Verbatim report of proceedings of 26 November 2024
Date: 2024-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202505034EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














18.9.2025







            26 November 2024
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 26 NOVEMBER 2024
            
         
(C/2025/5034)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Corrigenda (Rule 251)
4










3.

Reinforcing EU's unwavering support to Ukraine against Russia's war of aggression and the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia (debate)
4










4.

Resumption of the sitting
36










5.

Voting time
37










5.1.

Partial renewal of a member of the Court of Auditors – Iliana Ivanova (A10-0018/2024 - Csaba Molnár) (vote)
37










5.2.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 (B10-0148/2024) (vote)
37










5.3.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified cotton COT102 (B10-0145/2024) (vote)
37










5.4.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and eight of its sub-combinations (B10-0147/2024) (vote)
37










5.5.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 810 (B10-0146/2024) (vote)
37










5.6.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP915635 (B10-0149/2024) (vote)
37










5.7.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP23211 (B10-0150/2024) (vote)
38










5.8.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP202216 (B10-0152/2024) (vote)
38










5.9.

Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 94804 (B10-0153/2024) (vote)
38










6.

Resumption of the sitting
38










7.

2025 budgetary procedure: Joint text (debate)
38










8.

The Autumn 2024 Economic Forecast: a gradual rebound in an adverse environment (debate)
55










9.

Resumption of the sitting
66










10.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
66










11.

Question Time with Commissioners – Challenges in the implementation of cohesion policy 2021-2027
66










12.

Continued escalation in the Middle East: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, UNRWA's essential role in the region, the need to release all hostages and the recent ICC arrest warrants (debate)
81










13.

Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)
94










14.

Outcome of COP 29 and challenges for international climate policy (debate)
94










15.

Full accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Area: the urgent need to lift controls at internal land borders (debate)
105










16.

Prison conditions in the EU (debate)
117










17.

Urgent need to tackle the gender pay gap (debate)
123










18.

Political and humanitarian situation in Mozambique (debate)
133










19.

Explanations of vote
139










20.

Agenda of the next sitting
139










21.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
139










22.

Closure of the sitting
139




Verbatim report of proceedings of 26 November 2024
                  


VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 09.01 Uhr eröffnet.)

2.   Corrigenda (Rule 251)

Die Präsidentin. – Ich habe eine Benachrichtigung vorzunehmen. Der ENVI-Ausschuss hat eine Berichtigung zu einem vom Parlament angenommenen Text übermittelt. Gemäß Artikel 251 der Geschäftsordnung gilt diese Berichtigung als angenommen, wenn nicht spätestens 24 Stunden nach ihrer Bekanntgabe von einer Fraktion oder von Mitgliedern, durch die mindestens die niedrige Schwelle erreicht wird, beantragt wird, dass sie zur Abstimmung gestellt wird. Die Berichtigung ist auf der Webseite ‘Plenartagung’ verfügbar. Ihr Titel wird im Protokoll dieser Sitzung veröffentlicht.
               
3.   Reinforcing EU's unwavering support to Ukraine against Russia's war of aggression and the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als erster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Verstärkung der unerschütterlichen Unterstützung der EU für die Ukraine angesichts des Angriffskriegs Russlands und der zunehmenden militärischen Zusammenarbeit Nordkoreas und Russlands [2024/2940(RSP)].
               

János Bóka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, last week, on Tuesday 19 November, we marked 1 000 days since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Enormous suffering and widespread destruction are the result of this war of aggression. We see Russia continuously targeting, notably, the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, including attacks on the substations linking the nuclear power plant to the electricity grid.
The European Council condemns the persistent shelling by Russia of Ukraine's critical energy and civilian infrastructure. The European Union and its Member States will intensify the assistance to Ukraine to ensure the resilience of its energy sector through the winter.
We also see Russia continuing escalating its war, most recently with the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia. This is in addition to the military support that North Korea already provides to Russia through artillery shells, missiles and artillery. This represents an internationalisation of the conflict. It is also a clear violation of international law and the UN Security Council resolutions.
The European Union and its Member States will continue to help Ukraine and its people as Ukraine exercises its inherent right to self-defence. We help the Ukrainian State to maintain liquidity and thus function in the context of the continuing Russian bombardments and hybrid attacks. We help Ukraine to maintain its exports through solidarity lanes and to quickly repair its energy infrastructure. And our help extends to the Ukrainian people, both those remaining in the country and those who chose to seek temporary protection in the European Union.
And finally, the European Union reaffirms our readiness to support Ukrainian people on their European path. Let me stress that the work of Member States and the European Union go hand in hand in all aspects of our support to Ukraine. Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the European Union has imposed massive and unprecedented sanctions against Russia. The European Union has also adopted sanctions against Belarus, Iran and North Korea in response to their support to Russia's military aggression against Ukraine. Work on sanctions continues and also work on further solutions to avoid circumvention.
Our efforts to sustain Ukraine will continue. Ukraine will remain at the top of our political agenda and our diplomatic action. Thank you very much for your attention.

Didier Reynders,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, it is imperative that we, as the European Union, together with Member States, continue to use all the tools at our disposal to assist Ukraine – its military defence, its economy, its citizens – and support it on its EU accession path, in line with the EU-Ukraine joint security commitments signed in June. All aspects of our support are linked and interconnected: security and defence goes hand in hand with support to accession-related reforms, and with the support to recovery and reconstruction.
And EU accession is the ultimate guarantee that the European Union can offer. As shown by the Ukraine report, under this year's enlargement package, Ukraine has continued to demonstrate remarkable resilience and strong commitment to fundamental reforms, despite the ongoing Russian war of aggression.
The overall assistance to Ukraine and its people by the European Union and its Member States amounts to about EUR 124 billion. The Ukraine Facility is delivering, with the total financing expected to be more than EUR 16 billion by the end of the year to support Ukraine's most pressing financing needs. Its second pillar, the Ukraine Investment Framework will support investments in critical reconstruction projects.
Around EUR 45.5 billion have been mobilised in military support, of which EUR 6.1 billion is via the European Peace Facility. This helps provide a wide variety of arms necessary for Ukraine to repel the Russian aggression. The European Union is committed and delivered 1 million ammunition shells. At the same time, we ramped up the production capacity of our own industry. This improved production capacity will not only help long-term assistance to Ukraine, but also replenish our own stocks. By helping Ukraine, we are also building up our own security. Ukraine is now able to operate F-16 fighter jets, thanks to the Netherlands, Denmark and others.
Additionally, we have mobilised EUR 1.5 billion in windfall profits from frozen Russian assets. Some 90 % of this first tranche will be channelled through the European Peace Facility to deliver priority equipment, including artillery, ammunition and air defence, and, for the first time, direct procurement from the Ukrainian defence industry. For the next tranche of expected EUR 1.9 billion, we propose to allocate EUR 1 billion to the Ukrainian industry. Our EU military assistance mission to Ukraine will hit the target of 75 000 Ukrainian soldiers trained by the end of the winter.
However, we know that the current level of assistance remains insufficient to tilt the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine's favour. We know that Russia has put its entire economy on a wartime footing, and counts on the military backing of North Korea and Iran, as well as the substantial support provided by China.
We need to step up our assistance. Ukraine urgently needs more air defence, more ammunition and more long-range weapons. Our support to Ukraine must be scaled up. The European Union will continue to coordinate with its Member States to increase our military support and to adapt our aid to Ukraine's needs. The European Union will also continue to work with Member States to provide all the necessary political, military and financial assistance that Ukraine needs to win.
It is very important to continue such a kind of support during the war now, but we need also, I will say, to continue to work on the fight against impunity to be sure that it is possible to bring the people responsible for such a war of aggression to justice. And we need to continue to work to be sure that Russia will pay for the compensation of the damages caused by the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
So be sure that we want to continue our full support during the war, but we want also to continue our action about the accountability of the Russian authorities for all the crimes committed in Ukraine. Thank you very much for your support and your attention.

Michael Gahler,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wiederum müssen wir uns mit dem brutalen russischen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine befassen. Nach über 1000 Tagen des vollumfänglichen Krieges sollte man eigentlich den Eindruck haben, Putin könnte nicht weiter eskalieren, denn viele auch nach Kriegsvölkerrecht illegalen Praktiken sind bereits festgestellt worden: Krieg gegen zivile Einrichtungen ist erwähnt worden, aber auch grauenhafte Videos im Netz von der Ermordung von ukrainischen Kriegsgefangenen sind erschreckend.
               

                  Parallel sind wir weiter hybrider Kriegsführung ausgesetzt. Dieses chinesische Schiff, von Russen gechartert mit einem russischen Kapitän, das in der Ostsee offenbar die Internetverbindung zwischen Helsinki und Rostock gekappt hat, und auch zwischen Schweden und Litauen, ist im Augenblick festgesetzt, und da muss weiter untersucht werden. Aber ich denke, das ist der Bereich, wo wir bereits jetzt diesem schrecklichen Krieg ausgesetzt sind.
               

                  Aber die aktuelle neue Eskalationsstufe ist der Einsatz von derzeit bis zu 12 000 nordkoreanischen Staatssöldnern, die ihm Kim Jong-un als Kanonenfutter geschickt hat. Das zeigt, dass Russland in Wirklichkeit schwach ist. Es braucht Soldaten und Munition aus Ostasien, um seinen verbrecherischen Vernichtungskrieg fortzuführen.
               

                  Wir müssen in dieser Phase des Krieges, wo nicht klar ist, wie sich die künftige amerikanische Administration verhalten wird, die verbleibende Zeit nutzen. Ich begrüße die Entscheidung der USA, Großbritanniens und Frankreichs, die Reichweitenbegrenzung für ATACMS, Storm Shadows und SCALPs aufzuheben. Vom amtierenden deutschen Bundeskanzler erwarte ich nichts mehr, bin aber zuversichtlich, dass die eindeutigen Äußerungen der Parteivorsitzenden von CDU, FDP und Grünen im Hinblick auf die Taurus-Lieferungen in einer neuen Koalition umgesetzt werden. In dem Zusammenhang ist der Wahlkampf zulasten der Ukraine schäbig.
               

Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, Council, Commission, some are apparently under the impression that Russia's war of aggression will end soon, and they act accordingly, going to completely irresponsible waiting mode: wrong and a gift for Putin. Nothing has changed really, since the US elections in terms of what we have to do for Ukraine and for ourselves.
Nevertheless, we see a completely absent sense of urgency in most capitals. And I also note here a striking difference between the Commission and the Council: not surprising, because the government that you represent blocks crucial funding at this moment for Ukraine.
What has changed is that North Korea sent soldiers and weapons to the front, and that Yemenis are being brought to Russia under false pretext. And, as is often the case, the prospect of negotiations is intensifying the battle, Russian gains and countless deliberate criminal attacks on cities and civilian infrastructure. Why are we letting this happen?
Apart from the Baltic countries and two or three others, nothing extra is happening at this critical moment. Some of our Member States – and you all know which ones – only did a fraction of what others did. Some still have modern air defence and MANPADS needed in Ukraine. What are they thinking? Smartly saving some money?
I don't want to find out what price Ukraine and Europe will pay for this inaction. We must ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and using it without restrictions, do more instead of less and give Ukraine the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any table, and deliver more aid in view of the winter that is coming.
Europe must step up and ensure crucial conditions: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine; peace must be fair, just and lasting based on Ukraine's peace formula and international law. And we need solid security guarantees for Ukraine first with NATO membership on the table.

Jean-Paul Garraud,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, le monde traverse aujourd'hui une période d'extrême tension. L'escalade du conflit russo-ukrainien nous rappelle ainsi l'extrême urgence à parvenir à un seul objectif, qui devrait mobiliser toutes les énergies: la paix.
               

                  Aux États-Unis, un président à bout de souffle, désavoué par son peuple et à quelques semaines de la fin de son mandat, pousse l'Occident à la confrontation générale en autorisant l'Ukraine à tirer des missiles longue portée sur le territoire russe. Ce que le président ukrainien s'est empressé de faire, s'éloignant ainsi de toute solution pacifique. En face, la Russie n'a évidemment pas tardé à répliquer, tout en préparant son peuple à la perspective terrifiante d'une nucléarisation du conflit.
               

                  Ces événements nous concernent directement. Ils concernent le monde et l'avenir immédiat de la planète. Pourtant, l'Union européenne reste inaudible et dépendante des décisions prises outre-Atlantique.
               

                  Quant à la France, son ministre des affaires étrangères vient de déclarer ne fixer aucune ligne rouge dans le soutien à l'Ukraine, n'excluant pas le tir de missiles français sur le territoire russe ou l'envoi de troupes au sol. La paix ne semble pas être une option pour le chef de la diplomatie française. C'est une grave faute! Nous ne devons pas être les suiveurs d'une stratégie belliciste et encore moins les complices d'une surenchère qui ne mène qu'à la destruction.
               

                  Face à ces tensions grandissantes, nous exigeons donc une nouvelle fois une seule priorité: la paix. Une paix négociée et ferme, qui respecte la souveraineté des nations tout en évitant l'irréparable. Il nous faut des dirigeants, enfin, courageux, qui placent l'intérêt supérieur des peuples au-dessus de toute autre considération.
               

                  La paix exige le travail le plus héroïque et le sacrifice le plus difficile. Elle exige un héroïsme plus grand que la guerre. Elle exige une plus grande fidélité à la vérité et une pureté de conscience bien plus parfaite. Voilà l'axiome posé par Thomas Merton au siècle dernier, qui devrait être suivi à la lettre. Mettons fin à cette guerre fratricide qui a déjà tant coûté de vies! Faisons entendre enfin la voix de la raison: celle qui refuse l'escalade guerrière et qui réclame une paix durable pour l'avenir du monde. Il est juste encore temps.
               

Rihards Kols,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, in light of recent phone calls by the Western leaders to the Kremlin, let me be clear: any hesitation, any delay in supporting Ukraine is not diplomacy, it is Chamberlain's appeasement. The ghost of Chamberlain haunts Europe today, convincing some that the concessions to the aggressor will bring peace.
Are we so naive, so timid, that we would abandon Ukraine and its people to jackals? Yet, as the Ukrainian anthem declares, the glory and will of Ukraine have not yet perished. A coalition of the willing must rise above complacency, delivering every weapon Ukraine needs, every sanction against its enemies and every frozen Russian asset has to be repurposed to rebuild what Russia has destroyed.
This House must ensure that the accession process with Ukraine begins not as soon as possible, but immediately. History will not forgive appeasement, nor will it forget those who stand firm. Let us prove we are equal to the challenge.

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, Russia's aggression against Ukraine, which has been going on for more than a thousand days, confirms Russia's turn to the path of increasingly open military confrontation with the West and its partners.
Russia is expanding the circle of allies of the Axis of Evil, and in addition to the support it has received from Belarus, Iran, China and North Korea, has begun to make full use of North Korean military units. Notably, involvement of North Korean troops in aggression against Ukraine preceded increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
At this critical juncture, we must, first, continue to mobilise financial and military support for Ukraine without any restrictions on the use of arms. The fate of global future security in Europe, in particular, and in the West, in general, is now being decided in Ukraine.
Secondly, strengthen the global sanctions regime against Russia and its allies, including those who vigorously help evade sanctions. Violators must pay a high price now.
Thirdly, we must provide Ukraine with security guarantees from the Western security organisations, thereby ensuring Ukraine's future membership of NATO. Security must be guaranteed. It is not given by chance.

Villy Søvndal,
for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Fru formand! For tyve år siden stod jeg på en lignende talerstol for at slå fast, at sandhed ikke kan siges for ofte. Det er fortsat sandt, som det også var dengang, at løgn ikke bliver mere korrekt af at blive gentaget. Det, vi ser i Ukraine, er krigsforbrydelser uden nogen respekt for menneskeliv. Dele af den ukrainske befolkning lever uden nogen form for rettigheder i områder besat af russiske tropper. Det, vi er vidne til i Ukraine, er ikke mindre end en moderne massakre. Vi er nødt til at være helt tydelige i forhold til det her. Vores Union er først og fremmest et fredsprojekt, som bygger på et værn mod nye krige på det europæiske kontinent. Men, hvis man lytter til de russiske medier, får man et indtryk af, at verden er en helt anden. Angrebet på Ukraine bliver fremstillet som et forsvar mod terrorisme, som afnazifisering. Det er bare ikke en hvid løgn. Det her er en løgn i stor skala. Derfor er det så vigtigt, at vi bliver stående på sandhedens side. Vi skal fortælle sandheden om vores europæiske værdier. Ordentlighed. En forpligtelse til i forhold at stå sammen og for basale menneskerettigheder og en international retsorden. Den her forfærdelige krig har taget en ny drejning. Med Putins mobilisering af nordkoreanske soldater krydser han selv de røde linjer, som han selv satte ved hans angreb for snart tre år siden. Med et USA, der vender sig mere og mere ind mod sig selv, er det på tide, at vi gør op med os selv som europæere. Hvem er vi? Og hvilken vej ønsker vi at gå? Står vi på den frie verdens side, så er vi forpligtet til at støtte Ukraines frihedskamp, så længe det er nødvendigt. Som Kaja Kallas understregede det til sin høring: Det russiske regime skal tabe sin sidste imperialistiske krig, og det er vores ansvar, at det kommer til at ske. En nådesløs krig hærger vores kontinent, men jeg er håbefuld, hvis vi står sammen. Slava Ukraini. Længe leve Europa.
               

Özlem Demirel,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Dieser Krieg hat eine globale Dimension erreicht – ruft es aus Russland, ruft es aus der NATO-Zentrale. Ich möchte fragen: Ernsthaft? Hat dieser Krieg erst jetzt eine globale Dimension erreicht? Wie wollen Sie dann erklären, dass von Anbeginn an zum Beispiel die NATO-Staaten diesen Krieg auch mit Waffenlieferungen verlängert haben? Wie wollen Sie dann erklären, dass vor Beginn des Krieges die USA und Russland miteinander verhandelt haben und nicht die Ukraine?
               

                  Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die globale Dimension des Krieges ist von Anbeginn an da. Die Frage ist: Wird es jetzt offiziell auch ein dritter Weltkrieg? Wollen wir diesen Weg gehen? Ich würde davor warnen. Die Lage ist bitterernst. Das Gebot der Stunde ist nicht Eskalation. Das Gebot der Stunde kann nur Deeskalation sein. Sie sagen, man müsse der Ukraine beistehen. Ja, ich bin endlos solidarisch mit dem Volk in der Ukraine. Aber sind Sie das wirklich auch? Ich frage Sie deshalb, weil laut Umfragen die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung in der Ukraine inzwischen sagt: Dieser Krieg muss enden. Wir brauchen sofortige Verhandlungen. Ich frage Sie deshalb, weil die Männer in der Ukraine sagen: Wir wollen nicht mehr diesen Krieg kämpfen – und sich keiner mehr freiwillig meldet und die Männer – die jungen Männer – aus den Betrieben, aus den Bahnhöfen rekrutiert und teilweise zusammengeschlagen werden.
               

                  Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, geht es Ihnen wirklich um die Solidarität mit den Menschen in der Ukraine? Ich bezweifle das von Anbeginn an. Wenn nicht der Putin-Administration oder der NATO-Administration jetzt tatsächlich die Sicherungen durchknallen, dann ist jetzt schon klar, dass im nächsten Jahr verhandelt wird, um diesen Krieg einzufrieren. Das sagte auch Herr Selenskyj. Warum bitte rufen Sie dann jetzt nach noch mehr Waffen? Warum bitte rufen Sie immer nur nach dem Schlachtfeld? Ihnen geht es nicht um die Menschen in der Ukraine. Was wir gerade erleben, ist ein brutaler Machtkampf unterschiedlicher Großmächte um die Neugestaltung und Neuordnung und Aufteilung der Welt. Das geht alles zu Kosten der arbeitenden und armen Menschen. Im Interesse der Arbeitenden und Armen sage ich: Hören Sie auf mit Ihrem Kriegsgeschrei!
               

Petr Bystron,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Weitere Waffen an die Ukraine – für wen tun Sie es eigentlich? Die Kollegin hat es gerade gesagt: Die Mehrheit der Ukrainer will Verhandlungen, will endlich Frieden – und dabei will sie sogar auf Gebiete verzichten. Das ist jetzt eine aktuelle Umfrage aus der Ukraine. 10 Millionen Ukrainer haben mit den Füßen abgestimmt. Die haben vorher schon das Land verlassen, darunter 500 000 Männer im wehrfähigen Alter, die da nicht elendigst verenden wollen. Weitere 500 000 konnten gar nicht mehr abstimmen, denn die sind tot. Reicht Ihnen das nicht?
               

                  Selbst Selenskyj sagt jetzt, er will Verhandlungen und eine diplomatische Lösung. Das ist genau das, was wir seit zwei Jahren fordern. Sie haben alle, die das gefordert haben, zwei Jahre lang beschimpft als Agenten Moskaus, als Agenten Putins. So, und jetzt ist auch Selenskyj Putins Agent? Verbreitet er jetzt plötzlich russische Propaganda? Natürlich nicht. Er hat nur gemerkt, dass der Krieg vorbei ist. Trump hat die Wahlen gewonnen. Es ist Schluss mit weiteren Waffenlieferungen. Sie wollen hier allen Ernstes den Konflikt weiter eskalieren und uns alle in einen dritten Weltkrieg hineinziehen – so kurz vor Ende des Krieges?
               

                  Da muss man sich eigentlich die Frage stellen: Wessen Interessen vertreten Sie überhaupt? Die des ukrainischen Volkes sind es nicht. Sie vertreten hier nur die Waffenlobby, die NATO und die Geheimdienste. Denn die führen den Krieg gegen Russland. Die fühlen sich jetzt schon im Krieg gegen Russland durch niemanden legitimiert. Kein Parlament hat das jemals abgestimmt. Die Menschen in der Ukraine wollen den Krieg nicht. Die Menschen in Russland wollen den Krieg nicht. Die Amerikaner wollen den Krieg nicht. Die meisten Europäer wollen den Krieg nicht. Also hören Sie auf, uns in den Krieg hineinzuziehen. Er ist vorbei.
               

Danuše Nerudová (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, we are facing a dangerous partnership between two authoritarian regimes that threaten global stability.
By supplying weapons, as well as deploying thousands of soldiers to help Russia's war in Ukraine, North Korea is strengthening its military capacities. Increased bilateral, financial and technical support will also boost its nuclear weapons programme.
Meanwhile, the people of North Korea are suffering terribly. While its leaders focus on war and weapons, millions in the country are struggling with hunger and oppression. North Korea was a potential threat for global security for years. Now it is becoming a reality. As defenders of democracy, we must act. We need a better sanction framework with real accountability and visions.

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, les jours et les semaines qui viennent détermineront l'avenir de notre continent. Nous voulons tous, ici, la paix. Mais la paix n'est pas la soumission aux tyrans qui déclenchent la guerre, ou l'abandon de ceux qui lui résistent.
               

                  Depuis la victoire de Trump aux États-Unis, nous entendons partout revenir la musique du renoncement et les voix de la capitulation, jusque dans cette enceinte, ce matin. Vous venez de nous dire, à l'extrême droite de cet Hémicycle, mais aussi à l'extrême gauche, qu'il nous faut à tout prix éviter l'escalade, dans une sorte de valse de capitulards, où l'AfD cite Die Linke de manière énamourée.
               

                  Mais posez-vous la question: qui suscite l'escalade? Sinon Poutine, qui envoie des milliers de soldats nord-coréens sur le sol européen et des missiles balistiques sur Dnipro. Vous nous dites qu'après tout, sacrifier le Donbass ou la Crimée pour avoir la paix n'est pas si cher payé. Mais vous refusez obstinément de voir que la cible de Poutine n'est pas et n'a jamais été le Donbass ou la Crimée, et que cela a toujours été et que c'est toujours l'Ukraine et l'Europe.
               

                  Céder des territoires n'apportera pas la paix: cela rapprochera la guerre de chez nous. Vous n'apaiserez pas le tyran en lui cédant, vous nourrirez son appétit. La seule manière d'avoir la paix, c'est d'aider la résistance ukrainienne à défaire la machine de guerre russe. Et la question qui doit nous obséder ici est simple: le faisons-nous assez?
               

                  Alors méditons sur ces chiffres. Les États-Unis ont 4 600 chars Abrams; ils en ont livré 31 à l'Ukraine. La France a dans, ses stocks, 194 systèmes de défense antiaérienne Mistral; elle n'en a livré que six à l'Ukraine. L'Europe tout entière a livré plus de trois fois moins de munitions à l'Ukraine que la seule Corée du Nord à la Russie. Alors je vous pose la question: est-ce à la hauteur du péril auquel nous faisons face? Est-ce à la hauteur de ce que nous sommes et de ce que nous aspirons à être?
               

                  Dans moins de deux mois, un président américain n'aimant ni notre continent, ni notre liberté prendra ses fonctions, et nous serons seuls face à la guerre, sur notre sol, et face à notre destin. Il n'y a plus une journée à perdre. Nous ne pouvons plus attendre l'unanimité des États membres: il faut une coalition des États prêts à agir pour aider bien plus l'Ukraine.
               

                  Ce que chacun d'entre nous fera dans les jours qui viennent déterminera sa place dans l'histoire de notre continent.
               

Viktória Ferenc (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Az Ukrajna elleni orosz agresszió megmutatta, milyen törékeny is az európai béke. Az elmúlt napok katonai eseményei miatt pedig minden eddiginél nagyobb a veszélye annak, hogy ez a háború továbbterjedjen. Kötelességünk mindent megtenni, hogy ezt a forgatókönyvet elkerüljük, és a tűzszünet, a béketárgyalások előmozdításában vállaljunk szerepet.
               

                  Közeledik a tél. Az uniós polgárok ünnepi fényekbe öltözött városokban készülődnek a karácsonyra. Itt, Strasbourgban, a karácsony városában ez különösen szembetűnő.
               

                  Mindeközben Ukrajna lakossága ismét háborús körülmények között, légicsapások és légiriadó közepette, áramkimaradások miatt elsötétült és fűtetlen otthonukban várja a fény ünnepét. Az országban dúló háború kíméletlen és már túl régen tart. Százezrek veszítették életüket és sebesültek meg, milliók maradtak otthon nélkül, és ezek a számok minden nappal növekednek. Az eddig biztonságosnak hitt területeket is légicsapások érik, mint amilyen a nyugat-ukrajnai Kárpátalja megye, amely saját lakossága mellett több százezer háború elől menekülőnek nyújt biztonságos otthont.
               

                  Szívet tépő, hogy a kisebbségi jogaik korlátozását megélő kárpátaljai magyar közösség férfi tagjai is egyre nagyobb számban vesznek oda a háborúban. Múlt héten kárpátaljai nőket hallgattam meg az Ukrajnában tapasztalható viszontagságokról, olyan nehézségekről, amelyekről itt nem sokat hallani. Milyen nőként, a férfiakat nélkülözve helytállni a mindennapokban, családfő szerepbe bújva ellátni a férfi munkákat? Milyen egy olyan országban az élet, ahol csak a nők maradtak? Milyen arról a békéről álmodni, ami által megakadályozható lenne, hogy Ukrajna teljes mértékben a nők országává váljék?
               

                  Én kiállok Ukrajna területi integritása és szuverenitása mellett, elítélem az orosz agressziót, és mélységesen elszomorít az egyszerű emberek szenvedése, akiknek a hangja ritkán hallatszik. Bízom benne, hogy a világban egyre többen megértik a diplomácia és a béketárgyalások fontosságát, és támogatják majd a háború mielőbbi lezárását, így a szenvedés is véget érhet.
               

Stefano Cavedagna (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la nostra posizione internazionale, così anche come la condanna dell'invasione riguardo alla guerra che sta interessando il suolo europeo, è ormai chiara da tempo.
               

                  È necessario porre fine, quindi ad un'aggressione ingiusta subita dal popolo ucraino e, al contempo, evitare però qualsiasi escalation pericolosa che ci può portare verso una guerra globale. Un'escalation, però, che non ci sorprende viene alimentata dall'attivismo di alcuni Stati canaglia, quali la Corea del Nord, sempre più coinvolta nel conflitto persino con truppe sul suolo europeo.
               

                  Un Paese, la Corea del Nord, che si definisce come una vera e propria dittatura socialista nelle parole del suo leader: dittatori socialisti che mandano soldati e militari nell'est dell'Europa. Non solo sono lontani anni luce dalle nostre idee ma riportano alla mente eventi e storie negative, quali quelle dei carri armati sovietici che invadevano nazioni sovrane europee.
               

