la politique sociale, avec ses effets concrets sur la vie et le bien-être de nos concitoyens, nous fournit les outils les plus visibles et significatifs dont nous disposons, en tant que décideurs politiques, pour améliorer la vie des gens tout en s'adaptant aux réalités actuelles.
               

                  L'une des priorités de la présidence belge dans le domaine de l'emploi et de la politique sociale a été de contribuer au débat autour des priorités politiques du prochain cycle institutionnel, y compris dans le contexte de l'agenda stratégique 2024-2029. Le point culminant de ces travaux a été la conférence de haut niveau sur le socle européen des droits sociaux, organisée à La Hulpe les 15 et 16 avril, pour délibérer sur les pistes envisageables dans ce domaine pour les années à venir.
               

                  Le principal résultat de la conférence a été la déclaration sur l'avenir du socle européen des droits sociaux, qui a rappelé que ces droits constituent notre boussole commune pour guider nos actions en matière d'emploi, de compétences et de défis sociaux pour le prochain cycle législatif. C'est la base d'une Europe qui prend soin, prépare, protège et garantit que nos marchés du travail et nos modèles sociaux sont prêts et résilients pour faire face aux multiples défis qui nous attendent.
               

                  Je voudrais remercier chaleureusement les représentants du Parlement européen, qui ont contribué de manière significative à façonner ce manifeste et à élever son niveau d'ambition, pour qu'il guide notre travail commun dans les années à venir, dans les sphères de l'emploi, de la politique sociale et de l'égalité.
               

                  La déclaration est le reflet tangible de l'engagement commun partagé par les institutions de l'Union européenne, les partenaires sociaux européens et la société civile, afin de promouvoir la dimension sociale de notre Union et notre modèle social européen. En effet, un élément clé de l'attractivité et de la compétitivité de notre continent réside précisément dans ses caractéristiques sociales uniques, dans notre engagement en faveur de l'égalité des chances pour tous, en veillant à ce que personne ne soit laissé de côté.
               

                  Poursuivre nos efforts en faveur d'une véritable Europe sociale n'est pas une option, c'est une nécessité. Il s'agit d'un facteur essentiel pour la prospérité, le poids géopolitique et la place de l'Europe sur la scène mondiale. Investir dans le capital humain et la protection sociale est une condition sine qua non pour la compétitivité et la résilience de l'Europe. Dans ce contexte, la poursuite de l'agenda social de l'Union européenne doit faire partie intégrante du programme stratégique qui guidera l'élaboration des politiques de l'Union au cours des prochains cycles législatifs. La poursuite de la mise en œuvre des principes du socle européen des droits sociaux doit rester sa boussole et sa stratégie directrice.
               

Nicolas Schmit,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, Monsieur le Représentant de la Présidence, it is my pleasure to address you in plenary one final time before the EU elections, and to do so on the topic of the future of social Europe.
So much has been achieved since the landmark Porto Social Summit almost three years ago, where we jointly set out a long-term vision for a strong social Europe. There is a lot to be proud of collectively. Inspired by the vision of Jacques Delors, we have concentrated on embedding the social into the economic, into the industrial, into the digital, into the green.
This Commission has taken action on each of the 20 principles of the Pillar of Social Rights, breathing life into it. We have committed to new targets on employment, skills and poverty reduction by 2030.
In view of strengthening upward social convergence, cohesion and competitiveness, we have delivered breakthrough employment legislation ensuring adequate minimum wages and extension of collective agreements, protecting platform workers and guaranteeing higher standards of health and safety at work.
We have put the spotlight on skills and training, including in this Year of Skills. This is helping to make the transition more inclusive and to make the opportunities accessible to all workers by tackling the labour and skills shortages faced by so many sectors. We have addressed long-standing inequalities and boosted social protection and social inclusion from the European Child Guarantee to long-term care systems, from adequate minimum income to tackling homelessness.
But the achievement I am most proud of is the fact that this Commission has mainstreamed the social into EU policymaking, and this shall not stop. The declaration precisely calls for the European Pillar of Social Rights to be mainstreamed in all relevant policy domains.
Let me just mention the Economic Governance Review, where the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights has been anchored among the common priorities of the Union and the importance of upward social convergence recognised. This was part of our original legislative proposal and was further reinforced by your Parliament.
Last week's summit at La Hulpe marked an important step on the road since Porto, with the signing of the Declaration on the Future of Social Europe, and your House was well-represented. The declaration also reaffirms the necessity of effective social dialogue as a fundamental component of the European social model, and of European democracy.
This declaration sends an important signal about the importance of keeping social at the heart of future EU policy, and reaffirms the relevance and importance of the pillar of social rights. The declaration takes a holistic look at employment and social policy. As always, it is about investing in people and providing supportive reforms.
I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for its work in bringing this process to a successful outcome, and for giving social the spotlight it deserves. We have a new roadmap for promoting social policies, adapted to the new challenges and addressing inequalities that still divide our societies. We must consolidate our achievements and go further ahead. As a still stand would be the biggest error.
I would also like to give my heartfelt thanks to this House for your support and your energy. Over the past five years, even at the toughest times, you have continued to push for progress. You have proposed innovative ideas and called for a European Child Guarantee. You have adopted legislative resolutions calling for EU legislation on telework and the right to disconnect, on asbestos and the new exposure limits to dangerous substances at work to protect workers. You have called for a revision of the European Works Councils Directive and called for legislation on traineeships.
This Commission has always followed up. The question now is where should we go from here? The La Hulpe Declaration will help us to shape a Europe that provides more opportunities, more equality and less poverty. A Europe that is more resilient, inclusive and competitive, with people at its centre – including by helping lift people, and particularly the young – up when they have lost their way. A Europe where people can learn new skills, move between sectors, earn decent wages, enjoy a good work-life balance and feel secure.
A major driver for making this a reality is that it is what EU citizens want and expect. In the latest Eurobarometer survey, published this month, nine out of ten people – 88% across the EU – said a social Europe is important to them personally. We also asked them what they felt should be the biggest priority in their country, and the answer is ‘tackling the high cost of living’ is by far the most frequently-mentioned issue. This confirms that strengthening the social dimension of our Union is indispensable. This has to be done in full respect of subsidiarity – but we cannot build a strong Union, assuring security in a more unstable geopolitical environment, without giving clear responses to citizens' concerns, difficulties and sometimes also fears.
Last week, after addressing the summit at La Hulpe, Enrico Letta presented his report on the future of the single market. He says clearly that further development of the single market can only be successful if it includes a genuine social dimension that ensures social justice and cohesion. The latter report also involves important developments to services of general interest and universal access to essential services. This is also underlined in the declaration.
The La Hulpe Declaration stresses how our social market economy makes social progress go hand-in-hand with a competitive and innovative economy. This is the real strength of Europe. The foundation also of our democracy. This is what we signed up, and what we must deliver together.

Dennis Radtke,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich könnte meine Redezeit dazu verwenden und meine Verwunderung darüber zum Ausdruck bringen, dass der Versuch, eine dünne Erklärung noch dünner zu machen, nicht ausgereicht hat, um BusinessEurope und die Schweden bei dieser Erklärung an Bord zu bekommen. Ich kann mir das aber auch einfach sparen und stattdessen sagen: La Hulpe ist nur ein kleiner weiterer Meilenstein auf dem Weg zu einem sozialeren Europa.
               

                  Wir müssen uns einmal vor Augen halten: Was haben wir in dieser Legislaturperiode alles gemeinsam erreicht, jenseits von Zusammentreffen bei Gipfeln? Wir haben einen europäischen Mindestlohn auf den Weg gebracht mit 80 % Tarifbindung, und zwar nicht als freundliche Handlungsempfehlung, sondern als rechtsverbindliches Ziel.
               

                  Ich war vor Kurzem in Rumänien, habe mit Gewerkschaftsvertretern dort gesprochen, die mir gesagt haben: Dennis, diese Gesetzgebung ist für unsere Arbeit hier, für gerechte Lohnfindung in Rumänien ein echter Gamechanger. Und es kann ein Gamechanger an ganz vielen Stellen auch in der Europäischen Union werden. Bis November ist ja Zeit, das in nationales Recht umzusetzen.
               

                  Wir haben heute die letzte Hürde genommen für Plattformregulierung. Wer hätte das Anfang der Legislaturperiode für möglich gehalten? Wir haben bei Lohntransparenz einen riesigen Schritt nach vorne gemacht. Wir haben beim Thema Europäische Betriebsräte einen riesigen Schritt nach vorne gemacht, beim Thema Demokratie am Arbeitsplatz. Das sind doch alles Riesenerfolge!
               

                  In der nächsten Periode bleibt noch viel zu tun. Wir verhandeln über ein neues ELA-Mandat. Wir müssen darüber reden, wie wir SE-Mitbestimmung endlich teslafest machen können. Wir werden über öffentliche Auftragsvergabe in der nächsten Legislaturperiode reden können. Wie können wir dieses Instrument nutzen, um Tarifbindung zu stärken, Arbeitsbedingungen zu verbessern? Denn eins ist auch klar: Wir müssen den Kampf um ein soziales Europa aus der Mitte, aus der politischen Mitte heraus führen. Wenn wir verhindern wollen, dass die Rattenfänger, die Extremisten, die Faschisten weiter aufsteigen, müssen wir es konkret aus der Mitte benennen.
               

                  Ich will die Gelegenheit auch noch einmal nutzen, mich bei meinen Koordinatoren, Kollegen und auch bei Nicolas Schmit und auch ganz besonders bei Agnes Jongerius zu bedanken. Die Erfolge, die wir erreicht haben, waren nur möglich, weil es ein großes Vertrauen gibt jenseits von politischen Familien, von Trennlinien zwischen politischen Familien, weil es ein großes gemeinsames Verständnis gibt. Dafür möchte ich mich ganz aufrichtig bedanken und dir, Agnes, auch alles Gute wünschen, auch wenn das heute deine letzte Plenarsitzung ist. Alles Gute. Wahlkampf hin oder her: Die Wahrheit muss gesagt werden in diesem Haus. Alles Gute.
               

Agnes Jongerius,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik wil beginnen met een dichtregel. En die luidt: ‘De zachte krachten zullen zeker winnen in het eind.’ Sta mij toe een beetje nostalgisch te zijn in mijn laatste speech hier als Europarlementariër in de plenaire. Want we zijn van ver gekomen. Van Göteborg naar Porto en vorige week naar Terhulpen.
               

                  Ik heb de afgelopen tien jaar de eer gehad te mogen knokken voor een socialer Europa, voor gelijk loon voor gelijk werk op dezelfde werkplek, toereikende minimumlonen, regels rond loontransparantie, om de loonkloof te sluiten, en betere bescherming van platformwerkers.
               

                  Maar we zijn er nog niet. Want helaas, werkgevers zijn als een Rupsje Nooitgenoeg. Net als water zoeken ze altijd het laagste punt, maar dan om zo goedkoop mogelijk te produceren en zelf een zo hoog mogelijke winst te pakken. We moeten de dijken dus goed stutten, wat de Verklaring van Terhulpen ook doet. Daarin staat: publiek geld moet naar fatsoenlijk werk, gedekt met een cao. Publiek geld dient ten gunste van de samenleving, niet ten koste van de samenleving te gaan.
               

                  Nu er regels zijn tegen uitbuiting van Europese werknemers, zie je dat werkgevers de kansen grijpen om mensen van buiten voor hun karretje te spannen. Daarom moet de Europese Arbeidsautoriteit niet alleen uitbuiting van Europese werknemers aanpakken, maar ook die van werknemers van buiten Europa.
               

                  Om werknemers en vakbondsrechten te waarborgen, hebben we wetgeving nodig voor AI op de werkplek. De werkplek verandert heel veel door de digitale en door de groene revolutie. De toezegging dat de sociale partners actief betrokken en geconsulteerd worden, is essentieel.
               

                  En ja, eerlijk is eerlijk, mijn handen jeuken. Maar ik moet ook zeggen: ik heb groot vertrouwen in onze Eurocommissaris en spitzenkandidaat Nicolas Schmit en mijn geweldige collega's van de S&D en de rest van de coördinatoren om ook de volgende strijd te gaan leveren. Want de zachte krachten zullen winnen in het eind. Het was me een groot genoegen.
               

President. – Thank you very much, dear colleague Agnes Jongerius, and thank you for your 10 years of engagement in this House. I'm sure you will continue your work with a lot of competence for a just Europe in different arenas than this Parliament.

Dragoș Pîslaru,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar Nicolas Schmit, președinția belgiană, stimați colegi, dragi cetățeni, Uniunea Europeană lucrează în interesul vostru, în interesul protecției drepturilor voastre, condițiilor de muncă, în interesul copiilor, al tinerilor, al tuturor celor care se află în situație de vulnerabilitate și de cinci ani de zile la asta lucrăm aici, în Parlamentul European.
               

                  Lucrăm pentru a putea îmbunătăți condițiile de viață, mai ales în aceste timpuri grele în care avem criză după criză. La La Hulpe am reușit să pregătim și o strategie pentru viitor, după ce în întreg mandatul am lucrat la salarii minime mai bune, am lucrat la protecția și echilibrul de gen, de transparență salarială, la drepturile lucrătorilor pe platformele digitale, la toate aceste realizări care au împins proiectul acesta al pilonului european al drepturilor sociale în realitate.
               

                  Cu toate acestea, la nivelul statelor membre nu se vorbește despre acest lucru. La noi, în România, nu discută Guvernul despre protecția drepturilor sociale, despre viziunea de viitor. Oamenii nu înțeleg încă la ce lucrăm noi la nivel european. Ce trebuie să știți este că am reprezentat Parlamentul European în calitate de președinte al Comisiei de Muncă la La Hulpe, pentru ca toți decidenții împreună, să putem proiecta un viitor mai bun, să avem copii care să fie protejați, să avem tineri care să aibă oportunități, să avem persoane cu dizabilități ale căror drepturi să fie respectate.
               

                  Asta a stabilit Uniunea Europeană și asta nu știți, pentru că guvernele nu vă spun aceste lucruri, pentru că o populație fără așteptări e o populație pe care politicienii își pot construi politica absolută, extremistă și lipsită de transparență.
               

                  Da, se poate să trăim într-o țară europeană avansată, sigură, suntem deja în familia europeană, trebuie doar să știm despre asta și să ne informăm. Și da, votul de pe 9 iunie despre asta este, despre o Europă socială, o Europă care este în același timp competitivă și care respectă drepturile sociale ale cetățenilor.
               

Sara Matthieu,
namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, collega's, er wordt dezer dagen heel hard gefocust op competitiviteit. En dat is belangrijk, want dat gaat over onze welvaart en over onze jobs. Maar laat mij tegelijkertijd toch ook waarschuwen: je bouwt geen competitieve economie op een sociaal kerkhof.
               

                  In de verklaring van Terhulpen belooft Europa sociale vooruitgang aan al haar burgers en dat is dringend nodig, want een op de vijf Europeanen leeft vandaag in armoede en heeft moeite om de rekeningen te betalen. Nochtans heeft iedereen het recht om een waardig inkomen te hebben om van te leven, om van te eten, om je woning mee te kunnen betalen, om je kinderen te kunnen opvoeden.
               

                  Deze week heeft onze sociale agenda een grote klap gekregen. De nieuwe begrotingsregels riskeren erop in te hakken. In ons onderwijs, in onze zorg, in onze kinderopvang. Blind besparen, dat gaat het de mensen die vandaag al moeilijk rondkomen alleen maar moeilijker maken.
               

                  Laat mij dus heel duidelijk zijn: zonder afdwingbare wetten, zonder voldoende middelen riskeert onze mooie sociale verklaring alleen maar op papier te bestaan. Dus, laat ons samen blijven vechten voor een echt sociaal Europa.
               

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, comisario, señorías, en nuestra reunión interparlamentaria de febrero, la propia Presidencia belga anunció que Europa iba a sufrir un shock económico con graves consecuencias sociales. El gobernador del Banco Central dijo textualmente que la ecologización reduciría nuestro potencial de crecimiento, que nos pondría en una situación de desventaja, que habría muchos perdedores y que no se sabía cuánto costaría ni quién lo pagaría.
               

                  Este mandato ha sido devastador para los europeos. Sin embargo, esta Declaración de La Hulpe, a final de mandato, se permite presumir de lo que se denomina la Europa social. El pasado 18 se presentó un nuevo pacto de la competitividad, que sigue impulsando el Pacto Verde; un pacto que se debería derogar. Se muestra sin complejos la intención de seguir profundizando en el problema y luego se utiliza la excusa de lo social para poner la tirita.
               

                  Así, la Unión Europea se entromete en competencias de los Estados miembros tratando de imponer, además, un modelo socialista fracasado no solo en el pasado, sino en el presente. Mi propio país es un ejemplo clarísimo.
               

                  La mejor política social es crear prosperidad y apoyar a la familia; que las empresas puedan ofrecer puestos de trabajo, empleo. Pero para esto necesitan un entorno en el que poder operar de forma competitiva, algo que durante este mandato se han empeñado en destruir. No estuvieron en Bruselas el día de las tractoradas. Viven en una burbuja que no les permite tener empatía con la desesperación de los ciudadanos. Las próximas elecciones serán decisivas para acabar con este efecto autodestructivo.
               

Guido Reil,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es geht heute wieder mal um die europäischen Säulen sozialer Rechte. Ich sage da immer das Gleiche. Für Sozialpolitik ist die EU laut den Verträgen nicht zuständig. Aber die Verträge interessieren ja schon lange niemanden mehr, genauso wie die Grundwerte dieser EU.
               

                  Es ging hier mal um Wohlstand, Frieden und Demokratie. Wohlstand: Der Green Deal deindustrialisiert unser Land, vernichtet Millionen wertschöpfende Arbeitsplätze und treibt Europa in die Armut. Frieden: Die Sanktionen gegen Russland schaden uns, nicht den Russen. Die Waffen für die Ukraine schaffen keinen Frieden. Sie schaffen keinen Frieden, sie verlängern das Sterben. Die Ukraine kann diesen Krieg nicht gewinnen. Und Demokratie: Das Ganze hier ist eine Demokratiesimulation. Für mich ein Riesentheater, leider das teuerste Theater der Welt.
               

                  Ich bin vor fünf Jahren hierhergekommen als EU-Kritiker, und ich gehe heute als absoluter EU-Gegner. Wer für Europa Wohlstand, Frieden und Demokratie will, der muss raus aus dieser EU.
               

Nikolaj Villumsen,
on behalf of the The Left Group. – Mr President, for far too long the EU has been about market, market and market, but the core of Europe is the people, not the market. To me, this was underlined at the La Hulpe Summit. There, the EU was reminded about the need to include social policy and workers' rights.
And I'm happy that the broadly accepted La Hulpe Declaration clearly mentions the need to revise the highly problematic public procurement rules, because that means that we now have the signature of the Commission President on this. But we must make sure it is held up to her promise and that the words are turned into action by the next Commission.
That is why, yesterday, we launched the European Public Procurement Alliance across political groups in this Parliament, to make sure that Europe will get the revision we all know is needed, and to ensure a more social Europe where no public money goes to companies that do not respect collective bargaining.

Ádám Kósa (NI). – Elnök Úr! Örvendetes, hogy a 2017-es Szociális Jogok Európai Pillére és a 2021-es Portói Nyilatkozat után ismét megerősítik a tagállamok, hogy elkötelezettek a szociális és foglalkoztatási jogok iránt.
               

                  A júliusban kezdődő magyar elnökség is ugyanezt az utat fogja folytatni, komoly hangsúlyt helyezve a tagállamok szuverenitásának tiszteletben tartására.
               

                  Magyarország elkötelezett a munkaalapú társadalom mellett, aminek eredményei kézzelfoghatóak: növekvő munkabérek (a bruttó átlagkereset 14%-kal nőtt, a reálkereset 9,9%-kal a 2024. februári adatokhoz képest); a csökkenő munkanélküliség (4,6% Magyarországon, míg az EU-átlag 6,5%); a szegénység visszaszorítása (az európai uniós átlag alatt 19,4% Magyarországon, míg az EU-átlag 21,5%); a fogyatékossággal élők foglalkoztatásának bővítése (18%-ról közel 50%-ra nőtt).
               

                  A célunk nem lehet más, mint az, hogy a dolgozni vágyók a képességeikhez, egészségi állapotukhoz mérten munkajövedelemből tudják eltartani magukat, illetve a családjukat.
               

Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε Schmit, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, επέλεξα η τελευταία μου ομιλία για αυτή τη θητεία να είναι για το μέλλον της κοινωνικής Ευρώπης. Στα πέντε χρόνια που πέρασαν, κάναμε πολλά. Παλέψαμε για να βελτιώσουμε το επίπεδο διαβίωσης με μια νέα οδηγία για τον κατώτατο μισθό. Διασώσαμε χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας με το πρόγραμμα SURE και φροντίσαμε για την ισότητα με εμβληματικά μέσα, όπως η οδηγία για τη μισθολογική ισότητα, αλλά και τις στρατηγικές για τη φροντίδα για την αναπηρία και για το δημογραφικό. Όμως, οι στόχοι που συμφωνήθηκαν το 2021 στο Πόρτο είναι ακόμη εδώ. Σαν φάρος που μας θυμίζει ότι έχουμε ακόμα δρόμο να κάνουμε για μια ισχυρή κοινωνική Ευρώπη, μια Ευρώπη κοινωνικής και οικονομικής προόδου, μια Ευρώπη των ίσων ευκαιριών, μια Ευρώπη με καλύτερα συστήματα κοινωνικής προστασίας και υγείας και λιγότερη φτώχεια και ανισότητες, αλλά κυρίως μια Ευρώπη που διασφαλίζει το κοινωνικό της μοντέλο και ατενίζει το μέλλον για μια πιο αισιόδοξη και πιο δυνατή Ευρώπη.
               

