Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 November 2024
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202504860EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














4.9.2025







            14 November 2024
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 NOVEMBER 2024
            
         
(C/2025/4860)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
3










2.

Address by Sauli Niinistö – Presentation of the report on how to enhance Europe's civilian and defence preparedness and readiness
3










3.

Enhancing Europe's civilian and defence preparedness and readiness (debate)
6










4.

Resumption of the sitting
26










5.

Extraordinary part-session
26










6.

Request for waiver of immunity
26










7.

Voting time
26










7.1.

RESTORE – Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 (vote)
26










7.2.

Specific measures under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to provide additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters (vote)
27










7.3.

Deforestation Regulation: provisions relating to the date of application (vote)
27










7.4.

Electronic value added tax exemption certificate (A10-0012/2024 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)
27










7.5.

Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes (A10-0011/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)
28










7.6.

Amendment of the EIB's Statute (A10-0013/2024 - Joachim Streit) (vote)
28










7.7.

UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29) (B10-0156/2024) (vote)
29










7.8.

EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia (RC-B10-0161/2024, B10-0160/2024, B10-0161/2024, B10-0162/2024, B10-0163/2024, B10-0164/2024, B10-0166/2024) (vote)
29










8.

Resumption of the sitting
30










9.

Explanations of vote
30










9.1.

UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29) (B10-0156/2024)
30










9.2.

EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia (RC-B10-0161/2024)
31










10.

Approval of the minutes of the part-session and forwarding of texts adopted
32










11.

Dates of forthcoming sittings
32










12.

Closure of the sitting
32










13.

Adjournment of the session
32




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 November 2024
                  


IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

1.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 09:05)

2.   Address by Sauli Niinistö – Presentation of the report on how to enhance Europe's civilian and defence preparedness and readiness

President. – Good morning, dear colleagues. We have with us today former President of Finland Mr Sauli Niinistö to present his report 'Safer Together: Strengthening Europe's Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness'. President Niinistö, dear Sauli, welcome to the European Parliament.
The urgent message of your report could not be timelier. We are faced with the consequences of the ongoing invasion of Ukraine to our east, and the Middle East is still at boiling point. On the civilian front, we have witnessed floods across Europe over the last months, most recently in Spain, that took the lives of so many.
Europe is facing a new reality. We are dealing with geopolitical tensions that see little sign of easing, and we must be ready for any eventuality. All of this makes it more important than ever that our Union is prepared for this new, more uncertain future. Working together across borders and sectors to anticipate, prevent, withstand and respond to the significant threats that can lie ahead.
Now, we, as the European Parliament, and you will see this during the debate today, dear President, stand ready to play our part in order to ensure Europe is able to act when called upon.
So, dear Mr Niinistö, the European Parliament is eager to listen to your proposals on how we can make these ambitions a reality, how we can better protect our citizens and how we can build a more prepared, crisis-resistant Europe.

Sauli Niinistö,
Special Adviser to the President of the European Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you so much for giving this opportunity to me. Thank you for your kind invitation. It is an honour to be back here in Parliament after visiting many, many years ago.
As the EU's legislative Chamber, you clearly play a vital role in our joint effort to strengthen our preparedness and readiness. I hope to provide you with a clear picture of the challenges we face in this regard, but also what measures we could envisage with your help and support.
I started my work last spring with one very simple idea that seems to have been forgotten at times in the EU, namely: security is the foundation for everything we consider important. Without it, our open democratic societies would not be able to flourish.
The quest for security and peace was behind Europe's integration after the Second World War. When Russia rolled its tanks into Ukraine in February 2022, we were reminded once again that security is not a given. We need to invest in it and never take it for granted.
So, today, once again, it's a defining task for the EU to provide security to Europeans and be prepared for all the risks and threats we are facing. And the threats we face are numerous. They are not only hypothetical, but we are confronted with them here and now.
We see rising geopolitical tensions that are driven by Russia's aggression against Ukraine, while the rules-based global order is fragmenting and we see ever-worsening effects of the climate change. They were on display with the horrendous floodings in Valencia and elsewhere in Spain. I offer my condolences to the families of the victims.
As global warming continues, we need to anticipate its pervasive effects on our ecosystems and invest in climate adaptation and mitigation. Indeed, if we learn one lesson from the recent past, it is that we need to be realistic and clear-eyed about the risks we face. We need to prepare for the worst to prevent the worst from happening.
Another key lesson is that, in the middle of a severe crisis, we depend on the same critical functions, such us reliable critical infrastructure, provision of basic services and protection to population, security of supply and social cohesion.
Moreover, shocks in one sector of the economy often cascade to other sectors, and shocks to one Member State will have knock-on effects throughout the European Union. I therefore try to make it clear in my report that we share a single security in the EU. If one Member State loses its security, we all are in trouble.
Our deep integration also offers opportunities to work together and prepare ourselves for when a crisis hits one of us, or the Union as a whole. After all, Member States have made profound pledges of solidarity and mutual assistance to one another in the EU Treaties.
We are not building the EU preparedness from scratch. Especially in the past five years, as reaction to the pandemic, raging forest fires and Russia's war against Ukraine, the EU has already enacted several major pieces of legislation and introduced new tools. The EU came out stronger from these crises, but EU's action was initially about reaction and ad-hoc solutions. We need now to move from reaction to proactive preparedness and realise that geopolitical and climate developments are often outpacing our action.
The starting point for my report is, therefore, to address the full range of threats and challenges, including possible worst-case scenarios, such as prolonged drought, a new pandemic, a major cyberattack or sabotage causing a blackout of a vital network, or even armed aggression against one or more EU Member States.
Such crises are not as unthinkable as they once were, and they can happen very well at the same time. The central objective is to ensure the Union can continue to function under all circumstances. To achieve this, we need to shift to what I call in the report 'comprehensive preparedness'. This means the ability to bring all relevant actors and resources together to prepare for and address the most serious crises.
Crises do not happen in silos, so we can only prepare for them successfully by being able to act together. This is a shared responsibility of the various EU-level actors, including the Commission and Parliament, as well as the Member States. But importantly, it also involves the private sector, civil society and individual citizens. This is what a whole-of-government and a whole-of-society approach is about.
Strengthening civil-military cooperation is an integral part of this. Civilian and military crisis responders need to be able to operate seamlessly together, and this applies by extension also to the EU and NATO.
The forthcoming preparedness Union strategy should define, at EU level, the key societal and governmental functions for which continuity should be ensured under all circumstances. This applies to the basic needs of citizens, but also services provided by the government or private sector. Such a list is currently missing.
The report also explores the scope of a potential preparedness law. This could be a framework to agree on standards, targets and to streamline decision-making coordination and information-sharing. The key is to link EU and national levels.
Preparedness and security should be mainstreamed and designed into all EU legislation and future investment programmes. The aim is to ensure that our structures, coordination mechanisms and sectoral policies and legislation are fit for purpose but also fit well together. This enables the speed of action that is so vital when a crisis erupts.
Citizens and the private sector also play a major role in achieving a higher level of preparedness. There is much more we can achieve in this regard, as set out in the report. From strengthening household preparedness and alert systems to the media literacy of citizens, but also enhancing volunteering opportunities by leveraging EU programmes such as the EU Solidarity Corps and career opportunities in cybersecurity, defence industry or armed forces, for instance. The key here is to create a sense of ownership and participation among citizens in strengthening their own security. It builds cohesion and reinforces societal resilience.
This is at the heart of the Finnish national way of preparedness, in my view. It's not a model, a structure that we can transpose as such at the EU level. It's rather an attitude. It's done by the people. And they can only work well together when there's a high level of trust. The trust we need for the EU's preparedness must begin with the trust of citizens that their political community is worth protecting and defending. Trust is also the key to strengthening public-private partnership. I see a lot of opportunities here, too.
The lines between economy and security are blurring. The private sector realises all too well that they are exposed to supply chain shocks, cyberattacks, resource scarcities and economic security risks. The private sector can help by sharing their data on production rates and information on vulnerabilities and supply-chain dependencies. The EU side can help by extending resiliency policies and creating a stronger ability to absorb shocks, for example through a comprehensive EU stockpiling strategy.
Our open, democratic societies are based on the respect for the rights and liberties of individuals. We provide a broad, open space for people to be free, but at the same time, this open space is constantly used by malicious actors to hurt us and to undermine the trust of the people against the whole foundations of our democracies.
A key question is to make sure that we protect our values without letting them be weaponised against us. We need to deter malicious actors who are currently conducting hybrid campaigns against us with relative impunity. The report identifies a range of recommended actions in this regard, both to reduce our vulnerabilities and to upgrade our response.
To outsmart our adversaries, the report proposes to gradually strengthen EU intelligence cooperation towards a fully fledged EU service for intelligence cooperation. This has received a lot of attention in the media. I want to be clear: this is not about a CIA-style agency, but about better working together. We have to keep in mind that, in the EU, for decision-making, all the relevant up to date information is most crucial. Yet, we need to ensure that EU leadership has the best intelligence picture possible. That is the target. At the same time, for our security and military services.
This is only one example of how we can work together to outsmart our adversaries. But knowing what they are up to is not enough to deter them from aggression. Vladimir Putin made it clear a long time ago that he sees the West and the Western people as weak. We must change that perception.
The cooperative security model that the EU and NATO aspired to after the end of the Cold War was shattered in February 2022. Putin is moving Russia to a war economy footing and soliciting assistance from autocratic friends across Eurasia. Strengthening Europe's defence is therefore an urgent but also monumental task. After years of underinvestment, we must now scale up our industrial capacity, both to develop cutting-edge military capabilities and to mass produce battlefield goods like artillery, ammunition, and cost-efficient drones.
This also signals to the US, especially after the outcome of the presidential elections, that Europe is ready to share the burden and to take strategic responsibility. Only by showing that we do everything we can to prepare ourselves can we be a good partner for others. This should be more than words on paper. It needs to be backed up by new, joined-up investments to rationalise the fragmentation among Member States.
The multitude of different military platforms in Europe poses a problem not only for our competitiveness, but also our crisis preparedness and defence readiness. One key recommendation is to use the forthcoming white paper on the future of European defence to develop an EU defence capability package for the next decade. This is necessary both for our ability to support Ukraine for as long as needed, as well as to enhance our deterrence.
The Union should, furthermore, map out more clearly how it would assist a Member State that is the victim of armed aggression and to protect the Union as a whole. There has been silence concerning Article 42(7) of the Lisbon Treaty. This silence should now end. The EU is not a military actor in the sense that NATO is. But if a Member State of the EU and NATO would be attacked, this would have colossal implications for both organisations.
NATO remains the cornerstone for the collective defence of its members. But the defence of Europe is not only about military capabilities and headquarters. It involves a range of dual-use or civilian policies that become critical in such a moment, from defence industry, civil protection, humanitarian assistance, military mobility, medical support and economic resources to diplomacy, sanctions and so on.
We must define clearly, as part of our EU-NATO cooperation, how we would work together to support the attacked Member State, including with all the means that the EU has at its disposal.
Dear President, honourable Members, we are in a pivotal moment in European history. Military threats are as high as they have been since the end of the Cold War. Climate change is wreaking havoc through floods and forest fires. Strategic competition is seeping into every part of the globe and affecting all our policies.
A credible and comprehensive preparedness strategy will convince any potential adversary: you are not able to outsmart or outlast us because we are prepared. We need a clear commitment to strengthen the EU's preparedness across the board. I hope that we can count on the support of the Parliament in this respect. It sends an important message to our citizens: we will be safer together.

President. – Thank you very much, President Niinistö, for those excellent points that you gave us.
3.   Enhancing Europe's civilian and defence preparedness and readiness (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on Parliament's statements on enhancing Europe's civilian and defence preparedness and readiness (2024/2906(RSP)).
We will now give space for all the representatives of the political groups, starting with the EPP.

Lena Düpont,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear Mr Niinistö, disruption of critical services of supply chains, by pandemic, by sabotage, by hybrid threats, cyberattacks or natural disasters. The reasons to be prepared are multifaceted, and I specifically thank Mr Niinistö for the timely report, his reflection and his ideas.
I said it before and I will say it as often as it is needed: the security landscape in Europe has worsened and we need to step up preparedness. So the report focuses, rightly so, on the whole of government, the whole of society, all hazards approach. And I would even add we need a whole of European Union approach and all European approach.
So because defence and civil defence are just two sides of one medal: what does it mean? In the short term, we need to come to a common risk perception and understanding. We need to bridge the geographical differences between natural disasters and manmade crisis, enhancing the coordination between the Member States and the EU, between EU and NATO, between the civilian side and the military side, between society and politics.
We need to further develop stockpiling alongside the risk perception, and we need to bring together people, material and structures of crisis response. We can build up upon the experience we are already having, and we need to be ready to exercise, exercise, exercise.
We need to prepare our citizens via communication, via education, by raising awareness, because, in the mid-term, we need to eliminate bureaucratic and administrative hurdles, we need to prepare the institutions to be capable of delivering, especially in times of crisis, we need to enhance the information exchange wherever necessary and possible, we need to develop emergency protocols.
We need to step up and modernise the equipment and the materials for those who will bear a huge responsibility in times of crisis, because in the end, in the long term, it's imperative that we come to a better prepared European Union, that we preserve European solidarity and that we stand strong with those with a comprehensive approach to military and civilian sides.
Most importantly, we need to be thankful and supportive for those who really bear a huge responsibility when crisis arrives: to the defenders, the first responders, the rescuers, policemen, firemen and the volunteers, we owe it to them.