                  Allora, noi dobbiamo qualcosa ai nostri giovani, al nostro futuro e a fare di tutto per impedire che ci siano ancora dittatori socialisti che vogliono negare il futuro alle nostre nuove generazioni. Lo dobbiamo per tutti coloro che cantavano ‘Avanti ragazzi di Buda’ e lo dobbiamo a tutti coloro che hanno dato la vita anche durante la primavera di Praga.
               

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, Poetin heeft vandaag meer vrienden dan voor de oorlog. Echte vrienden: Noord-Koreaanse troepen, Chinese technologie, Iraanse drones en steun vanuit Turkije en India.
               

                  En wij? Wij zijn hier op onze kousenvoeten aan het praten over of, hoe en wanneer Oekraïners onze wapens mogen gebruiken. Ik weet dat in Zweden en Finland de mensen worden voorbereid op een uitslaande oorlog. Ik begrijp die strategie, aangezien ze vlak naast Rusland liggen. Besef echter dat al die doemverhalen over die Derde Wereldoorlog worden verspreid door Rusland, met maar één doel voor ogen, namelijk Oekraïne doen toegeven. Het is trouwens niet alleen Rusland dat zoiets verspreidt. Ook hier heb ik collega's het vandaag horen zeggen: die dreiging van de Derde Wereldoorlog. Wel, dat wordt verspreid met maar één doel: Oekraïne doen toegeven.
               

                  Dat is wel het laatste wat wij hier mogen doen. Wij moeten ervoor zorgen dat als er morgen onderhandeld wordt, Oekraïne dit doet vanuit een positie van sterkte. Er is een Vlaams gezegde dat u, collega en commissaris, moet kennen: ‘Wie handelt uit schrik, die krijgt slaag’. Dat mogen wij niet toelaten!
               

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Alle Argumente sind ausgetauscht, alle Appelle längst schon ausgerufen. Die Zeit zum Handeln ist jetzt, und wir wissen alle, was das bedeutet: mehr Unterstützung, mehr Verteidigungssysteme für die Ukraine, mehr Raketen, die Leben retten – ja, die die tödliche militärische Maschinerie Russlands zerstören, auch auf dem russischen Territorium. Das ist das geltende Völkerrecht. Und ja, wir brauchen auch klare Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine, die den Wechsel im Weißen Haus überleben. Das bedeutet, wir müssen über eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine schon jetzt reden und die in die Wege leiten.
               

                  Leute sprechen hier und schwadronieren über den Frieden. Mein Tipp an Sie, an Frau Kollegin Demirel, an Herrn Bystron: Wenn Sie darüber reden, stellen Sie sich vor – ich weiß, dass es vielleicht schwierig für manche –, dass Sie in die Augen der Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer schauen, in die Augen der Frauen, die ihre Männer verloren haben, die vergewaltigt werden, die bombardiert werden. In die Augen der Kinder, die ihre Eltern verlieren und selber zerstört werden. In die Augen der Männer, die in den Kellern, in den besetzten Gebieten, die Sie ja Russland überlassen wollen, gefoltert und vergewaltigt werden. Das müssen Sie sich vergegenwärtigen, wenn Sie darüber schwadronieren, wenn Sie Putin verteidigen!
               

                  Wir sind für die Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer da, für ihre Zukunft, und ich hoffe, dass das auch für Trump eine klare Maxime wird und dass auch er sich die Augen der Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer vorstellen wird, wenn er über ihre Geschicke entscheiden wird. Wir werden mitentscheiden und wir werden immer an der Seite der Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer stehen, egal, was hier von rechts oder von links kommt.
               

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


Alexander Sell (ESN),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Vielen Dank, Herr Lagodinsky, dass Sie die Frage zulassen. Ich erinnere mich noch gut an den Bundestagswahlkampf 2021 und an die Plakate, die die Grünen aufgehängt haben, nämlich ‘Keine Waffenlieferungen in Kriegsgebiete’. Jetzt fordern Sie hier, Waffen in die Ukraine zu liefern. Es ist ein Kriegsgebiet. Ich frage mich: Wie passt das zusammen? Wie verhalten Sie sich zu dieser Forderung, die Sie 2021 noch gestellt haben, und warum fordern Sie jetzt etwas anderes?
               

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Ich stehe hier nicht, um irgendwelche Plakate zu verteidigen oder zu erklären. Ich stehe hier, um den Realitäten in die Augen zu schauen, und die Realitäten sind so, wie ich sie beschrieben habe. Die Realität ist so, dass wir mit Russland und mit Putin einen Aggressor haben, der ein Land überfallen hat. Unsere Plakate haben auch gesagt, wir sind für eine Friedensordnung. Diese Friedensordnung wird hier mit Füßen getreten, die wird zerstört – und damit auch Frauenrechte, damit auch Menschenleben. Dafür stehen wir auch, das werden Sie auch auf unseren Plakaten finden, und dafür werden wir auch weiterhin einstehen, auch mit militärischer Hilfe für die Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer, die gepeinigt werden.
               

Die Präsidentin. – Also noch mal der generelle Hinweis: Wer selbst auf der Rednerliste steht, da werden keine blauen Karten zugelassen. Alle anderen Kolleginnen und Kollegen sind gerne eingeladen.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, il y en a toujours, ici, qui parlent de victoire totale, mais, dans la vraie vie, on s'approche de plus en plus d'un échec total de votre politique.
               

                  Contre l'avis d'experts militaires, vous avez dit que, face à l'agression russe, il suffisait de livrer des armes pour que l'Ukraine reconquière militairement tout son territoire. Mais aujourd'hui, plutôt que de libérer ce territoire, l'Ukraine en perd chaque jour. Kiev se trouverait d'ailleurs aujourd'hui dans une position de négociation moins favorable qu'en 2022, lorsque la Russie aurait été forcée de se retirer des territoires occupés depuis le début de la guerre.
               

                  Votre politique a coûté cher à l'Ukraine, mais a aussi coûté cher aux Européens: hausse des prix de l'énergie, fermetures d'usines un peu partout en Europe, dépenses massives pour acheter des armes. Aujourd'hui, tout le monde sait qu'il faudra négocier. Cela n'appelle aucune question. Et, pour très vite améliorer sa position sur le champ de bataille, c'est l'escalade: les Russes utilisent les Nord-Coréens, les Américains engagent leurs missiles longue portée, et la Russie lance des missiles balistiques contre Dnipro. Une escalade dangereuse!
               

                  Alors, aujourd'hui, prenons une initiative diplomatique. Il y en a qui disent: ‘Non, il faut aller plus loin! Il faut envoyer des soldats européens, français, britanniques!’ Qui allez-vous envoyer à la guerre? Vos enfants? Vos fils? Vos filles? Mourir? Non, ce seront les enfants de la classe travailleuse que vous allez envoyer à la mort. Vous, vous serez au chaud, tranquillement, avec vos gros salaires.
               

                  Aujourd'hui, prenons l'initiative diplomatique. N'attendons pas 2025. Pourquoi laisser mourir encore des gens quand on peut arrêter cette guerre aujourd'hui, maintenant? Allez négocier!
               

Hans Neuhoff (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Mehrheit hier im Hause hat den Ukrainekonflikt bis heute nicht verstanden. Tagtäglich wollen Sie uns einschärfen, er sei die Folge eines neuen russischen Imperialismus. In Wahrheit handelt es sich um eine geostrategische Auseinandersetzung zwischen zwei Großmächten. Der US-General Keith Kellogg hat bei einer öffentlichen Anhörung im Januar 2023 erklärt – ich zitiere aus dem Protokoll: ‘Wenn man einen strategischen Feind besiegen kann, ohne eigene US-Truppen einzusetzen, wenn man es die Ukrainer erledigen lässt, dann hat man den Gipfel der Professionalität erreicht’.
               

                  Kolleginnen und Kollegen, auch wenn Sie es nicht wahrhaben wollen, die EU-Strategie im Ukrainekonflikt ist gescheitert. Die Sanktionen gegen Russland haben die russische Kriegsführung nicht beeinträchtigt. Geschadet haben sie unseren eigenen Volkswirtschaften. Die westliche Militärhilfe hat die Situation der Ukraine nicht verbessert, sondern zu weiterer Eskalation und Zerstörung geführt.
               

                  Trotz dieser offensichtlichen Fehleinschätzungen und Misserfolge hält die EU an ihrer bisherigen Vorgehensweise fest. Diplomatische Lösungen werden von vornherein verworfen. Russland soll besiegt werden. In der Psychologie bezeichnet man die Fortsetzung von Handlungen, die sich als falsch erwiesen haben, als escalation of commitment. Der Mechanismus beruht auf kognitiver Verzerrung und wirkt regelmäßig selbstzerstörerisch.
               

                  Mit der Wahl von Donald Trump zeichnet sich zwar ein möglicher Kurswechsel der USA im Ukrainekonflikt ab, es scheint jedoch, dass die politischen Eliten, die ihre Macht verloren haben, die Situation vor der Amtsübernahme Trumps absichtlich verschärfen. Entscheidungen, die zuvor als zu riskant galten, wie der Einsatz westlicher Langstreckenwaffen gegen russisches Kernland, werden nun überstürzt umgesetzt. Russland hat seinerseits demonstriert, dass es befähigt und willens ist, jede Eskalationsstufe mitzugehen. Meine Damen und Herren, die Gefahr einer unkontrollierten Eskalation war nie so groß wie heute.
               

Michael von der Schulenburg (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kollegen! Also nach fast drei Jahren Krieg sollte ein bisschen Realitätssinn einziehen. Kriege sind nun mal eine Realität und die Auskommen von Kriegen sind meistens nicht sehr schön. Deswegen ist meine Meinung, dass die Ukraine keine Waffen mehr braucht. Was die Ukraine wirklich braucht, sind ein sofortiger Waffenstillstand und Verhandlungen. Denn der Krieg ist für die Ukraine verloren. Mehr Waffen werden das auch nicht mehr ändern. Sollte jetzt der Krieg dennoch fortgesetzt werden, riskiert die Ukraine einen militärisch-politischen Kollaps und damit auch die Zukunft des Staates Ukraine. Das sollten wir mit allen Mitteln verhindern.
               

                  Erfahrungsgemäß fordern die letzten Wochen eines Krieges die meisten Menschenopfer. Auch ein solches Blutbad müssen wir jetzt verhindern. Nach fast drei Jahren Krieg zählt die Ukraine Hunderttausende von Toten, und weite Teile sind zerstört. Wir müssen mit dem Töten und den Zerstörungen aufhören. In unserer Panik fordern wir jetzt Langstreckenraketen, wie zum Beispiel die Taurus. Aber wir wissen, dass dadurch eine Spirale einsetzen wird, die diesen Krieg nach Europa hereintragen wird. Auch das sollten wir als Parlament verhindern. Die Aufgabe dieses Parlaments ist Frieden und nicht Krieg.
               

Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (PPE). – Señora presidenta, asistimos aparentemente a una escalada en el conflicto en Ucrania con el despliegue de 15 000 norcoreanos. ¿Pero es esto una señal de fortaleza de Putin? En absoluto. Esto es una señal de debilidad de Putin, que tiene que recurrir a mercenarios extranjeros porque no puede reclutar entre la juventud rusa suficientes soldados para el frente. Empezó con los mercenarios de Wagner, siguió con los chechenos de Kadírov, ahora con los norcoreanos, y estamos leyendo en la prensa que va a desplegar ahora yemeníes en el frente. Eso significa debilidad por parte de Rusia.
               

                  Está claro que Putin, toda vez que no ha funcionado como disuasión su amenaza nuclear, está utilizando otro argumento: la internacionalización del conflicto en Ucrania para tratar de disuadir a los occidentales de nuestra asistencia y nuestra ayuda a Ucrania.
               

                  Por tanto, nuestra estrategia tiene que ser la contraria, es decir, aumentar e intensificar nuestra ayuda, nuestra asistencia militar, económica, financiera y política a Ucrania.
               

Γιάννης Μανιάτης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία έχει πλέον ξεπεράσει τις 1.000 μέρες από τη στιγμή που ο Πούτιν αποφάσισε ότι το δίκαιο του ισχυρού υπερτερεί του διεθνούς δικαίου, και επιχειρεί να επιβάλει την άποψή του στην Ουκρανία.
               

                  Η υποστήριξη που λαμβάνει από καθεστώτα όπως αυτό της Βορείου Κορέας επιβεβαιώνει την ανάγκη ως Ευρώπη να συνεχίσουμε να στηρίζουμε τον αγώνα των Ουκρανών να υπερασπιστούν την πατρίδα τους. Δεν πρέπει να ξεχνάμε ότι μια ενδεχόμενη νίκη του Πούτιν θα θέσει σε κίνδυνο τη γεωπολιτική ασφάλεια όλης της Ευρώπης και σίγουρα θα ανοίξει την όρεξη και σε άλλους αυταρχικούς και αναθεωρητικούς ηγέτες στη νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη να κάνουν το ίδιο.
               

                  Είναι, συνεπώς, καθήκον μας –αλλά και προς το συμφέρον μας– να στηρίξουμε την Ουκρανία σε αυτόν τον πόλεμο, τόσο με ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια όσο και με τα απαραίτητα στρατιωτικά εργαλεία, ώστε να αμυνθεί αποτελεσματικά. Και, όταν επιτέλους τα όπλα σιγήσουν, αυτό να γίνει με τους σωστούς όρους.
               

Petra Steger (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Ich muss einige heute hier fragen, ob Sie mittlerweile wirklich von allen guten Geistern verlassen sind. Ist Ihnen bewusst, was Sie eigentlich hier tun? Sie steuern Europa geradeaus in den Krieg. Ist es wirklich das, was Sie wollen? Sie schauen zu und tun rein gar nichts, wenn ein amerikanischer Noch-Präsident Biden, der offensichtlich nicht mehr Herr seiner Sinne ist, der nicht einmal mehr in der Lage war, einen Wahlkampf zu führen, dessen Partei abgewählt wurde, wenn er am Ende seiner Amtszeit schnell noch genehmigt, dass amerikanische Langstreckenraketen auf Russland geschossen werden, und damit einen dritten Weltkrieg provoziert. Nein, anstatt ihn zu kritisieren, zu verurteilen oder zur Zurückhaltung zu mahnen, legen Sie noch eins obendrauf und wollen auch noch europäische Langstrecken genehmigen. Diese Forderung kommt ja nicht von irgendwoher. Nein, sie kommt natürlich von ganz oben, von Frau von der Leyen, von Borrell, Manfred Weber bis hin zur Präsidentin des Europäischen Parlaments. Sie wollen jetzt auch noch deutsche Taurus-Raketen genehmigen.
               

                  Ich frage Sie: Was ist Ihr Ziel? Wie weit soll diese sogenannte bedingungslose Solidarität eigentlich noch gehen? Ist das das angebliche Friedensprojekt der Europäischen Union? Sind Sie erst dann zu Friedensverhandlungen bereit oder forcieren sie, wenn die ersten Bomben auf europäische Städte gefallen sind? Offenbar werden wir nur noch von realitätsfremden Moralisten regiert, die nicht mehr in der Lage sind, die Dimensionen ihrer Handlungen und Entscheidungen noch zu begreifen. Seit Beginn dieses abscheulichen Krieges gab es keine einzige Friedensinitiative seitens der Europäischen Union. Die Europäische Union hat sich in eine strategische Sackgasse hineinmanövriert und kämpft in einem Krieg – und das will ich auch einmal in aller Klarheit und Deutlichkeit hier sagen –, der nicht unserer ist und der auch unter keinen Umständen zu unserem werden darf, auch wenn das offensichtlich einige hier wollen.
               

                  Schon jetzt ist Europa der große wirtschaftliche Verlierer des Krieges. Während in der Ukraine die Bomben fallen, klingeln in den USA die Kassen. Die amerikanische Rüstungsindustrie fährt Milliardengewinne ein. Europa hingegen leidet unter den explodierenden Energiepreisen und einer Industrie am Rande des Abgrunds. Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, wir brauchen endlich eine eigenständige europäische Friedenspolitik. Eine Politik, die auf Dialog, Verhandlungen und auf Diplomatie setzt, anstatt auf immer gefährlichere Waffen. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass Europa seine eigenen Interessen in den Vordergrund rückt und nicht die von der ganzen Welt.
               

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, shame on us! The justification for the EU is said to be 'we are big on big issues and small on small issues'.
But in the biggest thing – the threat that is facing the entire European security – how small have we become? A whining mosquito. The Ukrainians are sacrificing themselves for Europe. They are fighting, while we sleep. Ukrainian babies are being bombed in hospitals, while we sing to ours: 'Hush little baby, don't you cry, daddy's going to sing you a lullaby.'
Even North Koreans went to fight to Ukraine before our European troops. If we do not stop Putin in Ukraine, the imperial march will continue for as long as it takes. Glory to Ukraine and shame on Europe.

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Madam President, I really want to make a point of order because we are really debating here a very, very important topic. The rule of this Parliament is that we can have a blue card. If people from the extreme right are really putting the words of Putin forward here all the time, we should have the right to react.
Now you say, yes, I have I do not know how many interventions, yet that is why this Parliament is elected for, to do interventions here. But it is also elected to have a debate. And what you said is that I am sitting here all day hearing and that I cannot react when people are putting forward the words of Putin. Then there was no use of this Parliament. Let's have a real debate and let us have that intervention and the blue cards.

President. – Dear colleague Vautmans, I'm usually totally on your side, but already in normal debates we don't accept blue cards from speakers on the list – and now we have 80 speakers. So there is an exchange, there is someone from this side, there is someone from that side. Not every individual. We've already had five.
We are in the European Parliament, and already that we only have 1 minute speaking time – for me, it is not a real debate. But we cannot change all of the rules according to every individual who wants to speak this time. I completely understand what you're saying, but with 80 speakers on the list, if every one of you then also takes blue cards, we will sit here until midnight.
I really apologise. I completely get your point, but we have a back and forth of opinions and of political positions. It's the line of Parliament in general, and in this debate all the more.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, thank you. I really believe that we should respect the rules of this House. And I really believe that we should not challenge the authority of the spokesperson. Yes, I am on your side with this matter, but it shouldn't be that you are shouting to the spokesperson of this House back and forth. I think she makes the rules, we follow them and that's it. Not like a ping-pong.

Ľubica Karvašová (Renew). – Madam President, I hope Hilde will like at least what I'm going to say now.
Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are. Russia asked North Korea – the regime under the most extensive UN sanctions – to join their war of aggression against Ukraine. And Kim Jong Un obliged, armed Russia, provided ammunition and even sent boots on the ground. These are clear efforts for peace.
But let us also see the big picture here. This coalition of dictators poses a threat also to South Korea, our strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific and a crucial contributor to European defence capabilities. South Korea is a reliable member of the international and rules-based community. It must become our key partner not only in security and defence but also in economy, including Ukraine's European future and its reconstruction.
So let us also use this new reality and this discussion today to bring the EU-South Korea relationship into a whole new level. It will also help Ukraine to win the war.

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, this is what we call an escalation. Up to 10 000 soldiers from North Korea now support Russian forces. Russia has been amassing Iranian ballistic missiles. Putin revised his nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, and immediately followed it up with deploying a hypersonic missile. This escalation has a clear goal: to tire us, to frustrate us, and to drag this for so long that we either give up on Ukraine or our citizens are manipulated by fear of further prolongation into voting forces sympathetic to Putin. We need to formulate a response. So I am formulating: yes, for a true peace, there needs to be a negotiation table, but what Putin is offering is a bombarded table with splinters all over the ground and Ukraine sitting on them. We can ensure a table with two equal chairs through the only thing Putin will respect – force – and Ukraine needs from us the means to use such a force. Are we clear?

Li Andersson (The Left). – Madam President, around three weeks ago, I was sitting on a train from Kyiv going back over the border to Poland. We were visiting Ukraine with a delegation of representatives from different left parties, having meetings with NGOs, trade unionists and the Ukrainian left organisation Sotsіalniy Rukh.
Everyone in Ukraine was telling us the same thing: they expect this winter to be the hardest period since Putin started this war of aggression, with attacks on energy infrastructures, soldiers getting worn out, and relentless drone and missile attacks keeping people in constant alert.
It is therefore of utmost importance that we stand firm in our solidarity with Ukraine. It is up to the Ukrainians to decide when the time is ready for possible negotiations. But for the possibility of a just and lasting peace, there must be enough pressure on Putin. That is why we need military support, and that is why we need to strengthen the sanctions regime.
But Ukrainian society also need other forms of support. There is a pressing need for social and non-profit housing models to address the housing crisis. Trade unions need to be strengthened so that collective bargaining and social dialogue can be continued as soon as possible. A strong civil society and transparency is needed in the fight against corruption. And Ukraine's sovereign debt also needs to be cancelled so that we can ensure the economic and political sovereignty of the country, in addition to its independence and territorial integrity.

Petar Volgin (ESN). – Г-жо Председател, докато ни плашат с някакви севернокорейски войници, които никой не е виждал, шефовете на Европейския съюз, а и някои от вас, са слепи за най-голямата опасност – опасността от Трета световна война. Днес такава война изглежда съвсем реална, защото Демократическата партия на Съединените щати и нейните европейски васали позволиха на властите в Киев да използват далекобойни ракети срещу Русия.
               

                  И не, това няма да помогне на Украйна. Ако политиката на наливане на бензин в огъня на войната продължи, това само ще накара Русия да отговори по такъв начин, че ударът със свръхзвуковата ракета ‘Орешник’ ще изглежда като гръмване на детски фойерверк.
               

                  Разбирам, че отиващата си администрация във Вашингтон е бясна заради загубените президентски избори и че прави всичко възможно, за да не позволи постигането на мир в Украйна. Не разбирам обаче защо лидерите на Европейския съюз препускат като ‘конника без глава’ към пропастта. Тези хора не осъзнават, че всичките им действия, включително и даването на далекобойни ракети на Зеленски, не просто удължават войната в Украйна, а ни изправят пред ядрен апокалипсис.
               

                  За съжаление Европа днес се управлява от бесове, които несъмнено ще я погубят.
               

Kateřina Konečná (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, vážení kolegové, chci se Vás zeptat jen na jedinou otázku: Kam si myslíte, že to nekonečné eskalování konfliktu na Ukrajině může vést? Jaký je logický konec neustálého navyšování vojenské tzv. pomoci Ukrajině? Na každou eskalaci z naší strany vidíme jako odpověď eskalaci z Ruska. Dodáte Ukrajině více moderních zbraní, Rusko si pozve vojáky z KLDR. Dovolíte Ukrajině zasahovat vašimi zbraněmi cíle hluboko v Rusku, Rusko proti Ukrajině použije konvenční balistickou raketu středního doletu či podle jiných zdrojů dokonce mezikontinentální balistickou raketu. Co je tedy další krok?
               

                  Jste tak slepí, že nevidíte, jak vedete občany našich států na pokraj jaderné války? Nebo jsou pro vás občané jen další figurkou na šachovnici? Prosím, probuďte se! Tohle už není hra, tady jde o životy mužů, žen a dětí! Přestaňte si s nimi hrát jen ve snaze ponížit Rusko. Stojíme před jasným rozcestím. Příměří, nebo nukleární holocaust. Alespoň jednou v životě směřujme budoucnost nás všech, prosím, tou správnou cestou.
               

Łukasz Kohut (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Sowieckie zbrodnie to okrutna i powtarzająca się historia. 80 lat temu Górny Śląsk, dziś Ukraina. Wtedy, w 1945 roku, czerwonoarmiści z różnych stron świata zostawili po sobie zgliszcza, deportacje, gwałty i mordy. To była nasza tragedia górnośląska. Dzisiaj te same okrucieństwa dotykają mieszkańców i mieszkanki Ukrainy. Naszej śląskiej tragedii nikt nie mógł powstrzymać. Dziś nie tylko możemy, ale musimy zapewnić bezpieczeństwo Europie.
               

                  Do tego jednak potrzeba odwagi, odwagi polityków. Czas przestać polegać na innych. Unio, czas się zbroić, czas wziąć się w garść, czas dostrzec, że wypływamy na nieznane wody, bo nie będzie już Bidena za oceanem i jedynie wspólnie możemy bezpiecznie przepływać, podejmując odważne decyzje wbrew egoizmom i nacjonalizmom narodowym. Więcej europejskich czołgów, mniej unijnej biurokracji. Potrzebujemy wspólnych europejskich sił szybkiego reagowania, dopóki nie jest za późno.
               

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Ukrainas kamp för frihet är också vår kamp för säkerhet och demokrati. När vi står här i dag har Rysslands vidriga krig mot Ukraina pågått i över tusen dagar.
               

                  Ett nytt mörkt kapitel skrivs med det ökade militära samarbetet mellan Ryssland och Nordkorea. Vi måste hålla i och göra allt vi kan för att öka stödet till Ukraina ekonomiskt, militärt och humanitärt – inte minst för alla kvinnor och barn som drabbas i detta krig.
               

                  Vi socialdemokrater håller i stödet till Ukraina, för det handlar också om vår framtid, vår säkerhet för våra barn och barnbarn och vårt sätt att leva här i Europa. Här i EU ska vi stå i solidaritet med det ukrainska folket. Varje dag, tills detta krig är över. Slava Ukraini!
               

Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Egy dologban egyetértünk. Elítéljük Oroszország katonai agresszióját, és keresnünk kell annak módját, hogy megsegítsük a bajba jutottakat.
               

                  De beszélnünk kell a gazdasági következményekről is, arról, hogy milyen hatással van a háború feltétlen támogatása az európai emberek életére, mert erről nem nagyon esik szó. Pedig kellene, mert a helyzet tragikus.
               

                  Európa jó ideje a gazdasági stagnálás rémével néz szembe, idén 0,9 százalékos lehet a gazdasági növekedés a tavalyi 0,4 után. Gyárbezárásokról hallani, munkahelyek kerülnek veszélybe. Ennek egyik oka, hogy a háborús politika részeként Európa elvágta magát az olcsóbb energiaforrásoktól, amit csak jóval drágábban tud helyettesíteni. Az LNG-import megnőtt, nemcsak az amerikai, hanem az orosz is. A Draghi-jelentés szerint a vállalatoknak kétszer-háromszor magasabb áramárakat kell fizetniük, mint az Egyesült Államokban. Ez tarthatatlan.
               

                  A megugró energiaárak évtizedek óta nem látott inflációt is hoztak, így a háborús gazdaságpolitika árát a családok is fizették, amikor fizettek a boltokban. Ki fog eléjük állni, hogy a felelősséget vállalja? És amikor az a kérdés felmerül, hogy meddig támogatja még az Unió vezetése ezt a háborút, akkor a válasz az az, hogy ‘as long as it takes’, tehát bármi áron. Ezt a szlogent Biden elnök úr járatta csúcsra egy évvel ezelőtt. A demokraták azóta vereséget szenvedtek, az itt ülő frakciók nagy része mégis ezt a politikát folytatná. Miért?
               

                  Eddig a gazdasági következményekről beszéltem. De van ennél fontosabb is, vagy épp ennyire fontos: az emberéletek védelme. Nagy hatótávolságú rakétákat vetnek be, ballisztikus rakétákat a másik oldalon, így a súlyos eszkaláció veszélye nagyobb, mint bármikor a háború kirobbanása óta. Az Európai Unió létrejöttekor sok dolgot ígért, de két dolgot biztosan: békét és jólétet. Ez az, amit egyre kevésbé tud teljesíteni, és ebben az itt ülők többségének jó nagy felelőssége van. Itt az idő, hogy az európai emberek életét is figyelembe vegyék, ne csak mások elvárásait.
               

Jaak Madison (ECR). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear representatives of the Commission and Council, in this Parliament, words are always more than deeds. There is much talk about the need to support Ukraine in its war against Russia for as long as it takes. But where are the deeds? The situation in Ukraine is getting worse every day because European aid is too scarce or comes too late. Germany, Europe's largest economy, supports Ukraine in words, but actual military aid has been limited to EUR 5.2 billion.
The European Union remains the largest importer of Russian gas, buying almost half of the gas exported from Russia. In October of this year alone, the EU paid Russia EUR 1.8 billion for fossil fuels. If Europe wants to stop Russia, it needs to reduce its dependence on Russian energy and develop our own energy industry, abandoning the economically harmful green revolution.
It is also necessary to increase military support for Ukraine many times over, so that negotiations to end the war can take place from a position that suits us and Ukraine, and not on Russia's terms. We need deeds, and now.

Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi voglio cominciare in italiano con un messaggio alla Presidente Meloni. Signora Meloni, fra Lei e me c'è un oceano di differenza in qualsiasi questione politica. Però sulla questione della sicurezza dell'Europa, Lei è con noi e non con questi cosiddetti patrioti.
               

                  Da muss ich auf Deutsch fortsetzen. Wenn die Frau Steger sich hier Patriotin nennt – und ich habe kurz die Augen zugemacht, habe zugehört, ich habe gedacht, die russische Regierungssprecherin spricht: die Propaganda Putins eins zu eins nachvollziehen. Eine Eskalation ist es, wenn sich die Ukraine wehrt; wenn Nordkoreaner kommen, wenn Jemeniten kommen und morden, dann ist es keine Eskalation. Wenn sich die Ukraine wehrt, ist es eine Eskalation.
               

                  Das ist der nächste Punkt. Ich verfolge das russische Fernsehen. Da wird täglich vom Genozid gesprochen. Es wird davon gesprochen, dass die ukrainische Kultur nicht existiert, und dort, wo sie existiert, muss sie ausgerottet werden. Menschen müssen ermordet werden. Es werden regelmäßig bewusst Universitäten und Kindergärten beschossen, um alles, was ukrainisch ist, auszurotten. Da möchte ich dem Herrn Putin ausrichten – mein Russisch ist nicht gut, aber soviel:
               

(The speaker spoke a non-official language.) Killer Putin!
               

(The speaker spoke a non-official language.) We are not afraid of you!
               

                  Wir haben keine Angst vor Ihnen!
               

Virginijus Sinkevičius (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, first it was Crimea, then it was Luhansk and Donetsk, and now for three years, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And yet, we still have Putin proxies here calling to force Ukraine into ceasefire. Call Russia into ceasefire. Force Russian imperialism into ceasefire.
Now, with Iran, North Korea supporting Russia even with the troops on the ground, there is a clear formation of an axis of evil. And when you ask a question – 'What is the logical end?' – I have an answer for you. The logical end is to destroy institutions like this, to destroy democracy, to destroy human rights, dignity, everything what we have been fighting for, everything what this world has built after the Second World War.
This is the aim of Putin, and here he is not going to stop in Kyiv, in Vilnius. The Iskanders that are in Kaliningrad – they aimed at Berlin. Do not forget that.

Danilo Della Valle (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi siamo tutti qui preoccupati per il cambio della dottrina bellica di Vladimir Putin.
               

                  Siamo preoccupati per la presenza delle truppe nordcoreane nel conflitto russo-ucraino e allo stesso tempo siamo preoccupati per il fatto che Biden abbia autorizzato l'utilizzo dei missili a lungo raggio per colpire il territorio russo. Lo stesso Biden, che non era in grado di correre per la carica di presidente del proprio Paese, oggi invece può tranquillamente decidere di scatenare la terza guerra mondiale sul suolo europeo.
               

                  Ancora una volta ci troviamo ad ascoltare dagli esponenti di questa maggioranza toni belligeranti, toni che in due anni non hanno fatto altro che peggiorare le cose in Europa, creando solo danni ai lavoratori e alle imprese dell'Unione europea, mentre continuiamo a mandare a morire migliaia di ucraini. Oggi addirittura si parla di eurobond per la difesa. Insomma, per i popoli europei politiche di austerità e per le lobby delle armi risorse infinite.
               

                  Quand'è che sentiremo da questo Parlamento una voce netta sulla necessità dello stop all'invio di armi, di una de-escalation, di intavolare una reale conferenza di pace al tavolo della quale siedano tutti gli attori coinvolti?
               

                  Ogni qualvolta che si dice che la pace si potrà raggiungere solo con la sconfitta della Russia sul campo, ogni volta che si pensa a vaneggianti piani per la vittoria, le truppe di Putin guadagnano chilometri sul fronte e migliaia di elettori bocciano i partiti liberali e filo-Nato, come è successo alle ultime elezioni europee, come è successo in Germania, in Georgia e oggi in Romania.
               

                  Accusate chi parla di pace e diplomazia di essere pro-Putin: ma i veri sponsor di Putin siete proprio voi!
               

                  L'unico modo per sostenere l'Ucraina e il suo popolo sarebbe quello di riaprire immediatamente lo spazio di dialogo e di diplomazia, mettendo al centro gli interessi dei Paesi europei, smettendo di far pagare il costo di questa assurda guerra ai popoli e ai lavoratori dell'Unione europea.
               

Branislav Ondruš (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, moje vystúpenie je zložené výlučne z citátov z liberálneho amerického denníka The New York Times za posledný mesiac a pol. Takže citujem:
               

                  Rýchly postup Ruska je výraznou zmenou oproti situácii z minulého roka. Podľa vojenského experta skupiny Blackbird so sídlom vo Fínsku dosiahli Rusi polovicu tohtoročných územných ziskov za posledné tri mesiace. Americkí vojenskí predstavitelia tvrdia, že dodávky zbraní už nie sú hlavnou nevýhodou Ukrajiny. Najväčším nedostatkom sú vojaci. Nie je dôvod očakávať, že Putin stratí prevahu. Môže to znieť ako porazenectvo, ale je to realizmus. Je správne nazývať túto vojnu zástupnou, pretože Bidenova administratíva ju podporila nielen z úcty k spravodlivému ukrajinskému odhodlaniu, ale aj preto, že vojna bola šancou oslabiť nášho nepriateľa. Spojené štáty vytýčili nepríjemnú strednú cestu. Podporovali vojnu dostatočne na to, aby pokračovala, ale nikdy nie natoľko, aby Ukrajinci vyhrali. Úmrtia prevyšujú pôrodnosť na Ukrajine, čím sa násilie mení na demografickú brzdu. Rusko a USA zneužívajú vnútorné rozdelenie Ukrajiny na vzájomné podkopávanie a získavanie regionálneho vplyvu, zvyčajne na úkor obyčajných Ukrajincov.
               

                  Toto sú citáty z amerických, nie ruských médií.
               

Pekka Toveri (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Russia's illegal and brutal attack on Ukraine has now continued almost eight plus three years, and it has and will continue as long as we accept and allow it to happen. We have constrained our actions against Russia's economy and our support to Ukraine, because we have been afraid of the escalation of the war.
And now, Russia has brought not only North Korean artillery and ammunition and ballistic missiles to Europe, he has brought also North Korean military forces to Europe. An Asian nation is now participating in Ukrainian war. Putin has escalated this war to a world war. And remember: he started it, not we.
We do not have any excuses anymore. Therefore, we need to punish Russia with proper sanctions and support Ukraine more, so that Ukraine can have peace on its own terms, not on Putin's terms. If we don't do it and instead feed the dictator, we will have a new war in Europe in a few years. And yes, that time it would be our children fighting the war.
To my colleagues in the left and right, I have three children, and they are all in the Finnish Defence Forces' reserves. Even though they are ready, I do not want them to go to war. The best way to prevent this is to stop Russia now by forcing Putin to negotiate on Ukraine's terms. Putin will not be stopped with diplomacy. He will be stopped by force. Trust me, we Finnish know Russians better than most of the Europeans. Slava Ukraini!


César Luena (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señorías, yo creo que hoy tenemos, fundamentalmente, un debate por y sobre la libertad. Creo que es, fundamentalmente, ese el debate: la libertad de una sociedad democrática, la ucraniana; de un país independiente invadido por órdenes de un sátrapa. Ese es el debate.
               

                  Escucho a oradores de extremos de la Cámara —eso es verdad— y dicen —piden— que hay que acabar con la guerra, como sea. Oigan, yo les digo: eso se lo tienen que pedir a Putin, que es el único culpable de esta guerra. Putin. El único.
               

                  Si la Unión abandona a Ucrania, nos abandonamos y traicionamos a nosotros mismos. Por eso hay que seguir apoyando con armas, con ayudas, con más sanciones a Rusia y, lo más importante también, con muchísima pedagogía a la sociedad europea; lo que el historiador Timothy Snyder diría: ‘Quedarse, apoyar a la sociedad ucraniana’.
               

                  Si los abandonamos, nos traicionamos a nosotros mismos como proyecto de libertad, que es lo que somos.
               

Anders Vistisen (PfE). – Madam President, it is very interesting to hear this debate when you look at the sheer level of hypocrisy that is shown in this room, because if you really believe that Russia is an existential threat to Europe, why aren't your governments doing anything about it?
My country of Denmark is now the second largest EU donor for Ukraine. More than DKK 60 billion have now been spent from the Danish taxpayers. But let's look at Europe's grand economies: Denmark has given 1.9 % of GDP to Ukraine, Germany has given 0.38 %, France has given 0.17 %, Italy has given 0.12 %, and the great socialist Government of Spain has given 0.09 % of their GDP to Ukraine.
So who do you really think you are fooling in this House? If you really are serious on Ukraine, go back to your capitals, go back to your governments and find some cash for Ukraine, instead of blabbering on in this House.
Og til de danske tilhørere til den her debat må man bare sige, at når USA's kommende præsident Trump har sagt, at der kommer fredsforhandlinger, så er det valg, vi har i Europa, at være med til at påvirke, hvordan de fredsforhandlinger ser ud. Ikke at benægte fakta. For selv om vi fordobler den danske støtte, så kommer vi ikke til at kunne gøre op for det hul, som USA efterlader, som Tyskland efterlader, når de har sagt, at de næste år kommer til at sænke deres støtte med op mod 50 procent. Vi er alene hjemme. Men desværre er der kun i Europa børn, der leder regeringerne. Derfor er vi nødt til at se seriøst på fredsforhandlinger. Fredsforhandlinger, som ikke er en kapitulation over for Putin, men som giver Ukraine en mulighed for at leve videre som stor og selvstændig nation, og som giver reelle sikkerhedsgarantier, der vil betyde, at Rusland ikke igen vil kunne angribe ukrainsk territorium.

Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, de Russische invasie bedreigt niet alleen de soevereiniteit van Oekraïne, maar ook de fundamenten van onze Europese waarden. Bovendien betekent de samenwerking tussen Rusland en Noord-Korea de facto de intrede van China in het conflict.
               

                  Onze volgehouden steun is absoluut noodzakelijk. De opbouw van militaire industriële capaciteit, en daarmee bedoel ik echt wel massaproductie, is daarbij van essentieel belang. Om die te kunnen ontwikkelen, moeten drie hefbomen in werking gesteld worden. Ten eerste, verdere verschuivingen in het Europese budget. Ten tweede, meer armslag en meer initiatiefrecht voor de Europese Investeringsbank. Ten derde, gecoördineerde actie op het niveau van de lidstaten.
               

                  Door Oekraïne te ondersteunen, verdedigen we niet alleen hun vrijheid, maar ook die van ons allemaal. Die verantwoordelijkheid mogen we op geen enkele manier onderschatten noch ontlopen.
               

Dan Barna (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, continuăm să ne aflăm de peste 1000 de zile la o răscruce. Flăcările războiului ard în Ucraina, alimentate de ambiția unui tiran și de foamea unui dictator. Trupele nord-coreene calcă pământul Ucrainei, prezența lor fiind o mărturie înfiorătoare a extinderii acestui conflict. Rusia revarsă teroare din ceruri, rachetele lor cu rază lungă de acțiune sfâșiind familii, distrugând orașe și batjocorind dreptul internațional. Acesta nu este un conflict îndepărtat din vreo carte de istorie sau din filme. Este un incendiu care arde la frontiera noastră, la câteva sute de kilometri. Fiecare ucrainean căzut în luptă, fiecare copil care se ascunde de frică, fiecare casă distrusă este o pată pe conștiința colectivă a lumii.
               

                  Uniunea Europeană trebuie să se ridice la înălțimea acestei provocări. Trebuie să consolidăm sprijinul pentru Ucraina nu cu pași timizi, ci cu un val de solidaritate: mai multe arme pentru apărare, mai mult ajutor umanitar, mai multă asistență economică – tot ce este necesar pentru a opri acest infern. Trebuie să continuăm să arătăm lumii adevărata putere a spiritului european, nu să devenim followerii discursurilor lui Putin.
               

Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, 12 000 North Korean soldiers are fighting for Russia, sent in exchange for advanced military technology, gaining battlefield experience they might use against South Korea.
Russia is buying Shahed drones and missiles from Iran, providing Su-35 fighter jets and support to Iran's nuclear program in return, directly threatening Israel and global security. Russia is recruiting soldiers in Yemen in exchange for weapons the Houthis will use to intensify their attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea.
We have seen bombs smuggled in planes, internet cables destroyed in the Baltic, cyberattacks on government systems across Europe, and a dissident assassinated in the middle of Berlin. Putin has trampled every red line of international law, and we are witnessing a growing alliance among regimes thriving on repression, destruction and death.
If we, dear colleagues, want diplomacy, demilitarisation and trust-building to prevail, we must ensure this alliance does not win: does not win this war against Ukraine, nor this war against freedom also fought on European soil. Slava Ukraini! (The speaker concluded in a non-official language.)


Per Clausen (The Left). – Fru formand! For fjorten dage siden deltog jeg i et møde i Warszawa sammen med nordiske socialister og østeuropæiske socialister. Her mødte jeg en soldat fra Ukraine, som var på orlov. Hans budskab var klart. Vi må ikke overlade Ukraine til Trump og risikere, at Trump tvinger Ukraine til at indgå en uretfærdig fred. Det vil være katastrofalt for det ukrainske folk, og det ville ikke skabe varig fred. Han sagde også, at Ukraine har brug for våben, og derfor må vi jo fokusere vores våbenhjælp. Det må jo være sådan, at vi holder op med at eksportere våben som ammunition, som man har brug for i Ukraine, til andre dele af verden, hvor de enten har mindre brug for det eller bruger det forkert. Vi skal for alvor have gjort sanktionerne mod Rusland effektive. Ruslands mulighed for at føre krig afhænger blandt andet af, at de stadig kan sælge produkter til os. Det afhænger af, at de stadig kan smugle olie ud af Rusland. Det er vigtigt, at vi har besluttet, at vi skal have stoppet Ruslands skyggeflåde, men det er også rigtig vigtigt, at det faktisk sker. Og så skal vi også allerede nu støtte Ukraines genopbygning. Det handler om at hjælpe med at sikre et velfærdssystem, infrastruktur og lønarbejdernes rettigheder. Det er rigtig, rigtig vigtigt. Jeg har selv som formand for Aalborg Forsyning været med til at samarbejde med Ukraine om at sikre deres energiforsyning i mit tidligere liv, som ikke er så lang tid siden, og det synes jeg, er et meget vigtigt eksempel. Altså vi har brug for at støtte Ukraine mere. Anders Vistisen, min kollega fra Danmark, har ret i én ting. Det er, at vi støtter Ukraine alt, alt for lidt. Det skal vi blive meget bedre til i fremtiden.
               

Sebastião Bugalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, em 2022, quando as tropas russas invadiram a Ucrânia, a Europa foi surpreendida. Apesar da anexação da Crimeia, dos crimes contra a humanidade na Síria, do ataque químico em solo europeu contra Sergei Skripal, do derrube de um avião com 298 passageiros, da tentativa de assassinar o líder da oposição, hoje defunto, e da ocupação de territórios por forças paramilitares, a Europa foi surpreendida, após oito anos de avisos.
               

                  Hoje, mil dias depois da invasão e dez anos depois da anexação, somos surpreendidos pela participação de tropas norte-coreanas no conflito, que jamais o fariam sem o aval da superpotência da qual dependem.
               

                  Colegas, é tempo de a Europa deixar de ser o continente surpreendido pelo mundo real para sermos uma União realista, preparada para esse mundo de incertezas. A questão não é quanto é que vai custar ganhar a guerra, é quanto é que nos custaria perder a guerra.
               

                  Nas palavras de um poeta irlandês:
               






 



                        'I know that I shall meet my fate, somewhere among the clouds above; those that I fight I do not hate; those that I guard I do not love.'
                     










 



                        Without fighting back, there will be nothing left to guard.
                     





(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)


João Oliveira (The Left),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Senhor Deputado, a humanidade está hoje perante o risco real de uma confrontação entre potências nucleares. O ponto a que nos levou a escalada do conflito na Ucrânia, que dura já há mais de dez anos, é este, e é nesta situação que nós estamos hoje.
               

                  O Senhor Deputado acabou de concluir a sua intervenção quase com um apelo ao reforço dessa escalada de guerra. E a questão que eu lhe coloco é: para onde é que nos querem levar? Que consequências é que vão ter as atuais gerações e as futuras se o caminho da guerra não for parado agora, se não se encontrarem soluções de paz, em vez de mais guerra, mais agressão e uma escalada ainda maior, particularmente perigosa, considerando o envolvimento de potências nucleares que, neste momento, é já confronto direto.
               

Sebastião Bugalho (PPE),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Senhor Deputado, com todo o respeito, o único discurso que proporciona a escalada é o discurso que responsabiliza o invadido e não o invasor. O único discurso que proporciona a escalada é aquele que visou um regime democraticamente eleito, acusando-o de acolher nazis, como o Senhor Deputado fez em Portugal, e não aqueles que estão ao lado da Europa, da democracia e dos direitos humanos.
               

                  Estar ao lado da paz europeia e da paz ucraniana é estar ao lado do fim da guerra. Estar ao lado de qualquer outro tipo de paz é estar ao lado de mais guerra, inclusivamente contra vidas europeias, além das ucranianas, que já sofrem todos os dias.
               

                  Agradeço-lhe a sua questão, esta é a minha resposta.
               

Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caras e Caros Colegas, a utilização de tropas norte-coreanas na agressão à Ucrânia mostra claramente que o ditador russo se assumiu definitivamente como líder de uma guerra contra o Ocidente.
               

                  Não o Ocidente de que fala uma certa extrema-direita europeia que se transformou na maior lacaia do ditador Putin, mas o Ocidente que nós representamos maioritariamente aqui neste Parlamento Europeu. O Ocidente das democracias representativas, o Ocidente da liberdade, o Ocidente do pluralismo.
               

                  É que, para além da questão militar propriamente dita, a mensagem que Putin pretende vincar, com este recurso a tropas norte-coreanas, é um corte radical com aquilo que podia haver de comum ainda entre a Rússia e a Europa. Esperemos que este corte, esse sim, não seja definitivo, porque a Rússia tem uma forte componente europeia.
               

                  Ao socorrer-se das tropas da Coreia do Norte, Putin está a cobrar ao líder norte-coreano o apoio que a Rússia tem prestado à sua brutal repressão sobre o mesmo povo norte-coreano. Mas também está a provocar a Europa e a NATO, porque é evidente que o regime da Coreia do Norte é a máxima antítese em relação às democracias ocidentais e aquilo que elas representam.
               

                  Tudo isto representa mais uma razão para nós continuarmos a apoiar, sem qualquer hesitação, a luta heroica do povo ucraniano contra o invasor russo.
               

IN THE CHAIR: SABINE VERHEYEN


Vice-President


Hermann Tertsch (PfE). – Señora presidente, cuando se produjo la invasión, esa invasión que no se iba a dar, ¿por qué Putin se atrevió a entrar en Ucrania? Putin entró en Ucrania porque sabía que Europa era débil. Que Europa se reía de Trump, hace seis años, cuando Trump hablaba de las amenazas que la dependencia del gas ruso traía para Europa. Cuando se reían todos de las advertencias de que había que subir el gasto militar y aquí se presumía de gastar en el Pacto Verde Europeo. Aquí se presume de tantísimos gastos en cosas realmente absurdas, que nada tienen que ver con nosotros, pero que dejan a una Europa perfectamente inerme.
                  

                     ¿Y qué se ha hecho? La administración Biden —que fue, acordémonos, una administración demócrata— aceptó sin rechistar la anexión de Crimea. Y la señora Merkel también, acordémonos de lo que han sido los socialdemócratas y la CDU alemanes, que han estado permanentemente en una luna de miel con Putin hasta hace cuatro días. Veinte años de luna de miel debilitando a Europa, vaciando Europa, cerrando centrales nucleares, imponiendo una política energética y una política absolutamente delirante que nos ha hecho débiles. ¿Qué ha hecho la administración Biden? Dar armas para no perder, pero no para ganar. Y, desde luego, en Europa no se han dado las armas. Nadie las ha dado.
                  

                     ¿Y ahora qué hay? Hay unos que dicen que hay que entregarle Ucrania a Putin sin más, porque nos amenaza con una guerra mundial. Ni hablar. Ante la intimidación, nada, porque las soberanías nuestras son y deben seguir siendo sagradas.
                  

                     Pero la estrategia europea y de Biden ha fracasado y hay una estrategia nueva que tiene que llegar, y tiene que llegar ahora con el presidente Trump. Estáis muy nerviosos, pero el presidente Trump es el que ha traído soluciones para muchas cosas y las va a traer también para esta.
                  

Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Pirmininke, kolegos. Planavusi užimti Ukrainą per kelias dienas, Rusija dabar nesugeba įtikinti savo gyventojų, kad jie turi eiti žudyti nekaltus Ukrainos gyventojus ar eiti numirti dėl šalį valdančio diktatoriaus imperinių užmačių. Todėl tolimesniam Ukrainos žmonių žudymui ir šalies griovimui pasitelkia kitos su demokratija nieko bendra neturinčios Šiaurės Korėjos karius. Galima tik paspėlioti, kokios represijos numatytos iš Šiaurės Korėjos į karą siunčiamiems kariams ir jų šeimoms, jei šie netinkamai vykdys nurodymus žudyti. Nuolat kalbanti apie esą Vakarų vykdomą eskalavimą, Rusija pati imasi visų įmanomų veiksmų, kad jį padidintų: pasitelkia Šiaurės Korėjos karius, nuolat grasina branduoliniu ginklu, reguliariai siunčia dronus ir raketas ant civilių gyventojų galvų. Prie dabartinių Ukrainos praradimų prisidėjo ir demokratinių šalių neryžtingumas, ir negebėjimas jai suteikti reikiamą pagalbą, kuomet Ukraina turėjo pranašumą ir iniciatyvą. Dabar pagalbos reikia dar daugiau ir be jokių apribojimų.
                  

Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Drodzy koledzy! Europa stoi dziś przed egzystencjalnym wyzwaniem. Współpraca militarna między Rosją a Koreą Północną to wielki sygnał alarmowy. Działanie dwóch reżimów, które gwałcą prawo międzynarodowe, stanowi zagrożenie dla pokoju na świecie. A przecież Rosja chce wciągnąć do tej wojny kolejne kraje.
                  

                     Publikacja nowej doktryny nuklearnej Putina to próba zastraszenia i zniechęcania do wsparcia Ukrainy. Uginając się przed Putinem, godzimy się na jego warunki. Nie możemy dopuścić do tego, aby jego chore ambicje siały strach wśród nas wszystkich, wśród Europejczyków.
                  

                     Dziś potrzebujemy o wiele więcej niż deklaracji – potrzebujemy działań. Pełne, skuteczne, pozbawione luk sankcje dla Rosji, wykorzystanie nie tylko odsetek, ale i całych kwot zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów, wsparcie dla Ukrainy i wzmacnianie naszej własnej obrony to kluczowe narzędzia.
                  

                     Nie zapominajmy, że to, co dziś dzieje się na Ukrainie, kształtuje przyszłość Europy, naszą, naszych dzieci i wnuków. Nasze wsparcie dla Ukrainy to wsparcie dla pokoju, wolności i praw człowieka. To stanowcze ‘nie’ dla wszystkiego tego, o czym marzy Putin i jego stronnicy, także ci obecni w tej Izbie.
                  

Ignazio Roberto Marino (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, pochi minuti fa, prima di me, Sergey Lagodinsky ha descritto in termini emotivi quello che succede a donne, uomini e bambini nel territorio ucraino e perché il nostro sostegno non deve vacillare.
                  

                     Recentemente il presidente Zelensky ha denunciato la presenza di 12.000 truppe nordcoreane nella regione di Kursk, a riprova dell'impegno congiunto di Mosca e Pyongyang.
                  

                     Apparentemente Trump ha avviato un dialogo con Putin, escludendo l'Europa dal possibile avvio dei negoziati: a quel tavolo la voce dell'Europa è ancora assente.
                  

                     L'assenza dell'Europa è pericolosa sia per la sicurezza del nostro continente sia per la stabilità globale. L'Europa deve essere presente e dimostrare unità e risolutezza.
                  

                     Non possiamo restare indifferenti mentre i nostri valori di libertà e democrazia vengono calpestati. Ogni nostra azione deve rispecchiare il coraggio e la resistenza del popolo ucraino.
                  

Christophe Gomart (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, on fait la guerre ou on ne la fait pas. Les Ukrainiens la font, les Européens ne la font pas. Nous promettons et nous signons des résolutions. Condamner la présence de soldats nord-coréens n'est pas agir. Alors que faisons-nous?
                  

                     Aujourd'hui, nous laissons la guerre se poursuivre sans donner aux Ukrainiens les moyens de gagner, car nous sommes incapables de donner plus. Soyons sérieux, arrêtons de faire des promesses dangereuses!
                  

                     La seule question est: sommes-nous prêts à faire la guerre? Je vous le dis: militairement, nous ne sommes pas prêts. Mon constat de militaire est qu'il faut revoir notre stratégie et nos modes d'action, et construire notre défense sur la réalité et non sur des mots.
                  

                     Quelle réalité? L'arrivée de Trump conduira à un arrêt des combats. À ce moment-là, nous devons être prêts et en mesure d'agir, de marquer notre détermination face aux Russes en déployant des troupes européennes sur le sol ukrainien. Cela ne suffira pas; nous devons maintenant accélérer notre réarmement.
                  

                     C'est notre manque de crédibilité qui a conduit Poutine à attaquer l'Ukraine. Seul un véritable pilier européen de la défense, autonome par rapport à toute puissance étrangère et respectueux des souverainetés, nous permettra d'être dissuasifs, en mesure de nous défendre et de défendre les pays qui nous le demandent.
                  

Lucia Annunziata (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa è la terza volta che votiamo sull'Ucraina dall'inizio di questa legislatura.
                  

                     L'ultima volta, il 19 ottobre, dopo una divisiva discussione, fu approvato il testo inserendo una richiesta di un'attiva partecipazione da parte dell'Europa per un'iniziativa di pace, che portasse molto presto a un summit internazionale.
                  

                     Nell'attuale versione tutto questo è scomparso. In questa nuova versione non c'è nessuna ripresa di questo ruolo dell'Europa. E difatti è soltanto la promessa di un ulteriore impegno militare ed economico a favore dell'Ucraina, cosa su cui sono totalmente d'accordo, e il profilarsi di un progetto di rilancio della difesa e dell'intervento militare europeo. Anche su questo sono d'accordo.
                  

                     Ma il problema è che fare oggi delle promesse di uno sviluppo militare e di una difesa militare – lo sappiamo anche da quanto lunghe sono queste strade – è semplicemente un'idea perdente.
                  

                     Oggi siamo in questa situazione, dunque: l'Europa non sta avendo nessun impegno (…).
                  

(La Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


Reinis Pozņaks (ECR). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Labdien! Es gribu atgādināt un uzsvērt, ka Ukraina ir vienīgā nācija, kura par savu ceļu uz Eiropu balso nevis ar papīra biļeteniem, bet ar savām dzīvībām jau kopš 2014. gada. Un es domāju, ka nedz viņi, nedz es, nedz jebkurš šajā zālē negrib būt Eiropā, kur citi sabiedrotie norāda, cik daudz savas brīvības vai teritorijas mums būtu jāatdod, lai pārējiem sabiedrotajiem būtu iedomāts viltus miers un lētāka gāze.
                  

                     Es gribu dzīvot Eiropā, kur vienas valsts brīvība ir arī visas Eiropas brīvība. Un diemžēl nu demokrātija – kamēr demokrāti izdod rezolūcijas un izgaismo ēkas, tikmēr diktatūras piegādā ieročus, karavīrus un dronus. Ja mēs šo nemainīsim un nekļūsim daudz izlēmīgāki, mums ir risks šo demokrātiju zaudēt, pie tam demokrātiskā ceļā, kā to parāda vairākas pēdējās vēlēšanas.
                  