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident, lieber Kommissar Nicolas Schmit, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben mit La Hulpe eine weitere Perle aufgezogen auf die Kette des sozialen Europa, nach Göteborg, nach Porto La Hulpe. Weitere werden in der Zukunft folgen. Und die Botschaft aus La Hulpe ist: Was immer sich einige Neoliberale jetzt erträumen, dass die Zeit des sozialen Europa vorbei sei, man habe so viel geschafft. Ich muss ihnen sagen, diese Erklärung von La Hulpe sagt: Wir werden so weitermachen.
               

                  Und wie der Kollege Radtke gesagt hat, wir haben hier in der Mitte des Hauses die Mehrheiten geschaffen, damit die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wissen: Sie werden eine gute Arbeit haben, sie haben einen guten Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz. Wir haben Demokratie auch am Arbeitsplatz.
               

                  Aber ich will meine Zeit noch mal nutzen, um einem Champion des sozialen Europa zu danken, nämlich Agnes Jongerius. Du hast dich so reingekniet wie niemand sonst, und vieles davon, ob Mindestlohn, ob Plattform, wäre ohne Dich nicht so gekommen. Deshalb: Tausend Dank, du hast auch eine Perle auf diese Kette des sozialen Europa gezogen.
               

Sylvie Brunet (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, écoutez, notre débat d'aujourd'hui est quand même l'occasion de rappeler les grandes avancées sociales de ce mandat. Le programme SURE, mécanisme de soutien au chômage partiel durant la crise de la COVID-19; la directive sur les salaires minimaux, bien sûr; celle sur les quotas de femmes dans les conseils d'administration; la transparence des rémunérations et encore aujourd'hui, la protection des travailleurs des plateformes numériques et la carte européenne du handicap.
               

                  Beaucoup reste à faire. Nous avons encore de nombreux défis – cela a été l'occasion de le rappeler – pour mettre en œuvre ce socle européen des droits sociaux: la lutte contre la grande pauvreté, bien sûr, l'investissement dans les compétences adaptées au marché du travail, la promotion d'une mobilité juste dans l'Union européenne ou encore l'enjeu majeur de la santé mentale dans un monde du travail à l'ère numérique.
               

                  Alors moi aussi, c'est ma dernière intervention dans cet hémicycle, je ne me représente pas. Je voudrais donc en profiter pour remercier notre commissaire à l'emploi, Nicolas Schmit, parce qu'on a vraiment bien travaillé ensemble; le président de la commission de l'emploi, Dragoș Pîslaru; mes chers collègues, avec lesquels nous avons vraiment bien travaillé aussi ensemble; évidemment, les équipes de la commission de l'emploi; mes équipes au niveau du groupe Renew Europe; mes collaborateurs. Je voudrais vous dire, surtout, que nous sommes des coureurs de relais, nous sommes des passeurs de témoin et que la relève sera là.
               

Le Président. – Chère Sylvie, en tant que membre de cette grande famille de la commission de l'emploi et des affaires sociales, je vous remercie aussi pour votre engagement et surtout aussi pour votre courage.
               

Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, c'est une connexion luxembourgeoise aujourd'hui. Beaucoup d'émotion, je dois dire aussi.
               

                  La déclaration de La Hulpe sur l'avenir du pilier européen des droits sociaux est essentielle pour garantir la réalisation des objectifs du sommet de Porto. Cependant, cette déclaration, pour moi, a eu deux facettes. La première, bien sûr, est positive. Les droits sociaux et les politiques de l'Europe font notre force. C'est véritablement notre modèle social européen, dont nous devons être fiers et pour lequel nous devons nous battre. Nous devons toujours nous en souvenir.
               

                  Le deuxième aspect est un peu moins positif, voire préoccupant, car les politiques sociales ne doivent pas se limiter à un nice to have. Ainsi, je suis préoccupée par l'importance visiblement croissante accordée à la compétitivité économique, à la productivité et aux politiques purement industrielles dans les discussions sur l'Europe sociale. Cela détourne l'attention des droits sociaux.
               

                  Face à l'évolution rapide de la crise du changement climatique et à la dégradation de l'environnement, la transition numérique et verte doit rester axée sur les droits sociaux. La transition écologique sera sociale ou ne sera pas.
               

Dominique Bilde (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci pour vos déclarations. Après dix ans de mandat, finalement, rien n'a changé. Je suis arrivée en 2014 dans des institutions fébriles, que des politiques d'austérité avaient rendues impopulaires. Je vous ai vus débattre avec cette éternelle question: pourquoi ne nous aiment-ils plus?
               

                  Vous vous êtes réinventés en Europe sociale, avec votre socle européen des droits sociaux, votre sommet social de Porto et vos fonds européens censés tout financer. Vous avez cru que pour que les citoyens aiment à nouveau votre Union, vous deviez en faire plus. Vous n'avez pas compris. Au lieu d'écouter les Européens, vous leur avez imposé votre vision. Vous avez empiété sur leur quotidien et gâché leur vie avec vos politiques bancales et déconnectées, il faut le dire.
               

                  Vos objectifs de La Hulpe et votre Europe sociale pour 2030 sont voués à l'échec, car depuis votre tour d'ivoire, vous n'écoutez pas. Vous voulez aider les États membres? Laissez-nous défendre les intérêts de nos peuples. C'est ce qu'ils attendent, alors nous nous devons de le faire.
               

Leila Chaibi (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, il est tout de même assez cynique de vous entendre tous vous autocongratuler en parlant d'Europe sociale, alors même qu'hier, vous vous êtes tous précipités pour voter le retour de l'austérité.
               

                  Ce retour de l'austérité va avoir des conséquences concrètes en matière sociale pour les travailleurs et les ménages européens: moins d'argent pour les hôpitaux, des fermetures de classes dans les écoles, des coupes dans l'assurance-chômage et, par conséquent, plus de pauvreté, plus de mal logés, plus d'inégalités – en somme, l'aggravation de la crise sociale. Condamner les peuples européens à une cure d'austérité sans précédent, c'est empêcher le progrès social.
               

                  Alors, il faut arrêter avec ces discours hypocrites. Je suis fière que le seul groupe qui se soit opposé au pacte de stabilité, ce soit celui de la France Insoumise, le seul groupe qui place vraiment le social en haut de ses priorités. Je souhaite que le 9 juin prochain, les électeurs s'en souviennent et nous donnent la force de tout changer, ici, au Parlement européen.
               

Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, práve severský sociálny model a Švédsko, ktoré prinieslo sociálny pilier do Európy, bolo takým naším modelom, aby sme nezabúdali ani na občanov Európskej únie a na ľudí po celý ich život. A ja som veľmi rada, že aj dnes tu stojíme pri konci mandátu tohto Európskeho parlamentu a hovoríme o tom, že sociálna Európa, tá Európa, ktorú chceme, a ako sociálni demokrati to veľmi podporujeme.
               

                  Po celý život od narodenia by sme mali sa starať o našich občanov a našich ľudí. Čiže tá dôstojná starostlivosť pri narodení, zdravotná starostlivosť, dobré vzdelanie, ale hlavne sociálne podmienky, spravodlivé pracovné podmienky pre človeka počas celého života sú veľmi dôležitou súčasťou našich politík a nesmieme na ne rezignovať. Nesmieme rezignovať na podporu odborárov, na podporu vyjednávania, kolektívneho vyjednávania. Ani dnes, v dvadsiatom prvom storočí to nie je samozrejmosť pre niektoré odvetvia a pre niektoré firmy, takže toto je takisto vec, na ktorú nesmieme zabúdať ani ďalších päť rokov. Spravodlivá mzda a dôstojný život pre každého po celý život, aj počas staroby. Spravodlivé penzie, z ktorých ľudia naozaj vedia dôstojne vyžiť, sú takisto veľmi dôležitou súčasťou nášho snaženia.
               

                  A myslím si, že tento záväzok deklarácie, o ktorej dnes hovoríme, na ďalších päť rokov, nielen pre Európsky parlament, ale pre celú Európsku úniu, je veľmi pozitívnym signálom aj pre občanov našej Únie.
               

Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pán komisár, na jednej strane vidíme Európu, ktorá udáva trendy v oblasti umelej inteligencie, na druhej strane vidíme Európu, ktorá nie je schopná zabezpečiť pitnú vodu do chudobných európskych regiónov.
               

                  Najchudobnejší európski občania vrátane Rómov pijú vodu v 21. storočí z potoka. Sme schopní vyvinúť špičkové technológie, no nevieme dať chudobným rómskym deťom napríklad vzdelanie. Sme schopní vytvoriť milióny pracovných miest, no nevieme dať chudobným Rómom napríklad prácu. Sme schopní zrealizovať veci, o ktorých sa nám ani nesnívalo, no nevieme splniť sny chudobným deťom.
               

                  Zdôrazňujem, že systémy vzdelávania v mnohých krajinách nie sú schopné pripraviť rómske deti na pracovný trh. Dnes presne vieme, kde nás topánka tlačí. Treba už konať. Aj chudobné rómske deti sú obrazom Európy dnešných dní. Dámy a páni, ak by som dnes od kohokoľvek z vás dostal otázku, či je Európa sociálna alebo či sa k nej vôbec približujeme, tak moja odpoveď by znela pre niekoho áno, pre mnohých žiaľ nie.
               

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospod predsednik. Stojimo pred prelomnico in v rokah državljank in državljanov je odločitev, kam bo šla Evropska unija.
               

                  Zadnja raziskava javnega mnenja, v kateri več kot tretjina ljudi pravi, da se mora EU ukvarjati z bojem proti revščini ter socialni izključenosti, potrjuje, da je smer, ki smo jo zastavili socialisti in demokrati, prava. Isto priznavajo tudi voditelji držav članic, ki so skupaj z ostalimi deležniki prejšnji teden potrdili deklaracijo o prihodnosti socialne Evrope. Z njo je bilo potrjeno soglasje, da gospodarskega razvoja ni brez socialnega napredka, zato mora prihodnost Unije temeljiti na trajnostnem in vključujočem razvoju po načelih evropskega stebra socialnih pravic.
               

                  Deklaracija je strnjeno, obvezno čtivo za vsakogar, ki bo sodeloval na evropskih volitvah kot kandidat ali kot volivec. Ker ne pušča nobene dileme, komu dati prednost pri vlaganjih v prihodnjih petih letih, ljudem in delu pred trgi in kapitalom.
               

                  Od Komisije in Sveta zato pričakujemo odgovor, kako bo deklaracijo prevedla v strateško agendo Evropske unije ter evropski regulatorni okvir.
               

Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the EU's top five billionaires have seen their wealth almost double since 2020, from EUR 244 billion to EUR 429 billion. Meanwhile, many struggled to afford housing or basic necessities in Europe. And we can't accept this gap growing wider and wider between the have-too-much and the have-nots.
But I'm very proud that strides towards a more social Europe were made in the past five years. Minimum wages are set to rise, the gender pay gap to narrow and exploitation of platform workers to cease. We adopted goals to end homelessness and decrease poverty.
But the right has gone into their tunnel vision again, with a focus on deregulation and austerity measures. And the fiscal rules adopted this week threaten essential social investments such as childcare, health or public transport.
We have to tackle the root causes of inequality by taxing the rich, pollution and over profits. Stop tax evasion. Go after the vulture funds that have taken over our housing, and make sure no public money is spent on companies that do not guarantee decent pay and working conditions.
We are the wealthiest continent in the world! Let us make sure that everyone in Europe profits from that and not just the happy few.

Isabella Tovaglieri (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quella che voi chiamate Europa sociale è in realtà diventata un'Europa di sprechi.
               

                  Avete speso 3 miliardi e mezzo per l'integrazione di rom e sinti, eppure questa integrazione non la vede nessuno. Avete investito fiumi di denaro per i diritti femminili, eppure in molte comunità si vive ancora il dramma delle spose bambine. Avete speso fiumi di denaro per la scolarizzazione, per progetti lavorativi, ma i risultati – lo ammettete voi stessi – sono deludenti.
               

                  Troppi di loro vogliono continuare a vivere nei campi nomadi, spesso covo di illegalità indisturbata, perché nemmeno le forze dell'ordine ci possono entrare e troppi vogliono continuare a vivere di espedienti, di accattonaggio, borseggi, come dimostrano a me i fatti di cronaca della metropolitana milanese.
               

                  La verità è che il vostro modello buonista di inclusione, cioè soldi a palate senza chiedere nulla in cambio, è fallito e mai potrà realizzarsi senza la volontà dei nomadi di integrarsi e di rispettare le nostre regole. L'ho constatato personalmente a Gallarate, in provincia di Varese, dove una famiglia sinti, a seguito di uno sgombero, ha occupato la casa popolare assegnata a un disabile che si trovava ricoverato in ospedale.
               

                  E allora come si fa a giustificare tutto questo di fronte a milioni di italiani che ogni giorno lottano contro il carovita a causa dell'inflazione che l'Europa non ha saputo, o peggio, non ha voluto governare? L'8 e il 9 giugno abbiamo un appuntamento importante: cambiare questa Europa e riportare il buon senso in questi palazzi.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Voorzitter, waar mensen echt allergisch voor zijn, is als politici een ding beloven en dan het tegenovergestelde doen. En dat riskeert hier dus weer te gebeuren. Want inderdaad, enerzijds komen er vanuit het kasteel in Terhulpen mooie beloftes – betere lonen, betere pensioenen – en anderzijds wordt er dan terzelfdertijd voor besparingsdoelstellingen gestemd die ervoor zorgen dat er straks aanvallen komen op onze lonen, op onze loonindexering, op onze pensioenen. Dat gaat niet, mensen zijn niet onnozel.
               

                  Daarom moeten we hier in de maatregelen die we nemen wat meer luisteren naar de werkende mens – daarom ben ik trouwens ook trots dat we hier straks met de PVDA proberen voor het eerst een werkmens, een vakbondsmens vanuit Vlaanderen naar het Europees Parlement te sturen, mijn kameraad Rudi Kennes.
               

                  Mais il faut vraiment arrêter de prendre les gens pour des imbéciles. Vous ne pouvez pas à la fois dire ‘L'Europe va vous garantir des pensions, des salaires de qualité’ et, d'autre part, dire ‘Ah, il y a l'austérité, vous devez vous serrer la ceinture. L'indexation, c'est un problème. Les pensions, ça ne marchera plus. Les services publics, les transports en commun, désolé, il faudra faire des coupes.’ Ça, les gens ne le laisseront pas passer. Vous serez punis pour ça. Il faudra une rupture le 9 juin.
               

Maria Angela Danzì (NI). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa da un lato pone al centro i diritti sociali, con priorità nell'agenda della nuova legislatura, ma nel contempo approva un patto di stabilità e crescita che impone tagli di 13 miliardi a un paese come il mio. Questi tagli incideranno sui diritti sociali, sul diritto alla salute delle persone, perché è lì che quelle regole tolgono questo diritto.
               

                  La dichiarazione di La Hulpe non ci soddisfa. Dietro tanto fumo e belle parole manca una visione strategica, una prospettiva d'insieme che renda l'Europa in grado veramente di competere con Stati Uniti e Cina. Non abbandoniamo la strada della transizione ecologica e digitale per abbracciare le politiche di difesa e di riarmo, così rinnegheremo le nostre politiche di pace che ci hanno caratterizzati e ci allontaneremo dalla stessa.
               

                  Lavoro, istruzione, welfare, salute, trasporti, non vogliamo una nuova stagione di economia del mercato. Vogliamo veramente un'Europa e senza nuovi fondi sovrani che sosterranno questa transizione falliremo.
               

Katrin Langensiepen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Wir haben viel erreicht hier als Team, und ich sehe, dass wir hier geschlossen in der ersten Reihe sitzen. Das freut mich sehr, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir waren echt ein megacooles Team. Wir haben den Mindestlohn, den Klimasozialfonds erreicht. Wir versuchen jetzt, in der nächsten Wahlperiode, die armutsfeste Grundsicherung als Gesetzesinitiative umzusetzen und Menschen vor Armut zu schützen.
               

                  Dann hört man doch nach La Hulpe die eine oder andere Stimme, die sagt: So, jetzt ist es aber auch mal gut! Wir haben jetzt Besseres zu tun, wir müssen uns um die richtigen Probleme kümmern! Soziales, das ist ja mal ganz nett, aber die Verteidigung nach außen, von außen, das ist doch jetzt, was wir brauchen! Richtig! Wir brauchen die Verteidigung, wenn es um Angriffe von außen auf Europa geht. Wir brauchen aber auch die innere Sicherheit, und das ist die soziale Gerechtigkeit, das ist der Schutz. Der Kampf gegen Angriffe von außen ist richtig. Aber wenn es für die Seniorin, die ältere Dame, die jungen Leute, die Angst haben vor dem, was auf sie zukommt, keine Antworten gibt, wenn es da keinen Schutz gibt, dann müssen wir uns nicht wundern, wenn uns das Europa zerfällt. Und da hilft auch keine Armee.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Niels Geuking (PPE). – Herr Präsident, geehrter Kommissar Schmit! Es ist und kann nur ein kleiner Schritt sein für die Zukunft Europas. Die Menschen in Europa brauchen auch eine soziale Perspektive. Insbesondere die Familien in Europa. Gerade als Familien-Partei sehen wir die Familien bedroht und wollen daher soziale Mindeststandards in der Zukunft sehen, auch oder gerade für unsere Kinder, vom kostenlosen Mittagessen in Schulen und Kitas angefangen bis hin zu einem institutionellen europäischen Kindergeld.
               

                  Wenn der Steuerzahler von morgen nicht geboren wird, funktioniert kein Generationenvertrag und auch keine moderne Wirtschaft. Die soziale Zukunft Europas liegt noch vor uns. Nur mit viel Mut und Willen haben wir es geschafft, einen guten europäischen Mindestlohn umzusetzen. Jetzt gilt es, dranzubleiben, weiterzudenken und über den Tellerrand hinauszuschauen.
               

                  Nur aus starken Familien kann ein starkes Europa entstehen für alle Menschen auf diesem Kontinent.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, ordinary people across Europe are on their knees with the cost of living crisis. The La Hulpe Declaration is more empty rhetoric to these people. The social market economy has failed them. Again and again, the market is prioritised at the expense of the social.
Paragraph 36 of the Declaration deals specifically with housing. With every month that currently passes, Ireland reaches another record high of homelessness. The latest numbers of people accessing emergency accommodation in Ireland is 13 841. That includes more than 4 000 children.
Between 2010 and the fourth quarter of 2023, rents in Ireland increased by 102 %, according to Eurostat. Ireland has the highest housing costs in the EU, according to the latest Eurostat data for 2022, 112 % above the EU average. Some 68 % of adults between the age of 25 and 29 in Ireland – 68 % – are living at home with parents.
I have a lot of respect for Esther Lynch, General Secretary of the European Trades Union Congress, or signatories on the Declaration, but I trust not in the von der Leyen side.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I think there is an irony that we are discussing the future of a social Europe at the very same time that the EU has tightened the reins of budgetary surveillance and fiscal restraint.
That won't be lost on people, because you can make all the declarations you like, but when everybody knows that the deal has been done and that we're in for another round of savage austerity for Europe, another round of structural reforms, everybody knows that means more poverty, more inequality, more precarity and another massive transfer of wealth upwards.
Austerity left the eurozone as an economic shadow of its former self. The US economy has grown to twice the size of the eurozone over the past 15 years. The once mighty European manufacturing sector now limps along behind America and China.
And you want to do it all over again? People have nothing left to give. This is a monumental act of self-harm which you're trying to sell as progress. Believe me when I tell you absolutely nobody is buying it.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Nicolas Schmit,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, well, first I want to start with thanking again all those who have contributed to what has been achieved. I really was very happy to work with you and it was always very encouraging. And I think we have made progress, but having made progress means also that further progress has to be made.
So, I know that the declaration is, by itself, not yet an achievement. We have now to develop and that has to happen now. The political will, as it has existed during this mandate and during this legislature, we have to develop the political will to put the declaration and the different objectives into concrete policies. That's what we have to do.
And I think that the fact that we have the La Hulpe Declaration, that the Belgian Presidency managed, and it was not so easy we have to say it, to manage to have such a declaration and to describe or to open this kind of roadmap for strengthening further social Europe is an achievement, which we have now during the next mandate to give a concrete direction, a concrete content.
And there are many issues you have mentioned a lot, and I also regret that this declaration could not be signed, was not signed by an important so-called social partner. I really regret that. And they have really to reflect about their own role in building Europe, not just social Europe, but Europe, and social is part of Europe. I also regret that two Member States just did not sign. This is also some kind of a regrettable but also negative attitude. But well, that was their decision. But now we have this declaration and I think we can build on it.
Now I have to say it, I am really shocked by those who attack Europe, attacked social Europe and, by the way, out themselves as the friends of Putin. They are not the friends of European citizens. They are not the friends of working people who need a strong social Europe. They are the enemies of working people, as they have shown in many of their votes, because they always voted against social progress which was achieved in this House. And this has to be said and this has to be known outside.
Now, on the few remarks on the declaration, I think many issues have to be treated. Yes, housing is a big issue everywhere, and that's why Europe has to become more active on the housing policy and support the idea of affordability and accessibility of houses all over Europe for people, for youngsters, as it has been said.
Yes, we have to make clear that the future governance in Europe does not leave social aside. And again, this is a question of politics, of political will. And we have to make sure that what has been decided, nevertheless, the social component in the future governance has not, should not and will not be abandoned or neglected.
My last word, I would like to insist on public procurement. I was very positively surprised by the fact that four groups in this Parliament, with all the differences, managed to adopt a clear declaration, and alliance even, to say public procurement is so important, there's so much money going through that we really have to review and strengthen public procurement with a stronger social dimension. Well, I can only congratulate those four groups who have done that.
And I just also to finish want to mention that here, perhaps the wording of the La Hulpe Declaration is quite cautious, but there is a wording on an eventual evaluation and also further steps are there. And we know when the wording is there and the political will comes, it's possible to make change real.