Eero Heinäluoma,
S&D-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa presidentti Niinistö, kiitos arvokkaasta työstänne unionin valmiuden vahvistamiseksi. Laaja kokemuksenne ja harkintakykynne näkyvät raportin tasapainoisissa esityksissä.
               

                  Euroopan unionin valmiudessa ei ole kyse pelkästään rahasta, raudasta ja lainsäädännöstä, vaan ennen kaikkea ajattelutavan muutoksesta. Ajattelusta, jossa kansalaiset itse ottavat vastuuta ja ottavat turvallisuuden ja varautumisen vakavasti, kuten presidentti Niinistö olette usein sanonut.
               

                  Sitten on kysymys meidän nykyisistä sopimuksistamme, perussopimuksista. Mihin ne meitä velvoittavat turvallisuudessa? Unionilla on perussopimuksissaan keskinäisen avunannon lauseke. Onko meillä lausekkeen osalta menettelytavat valmiina? Miten käytännössä toimimme, jos jokin jäsenmaa joutuu ulkoisen hyökkäyksen kohteeksi?
               

                  Todellakaan aikaa hiljaisuuteen ei nyt ole. Tässä on työmaata uudelle aloittavalle puolustuskomissaarille. Se on ensimmäisiä asioita, johon unionin pitää antaa vastaus.
               

Pierre-Romain Thionnet,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, la sécurité est la base sur laquelle tout est construit. Monsieur le Président, cette formule est bienvenue. Il y a quelques années, à ceux qui en partageaient l'idée, elle leur valait le mépris, les moqueries et surtout l'indifférence. Mais passons, ressasser les erreurs n'est dans l'intérêt de personne.
               

                  Ce rapport contient des propositions contre lesquelles notre groupe sera toujours dressé, notamment lorsque les souverainetés nationales pourraient être rabotées ou contournées. Néanmoins, ce rapport, d'une grande qualité, incarne la révolution psychologique qui est en cours. Oui, les menaces extérieures sont des accélérateurs de lucidité, la menace militaire russe à l'Est l'a prouvé. Mais certaines menaces sont encore mal désignées. Vous évoquez l'instrumentalisation des flux migratoires par certaines puissances, mais ce n'est qu'un aspect du problème. Par l'ampleur des chiffres, légaux comme illégaux, l'immigration met en péril la totalité du continent. Elle brise la cohésion culturelle de l'Europe, elle installe des peuples étrangers sur notre sol qui entrent en confrontation avec nos peuples européens.
               

                  Monsieur le Président, je propose un ajout à votre citation: la sécurité et l'identité sont les bases sur lesquelles tout est construit.
               

Elena Donazzan,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i latini dicevano ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’: se vogliamo vivere sereni e sicuri dobbiamo prepararci a ogni evenienza.
               

                  Lei, signor Presidente, l'ha detto con chiarezza nel suo intervento e anche nella relazione; lo ha detto con chiarezza il commissario Kubilius, che ha condiviso la richiesta del governo italiano di escludere le spese militari dal patto di stabilità.
               

                  Abbiamo infatti bisogno di investire con una programmazione di lungo termine su produzione e acquisizione di armamenti e mezzi, pensando alla interoperabilità, ad acquisti comuni con il pieno coinvolgimento degli Stati membri. Dobbiamo assicurare la catena dei produttori e dei fornitori.
               

                  Ma è sugli uomini e le donne che faremo la differenza, come ha detto Lei, Presidente: accanto all'addestramento dei militari c'è bisogno di maggiore consapevolezza, anche tra i civili. Alcuni paesi, come Lituania, Austria, Svezia, Danimarca, hanno un servizio militare obbligatorio; altri, come l'Italia, l'hanno sospeso. Ma oggi più che mai è tempo di costruire una riserva ampia e corpi ausiliari pronti per l'emergenza. Serve formazione della popolazione, soprattutto ai giovani.
               

                  In Italia esiste un sistema di protezione civile molto efficiente, che poggia soprattutto su volontari formatisi con il servizio militare nella fanteria da montagna e organizzati in un'associazione che si chiama Associazione Nazionale Alpini. L'inquadramento militare ricevuto e la continua formazione li hanno resi pronti nelle emergenze come alluvioni, terremoti o durante il COVID: emergenze di tutti i tipi, come ha detto Lei, presidente Niinistö.
               

                  Quindi lo scenario impone meno ipocrisia e più senso della realtà e dobbiamo ripensare all'intero modello di difesa, a partire da modelli di organizzazione della popolazione, dalla disponibilità di risorse finanziarie escluse dai patti di stabilità e soprattutto da una difesa autosufficiente, magari prodotta in Europa.
               

Bart Groothuis,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, in the past 25 years, Europe's defence spending was more or less stable, while China has increased its defence spending with 600 % and Russia with 300 %. Russia is already at war. China is preparing for one.
When President Xi would decide to move on Taiwan with a blockade and a counter-blockade from the American navy would follow, trade flows to Europe would immediately halter and stop. Europe might have medicine for a couple of weeks, but without semiconductors or critical raw materials, our industry and businesses will be even sooner going black. Is Europe prepared for such a scenario?
Dear colleagues, recently I asked in the Industry Committee, in the Defence Committee and in the Trade Committee for scenario studies on a Taiwan blockade, and I ask for your support. It would be the first direct result in this House of Mr Niinistö's excellent, excellent report on civil and military preparedness. His thought leadership is Finland at its best and it will be Europe at its best, but only if we implement his excellent recommendations without further ado.

Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, floods, droughts, pandemics, cyberattacks, a war at our borders: crises are the new normal. And we can keep fixing problem after problem after problem – leading to collective exhaustion – or finally strengthen our preparedness and resilience.
President Niinistö, you wrote an excellent report on how to get there, with 80 proposals all boiling down to: let's do it together or we will fail. And with every day we wait, it will just get more expensive. Keeping household water supplies, building central storage houses: these are the more obvious suggestions.
But what has far too long been overlooked is the aspect of cyber, and I am glad that you address it. Just last year, hackers breached the community IT systems in south Westphalia in Germany. That meant no ambulances, no birth certificates, no weddings, no passports, no marriages. Some of these services were blocked for months.
Supply chain attacks, ransomware attacks, disinformation: if these things were physical, battle tanks would be in our offices and our bedrooms. State-sponsored cyberattacks, dear colleagues, quadrupled in the last 10 years, and our EU response has not. We have the Cyber Solidarity Act, the Cyber Resilience Act, some directives, but the EU still lacks 1 million cyber experts. And cyber threats know no borders: if one Member State gets attacked, it affects us all.
So it's good that we have this report, but the actual work is only about to start. And we need to make it happen here, dear colleagues, because Member States individually will fail.

Dario Tamburrano,
a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io sono qui oggi per portare una ‘parola contraria’ – per usare le parole di Erri De Luca – una parola diversa.
               

                  Perché dopo che a settembre abbiamo avuto disastrose alluvioni in Europa centrale – con migliaia di sfollati, migliaia di sfollati anche in Emilia Romagna, la tragedia di Valencia con 200 morti – siamo qui a parlare di munizioni e dual use, quando il vero nemico per il nostro continente è il cambiamento climatico.
               

                  Abbiamo distruzione e morti e la nostra capacità di risposta deve essere resa più resiliente, rafforzando la protezione civile per rendere resiliente il territorio, ripristinando la sicurezza idrogeologica. Dobbiamo formare la popolazione e i nostri eserciti ad affrontare frane e alluvioni, siccità e isole di calore.
               

                  Abbiamo le conoscenze per soluzioni necessarie basate sulle scienze naturali e abbiamo le tecnologie, i satelliti, l'intelligenza artificiale, i droni, i sistemi di allerta rapida: usiamoli per salvare le vite, non per munizioni e altri cannoni.
               

René Aust,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hat es die Europäische Union versäumt, die Sicherheitspolitik der Mitgliedstaaten so zu koordinieren, dass ein Höchstmaß an Sicherheit für unsere Bürger gewährleistet ist. Ob es um die Verteidigung des Luftraums, die Beendigung der Massenmigration oder den Schutz unserer Rohstoff- und Absatzwege auf den Weltmeeren geht, überall sind wir abhängig von den Strukturen der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. In keinem dieser Bereiche sind wir derzeit in der Lage, unsere Sicherheitsinteressen eigenständig zu verteidigen.
               

                  Aber die EU ist an dieser Abhängigkeit selber schuld. Sie investiert viel Geld in ideologische Projekte – von Genderfragen bis zum Klimaschutz –, sie kümmert sich um alles Mögliche, aber um das Wichtige kümmert sie sich nicht richtig. Deshalb ist es notwendig, die Europäische Union zurückzubauen: weniger Kompetenzen, weniger Aufgaben, weniger Ausgaben. Die europäische Ebene sollte sich auf weniger, aber auf entscheidende Aufgaben für alle konzentrieren. Eine davon wäre eine koordinierte Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitspolitik auf europäischer Ebene. Zum Beispiel weniger Waffensysteme – statt über 150 heute in der Europäischen Union weniger, die dafür armeeübergreifend kompatibel sind.
               

                  Aber klar muss sein: Mehr sicherheitspolitische Zusammenarbeit bedeutet nicht die Schaffung einer gemeinsamen europäischen Armee. Es wäre ein Albtraum, wenn die EU-Bürokraten und Frau von der Leyen über den Einsatz deutscher, französischer, polnischer und anderer europäischer Soldaten entscheiden dürften. Je weiter Entscheidungen über Krieg und Frieden von den Bürgern entfernt sind, desto größer ist die Gefahr, dass sich Entscheidungsträger unbedacht in Kriege begeben – und nichts ist weiter vom normalen Leben, von uns Bürgern entfernt als Ursula von der Leyen. Zusammenfassend: Wir sagen Ja zu mehr Kooperation in Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsfragen, aber ein klares Nein zu jeder Phantasterei einer europäischen Armee.
               

Tomas Tobé (PPE). – Fru talman, herr Niinistö! Tre unga män häktades förra månaden efter en sprängning nära den israeliska ambassaden i Köpenhamn. Vi har haft en skottlossning mot Israels ambassad i Stockholm. Sedan dess har vi nåtts av uppgifter om att dåden utfördes av gängkriminella på uppdrag av regimen i Iran. Den svenska säkerhetspolisen bekräftade redan tidigare i år att fientliga stater använder kriminella gäng för att utföra sprängningar och andra våldsdåd i Europa. För EPP-gruppen är medborgarnas trygghet vår tids stora frihetsfråga.
               

                  Herr Niinistö, som din rapport klargör är säkerhet fundamentet som allt annat bygger på. När vi nu ser hur fientliga stater använder ombud för att utföra attacker, då måste vi göra mer för att stärka vår motståndskraft. Förstärk och expandera Europol, dra in den fria rörligheten för gängkriminella och stärk kontrollen av EU:s yttre gräns. Vi måste direkt och kraftfullt sätta stopp för att gäng inte ska användas som agenter för stater som vill oss illa. Det hoppas jag att vi kan bli överens om.
               

IN THE CHAIR: SOPHIE WILMÈS


Vice-President


Γιάννης Μανιάτης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η έκθεση για την ενίσχυση της πολιτικής και στρατιωτικής ετοιμότητας έρχεται σε μια περίοδο που ο κόσμος μας γίνεται ακόμα πιο απρόβλεπτος και περισσότερο επικίνδυνος. Βρισκόμαστε σε μια διαρκή αλληλουχία κρίσεων γεωπολιτικών, οικονομικών αλλά και περιβαλλοντικών, με τις συνέπειες της κλιματικής κρίσης να είναι όλο και πιο ισχυρές, όλο και πιο συχνές. Θα πρέπει να προετοιμαστούμε ώστε να μπορέσουμε να τις αντιμετωπίσουμε αποτελεσματικά και να προστατεύσουμε τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες. Ο κόσμος μας δεν είναι πια τόσο ασφαλής όσο θα θέλαμε· έχουμε χρέος να προστατεύσουμε τους πολίτες μας από αόρατους εχθρούς, από συμβατικές και λιγότερο συμβατικές απειλές. Για αυτόν τον λόγο καλωσορίζουμε την έκθεση του κ. Niinistö, που μπορεί να συμβάλει σε αυτήν την κατεύθυνση.
                  

                     Έχουμε ανάγκη να αποκτήσουμε νέα κουλτούρα προετοιμασίας και ετοιμότητας. Ευρωπαϊκοί θεσμοί, εθνικές αρχές, ευρωπαϊκές κοινωνίες —όλοι μαζί να αξιοποιήσουμε και να επεκτείνουμε τους στόχους ανθεκτικότητας που έχουμε θεσμοθετήσει στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Μηχανισμού Πολιτικής Προστασίας. Να υιοθετήσουμε στρατηγική και νομοθεσία για την ετοιμότητα, μια κοινή ευρωπαϊκή έκθεση αξιολόγησης κινδύνων αλλά και κοινή αντίληψη απειλών —να είμαστε έτοιμοι και για το χειρότερο σενάριο. Να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η ρήτρα αμοιβαίας βοήθειας του άρθρου 42 παράγραφος 7 ΣΕΕ δεν θα μείνει ‘κενό γράμμα’, ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα μπορεί να υπερασπιστεί ουσιαστικά τα κράτη μέλη της. Να ενισχύσουμε την αμυντική συνεργασία μεταξύ των κρατών με ενεργοποίηση κοινών εργαλείων και, όπου χρειάζεται, με απόκτηση καινούργιων. Και, βεβαίως, να συνειδητοποιήσουμε ότι όλοι μαζί μπορούμε περισσότερα, ταχύτερα και αποτελεσματικότερα.
                  