João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, the war in Ukraine is not for land or borders. It is a war for the soul of Europe and its values – a Europe where freedom is defended and democracy triumphs over tyranny, a Europe where aggression is met not with hesitation, but with resolve.
We must continue to support Ukraine, whatever it takes. And 'whatever it takes' means more weapons, air defence systems, ammunitions, long-range weapons and the permission to use them. It also means more effective sanctions and continued diplomatic support, because Ukraine's fight is our fight, and a victory for Putin or Kim Jong Un would be a defeat for us all.
Too often we have hesitated and delayed. How many lives and how much suffering would have been saved if we had acted quicker? I do not know about the Hungarian Presidency, but this Parliament is clear: we will not hesitate, we will not tire, we will not let democracy yield to tyranny.

Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Madam President – nuclear threats, assassinations, fire-bombed aeroplanes, sabotaged factories, destroyed internet cables – every day we read about Russia's terrorist attacks on Europe. But like ostriches, European governments and some people in this Parliament stick their heads in the sand in the hope that maybe the danger will pass.
But while these attacks scare us, Putin is terrified, his war economy collapses and he begs Kim Jong Un for soldiers. But he trembles even more at the thought of a well-functioning democracy right at his doorstep.
And meanwhile, Trump might force Ukraine to surrender. Between now and 20 January, when he comes to power, we have 55 days to step up our game.
European governments, ostriches, pull your heads out of the sand, move fast, create a coalition of the willing, and put Ukraine in the best possible position for a just and lasting peace. Seize all Russian assets, directly invest into Ukraine's mass weapon production and protect Ukraine on the way to NATO and EU membership.

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Russia thought that its aggression on Ukraine would last three days and that next to the giant Russian bear, little Ukraine would fall quietly.
We are entering the third year of this David versus Goliath fight, where the biggest winner is at the moment the Russian highly paid propaganda – the tools communists used for decades to distort the truth. Estimates are that Russia invested one billion into the propaganda war.
The fact that North Korea is sending its soldiers to fight against brave Ukrainians proves that we have not finished with totalitarian values and ideology where like-minded dictators unite their forces in order to preserve the autocratic regimes.
And Iran is also joining its efforts with the autocratic bloc by chipping in with their drones. You have clear company of thugs on one side. It is up to you to take part in history in the making this is a clear signal for the democratic world. Ukraine must not be left alone as unfinished business, and we have to stand with them as long as it takes as we have promised. Don't get tired against fighting against oppression. History will reward you as it did with little David.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Gerbiama pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Netrukus bus 3 metai nuo Rusijos invazijos į Ukrainą ir panašu, kad Kremliaus režimas neketina sustoti. Rusijos bendradarbiavimas su Šiaurės Korėja rodo, kad formuojasi labai pavojinga blogio ašis, kuri nepaiso tarptautinės teisės ir kuriai nerūpi taika. Šiaurės Korėjos kariai Europos žemyne yra pavojingo konflikto Ukrainoje plėtra, eskaluojanti karą ir parodanti, jog Europos saugumas nėra vien regioninis. Dabar tai tampa ir pasauline problema. Ir tai dar kartą rodo, jog neturime kito pasirinkimo, išskyrus didinti karinę paramą Ukrainai ir padėti jai apsiginti. Privalome kartu užkirsti kelią ir sankcijų Rusijai apėjimui ir izoliuoti Rusijos galimybę importuoti detales, kurias ji naudoja ginklų gamybai. Europa ir pasaulis neturi kelio atgal. Vien Europos paramos nepakaks, kad Ukraina išsaugotų laisvę. Todėl privalome telkti ir tarptautinius partnerius.
                  

Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, režim v KLDR možná působí jen jako kuriozita a její vládce jako bizarní postava. Ve skutečnosti jde o nejkrutější totalitní režim, kde lidský život nemá žádnou cenu. Vše je podřízeno zbrojení a přípravě na válku s Jižní Koreou, Japonskem, Spojenými státy a vlastně s celým demokratickým světem. Putinovo Rusko kleslo tak hluboko, že neváhá přijmout vojenskou pomoc od tohoto zrůdného režimu, režimu, který tak získá nové bojové zkušenosti a jehož diktátor je schopen zaútočit kdykoliv na své okolí. Rusko dovedla jeho vojenská taktika do situace, kdy mu nezáleží na vůbec ničem, nezáleží mu na životech vlastních občanů, nezáleží mu na bezpečnostní situaci nikde ve světě. Nechce mír, nechce jednat. Proto je naším úkolem pevně stát za Ukrajinou, nezpochybňovat naši podporu a dodávat všechny možné zbraně, aby se ubránila a aby ubránila i nás.
                  

Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Dārgā prezidentes kundze! Dārgais Reindersa kungs! Krievijas agresija Ukrainā pārāk daudziem šeit ir likusies kā tiešām tikai kaut kāds tāds reģionāls konflikts, par kuru ir jāuztraucas tikai tiem, kas ir Krievijas tiešā tuvumā. Es domāju, ka Ziemeļkorejas zaldāti Ukrainā patiešām ir viena zīme, ka tas ir kopējs uzbrukums un labi organizētas alianses uzbrukums visai brīvajai pasaulei tieši tāpat kā Ziemeļkorejas uzbrukumi Dienvidkorejai, tāpat kā Irānas rokaspuišu agresija Izraēlā.
                  

                     Ir beidzot jāsāk izturēties nopietni pret šiem draudiem. Un sarkanās līnijas mums bieži ir bijušas tikai tāds aizsegs pašu neizlēmībai un, ko tur slēpt, arī skopumam. Tāpēc, neatkarīgi no tā, ko darīs jaunā ASV administrācija, Eiropai ir jākāpina savs atbalsts Ukrainai, vispirms, protams, ar ieročiem un atļaujām šos ieročus lietot, tāpēc ka viņu cīņa patiešām ir joprojām mūsu cīņa. Slava Ukrainai!
                  

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, desgraciadamente, la situación del ejército ucraniano en su territorio y en Kursk no es buena. Rusia cuenta ahora con el refuerzo de soldados norcoreanos.
                  

                     El reciente uso del misil Oreshnik y las nuevas normas de reclutamiento —y también sobre el uso de armas nucleares— muestran que Putin no tiene intención de frenar su guerra; al contrario, quiere demostrar su potencial militar para amedrentarnos y ganar también posiciones en unas hipotéticas negociaciones de paz.
                  

                     Tenemos que seguir apoyando a Ucrania, también con armas y financiación. No es momento de cesiones ni de abandonos. Además, es conveniente que, en Washington, la nueva Administración Trump perciba nuestro compromiso firme con Ucrania.
                  

                     Ayudar a Ucrania también significa defender el orden internacional basado en normas e instituciones cuya creación lideraron, precisamente, los Estados Unidos y Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Este orden también está ahora en juego.
                  

                     China, que tanto preocupa en Washington, también está atenta a la fortaleza de nuestra respuesta a Rusia. La invasión de Ucrania no es, pues, solamente un conflicto europeo: tiene un significado mucho más amplio y los europeos tenemos que estar a la altura de este reto.
                  

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, during 1 000 days of war, EUR 122 billion available for assistance and, finally, one million artillery shells delivered. European perspective step by step became a reality.
As Europeans, we can be proud of our actions, but we must continue. On the other side, direct involvement of North Korea and the new nuclear doctrine, warmongering and war crimes.
More support to Ukraine and stronger sanctions for all direct and indirect enablers of Russian aggression are needed.
Our transatlantic allies voted for a change that is difficult to predict, but we cannot get overprepared for reaction to any way their action may take. If NATO will no longer be enough, Europe needs to step up.
If rules and values become transactional tools, we must oppose it. While Ukraine fights for our security, Europe must lead the fight for the rule-based international order. As long as it takes.

Michał Dworczyk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Kiedy w ubiegłą środę przyjechałem do Kijowa, miasto żyło oczekiwaniem na możliwy w każdym momencie silny rosyjski atak rakietowy. Ten atak nastąpił następnego dnia na miasto Dnipro. Wszyscy to oglądaliśmy. Niestety ukraińską codzienność wciąż określa czas pomiędzy alarmami powietrznymi, przypominając, że zapasy rosyjskiej amunicji, broni, a także tysiące przysłanych koreańskich żołnierzy umożliwiają rozwijanie rosyjskiej ofensywy w obwodach donieckim i zaporoskim.
                  

                     Podczas moich spotkań w Kijowie i Charkowie moi rozmówcy wielokrotnie podkreślali, że reakcja Zachodu pozostaje wciąż niewystarczająca, aby skutecznie zatrzymać Putina. Musimy zatem bezwzględnie zaostrzyć sankcje wobec wszystkich pomocników Rosji w tej wojnie, w tym przede wszystkim Korei Północnej oraz, co równie ważne, zdecydowanie naciskać na Chiny, będące liderem kontynentu azjatyckiego, o wpłynięcie na Koreę, by wycofała się z udziału w tej wojnie. Ukraina potrzebuje wsparcia, które przyniesie nie pokój za wszelką cenę, ale sprawiedliwy pokój, na który zasługuje naród walczący dzisiaj o wolność.
                  

Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was not just about some regional conflict. It was about crushing an entire nation whose hopes and aspirations were to join the European Union, to embrace Western values and democracy.
This House has been supportive, but not every political grouping in this House has been supportive of Ukraine. We saw more recently the shameful conduct of Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, in being friendly with a dictator like Putin. It is appalling in this day and age that this particular home of democracy, the European Parliament, can't even come together in unanimity around the issue of sanctions on Putin and on Russia. We have to ensure that we bring Russia's capabilities to its knees through sanctions and obviously in the area of military as well.
Reference has been made to the fact that two nuclear powers are at war. Yes, they are: North Korea and Russia are at war, and are at war against a peaceful people in Ukraine as we speak. Some of the conduct in this particular Chamber has been disgraceful, primarily from over there. It has been shameful. Slava Ukraini!


Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege. Ulazak Sjeverne Koreje u rat protiv Ukrajine je vrlo opasan korak prema globalizaciji sukoba. Rusija od početka to želi. Narativ Rusije je da je ovo zapravo jedan globalni rat protiv Zapada, ali ono što nas treba doista zabrinuti je sljedeće pitanje: zar netko misli da bi se Sjeverna Koreja uključila u rat protiv Ukrajine da je Kina doista bila jako protiv toga? Jer Kina je ta koja je zaštitnik Sjeverne Koreje i stoga danas moramo poslati vrlo jasnu poruku: da, braniti pravo Ukrajine, pomoć Ukrajini da se brani i obrani od ruske agresije, ali isto tako poslati poruku Pekingu. Koristite utjecaj koji imate na Sjevernu Koreju, koristite utjecaj koji imate na Moskvu da Putin zaustavi agresiju i da se otvori za supstancijalne mirovne pregovore.
                  

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nei giorni scorsi abbiamo ribadito il nostro sostegno incondizionato all'Ucraina contro la criminale aggressione russa, che ha sempre avuto i caratteri di un conflitto non soltanto regionale.
                  

                     Per primi abbiamo denunciato in quest'Aula le saldature tra Mosca e Teheran. Per primi abbiamo ribadito con forza che l'attacco a Kiev è, era ed è un attacco all'Europa e ai suoi valori. E l'invio dei soldati del regime coreano in Ucraina rappresenta l'escalation di questo asse del terrore globale.
                  

                     E anche per questo serve incrementare l'intensità della nostra azione diplomatica di deterrenza, serve aumentare la pressione sulle sanzioni, vigilare sul loro aggiramento, chiudere i canali economici che finanziano la propaganda e la disinformazione dei nostri Paesi e utilizzare subito gli asset congelati degli oligarchi e sostenere militarmente Kiev in modo veloce ed efficiente.
                  

                     Agiamo, continuiamo ad agire: non sia quest'Aula come quella vecchia diplomazia diplomatica che viene raccontata in un vecchio film, ‘Quel che resta del giorno’, in cui si discuteva di politica estera amabilmente, mentre il regime nazista occupava e preparava i suoi piani di occupazione dell'Europa.
                  

Adrian-George Axinia (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, în calitate de europarlamentar AUR și membru al Grupului Conservatorilor și Reformiștilor Europeni, consider reprobabilă escaladarea războiului din Ucraina prin folosirea unor rachete balistice de nouă generație de către Federația Rusă și implicarea unor soldați și a tehnicii de luptă provenite din Coreea de Nord. În egală măsură, având în vedere evoluțiile geopolitice din SUA și Europa, odată cu alegerea președintelui Trump, doar luând în considerare ce s-a întâmplat la alegerile prezidențiale din România, există sentimentul că Uniunea Europeană a rămas cumva blocată în anumite narative, în anumite tranșee narative cu încărcătură ideologică, precum soldatul acela japonez care a mai luptat 20 de ani după ce conflictul s-a încheiat.
                  

                     În acest moment, noi ar trebui să ne concentrăm eforturile spre un dialog cu viitoarea administrație de la Washington, pentru a pune la punct un plan care să ducă la încheierea acestui conflict sângeros, evident, oferind garanții de securitate Ucrainei și vorbind despre necesitatea ca tratatul să conțină un calendar clar privind aderarea acestei țări greu încercate. Să știți că ucrainenii așteaptă de la noi să audă că intră în Uniunea Europeană dacă se încheie războiul, ca să nu aibă impresia că au luptat degeaba și că vor rămâne o zonă tampon. Acest lucru este valabil și pentru Republica Moldova.
                  

Nikola Minchev (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, Ukraine has chosen the path of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. But what does it get in response? It faces aggression from a regime that recognises only tyranny and violence. Russia must understand that its actions have consequences. Our unwavering support for Ukraine is not just a moral obligation; it's a clear statement that no dictatorship or invader will succeed in overturning the will of a free people.
The growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea presents a new threat to global stability. North Korea has deployed 11 000 troops to support Russia's war effort in Ukraine, but what it will get in return is even more alarming. The dark alliance of autocracies should compel us to act decisively.
This crisis underscores the necessity for European strategic autonomy. We must be capable of defending ourselves through our own strength. By building a robust European defence infrastructure, we ensure that our Union can stand firm against any aggression – united, resilient and self-reliant.

Wouter Beke (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, geen duizend dagen, maar al vierduizend dagen is Oekraïne in oorlog met Rusland. Rusland krijgt hiervoor steun: steun van China, steun van Noord-Korea, steun van India, steun van Iran en steun van de Houthi-rebellen.
                  

                     Ik kom net terug van de Parlementaire Assemblee van de NAVO, waar experten meldden dat Rusland meer steun krijgt dan Oekraïne van het Westen. Wij kloppen ons op de borst met alle steun die gegeven wordt, maar Rusland krijgt internationaal meer steun. Dat is de harde realiteit. Intussen manipuleert Rusland verkiezingen in Georgië en in Roemenië om pro-Russische stemmen ook in Europa aan het woord te krijgen.
                  

                     De steun aan Oekraïne is een steun aan onze westerse democratie, aan onze westerse waarden tegenover autoritaire dictaturen en regimes. Ik heb eigenlijk één heel concrete vraag: geef Oekraïne de mogelijkheden om met langeafstandswapens Russische lanceerplatformen plat te leggen. Het is vanuit die lanceerplatformen dat de Oekraïners elke dag opnieuw worden aangevallen. Geef hun die mogelijkheden, dan kunnen die aanvallen stoppen.
                  

(De spreker stemt ermee in om te antwoorden op een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag)


Petras Gražulis (ESN),
pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas atstove, jūs esate valdančiosios partijos – Liaudies partijos – atstovas. Jūs Europos Parlamente suformavę daugumą, jūsų Komisijos pirmininkė. Daug gražių žodžių, bet veiksmų ryžtingų – nėra. Kodėl jūs neskiriate tiek pagalbos, kiek reikia Ukrainai, tiek ginkluotės ir tokios ginkluotės, kiek reikia Ukrainai? Kiek jūs čia dar tuščiai kalbėsite, kol užkariaus Putinas Ukrainą? Imkitės darbų, o ne plepalų!
                  

Wouter Beke (PPE),

                           ‘blauwe kaart’-antwoord. – Mijn pleidooi is niet alleen om die wapens te leveren, maar er ook voor te zorgen dat ze doeltreffender kunnen worden ingezet. Europa heeft nu gezegd dat het wapens wil leveren, dat het langeafstandsraketten ter beschikking wil stellen, maar op een heel beperkte manier. Stel ze breder ter beschikking, dan kunnen die lanceerplatformen – en Oekraïne weet waar die lanceerplatformen zijn – onmiddellijk ontmanteld worden en dan wordt het niet elke dag opnieuw aangevallen door raketten. Dat is heel concreet mijn voorstel.
                  

Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Sytuacja Ukrainy staje się coraz bardziej dramatyczna. Wydarzenia zarówno na polu bitwy, jak i w odległych stolicach nie napawają optymizmem. Ale to właśnie w takich momentach najważniejsza jest nasza solidarność. Niedawno Unia Europejska oraz kraje G7 postanowiły udzielić Ukrainie pożyczki w wysokości 50 miliardów dolarów, korzystając z dochodów z zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów państwowych.
                  

                     To ważny krok, ale nie zapominajmy, że według szacunków Banku Światowego koszt odbudowy Ukrainy wyniesie ponad 450 miliardów euro, a co gorsza, ta kwota z każdym dniem rośnie. Putin i jego ekipa nie mogą pozostać bezkarni. To Rosja musi zapłacić za wszystkie zbrodnie i straty. Prawo międzynarodowe pozwala nam skonfiskować blisko 300 mld euro rosyjskich aktywów znajdujących się na terenie krajów Europy Zachodniej. Zróbmy to, zanim będzie za późno. Zróbmy to dla wolnej Ukrainy i Europy.
                  

Arkadiusz Mularczyk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Rzecznik prasowy Pentagonu w zeszłym tygodniu poinformował, że na Ukrainie jest 11 tysięcy żołnierzy północnokoreańskich. Pojawiają się również doniesienia o żołnierzach z Afryki, o nielegalnych najemnikach z Afryki. Te informacje pokazują w sposób jasny, że wykorzystanie północnokoreańskich żołnierzy jest jasnym sygnałem do eskalacji konfliktu, że machina Putina ma poważne trudności, skoro ściąga najemników z całego świata.
                  

                     Nasza odpowiedź musi być taka sama od samego początku: dalsze wsparcie ze strony Unii Europejskiej dla Ukrainy, dalsze sankcje wobec państw, które wspierają reżim Putina, wysyłają broń, uzbrojenie i żołnierzy na Ukrainę oraz zachęcają do większego wsparcia militarnego z Korei Południowej. Musimy, jako Unia Europejska, dać Putinowi jasny sygnał, że Unia Europejska nie straci determinacji.
                  

Karin Karlsbro (Renew). – Madam President, Commission, colleagues, last week, we marked day 1000 of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Despite our common efforts, our military aid to Ukraine is far from sufficient and it comes too late. And our economic pressure on Russia works, but it is not enough. Putin seizes every sign of weakness from Europe as an invitation to escalate, and the Ukrainians pay for it with their lives.
Let me be clear: it is time for us to speak the only language that Putin understands, it is time to step up and make use of our power as a Union for defence. Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and we must stand with them for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini!


Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με ενότητα έχει σταθεί με όλες τις δυνάμεις της στο πλευρό της Ουκρανίας στον πόλεμο της Ρωσίας. Αυτή η στάση είναι η μόνη αποδεκτή απάντηση που πρέπει να δίνεται σε οποιονδήποτε επιτιθέμενο.
                  

                     Ο επιτιθέμενος, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, πρέπει να πληρώνει το κόστος των ενεργειών του. Η αρχή αυτή δεν είναι μόνο θέμα δικαιοσύνης, αλλά και ζήτημα διαφύλαξης της ειρήνης και της διεθνούς νομιμότητας. Την ίδια στιγμή, αν επιβεβαιωθεί η αυξανόμενη στρατιωτική συνεργασία μεταξύ Ρωσίας και Βορείου Κορέας, καθώς και η εμπλοκή της Πιονγκγιάνγκ, η διεθνής κοινότητα οφείλει να δράσει αναλόγως.
                  

                     Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν μπορεί –και δεν πρέπει– να αποδεχθεί αυτήν την εξέλιξη, που απειλεί να διευρύνει την αποσταθεροποίηση και την παραβίαση των βασικών αρχών του διεθνούς δικαίου. Ας είναι η ενότητά μας η ισχυρότερη απάντηση στους επιτιθέμενους και η μεγαλύτερη ελπίδα για την ειρήνη.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Ukraine har været i krig i mere end tusind dage. Ukrainerne kæmper for deres land og for vores værdier, for fred, for frihed og for demokrati. EU har fra starten gået forrest i verden med at støtte Ukraine. Og naturligvis, fordi det er vores naboer. Det skal vi fortsætte med. Men jeg må også sige, at jeg er utrolig skuffet over, hvor lidt støtte en del af EU's medlemslande rent faktisk har givet. Mange store EU-lande glimrer ved deres fravær med støtten. De har givet langt mindre, end bittesmå EU-medlemslande har gjort. Det er simpelt hen ikke i orden. Ukraine, de kæmper for vores værdier også, og så er de i øvrigt et fysisk bolværk mod Putins vilde ambitioner og aggression mod Europa og mod Vesten. Vi bliver altså nødt til at steppe op alle sammen. Og derfor skal de store EU-lande også ind i kampen og for alvor begynde at give støtte, så Ukraine har en chance for at klare sig. Det er helt afgørende vigtigt, hvis vi skal sørge for, at de vinder denne krig.
                  

Ondřej Kolář (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I think we are very good in producing various resolutions and condemning everything that we can. But I remember or recall that there were times in the past, not too long ago, when these resolutions and proclamations of outrage and condemnation were somehow backed up by concrete, real action.
And what about now? As I said, we have numerous proclamations, we have various resolutions, we condemn, we are outraged, we stand by someone, we change pictures on our social networks. Yet we let the aggressor push us back. We see Russia siding with Iran, siding with North Korea, and all we do is produce another resolution condemning whatever they do. I think that we must stop shouting, you know? We must find the lost courage and finally back up the resolutions by serious action.

Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora presidenta, ¿se imaginan lo que suponen más de mil días de guerra? ¿Más de mil días sin saber si un misil volará tu casa? ¿Más de mil días sin saber si mañana los invasores entrarán en tu barrio? ¿Más de mil días sin saber si tu hijo tiene una vida por delante? Así viven, desde hace más de mil días, los ucranianos ante la invasión de Putin.
                  

                     Por eso, hoy debemos reafirmar nuestro apoyo. Un apoyo para defender los valores democráticos frente a la tiranía, un apoyo militar para que Ucrania venza en el conflicto, pero también con la vista puesta en su reconstrucción. Debemos utilizar los activos rusos congelados también para que el país renazca más fuerte.
                  

                     Las bombas rusas amenazan nuestros principios democráticos, pero donde Putin provoca destrozos, nosotros debemos ver protección y reconstrucción de nuestros valores europeos. Tras más de mil días de guerra, nuestro apoyo a Ucrania debe ser más fuerte que nunca.
                  

Krzysztof Brejza (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Dziś, w obliczu brutalnej agresji Rosji na Ukrainę, mamy przed sobą rezolucję, która silnie wspiera Ukrainę, w sposób zdecydowany. Obowiązkiem demokratycznej wspólnoty państw, obowiązkiem wszystkich wolnych ludzi jest zrobienie wszystkiego, by zatrzymać tę oś zła – niebezpieczną dla Europy, niebezpieczną dla świata, dla ludzkości. Bo tę oś zła dyktator Putin rozwija pod względem militarnym, ale też propagandowym.
                  

                     Dziś żołnierze z Korei Północnej – najkrwawszego reżimu świata, Korei Północnej, która jest jednym wielkim obozem koncentracyjnym – atakują Ukraińców na ich terytorium. Atakują Ukraińców za to, że Ukraińcy walczą o nasze wspólne wartości. Ukraińcy chcą być na Zachodzie, we wspólnocie państw Zachodu. Największym zagrożeniem dla nas jest niepamięć, zobojętnienie i przyzwyczajenie się do świata, który wojną hybrydową próbuje nam narzucić Putin. Nie dajmy się temu, nie ulegajmy Putinowi. Bądźmy czujni i wyraźnie definiujmy to zło, które płynie ze Wschodu. Bądźmy, jako wspólnota ludzi wolnych, zawsze po stronie Ukrainy.
                  

Pierfrancesco Maran (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa sarà la terza risoluzione sull'Ucraina della legislatura e circa la ventesima dall'inizio dell'invasione russa. È necessaria: dobbiamo reagire alle nuove provocazioni di Putin e l'arrivo di truppe nordcoreane è inaccettabile.
                  

                     Vorrei però ricordare che una risoluzione è importante ma le azioni lo sono di più. Le nostre risoluzioni spesso invitano i governi europei ad agire: a volte lo fanno in ritardo, a volte non hanno proprio seguito. Il motivo di fondo è che non abbiamo completato il progetto europeo e il sistema intergovernativo è inadeguato alla situazione attuale che richiede velocità, risorse e unione.
                  

                     Con Putin da un lato e Trump dall'alto, se vogliamo davvero essere a fianco dell'Ucraina, sostenerla militarmente e lavorare per una pace giusta e duratura, dobbiamo essere all'altezza delle sfide dei nostri tempi.
                  

                     Abbiamo bisogno di una vera politica estera europea e di una difesa comune europea: senza di esse le nostre risoluzioni sono solo parole! Siamo all'inizio di una nuova Commissione: o si fa davvero l'Europa unita o si muore di retorica e di irrilevanza.
                  

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Putin ist nicht nur ein Diktator nach innen, er ist nicht nur ein Aggressor nach außen, sondern er ist auch ein Diktator für diejenigen, die sich in ihre Sprechnotizen diktieren lassen, was sie zu sagen haben – hier in diesem Europäischen Parlament, in vielen anderen europäischen Parlamenten und in der Politik in den Mitgliedstaaten und auf europäischer Ebene insgesamt.
                  

                     Denen gilt es entgegenzuhalten, dass wir weiterhin für Freiheit und Frieden eintreten und daher die Ukraine weiterhin unterstützen. Die westliche Hilfe ist gerade angewachsen in der alten US-Administration. Aber wer jetzt glaubt, in der neuen US-Administration wird das weniger, der täuscht sich. Zwar braucht Europa in Zukunft mehr eigene Kraft, sich selbst helfen zu können, aber aufgrund des Zusammenhangs mit Nordkorea, aufgrund des Zusammenhangs mit Teheran und anderen Gegnern unserer Zivilisation wird die Hilfe des Westens auch in der neuen Administration aufrechterhalten bleiben. Das prognostiziere ich heute, und so werden Freiheit und Frieden obsiegen.
                  

Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Fru formand! Kære kolleger. Ruslands brutale angrebskrig mod Ukraine har nu stået på i over 1000 dage. Det er den værste krig på det europæiske kontinent siden Anden Verdenskrig. Og Ukraine kæmper hver dag for sin frihed, for demokrati og for retten til fundamentalt at eksistere. Den kamp er deres kamp, men det er også vores kamp, og derfor skal vi støtte Ukraine til det sidste. Det er kampen for frihed på den ene side mod totalitarisme på den anden side. For lov på den ene side mod lovløshed på den anden side. Det er det, vi befinder os i, kære venner, og det her øjeblik, det er et definerende øjeblik for Europas historie. Vi ser tydeligt, at autokratier begynder at finde hinanden. Iran og Kina støtter Rusland, og selv verdens mest lukkede land, Nordkorea, sender nu tropper til Rusland. Vi må lære at stå sammen og også i lyset af valget i USA støtte Ukraine endnu mere. Det er der brug for. Og jeg må også sige, at nogle lande her i Europa har brug for at støtte endnu mere. Tak for ordet. Slava Ukraini.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, Europe must remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine. If we allow Russia to succeed in this war, it would be a catastrophic precedent for our continent and the world. And with Donald Trump taking over in the United States, God only knows what will happen.
We also face a growing challenge at home. On the far left and far right, we are seeing echoes of Russia's propaganda. This rhetoric seeks to undermine our unity and our commitment to Ukraine. For example, ahead of Ireland's general election this coming Friday, The Left's Sinn Féin manifesto states: 'All sides must seize the current unlimited supply of weapons into Ukraine'.
I ask our Sinn Féin colleagues directly: what outcome do you want? Should Ukraine just surrender? Should they cede their territory to Russia? That is the only conclusion I can draw from such a statement. We must stand united for Ukraine and for Europe. Slava Ukraini!

An Úcráin abú!