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, chers membres du Parlement européen, Monsieur le Commissaire, des progrès notables ont été réalisés au cours des dernières années dans l'ensemble des politiques sociales, de l'emploi et de l'égalité. Il existe cependant, et cela a encore été relevé, une marge considérable pour de nouvelles actions visant à favoriser plus de convergence sociale.
               

                  Nous devons réagir de manière adéquate aux défis complexes auxquels nous sommes actuellement confrontés, tels que les tendances démographiques, les pénuries de main-d'œuvre ou encore les pénuries de compétences. Dans le contexte de ces réalités, les grands objectifs pour 2030 en matière d'emploi, de compétences et de réduction de la pauvreté restent plus que jamais d'actualité. Il est primordial que les actions visant à atteindre ces objectifs se poursuivent, tant au niveau européen qu'au niveau national.
               

                  C'est ce que nous avons fait à La Hulpe. En montrant l'orientation stratégique et les priorités politiques dans le domaine social, de l'emploi et de l'égalité, la déclaration de La Hulpe trace la voie à suivre pour le prochain cycle politique de l'Union. La présidence belge est fière d'avoir pu contribuer à cette étape importante. Je vous avoue qu'à titre personnel, je vous remercie, parce que j'habite à cinq kilomètres de La Hulpe et donc, pour le restant de ma vie, je me souviendrai effectivement de ce pas fondamental pour la politique sociale en Europe.
               

Le Président. – Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Secrétaire d'État, ce débat est maintenant clos.
               
18.   Forging a sustainable future together: economic, social and territorial challenges for a competitive, cohesive and inclusive Europe (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on forging a sustainable future together: economic, social and territorial challenges for a competitive, cohesive and inclusive Europe (2024/2705(RSP)).

Mathieu Michel,
président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les parlementaires, chers membres de la Commission, la politique de cohésion a soutenu chaque étape de l'intégration européenne en tant qu'expression la plus visible de la solidarité de l'Union européenne et des États membres européens les uns envers les autres, en veillant à ce que tous puissent bénéficier ensemble du projet européen. En investissant dans les infrastructures, l'innovation, l'éducation et d'autres domaines clés, la politique de cohésion a aidé directement les régions moins développées et toutes les autres régions à tirer profit des avantages et des chances qu'offre le marché unique.
               

                  Le neuvième rapport sur la cohésion, récemment publié par la Commission, ainsi que le rapport sur l'avenir du marché unique, rédigé par Enrico Letta, ont replacé la politique de cohésion au centre du débat politique de l'Union européenne, en rappelant l'importance historique et structurelle du tandem entre politique de cohésion et marché unique dans le projet européen.
               

                  Nous vivons une période sans précédent dans l'histoire de l'Union. À la double transition écologique et numérique, sur laquelle l'Union a beaucoup investi pendant ce dernier mandat, il faut maintenant ajouter aussi le défi démographique et l'impact qu'il aura sur la vie des citoyens et sur l'économie.
               

                  Twenty years after the biggest enlargement the EU has ever seen, we must now analyse all EU policies – including cohesion policy– and how they are financed. We need to ensure that EU policies are fit for the future and inform discussions on possible adjustments to the EU budget prior to the adoption of the next multiannual financial framework 2028-2034.
               

                  Cohesion policy must remain a pillar of the EU, with the aim of ensuring economic, social and territorial convergence within the EU, and reducing disparities between its constituent regions. At the same time, it must evolve to adapt to new challenges and prepare for enlargement.
               

                  Mr President, honourable Members, dear Member of the Commission, allow me also to say a few words about competitiveness now that the Letta report has opened the way to a new reflection on the future of our single market and on Europe's world in a global economy.
               

                  Faced with a new geopolitical reality and increasingly complex challenges, the EU is determined to act decisively to ensure its competitiveness, prosperity and long-term leadership role on the world stage. Our leaders confirmed this again last week at the highest political level in the conclusions adopted by the European Council on 18 April 2024.
               

                  The Letta report will also be discussed at the Competitiveness Council on 23 May 2024. A new European agreement on competitiveness is needed. It will require efforts at both Union and Member State level in all policy areas to close the gaps in growth, productivity and innovation between the Union and its international partners on the one hand, and its main competitors on the other hand.
               

                  This requires the implementation of an effective industrial policy that competitively decarbonises our industry, develops the Union's competitive edge in digital and clean technologies, and diversifies and secures strategic supply chains. As we called in the report, an adapted cohesion policy will have an important role to play in ensuring that all regions participate in, and benefit from, growth and thus from our common competitiveness.
               

Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, colleagues, dear Secretary of State Michel, you have certainly been working overtime today, taking so many debates. Thank you for your contribution to this and other debates this afternoon.
The 9th Cohesion Report, published earlier this month, really does paint a very positive and rich picture of economic, social and territorial cohesion across the European Union. There is remarkable convergence over recent years. The countries that joined the EU in 2004 – as we celebrated earlier today – have seen their GDP per head increase from 52% of the EU average to nearly 80% as of last year.
This is, in large part, thanks to EU cohesion policy. Evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme shows that, by 2022, the policy had supported 4.4 million businesses, created 370 000 new jobs, protected 17 million people from floods and improved health services for 63 million people.
The benefits extend beyond direct investments. Enrico Letta's new report, ‘Much more than a market’, shows how cohesion policy has always been a key success factor for the single market. For every EUR 1 invested in cohesion policy, EU GDP increases by nearly EUR 3 in the long term. Cohesion policy is one of the key pillars of the European project, accompanying each step of the integration process – from the creation of the single market to successive enlargements, supporting the achievement of the European Union's priorities.
Market forces alone cannot ensure that the benefits from these key integration steps are evenly spread across Europe, and that's why cohesion policy is vital – so that every Member State and region can contribute, benefit and reach its full potential.
Cohesion policy also acted as a key stabiliser in recent crises. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy rebounded much more quickly than in the financial crisis thanks to the European response, where cohesion was a core part. Cohesion helped in welcoming refugees fleeing Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and in protecting the most vulnerable from subsequent energy price hikes.
These and many other benefits are known to Parliament, and were well reflected in your opinions and reports during this legislative term. They are also reflected in discussions over the past year on the future of cohesion policy. But, of course, in the 9th Cohesion Report and stakeholder discussions, there are also revelations around new challenges that the future policy will need to address.
First, convergence at national level is not always reflected at regional level. Urban centres thrive while other regions decline. Rural, mountainous, island and sparsely populated regions face particular challenges, and some regions have fallen into development traps. Regions facing persistent stagnation struggle to get back on a growth path, risking the creation of a geography of political discontent.
Second, Europe is facing particular social and demographic challenges. Regions where opportunities are scarce experience brain drain, which exacerbates long-term trends, like an ageing population and challenges in providing public services.
And third are the impacts of climate. Some regions are particularly exposed – not just those at risk from fires, floods and droughts, but also those most dependent on carbon-intensive activities. It is essential that cohesion policy evolves to face these challenges and other challenges that may emerge, including in the context of future enlargement.
The debate on the future of cohesion policy has started – with Parliament, with Member States, with regions and local stakeholders, with citizens. Together, we should build on the success of Europe's convergence story and learn lessons from our collective experience to continue modernising and strengthening cohesion policy. So I look forward to your insights during tonight's debate.

Dan-Ștefan Motreanu,
în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, Uniunea Europeană a stabilit o strategie ambițioasă privind reducerea sărăciei cu 50 % până în 2030, însă neîndeplinirea obiectivelor anterioare fac această strategie să fie privită cu reținere.
               

                  Contextul geopolitic tensionat ne-a determinat să accelerăm procesul de extindere cu nouă state candidate. Susțin ferm extinderea Uniunii Europene ca instrument de stabilitate și prosperitate a continentului, dar trebuie să ținem cont că Politica de coeziune și Politica agricolă comună vor trebui să răspundă nevoilor unui număr tot mai mare de state beneficiare.
               

                  Media PIB-ului Uniunii Europene va scădea odată cu aderarea statelor candidate, ceea ce va încadra în mod artificial o serie de regiuni din categoria ‘regiuni mai puțin dezvoltate’ în categoria ‘regiunilor în tranziție’ și o serie de ‘regiuni în tranziție’ în categoria ‘regiunilor mai dezvoltate’, situație care va putea crea serioase probleme în acoperirea părții de cofinanțare și atragere a fondurilor europene.
               

                  În cadrul Comisiei REGI ne-am exprimat de repetate ori determinarea ca Politica de coeziune să rămână principalul instrument de reducere a decalajelor de dezvoltare, iar noile crize cu care ne putem confrunta să fie gestionate din surse suplimentare, și nu prin realocarea fondurilor politicii de coeziune.
               

                  Este esențial în următorul mandat să identificăm resursele bugetare necesare pentru a asigura o integrare eficientă a noilor membri, fără a compromite o dezvoltare economică și socială a membrilor actuali.
               

                  Pentru aceasta trebuie să diversificăm sursele de finanțare ale bugetului Uniunii Europene prin noi resurse proprii, cum ar fi taxarea profiturilor marilor giganți digitali care operează în Europa sau prin utilizarea capitalului privat, finalizând uniunea piețelor de capital, ceea ce ar putea debloca până la 470 de miliarde de euro anual.
               

                  Sporirea competitivității și menținerea companiilor inovatoare pe teritoriul Uniunii trebuie să rămână și ele obiective prioritare.
               

Marcos Ros Sempere,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la política de cohesión es un pilar de la Unión Europea, un pilar que refuerza el crecimiento, la igualdad de oportunidades y la solidaridad. Un arma para mejorar el desarrollo de todas las regiones de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Ahora estamos en el momento de pensar cómo queremos gestionar los fondos estructurales en la próxima década con una idea en la cabeza: no dejar a nadie atrás. Dos regiones con el mismo producto interior bruto pueden tener necesidades muy diferentes. Tenemos que mirar más allá de este indicador para repartir los fondos, preocuparnos de cuestiones medioambientales o socioeconómicas, por ejemplo.
               

                  La gestión de los fondos europeos no puede ser un laberinto administrativo. Debemos conseguir que el acceso a los recursos sea más sencillo, más flexible y contar con la participación de municipios y regiones. Además, es necesario pensar en el territorio, no solo en lo urbano. Y para hacerlo debemos potenciar el papel de la Agenda Territorial de la Unión Europea. Realizar planes pensando en comarcas, en territorios con necesidades comunes, abordar las disparidades dentro de las regiones y luchar contra la despoblación.
               

                  Y, por supuesto, no podemos conseguir todo esto si no hay fondos. El presupuesto para la política de cohesión debe salir reforzado de la próxima negociación.
               

                  En definitiva, debemos centrarnos en los ciudadanos de a pie, pensar en todas las personas que se han beneficiado durante décadas con estos fondos y en mejorarlos para las nuevas generaciones. Diseñar una política de cohesión que sea la base de la igualdad de oportunidades entre los distintos territorios de la Unión Europea para no dejar a nadie atrás.
               

Vlad-Marius Botoș,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, domnule secretar de stat Michel, vorbim acum despre un viitor sustenabil împreună, despre coeziune economică, socială, incluzivă.
               

                  Suntem încă departe de această Uniune Europeană pe care mulți dintre noi și-o doresc. Românii sunt departe de a simți împreună cu ceilalți cetățeni europeni când așteaptă o oră, poate chiar două, poate chiar mai mult, pentru a intra în piața unică europeană, când mărfurile care vin din România așteaptă ore în șir, poate chiar zile, la frontiera spațiului Schengen.
               

                  Pentru cetățenii din zonele de graniță este dificil să simtă că fac parte dintr-o Uniune câtă vreme nu au acces la servicii sociale, medicale în centrele cele mai apropiate, indiferent de care parte a frontierei se află.
               

                  Pentru un viitor sustenabil împreună, dragi colegi, trebuie să ne asigurăm că cetățenii europeni simt această unitate în viața lor de zi cu zi, că diferențele economice se reduc, că tinerii au șanse egale la o educație de calitate, la un viitor prosper.
               

Niklas Nienaß,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, liebe Damen und Herren! Man hört ja auf den Fluren aktuell so einige Gerüchte, in diesem Fall so viele, dass auch etwas dran sein könnte. Man hört zum Beispiel, dass die DG REGIO komplett eingestampft werden soll. Top-down verwaltete Fonds sollen die Zukunft der Regionalpolitik sein. Es geht also an die Substanz der Investitionen für die Regionen, an die Substanz der Investitionen, die die EU näher zusammenbringen sollen. Liebe Kommissarin McGuinness, ich möchte, dass Sie heute ganz klar eine Aussage treffen: Werden die Regionen in Zukunft weiter eigenständig über ihre Fördermittel entscheiden können, oder wird in Zukunft die Ansage nur noch aus Brüssel kommen?
               

                  Das nämlich wäre ein brutaler Schlag für die Regionen und insbesondere für die ländlichen Räume. Ich spreche von den abgehängten Räumen, in denen kein Bus mehr fährt, in denen Arbeitsplätze fehlen, in denen junge Familien keine Zukunft sehen. Diese ländlichen Räume müssen wir fördern, sie für die Zukunft fit machen, sie endlich lebhafter machen. Das geht nur mit gut aufgestellten sinnvoll eingesetzten Regionalfördermitteln. Wir brauchen zentrale Förderung für Industrie, für europäische Infrastruktur, aber zusätzlich zur regionalen Förderung.
               

                  Diese Regionalförderung muss einfacher werden. Sie muss endlich Schluss machen mit diesem Förderdschungel. Wir müssen einen ernsthaften Bürokratieabbau sehen, und wir müssen Bürgerinnen und Bürger über die Transformation vor Ort mitentscheiden lassen. Kohäsion muss für die Menschen da sein, aber sie muss auch mit den Menschen geschehen. Dafür brauchen wir ein gemeinschaftliches europäisches Engagement.
               

                  Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, wenn Sie erlauben, noch zwei persönliche Sätze: Das hier ist meine letzte Rede in diesem Mandat, in diesem Haus, und es ist mir eine große Ehre gewesen, mit Ihnen allen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, zusammenzuarbeiten durch Zeiten hindurch, die wahrlich schwierig waren, insbesondere für die Regionalpolitik. Aber ich glaube, wir haben viel bewegt für Krisenzeiten, und wir haben uns viel Mühe gegeben. Ich freue mich darauf, das in Zukunft mit Ihnen weiter tun zu können. Es war eine große Ehre, und ich hoffe, dass diese Ehre auch in Zukunft weitergeht.
               

Gianna Gancia,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, credo che le politiche di coesione siano un pilastro dell'Unione europea e costituiscano una sfida assolutamente ambiziosa e necessaria.
               

                  Quello che vogliamo ricordare è che l'Unione europea, con tutte le sue istituzioni, deve fare in modo di far crescere e supportare quello che già c'è e che è importante nel nostro tessuto socioeconomico e in questo caso mi riferisco alle piccole e medie imprese.
               

                  Le piccole e medie imprese creano coesione, sono aziende che costituiscono il nostro territorio e in questi anni dovranno affrontare sfide sempre più importanti e momenti sempre più competitivi. Quindi è fondamentale, oltre che riconoscere questo ruolo importante, fare in modo anche che tutti i bandi per la competitività tengano presente questa categoria per fare in modo che le piccole e medie imprese, che già sono un contesto fondamentale, possano crescere e fare comunità e quindi anche creare coesione all'interno della stessa Unione europea. Quindi vanno difese per fare in modo di non perdere ciò che c'è già.
               

                  Senza poi contare che dovremo lavorare molto per quel che riguarda la tassazione dei singoli Stati membri e anche fare in modo che non esista più il dumping, che è molto frequente in questo periodo, e anche Stati che abbiano una tassazione dove ci sono veri e propri paradisi fiscali.
               

Younous Omarjee,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, une minute pour cinq ans: qu'est-ce que l'organisation de nos travaux est cruelle. Je veux néanmoins profiter de cette minute pour vous dire l'honneur qui a été le mien de présider la commission du développement régional au cours des cinq années qui se sont écoulées et pour remercier les membres de la commission du développement régional pour la confiance qu'ils m'ont témoignée, ainsi que pour leur engagement permanent en faveur de la cohésion.
               

                  Madame la Commissaire, lorsque nous avons commencé cette législature, nous étions très loin d'imaginer ce qui allait nous tomber sur la tête. Je veux dire que nous pouvons être très fiers des réponses immédiates que nous avons apportées au plus grave mouvement de population depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, à savoir le défi de l'accueil des réfugiés ukrainiens. Notre commission a été à la hauteur de ce devoir historique, comme nous avons été à la hauteur du devoir historique qui était le nôtre pour tempérer les impacts de la pandémie de COVID-19. Surtout, nous avons négocié en temps et en heure l'ensemble des règlements pour la cohésion. Nous parlons, cet après-midi, de l'avenir de la cohésion; mais n'oublions pas la programmation qui s'ouvre, celle de 2021-2027. La condition première pour garantir un avenir à notre politique, c'est de réussir la programmation actuelle.
               

                  Pour conclure, Madame la Commissaire, vous l'avez dit, nous avons de nouveaux défis devant nous: le défi de l'élargissement, le défi climatique et le défi démographique. Je crois que notre politique a fait la démonstration de sa capacité à se moderniser, à se rénover et à se hisser à la hauteur des nouvelles priorités. Je suis certain que le futur Parlement européen sera à la hauteur de l'ensemble de ces défis pour notre grande politique, qui vise un objectif très vertueux: l'égalité des conditions de vie en Europe, que l'on se trouve au centre, à la périphérie, au nord, au sud, à l'est ou à l'ouest. Tous, en Europe, doivent pouvoir épouser la même qualité de vie.
               

Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Mr President, the historical mission of the EU is to accomplish the unity and peace of European peoples without one ruling over others, because we had unity and even some peace before in the form of empires, and we had some self-government in the form of this unity and war. It is our responsibility to make sure that both unity and diversity, both peace and liberty, prevail (the speaker used an unofficial language), as we say in Catalan.
You may be tired to hear of the Catalans' demands, but we are the touchstone of this project. Either Europe protects the right of Catalans to be free and stops Spain from erasing us, or else this Parliament and this Commission are simply a new make-up for the old-time quarrel of dominion, subjugation and uniformity.

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospod predsednik. Prihajam iz Slovenije, države, ki se je pred dvajsetimi leti pridružila Evropski uniji. Šest let pred tem sem postal župan v mestu Krško, bil župan trinajst let in s prve roke zelo dobro vem, kaj pomeni kohezijska politika, kako smo s sredstvi iz kohezijske politike razvili mesto in kako so tudi ljudje začutili, kaj je pravzaprav Evropska unija.
               

                  Zato vedno trdim, da je kohezijska politika srčika, lepilo Evropske unije. Tu se uresničujeta oba ključna principa, tako princip solidarnosti kot subsidiarnosti in zato to ni staromodna politika. S to politiko moramo nadaljevati in ji dati nove vsebine.
               

                  Izzivi, ki so pred nami, so zelo veliki. Naj omenim tri. Prvi je zagotovo širitev. Prihajajo države, ki bodo zelo potrebne razvoja. In Evropska unija in preko kohezijske politike to lahko in mora zagotoviti.
               

                  Drugi izziv je demografski. Imamo velike selitve znotraj Evropske unije. Pazimo na to, da ne bodo regije ostale brez ljudi, kajti to bo velik problem in tudi tam se bo porušila kohezivnost družbe.
               

                  In tretji izziv. To, kar govorim že dva mandata v Evropskem parlamentu, razvoj podeželja. Podeželje ima 80 procentov površin, 30 procentov prebivalstva in zato je potrebno posebne pozornosti.
               

Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Secretário de Estado, Senhora Comissária, vinte anos após o alargamento de 2004, há uma tendência clara: há convergência entre Estados-Membros, mas na convergência entre regiões há ainda um longo caminho a percorrer.
               

                  Hoje ainda, a convergência é menos consistente quando comparamos regiões rurais e metropolitanas. Sabemos que a diferente densidade populacional e a riqueza gerada numas ou noutras é causa e efeito no desempenho em inovação, competitividade, crescimento económico e convergência social, nível de escolaridade, criação e qualidade do emprego.
               

                  É essencial que a Política de Coesão mantenha a sua natureza de investimento a longo prazo. A isso ajuda a recente decisão de retirar o cofinanciamento nacional do cálculo da despesa líquida no quadro da governação económica da União Europeia, aprovada ontem por este Parlamento.
               

                  Na minha última intervenção em plenário, permita-me, Senhor Presidente, que em si deposite o meu agradecimento, por toda a colaboração de todos os colegas, mas também a todos aqueles que fazem funcionar o dia a dia desta casa da democracia.
               

                  Mas, dizia eu, na minha última intervenção, repito o que tenho vindo a dizer nos últimos anos: a Política de Coesão pode e deve beneficiar dos ensinamentos de mecanismos recentes, mas não pode perder a sua identidade, tal como está definida nos Tratados. Não pode secundarizar a convergência social e a dimensão territorial.
               

President. – Thank you very much, dear colleague Marques, for your excellent work in this House.