António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, caros colegas, estamos hoje aqui para discutir um tema crucial para o futuro da nossa União: a preparação civil e de defesa da Europa.
                  

                     Os Patriotas pela Europa defendem uma abordagem que combine a soberania nacional com a cooperação estratégica europeia.
                  

                     O relatório Niinistö destaca ameaças multidimensionais que afetam não apenas a segurança militar, mas também a saúde pública, a economia e a infraestrutura.
                  

                     Concordamos com a necessidade de fortalecer a resiliência europeia, mas acreditamos que qualquer medida deve respeitar a soberania dos Estados-Membros. A centralização de decisões em Bruxelas não deve comprometer a capacidade de cada nação de agir conforme as suas especificidades e necessidades.
                  

                     A NATO continua a ser a espinha dorsal da defesa europeia. Nós somos contra a criação de um exército europeu, mas a favor do fortalecimento dos exércitos nacionais.
                  

                     Chamamos a atenção para a importância de incentivos no setor privado e investimentos no âmbito da resiliência. Insistimos em que o financiamento europeu seja equitativamente distribuído e transparente. Isto é muito importante, porque a maior parte das vezes não é.
                  

                     Por fim, reforçamos que a Europa só será forte se os seus Estados-Membros forem fortes. Não existe a força da União Europeia sem a força dos Estados. Juntos podemos construir uma União resiliente, mas a força da nossa União está na diversidade das suas partes.
                  

Adam Bielan (ECR). – Madam President, Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to express my appreciation of President Niinistö's timely report. It rightly emphasises the need for a comprehensive risk assessment that covers a wide spectrum of threats, including cyberattacks, geopolitical conflicts and climate-related disasters.
While the EU possesses a wide array of civilian and military tools, we must strive to better integrate all available instruments. In particular, we need to intensify our efforts in the protection of critical infrastructures and enhance our defence against hybrid threats, including cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.
Regarding EU-NATO cooperation, NATO remains the cornerstone of European defence. It is vital to further nurture this relationship and align our resources and visions strategically to ensure a coherent and robust response to ongoing and future crises.
In times of uncertainty, building up our societal resilience is not just important, it is essential. Engaging EU citizens, raising public awareness and equipping individuals with practical knowledge are fundamental steps towards a resilient society.
The proposal to establish a European Civil Defence Mechanism to enhance coordination between military and civilian responses is noteworthy. Yet we must ensure that it complements national efforts without creating unnecessary bureaucracy or duplication of existing structures.
Finally, as you just said, President, security is not given and we need to invest in it and never take it for granted.

Elsi Katainen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, kiitokset presidentti Niinistölle vaikuttavasta raportista, jonka pohjalta on hyvä jatkaa keskustelua.
                  

                     Kokonaisturvallisuuden olennainen ajatus on se, että jokaisella on oma roolinsa yhteiskuntiemme turvallisuuden rakentamisessa. Kaikkien yhteiskunnan toimijoiden on oltava mukana: viranomaisten, elinkeinoelämän, kolmannen sektorin sekä tietysti kansalaisten itse.
                  

                     Keinot ovat usein hyvin käytännönläheisiä, jos ruokavara ei riitä, kotiin ei tule sähköä tai vettä tai tietoverkko ei toimi. Varautuminen on viisautta. Sotilaallisen varautumisen lisäksi kokonaisturvallisuuteen kuuluu myös alueellinen ulottuvuus. Monet Euroopan alueet ovat tyhjentymässä väestön ikääntyessä ja nuorten muuttaessa kasvukeskuksiin. Alueellinen epätasa-arvo on lisääntynyt. Kehitys on erityisen huolestuttavaa EU:n itärajoilla, missä uhka idästä on suurinta. On siis muistettava, että elinvoimaiset alueet ja niillä asuvat ihmiset ovat kokonaisturvallisuutemme selkäranka.
                  

Virginijus Sinkevičius (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear President Niinistö, first of all, of course, thank you for this report. A timely call to redefine how we approach crisis preparedness. With global tensions on the rise, Europe can no longer rely on old assumptions about security guarantees.
While NATO remains our cornerstone, Europe needs to take on more responsibility and your report captures this urgency, pointing out that the EU must move beyond ad hoc solutions and fragmented defence strategies.
We hope with the new Commissioner appointed for defence, EU countries must better use their funds. EU countries spend roughly EUR 240 billion each year on defence, but much of this is duplicated among Member States. So that is why joint procurement across the EU is essential.
I also welcome the proposal for a single operational EU crisis management centre. This would be an essential step to unify our efforts, especially as we face increasingly sophisticated hybrid threats. This is not just about efficiency, it's about cementing our global credibility and influence.

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin! Katastrophen, Überschwemmungen, Klimakiller – das bestimmt unseren Alltag. Ja, und dagegen braucht es einen starken Katastrophenschutz und Prävention. Doch was fällt Ihnen wieder ein? Um diesen Bereich jetzt auch zu militarisieren, sprechen Sie davon, dass Sie jetzt auch mit Gewerkschaften sprechen wollen. In Tarifrunden rufen Sie aber den Kollegen und den Arbeitern zu – zügeln Sie sich! Nachdem Sie jahrzehntelang nach Kürzungen in allen Lebensbereichen geschrien haben, Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sagen Sie jetzt: Wir müssen auch alle Lebensbereiche militarisieren.
                  

                     Stellen Sie sich vor: Die Bundesregierung hat im letzten Jahr den Katastrophenschutz in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gekürzt. Und jetzt fordert die Bundesrepublik Deutschland eine Diskussion um 4 % des BIPs für Aufrüstung. Überhaupt sprechen Sie nur noch von Aufrüstung und von Militarisierung. Kriegstüchtig wollen Sie werden. Kolleginnen und Kollegen, was wir brauchen, ist soziale Sicherheit. So können Sie nicht gegen den Klimakiller vorgehen. So können Sie nicht Katastrophen tatsächlich präventiv entgegenwirken. Wir wollen tatsächlich den zivilen Katastrophenschutz voranbringen.
                  

Hans Neuhoff (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter besonderer Berater Niinistö, seien Sie herzlich bedankt für Ihren detaillierten Bericht zur Vorbereitung und Bereitschaft Europas im zivilen und verteidigungspolitischen Bereich. Wir unterstützen seine Zielsetzungen ausdrücklich. Unser zentraler Kritikpunkt: Es fehlt uns die Fähigkeit zur qualifizierten Risikoanalyse. Beispiel: Ukraine-Krieg. Der russische Angriff auf die Ukraine war kein plötzlicher Überfall. Qualifizierte Analysten wie John Mearsheimer haben bereits 2014 nicht nur den Krieg, sondern auch den Charakter des Krieges präzise vorausgesagt. Wie war das möglich? Weil Mearsheimer über eine leistungsstarke Theorie internationaler Beziehungen verfügt und sich nicht wie die EU von Wunschdenken leiten lässt.
                  

                     Und so droht nunmehr, dass wir demnächst abermals der transatlantischen Illusion erliegen – auch Ihr Bericht. Denn es gibt begründete Bedenken, dass sich die USA unter der neuen Führung ganz auf den geostrategischen Rivalen China konzentrieren und Europa und der NATO weniger Beachtung schenken werden. Kolleginnen und Kollegen, was nottut, ist eine umfassende und qualifizierte Risikoanalyse.
                  

Michael von der Schulenburg (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Lassen Sie mich mit Latein anfangen: ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’: Wer den Frieden will, bereite den Krieg vor. Seit ich in diesem Parlament bin, höre ich ständig diese römische Weisheit, um die Militarisierung der Europäischen Union zu rechtfertigen. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass am Ende dieser Militarisierung, die wir vornehmen, kein Frieden stehen wird und dass wir vielleicht sogar die Integration, die europäische Integration, dabei verlieren werden. Dass wir an so eine Sache aus dem Römischen Reich glauben, sagt ja schon sehr viel – es ist eine Perversion. Denn Rom war keine Demokratie, das war eine Sklavenhaltergesellschaft, die auf militärischer Stärke aufbaute, um andere Länder zu unterjochen und auszubeuten. Das kann doch nicht das Beispiel für uns in der Europäischen Union sein!
                  

                     Und dann ist da noch das Zweite: Dass was wir uns auf etwas berufen, was vor 2500 Jahren war, entspricht ja keiner Realität mehr. Damals wurde noch mit Wurfspeeren und Kurzschwertern gekämpft, heute haben wir Atombomben, Hyperschallraketen, wir haben Cyberwar, wir haben Krieg im Weltraum – und diese Sachen kann man überhaupt nicht mehr vergleichen. Und wenn dann hier gesagt wird, dass wir Lebensmittel für 72 Stunden haben sollen, dann würde ich nur sagen, dass wir damit den Dritten Weltkrieg nicht überleben werden.
                  

                     Wir sollten uns daran erinnern, dass es ein viel wichtigeres Dokument für uns gibt: Das ist die UNO-Charta. Und die UNO-Charta hält uns alle in der Verpflichtung, Verhandlungen zu führen – Verhandlungen, um Konflikte zu lösen und Kriege zu beenden. Und ich fordere Sie deshalb auf, den Weg in den Krieg, den Sie hier vorbereiten, zu beenden.
                  

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, during the European election campaign, we have seen clearly that citizens in Europe prioritise security and defence. People of Europe want to feel safe within the borders of the 27 Member States of the Union, and they expect us to do more in the area of security and defence.
We are facing many risks: autocrats outside of the European Union are cooperating stronger than we anticipated, irrespective of their ideology. They are also trying to find support inside the borders of the European Union. There are security risks deriving from the Middle East, from Africa and, of course, from the Russian Federation – we need to be better prepared.
One of the most essential tools that we have as the European Union is the budget of the European Union. Our budget needs to reflect our political priorities and safety, security and defence has become a political priority. This is why, in line with the proposals put forward by President Sauli Niinistö, we have to adopt the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union for the next seven years, where security and defence is a priority, where we allocate significant resources.
We have to balance the old traditional priorities, which are still important, with the new priorities, which are, of course, digitisation, tackling climate change, but first and foremost, security and defence. A euro spent on security and defence at European level can produce more results than a euro spent at national level for divergent interests and divergent priorities between Member States.
To conclude, in order to also be able to respond better to unforeseen developments, we need a flexible budget of the European Union. The budget is always decided for seven years. That is a long period of time. There are always unexpected developments. We need a budget which is flexible and capable to react.

Christophe Clergeau (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la préparation aux crises, c'est l'affaire de la société tout entière. Cet élément est au cœur du rapport Niinistö et il me semble que c'est extrêmement important. Nous avons d'abord besoin de cohésion sociale et de mobilisation citoyenne, et insister sur l'implication des associations, mais aussi des syndicats, sur l'engagement citoyen dans la protection civile et dans les solidarités de proximité est un élément essentiel.
                  

                     Je voudrais ensuite insister sur le rôle des collectivités locales, municipales et régionales, sans lesquelles il n'y a pas de préparation aux crises. Et enfin, insister sur l'analyse des vulnérabilités. Si nous ne connaissons pas les vulnérabilités environnementales, sociales et territoriales, nous ne pouvons pas adapter la préparation aux crises, aux réalités de chaque territoire. Et on voit chaque jour que les catastrophes n'ont pas le même impact dans une région ou dans une autre.
                  

                     Pour terminer, un mot sur le message de l'extrême droite: pas de défense européenne, pas de sécurité européenne, pas de solidarité européenne. Leur message est clair. Et ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire: l'Europe seule, émiettée, divisée, livrée aux agressions extérieures et incapable de répondre au changement climatique.
                  

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE). – Señora presidente, pueden hacer todos los informes que les dé la gana, pero no vamos a defendernos frente a las emergencias y las crisis si no hay voluntad y determinación.
                  

                     ¿Cómo responder rápido ante una emergencia? Pues vayan a España y pregunten a una asociación juvenil llamada Revuelta que, al día siguiente de las inundaciones en Valencia, tenía una nave hasta arriba de ayuda, miles de voluntarios y camiones yendo y viniendo de Madrid a Valencia sin gastar un euro público. Ni una sola de las Administraciones públicas en España había hecho nada en veinticuatro horas.
                  

                     ¿Cómo implicar a la población civil? Pues vayan a Paiporta, a Chiva, a Catarroja y pregunten quién les ha ayudado. No había funcionarios con sueldos exentos de impuestos ni nadie les preguntó por la perspectiva de género. Había gente, voluntarios determinados en un acto de solidaridad nacional.
                  

                     ¿Quieren una lección sobre cómo trabajar con los aliados? Pues pregúntenle al Gobierno de España, que ha rechazado la ayuda de Francia, de El Salvador y del Ejército, y hagan lo contrario. ¡Pero si llevan cuarenta años criticando a los militares!
                  

                     De verdad, pongamos un poco de seriedad y, sobre todo, no pongamos al cargo de la gestión a alguien incapaz como Teresa Ribera.
                  

Anna-Maja Henriksson (Renew). – Fru talman! Stort tack till president Niinistö för en värdefull rapport. Vi lever i en kritisk tid och det är nödvändigt att vara beredd på alla tänkbara scenarier, också de man anser osannolika. President Niinistös rapport må nu fungera som en väckarklocka för EU. Rapporten visar att vi i Europa har mycket vi kan göra för att stärka våra samhällens förmåga att möta olika typer av kriser, och vi behöver agera nu.
                  