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has turned, ironically, from a three-day Putin victory parade into a gruelling war that has been going on for almost three years. I admire all brave Ukrainians who are not afraid of the ruling Putin monster. Putin and Russia's constant request for help from almost all world rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea, first with ammunition and now with soldiers, only show that Putin's regime is weak. It is holding a clay neck that can crack at any moment.
I have a question to all Putinophiles who are, unfortunately, still too many among Western politicians, but even more numerous among BRICS countries. Do you agree that in a modern world, one country can unilaterally redraw the borders by use of force? If you do agree with this, then a war will be on your shores and we can bury a modern international legal system, destroying cornerstones of peace and multilateralism. For me, answer is clear: we have to stand with Ukrainian people and do much more, and united for Ukrainian victory is only one right answer and our slogan.

Ingeborg Ter Laak (PPE). – Voorzitter, Oekraïne vecht al duizend dagen, niet alleen voor zijn vrijheid, maar ook voor onze vrijheid en onze manier van leven. Het is belangrijk dat wij Oekraïne in deze strijd blijven steunen, vanuit Europa en vanuit de individuele lidstaten. Vrede en veiligheid zijn helaas niet meer vanzelfsprekend. Wij kunnen dat ook niet meer zo ervaren, niet in Europa en niet in Nederland.
                  

                     De inzet van Noord-Koreaanse soldaten in het Russische leger bewijst eens te meer dat Rusland niet bereid is om in te leveren. Om Rusland aan de onderhandelingstafel te krijgen, zijn langeafstandswapens helaas nodig. De oorlog moet eerlijk en rechtvaardig beëindigd worden.
                  

                     En zoals Zelensky in dit Parlement zei: ‘Dit moet het jaar van de vrede gaan worden. Slava Ukraini.’
                  

Maria Guzenina (S&D). – Madam President, we all know that supporting Ukraine is also about defending European values and principles: peace, security, democracy and rule of law. We also know that eventually, if Europe is weakened, it affects the whole global balance.
So, my words go to across the Atlantic to Trump. If Trump wants to make good deals, he should see Europe as equals and partners. And Trump should treat Putin as he would treat someone attempting a hostile takeover, because that's what Putin is trying to do: attack our freedom and sovereignty.
In this House, we should be united. No one should for a second think that the future of Europe is secured with Putin's doctrine. North Korean soldiers brought to a European war is just one example that Putin's Russia will proceed. It will not stop if we are not going to stop him.

Ana Miguel Pedro (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, mil dias de resistência ucraniana são, acima de tudo, uma declaração ao mundo. A liberdade não se rende. Mil dias de resistência ucraniana são também mil dias de sacrifício e de coragem. São crianças que crescem entre sirenes e escombros, aprendendo demasiado cedo o custo da liberdade. Mil dias de resistência ucraniana são mil dias de cidades devastadas, mas nunca subjugadas. Mil dias em que homens e mulheres comuns se ergueram como gigantes, prontos a defender o direito de escolher o seu próprio destino.
                  

                     Para a Europa, este não é um conflito distante. Ignorar esta realidade seria um erro histórico. Não é apenas uma questão de apoio militar e económico. É uma batalha pelo que significa ser europeu, pelo que significa acreditar no Estado de direito, na liberdade, na dignidade humana.
                  

                     Tratar a guerra como algo distante é o mesmo que preparar o terreno para que ela chegue até nós. Porque ela já está às nossas portas. A história ensina-nos que os autocratas prosperam quando os democratas vacilam. Ensina-nos que a hesitação diante da injustiça não é neutralidade, mas cumplicidade.
                  

                     Mil dias de resistência ucraniana são também mil dias de teste para as democracias. Se não defendermos a liberdade ali, seremos forçados a defendê-la em casa, a um preço muito maior.
                  

Jüri Ratas (PPE). – Austatud president, head ametikaaslased! Venemaa täiemahuline agressioonisõda on põhjalikult muutnud geopoliitilist julgeolekuolukorda Euroopas ja ka kogu maailmas. Sõda on siinsamas Euroopa õuel. Me peame andma vastuse küsimusele: ‘Mis on Moskva poolt vaadatuna järgmine käik?’ Küsimus pole selles, kas Venemaa ründab lähitulevikus uut riiki, vaid küsimus on millal. Euroopa Liidu ja NATO vastus peab olema, et Venemaa saab lüüa ja ei ründa järgmist riiki mitte kunagi. Hetkel aga Putin koos oma liitlastega eskaleerib olukorda edasi ja see tähendab, et Euroopa Liit ja NATOga ühtseid väärtusi kandvad riigid peavad käituma kaks korda kiiremini, jõulisemalt kui seni. Selleks tuleb tühistada kõik venelastele antud viisad Euroopa Liitu, kehtestada sanktsioonid kõigile energiakandjatele. Venemaaga on selles sõjas koos Valgevene, Iraan, Põhja Korea. Mida ootame meie? Euroopa Liit peab sõjalise toetuse andmist kiirendama, mahtusid tõstma ja oma tegevust laiendama Venemaa vastu. Tühistada tuleb juba täna kõik piirangud, mis takistavad Ukrainal Venemaal asuvaid sõjalisi vahendeid sihtida. Tänase öörünnaku tulemuse taustal Ukraina vajab meie abi õhutõrje tugevdamisel. Ja lõpetuseks: liikmelisus Euroopa Liitu ja NATOsse.
                  

Henrik Dahl (PPE). – Fru formand! Kære kolleger. Jeg er født 15 år efter Anden Verdenskrig. Men indtil for lidt over tusind dage siden havde jeg ikke fantasi til at forestille mig, at nordkoreanske soldater en dag skulle kæmpe i Europa mod europæere. Men sådan er virkeligheden i 2024. Det bør stå klart for alle, at regimet i Kreml ikke vil tøve med at bruge ethvert middel for at knuse Ukraine. Hvis Rusland vinder, går hele Europa en meget usikker fremtid i møde. Derfor må vi stå fast og sørge for, at Rusland taber krigen. Jeg er stolt over at komme fra et af de lande, der har støttet Ukraine mest, og jeg vil opfordre resten af Europa til at komme op på Danmarks niveau hurtigst muligt. Det er våben, Ukraine har brug for, for at vinde over Rusland og Nordkorea – ikke resolutioner og skåltaler.
                  

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Tyle w ostatnim czasie mówi się o negocjacjach pokojowych, także dzisiaj, na tej sali, wielokrotnie o tym mówiono. Ale chyba nikt z nas nie ma najmniejszych wątpliwości, że do tych przyszłych negocjacji pokojowych Ukraina musi usiąść z silniejszej pozycji niż agresywna Rosja. W innym przypadku dojdzie do katastrofy, do katastrofy Ukrainy i do katastrofy całej Europy. Dlatego Europa musi wciąż wspierać Ukrainę. I to wsparcie nie może być determinowane kalendarzem wyborczym w poszczególnych państwach Unii Europejskiej, tak jak ma to w tej chwili miejsce.
                  

                     I na koniec wielki apel do władz Ukrainy, po raz kolejny, ze strony mojego środowiska politycznego, o upamiętnienie pomordowanych Polaków w 1943 roku. Szanujemy was, pomagamy wam, ale domagamy się także szacunku wobec ofiar i ich rodzin także od was.
                  

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, vážené dámy a pánové, je potřeba si nalít čistého vína. Evropa selhává. Na jedné straně máte diktátorské režimy – Putinovo Rusko, Severní Koreu, Čínu, Írán, pomoc Hútiů, tedy Jemenu – a další diktátorské režimy z Afriky, které posílají vojáky na frontu na Ukrajinu zabíjet Ukrajince. A proti tomu je bezzubá Evropa. My přemýšlíme o tom, jestli tam máme poslat sto granátů nebo tisíc granátů. Přemýšlíme o tom dva roky, jestli budeme vyrábět více nebo budeme vyrábět méně. Přemýšlíme o tom, jestli budeme posílat více tanků nebo jestli tam pošleme stíhací letouny F-16. A mezitím hrdinní Ukrajinci umírají. Probuďme se, probuďte se jako celá Evropská komise a řekneme si jednu věc. Pokud prohraje Ukrajina, prohraje celá Evropská unie. A Francii, Německo, Španělsko a všechny státy, které odmítají dát více peněz, to bude stát desetinásobek více, než je to stojí dneska.
                  

Радан Кънев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, ние имаме свободата да залитнем вляво, както в предишния Парламент, или вдясно, както в сегашния. Имаме свободата да променим стари политики и да приемем нови приоритети, често пъти и едните, и другите грешни. Имаме дори свободата във времена на криза и на комуникационна революция, бих казал и хаос, в каквито живеем сега…
                  

(Председателят прекъсва оратора поради технически проблеми с превода и го моли да започне отначало изказването си.)


                     Уважаеми колеги, имаме свободата да залитнем наляво, както в предишния Парламент, или надясно, както в сегашния. Имаме свободата да отменим стари политики и да приемем нови приоритети, нерядко и едните, и другите грешни. Имаме дори свободата във времена на криза и на комуникационна революция, бих казал, на комуникационен хаос, да се доверим на забележителни измамници и популисти, както нерядко се случва днес.
                  

                     И враговете на Европа, враговете на свободата смятат това за нашата слабост – и тези в Кремъл, и тези в Пхенян, и тези в Техеран, и пиратите в Йемен. Те смятат, че по тази причина ние ще се огънем. И бъркат много. Именно защото ценим свободата си над всичко, включително свободата да грешим, ние имаме и разума, и инстинкта за самосъхранение да продължим неотклонно и подкрепата си за Украйна, и борбата си срещу тиранията.
                  

Jacek Protas (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Od ponad tysiąca dni Putin zabija ukraińskich żołnierzy, morduje cywilów, niszczy ukraińskie wsie i miasta. Realizuje swój szatański plan odbudowy Imperium Rosyjskiego. Ale jeżeli ktoś uważa i ma nadzieję, że Putin zatrzyma się na Ukrainie, to jest w głębokim błędzie. Putin dzisiaj testuje NATO, testuje Europę, jak daleko może się posunąć. Czy jest w stanie nas podzielić? Czy Europa i Sojusz Północnoatlantycki są w stanie zmobilizować się i przygotować do odparcia agresji Putina?
                  

                     Dzisiaj musimy być solidarni z Ukrainą i zmobilizować wszystkie zasoby, ażeby wesprzeć naród ukraiński w walce z Putinem. Bo naród ukraiński walczy dzisiaj i powstrzymuje Putina przed dalszą ekspansją na Europę. Dlatego też wszystkie siły muszą być skoncentrowane dzisiaj na pomocy Ukrainie.
                  

Inese Vaidere (PPE). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Dārgie kolēģi! Krievijas karš Ukrainā ieiet izšķirošā fāzē. Ukraina noasiņo. Ko mēs varam darīt, lai Ukraina šai karā uzvarētu?
                  

                     Pirmkārt, mums pašiem ir jāpalielina mūsu aizsardzības un kaujas spējas. Arī tām valstīm, kuras nav sasniegušas 2 %, ko NATO paredz drošībai no iekšzemes kopprodukta, piemēram, tādām bagātām valstīm kā Beļģija, Spānija, Itālija. Vācijas valdībai ir jāpiegādā solītie ‘Taurus’ un jāatļauj šos ieročus izlietot militāriem mērķiem Krievijas teritorijā. Mums ir jāiesaistās Ukrainas gaisa telpas aizsardzībā.
                  

                     Otrkārt, mums ir jāpārtrauc šī kara finansēšana. Ir jāievieš vēl stiprākas sankcijas, arī pret tā saucamo Krievijas ēnu floti, kas piegādā enerģijas avotus Eiropas valstīm.
                  

                     Treškārt, liels starptautiskais spiediens pret tām valstīm, kuras iesaistās karā pret Ukrainu, esot Krievijas pusē. Ja mēs to nedarīsim, par mūsu brīvību Ukrainas karavīru vietā nāksies cīnīties mūsu dēliem un meitām.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospa predsednica. Drage kolegice in kolegi. Danes se pogovarjamo o osnovnem in zelo preprostem vprašanju: v kakšnem svetu, v kakšni Evropi želimo živeti v prihodnosti? Ali bo to Evropa in svet, ki bo temeljil na vladavini prava? Ali bo to svet, ki bo temeljil na vladavini moči?
                  

                     In če je naš odgovor, da želimo živeti v svetu, kjer vlada pravo – ker v enaindvajsetem stoletju ni mogoče spreminjati meja na nasilen način – potem je naš edini odgovor, da je naša moralna dolžnost, da podpiramo Ukrajino, dokler je potrebno.
                  

                     Seveda je ruska propaganda izjemno učinkovita tudi v naših državah: da podpora Ukrajini pomeni dejansko podaljševanje vojne. Ampak to je čista laž. Šele ko se bo vzpostavilo neko ravnotežje na bojišču, šele takrat se bo odprla pot do pravega in trajnega miru.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario Reynders, cuando se cumplen mil días de la injustificable e ilegal guerra de agresión de Putin contra Ucrania, queda claro que la dimensión militar del conflicto escapa a la capacidad de la Unión Europea por el momento, máxime cuando Putin ha declarado una nueva doctrina nuclear y, además, está involucrando a mercenarios norcoreanos y yemeníes.
                  

                     Pero hay tres cosas que sí puede hacer la Unión Europea:
                  

                     La primera, mantener las medidas restrictivas como Derecho penal europeo y movilizar los fondos y recursos confiscados a Rusia para financiar la reconstrucción.
                  

                     La segunda, asistir humanitariamente a los Estados miembros de primera línea: Polonia, la República Checa, Hungría…, que reciben a millones de personas procedentes del conflicto y requieren financiación para la atención que les prestan.
                  

                     Y la tercera, naturalmente, mantener la unidad, porque es la forma de que la Unión Europea sea globalmente relevante en la solución que vendrá, particularmente cuando Trump acceda finalmente a la Casa Blanca.
                  

Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Ukrainekrieg ist verloren. Meine Damen und Herren, wer heute noch davon redet – whatever it takes, as long as it takes – oder von unerschütterlicher Unterstützung bis zum Ende des Ukrainekrieges spricht, der steht in der Kontinuität von Joseph Goebbels mit seiner überlieferten Sportpalastrede. Herr Kommissar Reynders sprach davon: Der Krieg bedeutet Zerstörung der Infrastruktur, die Verantwortlichen sollen vor Gericht gestellt werden. Nun, Herr Reynders, der NATO-Angriffskrieg auf Serbien hat auch die Infrastruktur zerstört. Das serbische Volk wartet heute noch auf die Bestrafung der Täter.
                  

                     Zum Schluss möchte ich noch zu einem Kollegen der CDU kommen. Kollege Gahler ist ein widerlicher Kriegstreiber. Der hat sich in seiner Rede Sorgen gemacht um das zerstörte Unterseekabel in der Ostsee. Dieser deutsche Volksverräter freut sich andererseits über die Zerstörung unserer deutschen Infrastruktur. Er hat sich über die Zerstörung von Nordstream 2 gefreut. Meine Damen und Herren, wer CDU wählt,
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Ich bitte um Respekt auch vor den Kollegen in der Wortwahl bitte.
                  

Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN). – wählt Krieg in Europa! Wer CDU wählt in Zukunft, meine lieben Landsleute, wählt Tod und Zerstörung.
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Ich möchte an dieser Stelle noch einmal darauf hinweisen, dass wir den Kollegen gegenüber mit Respekt umgehen und Beschimpfungen bitte zu unterbleiben haben.
                  

Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Madam President, I have just returned from Ukraine. I have a strong impression from the front lines that, despite of our statements of solidarity, Ukrainians increasingly doubt the reliability of Western and European commitments. Ukraine still struggles to secure even the basic weapons and ammunition it urgently needs.
Meanwhile, Russia seems to be successful in implementing its strategy of war of exhaustion. With North Korean troops directly entering the aggressive war on the Russian side, we are now witnessing the emergence of new axis powers in the 21st century: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran and China.
These tyrannical regimes view Ukraine as merely the first step in their broader goal to destabilise Western democratic world and dismantle the rules-based international order. We must act actively. We must also have our strategy in countering the axis powers. This means no more self-imposed red lines, boosting our own defence capabilities and enforcing harsher sanctions on Russia and other axis powers. Let us ensure that our support is worthy of the Ukrainians' courage.

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Madam President, dear people of Europe, I wanted to hold a speech about the saying 'show me your friends and I will tell you who you are', but one colleague already did that, so I'm just going to say, if you use troops of a tyrant in your war, you are a tyrant.
But one of my colleagues caught my eye, and this is Petr Bystron from the tyrant-supporting AfD. Petr Bystron, you need to know, right now faces criminal investigations in Germany because he was bribed by the Kremlin. And why do we know that he was bribed by the Kremlin? Because he was stupid enough to complain on telephone about the fact that they gave him EUR 200 bills, which you cannot use in German gas stations. Of course, it's just an investigation, but as long as this investigation is pending, maybe Mr Bystron should not have a big mouth about Russia in this Parliament. Dear colleagues, we need to fight every tyrant and we need to fight everyone that is on tyrants' payrolls.

Slava Ukraini!


Die Präsidentin. – Ich möchte aber auch hier noch mal darauf hinweisen, dass wir die Kollegen weder als dumm bezeichnen noch sonst was, das gehört einfach nicht hier in das Haus. Respekt sollte schon sein. Wenn eine Handlung nicht klug ist, dann kann man das auch womöglich anders ausdrücken.
                  

Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážení kolegové, jaké reálné řešení ve skutečnosti máte kromě boje do posledního Ukrajince? Viděli jsme během tří let, že sankce selhaly, neboť Rusko má podporu Číny, států BRICS a dalších států světa, které mají větší problém se Západem než s Putinem. A v tom nám ostatně velmi škodí ignorování genocidy v Gaze. K převratu v Rusku nedošlo a patrně k němu nedojde. Posílat peníze nepomáhá a vojenská intervence Unie není možná. Unie nemá vlastní armádu. Vyslání armád členských států by musely schválit jejich parlamenty a k tomu vůli nevidím. Vy snad ano? I kdyby existovala nějaká koalice ochotných, nemůže být nařízena odtud, z Evropského parlamentu. Ten nemá, neměl a nikdy mít nebude žádnou kompetenci rozhodnout o účasti na válce za své členské státy. My nemáme ve skutečnosti zájem na vojenské eskalaci, nemáme zájem stát se dalším bojištěm. Nejlepším ze špatných řešení pro Ukrajince, byť možná ne pro Zelenského režim, je diplomatické jednání velmocí s cílem zachování existence Ukrajiny, byť patrně neutrální, s garancí spíše států BRICS než NATO.
                  

Milan Mazurek (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ja budem nesmierne rád, keď vás konečne uvidím, ako sami nastúpite na tú frontovú líniu, keď tak radi od rána do večera v tomto pléne kážete o tom, ako máme donekonečna viesť vojnu s Ruskou federáciou, ako máme dokonca bombardovať vnútrozemie Ruskej federácie a dostať svet až na prah tretej svetovej a v tomto prípade jadrovej vojny. Nalejte si čistého vína! Kam vaša politika doviedla svet, kam doviedla Európu a hlavne kam doviedla Ukrajinu? Čo ste urobili s Ukrajinou pred rokom 2014, keď vaša asociačná dohoda, ktorej tu mnohí tlieskali, dohnala Ukrajinu k občianskej vojne, ktorá stála životy desaťtisícov ľudí a rovnako obrovského množstva ľudí stála ich zdravie, celý majetok a Ukrajinu dohnala do stavu, v ktorom je dnes?
                  

                     Dnes máme svet na pokraji tretej svetovej vojny, ako hovorím, a jediné, čo z tohto pléna zaznieva, je poďme ešte viac bojovať. Poďme posielať zbrane. Poďme vyriešiť Ruskú federáciu tak, že budeme bombardovať jediné zmysluplné slovo o mieri. Ale vám sa to hovorí veľmi ľahko, pretože vy do tej vojny nechcete ísť.
                  

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, o momento que vivemos é grave e perigoso. A possibilidade de confrontação entre potências nucleares é hoje um risco real. Quem tenha consciência disso só pode ficar inquieto com este debate e com as propostas de resolução em discussão.
                  

                     Como é possível insistir com tanta ligeireza na escalada de um conflito que se prolonga há mais de dez anos, fechando os olhos às consequências catastróficas que pode atingir? Para onde nos querem empurrar? Para onde querem empurrar os povos, os nossos filhos e netos com esta irresponsável e perigosa apologia da confrontação, do militarismo e da guerra que aqui ouvimos.
                  

                     A realidade está a dar razão a quem, como nós, desde 2014, exige que os Estados Unidos, a NATO e a União Europeia deixem de instigar o conflito. A quem, desde o início reclama a abertura de vias de negociação com os demais intervenientes, nomeadamente a Federação da Rússia, visando alcançar uma solução política que garanta a paz, a segurança coletiva e o desarmamento.
                  

                     É preciso, e nós continuaremos a fazê-lo, insistir na construção da paz.
                  

Grzegorz Braun (NI). – Madam President, God bless everybody. Obviously, I'm against war escalation. I am for the peace, for all Europe, Ukraine, Russia, for everybody. But I can hear you warmongers here in this House mentioning values that you think Ukrainian regime represents. I can hear some of you saying that they are fighting for our values.
Well, that would be very bad for you, ladies and gentlemen, because the current Kyiv regime is representing the tradition of genocide, Nazi Ukrainian Bandera genocide. Don't you see SS Galician emblems on the arms of Ukrainian soldiers? Don't you see their banners? Don't you hear what they say? Don't you hear yourself when you say, 'Slava Ukraini'?

(The President cut off the speaker)


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Didier Reynders,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, this debate illustrates the need to continue the EU's support to Ukraine. The European Union and its Member States have done a lot, but the needs remain huge.
Let me stress that this extraordinary assistance is an investment in the EU's future. Ukraine has to be able to successfully defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity also for our own security.
The deployment of troops from North Korea to support Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a dangerous escalation of the war by Russia and has serious consequences for European and global peace and security. We strongly condemn it.
In addition to transfers of arms and millions of artillery shells from North Korea to Russia, this is yet another blatant violation by Russia of international law, including the UN Charter, as well as of several UN Security Council resolutions adopted with Russia's support. It sends a clear message: Russia is not sincerely interested in a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, but is escalating and desperately seeking support for its war.
You have widely pointed out two issues requiring further work. We have indeed gradually moved from the one-off solutions at the outset of the invasion to more systemic assistance mechanisms.
Our support to Ukraine will remain a crucial priority of the next Commission and High Representative-designate Kallas. We will do more to put EU assistance on a more sustainable, predictable footing. This is essential to strengthen Ukraine now and for its recovery once the long-awaited peace is restored.

János Bóka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the European Union continues to call on both Russia and the DPRK to immediately cease violation of UN Security Council resolutions and the UN Charter and urges the DPRK to stop providing support to Russia's illegal war efforts.
The European Union is closely coordinating with international partners on the matter, considering the serious consequences of this escalation for regional and global peace and security. The European Union will continue to do its part to uphold its international obligations and implement UN Security Council resolutions. We will continue to urge others to do the same.
We are united in the condemnation of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. We are united in supporting Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue our work in support of Ukraine and its people, and this work must also include diplomatic action for a sustainable peace.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist hiermit geschlossen. Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden gemäß Artikel 136 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung sieben Entschließungsanträge von verschiedenen Fraktionen eingereicht.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, den 28. November 2024, statt.
                  

                     Die Sitzung wird nun für einige Minuten unterbrochen und um 12.00 Uhr mit den Abstimmungen wieder aufgenommen.
                  

(The sitting was suspended at 11:52)


IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN HOJSÍK


Vice-President

4.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12:03)


Sebastian Kruis (PfE). – Voorzitter, ik vraag dit punt van orde aan uit hoofde van artikel 202 uit het Reglement.
               

                  In de vorige Straatsburgweek maakte de heer Sieper een punt van orde over de vaststelling dat veel collega's, voornamelijk aan de linkerzijde van de zaal, punten van orde gebruiken voor het maken van politieke statements. In zijn punt van orde vroeg hij om daar iets aan te doen. Daar kwam toen geen reactie op. Een dag later maakte hij weer een punt van orde over het feit dat hij een dag eerder een punt van orde had gemaakt, waar geen reactie op was gekomen. Op dat punt van orde kwam ook weer geen reactie.
               

                  Mijn punt van orde van vandaag gaat over het gegeven dat collega's telkens een punt van orde maken voor het maken van een politiek statement. Als daar een punt van orde over wordt gemaakt, volgt er geen reactie. Als je daar een punt van orde over maakt, volgt er ook geen reactie. Mijn punt van orde is de vraag waarom je punten van orde mag maken als daar toch geen gevolg aan wordt gegeven. Dus graag een reactie op dit punt van orde.
               

Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, en application de l'article 10, paragraphe 3, de notre règlement intérieur, il est interdit aux députés de déployer dans cet hémicycle banderole et bannières. Il est aussi interdit aux députés, suite à un arrêt du Tribunal de l'Union européenne du 6 octobre 2021, de placer sur nos pupitres nos drapeaux nationaux, au motif que le drapeau national deviendrait une sorte d'étendard d'un groupement politique et un symbole de la cause que celui-ci défend.
               

                  Alors pourquoi n'est-il pas interdit à Mme Rima Hassan et à certaines de ses collègues d'extrême-gauche d'arborer fièrement le keffieh, symbole de la cause palestinienne et de la lutte contre Israël?
               

                  Si on interdit nos propres drapeaux nationaux ici-même, on doit évidemment interdire le symbole d'une cause militante. Madame la Présidente, notre groupe vous a déjà écrit à deux reprises sur ce sujet. Mme Hassan multiplie ses interventions ici-même avec ce symbole provocant. Qu'attendez-vous pour agir?
               

President. – Let me inform you that the plenary Chamber is a place for the oral exchange of views and expressions of opinion. The display of banners is, indeed, not allowed by the Rules of Procedure, and there has been a Court ruling on that as well regarding the flags. Members who are displaying visual and political symbols have been asked to take them off before speaking.
5.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.
Please don't forget to put in all your voting cards, because everything is going to be roll call. So you will need to be pressing the buttons now.
5.1.   Partial renewal of a member of the Court of Auditors – Iliana Ivanova (A10-0018/2024 - Csaba Molnár) (vote)

President. – The first vote is on the report by Mr Molnár on the nomination of Iliana Ivanova as a Member of the Court of Auditors (see minutes, item [5.1.]).
5.2.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 (B10-0148/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 (See minutes, item [5.2.]).
5.3.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified cotton COT102 (B10-0145/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified cotton COT102 (See minutes, item [5.3.]).
5.4.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and eight of its sub-combinations (B10-0147/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize MON 89034 ×1507×MON 88017×59122 and eight of its sub-combinations (See minutes, item [5.4.]).
5.5.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 810 (B10-0146/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize MON 810 (See minutes, item [5.5.]).
5.6.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP915635 (B10-0149/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize DP915635 (See minutes, item [5.6.]).
5.7.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP23211 (B10-0150/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize DP23211 (See minutes, item [5.7.]).
5.8.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP202216 (B10-0152/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize DP202216 (See minutes, item [5.8.]).
5.9.   Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 94804 (B10-0153/2024) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the objection concerning genetically modified maize MON 94804 (See minutes, item [5.9.]).

(The vote closed)


(The sitting was suspended at 12:14)


IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE


Vice-President

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12:18)

7.   2025 budgetary procedure: Joint text (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Victor Negrescu and Niclas Herbst, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2025 approved by the Conciliation Committee under the budgetary procedure (12084/2024 – C10-0099/2024 – 2024/0176(BUD) (A10-0014/2024).

Johan Van Overtveldt,
voorzitter van de commissie BUDG. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, het begrotingsakkoord dat vandaag voor ons ligt, is het resultaat van intensieve inspanningen, in het bijzonder van beide rapporteurs, waarvoor mijn dank. De omstandigheden waarin deze begroting tot stand is gekomen, verschillen fundamenteel van die waarin we de meerjarenbegroting in 2020 hebben vastgelegd. Sindsdien is het geopolitieke landschap ingrijpend gewijzigd door gebeurtenissen die velen op dat moment voor onmogelijk hielden, maar wel grote gevolgen hebben voor ons continent. In deze begroting is, waar mogelijk, rekening gehouden met urgente uitdagingen, zoals de Russische agressie en de oorlog in Oekraïne, de aanhoudende migratiedruk, de escalerende crisis in het Midden-Oosten, de impact van natuurrampen en vooral, niet te vergeten, de concurrentiekracht van onze economieën.
               