Mauri Pekkarinen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, perussopimuksen mukaan Euroopan koheesiopolitiikan tulisi pienentää jäsenvaltioiden välisiä taloudellisia kehityseroja, mutta myös jäsenvaltioiden sisäisiä kehityseroja. Miten on käynyt? Minulla on tässä tilastot ja ne osoittavat, että jäsenmaiden väliset erot ovat pienentyneet erittäin merkittävästi.
               

                  Onneksi olkoon ennen kaikkea niille, jotka tässä ovat parhaiten menestyneet – itäisen Euroopan maat ja osin eteläisenkin Euroopan maat – mutta jäsenmaiden sisällä monta kertaa kehityserot, taloudellisesti lasketut kehityserot, ovat radikaalisti kasvaneet entisestään. Näiltä osin koheesiopolitiikka ei ole tuottanut sitä tulosta, mitä on lähdetty hakemaan. Jos saman maan sisällä kehityserot Nuts 3 -tasolla ovat viisinkertaiset keskusalueen ja syrjäisten alueiden välillä, niin jotain on pahasti pielessä.
               

                  Minä toivon, että uudella ohjelmakaudella tämän epäkohdan korjaamiseen tartutaan kunnolla. Rahat allokoidaan tavalla, joka antaa apua myös näille heikommille alueille, ei vain niille keskuksille, joista eräät keskukset – onneksi olkoon niille – ovat esimerkiksi itäisessä Euroopassa ajaneet vaikkapa minun kotimaani pääkaupungin Helsingin ohi oikein reippaalla tavalla. Se on ihan OK, mutta jos saman aikaa ero maan sisällä valtavasti kasvaa, niin se on huono.
               

                  Toivon, että tähän tulee korjaus. Toivon, että koheesiopolitiikan ideassa entistä enemmän ‘excellencia’ ottaa sijaa sen sijaan, että joku muu periaate saa siellä tilaa.
               

Dominique Bilde (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, je vais commencer mon dernier propos dans cet hémicycle en citant le grand écrivain français Georges Bernanos, qui est d'ailleurs en partie de ma région, la Lorraine, qui disait: ‘La véritable humilité est d'abord une décence.’ C'est précisément cette décence qui manque à l'Union européenne quand elle nous assomme de mots creux pour masquer la réalité de la pauvreté qui s'étend en France et ailleurs en Europe.
               

                  L'intitulé pompeux du débat de ce jour en dit long sur l'impuissance à laquelle vous condamnez les peuples. Vous voulez bâtir une Europe durable en déconstruisant des nations millénaires, en imposant l'immigration massive, qui menace notre culture, et en asphyxiant nos agriculteurs, qui sont forcés d'abandonner leurs champs. L'Union européenne est en train de mener une politique dont les effets sont de plus en plus irréversibles.
               

                  Vous prétendez défendre la compétitivité, alors que vous enchaînez notre économie au boulet de l'écologie punitive. Les taxes et les innombrables contraintes accélèrent le déclassement industriel à une vitesse folle. Le mot compétitivité est un cache-misère quand on sait que vous livrez nos marchés à la concurrence déloyale et ouvrez nos frontières aux quatre vents de la mondialisation. Vous ne cessez de parler d'une Europe inclusive, alors que les peuples sont exclus des grandes décisions de la Commission.
               

                  En réalité, l'Europe s'est bâtie sans vous. Elle a érigé des monuments qui survivent au temps qui passe, traversé une histoire jalonnée de victoires, réalisé des prouesses scientifiques qui ont amélioré notre quotidien et inventé des idées qui ont façonné le monde. L'une d'elles porte le nom de liberté, et nous ne cesserons jamais de la revendiquer pour nos nations. C'est la seule garantie d'une véritable diversité sur notre continent, ne l'oubliez jamais.
               

Maria Angela Danzì (NI). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, sono nata in un piccolo borgo della Sicilia e guardavo al resto del mio continente, che era l'Italia, e all'Europa, con fiducia, con speranza. Mi chiedo oggi se i nostri giovani vedono prospettive come le vedevo io, non credo. La lettura dei loro bisogni non è all'ordine del giorno. Ci muoviamo per slogan.
               

                  Io non credo che i nostri giovani oggi vogliano andare a vivere in città dove non gli è garantito neanche un alloggio a prezzi accessibili, dove non gli è garantita la possibilità di curarsi, di crescere un figlio.
               

                  Io credo che i nostri giovani, se investissimo con una legge sulla montagna, se investissimo in piccole attività a supportarli direttamente, vorrebbero restare nei piccoli borghi, quei piccoli borghi che sempre di più sono spopolati e sempre di più sono esposti ai rischi del cambiamento climatico.
               

                  Ho una sola speranza, che noi cominciamo a leggere i loro bisogni e nel leggere i loro bisogni troviamo la chiave di volta per il futuro di questa Europa che così non è più inclusiva.
               

Wolfram Pirchner (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn wir an die Zukunft denken, dann müssen wir schon berücksichtigen, dass die Kohäsionspolitik von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Es ist eminent wichtig, unsere Regionen liebenswert, lebenswert zu halten, zu stärken, denn die europäischen Regionen sind ja bekanntlich das Fundament unserer Gesellschaft. Das sind die Orte, wo die Familien sich gründen, wo sie leben, wo sie arbeiten und auch ihre Träume verwirklichen.
               

                  Das freilich funktioniert nur, wenn wir unsere Regionen weiterentwickeln, wenn wir verhindern, dass vor allem junge Menschen aus diesen Regionen abwandern und dann nichts überbleibt, weil die Infrastruktur zu schwach ist, weil es keine wirtschaftlichen Agenten gibt, weil die Zukunftsperspektiven verschwinden.
               

                  Das heißt: Wir müssen genügend finanzielle Mittel zur Verfügung stellen, damit wir gezielt in Bildung, in Bürokratieabbau, in Infrastruktur und Wirtschaft investieren. Es ist unser aller Verantwortung, sicherzustellen, dass die Regionen die Aufmerksamkeit und auch die Unterstützung bekommen, die sie verdienen.
               

                  Die Hauptziele des territorialen Zusammenhangs können wir nur gemeinsam erreichen. Deshalb bitte ich Sie und fordere Sie entschieden auf, heute mitzuwirken, die Kohäsionspolitik tatkräftig zu unterstützen und ihr die Bedeutung zu geben, die ihr zusteht.
               

Matthias Ecke (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Selten waren die Aufgaben, vor denen die EU steht, so groß. Wie schaffen wir es, dass unsere EU weiter zusammenwächst und nicht auseinanderbricht? Wie meistern wir die ökologische und digitale Transformation, und wie bleiben wir dabei ein wettbewerbsfähiges Europa? Wie gelingt der Wandel auch gerecht? Wie werden wir zu einer geopolitischen EU in Zeiten multipler Krisen? Das sind Fragen, die eine handlungsstarke EU erfordern mit intelligenten Struktur- und Investitionsinstrumenten, die die Realität und die Bedürfnisse der europäischen Regionen auch erfassen.
               

                  Deswegen brauchen wir ein echtes Partnerschaftsprinzip. Wir brauchen wirklich eine geteilte Mittelverwaltung. Und all diese Überlegungen, diese Träume von Zentralisierung, von denen man im Moment hört, sind Hirngespinste. Wir brauchen keine Zentralisierung. Wir brauchen starke Regionen, die in der europäischen Kohäsionspolitik die entscheidenden Akteure sind. Unsere Kohäsionspolitik muss in den Regionen schneller, flexibler werden. Denn nur dann können wir mit dieser Kohäsionspolitik – auch mit Unterstützung eines Fonds für die industrielle Transformation, denn auch das brauchen wir für den Strukturwandel – die Herausforderungen lösen.
               

                  Seien wir ehrlich, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen: Die Herausforderungen mögen groß sein, vielleicht zu groß für einzelne Nationalstaaten, aber für die EU, die aus Solidarität Dynamik schafft und die aus Gemeinschaft Zukunft schafft, sind sie niemals zu groß.
               

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, doamnă comisară, politica de coeziune reprezintă piatra de temelie a Uniunii Europene, fiind coloana vertebrală a solidarității și a prosperității noastre colective.
               

                  Provocările pe care le avem însă astăzi sunt majore. Migrația persoanelor din estul Europei spre vest, din mediul rural spre urban, este o realitate care nu poate fi contestată. Doar prin investiții în infrastructura de transport, școlară, sanitară, internetul în bandă largă, dar mai ales prin crearea de locuri de muncă bine plătite, și aici subliniez, locuri de muncă bine plătite, vom reuși să inversăm acest fenomen.
               

                  Trebuie să transformăm fiecare regiune într-un loc care să poată fi definit acasă de fiecare cetățean european. Astăzi, peste 80 % din investițiile realizate în diverse state membre sunt finanțate din fonduri europene și este important să vorbim cu cetățenii noștri despre aceste investiții, astfel încât să conștientizeze beneficiile apartenenței la Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  În același timp, cerem Comisiei să lase neatinse actualele fonduri din cadrul politicii de coeziune și să finanțeze adecvat această politică în viitorul cadru financiar. Astfel, mi se pare inadmisibil ca banii de coeziune să fie luați pentru a acoperi alte nevoi ale Uniunii Europene. Trebuie să înțelegem că nu putem avea o Uniune Europeană puternică fără să avem regiuni puternice, iar acest lucru presupune o politică de coeziune puternică.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Niels Geuking (PPE). – Herr Präsident, geehrte Kommissarin! Die Regionalpolitik ist die tragende Säule für ein effektives Zusammenwachsen unserer Regionen und bildet das Fundament für die Verbesserung der Lebensqualität von Millionen Menschen in Europa. Ich selbst war im März auf Einladung des Kollegen Buda auf Kohäsionsmission in Rumänien und habe live vor Ort in Augenschein nehmen können, welch positive Wirkungen die Regionalpolitik hat. Die Fortschritte sind enorm und ein Erfolg der Europäischen Union.
               

                  Wir investieren nicht einfach in die Infrastruktur oder in einzelne Wirtschaften. Wir investieren in Menschen, in Familien, in Kinder. Gleichzeitig stärken und schaffen wir Wachstumsmärkte im eigenen Binnenmarkt. Gerade für Länder wie Deutschland ist dies von enormer Bedeutung in einer Zeit, in der wir wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeit reduzieren wollen und müssen. Kohäsionspolitik ist Zukunftspolitik. Stärken wir sie!
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente Marc Angel, muito obrigada pelo seu mandato. O nono Relatório sobre a Coesão fala do governo do meu país, a Galiza, e diz o seguinte: a Galiza reprova o exame da União Europeia. Este Relatório sobre a Coesão diz que a qualidade do governo está abaixo da média europeia. Sabemo-lo bem, as galegas e os galegos, com um desafio demográfico, com fuga de profissionais, com falta de apoio às zonas rurais e, também, com desafios nos serviços públicos, muita falta de pediatras, muita falta de investimentos.
               

                  Galiza reprova o exame da União Europeia, Senhora Comissária. E não sou eu – uma eurodeputada galega do BNG – que o diz. Di-lo o Índice da Qualidade da Governação Europeia. É lamentável que os fundos europeus não tenham sido utilizados para evitar todas as problemáticas que tem o meu país. Que coisa diferente seria se nós governássemos.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear colleagues, the debate now has underlined the crucial role of cohesion policy, both to address today's priorities and tomorrow's challenges.
While it is for the next Commission to propose a new legislative framework, reflections must start in good time – and they already have. This is vital because we see already certain trends emerging and impacting on Europe's regions: issues around skills, demographic change, climate change, the green and digital transitions, a changing geopolitical context.
All of these trends are already impacting at the regional level and must be addressed to ensure sustained convergence. Because every region is different and has a different development profile, the approach must be tailored. Balanced development means a continued focus on less-developed regions, while not ignoring emerging challenges in other regions, especially those at risk of development traps and brain drain, or those undergoing industrial transition. So this requires a cohesion policy that retains the key principles that have worked in the past, especially partnership and multi-level governance, and strong support for administrative capacity-building as a necessary condition for effective cohesion programming results, while developing and deepening in the following areas: performance-based mechanisms; reforms overcoming obstacles to growth specific to each region; better coordination with other policies; further simplification and the flexibility to react to unforeseen crisis and developing needs while maintaining a stable framework.
A question was raised earlier by a colleague who said ‘who decides, the regions or Brussels?’ This isn't an either or. I mean, the regions know their problems and Brussels can help with the solutions – and I'm sure my colleague, Commissioner Ferreira, would endorse that.
So I want to close by saying that European cohesion policy has already proved its worth for long-term convergence to short-term crisis. We have been successful in bringing Europeans together. Now, as we move forward, let's remember this goal: whatever we face in the coming years, No European should be left behind and no place should feel forgotten. For this, we need a strong cohesion policy with a solid budget. Thank you for your support.

Mathieu Michel,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members of Parliament, dear member of the Commission, thank you for your interventions. I can only endorse your calls for stronger cohesion policy in the future, in line with the objectives of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to reduce disparities in levels of development between regions and to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion. For this reason, particular attention must be paid to those regions which are experiencing difficulties in adapting to the dual transition to green and digital technologies.
The Belgian Presidency would like to thank the European Parliament for putting this issue on the agenda, and for its central role in the debate surrounding the revision of cohesion policy. We take good note of the suggestions included in the report adopted at the last plenary session on this subject. It is important to keep this discussion at the top of our agendas, ahead of the preparation of the new cycle of the Multiannual Financial Framework from 2028.
Mr President, honourable Members, dear member of the Commission, we are now only a few weeks away from the next elections to the European Parliament. These elections offer us an ideal opportunity to discuss the policies that will best contribute to building a more competitive Europe, a more cohesive Europe, a stronger Europe, in an uncertain world.
On behalf of the Belgian Presidency, let me therefore take this opportunity to warmly thank the Parliament, its members, services and staff for the good cooperation of the past few months. Together we were able to maximise our legislative work in just three months, with 104 trilogues and interinstitutional political meetings held, and agreements reached on 67 important dossiers – many of which are voted this week.
Meanwhile, we are looking ahead and will be shifting our focus to the next institutional cycle. We will help prepare the new Strategic Agenda 2024-2029, in collaboration with the President of the European Council. We will continue to engage Member States and Institutions in further reflections on the future of Europe. Importantly, we will make every effort to protect the integrity of the European elections, including by using the relevant tools available, such as the Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference tools.
Dear Members of Parliament, I sincerely believe that we have delivered for the people of Europe over the past five years. We have done so in difficult circumstances. Even if the future looks challenging, we can steer a course together. Thank you once again for your attention.

President. – The debate is closed. Thank you to all the participants.
19.   Recent attempts to deny dictatorships and the risk of Europe returning to totalitarianism (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the recent attempts to deny dictatorships and the risk of Europe returning to totalitarianism (2024/2709(RSP)).

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the values set out in the EU treaties are neither theoretical nor optional. They are the essential condition upon which our democratic and pluralist societies are founded. The EU was built on the ashes of World War Two, and it was designed also to counter totalitarian tendencies.
According to Hannah Arendt, the features of a totalitarian regime include a government characterised by a single-party dictatorship that seeks total control over every aspect of society and the individual, including politics, economy, culture, education and even thought. She highlighted the use of terror, propaganda, mass surveillance and ideological indoctrination as key mechanisms through which totalitarian regimes maintain power and suppress dissent.
The EU and its Member States are strong democracies with laws and freedoms, but democracy needs nurturing. The enemies of democracy try to undermine it, weaken it, or even destroy it, and they use a variety of methods, traditional and modern, including foreign interference, disinformation, corruption, or hybrid threats.
The Commission has worked with the European Parliament and the Council to develop a set of legal instruments and policy initiatives to promote and protect the EU common values and fundamental rights. The Russian war against Ukraine and the Middle East crisis remind us that peace cannot be taken for granted. It reminds us of the evils that result from politics built on aggressive, expansionist extremism and ideologies of intolerance and hatred.
When our values are placed in doubt, fear becomes the driving motive. We should not respond to this fear by lecturing citizens or ignoring their concerns. We have to try to understand the reasons, address challenges and propose better alternatives. Countries like Russia have increasingly sought to undermine our democracies and promote fear. But we are not defenceless.
On the contrary, the European Democracy Action Plan set out a comprehensive list of concrete measures to harden our democracies to these attacks and challenges. The Commission put forward initiatives that range from regulation on political advertising to measures to protect journalists and prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Our new digital and media regulation, including the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act, aim to support a resilient and diverse media landscape that strengthens our democratic space and public trust. I would like to thank this House for your support for these files.
Supporting the work of the civil society organisations and independent experts is essential to democracy and for remembrance of our totalitarian past. Civil society deserves the role it gained in the Anti Disinformation Code, along with the online platforms and other digital companies.
In December 2023, the Commission presented the Defence of Democracy package. It includes a directive for transparency standards for interest representation activities on behalf of third countries that will shed more light against hidden foreign interference, and a recommendation on inclusive and resilient elections.
In the joint communication on ‘No place for hate: a Europe united against hatred’, the Commission reiterated our commitment to step up EU efforts to fight hatred in all its forms, and this includes remembrance of our totalitarian and authoritarian past and its victims.
The core EU framework for a strong common response to racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crime is the 2008 Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. Under this, Member States are obliged to penalise public incitement to violence or hatred.
Knowledge of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes is also key to a healthy debate based on facts. That is why every year we mark 23 August, our Europe-wide day of remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
To support awareness and debate, the Commission has introduced European Citizens' Panels on tackling hatred in society. We also have a programme which supports remembrance actions on the causes of totalitarian regimes, in particular Nazism, but also fascism, Stalinism and totalitarian communist regimes.
Young people should also become aware of their common history and values as the foundation for a common future. Through Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, we promote activities aiming at promoting European values and combating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. European heritage dates can also raise awareness on totalitarian regimes.
The Commission is co-financing these open calls with the Council of Europe and providing grants to inspiring projects promoting historic literacy. Ladies and gentlemen, protecting European values and rejecting authoritarianism and totalitarianism require a concerted effort by everyone.

Dolors Montserrat,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, mi partido y mi grupo parlamentario siempre condenan los totalitarismos y las dictaduras, las pasadas y las actuales, como las de Latinoamérica. El Partido Popular, que nace en democracia para defenderla y en el marco de la Transición para protegerla, no va a aceptar ni una sola lección del Partido Socialista. El Partido Popular Europeo, pionero en el proyecto europeo desde su creación y firme ante los totalitarismos, no va a aceptar ni una sola lección de este socialismo sectario. Ustedes, los de Sánchez en Europa, utilizan este debate para soltar mentiras sobre el Partido Popular.
               

                  Quieren que hablemos de memoria democrática. Hablemos. Su socio prioritario en España, Bildu, lleva entre sus filas a etarras condenados. Sí. Ese mismo partido que se niega a decir que ETA fue una organización terrorista a pesar de tener en su historial más de 850 asesinatos. Partido que ha subido en escaños por el blanqueamiento del Partido Socialista Obrero Español. Memoria democrática, moral y necesaria para sus víctimas, siempre.
               

                  Quieren que hablemos de tiranías, tan valientes ustedes con los dictadores muertos y tan cobardes con los vivos. Mientras dan lecciones de dictaduras, el expresidente socialista Zapatero blanquea al tirano Maduro en Venezuela. O sus socios comunistas del Gobierno que alaban la dictadura castrista, por no hablar de los turbios vínculos que este propio Parlamento denuncia de su socio Puigdemont con la tiranía de Putin.
               

                  Abandonen sus mentiras y esa hipocresía socialista en Europa para tapar sus vergüenzas en España.
               

Alicia Homs Ginel,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, la memoria a la justicia y la reparación son las bases para que la dignidad de nuestras sociedades no olvide a las víctimas de ninguna dictadura en Europa.
               

                  Y hoy en España, con la voluntad de destruir las leyes de memoria democrática, vemos peligrar esos principios. La incoherencia del Partido Popular español llega a tal punto que, por ejemplo —le vendré con verdades—, la presidenta de Baleares, que en 2018 votó a favor de gran parte de la Ley de Memoria Democrática —aplaudida, por cierto, por el relator de las Naciones Unidas, no es que lo diga yo—, hoy se presta a derogarla y rendirse una vez más a la voluntad de la ultraderecha, que ya es la suya.
               

                  Por favor, sean coherentes y decidan de qué lado de la historia quieren estar. Si del lado de los franquistas y golpistas o del lado de los demócratas españoles y europeos. Porque Europa no puede construirse desde el olvido, desde la injusticia o desde el odio al diferente. Europa debe construirse desde la justicia, la memoria y la dignidad de todos sus ciudadanos.
               

Jordi Cañas,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, yo pensaba que no se iban a atrever. Pensaba que no se iban a atrever; no a blanquear el mal —que lo hacen—, sino a banalizarlo, trayendo un debate aquí de algo tan serio como los intentos de negar dictaduras y el riesgo de que el totalitarismo vuelva de una forma espúrea para taparse las vergüenzas de la política nacional. Yo de verdad pensaba que no iban a ser capaces. Y lo son, porque son capaces de todo.
               

                  Son capaces de blanquear a una organización política, a un brazo político de una organización terrorista que equivale a cuarenta años de asesinatos en España de ciclo político. Cuarenta años de asesinatos, terror, muerte y sangre de ciclo político. Esos mismos que a ustedes les permiten ser ahora mismo presidentes de España. Sus socios. Y tienen el cuajo de venir aquí en contra del totalitarismo de las dictaduras, cuando son socios de unos señores que dieron un golpe de Estado en España en 2017, violando la Constitución, el Estatuto de los derechos y libertades de los ciudadanos, y encima negociando con Putin su injerencia en España.
               