                     Vi måste stärka EU:s beredskap. Då vi talar om beredskap på bred front då talar vi också om alla aktörers betydelse, från individen, företagen, lokala och civila aktörer till försvarsmakten. Relevant information måste delas snabbare mellan medlemsländerna och EU och totalförsvarstänket är viktigt. Som vi säger på finska: (tal på finska) ‘Det är klokt att vara beredd också på det osannolika.’ Och det ska vi vara i EU. Tack till president Niinistö.
                  

(Talaren godtog en fråga (‘blått kort’).)


Maria Guzenina (S&D),
sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, presidentti Niinistön puheenvuoro täällä salissa oli äärimmäisen viisas. Meidän täytyy varautua, mutta meidän täytyy myös pystyä parempaan yhteistyöhön. Nyt kysyisin teiltä edustaja, että millä tavalla me saisimme tätä suomalaista henkeä istutettua enemmän tänne Euroopan parlamenttiin? Näiden viimeaikaisten käänteiden valossa täällä on hajaannusta, täällä on riitelyä, kun me tarvitsemme enemmänkin yhteistyötä, jotta me pärjäisimme näiden valtavien haasteiden edessä, joiden kanssa Eurooppa joutuu painimaan tulevina vuosina.
                  

Anna-Maja Henriksson (Renew),
vastaus sinisen kortin kysymykseen. – Arvoisa puhemies, me suomalaiset, me tiedämme, että kannattaa puhaltaa yhteen hiileen silloin, kun on kriisin paikka. Tähän me olemme tottuneet. Tätä henkeä meidän pitää myös Euroopan parlamentissa saada aikaan.
                  

                     We are in the same boat and therefore we have to do things together. Therefore, we also have to strengthen the EU's resilience and we can do it together – I believe that.
                  

                     Olen aivan varma siitä, että pystymme tähän. Meidän pitää jokaisen ihmisen ymmärtää, että me olemme myös tärkeitä pelaajia, kun puhutaan resilienssistä ja kokonaisvarautumisesta. Kiitoksia tästä erinomaisesta kysymyksestä.
                  

Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we have been asleep. For decades, our countries have been in a geopolitical sleep. Under the military blanket of the United States, we dreamt of an everlasting peace.
In 2008, the first alarm clock went off. Russia invaded Georgia. So what did EU countries do? We hit snooze. When Russia invaded Crimea, we hit snooze. When Trump was elected and shouted 'America first!', we hit snooze.
And in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine again, the loudest alarm went off. But European countries slowly, only very slowly, started waking up. And now the sirens are ringing again with the re-election of the orange man across the sea.
Therefore, I have one message to EU governments: wake up! Get out of your pyjamas and finally take charge of our own destiny. Abolish the veto, invest jointly in our defence and help Ukraine win. Stop the short-sighted nationalism. Let's unite.

Merja Kyllönen (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, Eurooppa rakentuu jäsenvaltioista ja sen kansalaisista. Ilman kansalaisten luottamusta, meidän keskinäistä luottamusta, olemme nopeasti tyhjän päällä.
                  

                     On selvää, että me tarvitsemme monenlaisia ratkaisuja, monen eri tason toimia, aina puolustuskyvyn vahvistamisesta vahvempiin toimiin etenevän ilmastonmuutoksen osalta. Mutta kansalaisten vahvistaminen on valmiutemme selkäranka: koulutus, tiedon jakaminen, osaamisen vahvistaminen, kriisitietoisuus ja erilaisiin uhkiin varautuminen, mediataito, tiedon suodattaminen.
                  

                     Meihin vaikutetaan koko ajan. Kriisivalmius lähtee meistä kaikista. Rakennetaan luottamusta, ollaan valmiita kuuntelemaan toisiamme ja hakemaan ratkaisuja, sillä ongelmia osaamme jokainen synnyttää. Tulevat sukupolvet ansaitsevat enemmän, ja siksi meiltä odotetaan enemmän yhteistyökykyä ja enemmän kykyä ratkaista asioita ongelmien rakentamisen sijasta.
                  

Marcin Sypniewski (ESN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! O ile zmiana podejścia do obronności jest potrzebna, to nie zgadzam się z tym, że ta zmiana ma polegać na wymieszaniu naszych armii i służb. Nie każde państwo członkowskie graniczy z Rosją i Białorusią, więc nie każdy rozumie wagę sytuacji, w jakiej my jako Polska się znajdujemy. My jako Polska i państwa bałtyckie nie potrzebujemy nowych urzędów, planów, ale uwagi i większego wsparcia w obliczu tej wojny, którą my już toczymy. Przecież nasi żołnierze bronią granicy z Białorusią. Bronią w obliczu wojny hybrydowej. Mamy też wojnę konwencjonalną zaraz za granicą.
                  

                     Obrona powinna się zaczynać na jak najniższym szczeblu. Znamy przykłady z historii, gdzie małe, dobrze zorganizowane i uzbrojone grupy stawiały czoła dużo większym siłom. Powinniśmy uwolnić przepisy dotyczące broni, zarówno dostępu, jak i produkcji i dystrybucji. Ukraina na początku inwazji dosłownie rozdawała na ulicy broń swoim obywatelom. Coś się złego w związku z tym zdarzyło? Unia powinna położyć nacisk, żeby państwa zliberalizowały te przepisy. Z całym szacunkiem, ale Portugalczyk nie obroni Polski tak jak Polak. Potrzebujemy nowoczesnych i oddanych wojsk narodowych, a nie wielkiego molocha.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, this debate is especially timely, and I thank former Prime Minister Niinistö for his excellent work. A new reality is upon us. A second Trump White House is now confirmed and this reshapes our security landscape.
This morning, the focus is on military preparedness and safeguarding Europe's security. In addition to this, we also must recognise the potential substantial funding gap in military assistance to Ukraine, should President Trump follow through on his campaign pledges. This gap is significant.
We must therefore ask the question: is the MFF still fit for purpose in 2024? As my colleague Mureșan said, we need an urgent review and reassessment to ensure that Europe can meet our security demands, while also responding to the impacts on global trade that Trump's isolationist and protectionist agenda may cause. This will have a major impact on key EU sectors, like steel, agriculture and manufacturing. Additional contributions may well be necessary to safeguard Europe's security, while sustaining, and even expanding, support for these vital industries.
Finally, I welcome the report's highlighting of the need to protect our critical infrastructure, especially our subsea cables, which carry 97 % of global communications and around € 10 trillion in financial transactions daily. With three quarters of northern cables passing through Irish waters, we have a unique responsibility. Ireland is committed to safeguarding these vital assets through collaboration with our EU and other partners, because in these challenging times, our security is deeply intertwined.

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


Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Bardzo uważnie słuchałem Pana wypowiedzi. Dwa razy wspomniał Pan w swojej wypowiedzi o prezydencie Trumpie. Reprezentuje Pan największą grupę w Parlamencie Europejskim, PPE. Wobec tego pytam: co Pan będzie doradzał w swojej grupie, jak ułożyć relacje z prezydentem Trumpem? Bo oczywiście jesteśmy jako Unia Europejska ważną organizacją, ale Stany Zjednoczone też odgrywają swoją rolę. Wobec tego, jakie jest Pana grupy i Pana stanowisko względem relacji w kwestiach obronnych z Ameryką?
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE),
blue-card answer. – Yes, we are committed to democracy, we are committed to diplomacy, and we recognise that President Trump was elected by a majority in the United States. So our group, I think, will be working to recognise that, to try and find where we have common interests.
And particularly, I think, Mr Trump will have to reflect on the situation in Ukraine now that North Korea has joined in the war. That changes, I think, the dynamic substantially. But also, if we do not have collaboration with Mr Trump, then we will have to be more sustainable and more independent as a bloc …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el informe Niinistö es oportuno porque nos alerta de las amenazas reales que tenemos hoy: agresiones militares, ciberataques, sabotajes a nuestras infraestructuras, crisis sanitarias y climáticas, como la DANA en España. Pero, en un mundo cada vez más globalizado, debemos preguntarnos qué significa estar mejor preparados. El informe dice claramente que una mayor preparación no se construye aislándonos del resto del mundo; al contrario, debemos fortalecer nuestras capacidades, pero también garantizar que lo hacen nuestros socios, especialmente los del Sur Global. Necesitamos entender —así nos lo dijo la pandemia— que nuestro bienestar y seguridad depende también del bienestar y la seguridad de los países del Sur Global.
                  

                     Y, también, necesitamos un enfoque integral, garantizar que la Comisión trabaje de forma coordinada y eficaz. Necesitamos sistemas de alerta temprana mucho mayores, que se anticipen, y tomadores de decisiones que sean capaces de prevenir y de salvar vidas, como se hizo en Valencia en el 2019 y no se hizo en el 2024. Necesitamos luchar contra la desinformación y garantizar una información veraz. Necesitamos ser capaces de integrar a la ciencia en nuestras decisiones políticas y, sobre todo, necesitamos entender que necesitamos más gobiernos globales y más integración de los países del sur en nuestra respuesta global.
                  

Petra Steger (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Erst der Draghi-Bericht, jetzt der Niinistö-Bericht – die Europäische Union ist mal wieder offensichtlich besonders kreativ, wenn es darum geht, die Nationalstaaten zu entmachten. Ja, das ist das Programm der Europäischen Union, das wir kennen. Noch mehr Kompetenzen, noch mehr Zentralisierung, noch mehr Gleichschaltung, bis das offensichtlich große Ziel eines europäischen Staates endlich erreicht ist. Diese Berichte sind allesamt – ja, unter dem Deckmantel wichtiger und richtiger Themen –, jedoch nichts anderes als Anschläge auf die Demokratie und Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten.
                  

                     Und sie wollen sie damit auch immer zur Finanzierung von immensen Ausgaben zwingen, am besten mit immer mehr Schulden – sei es für die Herstellung der selbst zerstörten Wettbewerbsfähigkeit oder für den Ausbau der Rüstungsindustrie, die diesmal im Fokus steht. Natürlich immer Hand in Hand mit der NATO, was für einen neutralen Staat wie Österreich ein absolutes No-Go ist.
                  

                     Dazu kommen brandgefährliche Pläne wie die Schaffung eines EU-Geheimdienstes oder der Ausbau von Zensur bzw. Indoktrination, um den Bürgern die richtige Meinung einzutrichtern. Was das heißt in einer Europäischen Union, die praktisch jeden Kritiker zum Feind der liberalen Demokratie abstempelt, das kann sich wirklich jeder ausmalen. Wir sagen Ja zu einer verstärkten Kooperation und Koordination in Sicherheitsfragen, Nein zu mehr Kompetenzen für die EU oder einer EU-Armee.
                  

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvä presidentti Niinistö, kiitos työstänne Suomen eteen ja kiitos työstänne Euroopan hyväksi. Tämä raportti on lahja meille, tuliterä herätyskello made by Niinistö.
                  

                     Jos annamme Ukrainan hävitä, nykyisissä ja tulevissa jäsenvaltioissa voi alkaa tapahtua seuraavaksi. Jos tankit tulisivat sinun maarajasi yli tänään tai kriittinen infrastruktuuri romahtaisi, pärjäisitkö? Onko käteistä, kun korttisi ei toimi? Onko sinulla kuivamuonaa ja vettä, kun kaupat tyhjenivät, jota pelkästään pandemian aikana nähtiin pienemmässä mittakaavassa? Onko pattereita, kynttilöitä ja generaattoreita, kun sähköä ei ole? Tiedätkö, missä lähin pommisuoja on ja onko sellaista? Oletko henkisesti ja fyysisesti valmis suojelemaan itseäsi ja perhettäsi?
                  

                     Samaan aikaan kun jäsenvaltioiden on hoidettava oma vastuunsa varautumisessa, yhteiskunta koostuu kansalaisista, joista jokainen on ratkaisijan asemassa.
                  

Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Prezydencie Niinistö! Bardzo dziękuję za to niezwykle cenne sprawozdanie. Drodzy przyjaciele z Finlandii, stanowicie dla naszej wspólnoty przykład. Finlandia zbudowała model obrony, który włącza obywateli na każdym etapie: od edukacji obronnej po aktywny udział w szkoleniu i w obronie. Dzięki temu każda osoba czuje się odpowiedzialna za bezpieczeństwo swojego kraju. Przy 5,5 miliona Finów rezerwa wojskowa opiewa na imponującą liczbę 900 tysięcy osób. Bezpieczeństwo ludności cywilnej jest fundamentem każdej skutecznej polityki obronnej. W obliczu współczesnych zagrożeń, takich jak wojny hybrydowe, cyberataki czy zmiany klimatyczne, konieczne jest, aby Unia Europejska skutecznie chroniła swoich obywateli.
                  

                     Polska także jest tu pozytywnym przykładem. W przyszłym roku wydamy na obronność rekordowe 4,7 proc. PKB. Nie dlatego, że chcemy, ale dlatego, że musimy. Tydzień temu polski Sejm uchwalił jednogłośnie projekt ustawy o ochronie ludności i obronie cywilnej. Cieszę się, że w sprawach tak ważnych potrafimy być w pełni zgodni. Obrona cywilów to nasza wspólna odpowiedzialność. Musimy działać teraz, aby przygotować się na jutro.
                  

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, every couple of years we get a new report that tells us basically the same point: spend more on being prepared for disasters. This year's report is no different, but the circumstances are very different. We cannot rely on the US anymore, we cannot rely on Russia and China remaining cooperative players anymore, and thus we cannot continue to pretend that 27 Member States, some as small as mid-sized cities, all need a veto when it comes to foreign policy and to our common defence – that illusion must go.
I am in favour of improving our capacity for deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment. However, you should not mistake the breaking of encrypted communication as some kind of advantage for our cybersecurity. A backdoor for the good guys is a backdoor for our enemies. That is why Mr Niinistö probably felt compelled to add the sentence 'without undermining cybersecurity'. Well, that's like swimming without getting wet – just don't.