                  Als antwoord op deze uitdagingen heeft het Parlement in de onderhandelingen bijkomende middelen bepleit en ook verkregen in verschillende domeinen. Het gaat dan onder meer om uitgaven op het vlak van onderzoek en ontwikkeling, maar ook ter bescherming van onze burgers en ter versteviging van de buitengrenzen. Dit akkoord sluit aan bij de herziening van het meerjarenkader eerder dit jaar en weerspiegelt de noodzaak om adequaat te reageren op nieuwe realiteiten.
               

                  Deze begroting is de vijfde in het huidige meerjarenkader. Hoewel een meerjarenkader natuurlijk stabiliteit en discipline biedt, komt het soms wel ten koste van wendbaarheid. Flexibiliteit zal naar de toekomst toe echter steeds belangrijker worden. Ik kijk daarom uit naar het voorstel voor het volgende meerjarenkader dat de Commissie nog deze zomer zal presenteren. Dat voorstel moet ons niet alleen voorbereiden op de periode na 2028, maar ook voorzien in de veerkracht die de Unie nodig heeft om zich aan te passen aan een snel veranderende wereld. De Europese Unie kan niet blijven stilstaan. In een tijd waarin de wereld om ons heen razendsnel verandert, moeten we vooruitgang boeken en handelen in het belang van onze burgers. Alleen zo blijven we relevant, effectief en klaar voor de noden van vandaag, maar ook voor die van morgen.
               

Victor Negrescu,
rapporteur. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we did it. We found an ambitious agreement on the EU annual budget for 2025. With our plenary vote, we give the final go-ahead for the EU budget to be signed into law. As the chief negotiator of the European Parliament, I believe it is important to highlight that this was more than a mere formality.
In times of institutional transition, societal turmoil and complex geopolitical realities in many regions of the world, public budgets are often the focal point of political conflicts. We see governments and coalitions stumble over their battles about spending priorities, but we kept our unity.
At almost EUR 200 billion, the EU budget for 2025 that we have agreed with the Council is 6 % bigger than this year's, meaning a EUR 10 billion increase, responding to the needs of Europeans while being able to pay back for the post-pandemic economic recovery of the Union without cutting key programmes.
By approving our EU budget for next year, we will send a forceful message to the citizens that the EU, despite the difficult political and economic context, is able to equip itself with the financial means necessary to implement its policies and respond to its people's needs.
On top of the Commission's proposals, we have managed to add: EUR 422 million more for education and young people, increasing Erasmus+, to a total of EUR 4.3 billion; EUR 45 million for research, innovation and health; EUR 30 million for agriculture, in particular for young farmers, making it a total of EUR 39.9 billion for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund; EUR 5 million for nature, biodiversity and climate action; EUR 10 million for the management of the EU external borders, in particular for Schengen enlargement with Romania and Bulgaria; EUR 6 million more for military mobility or EUR 50 million more for humanitarian aid.
And we have many examples of this kind, but also we have increased our support for the work of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and Europol. Within these tight margins of the financial framework, I am proud that we have shown that we can pay this cost without cutting flagship programmes, and at the same time, we managed to install a budgetary discipline.
At the same time, we managed to restore Council reductions to the flagship programmes and at the same time retain a sizeable amount for the flexibilities for next year. We also have provision in the budget for additional disaster relief in our regions and, of course, in particular in the rural areas, and we are trying to help the compatriots affected by the floods, droughts and wildfires.
As part of the agreement, we accorded to frontload payment appropriations of up to EUR 3 billion to provide support for regions affected by natural disasters. And, of course, we refer here to the regions and the countries from Central and Eastern Europe, and, of course, to our friends from Spain.
Our unity among the groups helped to push our interests and priorities in the discussion with the Council. Despite the fact that we have differences in this House, we were able to negotiate a solid and strong budget for 2025 that replies to our citizens' expectations and helps alleviate some of the hardships that they are facing.
I call on you to vote in favour of the budget 2025 tomorrow, and I would like to thank my colleagues, the shadows, my colleagues from the S&D conciliation team, the Council also for their work, but also the Commissioner. This is your last budget. You did a great job – thank you for that. And I think we need to approve the budget tomorrow.

Niclas Herbst,
Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Ich möchte mich zunächst auch einmal sehr herzlich bedanken – sowohl bei der Kommission für die Anleitung in diesen schwierigen Gesprächen, aber auch bei der Ratspräsidentschaft für die zwar harten, aber fairen Gespräche, die konstruktiv waren. Und wir haben es in der Vergangenheit erlebt, dass oftmals auch Institutionskämpfe etwas überlagert haben, dass wir uns manchmal um Dinge gekümmert haben, die vielleicht gar nicht so sehr im Mittelpunkt hätten stehen sollen. Das war diesmal, glaube ich, dankenswerterweise nicht der Fall. Wir konnten uns auf die wesentlichen Punkte, die mein Kollege Viktor Negrescu genannt hat, konzentrieren. Das heißt, ich glaube, man kann sagen, das Verhältnis zwischen Rat und Parlament unter Aufsicht der Kommission war ein gutes. Deshalb ist auch das Ergebnis ein insgesamt gutes.
               

                  Wir haben als Parlament natürlich versucht, unserem Auftrag gerecht zu werden, auch Anwalt der anderen Institutionen zu sein. Ich denke, es ist uns gelungen, gerade in dem von uns selbst gewählten Schwerpunkt der Cybersicherheit – etwas, wo wir uns, glaube ich, auch in der Mitte getroffen haben. Es ist uns gelungen, einige Stellen für die anderen Institutionen zu sichern, was deshalb wichtig ist, weil wir gemerkt haben in den vergangenen Jahren, dass ein erfolgreicher Einbruch von außen in eine Institution auch Folgen für andere Institutionen haben kann. Wir haben auch gesehen, dass wir sehr viel Geld ausgeben müssen für die Angriffe der Vergangenheit und dass es gut ist, hier auch präventiv tätig zu werden. Und ich glaube, wir können als Parlament froh sein, dass wir hier an dieser Stelle geholfen haben.
               

                  Ich will an dieser Stelle auch als eines von vielen Beispielen den EDSB und den EDSA nennen, weil wir an die Zukunft denken müssen. Wir werden gerade im Finanzbereich sehr viel stärker mit KI arbeiten müssen. Wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass hier die personelle und die finanzielle Ausstattung ein bisschen besser wird, damit wir verhindern können, dass wir hier in Zukunft so etwas wie einen Flaschenhals haben. Das ist wichtig – genauso wie die Sicherheit insgesamt der Menschen, die für die Europäische Union arbeiten.
               

                  Wir haben gesehen, dass im Bereich des Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienstes große Sicherheitsdefizite bestehen. Wir haben versucht, dort gegenzusteuern, haben dies mit einem immerhin zweistelligen Millionenbetrag auch geschafft. Das wird nicht ausreichen. Die Institutionen insgesamt müssen ihrer Verantwortung stärker gerecht werden. Und das gilt auch für das Wohnungsgeld für das Personal in Luxemburg. Wir müssen dort gerade den unteren Gehaltsstufen die Möglichkeit geben, auch in Luxemburg zu arbeiten. Wir haben uns dazu vertraglich verpflichtet. Also müssen wir auch dafür sorgen. Wir haben jetzt die Voraussetzungen geschaffen, um dort einen Einstieg zu schaffen für die unteren Dienstgrade, um dort auch in Luxemburg weiter tätig sein zu können und Personal zu finden.
               

                  Insgesamt glaube ich, dass wir es geschafft haben, die Verwaltungskosten so weit wie möglich zu senken oder niedrig zu halten. Daran müssen wir noch stärker arbeiten in der Zukunft. Es wird nicht ausreichen. Trotzdem muss an dieser Stelle auch gesagt werden, dass wir als Parlament natürlich auch daran interessiert sein müssen, dass Verwaltung funktioniert: Also Verwaltung so günstig wie möglich, aber auch so gut wie nötig für die Menschen in Europa und für unsere gemeinsame Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Institutionen.
               

János Bóka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express the Council's satisfaction that we were able to reach an agreement in the Conciliation Committee after long and intense discussions during the night of 15 and 16 November. Together, we worked hard to find a solution that would equip the Union for the challenges of the fifth year of the current multiannual financial framework, which is, at the same time, the first annual budget after the mid-term revision of the MFF, and the first application of the cascade mechanism for the unfortunate interest costs overrun of the NextGenerationEU.
The negotiated budget for 2025 responds to our priorities, including the latest geopolitical developments, fulfils our legal obligations and provides support for actions that are important for the European citizens as well as regions affected by natural disasters, including the recent floods, for example, by putting EUR 3 billion in reserve for Restore that is made automatically available once the proposal is adopted. Let me highlight that increasing the cohesion payments with an unprecedented EUR 3 billion in the current challenging economic and budgetary environment is a great achievement. I also welcome that the Council and Parliament agreed on changing the budget nomenclature for the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans in order to increase predictability to our partners.
Regardless of the positive elements, I will not hide from you that the result was not an easy agreement for some Council members. The Council considers the strict and prudent follow-up of the NextGenerationEU's additional interest costs and the borrowing strategy of the Commission is necessary in order to adhere to the MFF mid-term revision on the implementation of the so-called cascade mechanism. I am glad to inform you that after the successful outcome of the Conciliation Committee, the joint text was formally approved by the Council earlier this week. The Council expects the European Parliament to also approve the joint text. The general budget for the financial year 2025 will then be adopted within the deadlines foreseen by the Treaty to allow for an orderly start of 2025.
I thank the chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets, Johan Van Overtveldt, and the rapporteurs, Victor Negrescu and Niclas Herbst, and their teams for the good cooperation during the last weeks and months. I would also like to extend my thanks to all Members of the European Parliament who contributed to ensuring the outcome of the conciliation. I would also like to extend my special thanks to Commissioner Hahn and his team for facilitating our negotiations. I commend the formidable work by my colleague, State Secretary Péter Banai, and his team, who have guided this crucial process from the side of the Council. President, honourable Members, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the hope of a positive vote tomorrow, I thank you very much for your attention.

Johannes Hahn,
Mitglied der Kommission. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Mitglieder des Hohen Hauses, liebe Berichterstatter, Herr Minister! In der Tat freue ich mich auch, sagen zu können: Wir haben in den frühen Morgenstunden des Samstags eine Vereinbarung gefunden, also deutlich vor der eigentlichen Deadline. Es ist zum zweiten Mal in Folge gelungen, früher als notwendig zu einem Haushaltsplan zu kommen, was auch Ausdruck einer guten und konstruktiven Verhandlungsführung war, wo ich sowohl – wenn Sie das bitte auch vermitteln – Herrn Staatssekretär Banai danke, aber auch den Berichterstattern und allen Verhandlern auf der Seite des Parlaments, dass wir hier konstruktiv diskutieren konnten und zu einem Ergebnis gekommen sind.
               

                  Die Ausgangslage war gerade aus der Sicht des Parlaments gar nicht so einfach, denn 2025 ist das erste Jahr, in dem die Halbzeitrevision sozusagen zum Tragen kommt. Mit dieser Halbzeitrevision haben wir ja schon a priori eine Verstärkung des Budgets von über 700 Millionen Euro vereinbart, sodass sozusagen die Möglichkeiten, hier noch zusätzlich etwas on top zu setzen, beschränkt sind – sowohl was die Umschichtungsmöglichkeiten anlangt als auch die Möglichkeiten, noch zusätzlich etwas zu gestalten. Aber wir haben hier, glaube ich, eine sehr gute Lösung gefunden, und daher möchte ich mich wirklich bei den Berichterstattern, aber auch bei den Schattenberichterstattern und bei der ungarischen Präsidentschaft dafür bedanken.
               

                  Das Budget ist ein Budget, das fast 200 Milliarden Euro an Mitteln für Verpflichtungen vorsieht und etwas über 155 Milliarden Euro an Mitteln für Zahlungen. Es ist ein sogenanntes dip year, also ein Jahr, in dem die Zahlungen aus den Kohäsionsfonds der früheren Periode auslaufen und in der neuen Periode eben erst so richtig losgehen. Daher dieser Unterschied zwischen Mitteln für Verpflichtungen und Mitteln Zahlungen. Es ist in den Verhandlungen allerdings auch gelungen – ich glaube, im Interesse vor allen Dingen unserer betroffenen Bürgerinnen und Bürger und auch der entsprechenden politischen Institutionen –, eine Lösung zu finden für die Unterstützung jener Regionen, die gerade in den letzten Wochen und Monaten von Flutkatastrophen in Zentraleuropa, aber auch in Spanien betroffen waren.
               

                  Die Kommission hat hier einen Vorschlag für ein sogenanntes RESTORE-Paket vorgelegt. Die Gesetzesverhandlungen laufen. Ich bin dem Parlament dankbar, dass sie sich bemühen, das noch vor Weihnachten unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Finanziell sind hier die entsprechenden Vorkehrungen getroffen. Auch dafür mein Dank an die Verhandler, dass hier zusätzlich eine Reserve von 3 Milliarden Euro geschaffen werden konnte, die unmittelbar zur Verfügung steht, sobald es zu einer Einigung über den Gesetzestext kommt, womit eine signifikante Vorfinanzierung jener Programme erreicht werden kann, die für die Mitabdeckung der Schäden aus diesen Flutkatastrophen notwendig sind.
               

                  Das Zweite wurde schon erwähnt: Es hat sehr intensive Verhandlungen gegeben, wie wir in der Tat mit der neu geschaffenen JURI cascade umgehen. Es hat hier – wie soll ich sagen – ambitiöse Vorschläge gegeben. Schlussendlich haben wir uns auf eine konservative, aber, wie ich meine, auch für die Zukunft verlässliche Variante geeinigt, dass eben hier 50 % aus Mittelumschichtungen finanziert werden sollen und 50 % aus den Mitteln für Verpflichtungen, was die zusätzlichen Kosten der Bedienung von NextGenerationEU und den Zins- und den Dividendenkosten anbelangt. Ich denke, das ist damit auch eine Grundlage für die künftigen Jahre 2026 und 2027.
               

                  Nochmals vielen Dank, dass dieser Haushaltsplan möglich geworden ist. Danke dem Rat, dass er schon die Bestätigung gegeben hat. Ich gehe davon aus, dass wir morgen im Plenum hier eine starke Mehrheit finden. Nochmals vielen Dank für diese sehr, sehr guten Verhandlungen und das Ergebnis.
               

Andrzej Halicki,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Szanowni Państwo! Panie Komisarzu! Przede wszystkim chciałem podziękować za dotychczasową dobrą współpracę, bo to rzeczywiście była dobra współpraca. A jutro Parlament zadecyduje nie tylko o przyjęciu budżetu na rok 2025. Zadecyduje, mam także nadzieję, skutecznie o powołaniu nowej Komisji. Będziemy mieli ramy finansowe do szybkiego startu w Nowy Rok, z nowymi wyzwaniami, z nowymi zadaniami. Chciałbym podkreślić, że Parlament Europejski dzięki dobrym negocjacjom prowadzonym przez Victora Negrescu – to było zespołowe działanie, pełne zrozumienia – miał bardzo twarde i jednolite stanowisko. I dlatego mogliśmy obronić się przed proponowanymi przez Radę zbyt drastycznymi cięciami w wielu obszarach, w kilku flagowych obszarach.
               

                  A dzisiaj mogę powiedzieć publicznie: tak. Będziemy mieli wsparcie finansowe dla ochrony granic zewnętrznych. Będziemy mieli stabilne finansowanie i zwiększone finansowanie dla ważnych agencji działających na rzecz bezpieczeństwa: Frontex czy Europol. Będziemy mogli chronić ludność przed kataklizmami. Te środki także znajdują się już w przyszłorocznym budżecie, także w rezerwie, którą będziemy mogli uruchomić na wypłatę zaliczek, również dla polskich ofiar powodzi. 1,5 miliarda euro w zaliczkach, a przewidziane 5 miliardów euro to kwota, która na pewno nie jest wystarczająca, ale jest tym pierwszym bardzo ważnym zastrzykiem pomocy.
               

                  Musimy myśleć o przyszłych wyzwaniach, także w kontekście bezpieczeństwa zdrowotnego, żywnościowego. Wiele wyzwań przed nami, a ten budżet to dobry początek do myślenia wspólnego o zadaniach na kolejne lata i nowe ramy wieloletnie budżetu nowej perspektywy. Wiemy, jak działać. Musimy działać wspólnie. Jeszcze raz dziękuję negocjatorom, jeszcze raz dziękuję sprawozdawcom z poszczególnych grup politycznych i mam nadzieję, że ten budżet, budżet nowej kadencji jest zapowiedzią także bardzo ofensywnego odpowiadania na zapotrzebowania obywateli. Oni czekają na środki i pomoc.
               

Nils Ušakovs,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, for the first time the European Union has a budget of EUR 200 billion, and it is an important increase in the Union's financial capacity. However, the European Union budget remains relatively small. A budget of EUR €200 billion is less than the budget of Denmark, and that means that we need to be clear with the priorities when we vote for the budget.
Despite the pressure of repaying the COVID recovery debt, we have succeeded in protecting key programmes from cuts, that is when we talk about priorities, because taking funding away from youth or scientific research to cover interest payments would have been disastrous. In my own country, Latvia, the national government faces a similar challenge repaying debt. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions include several controversial measures, such as cutting funding for urgent medical assistance.
Again, about priorities, we managed to provide additional EUR 3 billion to allocate to support European regions affected by natural disasters. It was crucial to find a solution that did not impact the Cohesion Fund – taking money from one part of Europe to assist another would have violated the very principles of solidarity. At the same time, we continue to struggle with the budget of the European administration. This is a never-ending story: increasing responsibilities every year, systemic underfunding and hundreds of transfers during the year to deal with the consequences of underfinancing. At this rate, we risk facing a significant crisis in our administration pretty soon.
I would like to express my gratitude, when we talk about the budget, to rapporteurs Victor Negrescu and Niclas Herbst, and I would like also to express gratitude for five budgets we managed to adopt to our Commissioner Hahn. Good luck, Mr Hahn.

Julien Sanchez,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, le Parlement et le Conseil étant en désaccord, une conciliation a été nécessaire sur le budget. J'ai représenté le groupe des Patriotes pour l'Europe lors de ce mauvais théâtre, qui s'est tenu le 15 novembre, de 9 h 30 à 3 heures du matin. Hélas, c'est le scénario du pire qui a, au final, été choisi par les représentants du Parlement et seul le groupe des Patriotes a voté contre, pour plusieurs raisons.
               

                  Premièrement, les augmentations des crédits pour le Fonds ‘Asile, migration et intégration’, décidées au cours de cette conciliation, sont injustifiables. Ces dépenses disproportionnées témoignent d'une déconnexion totale avec les besoins réels des citoyens européens que ce Parlement trahit.
               

                  À l'occasion de la conciliation, une enveloppe de 230 millions d'euros supplémentaires a été accordée par le Conseil au Parlement. J'ai, jusqu'au bout, toute la nuit, demandé que ces fonds soient affectés au renforcement de la lutte contre l'immigration avec Frontex, affectés aussi à l'agriculture, qui souffre et que vous voulez tuer avec le Mercosur, notamment. Refus total de l'ensemble des groupes, qui ont donc préféré l'immigration, ou ajouter plus d'argent aux entités administratives comme l'inutile Comité économique et social, qui ferait mieux de gérer correctement son budget.
               

                  La répartition de cette enveloppe de 230 millions s'est faite en cinq minutes, dans un couloir, à minuit, sous le diktat du Parti socialiste et de Renew: un courant minoritaire, mais qui semble décider ici, alors que la majorité de ce Parlement ne devrait pourtant pas être de gauche. Quant au PPE, aura-t-il un peu de courage et arrêtera-t-il d'être à la remorque budgétaire de la gauche la plus irresponsable, alors que d'autres solutions numériques sont possibles au sein de cette Assemblée? Le budget est un texte politique majeur, plus important que tout autre texte.
               

                  Deuxièmement, l'instrument de l'Union européenne pour la relance (EURI), conçu initialement comme une mesure exceptionnelle, sera utilisé de manière abusive avec une couverture de 50 % des dépassements liés à l'EURI, via l'instrument de flexibilité, et de 50 %, via l'instrument de l'EURI, en recourant aux dégagements, notamment pour financer la dette de NextGenerationEU. Mon groupe s'est opposé à ce mécanisme qui renforce les risques budgétaires et la dette. Ici, ce n'est pas le Conseil, mais le Parlement qui a été irresponsable: vous vouliez même utiliser l'EURI à 65 %.
               

                  Alors ce budget est irresponsable, il est fait de compromissions et de petites cuisines politiques. Nous devons, pour l'avenir, exiger une révision complète, basée sur une discipline budgétaire stricte, sur la chasse aux gaspillages et aux dépenses inutiles, pour prioriser les enjeux stratégiques en défendant les intérêts des Européens. En attendant, nous, nous pouvons et nous pourrons regarder les contribuables européens en face, et nous sommes bien les seuls ici.
               

Bogdan Rzońca,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jest porozumienie między instytucjami Unii Europejskiej – to jest bardzo pocieszające. Są zastrzeżenia – to jest bardzo normalne, ponieważ niektórzy mówią, że budżet jest zbyt ideologiczny, szczególnie w części dotyczącej Zielonego Ładu, który rzeczywiście ciągnie nas, Unię Europejską, w dół. Tracimy konkurencyjność względem USA i Chin, ale tak już jest. Budżet ten jest też oceniany jako słabo reaktywny. Mówi się o tym, że Unia za wolno pomaga. Trzeba to zmienić w przyszłości. Ta pomoc z Unii Europejskiej jest bardzo ważna. Ludzie na tę pomoc liczą. Ten budżet jest bardzo rozległy. Zawsze też o tym jako EKR mówimy. Unia nie załatwi wszystkich spraw. Można by bardziej precyzyjnie dedykować środki finansowe na różne problemy, z którymi Unia się boryka.
               

                  Jest też sytuacja, w której dziesięć krajów Unii Europejskiej wciąż nam przypomina, że dopłaca do budżetu Unii, a czerpie z tego budżetu mniej korzyści. To jest dosyć przykre. Jednak ci bogatsi muszą być solidarni z biedniejszymi. To akurat my, jako EKR, rozumiemy. Są jednak po prostu pilne, ważne, naglące wydatki i po to jest ten budżet. Dlatego ja na przykład będę głosował za tym budżetem, bo trzeba szybko pomagać rolnikom, w szczególności młodym rolnikom. Trzeba dbać o bezpieczeństwo w Unii Europejskiej. Te pieniądze się więc przydadzą. Infrastruktura, katastrofy – to wszystko jest w polu widzenia EKR-u. Bardzo dziękuję zatem sprawozdawcom – kolegom Negrescu i Herbstowi – za współpracę. Bardzo dziękuję również panu komisarzowi za pracę z nami. Polski następca zapewne będzie czerpał z Pańskich doświadczeń. Życzę Panu zdrowia w przyszłości i wszystkim Państwu wszelkiej pomyślności.
               

Fabienne Keller,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire Hahn, je nous félicite de cet accord, qui nous permet de garantir un budget européen flexible et réactif pour l'année 2025.
               

                  Nous avons restauré ensemble, avec succès, toutes les coupes proposées par le Conseil, qui représentaient plus d'un milliard et demi d'euros. Nous avons également sécurisé des augmentations conséquentes pour les priorités du Parlement et de mon groupe Renew Europe.
               

                  En effet, nous avons obtenu des augmentations pour la jeunesse, avec Erasmus+, pour la défense, avec la mobilité militaire, pour le climat, avec LIFE, pour la compétitivité, avec Horizon Europe, pour les agences des libertés civiles, avec Europol, Eurojust et le Parquet européen, et pour l'aide d'urgence et humanitaire, à travers le Mécanisme européen de protection civile. Tout cela en assurant le remboursement des intérêts liés à la dette du plan de relance.
               

                  Cependant, chers collègues, ces augmentations ne sont qu'un très faible pourcentage du budget européen. Les marges restent restreintes, alors que nos concitoyens demandent toujours plus d'action de la part de l'Union européenne. J'appelle donc la Commission et les États membres à investir dans l'Europe, à nous donner de vrais moyens et plus de flexibilité pour le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel, et à laisser aussi plus de marge de manœuvre aux budgets annuels.
               

                  Il est temps, chers collègues, de nous doter d'un prochain cadre financier pluriannuel stratégique nous permettant d'être à la hauteur de nos ambitions.
               

Rasmus Andresen,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Alle Jahre wieder kommt der Ratspräsident nach Brüssel nieder, wo das Parlament um den Haushalt ringt. Und auch alle Jahre wieder sind wir mit Kürzungen aus dem Rat konfrontiert, und es gelingt uns immer wieder als Parlament durch eine starke Zusammenarbeit dafür zu sorgen, dass diese Kürzungen nicht Realität werden. Es ist uns sogar noch mehr gelungen, denn wir haben auch Aufstockungen für wichtige Bereiche wie zum Beispiel humanitäre Hilfe, das Forschungsprogramm Horizon, das Naturschutzprogramm LIFE oder aber auch das Programm ‘Bürgerinnen und Bürger, Gleichstellung, Rechte und Werte’ durchgesetzt, wo es darum geht, die Zivilgesellschaft in einer Zeit zu stärken, wo unsere Demokratie ins Rutschen geraten ist.
               

                  Aber zur Wahrheit gehört auch: Der Haushalt ist zu wenig zum Leben, aber zum Sterben zu viel. Denn die Probleme oder die Herausforderungen, die wir als Europäische Union in der Haushaltspolitik haben, sind viel größer als das, was der EU-Haushalt leisten kann. Deshalb sollten wir eigentlich mit dem Rat nicht jedes Jahr wieder um kleine Kürzungen oder kleine Aufstockungen kämpfen, sondern wir müssten uns eigentlich über eine Schwerpunktsetzung unterhalten, die ganz anders aussieht: Klimawandel, Sicherheitspolitik, humanitäre Hilfe, aber auch grenzüberschreitende Investitionen in Infrastruktur – das alles bräuchten wir. Bei alledem ist bisher der Rat nicht bereit, ausreichend stark und gemeinsam zu handeln. Deshalb sind wir auf der einen Seite mit Sonntagsreden von Regierungschefs konfrontiert und auf der anderen Seite mit der Haushaltspolitik hier im Haus, wo wir dann sehr, sehr schnell erleben, dass das, was Olaf Scholz oder andere in großen Reden immer verkünden, nicht der Realität entspricht. Daran müssen wir arbeiten, dass diese Doppelmoral der Mitgliedstaaten endlich aufhört und wir in den nächsten Jahren nicht immer weiter in Abwehrkämpfen um Kürzungen feststecken.
               

                  Das können wir hier im Parlament tun, wenn wir als proeuropäische Kräfte zusammenhalten. Das haben wir am Schluss dann jetzt auch getan, und darüber freue ich mich. Auch ich möchte mich bei den Berichterstattern Negrescu und Herbst und aber auch bei dem Haushaltskommissar – das wird ja Ihre letzte Haushaltsdebatte hier sein – für die Zusammenarbeit bedanken. Ich bin mir sicher, dass wir darauf auch in den nächsten Jahren aufbauen können.
               

João Oliveira,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, Senhores Deputados, Senhor Comissário, discutimos hoje o resultado das negociações entre o Parlamento e o Conselho relativamente ao Orçamento da União Europeia para 2025. À imagem da própria posição do Parlamento, este é um acordo que continua a dar prioridade aos interesses das multinacionais e dos grandes grupos económicos e não aos interesses dos trabalhadores e dos povos.
               

                  Um Orçamento que destina mais de 21 mil milhões de EUR à ingerência, à política de confrontação, ao militarismo, à guerra e ao controlo de fronteiras. 21 mil milhões de EUR que faltarão no apoio aos setores produtivos, na coesão económica, social e territorial, no apoio ao investimento nos serviços públicos, na habitação.
               

                  Um Orçamento que corta mais de 200 milhões nos apoios à agricultura, desprezando os milhares de agricultores que saem à rua em luta pela sobrevivência e por mais apoios ao setor.
               

                  Aquilo que este Parlamento viu como uma vitória num mecanismo de cascata para o pagamento dos juros do mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência não pode deixar de ser visto como um prejuízo para os trabalhadores e para os povos.
               