                  Miren: la mejor forma de no combatir fantasmas del pasado es no aliarse con fantasmas y fantasmones del presente.
               

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, tomorrow, Italy commemorates the victory over fascism. But the author invited to deliver a speech was cancelled by the Italian state broadcaster. The reason? He was planning to state the fact that Meloni fails to condemn fascism. And how could she credibly do so with her party's logo symbolising the eternal flame on the tomb of Mussolini?
This act of censorship by the state broadcaster, already dubbed ‘TeleMeloni’, is straight from the autocratic playbook; a telltale sign that fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law are at serious risk in yet another EU Member State.
Rule of law is not a noun, but a verb. It requires constant vigilance to protect the precious foundations our community of values is built on. I urge the Commission to act against this breach of media independence, but also against a whole tendency to undermine the rule of law and democracy in more and more EU Member States. Foster, enforce, protect our values more vigilantly than in the previous term has happened.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, en algo vamos a coincidir. Efectivamente, es necesario un debate sobre el totalitarismo en Europa.
               

                  En Polonia, la Coalición Popular Comunista detiene a un exministro alegando un delito indultado por los tribunales en 2015, toma al asalto emisoras públicas de radio y televisión en contra de la ley, y ahora amenaza con cárcel a quien no se someta al grupo de intereses.
               

                  En España, la coalición socio comunista de Sánchez, amnistía golpistas, crea comisiones parlamentarias para perseguir jueces, pacta con narco dictaduras, apoya al terrorismo de Hamás y se enriquece con los fondos europeos que han quitado a las empresas y a los autónomos. Y en Bruselas se persigue la libertad de prensa y la libertad política.
               

                  Hoy se ha aprobado aquí una reforma del Reglamento de esta Cámara, por la cual, si los diputados no pasan por el aro del adoctrinamiento ideológico, corren el riesgo de ser privados de sus derechos políticos. Ustedes. No es un riesgo el totalitarismo; es un régimen totalitario en marcha. Se llama cancelación cultural, ideológica y personal.
               

                  Es urgente una rebelión del sentido común, de las clases populares y de las clases trabajadoras. Una rebelión frente a una casta totalitaria que ahora mismo nos mira muy nerviosa. Pero no se preocupen. Esto lo empezamos a cambiar el próximo 10 de junio.
               

Isabella Tovaglieri,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa è sull'orlo del baratro, la gente non ce la fa a pagare la rata del mutuo triplicata a causa dell'aumento dei tassi di interesse.
               

                  Le aziende non riescono ad accedere al credito perché anche il costo del denaro è aumentato esponenzialmente. Avete compromesso la competitività aziendale delle nostre industrie con le vostre politiche pseudo green e ogni giorno sorgono conflitti alle porte di casa nostra. E di fronte a tutto questo voi vi preoccupate del fascismo morto e sepolto ottant'anni fa e resuscitato solo da voi, come ogni anno alla vigilia del 25 aprile.
               

                  Ma con che coraggio parlate di dittature proprio voi che negli ultimi cinque anni avete imposto ai cittadini europei di ristrutturare casa quando volete voi, di acquistare l'auto che scegliete voi, di mettere nel piatto quello che piace a voi e di festeggiare solo le ricorrenze stabilite da voi.
               

                  Altro che Europa democratica! È qui, nelle istituzioni europee, che si annida il vero pericolo di una dittatura, la dittatura del pensiero unico. Un tradimento del progetto dei padri fondatori che ci volevano uniti nella diversità e non tutti uguali e omologati. State trasformando il sogno di un'Europa dei popoli nell'incubo dell'Unione Sovietica europea. Ma noi ve lo impediremo.
               

José Gusmão,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, neste mandato teremos a bonita coincidência de ter o último dia de trabalhos deste Parlamento Europeu no dia em que se assinala o primeiro dia da democracia portuguesa, há 50 anos.
               

                  Em democracia, não podemos aceitar esta onda conservadora que quer retirar direitos às mulheres, que pensávamos serem irreversíveis. Não podemos aceitar que trabalhadores possam ter medo de se organizar ou de fazer greve porque têm vínculos precários e sem direitos. Não podemos aceitar que haja cidadãos sem acesso a direitos básicos, como a saúde ou a educação, ou que vivam na pobreza. Não podemos aceitar que pessoas sejam despedidas ou perseguidas por falarem sobre o genocídio da Palestina.
               

                  Por isso, comemorar o 25 de Abril, celebrar a democracia, hoje, não é um mero exercício de nostalgia ou de memória sobre o que foram as ditaduras fascistas na Europa. Aqui, temos representantes dessas ditaduras e o confronto faz-se hoje. Fazer esse confronto é fazer um compromisso com uma democracia mais completa e mais exigente contra os fascistas dos tempos de hoje.
               

Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señor presidente, señores del Partido Socialista, yo creo que no lo han pensado bien. Venir a dar lecciones de memoria democrática aquí, cuando ustedes mantienen como socio estratégico a quien no ha condenado ni condena ni uno solo de los casi novecientos asesinatos cometidos por ETA.
               

                  Yo creo que no han pensado bien venir aquí a hablar de memoria democrática cuando cada hora, cada minuto y cada día dependen en el Gobierno de partidos que quieren destruir la Constitución española, que es la constitución de las libertades y de la reconciliación.
               

                  ¿Cómo se atreven a dar lecciones de memoria democrática a un partido que ha pagado como ningún otro el trágico tributo en sangre para defender la Constitución, la nación española y la libertad en España?
               

                  Cuando escuché a su presidente referirse despectivamente a los concejales de pueblo, me acordé de todos los concejales de pueblo que en todos los episodios trágicos de nuestra historia han sido víctimas de la violencia y que no merecen semejante desprecio.
               

                  Su idea de la memoria histórica se resume en la impúdica exhibición de Pedro Sánchez fotografiándose rodeado de restos de víctimas de la Guerra Civil. Esa imagen de dignidad les define. Y no deberían dejar ustedes, por la trayectoria del Partido Socialista, que fuera esa imagen la que les definiera.
               

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospod predsednik! Današnja debata prihaja v ključnem trenutku, simbolično, tudi na zadnjem zasedanju tega Evropskega parlamenta.
               

                  Ker so dejanja posameznih političnih skupin in dogodki zadnjega časa alarmantni, ker ti preveč spominjajo na tiste iz polpretekle zgodovine, po katerih so alarmi zvonili v tišini. Grozljive posledice je marsikdo med nami občutil na lastni koži, na koži lastnega naroda. Evropa, spoštovani, je zgrajena na naših ranah, na ranah in bolečinah preteklosti. Zato je nujno prepoznati vzpon ekstremno desnih politik po vsej Evropi, toleriranje skrajnih fašističnih gibanj in vzgibov, širjenja vsesplošne nestrpnosti in zanikanja diktatur, relativizacija zgodovine, vse našteto kriči po ukrepanju. Sam s svojim delovanjem v Evropskem parlamentu institucijam vseskozi prenašam sporočilo in vrednote antifašizma preko različnih dogodkov in razstav.
               

                  Spoštovani, antifašizma si ne gre lastiti, ne pa tudi nacionalizma ali pa kakršnihkoli drugih okoliščin. Gre za silo, ki je vznikala po vsem evropskem prostoru med ljudmi, ki so si želeli samo življenja v miru in svobodi, življenja v vrednotah, ki so zgradile to našo skupno Evropsko unijo. Zato globok poklon vsem tistim, ki so nam izborili svobodo, in nam omogočili, da so nas nekdaj razdeljeni duhovi preteklosti povezali v to Unijo.
               

                  Spoštovani kolegi, na nas je, da vse to prepoznamo, ukrepamo in odpravimo.
               

VORSITZ: JAN-CHRISTOPH OETJEN


Vizepräsident


Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la memoria sobre episodios de vulneración sistemática y continuada de los derechos fundamentales es la condición necesaria para reparar los daños causados, afrontar la verdad de lo sucedido y hacer justicia para no repetir errores dramáticos.
                  

                     Por eso es un retroceso democrático derogar las leyes de memoria que comenzaban, cuarenta años después de la muerte del dictador Franco, a recorrer el camino que falta para sanar aquellas heridas. Justificarlo recurriendo a un socorrido ‘y tú más’ por una supuesta desmemoria sobre la acción criminal y terrorista de ETA es todavía peor.
                  

                     Es peligrosamente parecido a lo que hizo el candidato de Bildu a lehendakari, incapaz en esta campaña electoral de llamar a ETA banda terrorista y corruptos a quienes en el País Vasco ampararon y celebraron aquellos crímenes. Que si la trayectoria de sesenta años, que si un ciclo político, que si los GAL… En definitiva, amnesia. Inaceptable para quienes nos oponemos siempre a la violencia, a todas las vulneraciones de derechos, sea quien sea el autor.
                  

                     Y, presidente, me va a permitir unos segundos para despedirme de esta Cámara después de quince años agradeciendo, primero, a mi equipo, a Itxaso y a Jon todo el trabajo y el acompañamiento; a todos los compañeros de esta Cámara y también de mi Grupo RENEW; a todos los intérpretes y, sobre todo, a todos esos trabajadores que son invisibles: a los que hacen la limpieza para que nosotros estemos bien, a todos los chóferes, a todos los técnicos. Gracias a todas las personas que hacen posible que nosotros desarrollemos esta actividad.
                  

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, verehrte Frau Kollegin, auch für Ihren Einsatz.
                  

Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la sinistra non perde il vizio di usare la storia come arma politica. Lo fa con l'obiettivo di squalificare gli avversari, perché sanno che non possono batterli sul terreno dei programmi e della proposta politica. Lo fa da sempre, usando tutti i mezzi a disposizione, occupando scuola, università, informazione, cultura, spettacolo.
                  

                     Anche il nostro Parlamento viene trasformato ogni mese in un tribunale del popolo in cui i presunti buoni emettono sentenze contro i presunti cattivi, attribuiscono patenti di legittimità gridando al ritorno di qualche immaginaria dittatura, ma normalmente tacciono davanti alle dittature vere, spesso figlie del loro stesso ceppo ideologico. Si attaccano a inesistenti censure per colpire il governo Meloni, ma tacciono se un sindaco di sinistra manda la polizia a vietare un convegno dei conservatori, come è avvenuto a Bruxelles.
                  

                     In questa nostra Europa, che la sinistra liberal rossa e verde ha condannato alla decadenza, c'è una sola dittatura, quella del pensiero unico, politicamente corretto, ultra green, immigrazionista e gender fluid. Ed è contro questa insopportabile cappa di conformismo che sempre più cittadini europei reclamano libertà. L'8 e il 9 giugno avranno la grande possibilità di conquistarla.
                  

Manu Pineda (The Left). – Señor presidente, el totalitarismo no es un riesgo, como dice el título de este debate. Totalitarismo es una realidad y no voy a perder tiempo en discutir sobre eso con la extrema derecha o la derecha extrema.
                  

                     Quiero hablarles a los amigos progresistas y las amigas progresistas. No es necesario que tengan la mayoría. En nuestras sociedades ya está el totalitarismo. Cuando se crea un marco para que, en España, en Almería, hace pocos días, se queme una nave agrícola con veinticinco inmigrantes dentro, es que el totalitarismo, el fascismo, ya está entre nosotros.
                  

                     Al fascismo no se le vence negociando con ellos un pacto migratorio que niega el derecho al asilo. Al totalitarismo y al fascismo no se le combate plantando la bandera israelí en la sede del Partido Verde Europeo. Al fascismo no se le vence negociando con ellos. Con el fascismo no se negocia, ni se limita. Al fascismo se le combate. Y se le combate con medidas de justicia social. Nosotros tenemos que tomar medidas que garanticen que la gente nos vea como instrumentos útiles; que seamos capaces de garantizar que tengan una vivienda digna, un empleo digno; que tengan sanidad pública de calidad; que tengan educación pública de calidad. La mejor vacuna contra el fascismo es la justicia social.
                  

                     Hoy, 25 de abril, el día de la Revolución de los Claveles, el aniversario también del Día de la Liberación de Italia, tenemos que decir fascismo nunca mais, fascismo nunca mais; no pasarán.
                  

Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, hace unos meses, el vicealcalde de Valencia del Gobierno PP-Vox, dijo: ‘Ser nazi no es un delito. Cada uno que sea lo que quiera’. Información veraz entre comillas. Recientemente, la consellera de Justicia del Gobierno PP-Vox, de la Comunitat Valenciana, dijo: ‘Franco fue un personaje histórico’. Verdad entre comillas.
                  

                     Con estos posicionamientos, la coalición de Gobierno del Partido Popular y de Vox de la Comunitat Valenciana pretende derogar la actual Ley de Memoria Democrática y sustituirla por la mal llamada ‘Ley de concordia’. Quieren acabar con una Ley que ha eliminado los nombres de las calles y de monumentos dedicados a torturadores y genocidas. Que ha retirado al dictador Franco las medallas y honores concedidos indebidamente. Que ha proporcionado millones de euros para desenterrar de las fosas comunes y de las cunetas a miles de represaliados que lucharon por la democracia en España. Los valores europeos que nos unen y que defendemos no pueden negar la dictadura franquista, porque eso es negar a las víctimas perseguidas, encarceladas o asesinadas por un régimen totalitario.
                  

                     Por eso es tan importante este debate de hoy. Porque no todo vale en política. Porque es necesario que este Parlamento exija y no permita que la extrema derecha y el Partido Popular nieguen la dictadura franquista y amenacen el triunfo de nuestra democracia.
                  

Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Wybitny lewicowy pisarz George Orwell, który kiedyś komunizował, a potem zrozumiał, czym jest komunizm, i nawrócił się na wolność i demokrację, napisał książkę ‘Folwark zwierzęcy’. Opisał tam rządy świń, które uważają, że są równiejsze od innych zwierząt. Mam wrażenie, że książka George'a Orwella jest dalej aktualna w głowach niektórych polityków. Mam wrażenie, że czasem nad tą salą unosi się takie hasło: ‘nie ma wolności dla wrogów wolności’. Ale o tym, kto jest wrogiem wolności, to już decyduje ta lewa strona sali. Mam wrażenie graniczące z pewnością, że ci, którzy mają pełne usta demokracji i którzy chcą jej bronić, tak naprawdę są tej demokracji przeciwnikami. Apeluję o zdrowy rozsądek, o zwykłą normalność i przyzwoitość.
                  

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, señorías, ¿saben ustedes por qué los socialistas españoles quieren hablar de dictaduras del siglo pasado? ¿Y por qué hoy Sánchez se ha montado una carta absolutamente plañidera, diciendo que está sopesando irse porque se siente acosado por la extrema derecha? Porque no quieren hablar de Begoña Gómez, la mujer del jefe del Gobierno, de Pedro Sánchez, experta en fondos europeos y en empresas amigas. A la mujer de Sánchez le acaban de abrir una investigación judicial por posible tráfico de influencias, con relación íntima con dictaduras, no del siglo pasado: con dictaduras de ahora, como el narcoestado de Venezuela, cuyo dictador es íntimo de Zapatero, de Sánchez y de todo el PSOE. Con esa dictadura criminal intercambia el Gobierno del PSOE maletas, maletas que entran clandestinamente en España. Sí, eso está pasando.
                  

                     Pero les voy a dar el placer de hablar de la dictadura en pasado. La que quería el PSOE cuando dio el golpe de 1934 y después el de 1936, cuando asesinó al jefe de la oposición. Decía Largo Caballero el 20 de enero de 1936: ‘Si triunfan en las urnas las derechas, tendremos que ir a la Guerra Civil declarada’. Y en El Socialista, en 1933: ‘Es la dictadura del proletariado. Haremos la revolución. Tenemos que recorrer el período de transición hacia el socialismo integral, y ese período es la dictadura del proletariado’.
                  

                     Ustedes están en el Grupo de Puebla, que es el cartel de Puebla. No nos hablen de dictaduras, que están aliados con todas y con los asesinos en España.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señor presidente, en primer lugar, aquí tenemos que poner de relieve que el Gobierno de coalición de Carlos Mazón del Partido Popular con VOX pretende sustituir la Ley de Memoria Democrática por una ley que equipara el período franquista con el período democrático de la Segunda República.
                  

                     Hay que recordar —o resaltar— que esta iniciativa queda fuera del marco europeo. El marco europeo señala lo siguiente: se defiende la memoria democrática mediante el programa CERF (Conmemoración de las víctimas de todos los regímenes totalitarios y autoritarios).
                  

                     El Partido Popular viene aquí a hablar de otras cosas y dice que esto no tiene nada que ver con el Parlamento Europeo. Sí tiene que ver, porque este proyecto de unidad supranacional se fundó precisamente sobre la victoria contra el nazifascismo y, por tanto, el franquismo —todos lo sabemos— era un aliado de estos regímenes y es justo lo contrario del espíritu de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Por tanto, tenemos que pedir a la Comisión que nos ampare porque no se puede tolerar esta equiparación que, como digo, queda fuera del marco europeo de la memoria histórica.
                  

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, decía Chato Galante, militante antifranquista y activista de la memoria democrática, que nunca habrá verdadera democracia mientras no haya verdad, justicia y reparación. A él y a todas las víctimas del franquismo que han tenido que ir a Argentina, a la querella Argentina contra el franquismo, les dedico hoy esta intervención.
                  

                     Escuchar al Partido Popular y escuchar a VOX blanqueando el neofascismo, que hemos denunciado tantas veces en Europa, es una verdadera vergüenza. El PP, está claro, que, con esa abolición de las leyes de memoria democrática, está vendido al neofascismo de VOX.
                  

                     Me alegra mucho que, en mi tierra, en Galiza, VOX tenga cero diputados. Me alegra mucho. Porque la verdad, la justicia y la reparación tienen que ser nuestro objetivo, nuestro objetivo también aquí, donde, por cierto, había un grupo de memoria histórica.
                  

                     Si ven esta flor significa fascismo. Nunca mais. Y seguiremos precisamente por eso, para denunciar a estos fascistas que deshonran a la democracia y que deshonran a los pueblos europeos.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, en esta sesión hemos escuchado en español llamamientos a la rebelión contra la legalidad democrática que equiparan a sus portavoces con los enemigos de la democracia con la que tanto se llenan la boca.
                  

                     En esta sesión no hemos venido a hablar de llamar por su nombre al terrorismo de ETA que desapareció de nuestras vidas derrotado por la democracia bajo el liderazgo del presidente Zapatero.
                  

                     No. Hemos venido a hablar de unas leyes aprobadas en comunidades autónomas gobernadas por la derecha española con la extrema derecha, en rebelión virtual contra la legalidad democrática, contra la Ley de Memoria Democrática, cuya única intención es reconocer el derecho a exhumar esos miles de cadáveres enterrados en fosas comunes y restituir a sus descendientes la posibilidad de que sus seres queridos reciban una sepultura digna.
                  

                     Y pretende la derecha que no existe diferencia histórica, moral ni jurídica entre la dictadura y la legalidad democrática de la Segunda República. La hay. Desde el punto de vista histórico y moral, por supuesto que la hay. Pero también desde el punto de vista jurídico, porque va directamente en contra de las Resoluciones aportadas por este Parlamento Europeo que prohíben la equiparación de dictadura y democracia, además de contra el Derecho internacional sobre paz y legalidad internacional.
                  

Isabel García Muñoz (S&D). – Señor presidente, la construcción del proyecto de Europa nace del poder de la memoria, porque no hay historia sin memoria.
                  

                     Aragón ha sido la primera región española donde los neofascistas de Vox, junto al Partido Popular, han derogado la Ley de Memoria Democrática, una Ley basada en los principios fundamentales de verdad, justicia y reparación, un derecho democrático de la ciudadanía aragonesa que daba voz al silencio impuesto durante décadas. Una Ley que consideraba víctimas a todas esas personas asesinadas, represaliadas y desaparecidas durante la trágica guerra civil y la dictadura franquista, y que con esta derogación dejan de serlo.
                  

                     Señorías, no hay historia sin memoria, ni futuro basado en el silencio. Las aragonesas y los aragoneses merecen conocer la verdadera historia para poder avanzar hacia un futuro en paz. Merecen justicia, merecen reparación y lo que no merecen es la indiferencia del Partido Popular aragonés, que sucumbe a la extrema derecha franquista de Vox, negando los principios y los valores de la democracia.
                  

                     Que la verdad no caiga en el olvido y que el señor Tertsch deje de representar a un solo ciudadano, porque lo primero que debe hacer aquí es respetar.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, when confronting totalitarianism, we must combine vigilance with mindfulness. The rejection of the totalitarianism in our past and the evils that it led to inspire our Union and the values which bind us. So we must recall these truths of history to brace ourselves for the challenges of the present and future.
As politicians preparing for elections, we need to embody our values and show they work for citizens. We need to stand for the values of democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law – not only through our words, but through our conduct in these coming elections.
This month, the Commission welcomed the commitment of European political parties to adhere to the code of conduct to support transparent and fair campaigning in the 2024 European elections. We urge all political parties and candidates to adhere to this and to work to ensure that, irrespective of the election result, Europe will continue to stand true to its fundamental values: democracy, rule of law, equality and fundamental rights.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  
20.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
20.1.   Azerbaijan, notably the repression of civil society and the cases of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu and Ilhamiz Guliyev

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über Fälle von Verletzungen der Menschenrechte, der Demokratie und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit (Artikel 144 GO).
                  

                     Als erster Punkt der Tagesordnung im Rahmen dieser Aussprachen folgt die Aussprache über Aserbaidschan, vor allem die Unterdrückung der Zivilgesellschaft und die Fälle von Dr. Qubad İbadoğlu und İlhamiz Quliyev (2024/2698(RSP)) (*1).
                  