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, chaque fois que j'entends qu'avec les budgets de défense qu'on a aujourd'hui, on n'est pas capables de se défendre, je me demande ce qu'on fait de cet argent. Parce qu'on dépense plus en défense que la Russie, que l'Inde, que l'Afrique du Sud, que le Brésil. Apparemment, avec ça, nous, on n'est pas capables de se défendre. C'est quand même assez hallucinant.
                  

                     Un point sur lequel on est d'accord, c'est qu'aujourd'hui les autorités publiques en Europe ne sont pas capables de protéger leurs citoyens. Et on le voit à chaque fois qu'il y a un problème, qu'il y a un désastre climatique ou environnemental. On le voit en été quand il y a des incendies de forêts partout dans le sud de l'Europe et qu'on ne dispose pas des avions bombardiers d'eau pour éteindre justement cet incendie. Mais ce n'est apparemment pas une priorité. On préfère produire de nouveaux avions de chasse.
                  

                     À Valence, on a vu les dégâts de l'austérité. En Belgique, quand il y a eu les inondations, le gouvernement précédent il avait fait quoi? Il avait supprimé quatre des six casernes de la protection civile. Évidemment qu'on ne peut pas protéger nos citoyens si nous n'investissons pas dans notre protection civile, dans nos hôpitaux. C'est ça la priorité. Pas de nouveau la militarisation.
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, honourable President Niinistö, thank you very much for this excellent report. The need to enhance Europe's civilian and military defence, preparedness and readiness is obvious.
And he rightly described the facts: Putin sees the West as weak. And his logical conclusion is we must change this perception. This requires several things. First, as he formulated, the trust of citizens that the political institutions, meaning our democracies, are worth to be protected. Second, it requires political leadership in our respective countries to tell the citizens the truth and the full scale of the threats that we are exposed to, and there are many that have been enumerated in the report and it is not only about a full-scale war. Third, it requires action – coordinated action – and, again, I quote 'Strengthening Europe's defence is an urgent and monumental task'.
We try to address it with supportive legislation here in the Parliament, but we also need to learn from countries like Finland, to compare notes and assess what is best practice, how we can raise resilience and get civilian and military preparedness and readiness from theory into practice.
Putin won't wait if we allow him to win in Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine now is the best way to give us the time to prepare our civilian and military structures, not to be considered too weak by the aggressor, and thereby deter him from any further reaching sinister thoughts.

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


Alexander Jungbluth (ESN),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Ich habe eine Frage, denn es wurde ja heute viel darüber gesprochen. Sie haben das auch so im Nebensatz anklingen lassen, dass es ja um viele Schutzmaßnahmen geht, beispielsweise auch um kritische Infrastruktur. Und als Deutsche wissen wir – es ist einmal passiert in letzter Zeit –, dass eine kritische Infrastruktur angegriffen worden ist, und das ist die Nord-Stream-Pipeline. Und es waren nicht unsere angeblichen Feinde, die das gemacht haben, sondern es stehen insbesondere die Ukrainer in Verdacht, das gemacht zu haben. Und auch Ihre Parteienfamilie – Herr Sikorski hat das ja öffentlich auf X ausdrücklich begrüßt, dass diese Sprengung erfolgt ist.
                  

                     Also insofern: Erklären Sie mir mal gerade für Ihre Fraktion, warum Sie glauben, dass unsere Feinde ein größeres Risiko sind als unsere angeblichen Freunde.
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Das kann ich Ihnen gerne sagen: Russland hat einen völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine geführt und dieses Ziel – ich weiß es nicht, ob es die Ukrainer gewesen sind, Sie wissen es offenbar besser, ich weiß es nicht, aber selbst wenn sie es gewesen sind – ist aus meiner Sicht ein legitimes Ziel gewesen, um die russische Fähigkeit, Geld aus diesen Einnahmen zu kreieren, dann zu ziehen. Das ist wohl ganz eindeutig.
                  

                     Der Aggressor – machen Sie hier keine Täter-Opfer-Umkehr. Aber das ist ja Teil der AfD-Politik, und dafür werden Sie ja auch bezahlt wahrscheinlich.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, discutimos en este Pleno del Parlamento Europeo el informe Niinistö sobre cómo mejorar y fortalecer la preparación y capacidad de respuesta de la Unión Europea frente a crisis geopolíticas, climáticas y tecnológicas —cibernéticas o híbridas—, cada vez más frecuentes e intensas. Y eso exige, sin duda, educación, exige comunicación y exige sensibilización, pero también exige que la Unión Europea salga de su zona de confort.
                  

                     Ayer, en el debate con el alto representante Borrell acerca del impacto en la Unión Europea del regreso del presidente Trump a la Casa Blanca, pusimos de manifiesto que es imprescindible que Europa, además de sonar la alarma, salga de la cama, de su zona de confort, y se prepare para responder. Y lo hace con este informe, apostando por una mejora de su capacidad de defensa y de seguridad y por un incremento de la inversión, además de compartir inteligencia ¡nada menos!
                  

                     ¿Se encuentra la Unión Europea en estos momentos preparada para eso? No, la respuesta es no; pero si hay algo que se pone de manifiesto es la necesidad de fortalecer el Fondo de Solidaridad de la Unión Europea y el Mecanismo de Protección Civil de la Unión para atender a catástrofes climáticas cada vez más frecuentes, como la espantosa DANA padecida en Valencia, con un balance mortífero de doscientas víctimas que podrían haber sido evitadas con un mejor refuerzo. Y, desde luego, tiene que fortalecerse también la financiación de la respuesta europea…
                  

(la presidenta retira la palabra al orador)


Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová (PfE). – Paní předsedající, Evropa teď stojí před zásadní výzvou a měla by prokázat schopnost spolupráce. Potřebujeme silnou, soběstačnou a konkurenceschopnou technologickou základnu, robustnější průmyslové kapacity a spolehlivé mechanismy sdílení informací mezi veřejným a soukromým sektorem. Místo toho se průmyslová výroba přesouvá mimo Evropu, kde neplatí byrokratická a zelená pravidla, kde jsou levnější energie a nižší daně. V době krize je rychlá a koordinovaná reakce v současné Evropě prakticky nevyjednatelná. To musíme změnit. Musíme si rychleji předávat informace, vyhodnocovat je a na základě nich se kompetentně rozhodovat. Proto musí být předem jasně definovaná odpovědnost. Evropská rada rozhoduje, Evropská komise koná a Evropský parlament kontroluje. Tak jednoduché to je.
                  

                     O budoucnost kontinentu se musíme konečně postarat sami. To nepůjde bez zásadní změny evropských institucí. Pro tento úkol jste Evropě ale vybrali špatnou lídryni a za pár dní schválíte Komisi, která toho asi nebude schopna.
                  

Claudiu-Richard Târziu (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, cea mai eficientă armă împotriva amenințărilor externe a fost, este și va fi întotdeauna dezvoltarea. Efortul de protejare a teritoriului, populației și valorilor comune pornește din spiritul de coeziune al comunităților și națiunilor și e susținut de dezvoltarea societății.
                  

                     Atât solidaritatea, cât și dezvoltarea depind în mod semnificativ de lideri. Avem din păcate, o nedorită experiență de pe urma unei pandemii extrem de ciudate, și a unui război izbucnit la granița UE, care ne-au costat și ne costă enorm în vieți omenești, bunuri materiale și bani. Și într-un caz, și în celălalt, o elită politică a luat decizii în disprețul față de principiile esențiale care stau la baza edificiului comunitar – transparența, egalitatea și drepturile fundamentale ale omului.
                  

                     Această elită a acționat sub imperative ideologice, sfidând realitatea și producând astfel pagube și mai mari. Să nu cădem în tentația de a continua astfel, pentru că intențiile doamnei Ursula von der Leyen cu privire la noua strategie europeană de pregătire civilă și militară, asta ne indică.
                  

                     Înainte să ne pregătim pentru vremurile tulburi care se arată la orizont, este obligatoriu să eliminăm urgent inechitățile din inima acestei construcții politice și să desființăm decalajele de dezvoltare dintre statele dintre statele…
                  

(Președinta a retras cuvântul vorbitorului)


Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, astăzi vă vorbesc nu doar ca politician, ci și ca cetățean al Bucureștiului, capitala cu cel mai ridicat risc seismic din Uniunea Europeană. În 1977, un cutremur devastator, de peste 7 grade pe scara Richter a luat peste 1 500 de vieți și a rănit peste 11 000 de oameni. Este o certitudine că un astfel de cutremur se va repeta.
                  

                     Astăzi, la aproape 50 de ani de atunci, jumătate din școlile din România au fost construite înainte de 1977. De asemenea, asta înseamnă aproape 10 000 de școli și probabil jumătate dintre spitalele României. Asta înseamnă că 2 milioane de copii și zeci de mii de pacienți sunt expuși unui risc seismic în țara mea.
                  

                     Dacă un cutremur ca cel din '77 ar lovi din nou, consecințele ar fi catastrofale.
                  

                     Niciun stat european nu poate face față singur unui astfel de dezastru. De la intervenții rapide și îngrijiri medicale până la adăposturi și reconstrucție, avem nevoie urgentă de mecanisme consolidate de coordonare europeană.
                  

                     Cer de la tribuna Parlamentului, atât Comisiei Europene, cât și autorităților naționale, să crească investițiile și să se pregătească.
                  

Mārtiņš Staķis (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, thank you Mr Niinistö for this report. I appreciate that it was written by President of Finland. As much of what we Latvians know about civil defence readiness, we actually learn from Finland.
This is a special week for Latvians as we are not only celebrating our independence, but also remembering our freedom fighters. Our national guard has launched a new campaign called 'My Latvia. My Responsibility.' Mana Latvija. Mana atbildība. It speaks to responsibilities we have as a citizens toward our country.
When I became the mayor of Riga, we introduced something entirely new to the city: an exercise on what to do in the event of a military attack. The Niinistö report calls for this type of training and exercise culture to be introduced across the EU.
Most importantly, it reflects our key responsibilities ensuring that our community and institutions are resilient against any kind of threat because it's our Europe, our responsibility.

Νίκος Παππάς (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, μας λέτε, λοιπόν, ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να δαπανήσει περίπου το 20% του συνολικού προϋπολογισμού της —που επί του παρόντος αντιστοιχεί σε ένα τρισεκατομμύριο ευρώ— για άμυνα και ασφάλεια. Για άλλη μια φορά, λοιπόν, έχουμε χρηματοδότηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για στρατιωτικές δαπάνες. Από την άλλη, σε ολοένα και περισσότερες χώρες της Ευρώπης, τα όρια της φτώχειας και τα έργα υποδομών μειώνονται, οι δείκτες φτώχειας αυξάνονται, τα συστήματα υγείας υποχρηματοδοτούνται, ενώ το κοινωνικό κράτος αποτελεί ανάμνηση του παρελθόντος.
                  

                     Σας καλώ, λοιπόν, να πρυτανεύσει η λογική, να αναθεωρήσουμε, να ξανασκεφτούμε πώς θα οικοδομήσουμε την ειρήνη μέσω της διπλωματικής οδού και όχι να προβούμε σε αλόγιστες δαπάνες για τον πόλεμο. Καλύτερα, λοιπόν, να πολεμάμε γύρω από ένα τραπέζι παρά στο πεδίο της μάχης.
                  

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I want, in particular, to thank Mr Niinistö for the report. After the Draghi report and the Letta report on our competitiveness, we now have an excellent report on our preparedness militarily and in civilian matters against future crises.
This is timely, this is important, this is crucial, and it's even essential for nothing less than our civilisation, which has been attacked for many years with military means from outside, with means of hybrid warfare from outside, and also from inside via disinformation, hate speech, ideologies of various kinds and populism.
So we need this kind of resilience in order to preserve what we have inherited from generations before us in terms of human dignity, freedom, rule of law, democracy, separation of powers, parliamentarism. As we conduct the parliamentary exercise, also today, here, this is what we have to defend, and this is what is outlined in this excellent report we are discussing today.
Our future threats come from outside, from Tehran and Moscow, from North Korea, from terrorism, antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and they come from inside, from the alignment with such powers from outside and also from populist developments within the Member States. To confront these threats means to hand over to the next generation a good Europe, as we have inherited a good Europe ourselves.

Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, qui peut prétendre que les États-Unis de Trump seront encore là pour assurer l'effort de guerre en Ukraine? Qui peut prétendre que Poutine ne s'attaquera jamais à l'un des 27 États membres? Qui peut prétendre que les événements climatiques extrêmes, comme la tragédie de Valence ou encore les pandémies et les cyberattaques ne vont pas se multiplier? Oui, nous, les Européennes et les Européens sommes exposés à des risques d'une acuité sans précédent, qui menacent jusqu'à notre intégrité. Il est de notre devoir d'y faire face lucidement.
                  

                     Ces dangers ne connaissent pas de frontières. La réponse devra donc être européenne. C'est l'intérêt de chacun et de tous. Alors il faudra des moyens financiers puissants. C'est l'angle mort de votre rapport, Monsieur le Président Niinistö, ce ne devra pas être celui de notre action. Brisons le tabou. Les ordres de grandeur sont de plusieurs centaines de milliards et ils sont nécessaires, pas dans dix ans, mais tout de suite. Il faudra des ressources nouvelles et des emprunts nouveaux et à grande échelle. Du désir de sécurité est né le projet européen. De ce même désir, il pourrait renaître. Soyons à la hauteur.
                  

Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, vous parlez de crise, alors parlons de la plus grande des crises. Oui, parlons de la crise migratoire qui bouleverse le continent européen, menace notre sécurité et met en péril nos identités. Vous notez dans ce rapport que l'immigration peut être instrumentalisée par des pays hostiles. Et si on lit entre les lignes, peut être une menace.
                  

                     Mais que fait concrètement l'Union européenne pour gérer cette crise migratoire? Vous financez à tour de bras les associations et les ONG pro-migrants, y compris celles qui vont les chercher jusqu'au large de la Libye. Non content de soutenir cette submersion, vous forcez les nations européennes à les accueillir dans le cadre d'une répartition sur tout le continent, sous peine de se voir infliger une amende de 20 000 euros par clandestin refusé. Pour enrayer cette immigration illégale, vous avez recours à la politique du chèque avec l'argent des Français et des Européens. Vous donnez des milliards à la Tunisie, à l'Égypte, à la Turquie et pour quel résultat? Il y a sur le territoire français 700 000 clandestins, l'équivalent de la ville d'Athènes, berceau de la civilisation européenne. La boucle est bouclée.
                  

Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Gerbiama pirmininke, kolegos, S. Niinistö parengtas dokumentas yra praregėjimo momentas. Jame konstatuojama, kad ES neturi aiškaus plano, jei įvyktų ginkluotas narės užpuolimas. Dokumente detaliai kalbama apie tai, ko reikia, kad ES būtų pasirengusi. Dokumentas minimas ir nominuotos komisarės H. Lahbib, atsakingos už pasirengimą ir krizių valdymą, laiške. Tačiau nėra rekomendacijų, kaip išorės grėsmėms galėtų ir turėtų pasirengti sveikatos sektorius. Kalbama tik apie pasirengimą infekcinėms ligoms ir visuomenės sveikatos iššūkiams. Tai labai svarbu, tačiau tai tik iš dalies susiję su išorės grėsmėmis. ES planuoja investuoti į gynybos pramonę, o sveikatos sektoriaus pasirengimui, kuriuo ir būtų naudojamasi užpuolimo atveju, neskiriama jokio dėmesio, jis net neminimas. Karinis mobilumas yra geras pavyzdys, kaip investuojant į susisiekimo infrastruktūrą galima išspręsti kelias sistemines problemas. Todėl ir rengiantis išorės grėsmėms būtina apgalvoti investicijas į sveikatos sektorių ir jo pasirengimą.
                  

Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Madam President, first of all, I just want to thank President Niinistö for the excellent and very timely report. I think tonight it was probably rather difficult because the most difficult thing was to treat Vladimir Putin like a natural disaster or a climate change, but nevertheless, it's accomplished.
And what we can follow from this report, there are three points of action I want to mention.
First of all, the European funds – the main instrument of the European Union – must be made available to strengthen our preparedness. Right now, let me remind you, colleagues, many European funds exclude not only military purposes, but also dual uses. This is about structural funds, Horizon Europe and things like that.
The second thing is we really need to strengthen the EU-NATO interface, especially in cases of emergency, just like noted in the Niinistö report.
And the third thing is that the EU budget is not enough to reactivate the European defence industry. We need to incentivise private investment to provide long-term perspective for the defence industry, and to help increase our competitiveness and our welfare.

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, Europa nije spremna ni mentalno, a kamoli u smislu stvarnih kapaciteta za novu stvarnost sve opasnijeg svijeta.
                  

                     Globalni rivali, a ponekad i naši partneri, gledaju nas sve češće s dozom podsmijeha kao na tromu, oslabljenu silu izgubljenu u besmislenim birokratskim igricama. I ove smjernice, kao i izvješća Draghija i Lette, upućuju nas na korijenite promjene i fokus na temelje, na sigurnost.
                  

                     Europa postaje svjesna rizika vojne konfrontacije, kao i širokog raspona sve ozbiljnijih i sve opasnijih hibridnih, kibernetičkih i drugih ugroza.
                  

                     Postajemo svjesni da ćemo, ako želimo osigurati mir, morati biti snažniji nego danas. Biti svjestan toga na konceptualnoj razini, međutim, neće biti dovoljno. Sada su nam potrebna djela. Zauzdati nepotrebnu regulaciju koja guši gospodarstvo, povećati energetsku neovisnost, u sigurnost i obranu uložiti više i pametnije.
                  

Tobias Cremer (S&D). – Madam President, colleagues, on Tuesday, we marked 1 000 days since Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I still remember very vividly those who, in February 2022, said that Ukraine won't survive for three days, that it is not worth sending weapons, but Ukraine has proven those people wrong.
For almost 1 000 days, the Ukrainian David is resisting the Russian Goliath, and why? Because the Ukrainian people were prepared, because they are resilient, because they have recognised the threat and they have not allowed themselves to be divided. And these, colleagues, are the lessons that we must draw from the Niinistö report as well.
We are threatened by Russia, by climate change, by pandemics. That is reality. But reality is also that we can overcome these challenges if we recognise them openly, if we believe in our own strength, and if we do not allow ourselves to be divided. Social cohesion and unity in diversity, that is resilience, and that, colleagues, is Europe.

Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, dans un environnement sécuritaire et stratégique qui se dégrade, l'Union européenne est incapable d'anticiper les crises. Mais par contre, on remarque qu'elle profite d'elles, à chaque crise, pour s'octroyer des compétences que les traités ne lui donne pas. Nous l'avons déjà dit, parmi les menaces essentielles qui sont oubliées dans ce rapport, la submersion migratoire et l'islamisme qui s'infiltre partout. Cette submersion migratoire et cet islamisme menacent gravement nos libertés, notre sécurité et notre identité.
                  

                     Je ne prendrai qu'un seul point dans ce rapport qui ferait presque rire. L'Union européenne demande aux citoyens de l'Union de constituer des stocks pour être autosuffisants chez eux pendant 72 heures. On nous demande donc de mettre des conserves dans notre placard pour vivre pendant 72 heures, alors que dans le même temps, avec le Pacte vert et les traités de libre échange, l'Union européenne a détruit notre souveraineté alimentaire et nous a rendu dépendants.
                  

                     Dans ce domaine comme dans bien d'autres, pour faire face aux crises il ne faut pas faire confiance à l'Union européenne, il faut faire confiance à nos nations et à leurs citoyens.
                  

Katri Kulmuni (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, kiitoksia presidentti Niinistölle raportista Euroopan kriisivalmiuden parantamiseksi.
                  

                     Uskallan arvioida, että historia ja maantiede ovat opettaneet meitä suomalaisia varautumaan monenlaisiin kriisioloihin, ja perinteisesti niin perheissä kuin kansakuntana on haluttu varautua aina pahan päivän varalle, kuten sanonta kuuluu.
                  

                     Esimerkkinä Suomessa on laki huoltovarmuudesta ja osana valtionhallintoa Huoltovarmuuskeskus. Se huolehtii maan huoltovarmuuden suunnittelusta ja operatiivisesta toiminnasta ennen kaikkea kokonaisturvallisuuden kautta kattaen niin lääkkeet, ruuan, energian kuin myös alueellisia varautumissuunnitelmia yhdessä paikallisviranomaisten kanssa.
                  

                     On tärkeää, että eurooppalaiset ymmärtävät turvallisuuden kokonaisvaltaisen luonteen. Se ei ole vain sotilaallista. Meidän kriittistä infraamme on vahvistettava ja Euroopan riippumattomuutta kaikilla yhteiskunnan osa-alueilla parannettava, jotta yllättävien kriisien koittaessa olisimme lopulta aiempaa paremmin valmistautuneita. Tähän raportti tarjoaa erinomaisia keinoja.
                  

Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (PPE). – Madam President, preparedness must be costly, but the price of being unprepared is far higher. I think that is the main message presented by the wonderful report from Mr Niinistö. This is the one I will retain.
The second one is that we have to raise awareness of the whole civil society in order to face the real risks going across the board. That means, at the same time, that we have to make a sense of urgency and to speed up the crisis, preparedness and readiness of our instruments in the European Union, and to cooperate and coordinate with the Member States to be fit for purpose.
I welcome the high level of ambition of this report that goes across all the possible hazards, but I think that we should focus on the resilience of the critical infrastructures and key services, especially countering cyberattacks, hybrid threats and massive disinformation campaigns. That demands a lot of investment and a lot of cutting-edge technology in order to be prepared for all these eventualities.

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, Europe needs to wake up. We face unexpected and unpredictable times, and European leaders must be more realistic in the way they design policies and how we build the future of the European Union.
The report is right: the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, the threat of Russia and China and the growth of the far right are harming us. Europe needs to invest more in our military and civil preparedness, but the EU also needs to do more for our citizens, protecting our democratic values, listening to people while explaining to them the options and why we unfortunately need to make all of us further efforts. What are we fighting for if not for our people?
In order to be able to maintain peace, we need to prepare for all circumstances. But no one will follow us if Europe is blocked by minor political interests, bureaucracy burden or the arrogance some are showing. If we build trust, Europe will be trustworthy.

Sven Simon (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we must confront the fact that, in defence, Europe is utterly unprepared. The numbers are clear: while the European Union maintains 178 different weapon systems, the United States operates with 27.
Our defence industry is paralysed by inefficiencies and fragmentation. In supporting Ukraine, we have procured 80 % of our military supplies from outside the European market. That doesn't make sense.
Last November, President von der Leyen put forward urgently needed reforms to strengthen the European Defence Agency and accelerate industry production. So far, Member States have shown an alarming lack of engagement. Putin sees the West as weak. That, we must change! We Europeans, ladies and gentlemen, must move beyond the zero-sum game of national interests and become capable of defending ourselves.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsednica! Spoštovani visoki zbor! Posledice podnebnih sprememb so vsako leto hujše, prav tako pa se po svetu odvija več kot petdeset različnih konfliktov. Ti pričajo predvsem o temni strani človeške narave. Bili bi naivni v prepričanju, da vseh posledic ne občutimo tako na moralni, človeški ravni ter seveda tistih otipljivih.
                  

                     Krepitev skupne evropske strategije glede civilne in obrambne pripravljenosti je zato nujna. Sposobnost napovedovanja, preprečevanja in obvladovanja in hitrega odzivanja na vse vrste groženj so ključna za našo varnost.
                  

                     Ampak, spoštovani, bolj kot kadarkoli prej danes potrebujemo predvsem strategijo miru, strategijo, kako čim prej končati vojno v Ukrajini, kako takoj ustaviti grozoviti genocid v Gazi in napade na nedolžne civiliste v Libanonu in celotni regiji Bližnjega vzhoda ter kako jim zagotoviti nujno humanitarno pomoč in perspektivo – živeti doma, v lastni državi. Zagotoviti mirno prihodnost za vse generacije, za vse naše otroke.
                  

Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Drodzy Koledzy! Pod jedną flagą Unii Europejskiej funkcjonuje wielokulturowa wspólnota państw oparta na najpiękniejszych, najbardziej cennych wartościach, jak prawa człowieka, praworządność, wolny handel. Aby nasza wspólnota była silna i odporna, potrzebujemy szybkich narzędzi do działania. Potrzebujemy konkretów.
                  

                     Blisko 80% Europejczyków chce wspólnej polityki bezpieczeństwa we wszystkich dziedzinach życia. Unia Europejska musi mieć narzędzia do obrony, w tym przed atakami hybrydowymi, na wielu płaszczyznach. Unia Europejska musi się obudzić. Dziś granice Unii Europejskiej są atakowane. Wschodnia granica, między Polską a Białorusią, to wojna, a mieszkańcy regionów przygranicznych biorą największy ciężar tej wojny hybrydowej.
                  

                     Jeśli chcesz pokoju, przygotuj się do wojny – mówi przysłowie. Unia Europejska powinna stworzyć kompleksowy system gotowości i szybkiego reagowania. Unia Europejska wspiera innych, broni i daje poczucie bezpieczeństwa, a sama dziś bardziej niż kiedykolwiek potrzebuje tego wsparcia. Polska bierze, i kraje przyfrontowe, największy ciężar wojny hybrydowej.
                  

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sfida che sta riguardando il mondo è anche una sfida alle nostre democrazie, perché i regimi autocratici sembrano più pronti, anche alla rapidità delle decisioni.
                  

                     Noi invece abbiamo di fronte un equilibrio difficile e cioè combinare la complessità delle nostre democrazie con la rapidità delle decisioni che dobbiamo prendere quando è necessario. La relazione Niinistö mi pare che tracci in maniera chiara e inequivocabile qual è il futuro da percorrere per la nostra Unione europea, per un futuro prossimo di pace e di sicurezza.
                  

                     Lavorare per incrementare la collaborazione tra l'intelligence, gli eserciti e i mondi produttivi, essere pronti a reagire velocemente in caso di necessità, superare i meccanismi di veto su spese comuni che riguardano la difesa sono aspetti non più rinviabili.
                  

                     È una priorità, deve essere una priorità per le nostre famiglie politiche, perché il futuro dell'Europa passa dalla sicurezza che sapremo dare alla nostra casa comune.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospa predsednica! Prihajam iz družine, kjer so se v preteklosti tri različne generacije borile v različnih vojnah.
                  