                  Este acordo vai levar a que possam ser canalizados para o pagamento de juros montantes que estavam destinados à coesão, ao combate à pobreza e às desigualdades, ao apoio aos setores produtivos.
               

                  Apesar de considerarmos que este é um orçamento enviesado à nascença, interviemos neste processo com propostas que davam prioridade às respostas aos problemas que atingem os trabalhadores e os povos. Apesar de terem sido rejeitadas pela mesma maioria que vai agora aprovar este Orçamento, elas continuam a fazer falta aos trabalhadores e aos povos e fazem parte da alternativa pela qual continuaremos a lutar.
               

Alexander Jungbluth,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Der vorliegende Haushaltsentwurf des Europäischen Parlaments unterscheidet sich nur marginal von dem im November hier im Haus abgelehnten Entwurf. Man muss sich also die Frage stellen, wieso wir überhaupt über einen Entwurf abstimmen, wenn das Votum des Parlaments offensichtlich überhaupt keine Rolle bei den Verhandlungen gespielt hat. Das sieht man auch an den einzelnen Änderungsanträgen, die letzten Monat bei der Abstimmung eine Mehrheit gefunden haben. Diese haben in den Verhandlungen zwischen Parlament und Rat überhaupt keine Rolle gespielt. Nehmen wir als Beispiel unsere Anträge zur Finanzierung physischer Barrieren an den Außengrenzen und den Asylzentren außerhalb der EU. Beiden wurde hier im Parlament zugestimmt. Beide haben hier eine Mehrheit gefunden. Was ist in dem Entwurf aus diesen Anträgen geworden? Richtig – gar nichts.
               

                  Wie so häufig schert man sich in diesem Haus überhaupt nicht um demokratische Ergebnisse. Stattdessen ist der EU-Haushalt voll von Subventionen und Programmen, die oft wenig bis gar nichts mit den Bedürfnissen und Notwendigkeiten der Bürger in der Europäischen Union zu tun haben. Für den wichtigsten Bereich der Migration oder besser gesagt deren Bewahrung sollen 12 Millionen Euro mehr ausgegeben werden. Die Bürger können so oft fordern, wie sie wollen, dass die unkontrollierte Massenmigration endlich gestoppt wird, und in diesem Haus wird genau das Gegenteil entschieden. Wenn die EVP hier sagt, dass man tatsächlich etwas dafür tut, dann ist es wirklich lächerlich. Wir erinnern uns alle daran, dass die EVP mit Angela Merkel überhaupt erst dafür Sorge getragen hat, dass diese furchtbare Entwicklung stattgefunden hat. Sie sind Ursache des Problems und nicht deren Lösung.
               

                  Doch gehen wir weiter. Wem widmet man sich denn diesem Haushalt? Es geht vor allem um ideologischen Wahnsinn. Es geht um den Green Deal. Sehen wir uns die Energiepreise an! Was ist mit dem Versprechen der EU geworden, dass mit grünen Investitionen Energiekosten gesenkt werden können? Die Realität ist eine andere. Die Leute können sich inzwischen die Energiekosten nicht mehr leisten, und in unserem Haushalt subventionieren wir diese vollkommen verrückte Entwicklung weiter. Dieses Pamphlet der Steuergeldverschwendung namens Haushalt lehnen wir strikt ab.
               

President. – That was the round of speakers on behalf of the political groups. From now on, I will be a little bit more strict on the time. And I have also opened up for the blue card, in case you want to take one.

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, nakon dugotrajnih teških pregovora, Europa ima još jedan proračun za koji možemo reći da uvelike odgovara potrebama europskih građana. Pregovori su bili izazovni i mislim da uvelike Europski parlament može biti zadovoljan s postignutim rezultatima. Zajedno smo uspješno osigurali kritična dopunjavanja nacrta proračuna Komisije u ključnim područjima politika u skladu s našim zajedničkim prioritetima. Osigurano je tako gotovo 200 milijardi eura za istraživanje i razvoj, za obrazovanje, za obrambene prioritete, borbu protiv posljedica prirodnih katastrofa, ali također i za druga područja koja su važna za jačanje europske konkurentnosti i za održivost. Postigli smo dogovor, ne manje važno, o uravnoteženom pristupu financiranju plaćanja kamata za trošak europskog zaduživanja, što održava našu predanost dugoročnoj fiskalnoj odgovornosti, uz osiguravanje da ovaj značajan instrument oporavka i dalje služi svojoj svrsi bez nerazmjernog utjecaja na druge proračunske prioritete. Međutim, vidimo i iz ovih pregovora da će pregovori o višegodišnjem financijskom okviru biti teški i da će se Europski parlament morati boriti za europske građane i za osiguravanje dodatnih prioriteta. Čestitam svima koji su bili uključeni: izvjestitelju i izvjestiteljima u sjeni, ali također i povjereniku Hahnu, koji je još jednom, za kraj bogatog mandata u Europskoj komisiji, odgovorno posredovao pregovorima.
               

Sandra Gómez López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, en la madrugada del 16 de noviembre se llegó al acuerdo de pactar y cerrar un presupuesto de casi 200 000 millones de euros; un acuerdo que no fue fácil de obtener, en primer lugar, porque era el primer presupuesto que pactábamos y cerrábamos tras la revisión del marco financiero a largo plazo. Y, en segundo lugar, porque también era el primer presupuesto en el que los costes de los intereses del programa NextGenerationEU eran superiores a los previstos.
               

                  Como Parlamento, teníamos absolutamente claro que eso no podía afectar a iniciativas clave como Erasmus+ u Horizonte Europa. Por eso, pactamos llevar a cabo el ‘mecanismo en cascada’ del Instrumento de Recuperación de la UE (IRUE) para, precisamente, poder gestionar esos costes de endeudamiento de los NextGenerationEU sin afectar a ninguna de estas iniciativas clave, mientras seguíamos teniendo, como presupuesto, flexibilidad y capacidad de respuesta a cualquier imprevisto.
               

                  Hemos hecho y hemos pactado un presupuesto que pretende dar respuesta a cuestiones que hoy son desafíos clave para la Unión Europea -cuestiones como el cambio climático o los retos sanitarios-, dar una solución y una alternativa a todas las zonas rurales, a la agricultura y a nuestros jóvenes, e impulsar la competitividad en Europa.
               

                  Pero, además, pretende dar respuesta a la emergencia de la crisis que estamos viviendo países como el mío, España -pensemos en Valencia-, pactando, por primera vez, un presupuesto que incluye una reserva de más de 3 000 millones de euros para que, desde ya, cualquier país que tenga un problema y una catástrofe natural pueda, a partir del año 2025, tener recursos suficientes para poder atender la emergencia…
               

(la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)


Auke Zijlstra (PfE). – Voorzitter, ik was schaduwrapporteur namens de Patriots, de derde partij in dit Parlement. Dat was een interessante ervaring. De rapporteur gooide ongelezen mijn zorgvuldig opgestelde amendementen in de prullenbak en beweerde later bij de stemming in de Begrotingscommissie dat hij met alle partijen succesvol had overlegd. Dat succes bleek vervolgens niet uit de uitslag op de plenaire vergadering, waar de resolutie juist werd weggestemd. Een verdeeld Parlement.
               

                  In de discussie met de Raad en de Commissie werd een sterk gegroeide begroting vastgesteld, bijna 200 miljard. In de Raad onthielden vijf landen zich vervolgens van stemming en stemde Zweden zelfs tegen. Ook een verdeelde Raad dus.
               

                  Vervolgens wordt het eindresultaat hier als een overwinning gevierd. Zoals de rapporteur zelf stelde: het Parlement heeft de traditie en de plicht om begrotingen altijd te verhogen. Dat dit ten koste gaat van de belastingbetalers is geen onderdeel van de discussie. Dat de Europese Commissie geen rekening had gehouden met het feit dat geld lenen geld kost, is ook belachelijk. En ook die rekening gaat nu naar de belastingbetaler. De Raad wilde graag prudent begroten en dat is duidelijk niet gelukt. De Europese Commissie plant nu zelfs 3 miljard aan boetes in om de kosten te dekken. Boetes die nog helemaal niet bestaan!
               

                  Volgend jaar start het overleg over de nieuwe meerjarenbegroting, met een verdeelde Raad en een verdeeld Parlement en een Commissie die niet met schulden kan omgaan. Dat is een treurig beeld. Bijna zo treurig als de economische vooruitzichten van de Europese Unie, die met deze begroting niet zullen veranderen. Als de rapporteur de uitgangspunten van de Raad had gevolgd, zouden wij voor hebben gestemd. U begrijpt dat wij nu tegen zullen stemmen.
               

Ruggero Razza (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 22 novembre, qualche giorno fam a Parigi si sono riunite le principali associazioni imprenditoriali di Francia, Germania e Italia, che da sole rappresentano il 53% del prodotto interno lordo dell'Unione.
               

                  Hanno chiesto all'Europa un intervento straordinario in competizione, hanno chiesto di recuperare i tempi perduti, hanno chiesto di guardare al futuro della competitività del nostro sistema imprenditoriale.
               

                  E a loro dobbiamo dire, mentre ci apprestiamo a votare questo bilancio, che la risposta non arriva da questo bilancio. Certo, ci sono dei significativi miglioramenti: c'è un lavoro che ha fatto il Parlamento, c'è un recupero dei tagli che il Consiglio aveva proposto alla Commissione. Ma non c'è quell'intervento straordinario anche inserito nella relazione Draghi.
               

                  Bastano i numeri: 200 miliardi il bilancio, 800 miliardi le attese. Dobbiamo lavorare molto e bisognerà fare molto di più nel futuro.
               

Lucia Yar (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, práve som sa vrátila z východného Slovenska – regiónu, ktorému Európska únia garantuje podporu prostredníctvom kohéznej politiky. Politiky na vyrovnávanie rozdielov medzi regiónmi, vďaka ktorej má aj tento kraj dobehnúť západ. Namiesto toho som videla odliv mladých ľudí do zahraničia, nedostatok pracovných miest aj chabú infraštruktúru. Kapitola tejto politiky má pritom v budúcoročnom rozpočte najvyššie pridelené zdroje – až 40 % z 200 miliárd.
               

                  No realita v teréne je iná, niekedy alarmujúca. Napriek množstvu vyčlenených eurofondov v mnohých obciach stále chýba kanalizácia aj prístup k vode. A my vieme, že toto je problém na národnej úrovni, no pokiaľ ide o európske investície a sľuby, ľudia otáčajú hlavu smerom k Bruselu a ľudí nemôžeme trestať za to, že majú neschopnú vládu. Ak máme napĺňať naše spoločné európske ciele, musíme zabezpečiť, aby náš rozpočet bol skutočne taký, aby pomáhal tým, ktorí to najviac potrebujú. Musí sa prejaviť na životoch ľudí. Až vtedy budeme môcť naozaj hovoriť o úspešnom rozpočte.
               

Kai Tegethoff (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, under the given circumstances, this compromise for the EU budget 2025 is a very good one. It includes very important top-ups for programmes for climate, biodiversity, humanitarian aid and healthcare, for example. But we also have to be aware that we should have done a lot more.
We need an EU budget for the people, and the structure of the EU budget is completely outdated and urgently needs to be updated. We need a budget that is far more flexible. We need a budget that really follows our goals and values. Right now we are refusing to invest in fire alarms, but at the same time, we cannot afford to rebuild our house once it's burned down.
We finally need mandatory targets, for example for climate mainstreaming and climate adaptation, to finally start building resilient communities. And we need to stop financing dictators. We really need a conditionality for a rule of law in the EU budget. With a flexible budget, we need to understand where our money is spent. So we need to follow the money. Let's reform the EU budget.

Νικόλας Φαραντούρης (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η αυριανή ψήφιση του ευρωπαϊκού προϋπολογισμού είναι μια κορυφαία κοινοβουλευτική, αλλά και πολιτική, πράξη. Τα βέλη μου σήμερα θέλω να τα στρέψω –με καλή πίστη– κατά του Συμβουλίου Υπουργών για τις οριζόντιες περικοπές –χωρίς τεκμηρίωση, αδικαιολόγητα, αναιτιολόγητα– ποσών και πιστώσεων του ευρωπαϊκού προϋπολογισμού, σε αντίθεση με αυτά που ζήτησε το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο.
               

                  Θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τον γενικό εισηγητή για τις προσπάθειες που έκανε –τις πολύμηνες. Ωστόσο, το Συμβούλιο Υπουργών προχώρησε σε μειώσεις πλέον του ενός δισεκατομμυρίου ευρώ, με αποτέλεσμα ο προϋπολογισμός να καταλήγει περίπου στο 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ακαθάριστου εγχώριου εισοδήματος. Ακόμα και σε πολιτικές και σε τομείς που είναι κρίσιμοι για το παρόν και το μέλλον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όπως ο αγροτικός τομέας, έχουμε σημαντικές περικοπές. Ακόμα και στο Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Γεωργικών Εγγυήσεων.
               

                  Άρα, λοιπόν, ο προϋπολογισμός που έρχεται αύριο προς ψήφιση είναι κατώτερος των προσδοκιών, και θεωρώ ότι θα πρέπει πολύ σοβαρά πλέον να κοιτάξουμε προς το μέλλον με ενίσχυση σε κοινωνικές δαπάνες, μείωση των ανισοτήτων και υποδομές.
               

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la elaboración de un presupuesto es una enorme responsabilidad; se trata de decidir a qué prioridades vamos a destinar el dinero proveniente de los impuestos de los ciudadanos europeos: 200 000 millones de euros.
               

                  La prioridad de la Unión Europea no puede ser financiar los intereses de la deuda NextGenerationEU a costa de recortar recursos a otros programas europeos con alta valoración ciudadana. Ni mucho menos la prioridad puede ser la imposición de este modelo en el futuro marco financiero cuando el modelo de los fondos NextGenerationEU está muy lejos de haber conseguido los ambiciosos objetivos para los que fue creado, con un reducido impacto económico y un alto nivel de fondos sin ejecutar.
               

                  Las prioridades de la UE deben ser la competitividad de nuestras empresas, la seguridad de nuestras fronteras, la inversión en innovación e investigación, la eficiencia de la política de cohesión, la defensa de nuestro sector primario y la reserva de recursos comunitarios para hacer frente a las catástrofes como la vivida en Valencia.
               

                  Este presupuesto que mañana votamos las recoge y esto ha sido, en gran parte, gracias al liderazgo del Partido Popular Europeo.
               

Carla Tavares (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a negociação do Orçamento 2025 representa aquilo que não queremos para o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual pós 2027. Não queremos, no orçamento anual, centrar-nos na gestão do reembolso da dívida do NextGenerationEU.
               

                  Queremos, a partir de 2028, altura em que devemos fazer o reembolso do capital do NextGenerationEU, ter uma solução para o reembolso que se configure num instrumento seguro.
               

                  Queremos acordar até lá um perfil do reembolso da dívida que não afete a gestão anual de programas, que não ponha em perigo as prioridades para os europeus, que nos permita, no orçamento anual, dedicarmo-nos àquelas que são as verdadeiras prioridades da União e o seu reforço.
               

                  Queremos a União Europeia mais simples e eficaz na sua capacidade de resposta. Um orçamento anual mais transparente, com uma gestão mais ágil, focada naquilo que deve ser o valor acrescentado da União Europeia para os europeus.
               

                  Ainda assim, o Parlamento alcançou para 2025 importantes reforços na educação, na saúde, nas políticas sociais, na ajuda humanitária, na proteção civil, na investigação, na agricultura e na luta contra a corrupção, ao mesmo tempo que encontrámos uma abordagem equilibrada no financiamento das dívidas geradas pelo NextGenerationEU.
               

                  Num processo negocial difícil, o Parlamento provou mais uma vez que é capaz de encontrar soluções claras para os desafios da União Europeia e para as expectativas dos nossos cidadãos.
               

                  Permitam-me uma palavra de reconhecimento aos dois colegas relatores pelo trabalho desenvolvido e pelos resultados alcançados, bem como ao Senhor Comissário e à sua equipa, pela prestimosa e sempre disponibilidade.
               

Angéline Furet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, la Commission européenne continue d'imposer des contraintes budgétaires qui empiètent sur la souveraineté des États membres et alimentent la bureaucratie inefficace de Bruxelles.
               

                  Dans le cadre du budget pour 2025, les augmentations des dépenses concernent des programmes tels que le pacte vert et la militarisation de l'Union européenne, alors que nos citoyens subissent de plein fouet les conséquences de l'inflation, des crises énergétiques et de l'immigration massive.
               

                  Comment justifiez-vous l'allocation de ces fonds à des projets idéologiques, alors même que de nombreux gouvernements nationaux sont contraints de réduire leurs budgets pour des services essentiels? Est-ce que cela reflète réellement les priorités et les préoccupations des Européens?
               

                  Ne serait-il pas plus responsable de redonner aux États membres la maîtrise de leur budget et de cesser de financer des projets qui divisent au lieu de rassembler?
               

Dick Erixon (ECR). – Fru talman! Sverige blev nedröstat i rådet. I stället gjorde de tre institutionerna upp om att höja budgeten och därmed lägga ytterligare börda på medborgarna – medborgare som har en tuff verklighet sedan maten, bensinen och elen blivit dyrare.
               

                  Familjernas hushållsbudgetar är ansträngda, något som vi borde tänka på i denna kammare då vi tar ytterligare resurser från medborgarna när EU-budgeten blir större.
               

                  Ett positivt inslag i årets budget är dock att fem regeringar i rådet inte röstade för den slutgiltiga uppgörelsen. Sveriges regering tillhörde dem som markerade mot en ständigt växande EU-budget. Detta hoppas jag blir ett första steg mot en tuffare förhandling inför kommande sjuårsbudget. Nu måste det bli ett slut på expansionen; pengarna gör bäst nytta i medborgarnas händer.
               

Anouk Van Brug (Renew). – Voorzitter, het leven is de afgelopen tijd flink duurder geworden. Dit merken onze inwoners dagelijks als zij hun boodschappen doen, wanneer zij hun energierekening moeten betalen of wanneer zij aan de pomp staan. Ook onze lidstaten merken dit wanneer zij hun begroting opstellen. Geld kun je immers maar één keer uitgeven. Om een sluitende begroting te krijgen, moeten er pijnlijke keuzes gemaakt worden waar landen hun geld wel en vooral ook niet aan uitgeven.
               

                  Wij kunnen als Europa niet achterblijven. Het roer moet om. De uitdagingen van vandaag vragen om stevige investeringen in defensie en innovatie. Om geld hiervoor vrij te maken, moeten we andere prioriteiten stellen en bezuinigen als dat nodig is. Laten we samen gezond verstand en realisme terugbrengen in onze begroting. Een begroting die zorgt voor onze veiligheid, die onze welvaart vergroot en waarmee we klaarstaan voor de toekomst.
               

Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Luxembourg, as one of the EU capitals, is home to key EU institutions.
There are strong reasons for why 12 European institutions, agencies and bodies are based in Luxembourg, such as the Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors. Their location ensures independence away from the political centres of Brussels and Strasbourg.
However, the cost of living in Luxembourg is the highest in Europe, affecting not only residents but also 14 000 EU staff working there. Ensuring proper staffing and functionality of these institutions is vital for the good functioning of the European Union.
So, negotiating a housing allowance is a welcome step. But more is needed. A correction coefficient reflecting Luxembourg's high cost would ensure fairness and protect the attractiveness of these institutions.
Colleagues, supporting staff working in our institution in Luxembourg is not just operational, it is about upholding our shared European values, such as justice and the rule of law.

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


Maria Grapini (S&D),
întrebare adresată conform procedurii ‘cartonașului albastru’
                     . – Stimată doamnă, văd că plângeți nivelul de trai și costul ridicat din Luxemburg. Știți dumneavoastră în estul Europei câți copii trăiesc în sărăcie? Câți oameni au pensionari care nu au cum să își cumpere medicamentele? Eu cred că trebuie să ne gândim la acest buget, mai ales la eficiența modului în care se cheltuiește. Nu e suficient să dirijăm niște bani pentru niște domenii, ci este foarte important să vedem eficiența: dacă s-au alocat la Parchetul European bani în plus, să vedem cum recuperează evaziunea fiscală. La orice capitol trebuie asta să facem și să ne gândim la cei mai săraci, nu la Luxemburg, unde nivelul de trai și veniturile sunt peste media Uniunii Europene.
               

Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE),
blue-card answer. – Thank you very much for that question, but I think you are mixing up things there. Of course, I'm in favour that at the European level we have to fight poverty, of course. In Luxembourg, just to say, one child out of five is at risk of poverty. But that's another issue, I mean, we have to fight that.
Here is a fundamental question that every country in the European Union has a coefficient correcteur, has this corrector coefficient, except Brussels and Luxembourg. And I just want that Luxembourg, the people working there, mainly they are coming from all the countries, have the same rights that in the other European countries, so that they look at the real cost of living that exists in Luxembourg – that is what this is about.

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, no contexto geopolítico em que vivemos, precisamos de um orçamento robusto para garantir uma Europa forte, capaz de agir, mas, essencialmente, defender os nossos valores democráticos.
               

                  Quero, em primeiro lugar, destacar o resultado obtido pela equipa de negociação do Parlamento, na que tive a honra de participar, pois assegurámos um aumento de 230 milhões de EUR no financiamento de programas de particular relevância para os europeus. Sublinho dois: o Mecanismo Europeu de Proteção Civil e a Europol.
               

                  Em segundo lugar, quero evidenciar a inclusão, já em 2025, de 3 mil milhões de EUR para a assistência aos Estados-Membros afetados pelas recentes catástrofes naturais, entre os quais Portugal.
               

                  Em terceiro lugar, saliento o acordo para a reintrodução no orçamento de 420 milhões de EUR para reforçar o programa Erasmus+ - e vejo uma juventude na plateia -, dedicado essencialmente à juventude, que é um programa bandeira da União Europeia.
               

                  Em suma, este Orçamento responde às necessidades e aspirações de todos os europeus. Parabéns ao Parlamento, à Comissão e ao Conselho.
               

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsednica. Spoštovani, hitro spreminjajoči se svet od Unije terja ažurno in učinkovito ukrepanje, kar se mora odražati tudi v prilagodljivosti proračuna.
               

                  Ta je rezultat sodelovanja in kompromisa. S posluhom za potrebe državljanov in kompleksne izzive smo – in tu moram še posebej poudariti – v Evropskem parlamentu zagotovili 6 % povečanja proračuna za prihodnje leto. Pozdravljam, da se ta osredotoča na regije, ki so bile prizadete po poplavah, in predvideva namenska sredstva v višini treh milijard za srednjo in vzhodno Evropo, kamor spada tudi Slovenija. Dodatnih šest milijard pa bo za poplavno pomoč namenjenih iz kohezijskih sredstev, kar krepi njihovo vlogo kot ključnega orodja za podporo izrednim razmeram.
               

                  Nujno je, da proračun podpira usklajeno vizijo za prihodnost Evropske unije. Zato na tem mestu še posebej pozdravljam povečanje sredstev za raziskave in inovacije, za podporo okoljskim in podnebnim ciljem, za krepitev upravljanja migracij in mej, za humanitarno solidarnost, za izobraževanje ter podporo mladim raziskovalcem. Verjamem, da ti ukrepi odražajo strateško usmerjenost Evropske unije k trajnostnemu razvoju, inovacijam, varnosti, solidarnosti tako znotraj kot zunaj njenih meja.
               

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! To nie jest dobry budżet, ponieważ on nie rozwiązuje tych podstawowych problemów, które w tej chwili niszczą gospodarkę europejską, sprawiają, że gospodarka europejska jest coraz mniej konkurencyjna. To nie jest dobry budżet, ponieważ on nie rozwiązuje problemów Europejczyków, którzy ubożeją i mają coraz trudniejsze warunki życia, tracą pracę. Firmy upadają. Trzeba się nad tym zastanowić, jak wyjść z tej trudnej sytuacji i wyciągnąć wnioski z błędów, które zostały popełnione w poprzednich kadencjach. To się ciągnie od wielu lat.
               

                  Rozpoczyna się nowa kadencja Komisji Europejskiej. My również tutaj w Parlamencie rozpoczynamy tak naprawdę naszą kolejną kadencję i czas zmienić filozofię myślenia, postawić na rozwój i konkurencyjność gospodarki europejskiej, rozwiązać te problemy, które niszczą dzisiaj naszą konkurencyjność, naszą gospodarkę, i stworzyć takie warunki, żeby Europejczycy mogli czuć się bezpiecznie.
               

Joachim Streit (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Verhandlungen zum Haushalt 2025 zeigen einmal mehr: Die europäische Politik arbeitet zu oft nach der Prämisse ‘mehr Geld hilft mehr’. Doch das ist der falsche Ansatz. Wir brauchen keine endlose Aufstockung von Mitteln, sondern eine strikte Haushaltsdisziplin, die sicherstellt, dass wir das vorhandene Geld effizient verwenden.
               

                  Die Freien Wähler sind gegen die Erhöhung der Budgets. Es ist unsere Pflicht gegenüber den Steuerzahlern, jeden Euro verantwortungsvoll einzusetzen. Dabei setze ich mich für einen schlanken, aber wirksamen Staat ein. Wir müssen klare Prioritäten für die Zukunft setzen. Investitionen in Verteidigung und Forschung sind wichtig, um Europas Sicherheit und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu sichern. Aber ebenso wichtig ist es, das Prinzip der Eigenverantwortung zu wahren. Die EU darf nicht alles regeln wollen. Sie muss sich auf die Bereiche konzentrieren, in denen sie tatsächlich einen Mehrwert schaffen kann.
               

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, annual budget procedure is seemingly routine, but in fact, this is never business as usual. What is unusual about 2025 is that this is the first budget based on revision of the MFF, implementing the so-called 'cascade mechanism', and the last budget of Johannes Hahn, drafted by Johannes Hahn – for me, an incarnation of the honest broker.
With one minute, one issue only, that is your line, that is financing of interest costs of NextGenerationEU, bigger by EUR 2.3 billion than assumed. This is really annoying, this is really frustrating to dispute overnight whether this is 55/45 or 50/50. This is not decisive for the future of Europe. We need thematic special instrument, euro line, above ceilings and this is the hope of ending conciliation before midnight.

Adnan Dibrani (S&D). – Fru talman! Alla budgetar har sina för- och nackdelar. Hemma i Sverige pratar vi om sunda statsfinanser. Med sunda statsfinanser kan man hantera kriser – det kan vara en vanlig lågkonjunktur och det kan vara covid. Men man kan också med sunda statsfinanser hantera de investeringar som behövs.
               

                  Vi måste i det här huset, precis som där hemma, ha respekt för dem som arbetar på hemmaplan och betalar in de skattemedel som vi sedan använder för att göra olika former av prioriteringar.
               

                  En del som vi har gjort är att vi har byggt upp buffertar, men det är beklagligt att vi inte använder buffertarna för kriser utan för att, i det här läget, använda pengar för att betala uppkomna räntekostnader. Räntekostnaderna var ingen överraskning, så jag hade helst velat hitta en annan lösning till detta.
               

                  Vi måste kunna prioritera. Precis som man prioriterar på hemmaplan måste det här huset lära sig att hantera och prioritera viktiga frågor. Det handlar i grund och botten om respekt för våra medborgare.
               

Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, vier jaar geleden besloten de regeringsleiders, in antwoord op de coronacrisis, van de Europese Unie een schuldenunie te maken. Daar plukken we nu de wrange vruchten van. Kijk naar de verwachte rentelasten voor volgend jaar: meer dan 7 miljard. Deze zullen de komende jaren alleen nog maar verder stijgen. Daarom zeg ik vandaag: alstublieft, geen nieuwe leningen meer! Ze kosten de belastingbetaler veel te veel geld.
               

                  Een andere belangrijke post op de begroting is die voor de cohesiefondsen: 78 miljard EUR. Ook hier is, wat mij betreft, een grondige bezinning nodig. Deze fondsen zijn immers bedoeld als een tijdelijke maatregel om achtergebleven gebieden een welvaartsimpuls te geven. Nu meerdere van die regio's zich richting het Europese gemiddelde begeven, moeten we het dus ook gaan hebben over verlaging van deze fondsen. Dat lijkt mij niet meer dan logisch!
               

                  Ziedaar, twee belangrijke aandachtspunten voor de komende jaren.
               

Katri Kulmuni (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, tasa-arvo ei voi toteutua ilman alueellista tasa-arvoa. Alueiden välisten kehityserojen tasaaminen onkin yksi EU:n perustavoitteista ja siihen menee suuri osa EU:n budjetista.
               