Michaela Šojdrová,
author. – Mr President, first, I want to thank all of my colleagues for their great cooperation on this important resolution. This urgent resolution proves that the European Parliament's voice is strong and sound in defending human rights. Just one hour after the adoption of our plenary agenda on Monday, we received information that Dr Ibadoghlu had been released into house arrest. Great. However, this alone is not sufficient. I am honoured to welcome Zhala, his daughter, here in the European Parliament. She has been doing a tremendous job in raising awareness in international support for her father and other political prisoners is Azerbaijan. Thank you, Zhala, and welcome. I hope you will meet your father soon, once the travel ban has been lifted.
This isn't the first time we have demanded the release and a better condition and better medical care for Dr Ibadoghlu, whose life is at risk due to a lack of medical attention. He needs urgent surgery abroad, which is still not possible due to the travel ban. We call for the immediate release of all other political prisoners, such as Ilhamiz Guliyev and hundreds of others, including ethnic Armenian in Baku.
To stress our point, we call again on the Commission to consider suspending the strategic partnership with Azerbaijan in the energy sector. We know how sensitive this issue is, but we are convinced that the EU cannot have strong relations with a country that is continuously violating human rights. Any further partnership agreements must be conditioned on the release of all political prisoners and the improvement of the overall human rights situation in the country. Thank you for supporting this important resolution.

Matthias Ecke,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bereits im September letzten Jahres haben wir hier die Freilassung Qubad İbadoğlus in einer Entschließung gefordert. Nun ist er zwar am Montag in den Hausarrest entlassen worden, aber nur für einen Monat. Die Anklage bleibt bestehen und sein Gesundheitszustand ist äußerst kritisch. Monatelang wurde er festgehalten, ohne Zugang zu medizinischer Versorgung und kaum Kontakt zu Anwälten und zur Familie.
                  

                     Verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, kommt Ihnen diese Strategie, Kritiker auszuschalten, bekannt vor? Ähnlich ergeht es auch dem mutigen Whistleblower İlhamiz Quliyev, der gemeinsam mit über 300 anderen politischen Gefangenen weiterhin im Gefängnis sitzt. Oder Imran Aliyev, einem Journalisten, der für das ZDF arbeitete. Mutige Menschen, die das Schicksal ihres Landes in die Hand nehmen, die aufklären und Freiheit und demokratische Rechte durchsetzen wollen, verenden in den Gefängnissen des Autokraten Aliyev, der sich mit diesen Methoden in besonders schlechter Gesellschaft befindet.
                  

                     Wir als EU haben mehrere Hebel in der Hand, um auf die aserbaidschanische Regierung einzuwirken – die strategische Energiepartnerschaft und das künftige Partnerschaftsabkommen. Lassen Sie uns diese Hebel nutzen. Kein Abkommen darf abgeschlossen werden, ohne dass die politischen Gefangenen endlich freikommen, und das Energieabkommen muss dringend überprüft werden.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, internationally renowned economist Gubad Ibadoghlu spent nine months in prison and was only released to house arrest at the start of this European Parliament session. Interesting.
Today, his daughter Zhala is visiting the European Parliament to ask for our continued support to enable Dr Gubad to receive a life-saving operation in Germany. Thank you, Zhala, for your commitment, thank you.
Human rights activist Ilhamiz Guliyev could spend 12 years in prison after revealing how police plant incriminating evidence against government critics. Mass persecution of independent media, such as Abzas Media, and members of civil society continues. Last week, Meclis.info – the Azerbaijani parliamentary monitoring platform – was targeted.
The Azerbaijani authorities have chosen a model of a controlled society, dominated by the institution of the presidency and benefiting, highly by the way, from a power of energy resources.
I call on the European Commission to take immediate steps to protect human and political rights in Azerbaijan, and definitely our so-called strategic partnership with Azerbaijan must be reviewed.

Markéta Gregorová,
author. – Mr President, it is a sad honour that I dedicate my last speech in this room, under this mandate, to human rights and to civil society in Azerbaijan. I have met today with Zhala Bayramova, the daughter of Dr Ibadoghlu, listening to her father's hardship. After negotiations with other Members of Parliament, I have no doubt we realise how catastrophic the situation has become since last autumn for journalists and human rights defenders such as Dr Ibadoghlu and Mr Guliyev. But I guess the governments of our countries and the Commission do not realise it, given they still consider Aliyev a strategic partner.
The memorandum of understanding with Azerbaijan should be suspended. And we cannot consider Azerbaijan as a host for COP29, where we will send all sorts of civil society representatives. This is a stance we all must maintain until they release all political prisoners.

Emmanuel Maurel,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, à mon tour de saluer la fille de Goubad Ibadoghlou, cet économiste renommé, ce militant pour la paix qui vient de passer un an dans les geôles du régime azéri sur la base d'accusations qui ont été fabriquées de toutes pièces. Les traitements inhumains et dégradants qu'il a subis en prison ont tellement détérioré sa santé que le pouvoir a enfin consenti, ce lundi, à commuer sa peine en détention à domicile; mais il reste prisonnier et la plainte est maintenue.
                  

                     La Commission n'aime pas qu'on lui rappelle que le pays avec lequel elle a pactisé en 2022 est dans les bas-fonds des classements sur la démocratie et les libertés publiques. Je rappelle que l'Azerbaïdjan est derrière la Russie et la Biélorussie en matière de libertés publiques. Avec l'Azerbaïdjan, les ‘deux poids, deux mesures’ ont atteint leur paroxysme. Pour ne plus avoir à acheter du gaz à une dictature qui a agressé son voisin, la Russie, on nous impose un contrat gazier avec une dictature qui, elle aussi, agresse son voisin, puisque c'est le cas avec l'Arménie et les 100 000 Arméniens du Haut-Karabakh.
                  

                     Dans de telles conditions, il ne suffit pas de sanctionner les responsables azéris qui ont commis des violations; il faut suspendre immédiatement notre accord gazier avec ce régime. L'Azerbaïdjan n'est pas un partenaire fiable; le Parlement le répète inlassablement. Il faut que la Commission et le Conseil l'entendent.
                  

Anna Fotyga,
author. – Mr President, we stand by political prisoners all over the world. So we are happy that it was a considerable easing of conditions of Dr Ibadoghlu. Yet I would like this time to raise another topic.
There is a time of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan – very delicate – and a time that we count on positive effect. And there is also almost the election time in whole Europe. So I urge my colleagues to be very cautious in exerting pressure on one side of these negotiations.

Anja Haga,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, doctor Gubad Ibadoghlu en Ilhamiz Guliyev zijn op politieke gronden vastgezet in Azerbeidzjan, net als heel veel Armeense krijgsgevangenen. Nu hebben we afgelopen maandag gehoord dat doctor Ibadoghlu is vrijgelaten, net nadat de resolutie die wij vanavond bespreken op de agenda kwam. Politieke druk helpt dus. Alleen mag hij maar tijdelijk naar huis, voor een maand. Dat is onvoldoende. En die andere politieke gevangenen zitten nog steeds vast. Daarom wil ik vanavond twee zaken benadrukken.
                  

                     In de eerste plaats: doctor Ibadoghlu heeft heel urgent medische hulp nodig. Hij moet naar Duitsland voor een operatie aan zijn aorta. Dat kan niet in Azerbeidzjan, maar hij heeft een reisverbod. Ik doe een dringend beroep op de EDEO en ambassades van lidstaten om in gesprek te gaan met Azerbeidzjan. Niet over een week, maar morgenochtend, want hij zal echt snel geopereerd moeten worden. Het is een kwestie van leven of dood.
                  

                     In de tweede plaats: stop de energiesamenwerking met Azerbeidzjan. Stop met het aanpappen met het regime in Bakoe. Er is geen respect voor mensenrechten. Politieke gevangenen – krijgsgevangenen uit Armenië – zitten daar onder slechte omstandigheden. Dat kan niet. Dat moet echt onderwerp van gesprek zijn met Azerbeidzjan. Want vergeet niet: Azerbeidzjan is het land dat continu agressie laat zien richting Armenië. Daarom heb ik deze sjaal bij me.
                  

                     Ik sta pal achter Armenië, ik ben daar trots op en ik vind dat ook de EU pal achter Armenië moet staan en zich moet uitspreken tegen Azerbeidzjan.
                  

Marina Kaljurand,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, Council, Zhala, I welcome the release of Dr Ibadoghlu from house arrest, but I also urge to lift a travel ban in order to allow him to travel and receive medical treatment abroad.
Unfortunately, the overall situation with human rights in Azerbaijan has significantly worsened in the recent years. Repressions against civil society and activists, judicial harassment, attacks against remaining independent media, almost 300 political prisoners. This is Azerbaijan's reality.
It's impossible even to consider the deepening of the EU-Azerbaijan relations, including comprehensive and honest dialogue. These relations have to be conditional on Azerbaijan's rule of law and human rights record. Azerbaijan has to decide whether it chooses to be a truly reliable partner of the European Union, or continues being in the same group with Russian and Belarusian autocracies.
And on a personal note, I really regret that my last intervention as the Chair of the Delegation for Relations with South Caucasus is rather pessimistic. But it's also not hopeless.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo,
a nome del gruppo Renew. – Signor Presidente, Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, in questi ultimi anni abbiamo denunciato a più riprese la deriva autoritaria del Presidente Aliyev, la sua violenta, costante, incessante repressione del dissenso interno, l'infame blocco del corridoio di Lachin, l'esodo forzato della popolazione armena del Nagorno-Karabakh e perfino la conclamata alleanza con Putin.
                  

                     Eppure cosa è cambiato? Il regime di Baku ha forse rivisto le sue posizioni? No. Ha allentato la presa sui dissidenti interni? No. Si è forse reso disponibile a un negoziato serio e accettabile di pace con l'Armenia? Nemmeno. Il tempo delle condanne a parole è finito. È giunto il momento di esigere delle azioni concrete, anche di mettere sul tavolo un regime sanzionatorio qualora queste richieste non venissero accolte, perché il dottor Gubad Ibadoghlu, in questo momento, se non verrà fatto espatriare potrebbe anche morire. Ha bisogno di cure urgenti.
                  

                     Tutti i prigionieri politici, sono oltre 200, devono essere rilasciati, inclusi quelli armeni incarcerati dopo l'occupazione del Nagorno-Karabakh. La retorica aggressiva, militarista, soffocante e dittatoriale di Aliyev nei confronti dell'opposizione interna così come anche dell'Armenia deve cessare definitivamente.
                  

                     Smettiamo di trattare l'Azerbaigian come un partner affidabile. Smettiamo di sacrificare i nostri principi e valori sull'altare della realpolitik. Non possiamo essere l'Europa che è forte con i deboli e debole con i forti.
                  

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, while the Commission and the Council continue to pretend that Azerbaijan is the EU's strategic partner, the regime in Baku continues to oppress its own people, threaten its neighbours and thwart efforts towards regional peace. Today there are 300 political prisoners in Azerbaijan. I welcome the release of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, but the regime must not be allowed to pull the wool over our eyes. Dr Ibadoghlu remains gravely ill as a result of imprisonment and requires immediate surgery. All the trumped-up charges against him must be dropped, and he must be allowed to travel abroad to undergo medical treatment.
At the same time, after the ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, the regime continues to threaten Armenia and thwart efforts towards sustainable peace. This reality is all the more haunting today as we commemorate the anniversary of the 1915 Armenian Genocide. The world failed to act in 1915, and it failed to act again this year when over 100 000 Armenians had to flee their homeland.
The phrase ‘never again’ cannot be just empty words. We must use our diplomatic and economic strengths to ensure that Baku returns to peace and stops oppression at home. It is time to stop dreaming about the strategic partnership. Face the reality and act in accordance with our values and principles.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Michael Gahler (PPE). – Mr President, colleagues, to end the debate, I have a suggestion to make. As I learned from Zhala, from his daughter, that apparently, President Aliyev is on Friday in Berlin meeting the Chancellor Scholz.
Perhaps those who took the floor here, that we all send an email to the Chancellor's office asking him, or asking his aides, to include in his speaking notes the reference to our case here, to Dr Ibadoghlu, and asking the Chancellor to raise the issue and allow him to travel home. So that is my suggestion, where perhaps it has an impact and might lead to an immediate result.

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, quero aqui salientar o facto de este ser um momento feliz. O agendamento desta urgência teve de facto um efeito quase imediato, ao levar à passagem do Dr. Ibadoghlu para o regime de prisão domiciliária.
                  

                     Contudo, isso não é suficiente. Eu, hoje, acabei de ter contacto com a sua filha, que está aqui presente, a assistir a esta sessão, Zhala Bayramova – que quero aqui saudar –, e ela deu-me conta da situação do seu pai. Ele precisa de tratamento urgente na Alemanha. Esse tratamento é possível. As instituições médicas estão preparadas para o receber e para o tratar e todo o nosso esforço deve ser concentrado na criação da possibilidade de ele viajar. Mas este esforço não deve parar aqui.
                  

                     E temos de ser muito claros: a União Europeia tem o dever de exigir a libertação de todos os presos políticos – todos os presos políticos – no Azerbaijão. E o Azerbaijão não pode ser considerado, como tem vindo a ser considerado várias vezes pela Comissão e também pelo Conselho, como um parceiro fiável. Não é um parceiro fiável, e os negócios não podem justificar as violações de direitos humanos a que estamos a fechar os olhos. Temos de ser claros e precisos nesta matéria.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the rule of law and human rights are at the core of the EU's relations with Azerbaijan, and it will continue to be an important part of our dialogue. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about the intensification of persecution against civil society and independent media in Azerbaijan, which we see as an attempt to intimidate and silence dissenting voices and suppress freedom of expression. Today, we are focusing on two cases of detention on politically motivated charges, but repression against many dissident voices in Azerbaijan continues.
Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu is a well-known Azerbaijani economist, political opponent and vocal critic of the government, who has been held in pre-trial detention since July 2023. Mr Guliyev is a political activist who has been in pre-trial detention since December 2023. Since November 2023, we have seen several waves of arrests of independent journalists and political activists affiliated with a number of media outlets and non-governmental organisations. At least 16 people have been detained, among them Ilhamiz Guliyev.
Since the last debate in this Chamber and the resolution adopted on Dr Ibadoghlu, we have repeatedly raised our concerns on the rights of detained persons, including their access to medical assistance, independent doctors and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both in direct contact with the authorities and in public statements. We continue to call on Azerbaijan to uphold its obligations under international law.
The EU delegation in Baku also regularly conducts trial-monitoring in politically motivated cases like those of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, political activist Ilhamiz Guliyev, seriously ill journalist Alasgar Mammadli, public activist Baxtiyar Haciyev, and others. It has also repeatedly requested to visit Dr Ibadoghlu and other prisoners.
Civil society organisations in Azerbaijan are operating under difficult circumstances. Support for these organisations is and will remain a key priority for the European Union, with currently more than EUR 12 million in assistance. We also continue to call on the authorities to allow civil society organisations to operate freely in the country.
Human rights, the rule of law and civil society remain a priority in EU-Azerbaijan bilateral relations. So, therefore, we will continue to call on Azerbaijan to adhere to its obligations under international law, including international human rights law.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 25. April 2024, statt.
                  
20.2.   The proposed repeal of the law banning female genital mutilation in The Gambia

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache gemäß Artikel 144 der Geschäftsordnung über die vorgeschlagene Aufhebung des Gesetzes, das Genitalverstümmelung bei Frauen und Mädchen verbietet, in Gambia (2024/2699(RSP)) (*2).
                  

Michael Gahler,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich war wirklich entsetzt, als ich davon Kenntnis erhielt, dass die Absicht in Gambia besteht, das Verbot der Genitalverstümmelung bei Frauen und Mädchen hier aufzuheben. Ich denke, wir sollten alles einsetzen gegenüber der dortigen Regierung, und fordern natürlich auch die Kommission und unseren Auswärtigen Dienst dazu auf, hier einzuschreiten.
                  

                     Wir haben bestehende Konventionen zur Eliminierung aller Formen von Diskriminierung von Frauen, ein Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes und ein Übereinkommen gegen Folter und andere grausame, unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung oder Strafe. Diese Genitalverstümmelung ist in der Tat etwas, was nicht ins 21. Jahrhundert gehört und was auch nicht seitens irgendeiner Regierung als etwas Fortschrittliches oder im Interesse der Frau Gerichtetes ausgesprochen werden kann. Nehmen Sie diese Absicht zurück. Das ist unser Aufruf an die Regierung in Gambia.
                  

Hannes Heide,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, female genital mutilation is a grave violation of human rights and discrimination against girls and women, not justified by any religion or culture.
According to UNICEF, 76 % of Gambian women aged 15 to 49 have been circumcised. Around 46 % of girls under the age of 14 are victims of genital mutilation, with serious consequences including irreparable physical, psychological, reproductive and sexual health damage. In the worst case, it leads to death.
In 2015, The Gambia adopted the landmark Women's Act, which penalises the practice of female genital mutilation with up to three years in prison. This legislation was recognised worldwide as a leading step forward!
The repeal has already passed the second reading in the Gambian Parliament and The Gambia risks being the first country in the world to reverse legal protection against female genital mutilation.
The recently signed Samoa Agreement commits all parties to abolish female genital mutilation. The Commission and the European External Action Service urgently and systematically has to address the problem with the Gambian authorities and get involved to guarantee women's and girls' rights throughout the region.

Svenja Hahn,
author. – Mr President, dear colleagues, female genital mutilation is such an incredible, terrible and brutal violation of human rights. It is not justified by any religion or culture. It is abusive, it is harmful, and it leads to irreparable damage. It is psychological damage, physical damage, it is reproductive and sexual health damage. It can lead to death, and if girls are lucky enough to survive it, they will be affected for their whole life.
As a woman, as a politician, I am deeply worried that The Gambia is looking into lifting the ban on female genital mutilation. It would be the first time ever that this protection of women's rights would be reversed – and with the numbers of women affected, it is shocking. Around 76 % of Gambian women between 15 and 49 have been circumcised, or 230 million girls and women worldwide are affected.
As the European Parliament, we call on the Gambian Parliament: demonstrate your country's commitment to international human rights law and the multiple international and regional agreements The Gambia has signed – and I expect the European Commission to join the efforts from this Parliament.
We need to protect the rights of women and girls and – the Gambian Parliament: please reject the proposal to lift the ban and uphold the criminalisation of female genital mutilation.

Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, en février 2020, nous avons adopté une résolution pour l'abolition des mutilations génitales féminines. En 2021, notre ministre allemand a présenté ici, au Parlement européen, la lettre de protection, afin de protéger les filles de la diaspora lorsqu'elles se rendent en Afrique. Le 18 mars 2024, le Parlement gambien a débattu d'une proposition visant à abroger la loi nationale qui interdit les mutilations génitales féminines.
                  

                     Si ce projet de loi est adopté, la Gambie deviendra le premier pays au monde à revenir sur l'interdiction des mutilations génitales féminines. Cela rendrait les mutilations légales, créerait un dangereux précédent en matière de recul des droits des femmes et compromettrait également l'objectif de développement durable 5, qui vise à éradiquer les mutilations génitales féminines à l'échelle mondiale d'ici 2030. La légalisation de l'excision constituerait une violation de la Convention sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l'égard des femmes, de la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant et de la Charte africaine des droits et du bien-être de l'enfant, toutes ratifiées par la Gambie.
                  

                     Au nom des jeunes filles de la diaspora et de la Gambie, au nom de toutes les jeunes filles, ne faisons pas la sourde oreille devant leur désarroi et entendons leur cri du cœur, car ni le Coran – je suis fille de musulmans –, ni la Torah, ni la Bible n'exigent qu'une femme soit excisée.
                  

Assita Kanko,
author. – Mr President, female genital mutilation is a brutal practice that breaks and destroys girls on the basis of sex, making them a property of the community or a man. Female genital mutilation has happened to 200 million women worldwide. I'm one of them. Believe me, no one can imagine such physical and mental pain or the lifelong consequences you have to bear.
Today, female genital mutilation continues despite all laws. It breaks my heart when I see the governments of the Gambia wanting to repeal the law banning female genital mutilation, instead of protecting girls. It's vital that we do all we can to convince the Gambia's Parliament not to decriminalise female genital mutilation, vital because it could literally cost girls' and women's lives or adversely affect their quality of life. It's also a dangerous precedent, as this could lead to a wave of reduction of women's rights in other countries.
The Commission and the European External Action Service should urge the Gambian authorities to honour their human-rights commitments and enforce the legal ban on female genital mutilation. The law against female genital mutilation is not a law against their religion or culture. It is a human right that protects and improves the lives of women and girls.

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
autor. – Señor presidente, los derechos sexuales y reproductivos son derechos humanos fundamentales. En este sentido, cualquier norma que suponga un retroceso en estos derechos debe ser considerada como un ataque a los derechos humanos.
                  

                     Me gustaría recordar que los acuerdos de asociación de la Unión Europea incluyen cláusulas de derechos humanos que permiten la suspensión de dicha relación en caso de violación de estas cláusulas. Pero, lamentablemente, estas bonitas palabras son papel mojado, como hemos comprobado sistemáticamente en esta legislatura que ahora termina. Porque, más allá de las palabras bonitas, necesitamos acciones concretas: más políticas públicas efectivas.
                  

                     Desde la izquierda europea hemos propuesto que en esta Resolución se incluyera la mención al refuerzo necesario de los servicios públicos de salud como medida para combatir también la mutilación genital femenina, pero el resto de grupos ha decidido descartar esta mención. En su lugar se ha hablado de la interlocución necesaria con los líderes religiosos. Creo que es un buen resumen de las prioridades de la mayoría de esta Cámara.
                  