                     Moj pradedek se je boril v prvi svetovni vojni. Moj dedek se je boril v drugi svetovni vojni in moj oče je veteran slovenske osamosvojitvene vojne. Jaz sem četrta generacija, za katero se je na neki način zdelo, da jo bo vojna tako ali drugače zaobšla.
                  

                     Ampak prav ruska invazija v Ukrajini je pokazala, da tudi v enaindvajsetem stoletju mir v Evropi žal ni samoumeven. Zato je naša dolžnost, da vlagamo v obrambne zmogljivosti in si na takšen način gradimo kredibilno odvračanje in si gradimo mir.
                  

                     In to današnje sporočilo je pomemben opomnik, da gradnja vojaških zmogljivosti ni dovolj, ampak da moramo na potencialni konflikt pripraviti tudi naše družbe.
                  

José Cepeda (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señorías, el informe Niinistö es extraordinariamente interesante. Nos coloca, de una forma directa, frente a las amenazas que ya estamos hoy teniendo, pero yo quería poner en valor dos elementos fundamentales de este informe: el primero es la capacidad de coordinar la inteligencia de nuestros países y, en segundo lugar, intentar desarrollar un escudo protector que, por encima de todo, ponga en valor la defensa de nuestros ciudadanos.
                  

                     Esto no se hace solamente con inversiones. Esto no se hace solamente invirtiendo en defensa. Esto se hace invirtiendo en un cambio de actitud que, lamentablemente, incluso aquí esta mañana vemos que no tiene nada que ver. Hay algunos diputados que están hoy aquí levantando la voz y la palabra con una conceptualización más propia de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y con una actitud de intentar más de deconstruir Europa que todo lo contrario.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, este informe es extraordinariamente importante. Salvaguardemos nuestros sistemas de inteligencia, hagamos que se comparta la información y protejámonos todos ante lo que se nos viene encima que, sin lugar a dudas, va a ser extraordinariamente importante.
                  

Fernand Kartheiser (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, selon nos traités, l'Union européenne n'a pas vocation à devenir une alliance militaire. Sans révision des traités ratifiée par les États membres, la militarisation de notre Union viole nos bases légales. L'introduction d'un commissaire à la défense témoigne de la volonté de créer des faits accomplis sans consulter les parlements nationaux ou écouter la volonté des peuples. On craint le refus comme en 1954 et on préfère donc se passer de la démocratie.
                  

                     Cette dimension de la défense qui va au-delà d'une coopération en matière de sécurité viole la neutralité de l'Irlande et de l'Autriche. On ignore les référendums et les traités d'État. La transformation de l'Union européenne en alliance militaire, de fait en simple appendice de l'OTAN, rendra impossible l'adhésion de l'Ukraine à l'Union européenne. Si celle-ci survit à la guerre, elle sera et devra rester neutre. Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, si nous devons mieux nous préparer à des crises, faisons-le au moins en respectant la démocratie et les traités.
                  

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση του κ. Niinistö συνιστά ένα κυνικό εγχειρίδιο πολεμικής προετοιμασίας, σε μια περίοδο με περισσότερες συγκρούσεις και από το τέλος του Δευτέρου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Στόχος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι η ψυχολογική προετοιμασία των λαών ώστε να αντιμετωπίσουν ένα περιβάλλον κινδύνων και αστάθειας με μόνα θύματα τους ίδιους. Να συνηθίσουν να ζουν στον κόσμο των ιμπεριαλιστικών ανταγωνισμών και πολέμων ανάμεσα σε ΗΠΑ, ΝΑΤΟ, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, Ρωσία και Κίνα, στις αστικές τάξεις. Εξού και η επικίνδυνη διασύνδεση της πολεμικής προετοιμασίας με την πολιτική προστασία, με οδηγίες για κάθε λαϊκό νοικοκυριό να εξασφαλίσει προμήθειες τριών ημερών. Όπως επίσης και με το 20% του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που πηγαίνει στους πολεμικούς σχεδιασμούς και σχεδόν 400 δισ. ευρώ για στρατιωτικές υποδομές, που πληρώνουν οι λαοί με φόρους, μισθούς πείνας, ακρίβεια και ενεργειακή φτώχεια. Παράλληλα, έχουμε κινητικότητα και ευελιξία των εργαζομένων για όπου έχει ανάγκες η ευρωενωσιακή πολεμική βιομηχανία.
                  

                     Ενάντια στον πολεμικό εφιάλτη που ζουν ήδη οι λαοί και στα χειρότερα που τους ετοιμάζουν. Με την πάλη τους πρέπει να εναντιωθούν στον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο και την εμπλοκή Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και κυβερνήσεων.
                  

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caros Colegas, décadas de subinvestimento em segurança e defesa na União Europeia deixaram-nos completamente vulneráveis.
                  

                     O relatório Niinistö acentua a urgência de uma capacidade de resposta que integre tanto o setor militar como o setor civil.
                  

                     A proposta de reforço do Mecanismo de Proteção Civil da União Europeia, que apoio totalmente, representa um passo essencial nesta direção, como vimos em relação às recentes catástrofes que ocorreram na Europa. Entre fogos em Portugal, cheias no centro da Europa e, agora, em Valência, nenhum cidadão ficou imune.
                  

                     No próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, este deverá ser um instrumento financeiro que, de forma transversal, seja colocado ao serviço desta causa.
                  

                     A segurança é um bem público e é a principal função do Estado, é a nossa maior responsabilidade para com todos os cidadãos da União Europeia.
                  

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiami šios salės kolegos, nacionalistai. Jūs taip ir nesuprantate, kad suomiai pademonstravo puikų pavyzdį thinking globally and acting locally. Šioje salėje nacionalistai mąsto kitaip – thinking locally ir acting locally. Tai yra didžiausia klaida, kuri brangiai kainavo šitiems nacionalizmams. Todėl dabar dar kartą reikia aiškiai pasakyti, kad tiek M. Draghi raportas, E. Letta raportas, tiek S. Niinistö raportas parodo labai aiškiai gerą pavyzdį acting globally, thinking globally, but acting united. Ir mums kaip niekad reikia dabar Europos gynybos sąjungos, Europos sveikatos sąjungos, Europos saugumo sąjungos. To, ko reikia, kad kiekvienoje lokalioje vietoje, kiekviename mieste ir kiekvienoje sostinėje Europa padėtų atremti tuos milžiniškus gausius iššūkius.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


President. – The debate is closed.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Europos rizikos pobūdis labai kinta. Šiandien ES susiduria su daugybe vienu metu atsirandančių įvairaus pobūdžio ir vis sudėtingesnių iššūkių ir grėsmių. Didėjantis konfliktų, žmogaus sukeltų ir gaivalinių nelaimių, įskaitant ekstremalius meteorologinius reiškinius, skaičius ir kintantis saugumo rizikos pobūdis kelia vis didesnį pavojų ES nelaimių rizikos valdymo struktūrai. Pastarojo meto geopolitiniai įvykiai dar kartą primena būtinybę būti pasirengusiems bet kokiems galimiems scenarijams. Kad galėtų spręsti pagrindinius ateinančio dešimtmečio krizių valdymo uždavinius, t. y. uždavinius, susijusius su klimato kaita ir kintančiomis grėsmėmis saugumui, Komisija ir valstybės narės turi didinti savo strateginę parengtį, glaudžiai bendradarbiaudamos su pagrindiniais suinteresuotaisiais subjektais ir partneriais. Sustiprinus rezervą ‘rescEU’, kuris yra veiksmingiausia ir rezultatyviausia ES lygmens priemonė, būtų padidintas Sąjungos atsparumas grėsmėms, kurios galėtų daryti poveikį pagrindinei Europos visuomenės struktūrai.
                  

Michał Dworczyk (ECR),
na piśmie. – Raport prezydenta Sauli Niinistö podkreśla konieczność budowy ‘kompleksowej gotowości’ UE i jej państw członkowskich, proponując wprowadzenie nowych mechanizmów centralizacji oraz koordynacji na poziomie unijnym. Choć intencja jest słuszna – zwiększenie bezpieczeństwa Europy w obliczu narastających zagrożeń – to czy rzeczywiście każda sytuacja kryzysowa wymaga jednolitego podejścia i centralnego zarządzania? Kluczową rolę w gotowości i odporności odgrywają państwa członkowskie i sami obywatele, zaś gwarancją europejskiego bezpieczeństwa jest NATO i więź transatlantycka. Agresja Rosji na Ukrainę wyraźnie pokazała, że skuteczna reakcja nie była efektem instrukcji z Brukseli, lecz natychmiastowych działań państw członkowskich, z ówczesnym polskim rządem na czele. Jestem szczególnie dumny z Polaków, którzy zareagowali z niezwykłą solidarnością i determinacją na pełnoskalową wojnę Rosji przeciwko Ukrainie. Podobną postawą wykazali się mieszkańcy Dolnego Śląska i Opolszczyzny podczas niedawnej powodzi. Kolejnym dowodem świadomości i zaangażowania Polaków w budowanie odporności jest ich aktywny udział w Wojskach Obrony Terytorialnej, powołanych przez rząd Prawa i Sprawiedliwości. Jak widać gotowość Unii opiera się przede wszystkim na sile państw członkowskich i jej obywateli. Odpowiedź państwa polskiego i Polaków w obliczu kryzysów ostatnich lat powinny być inspiracją dla Brukseli w budowaniu odporności i zdolności reagowania, nie zaś kolejne raporty postulujące pogłębianie centralizacji i tworzenie nowych departamentów w instytucjach unijnych.
                  

Mariusz Kamiński (ECR),
na piśmie. – To dobrze, iż dyskutuje się o europejskim bezpieczeństwie, także w ramach organizacji, jaką jest Unia Europejska. Kwestie bezpieczeństwa wymagają jednak twardego oparcia w rzeczywistości, która jest niezmienna od wieków: to potencjał państwa, jego sił zbrojnych, gotowości obywateli, by bronić swojej ojczyzny, jest kluczem do pokoju, bezpieczeństwa i obrony niepodległości. Istotne są także sojusze, zdolność partnerów do wywiązywania się z zobowiązań. Niestety doświadczenia ostatnich dekad jasno wskazują, iż polityka niektórych stolic służyła rozbrajaniu Europy, przy jednoczesnym uzależnianiu się od Rosji. Minione stulecie wielokrotnie udowodniło, iż to Stany Zjednoczone są jednym z filarów europejskiego bezpieczeństwa. To dzięki NATO jesteśmy wspólnie silniejsi i bezpieczniejsi. Żadne biurokratyczne struktury w ramach Unii, nowe raporty, nie zastąpią tych prawd. Niestety ostatnie decyzje w ramach europejskich grantów na produkcję amunicji czy dofinansowanie wspólnych zamówień w ramach EDIRPA tylko wzmocniły głosy, iż pogłębienie wspólnej polityki obronnej i bezpieczeństwa może służyć przede wszystkim dominacji teoretycznie najsilniejszych graczy.
                  

                     Prezydent Sauli Niinistö słusznie chwali fakt, iż siłą fińskiej obrony cywilnej są Finowie. W Polsce z trudem, przy krytyce ówczesnej opozycji, zbudowaliśmy Wojska Obrony Terytorialnej. Z trudem odbudowaliśmy potencjał sił zbrojnych, wzmacnialiśmy polski przemysł obronny.
                  

                     Bezpieczeństwo narodowe nie może opierać się na iluzjach, o których zbyt często słyszymy na tej sali.
                  

(The sitting was suspended at 11:02)


IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

4.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 11:06)

5.   Extraordinary part-session

President. – I have two short announcements.
First of all, Tuesday next week will mark 1 000 days of Ukraine's heroic fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal Russian invasion.
The determination and courage of ordinary Ukrainians, who have sacrificed everything for their country, has inspired the world, and I am proud that this Parliament has supported them in their struggle from day one. I speak for all of Europe when I say our unwavering support will continue for as long as it takes, because true peace cannot exist without freedom.
Outside this Hemicycle, you will find a stand set up to take photos, where you can help raise awareness. I encourage you all to participate.
On Tuesday, 19 November at 11:00, we will host here an extraordinary plenary to discuss our support and the situation in Ukraine. We will be joined from Ukraine by President Zelenskyy. I encourage you all to be here.
6.   Request for waiver of immunity

President. – I have received a request from the competent authorities in Poland for the parliamentary immunity of Grzegorz Braun to be waived.
This request is referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
7.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.
7.1.   RESTORE – Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 (vote)

President. – The first vote is on RESTORE – Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 (see minutes, item 7.1).
7.2.   Specific measures under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to provide additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters (vote)

President. – The next vote is on specific measures under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to provide additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters (see minutes, item 7.2).
7.3.   Deforestation Regulation: provisions relating to the date of application (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the Deforestation Regulation: provisions relating to the date of application (see minutes, item 7.3).
By way of information, Amendments 1, 2, 8, 13, 14 and 15 have been withdrawn.

– Before the vote on Amendment 6:


Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – I'm trying here now, but the voting device didn't work. I just want to say it for the record. If other people are affected, I don't know, but it didn't work. Sorry.

President. – Who still has a problem? Is your machine turned off? Can you try another one? There are many here. Can you find another one to put your card in? It's a new system. We need to test it. Let's try.
We are not repeating the vote.
Amendment 7, by roll call. The vote is open. We have to open. Are all the machines working now?

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, este es un voto sensible y todos los compañeros y las compañeras tienen derecho a que quede registrado su sentido de voto. Si hay máquinas que no han funcionado, hay que volver a empezar con la votación.
                  

President. – Are all the machines working now? We will not repeat the vote.