                     Y, señor presidente, quería terminar mi última intervención en el Parlamento Europeo dando las gracias a las trabajadoras y los trabajadores. Sin las trabajadoras, el mundo no funciona y sin las trabajadoras invisibles de este Parlamento, este Parlamento tampoco funcionaría.
                  

Carina Ohlsson,
för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Gambia beslutade 2015 att förbjuda kvinnlig könsstympning. Om Gambia nu bestämmer sig för att upphäva förbudet skulle landet bli först i världen med att dra tillbaka ett sådant beslut.
                  

                     Kvinnors och flickors situation i Gambia är extremt allvarlig. 76 procent av alla kvinnor och flickor i åldern 15 till 49 år har genomgått könsstympning. Detta är en allvarlig kränkning av mänskliga rättigheter. Hälsokonsekvenserna är väl dokumenterade och mycket svåra. Många dör. De som överlever får men för livet. Infektioner, infertilitet och förlossningskomplikationer tillhör de vanligaste förekommande komplikationerna.
                  

                     Jag uppmanar verkligen Gambias parlament att omedelbart förkasta förslaget. Varje flicka förtjänar rätten till sin egen kropp och sitt eget liv. Alla flickor ska få växa upp fria från våld och förtryck. Kvinnlig könsstympning är en medeltida sedvänja som bäst hör hemma på historiens skräphög.
                  

                     Gör istället som vi här i EU när vi i dag fattar beslut om en lagstiftning mot våld mot kvinnor och flickor.
                  

Charles Goerens,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, le débat d'aujourd'hui met pour ainsi dire un terme à la présente législature, mais il est loin de signifier la fin des mutilations génitales féminines. Au contraire, le projet de résolution nous le rappelle: 230 millions de femmes à l'échelle mondiale restent victimes de ces pratiques. Et pourtant, les déclarations d'intention d'y mettre fin ne manquent pas.
                  

                     De deux choses l'une: ou bien les autorités des États où ces pratiques existent encore sont impuissantes face au maintien d'une tradition abominable, ou bien les autorités sont malveillantes et laissent faire. Dans la première hypothèse, nous devons mutualiser tous nos efforts – nous, c'est-à-dire: l'Union européenne, nos États membres, le monde associatif, les agences des Nations Unies et notamment l'UNICEF – pour sensibiliser les femmes et les autorités politiques des pays concernés et y accorder les moyens budgétaires nécessaires.
                  

                     Des exemples, trop rares hélas, nous montrent que nous pouvons faire quelque chose. Quand un gouvernement, comme c'est le cas en Gambie, agit à contresens de l'histoire, nous devons encore déployer plus d'efforts pour mettre fin à un crime qui va désormais risquer d'être légalisé.
                  

Max Orville (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, avant de commencer mon propos, je veux vous lire un témoignage.
                  

                     ‘On m'ordonne de retirer ma jupe, puis ma culotte. Chacun attrape une partie de mon corps. Je suis écartelée. L'exciseuse prend un vieux couteau et attrape mon petit bout. Elle le coupe à vif en plusieurs fois. Je rugis de douleur. J'essaye de me débattre, mais je suis tenue par quatre adultes qui me crient dessus. L'exciseuse prend une petite bouteille contenant un liquide transparent et le jette sur mon sexe. C'est de l'alcool à 90 degrés.’
                  

                     Tel est le calvaire vécu par Halimata Fofana à seulement cinq ans. C'est douloureux à entendre. Ça l'est encore plus à subir. Rien ne justifie de telles pratiques, ni la culture, ni la religion. Les mutilations génitales féminines ne sont rien d'autre que de la torture. Revenir sur la loi qui les interdit est inacceptable. Ce n'est qu'un recul supplémentaire des droits des femmes et des droits humains. Nous ne pouvons rester silencieux et laisser en détresse les femmes gambiennes. L'Union européenne doit être forte et unie à leurs côtés. Le silence réprobateur est inenvisageable.
                  

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, following nearly two decades of dictatorship, The Gambia has presented a positive story since it returned to democracy in 2017.
It has demonstrated a commitment to defending human rights and multilateralism, with the UN at its core. It has voted in solidarity with Ukraine. It has been at the forefront of many human rights battles, including the Rohingyas in Myanmar. It is a respected member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
In this positive context, the bill to repeal the ban on female genital mutilation, suggested by an independent National Assembly member, casts a shadow over the reputation of The Gambia. However, it should be made clear that this initiative does not come from the government.
The EU has already taken steps to discuss with the Gambian authorities in quiet diplomacy. We have shared our concerns and passed strong messages through our EU Ambassador, as well as through the EU Special Representative for Human Rights.
While respecting alternative cultures and traditions, the EU is against all gender-based violence. The EU has convened the view that legal protection of young women provided for by this 2015 law should not disappear. If it did, it would represent a substantial setback for the status of women in the country. The Gambian Government, from all our contacts, shares our concerns, and there is much hope that the National Assembly would vote against this initiative.
The matter needs to be approached in a way that is sensitive to local politics. Much needs to be done to avoid reinforcing the position and arguments of the bill sponsors, who often present themselves as defenders of The Gambia's traditions and culture against the influence and interference of foreign actors. We need to move forward in a way that bases our approach firmly on the commitments already made by The Gambia and its leaders.
Of course, we will continue to broaden our outreach to key political actors in the National Assembly, which is currently examining the proposal at the committee level. We will continue to encourage The Gambia based on its commitments to reject these proposals.

SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE


Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks


Sēdes vadītājs. – Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
                     

                        Balsošana notiks rītdien, 2024. gada 25. aprīlī.
                     
20.3.   The new security law in Hong Kong and the cases of Andy Li and Joseph John

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par pieciem rezolūciju priekšlikumiem attiecībā uz jauno drošības likumu Honkongā un Andy Li un Joseph John lietu (2024/2700(RSP)) (*3).
                  

Miriam Lexmann,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, Article 23 is the final nail into the coffin for fundamental human rights and free society in Hong Kong. Beijing, together with its lackeys in the Hong Kong administration, have destroyed the city's freedoms. They broke international agreements and they have either locked up or forced to flee the brightest of the city's citizens.
What has happened in Hong Kong is both a telling example of how the totalitarian regime works, but it is also a warning for all of us. The daily attempts to undermine our democracies, including in this House, shine true light on these regimes and its aims. This is why we need urgent EU action on Hong Kong, particularly holding accountable those Chinese and Hong Kong officials like John Lee, responsible for the destruction of the freedom in the city. Moreover, we need stronger protection of our citizens, including dual nationals targeted by Chinese transnational oppression.
At the very end, let me express sincere gratitude to all colleagues, and especially to Reinhard Bütikofer, for all their cooperation over the past four years in standing up for freedom in the face of the totalitarian CCP. Working across political divides, the European Parliament has become a leading voice for a changing EU stance towards the CCP, one that is more principled, that protects our democratic institutions and societies, that defends our economic security, and, above all, that stands up for those countless voices oppressed by the Communist regime.
Let me say a big ‘thank you’, but let me also take this opportunity to urge the Commission and the Council to finally step up too.

Isabel Santos,
Autora. – Senhor Presidente, decorridos 20 anos, o famigerado artigo 23.o volta para expandir o arsenal repressivo imposto por Xi Jinping na Lei de Segurança Nacional de Hong Kong. Joseph John, com dupla nacionalidade, portuguesa e de Hong Kong, é o primeiro europeu a ser condenado pela nova lei por alegados apelos à ‘secessão’ feitos a partir do Reino Unido.
                  

                     Pasme-se: cinco anos de pena de prisão ditados pela aplicação da extraterritorialidade por aquilo que o juiz designou como ‘distorcer a história e demonizar a China’. Ridículo! É por ele, mas também por Andy Li, Kok Tsz-Lun e por todos os ativistas e defensores da liberdade, da democracia e dos direitos humanos em Hong Kong – e é bom não esquecer também Macau –, que aqui, mais uma vez, digo: basta!
                  

                     Urge acabar com as esquadras clandestinas chinesas na União Europeia, pôr termo aos tratados de extradição entre os Estados-Membros, a China, Hong Kong e Macau e garantir a instituição de um mecanismo de ‘salva-vidas’ para os cidadãos de Hong Kong.
                  

Reinhard Bütikofer,
author. – Mr President, I find it fitting that my last debate in this Parliament does concern human rights, China policy and European relations with an increasingly oppressive and aggressive China under the totalitarian dictatorship of Xi Jinping. What happens in the Indo-Pacific, even though it's far away, concerns us Europeans centrally. That's why this Parliament has made an outspoken, realistic and united China policy one of our trademarks.
Today's urgency raises, in particular, the individual cases of Andy Li and Joseph John. We not only criticise how they're being treated – even tortured – and demand their freedom, as much as we demand freedom for Jimmy Lai and all other Democrats, but we also call upon the EU authorities to act vis-à-vis Hong Kong: sanction John Lee, Beijing's spineless vassal in Hong Kong; suspend all still existing extradition treaties with Hong Kong and China; and keep the memory of Hong Kong's democracy movement alive, and carry the torch of freedom forward.

Anna Fotyga,
author. – Mr President, I also applaud Reinhard Bütikofer but I couldn't even hear my name, I'm sorry. Colleagues, I'm really proud of our stance vis-à-vis the PRC. And in the case of both Hong Kong and Taiwan, other issues also Uyghurs. But after seven resolutions, this term of the European Parliament, we feel a certain helplessness in this. We have the Commission and the Council to step up. I'm really afraid after in particular imposing of Article 23 that we follow the path of our relationship with the Russian Federation. Too much of engagement with the PRC and too little pressure from our side to increase the position, the hope for those intimidated there.

Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, let me first thank colleagues Bütikofer and Santos for their indispensable work on fighting for human rights.
Civil rights in Hong Kong are by now fully curbed, and the reinforced security law made it even more chilling. But how did we get here?
The PRC imposed security legislation, formalising already existing pressure on Hong Kong, in clear breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The UK, nobody ever really attached effective consequences to this breach. And we know how autocrats perceive this: ‘Oh, we can go ahead!’ Free media silenced, Jimmy Lai in prison, Andy Li and Joseph John arrested and tortured, democracy defenders fleeing the country without saying goodbye to family – and even then, they are not safe from Beijing's long arm.
We demand restrictive measures against John Lee and all PRC officials responsible for the crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong, up to the highest level, in defence of Hong Kong's civil rights and of international law.

Engin Eroglu,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Sehr geehrter Kommissar, Sie erleben erneut, wie geschlossen die Volksvertretung des Europäischen Parlaments sich eindeutig und klar für die Menschenrechte einsetzt. Und das ist das, was uns ausmacht, denn wir Volksvertreter haben hier die Menschlichkeit nicht verloren. Das ist die Erwartung, die dieses Parlament dann bei der Abstimmung morgen auch entschlossen gegenüber der Kommission einsetzt.
                  

                     Ich erwarte von der Kommission: In Hongkong leben über 7,7 Millionen Menschen, die seit 2019 jegliche Art der Freiheit verloren haben. Egal, was sie sagen, sobald die chinesische Regierung die Entscheidung trifft, es passt ihr nicht, geht es ins Gefängnis oder es passiert noch Schlimmeres. Wir haben diese Menschlichkeit und die Kraft und den Mut, Europa selbstständig zu erhalten und souverän zu gestalten. Ich bitte die Kommission, sich mit aller Kraft für die Menschen in Hongkong einzusetzen und das nicht wieder erneut hier nur mitzunehmen und zu sagen: Ja, das Parlament setzt sich für Menschenrechte ein. Wir müssen das. Wir sind die letzte Bastion für Menschenrechte, und ich erwarte das von der Kommission.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (Renew). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, evidentemente per le autorità di Hong Kong la repressione raggiunta dalla National Security Law del 2020 non era ancora sufficiente. Non bastava aver arrestato arbitrariamente migliaia di attivisti, non bastava aver riservato trattamenti disumani a molti di loro, tra cui Jeremy Lai e Andy Li.
                  

                     Non bastava aver costretto a cessare le proprie attività dozzine di media, giornali e siti di informazione. Non bastava nulla di tutto ciò, poiché i sogni e le idee di libertà del popolo di Hong Kong non si sono mai spezzati. Per stessa ammissione del governatore di Hong Kong, John Lee, la nuova legge sulla sicurezza nazionale è necessaria per garantire la stabilità della città ed eliminare le idee di indipendenza. Questo è il loro obiettivo finale. Questo è il risultato richiesto dalle autorità di Pechino.
                  

                     E io penso che la nostra Europa non debba mai permettere che si soccomba alla logica del più forte, del più repressivo. Io faccio appello a tutti i governi degli Stati membri perché cancellino i trattati di estradizione ancora esistenti, perché facciano quelle pressioni che servono a far capire che noi non accettiamo il business as usual, che non passeremo mai sotto silenzio le violazioni delle libertà individuali affinché si continui a coltivare il sogno di una società civile, di un supporto a quei sogni delle idee di libertà che hanno fatto grande il nome di Hong Kong.
                  

                     Questo è il mio ultimo discorso in questa plenaria e vi dico che per essere rimasto al fianco del popolo di Hong Kong per denunciare la Cina, io ho anche cambiato partito e ne sono fiero e orgoglioso. Non smettiamo mai di lottare per la libertà in questo Parlamento.
                  

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, before I begin my speech, let me applaud Members of the Parliament – Reinhard Bütikofer, Mr Castaldo for their constant fight for the human rights and being the champions of defending what is the base of our Union. Thank you very much for that.
President, honourable Members, the EU has repeatedly expressed its grave concerns about the national security law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in June 2020. Since then, hundreds of opposition politicians, journalists, civil society activists have been arrested. Independent media outlets were forced to close, many civil society organisations disbanded. This has seriously undermined the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.
The new national security legislation that was adopted on 19 March threatens to further accelerate the erosion of fundamental freedoms and political pluralism in Hong Kong. The definition of state secrets found in the new legislation is exceedingly broad, and imports the definitions prevailing in mainland China to Hong Kong. The law features sweeping stipulations on external interference that are likely to affect engagement with international organisations. Other troubling aspects are significantly increased penalties and expanded powers for the police and Chief Executive. A bill including such far-reaching changes would have required ample time to allow for thorough scrutiny. However, the law was adopted hastily, only 20 days after the end of a one-month public consultation process.
The High Representative issued a statement on behalf of the European Union on the new legislation on 19 March. All EU Member States supported the statement. This underlines the EU's serious concerns about this law. The EU will closely monitor the application of national security legislation and the impact on the exercise of rights and freedoms by the people of Hong Kong.
The EU office in Hong Kong is closely following the trial against Jimmy Lai and regularly attending court hearings. Andy Li is a key prosecution witness in this case. The EU shares concerns highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture that evidence against Jimmy Lai may have been obtained by torture. These allegations should be investigated thoroughly and transparently.
The EU office in Hong Kong also regularly attended the trial against Joseph John, including the sentencing two weeks ago. Joseph John is a holder of a Portuguese passport and Hong Kong identity documents. He was arrested by the Hong Kong National Security Police on 1 November 2022 and sentenced to five years under the national security law for incitement to secession on 11 April. This case is another example of the harsh restrictions of freedom of expression in Hong Kong.

Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
                  

                     Balsošana notiks rītdien, 2024. gada 25. aprīlī.
                  
21.   The anti-LGBTIQ bill passed by the Ghanaian parliament with implications for human rights, freedom of expression and democratic principles (debate)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Padomes un Komisijas paziņojumiem par Ganas parlamenta pieņemto likumu, ar ko vēršas pret LGBTIQ, un ietekmi uz cilvēktiesībām, vārda brīvību un demokrātijas principiem (2024/2710(RSP)).
               

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, Ghana is a solid democracy, an anchor of regional stability, and has a strong record in terms of protecting human rights throughout its laws and through its practice. Significant steps have been taken in this area. See, for example, Ghana's decision of last year to take steps towards abolishing the death penalty.
However, challenges remain, notably in the area of the protection of sexual minorities. The recent passing in parliament of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act, more commonly referred to as the anti LGBTIQ Bill, is an issue of concern in Ghana, as is the case in any other country on the continent and in the world. In its current form, the bill requires close review in light of Ghana's international and constitutional human-rights commitments. The constitutionality of the bill has been challenged and it is currently scrutinised by the Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that the bill also still requires presidential assent to enter into force. The president has publicly reiterated his commitment on the respect of human rights, and has expressed his concern to seeing a backsliding on human rights in the event of adoption of the bill. Senior members of the Ghanaian Government have also highlighted the bill's potential financial consequences and losses for the 2024 budget. We are therefore confident that Ghana will stand firm in the commitments it has made on national and international human rights.
The EU, together with Member States, have followed the matter closely since its introduction in 2021. Our position and concerns on the matter are well known and regularly communicated. Ghana has a pivotal role in ensuring regional stability and an increasingly volatile region, marked by spill-over of insecurity from the Sahel to the Gulf of Guinea countries. The European Union has succeeded in further deepening its partnership with Ghana, as it evolved from a strictly developmental partnership to a more political one that is fit to face regional political and security challenges.
It is therefore of utmost importance that we remain close and build upon Ghana and use already strong partnership to defend our common values.

Hannes Heide,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, Ghana has developed into a reliable partner of the European Union, offering its citizens stability and prospects. Remarkable progress has been made, particularly in the areas of digitisation, economic and social development. First steps toward green transition have been taken and the death penalty was abolished last year.
Regrettably, Ghana's parliament passed a draconian bill in February that carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison for anyone who identifies with LGBTI+ and up to five years in prison for funding LGBTI+ groups. One year after the European Parliament adopted a resolution on global discrimination of homosexuality, this bill in Ghana risks the creation of one of the most restrictive LGBTI+ laws in Africa.
I call on the Commission and Member States to immediately engage in a dialogue with the Ghanaian Government and civil society organisations to tackle the growing culture of discrimination and intolerance.
I appeal to President Nana Akufo-Addo – whose speech here in the House we have fond memories of – not to sign the law, a law that is in stark contradiction to universal human rights, would undo all the efforts of recent years and jeopardise the stable partnership with Europe.

Michael Kauch,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner has said that Ghana is a stable democracy. It has indeed made a lot of progress in the last decades. As a student, I worked in a Ghana under military dictatorship, and I would never have thought that freedom of expression would be suppressed again in this country. It is not a stable democracy, if freedom of expression is facing imprisonment. It is not a stable democracy, if democratic debate on LGBT rights is suppressed. This goes beyond LGBT rights; this is about the Ghanaian democracy.
So I would like to see a clear response and not only monitoring by the Commission and the Member States. There have to be consequences in the cooperation with Ghana if this law is finally enforced.

Kim Van Sparrentak,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, a year ago we adopted a resolution calling on universal decriminalisation of homosexuality and transgender people after the horrendous law in Uganda was adopted. We are standing here today because another horrible law was adopted, this time in Ghana. And we are seeing that the anti-gender movement, the movement that is against the democratic value of equality and against progress, has made violent marks in Ghana, where queer people are not only further deprived of being able to love who they love, from being who they are, but also from their liberty, from their access to healthcare, their access to housing, and from living their lives.
We have to acknowledge that criminalisation started under colonial rule, and therefore we have a historic responsibility to speak up, to stand in solidarity with the community whose activism is ever-inspiring. And we have to call on President Nana Akufo-Addo to exercise his right of rejection on the basis of constitutionality. President: kill the bill.
And Commissioner, thank you for coming, but I must admit I'm rather disappointed that the High Representative cancelled again on this topic. I know the world is a busy place, but this issue, these people, deserve to be a priority. So please convey this message to Mr Borrell: we need action from the Commission to protect our LGBTIQ family around the world. I count on you.

François Thiollet (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, trois ans d'emprisonnement pour homosexualité, dix ans pour tout acte de sa promotion. La loi anti-LGBTQIA+ votée par le parlement ghanéen est aujourd'hui l'une des plus répressives d'Afrique. Elle suit celle adoptée en Ouganda, et d'autres pays s'engagent malheureusement sur la même voie funeste, comme la Tanzanie ou le Kenya. Ces lois sont un blanc-seing donné à tous les auteurs de violences envers la communauté LGBTQIA+. Les agressions homophobes ont d'ailleurs progressé au Ghana avant même l'adoption de cette loi, encouragées par des discours politiques ou religieux haineux.
               

                  Au prétexte de valeurs, qu'elles soient nationales ou religieuses, ces lois bafouent une valeur universelle: le droit de chacun et chacune à la non-discrimination. Ce recul des droits n'est pas la seule affaire de l'Afrique. Au sein même de l'Union européenne, l'homophobie est régulièrement dénoncée dans la plupart des pays d'Europe. Les droits y sont même menacés par certains gouvernements, à commencer par celui de la Hongrie. Au sein même de notre assemblée, quand on défend les droits des LGBTQIA+, les groupes d'extrême droite se distinguent par leur silence, voire leurs outrances homophobes ou transphobes, notamment le groupe ID et son vice-président Jordan Bardella, comme le souligne le rapport de Forbidden Colours publié avant-hier.
               

                  Ce mouvement de recul des droits est alarmant pour le Ghana, pour l'Afrique, pour l'Europe et pour la planète. La liberté de conscience, d'orientation sexuelle et d'identité de genre ainsi que la non-discrimination sont des droits universels.
               

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, our debate today illustrates the EU's commitment to defending human rights as universal values. Ghana has shown a strong commitment to shared interests in a rules-based multilateral order, notably in the context of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and to values dear to the EU, such as the abolition of the death penalty – an important milestone in Ghana's support for human rights. Therefore, we cannot but partner Ghana in this commitment and regional leadership and in this respect for human rights, and continue to follow the country on this promising path.

Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
               
22.   Advance passenger information: enhancing and facilitating external border controls – Advance passenger information: prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (joint debate – Advance passenger information)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir kopīgās debates par:
               






—



                        Jan-Christoph Oetjen ziņojumu Pilsoņu brīvību, tieslietu un iekšlietu komitejas vārdā par priekšlikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes regulai par iepriekšējas pasažieru informācijas (IPI) vākšanu un nosūtīšanu ārējo robežu kontroles uzlabošanai un atvieglošanai, ar ko groza Regulu (ES) 2019/817 un Regulu (ES) 2018/1726 un atceļ Padomes Direktīvu 2004/82/EK (COM(2022)0729 – C9-0428/2022 – 2022/0424(COD)) (A9-0409/2023), un
                     










—



                        Assita Kanko ziņojumu Pilsoņu brīvību, tieslietu un iekšlietu komitejas vārdā par priekšlikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes regulai par iepriekšējas pasažieru informācijas vākšanu un nosūtīšanu teroristu nodarījumu un smagu noziegumu novēršanai, atklāšanai, izmeklēšanai un saukšanai pie atbildības par tiem un ar ko groza Regulu (ES) 2019/818 (COM(2022)0731 – C9-0427/2022 – 2022/0425(COD)) (A9-0411/2023).
                     





Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Worum geht es bei diesen vorab übermittelten Fluggastdaten? Es geht darum, dass wir alle in dem Moment, in dem wir reisen, insbesondere Flugreisen machen, Daten abgeben. Daten über unseren Namen, unser Geburtsdatum und Ähnliches, die von den Fluggesellschaften dann an die Behörden der Länder, in die wir reisen wollen, weitergegeben werden. Das ist ein ganz normales Verfahren, das gibt es überall auf der Welt.
               

                  Das, was wir hier gerade im Europäischen Parlament diskutieren, ist: Welche Regeln geben wir uns denn eigentlich für diese Verarbeitung dieser Daten? Denn, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, für Datenverarbeitung brauchen wir natürlich Regeln, denn ohne Regeln gibt es keinen ordentlichen Datenschutz. Das, was die Kommission hier vorgelegt hat, ist eine Standardisierung dieser Datensätze über die Frage: Welche Daten können eigentlich weitergegeben werden, wie werden sie weitergegeben, wo werden sie processed, wie man so schön neudeutsch sagt an dieser Stelle? Und da ist die eu-LISA als externe Behörde ausgesucht worden. Das finde ich gut, denn ich glaube, dass wir mit der eu-LISA an dieser Stelle einen guten Partner haben.
               

                  Es geht aber auch um die Frage, wie andere Daten, das sind die sogenannten PNR-Daten, wie diese Daten, die zum Teil die gleichen sind wie die API-Daten, wie diese Datenflows gleichzeitig auf den Weg gebracht werden können. Uns als Parlament war es besonders wichtig, dass die Passagiere, die innerhalb der Europäischen Union reisen, dies ohne Probleme weiter machen können.
               

                  Denn es stand zu befürchten, oder zumindest hatten wir die Befürchtung, dass bei der Aufnahme dieser Daten, was automatisiert stattfinden soll, in der Zukunft Schlangen an den Flughäfen vorgesehen werden müssen oder sogar Prozesse, die dazu führen, dass man eben nicht mehr einfach so online eincheckt, dann zum Boarding geht, in ein anderes Land fliegt und im Prinzip das grenzenlose Europa so erleben kann, wie wir es gerne erleben, sondern dass man Prozesse hat, wie wenn man in ein Land reist, das eben nicht Teil des Schengen-Raumes ist, und das wollten wir verhindern.
               

                  Das ist uns so auch gelungen in dieser Debatte, denn wir haben am Ende jetzt einen guten Kompromiss vorliegen, der eben auch sicherstellt, dass dieses Online-Boarding auch weiterhin möglich ist, und das war uns als Parlament ganz besonders wichtig.
               

                  Ich möchte an dieser Stelle sagen, dass wir einen guten Kompromiss gefunden haben, der beispielsweise auch biometrische Daten ausschließt, der einen hohen Datenschutzstandard gewährleistet. Und ich möchte mich an dieser Stelle bei meiner Ko-Berichterstatterin Assita Kanko – denn es sind zwei Berichte, über die wir hier an dieser Stelle diskutieren, für einen war ich verantwortlich und für den anderen war die Kollegin Kanko verantwortlich –, und bei allen Schattenberichterstattern ganz herzlich bedanken. Denn das war eine gute, produktive Arbeit, immer an der Sache orientiert. Vor allen Dingen ist es uns gelungen, sowohl aus Sicht des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres hier im Hause als auch aus Sicht des Ausschusses für Verkehr und Tourismus die Ideen sozusagen zusammenzuführen und damit ein gutes Ergebnis zu bringen. Deswegen bin ich froh, dass wir das in dieser Wahlperiode noch abschließen können, und würde Sie alle dann auch um Unterstützung für diesen Bericht bitten.
               

Assita Kanko,
rapporteur. – Mr President, thank you, colleague Oetjen. I would also like to thank my good colleague Jan-Christoph and all the shadow rapporteurs. I think we made a very effective negotiating team. We found compromises, first within the Parliament and then with the Council, in a very positive atmosphere. And we brought in a lot of good points for Parliament and, more importantly, for our European citizens. I believe that these regulations are going to prove very useful in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.
At the moment, 27 Member States and hundreds of airlines use a wide range of separate systems to send passenger data to countries of destination. The passenger data are collected in a self-declaratory manner. Of course, the vast majority of travellers are of goodwill, but the bad guys find ways to abuse the system and travel in and out of the EU undetected. I think that with the solutions we found, we will make life more difficult for criminals and terrorists, but easier for travellers, air carriers and Member State authorities.
Now, picking up from my colleague Jan-Christoph, the first point I wanted to mention here is the new Article 5a in API law enforcement on the selection of intra-EU flights. It was not in the Commission proposal, but we made a proposal in the Parliament mandate. The reason is that the European Court of Justice 2 years ago ruled that PNR data may be collected for internal EU flights and shared with law enforcement authorities, but strict limitations will have to apply.
The text we have agreed stays fully within the Court ruling on the PNR Directive, whilst offering the Member States and the Commission concrete tools for the implementation of this ruling. I am glad that we could also agree the 12-month deadline for reviews of the assessment. With everything we put in place, we make sure that people's privacy is protected.
The second point worth highlighting here today is that we agreed to move towards mandatory use of the router for PNR data as well. From Parliament's side, we believed from the start that this would be wise. Most importantly, it will improve privacy oversight. It can truly help with the implementation and supervision of the Court ruling on PNR. It can also lead to a streamlining that is beneficial for air carriers and Member States alike. I think that the phasing approach is the right one, and I would like to thank the Commission for the updated legislative financial statement, which shows the commitment to make the router work also for PNR data starting in 2028.
Thirdly, I would like to mention a point that was a bit more difficult for Parliament, namely, what to do in case of technical impossibility to use the router. Throughout the negotiations, Parliament always wanted to stay very closely within the scope of the regulations and avoid any parallel systems. However, we do understand that, in some exceptional cases, Member State authorities may need to ask air carriers for API data via other means if the central system managed by eu-LISA is down. I am glad that the Council accepted our wish to add some extra safeguards, and I trust that with the triple backup of the system, these situations will in any case be extremely rare.
Finally, from my side, I would also like to underline our flexibility in accepting the Council's text on the governance structure. We believe it is a bit unusual to be so specific at the level of the main legislation. However, we also do understand the Council's desire to give clarity and legal certainty about the various groups and bodies involved in preparing and monitoring the system.
Let me take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues, rapporteur Oetjen and the shadows, including Jeroen Lenaers and Tineke Strik, who are present here, and I think we were able to step over all kinds of difficulties from time to time, and we can be proud of the agreement on these important regulations. Of course, I thank all the staff and especially my advisor, Jannes De Jong.

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, also on behalf of the Commissioner Johansson, whom I'm replacing today, I want to thank rapporteurs for their excellent work on the two proposals on advanced passenger information.
These new measures will make our Union safer and our borders smarter – objectives that most of us share with conviction. Air carriers will have to collect and transfer API data in a uniform way to all Member States of departure and destination of a flight. Member States will receive consistent API data, ensuring better border management in line with the Schengen Borders Code. When receiving API data before the arrival of air passengers, border guards will be able to pre-check this information against the Schengen Information System and other relevant databases.
Pre-checks will allow border authorities to identify passengers not allowed to enter the EU, or passengers using false travel documents. Border guards will be able to focus on those passengers that require further attention, while facilitating the travel flow for the others. Therefore, border guards will be better prepared for the high-risk cases and travellers will save time. This is a clear win-win solution.
By adopting the new regulations, we will be upgrading the 20-year-old API Directive, one of the priorities of the 2020 Security Union strategy. This upgrade has an important security dimension: it will allow border guards and police officers to close any loopholes that criminals exploit to date.
The combined use of advanced passenger information data and passenger name record data will step up the fight against serious crime and terrorism. By analysing these two sets of data together, so-called false positives are usually reduced by half, which allows the police to better target their investigations on persons causing concern. At the same time, the work of air carriers will be facilitated by means of creating a single window – the router that EU agency eu-LISA will provide, to which all API and PNR data will have to be sent.
Indeed, the establishment of a central router managed at the Union level is a major game-changer. It will replace the multiple connections between air carriers and the national authorities. It will bring significant efficiencies for air carriers on transfer cost and compliance with reporting obligations. Improved security for everyone, facilitated reporting obligations for air carriers: another win-win situation.
In conclusion. I very much welcome the political agreement reached by the Parliament and Council because it is a very good one. It further reinforces the Commission's initial proposals. It is a good example of productive and effective interinstitutional discussion. You have extended the router to passenger name record data in full compliance with data protection requirements set by the Court of Justice, and enhanced security in full compliance with fundamental rights. I call on you to support this political agreement for a safer Union and for smarter borders. Thank you for your attention.

Jeroen Lenaers,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, this is the last late night debate of this mandate of the European Parliament. So it's rather fitting that it is dedicated to such an important topic. And I would like to congratulate the co-rapporteurs Assita Kanko and Jan-Christoph Oetjen, for really bringing this important file to a very good and satisfying conclusion.
Now, every year, over a billion passengers travel to, from or within the EU. And of course, this is good news because it means that Europe is and remains a very attractive place to be. But it obviously also comes with certain security implications. And we have a duty, all of us together, to make sure that Europe is as safe and secure as possible. We owe this to our citizens.
And passenger information, especially when it's combined with passenger name records, can really be useful to improve border controls, to reduce irregular migration, and to enhance our fight against serious crime and terrorism. And the existing API Directive has already really proven its value in this regard.
But there were some elements that needed fixing. The uneven implementation in the Member States, and the fact that there was no mandatory collection of such data, meant that only 65% of incoming flights were actually checked in this way, making it fairly easy for those who wanted to avoid these checks to actually do so.
This will no longer be possible. Everybody travelling to the EU will be subject to the same checks, and this is very important, just as it is important that we now can also use API data on intra-EU flights where this is relevant, in order to help our law enforcement authorities to do their job and keep us safe, and fully in line with the way we use PNR for the same data and in line with the Court of Justice ruling.
Now, this is really an important element of the EU's security strategy. It will close the loopholes that we see today and it will have a direct impact on the safety of us all. So I really look forward to its rapid implementation. And once again, thanks to the co-rapporteurs, to the Commission for the excellent proposal, which I agree, we actually managed to strengthen and improve in our negotiations and to all those involved, thank you very much.

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, my group has fundamental concerns about the necessity and proportionality of the mandatory collection of API data, as well as about the transition to automated check-ins only. Still, the text improves the status quo with clear, harmonised European rules on API collection. We also set limits and safeguards. Where Member States now do whatever they want, this revision will shorten the data retention periods and create more safeguards. And finally, after all these years, we bring the collection of API and PNR data in line with the PNR judgment, with clarified selection criteria for intra-EU flights, additional privacy safeguards, and the prohibition of profiling and collecting biometric data.
So although API data collection is now mandatory, which we regret, there are also much clearer limits and safeguards. So I would like to thank both rapporteurs, Ms Kanko and Mr Oetjen, for this result and for the good cooperation also with the Commission. And we can conclude this cooperation in the very last voting session of this term, so congratulations for that.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, mil millones de personas entran y salen de la UE o viajan dentro de ella cada año y esta Directiva supone un avance en la transmisión de esa información anticipada sobre los pasajeros, que puede ser relevante para asegurar a los europeos la conjugación de su libertad y su seguridad y, por tanto, servir a favor de la lucha contra la criminalidad grave transnacional y contra el terrorismo.
               

                  La preocupación de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior en la participación en este procedimiento legislativo ha sido, como siempre, mantener el estándar europeo de protección de datos, que es el más alto del mundo, de modo que los datos cumplan los principios de proporcionalidad y necesidad y su transmisión esté asegurada por una agencia centralizada, eu-LISA, que es la que garantiza el cumplimiento del derecho en un ámbito tan sensible.
               

                  El Parlamento Europeo, que hoy celebra su último pleno en esta legislatura 2019-2024, no ha dejado de crecer a lo largo de todo el proceso de integración supranacional y, por tanto, solo cabe concluir que el Parlamento Europeo continúa creciendo. El mensaje es claro para los que van a las urnas el próximo 9 de junio:
               

                  The Parliament is still growing. You ain't seen nothing yet and the best is yet to come.
               

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Mr President, thank you very much to the Commission and the two rapporteurs for their work on this piece of legislation. We have actually been extending our borders to the airports of other countries with the system that we have in place. The current update is an improvement on the data rights of all of the passengers coming into Europe. But we cannot look away from the fact that we talk about having legal pathways for legal migrants and asylum seekers. But we have stopped the most effective, safest and modern ways of transport for these people, because we are asking the airlines to stop people that do not have a visa to come into the EU. And you do not get a visa if an embassy, an EU embassy, fears that you will seek asylum.
So therefore, with the great work that has been done with adopting the asylum and migration package two weeks ago, we need to make sure that this system that we've adopted, which is an improvement on the existing system, does not hinder the protection of refugees across the world.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you for your contribution this evening. Let me reiterate that this is a good compromise that improves the current situation significantly. The new regulation on advanced passenger information will facilitate the work of border guards and police officers, and will make travelling smoother for passengers.
The Court of Justice has set strict data protection requirements that will guide all the process. Once again, I thank the rapporteurs, all MEPs involved and the Council for reaching this political agreement, for prioritising the discussions on the text and carrying out constructive negotiations. It's time to support these improvements. We are ready to ensure their timely implementation.

Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich würde mal sagen: Alles richtig gemacht, oder, liebe Kollegin Assita Kanko? Wir haben die Kommission, die sagt: Mensch, das, was jetzt beschlossen wird, das ist besser als unser eigener Vorschlag. Wir haben die Christdemokraten, die sagen: super Vorschlag oder super Ergebnis, denn wir kriegen das jetzt hin, Kriminalität besser zu bekämpfen. Wir haben die Grünen, die sagen: Ja, wir haben Bedenken, aber wir setzen das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs um. Und wir setzen klare Regeln und stärken den Datenschutz.
               

                  Also, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich finde, das ist mal ein gutes Ergebnis. Und das zeigt auch, wie man europäische Politik machen kann. Nämlich indem man einen Konsens sucht, die guten Punkte aus den verschiedenen Fraktionen übernimmt und einen Kompromiss bildet, der dann von allen getragen werden kann. Ich finde, das ist im besten Sinne das, was wir hier im Europäischen Parlament machen, nämlich an der Sache streiten, aber dann ein Ergebnis finden, einen Kompromiss finden, den umsetzen.
               

                  Und wenn es die Mitgliedstaaten – die leider durch den Rat gerade nicht vertreten sind, aber die belgische Ratspräsidentschaft hat eine gute Arbeit gemacht, das muss man an dieser Stelle auch sagen – schnell umsetzen, dann wird dem Ganzen auch noch Genüge getan. Und wir haben ein gutes Ergebnis, das dann auch noch rechtlich schnell umgesetzt wird.
               

Assita Kanko,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, ik wil de collega's bedanken voor hun bijdrage. Het is duidelijk dat we een solide meerderheid hebben voor deze verordening. Ik ben blij dat we samen deze constructieve meerderheid hebben kunnen bouwen, vanaf het begin van dit proces. Ik bedank alle collega's die bij deze meerderheid horen en ik zie uit naar de stemming over mijn verslag.
               

                  Dit is mijn laatste speech in het Parlement vóór de Europese verkiezingen van 9 juni en ik wil graag een paar gedachten met u delen: allereerst ben ik diep dankbaar dat de Vlamingen me vijf jaar geleden hebben gevraagd om hen te vertegenwoordigen in het Europees Parlement. Ik heb hier keihard gewerkt en ik hoop dat ik hun vertrouwen heb bevestigd.
               

                  Ten tweede zijn we het vaak met elkaar oneens in dit Parlement, maar ik heb ook gezien dat we samen oplossingen kunnen vinden voor belangrijke wetgeving, zoals deze verordening voor de verzameling en de doorgifte van passagiersgegevens. Wetgeving die het leven van onze burgers veiliger en beter kan maken. Ik ben dankbaar dat ik meermaals gevraagd ben om namens het Parlement hoofdonderhandelaar te zijn voor verschillende wetgevingsstukken en ik ben trots dat we iedere keer een meerderheid konden vormen rond de idealen waar ik altijd voor vecht.
               

                  Tot slot: nu we de verkiezingscampagne ingaan, hoop ik dat we het debat kunnen voeren over echte problemen en echte oplossingen. Oplossingen om asiel en migratie eindelijk onder controle te krijgen. Veiligheid voor iedereen, en zeker ook voor vrouwen. Een stop op het excessief reguleren van onze bedrijven, zeker ook voor de keihard werkende middenstand en nog veel meer. Zo'n debat is namelijk wat u, de burger, verdient. Beste collega's, daar zorgen wij samen voor.
               

Sēdes vadītājs. – Kopīgās debates ir slēgtas.
               

                  Balsošana notiks rītdien, 2024. gada 25. aprīlī.
               
23.   Explanations of vote

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir balsojumu skaidrojumi.
               
23.1.   Ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Hungary to strengthen Rule of Law and its budgetary implications (B9-0223/2024)

Mutiski balsojumu skaidrojumi


Karen Melchior (Renew). – Hr. formand! Vi skal ikke have regler, hvis ikke vi har tænkt os at bruge dem. Vi har i traktaten et forsvar for retsstaten i alle vores medlemslande. Men Rådet tør ikke benytte sig af de regler, som vi har for at beskytte retsstaten og demokratiet i Europa. Igennem denne mandatperiode har vi fået vedtaget, at du ikke kan få EU's midler, EU's penge, hvis ikke du respekterer EU's værdier. Men vi mangler stadigvæk, at der rent faktisk bliver stillet krav om, at Kommissionen efterlever de regler og de redskaber, som vi har. Jeg ser frem til, at vi får forbedret denne mekanisme i den kommende mandatperiode. Men jeg er skuffet over, hvor lidt vi har brugt de værktøjer, vi har haft i denne.
                  
23.2.   Combating violence against women and domestic violence (A9-0234/2023 - Evin Incir, Frances Fitzgerald)

Mutiski balsojumu skaidrojumi


Karen Melchior (Renew). – Hr. formand! Vi vedtog et historisk juridisk instrument i dag.
                  

                     Vi vedtog, at vi forbyder vold mod kvinder, fordi de er kvinder. Det forbyder vi både online og offline. Fordi kvinder er ikke andenrangsmennesker. Vi er ikke børn ude af stand til at give samtykke, ude af stand til at bestemme over vores egen krop og vores eget liv. Istanbulkonventionen anbefaler, at man vedtager en samtykkelov, hvor man definerer, hvad voldtægt er. Fordi det er desværre stadigvæk sådan, at der er mange i bestemte medlemslande og i vores samfund, som tror, at kvinder ikke er i stand til at træffe en beslutning, og at de fortryder næste morgen. Men det er ikke tilfældet. Kvinder er voksne og hele mennesker, ligesom mænd er, i stand til at træffe beslutninger om vores egen krop. Kampen mod kvinder har varet i årevis, og derfor skal vi ikke stoppe kampen med det kompromis, som vi vedtog i dag. Vi skal fortsætte, og fortsætte med at forbedre den lovgivning, som der er i Europa, til at alle både i vores samfund i vores medlemslande forstår, at nej betyder nej.
                  

Sēdes vadītājs. – Līdz ar to šā darba kārtības punkta izskatīšana ir pabeigta.
                  
24.   Agenda of the next sitting

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamā sēde sāksies rītdien, proti, ceturtdien, 2024. gada 25. aprīlī, plkst. 9.00.
               

                  Darba kārtība ir publicēta un ir pieejama Eiropas Parlamenta tīmekļa vietnē.
               
25.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Sēdes vadītājs. – Šīs sēdes protokolu iesniegs Parlamentam apstiprināšanai rītdien pēcpusdienas sākumā.
               
26.   Closure of the sitting

President. – Before I close, this is the last late-night sitting here before the elections. So I would like to thank everybody who was very active late at night and also our great interpreters – who smoothly organised all of us in this late-night sitting – any professionals who helped to do it, the technicians and also the ushers. So thank you very much.

(Sēde tika slēgta plkst. 21.56)



(*1)  Siehe Protokoll.

(*2)  Siehe Protokoll.

(*3)  Sk. protokolu.


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)