– After the vote on the Commission proposal:


Christine Schneider,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I would request a referral back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations under Rule 60(4).

(Parliament approved the request)

7.4.   Electronic value added tax exemption certificate (A10-0012/2024 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on electronic value added tax exemption certificate (see minutes, item 7.4).

– During the vote:


Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I just wanted to reiterate that in Rule 197(3) of the Rules of Procedure it is written that the roll-call vote shall be taken using the electronic voting system. But if – and that happened today – the latter cannot be used for technical reasons, the roll may be called in alphabetical order, beginning with the name of a Member drawn by lot.
I just wanted to say that, to my understanding, what happened today is not in line with the Rules of Procedure.

President. – We looked quite well from here. We could see all the lights on.
7.5.   Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes (A10-0011/2024 - Herbert Dorfmann) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes (see minutes, item 7.5).

– During the vote:


Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madam President, my machine only half works. I can abstain or vote against, but I am unable to vote in favour.
7.6.   Amendment of the EIB's Statute (A10-0013/2024 - Joachim Streit) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on amendment of the EIB's Statute (see minutes, item 7.6).

– Before the vote:


Joachim Streit,
Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Angesichts der jüngsten Wahl von Donald Trump ist es wichtiger denn je, die Investitionslücke im Bereich Sicherheit in Europa zu schließen, die Produktivität zu stärken und Maßnahmen für den Klimaschutz weiter auszubauen, um die strategische Autonomie der EU nachhaltig zu festigen. Vor diesem Hintergrund möchte ich Ihnen heute die vorgeschlagene Änderung der Satzung der Europäischen Investitionsbank vorstellen und erläutern, warum ich diese für notwendig halte.
                  

                     Konkret betrifft der Antrag die so genannte gearing ratio der Bank, die derzeit bei 250 % liegt. Bei normalen Geschäftsbanken liegt sie bei über 1000 %. Diese Obergrenze stellt das Verhältnis zwischen den ausstehenden Darlehen und den Garantien der Bank und ihrem gezeichneten Kapital dar. Nach dem jetzigen Vorschlag soll diese Obergrenze nach dem einstimmigen Beschluss des Gouverneursrats auf 290 % angehoben werden. Der Antrag basiert auf einer Empfehlung bei der Kapitalausstattungsüberprüfung, kurz CAF, einer von der G20 beauftragten unabhängigen Überprüfung der Widerstandsfähigkeit multilateraler Entwicklungsbanken.
                  

                     Die Empfehlung in Bezug auf die EIB lautet daher, ihr größere Flexibilität bei der Festlegung ihres Risikomanagements zu geben, um die Investitionslücken in Europa zu schließen. Das ist auch erforderlich, da die Anforderungen modernen Finanzstandards entsprechen werden müssen und die notwendige Handlungsfähigkeit der EIB in einem komplexen geopolitischen Umfeld erforderlich ist. Zugleich ist es mir noch wichtig, dass das Einstimmigkeitserfordernis beibehalten wird, um sicherzustellen, dass jede künftige Anpassung der gearing ratio von allen Mitgliedstaaten getragen wird und somit ein Gleichgewicht der Kräfte gewahrt bleibt. Ich bitte also um Zustimmung und bedanke mich für die Aufmerksamkeit.
                  

– During the vote:


Lukas Sieper (NI). – (Start of speech off mic) … Rule 197. Even though I would not jump on the same point like my colleague, dear Mr Marquardt.
The thing is, he's right. We have a vote here today where at every single vote, the machines failed at some point. This is not okay. We have to have a high standard. And we even have colleagues who chant and act like it would be a show or something.
So what I would like to propose, dear President, even though I fully respect your ability to make these vote sessions real quick and very efficient, maybe we take ten minutes and give the IT department a possibility to see what's wrong with the voting machines.

President. – We are trying each one to see that everybody manages to vote. Let's test with this one.
7.7.   UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29) (B10-0156/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29) (see minutes, item 7.7).

– Before the vote on paragraph 24:


Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I really do not want to repeat again Mr Sieper's words. However, I counted: we have 25 RCVs ahead of us. If we do this for each and every one of them, the 10-minute break for the IT department will be shorter than the 25 RCVs.

President. – Let's have a look. We'll test the next two, and then we'll reset the system. But I would really like us to proceed. A lot of colleagues need to leave.

– Before the vote on Amendment 6:


François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, pour apporter une proposition constructive et dans un esprit d'unité, je voudrais faire ce rappel au règlement sur la base du Traité de fonctionnement de l'Union européenne: je propose désormais que toutes nos sessions de vote aient lieu à Strasbourg.
                  

President. – Let's hope the machines work there when we next go there.
Okay, let's wait a minute. I apologise for all this. It's the first time the system is being tested. It's all so random; it's not a specific part of the Chamber.
Ms Kanko, you are asking to be always in Brussels. What happened?

Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, I just want to speak to my colleague Bellamy and because I'm very kind, I will even speak French.
En tant que Belges nous proposons qu'il y ait quand même encore des votes à Bruxelles.

Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, en attendant que le système soit remis à jour, je voudrais que nous revenions sur la manière dont le vote sur la déforestation importée s'est passé. Il semble que 7 voix, de ce côté-là de l'hémicycle, n'ont pas pu être prises en considération. Certains amendements sont passés à 3 voix près. Je demande que nous revotions, en particulier sur les premiers amendements qui ont été déposés sur la loi ‘Déforestation importée’.
                  

President. – We paid specific attention to making sure that machines work. Are you going to vote now or not?
7.8.   EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia (RC-B10-0161/2024, B10-0160/2024, B10-0161/2024, B10-0162/2024, B10-0163/2024, B10-0164/2024, B10-0166/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia (see minutes, item 7.8).

– After the vote on Amendement 6:


Manon Aubry (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, je suis désolée, j'aurais aimé éviter de le faire pour pouvoir finaliser le vote, mais après vérification, les premiers votes sur le texte de la déforestation sont passés à 3 voix près. Il y avait entre 625 et 630 votants. Vous l'avez dit vous-même, la plupart des votes… Chers collègues, je sais très bien que vous voulez tuer, absolument, la forêt et ce texte contre la déforestation, mais faites-le au moins en bonne intelligence: vous pourriez accepter que l'on vote de nouveau, si vous êtes si sûrs de votre vote par ailleurs.
                  

                     Donc, Madame la Présidente, si je peux me permettre, je voudrais vous demander qu'on puisse s'enquérir des collègues qui étaient présents dans l'hémicycle et dont les votes n'ont pas été comptés, et qu'on puisse faire en sorte que, quelle que soit la position de cet hémicycle sur ce texte, ce vote soit fait dans de bonnes conditions démocratiques, parce que, par ailleurs, je ne pense pas qu'on donne une bonne image de notre Parlement aujourd'hui avec ce vote.
                  

President. – You will see that, for every vote, I made sure that the machines worked and the outcome was clear. It's true they were tight, but it was clear. I would like to finish this vote, please, now.

President. – We will launch an investigation with the technical services on the system that we have now. That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 11:55)


IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE


Vice-President

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 11:59)

9.   Explanations of vote

President. – The next item is the explanations of vote.
9.1.   UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29) (B10-0156/2024)

President. – We first have the explanations of vote on the UN Climate Change Conference 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29).

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, me jotka vastustimme tätä päätöslauselmaa, emme tehneet sitä siksi, että emme välittäisi ympäristöstä ja ilmastosta. Me vain vastustamme sitä ideologiaa, jonka nimissä Eurooppa, jonka päästöt kattavat vain seitsemän prosenttia koko maailman päästöistä, joutuu uhraamaan useiden satojen miljoonien ihmisten tulevaisuuden tuon kyseisen seitsemän prosentin nollaamisen vuoksi.
                  

                     Terästehtaamme sulkeutuvat, autonvalmistajat laittavat lapun luukulle ja tuhannet ihmiset joutuvat kilometritehtaalle. Mitä sanomme kotimaidemme kansalaisille, kun he tulevat kysymään meiltä, miksi ajoimme heidät työttömyyteen ja heidän perheensä sosiaaliturvan tukien varaan? Tunnumme tässä salissa ottavan kokoamme suuremman vastuun ilmastosta, mutta missä on vastuu taloudesta, työpaikoista ja ihmisten toimeentulosta? Miten voimme samaan aikaan keskustella puolustusvalmiutemme kohottamisesta, kun ilmastoideologia kahlitsee suuren osan tuotantomme potentiaalista?
                  

                     Alas pähkähullu viherhumppa, ylös Euroopan talous ja teollisuus. Siksi vastustin tätä esitystä.
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the UN climate conference.
We had a vote regarding this topic today, and we see ourselves challenged with the fact that one of our most important partners, not only in climate protection but also in the energy transition, is a country that stands particularly against those changes and wants to keep a fossil-based industry, wants to make money on a fossil-based industry.
Of course, this could now lead us to boycott this country, to boycott this climate conference. And as I have spoken out at least a little bit for the first option, I would strongly disregard the second option. We have to face the situation that when we want to save the climate, when we want to save our planet, we need to work together with people who might not earn our trust.
So I hope that the next climate conference in Baku, or any climate conference, is visited by way more of the world leaders.
9.2.   EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia (RC-B10-0161/2024)

President. – We now move to the explanations of vote on EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, öljykauppa on Venäjälle keskeinen tulonlähde, jolla se rahoittaa hyökkäystään Ukrainassa. Pakotteita kiertääkseen Venäjä on luonut laajan varjolaivaston eli satojen säiliöalusten verkoston, jolla se pyrkii piilottamaan öljyn alkuperän kansainvälisillä markkinoilla. Alukset ovat kaiken lisäksi vakuuttamattomia purjehduskelvottomia rotiskoja, joista koituu vakavia ympäristöriskejä.
                  

                     Tarvitsemme lisää kohdennettuja pakotteita. Kaikki varjolaivaston alukset sekä niiden omistajat tulee nimetä. EU:n tulee arvioida suhteitaan uudelleen Venäjän varjolaivastoa alustaviin maihin. Niin kauan kuin EU tuo fossiilisia polttoaineita Venäjältä, pakotteiden vaikutus jää tavoiteltua heikommaksi. Siksi venäläisten fossiilisten polttoaineiden tuonti tulisi kieltää kokonaan.
                  

                     On velvollisuutemme tehdä kaikkemme Venäjän sotakonetta rahoittavan öljykaupan kitkemiseksi ja varjolaivaston toiminnan estämiseksi. Tämän johdosta äänestin päätöslauselman puolesta.
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Madam President, dear people of Europe, I have voted today with the reality in mind that despite our best efforts, EU sanctions on Russia have been not as effective as they should be, as we would have wished for. One weapon in the arsenal that Russia is using as a tool of hybrid warfare are those shadow fleets as an attempt to circumvent EU sanctions. We cannot let this happen.
I stand along with the rest of Europe. My party, the Party of Progress, stands along with the rest of Europe in supporting Ukraine. But of course, Russia is not only waging a war against Ukraine, Russia is waging a war against every free person in Europe. This is why we do not only defend Ukraine with imposing sanctions like this and strengthening our laws, we are also defending ourselves. Therefore, I call on all my colleagues to also vote for this in the future.

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, o agendamento deste debate e a correspondente resolução inserem-se na lógica de instigação e promoção da confrontação e escalada do conflito no Leste da Europa, com os sérios perigos que comporta para os povos ucraniano e russo, mas também para os povos da Europa.
                  

                     A resolução confirma-o, desde logo, pela insistência no reforço das sanções e na omissão das suas consequências no agravamento da situação económica e social em diversos países, agravamento que está a ser pago pelos trabalhadores e pelos povos. Também, por isso, nos distanciamos da resolução apresentada pelo nosso grupo.
                  

                     O que é urgente é a criação de iniciativas que promovam o diálogo e a solução política do conflito, para a qual a presente resolução não contribui, antes pretende obstaculizar. É uma resolução que evidencia a hipocrisia do Parlamento Europeu que, em simultâneo, encobre e sustenta a política genocida de Israel contra o povo palestiniano.
                  

                     Precisamos de paz e não de mais guerra.
                  

Joachim Streit (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die russische Schattenflotte wird auf mindestens 600 Tanker geschätzt. Und ich habe für diese Entschließung heute gestimmt. Denn bei der russischen Schattenflotte handelt es sich um alte Schiffe, die häufig ohne Versicherung fahren und häufig ihren Namen und ihre Flaggenregistrierung ändern. Damit sind diese Schiffe eine große Gefahr für die Umwelt und die Meere – ich denke insbesondere auch an Deutschland und die Nord- und Ostsee – und verstoßen auch gegen den Geist des EU-Sanktionsregimes, denn in dieser Weise unterläuft Russland die EU-Sanktionen und steuert europäische Häfen an.
                  

                     Wir müssen unbedingt die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft damit beauftragen, auch gegen diese Vergehen zu ermitteln, und das Ganze auch bei der Frage des Umweltschutzes unter Sanktionen zu stellen. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die russische Schattenflotte verletzt europäisches Recht, und dem muss man hier ein Ende setzen.
                  

President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.
10.   Approval of the minutes of the part-session and forwarding of texts adopted

President. – The minutes of today's and yesterday's sittings will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of the part-session taking place on 25-28 Novemberin Strasbourg.
If there are no objections, I shall forward the resolutions adopted at today's sitting to the persons and bodies named in the resolutions.
11.   Dates of forthcoming sittings

President. – The next part-session will take place on 19 November 2024 in Brussels.
12.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 12:08)

13.   Adjournment of the session

President. – The session of the European Parliament is adjourned.


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)