                  Alueellinen tasa-arvo on yksi keskeinen vakaan yhteiskunnan perusta. Jos jossain maassa, jossain päin maata kansalaisille tulee käsitys, ettei heitä arvosteta, heidän kotiseutuunsa ei panosteta, eivätkä he koe positiivisia tulevaisuusnäkymiä, on suuri vaara, että ihmiset katkeroituvat ja se on aina vaarallista. Siksi pidän tavattoman tärkeänä, että EU keskittyy perustehtäväänsä eli alueellisten erojen vähentämiseen ja pitää kiinni päätöksenteon läheisyysperiaatteista. Asioista pitää päättää mahdollisimman lähellä niitä ihmisiä, joita asia koskee.
               

                  Usein ratkaisuksi tarjotaan aina suurempaa budjettia, mutta pidän erittäin tärkeänä, että sitä ei kasvateta kohtuuttomasti, vaan keskitytään kaikista keskeisimpiin asioihin, kuten alueelliseen tasa- arvoon.
               

Γεώργιος Αυτιάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο προϋπολογισμός που ψηφίζουμε είναι ένας από τους καλύτερους που πέρασαν ποτέ από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Καλύπτει τα εξωτερικά σύνορα των χωρών μας με υποδομές, και με μεγάλη χαρά είδα Negrescu, Halicki και Mureșan να υπεραμύνονται αυτού του θέματος που για την πατρίδα μου αποτελούσε ένα από τα πρωτεύοντα θέματα.
               

                  Για πρώτη φορά, λοιπόν, τα ελληνικά σύνορα, τα ευρωπαϊκά σύνορα –και ξέρετε πολύ καλά τι συνέβη κάποτε στον φράχτη στον Έβρο– καλύπτονται πλήρως από τον προϋπολογισμό της Ευρώπης. Ξέρω πολύ καλά την ευαισθησία σας για τα σύνορα.
               

                  Και μετά από αυτά βάζουμε μπρος. Για υγεία, για παιδεία, για φτηνό ρεύμα, για καθημερινότητα, για όλα αυτά και, βέβαια, για όλα αυτά έχουμε υποχρέωση στους πολίτες μας που μας έστειλαν εδώ για να βρίσκουμε λύσεις.
               

Giuseppe Lupo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, esprimo apprezzamento per l'accordo raggiunto, in fase di conciliazione, sul bilancio 2025 e ringrazio tutti coloro che hanno contribuito a questo importante risultato.
               

                  Ritengo importanti i risultati ottenuti per gli aiuti umanitari, la ricerca, Erasmus, l'ambiente, la salute. Maggiore attenzione meritano la Procura europea ed Europol per l'importante lavoro che stanno svolgendo.
               

                  La politica di bilancio dell'Unione europea è fondamentale per sostenere la crescita e la competitività, per ridurre le diseguaglianze, per rispondere alle aspettative dei cittadini europei, soprattutto delle aree più svantaggiate. Per questo sottolineo il valore politico dell'intesa raggiunta tra le istituzioni europee, che ci consente di guardare oggi al futuro con maggiore fiducia per l'Europa che vogliamo.
               

Fernand Kartheiser (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, le budget de l'Union comprend une allocation de logement pour certaines catégories de notre personnel vivant et travaillant au Luxembourg. Je désire remercier tous ceux qui ont contribué à cette réussite. Mais au-delà de cette allocation, il faut enfin introduire un coefficient correcteur pour les agents des institutions européennes au Grand-Duché. À cette fin, il faut modifier le statut.
               

                  Selon les données d'Eurostat, les agents, au Luxembourg, ont un pouvoir d'achat inférieur de près de 20 % à celui de leurs collègues à Bruxelles; c'est inadmissible. L'inaction de la Commission européenne dans ce domaine, comme ses violations continues des accords sur les services et le personnel présents à Luxembourg, montrent que la Commission viole sciemment et délibérément ses obligations afin d'affaiblir les accords de siège.
               

                  Nous attendons de la nouvelle Commission qu'elle change sa politique dans ce domaine.
               

Μιχάλης Χατζηπαντέλα (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο προϋπολογισμός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το 2025 επιβεβαιώνει τη δέσμευσή μας για αλληλεγγύη και ανάπτυξη για τα κράτη μέλη. Ιδιαίτερα σημαντική είναι η αύξηση των 500.000 ευρώ σε κονδύλια τα οποία θα μπορέσει να αξιοποιήσει η Επιτροπή για τους Αγνοούμενους, ενισχύοντας τη δυνατότητα συνέχισης της σημαντικής ανθρωπιστικής της αποστολής για την κατεχόμενη πατρίδα μου –την Κύπρο– και τους αγνοούμενούς μας.
               

                  Χαιρετίζουμε την αύξηση στον Μηχανισμό Πολιτικής Προστασίας για την αντιμετώπιση ακραίων καιρικών φαινομένων, όπως βιώνουμε τον τελευταίο καιρό. Χαιρετίζω την ενίσχυση προγραμμάτων που βοηθούν τους αγρότες μας, το ‘Horizon Europe’ που ενισχύει την καινοτομία, την ενίσχυση των συστημάτων υγείας, αλλά και τη συνέχιση του προγράμματος Erasmus για τους φοιτητές και τους νέους μας.
               

                  Ο προϋπολογισμός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης θα ενδυναμώσει την ανταγωνιστικότητά μας, διασφαλίζοντας παράλληλα ανθεκτικότητα και αλληλεγγύη για τα κράτη μέλη. Έτσι προχωράμε προς μια ισχυρή και δίκαιη Ευρώπη που πρωτοπορεί και ευημερεί χωρίς να αφήνει κανέναν πίσω.
               

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, minkälaista on EU:n rahankäyttö? Euroopan tilintarkastustuomioistuin selvitti ja tässä on tuloksia.
               

                  Tuomioistuin havaitsi, että EU:n kaikesta rahankäytöstä noin 10,7 miljardia euroa oli selkeästi sen omien sääntöjen vastaista. Samalla tuomioistuimen sisältä todettiin, että EU:n elpymispaketin rahojen valvonta on pettänyt ja oikeastaan niitä ei pystytä edes valvomaan.
               

                  Tuomioistuin totesi myös EU:n olevan elpymispaketin takia altis sille, että EU-rahaa myönnetään tuplana, mutta tätäkin on vaikea ja hankala jäljittää. Lisäksi tuomioistuin havaitsi, että joillakin EU:n rahoittamilla ilmastosopeutustoimilla oli vain vähän, ellei ollenkaan tai miettikää, jopa heikentävä vaikutus sopeutumiskyvyn lisääntymiseen. Joten mistä siis tietää, että rahaa menee hukkaan? Siitä, että käyttäjänä on EU.
               

Kinga Kollár (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! A 2025-ös költségvetés kapcsán az egyik szemem sír, a másik nevet. Nevet, mert a költségvetésből több pénz fog jutni a diákok külföldi tanulását lehetővé tevő Erasmus+-ra és a kutatók mobilitását támogató Horizont programra. Ez egyértelmű siker. Ugyanakkor a másik szemem sír, mert úgy tűnik, Magyarország ezekből a pluszforrásokból nem fog részesülni.
               

                  A kormány ugyanis nem teremtette meg azokat a szabályokat, melyek alapján az egyetemek a nekik járó forrásokat átlátható és elszámoltatható módon tudják elkölteni. Így egyetemeink nem férnek hozzá a gazdasági növekedés szempontjából is fontos diákcsere- és kutatói programokhoz.
               

                  Csak két éve szorultunk ki ezekből a programokból, de máris hosszú távú negatív hatások érik egyetemeinket. Többéves együttműködések hiúsultak meg és kimaradtak értékes projektekből. A Tisza Párt mindent megtesz, hogy Európában a megfelelő területekre minél több pénz jusson, de a magyar kormánynak is szükséges megtenni a lépéseket, hogy a források meg is érkezzenek.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, dámy a pánové, dovolte mi na začátku říct, že zítra schvalujeme rozpočet na rok 2025. A proč je tento rozpočet důležitý? Protože si musíme uvědomit, že musíme přestat nalévat peníze do projektů, které nic nepřináší, které nemají žádnou hodnotu. Nesmíme z těchto peněz posílat ani jedno euro žádným teroristům a organizacím, které financují teroristy. Nesmíme z těchto peněz dávat peníze do ničeho jiného než do obrany, energetické bezpečnosti a podpory inovací. Náš rozpočet musí být přehlídkou vize a ne přehlídkou byrokratických kompromisů. Každé euro musí mít hmatatelné výsledky. To si musíme uvědomit. A to jsme my jako Evropská lidová strana v tomto rozpočtu prosazovali.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Mitmenschen! Ich freue mich, dass wir hier eine konstruktive Debatte über den Haushalt 2025 führen können. Schließlich hat es genau wegen solch einem Thema vor kurzem erst die deutsche Bundesregierung zerlegt. Das Budget der Europäischen Union ist riesig. Es umfasst für das Jahr 2025 eine Summe von 199 438,4 Millionen Euro. Eine unendlich große Zahl, die nicht nur meine Vorstellungen sprengt, sondern ich glaube, die Vorstellung von jedem, der nicht eine Eins plus in Mathe in der Schule hatte.
               

                  Dieses Ausmaß zeigt die große Verantwortung, die wir haben mit unserem Budget, denn es handelt sich am Ende des Tages um Steuergeld. Eine Menge Steuergeld, aber Steuergeld. Während ich im Namen meiner Partei, der Partei des Fortschritts, den Haushaltsplan also begrüßen darf, bin ich sehr betroffen über einen Punkt, und das ist der mangelnde Ausbau der Finanzierung des Erasmus+-Programms. Das Erasmus+-Programm ist ein Leuchtturmprojekt. Es bringt die künftigen Generationen Europas zusammen und sollte immer eine Priorität im Budget der Europäischen Union haben.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, indeed, it's my last speech, and I would like to thank you all for this debate about the next annual budget. If I may continue where the last speaker has just finished: Erasmus constantly gets an improvement, but we try to have linear improvement in order to avoid a peak only in 2027. So it is important to have a constant increase and this is guaranteed.
Second, if I may say also for future debates on the next annual budget: I think it is always important to keep as much as possible flexibility. We have seen only in very recent months unforeseen events to which we have to react. And today, it is always necessary to change regulations to modify programmes. All this is a lengthy process and it would be more efficient and more, let's say, in the interest of our citizens, if we would have more flexibility, allowing us to react faster and quicker.
Third, I wanted to highlight and to stress what was raised by some Members about Luxembourg and the Luxembourg allowance. I think it is a big achievement and I am grateful for the agreement we could find, at least to have this Luxembourg allowance of around EUR 10 million per year, and it will exactly address the needs of the lower income grades being in Luxembourg or who should be attracted to Luxembourg. To be honest, if we would apply a possible correction coefficient, it would cost us EUR 270 million per year, which is not affordable and which would immediately lead to the opening of staff regulations – this is not something we want to see, number one. Number two, to be fair, many people working for European institutions in Luxembourg are not living in Luxembourg. They are commuting on a daily basis from France, Belgium or Germany. So it's not easy but I think the solution we have found is a good one.
As it indeed is my last speech, I would like to thank all of you, those who are present, those who are not present, and also many previous Members who have not been any more in the European Parliament for the excellent cooperation in the past five years, also the Council. I think in these five years we have not only negotiated an unprecedented Multiannual Financial Framework, we have NextGenerationEU with all the effects we are discussing and which you will discuss in the future.
All this happened, remember, in very difficult circumstances, and I still believe it is a miracle that nobody in all the negotiating teams were infected during these negotiations because you cannot negotiate the MFF in video conferences. So we had to come together, it was an exemption, and it was during lockdowns in order to enable indeed to get the budget done. We had this year a mid-term revision, which was for the first time a real mid-term revision, a substantial one. Finally, we negotiated altogether five reasonable budgets.
So, ladies and gentlemen, until Saturday, I will be Commissioner Hahn; as of Sunday, I will be Master Hahn, master of my own time. But be reassured, I will spend at least part of this time engaging in future debates about the next MFF, because I think it is important to engage also with some experience in a different position on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which is future-oriented, future-proof and enables us to serve our citizens and their interests. Thank you very much.

PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA


Vicepresidente


János Bóka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much for this exchange of views. It has shown that, notwithstanding the differences in perspectives and priorities, we are united in our commitment to build a better Europe to the benefit of all of our citizens.
The agreement reached on the budget for 2025 is a sensible compromise, allowing the Union to adequately finance its different priorities and fulfil its legal obligations. I reiterate that the Council expects the European Parliament to approve the joint text to allow for an orderly start of 2025.

Johan Van Overtveldt,
voorzitter van de commissie BUDG. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, de begroting voor 2025 is de best mogelijke budgettaire oefening onder de huidige omstandigheden. Omstandigheden die ons dwingen tot aanpassingen, zoals ook de lidstaten dat moeten doen. In ieder geval kan het niet verder zoals we nu bezig zijn.
                  

                     De EU-begroting is te veel gebonden aan langetermijnplanning, waar nieuwe initiatieven niet op kunnen aansluiten en waarbij we onvoldoende kunnen beantwoorden aan de verwachtingen van onze burgers en bedrijven. De oefening voor de komende meerjarenbegroting, die vanaf 2028 zal starten, moet daarom meteen op gang getrokken worden. Wanneer de Commissie straks groen licht krijgt, moet dit bovenaan de prioriteiten staan. Geld uitgeven kan helpen, op voorwaarde dat er geld is en wanneer de kwaliteit van de investeringen kan worden gewaarborgd en er dus echte toegevoegde waarde is.
                  

                     Naast het bestemmen van uitgaven moeten we echter veel meer doen en dat hoeft niet eens altijd geld te kosten. Het grote pijnpunt blijft de immense regeldruk als gevolg van Europese wetgeving. Onze burgers en ondernemingen roepen om vereenvoudiging, vragen om meer flexibiliteit en om drastische vermindering van de regeldruk en bovenal van de rapporteringsverplichtingen. Als we onze burgers en bedrijven willen steunen in hun groei, om hen te laten innoveren en onze welvaart veilig te stellen, is dit de weg voorwaarts.
                  

                     Het gaat hier bij dit alles niet eens om een links/rechts-tegenstelling. Het gaat hier om vertrouwen geven aan onze burgers en ondernemingen en om hen te steunen in wat ze graag willen doen en om het hoofd te bieden aan deze onzekere tijden. In de Raad wordt gesproken over een revolutie om alles te vereenvoudigen, en mevrouw Von der Leyen heeft ook de consolidatie aangekondigd van de groene rapporteringsverplichtingen. Ik zou zeggen: doe het gewoon en doe het meteen.
                  

                     Tot slot rest mij verder nog de rapporteurs en alle medewerkers te bedanken voor het geleverde werk.
                  

Johan Van Overtveldt,
Chair of the BUDG Committee. – And most finally, in English I address myself to the Commissioner with whom we were able to work for five years. We often had discussions, heated discussions, but always in good spirit, and therefore I thank him a lot.
And I would like to end with some of the words of my late father, who used to say, trees don't run into each other, but people do. So I hope I have the chance to run into you more frequently also in the past.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà domani.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 178)



Tamás Deutsch (PfE),
írásban. – Elismerés illeti a magyar elnökséget, amelynek tárgyalói kiváló munkájukkal biztosították, hogy megállapodással záruljanak a Tanács és az Európai Parlament költségvetési tárgyalásai.
                  

                     A Patrióták Európáért frakciója ugyanakkor nem tudja elfogadni ezt a költségvetést. Ez egy háborús költségvetés, amelynek az a célja, hogy minden uniós költségvetési eszközzel biztosítsa az Ukrajnában zajló háború folytatását. Mi Patrióták egy békét szolgáló költségvetést akarunk!
                  

                     Az európai parlamenti választásokon vereséget szenvedett baloldal költségvetési eszközökkel folytatja az intézményes politikai zsarolást, a jogállamisági dzsihádot is. Mi Patrióták ezzel szemben kiállunk az uniós tagállamok nemzeti szuverenitása mellett!
                  

                     Magyarországnak, a magyar embereknek jog szerint járnak az uniós fejlesztési források. A magyar diákoknak, a magyar egyetemeknek jog szerint járnak az Erasmus és kutatás-fejlesztési uniós források. Mégis, a magyar ellenzék képviselői krokodilkönnyeket hullatnak, hogy a magyar diákokat és egyetemeket az Európai Bizottság jogellenes döntésével 2025-ben is ki akarják zárni az európai programokból.
                  

                     A Fidesz–KDNP európai parlamenti képviselőcsoportja nemet mond a háborúra, nemet mond az illegális migrációra és nemet mond a woke őrület terjedésére. Követeljük, hogy a Magyarországnak járó fejlesztési forrásokat fizessék ki, a tagállamok politikai zsarolását fejezzék be, az Európai Bizottság magyar diákoknak és egyetemeknek hátrányt okozó diszkriminatív döntését pedig vonják vissza!
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D),
în scris. – Condițiile actuale și contextul general impun nu doar existența unui buget pentru anul 2025, ci și proceduri mult mai exigente privind eficiența cheltuirii banilor. Bugetul pentru 2025 a crescut cu 6 % față de 2024, însă nu toate alocările sunt cele mai inspirate, în special pentru că nu au fost condiționate de creșterea eficienței cheltuirii resurselor financiare.
                  

                     De exemplu, alocarea unui buget suplimentar pentru Parchetul European ar fi trebuit să fie condiționată de sumele recuperate din fraude și evaziune fiscală. Mi-aș fi dorit, de asemenea, mai multe fonduri pentru agricultori, dar și pentru politicile de eradicare a sărăciei, care nu se pot realiza doar prin ajutoare sociale. Este nevoie de investiții în reindustrializare și de sprijin pentru IMM-uri pentru a crea locuri de muncă bine plătite.
                  

                     Sper ca noua Comisie Europeană să adopte o viziune mai puternică în privința cheltuirii banilor publici.
                  
8.   The Autumn 2024 Economic Forecast: a gradual rebound in an adverse environment (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione inerente alle previsioni economiche dell'autunno 2024: graduale ripresa in un contesto sfavorevole (2024/2941(RSP)).
               

Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, you see, it was not my real last speech, but I'm doing this on behalf of my colleague Paolo Gentiloni, who might come very soon. As you know, we have at the same time our College meetings, and it's the last one, and he is there to discuss as he is chef de fil for the European Semester recommendations.
Coming back to the agenda of today, this is related to what he is just presenting to the colleagues: a few days ago, on 15 November, the Commission released its latest autumn forecast. Let me recall the five key messages emerging from this forecast.
First, the EU economy is resuming moderate growth in an increasingly challenging context. After returning to growth in the first quarter of 2024, the EU economy continued to expand in the second and third quarters at a steady but still subdued pace. In the first half of 2024, household consumption grew only modestly, despite continued improvement in disposable income; a still high cost of living and rising economic uncertainty pushed households to save. At the same time, investment clearly disappointed with deep and broad based contraction across most Member States and asset categories. Making up for the weakness in domestic demand, net external demand contributed positively to growth thanks to a rebounding global goods trade and continued expansion of trade in services.
Consumption is estimated to have gained strength in the third quarter, but investment to have contracted further. Over the next two years, the restraint to consumption is set to loosen further as the purchasing power of wages strengthens further. Employment continues to expand and the saving rate decreases. Investment is expected to rebound on the back of strong corporate balance sheets, recovering profits, improving credit conditions and the impulse of the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
Real GDP growth is expected to reach 0.9 % this year, before picking up to 1.5 % next year and 1.8 % in 2026. In the euro area, the real GDP growth is expected at 0.8 % this year, 1.3 % in 2025 and 1.6 % in 2026. Most Member States are posting an economic expansion this year, with Germany representing a notable exception, with a marginal contraction in economic activity. In 2025 and 2026, we see growth resuming or picking up in all Member States.
As a second key message from the autumn forecast, service inflation is set to drive the disinflation process ahead. Headline inflation in the euro area is expected to stabilise at 2.2 % until mid-2025, and to gradually fall to 1.8 % by the end of 2026 in the EU. Inflation would fall towards the target, you know the target is 2 %, a bit later, but also within the forecast horizon. This moderation hinges upon the gradual easing of price pressures in services.
The assumptions for energy commodity prices are based on futures market prices. All prices are on a downward path over the forecast horizon, whereas TTF gas prices are expected to remain broadly stable until the end of next year before declining in 2026. Electricity market prices, after their broad stabilisation this year, are expected to increase in 2025 and to fall again in 2026. While the disinflationary process is projected to continue in all Member States, its pace differs widely. Inflation is set to remain higher in central and eastern European countries, a pattern that has characterised our inflation maps since the beginning of the energy crisis.
The third key message is that the EU labour market held up well in the first half of 2024, and is expected to remain strong despite some cooling as the pace of employment growth decelerates. The EU economy generated jobs for a further 750 000 workers in the first half of the year. This brings the number of new employed persons since the start of the pandemic, we are talking about the fourth quarter of 2019, to 8 million, which is remarkable. However, the pace of employment growth is set to slow. Following a contraction in 2023, productivity is set to stagnate in 2024. It is then expected to post a cyclical rebound in 2025 and gain strength in 2026. We know how important it is to lift our productivity, to improve our competitiveness. The unemployment rate is projected to remain at a record low.
Fourth, government deficits are set to narrow, but debt ratios edge up again. The budget deficit of the EU as a whole is back on a declining path, if only a mild one. The deficit is forecast to increase from 3.1 % in 2024 to 2.9 % in 2026, both in the EU and in the euro area. In 2024 and 2025, deficit reduction is supported by budgetary restraint, partly due to the phasing out of energy support measures.
The contractionary impact of national fiscal policies on economic activity is expected to be offset in 2025 by the accelerating rollout of EU funds, including the RRF. Public debt is projected to increase slightly in the European Union from 82.1 % of GDP in 2023 to 83.4 % in 2026. In the euro area, it is set to rise from 88.9 % last year to 90 % in 2026. This rise reflects the effect of still elevated primary deficits and increasing interest expenditure, which are no longer offset by high nominal GDP growth. Nevertheless, this follows the sizeable decrease of the debt ratio between 2020 and 2023 by almost ten percentage points.
The fifth and last key message concerns the risks surrounding the forecast, which are tilted to the downside and uncertainty has increased. Russia's protracted war of aggression against Ukraine and the intensified conflict in the Middle East remain key geopolitical risks. Moreover, a sharp turn in protectionist trade policies could upend global trade with negative impacts on the Union's highly open economy. Also, delays in the implementation of the RRF or a more restrictive fiscal stance, especially in 2026, could further dampen the resumption of growth. The recent extreme weather events in Spain are a tragic reminder that environmental risks are mounting. Thank you very much.

Markus Ferber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Die Herbstprognose der Europäischen Kommission stellt abermals keine angenehme Lektüre zur Verfügung. Das Wachstum in der Europäischen Union, in der Eurozone bleibt in diesem Jahr unter einem Prozent. Defizite und Staatsverschuldung bleiben hoch, die Produktivität stagniert und auch in den kommenden Jahren ist nicht mit einem richtigen Schub für das Wachstum zu rechnen.
               

                  In Deutschland, das einst der Wachstumsmotor in der Europäischen Union war, sieht die Lage besonders düster aus. Drei Jahre Ampelregierung haben immensen Schaden für unsere Volkswirtschaft angerichtet. Inzwischen ist Deutschland nicht mehr der Wachstumsmotor, es ist der Bremsklotz. Sie haben das ja sehr charmant beschrieben, dass Deutschland hier eine Ausnahme spiele. Insbesondere das geringe Produktivitätswachstum sollte uns zu denken geben, denn es ist kein Einmaleffekt, sondern ein strukturelles Problem, das offenkundig wird. In den vergangenen 20 Jahren war das Produktivitätswachstum in den USA doppelt so hoch wie in der Europäischen Union. Herr Draghi hat es gerade in seinem Bericht noch einmal aufgeführt.
               

                  Die schlechten Wirtschaftsdaten sind kein Zufall. Sie sind auch eine Folge einer falschen Politik und spiegeln eine dramatische Verschlechterung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit dar. Die Antwort darauf kann nicht ‘neue Konjunkturprogramme und Subventionspakete’ lauten, denn strukturelle Schwächen werden damit nicht abgebaut, sondern nur prolongiert, nur verlängert. Wir müssen hier eine grundsätzlich andere Politik machen, und zwar nicht morgen oder übermorgen, sondern sofort. Wir müssen jetzt die Wende einleiten hin zu einer neuen Angebotspolitik: Bürokratielasten senken, Berichtspflichten reduzieren, Planungsverfahren vereinfachen, Energiekosten runterbringen, Binnenmarkt vollenden, Kapitalmarktunion voranbringen. Das sind die Themen, die jetzt auch im 100-Tage-Programm der neuen Kommission vorkommen sollten.
               

Gabriele Bischoff,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar Hahn, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In der Tat: Wenn wir uns die Herbstprognose der Kommission tatsächlich angucken, dann sieht man, dass die Probleme, die Europa schon länger hat, weiter fortbestehen, dass wir nämlich im Moment den Mitgliedstaaten gar nicht die Möglichkeit geben, die Investitionen zu tätigen. Und Herr Ferber hat es ja gesagt: Deutschland ist ein gutes Beispiel, wohin eine Schuldenbremse mit Scheuklappen führt – dass die notwendigen Investitionen in Infrastruktur seit vielen Jahren und Jahrzehnten vernachlässigt werden – und welche ökonomischen Auswirkungen das auch hat.
               

                  Aber umso wichtiger ist es, dass wir auch wirklich sicherstellen, dass wir auch in Europa die notwendigen Investitionen haben, auch um die riesigen Transformationen, die wir zu bewältigen haben, hinzukriegen. Und deshalb ist es für uns wichtig, auch in Europa hier die Weichen zu stellen. Wir wissen, im Moment dämpft die Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität alles noch ab. Die läuft aus. Europa muss hier umstellen und den Mut zu mehr Investitionen haben.
               

Enikő Győri,
a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! A Letta- és a Draghi-jelentések után a Bizottság saját előrejelzése is kiábrándító. Idén a növekedés 1% alatt maradt, és '26-ban sem haladja meg az 1,8 százalékot. Közben Kína 4,8, az USA 2,8, sőt a szankciókkal sújtott Oroszország is 3,6 százalékkal bővülhet idén.
               

                  A lassú növekedés az államadósság ledolgozását is ellehetetleníti, pedig nem kellene, hogy unokáink fizessék meg Brüsszel hibás gazdaságpolitikájának az árát. A Bizottság geopolitikai és energiabiztonsági kockázatokra hivatkozott, holott szankciós politikájával maga is hozzájárul ezekhez. Ujjal mutogat a nemzetközi partnerek protekcionista intézkedéseire, pedig az elmúlt ciklusban zöld köntösbe öltöztetve maga is alkalmazta azokat.
               

                  Az előrejelzés elismeri, hogy a helyreállítási pénzek lassú folyósítása gátolja a növekedést. Ennek fényében felháborító, hogy politikai zsarolással továbbra is visszatartják ezeket a forrásokat Magyarország esetében.
               

                  A versenyképességhez Európának minél több összeköttetésre lenne e helyett szüksége, a fellendüléshez pedig álszentség és politikai játszmák helyett pragmatikus, a saját érdekeinket szolgáló azonnali intézkedésekre. Fordulatot akarnak a patrióták a gazdaságpolitikában.
               

Adrian-George Axinia,
în numele grupului ECR. – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, să nu vă supărați pe mine, dar am senzația acută că ne aflăm într-o ședință de terapie de grup. E ca în filmul în care meteoritul se prăbușește pe Pământ și unii beau șampanie admirând răsăritul. Realitatea obiectivă este că economia europeană este într-o zonă de colaps. A spus-o eufemistic Draghi. O simțim și noi și o știm cu toții. În loc să analizăm ca în Evul Mediu câți îngeri pot dansa pe vârful unui ac, ar trebui să acționăm concret și decisiv.
               

                  Să renunțăm la Pactul verde și să încercăm să ajutăm industria europeană, îndeosebi industria auto și cea a oțelului. Să discutăm cu Trump și cu chinezii cum evităm un război al tarifelor vamale. Să rezolvăm problemele care au dus la coma profundă în care a intrat spațiul Schengen. Să alocăm bani pentru cercetare-dezvoltare, dar nu în cheie ideologică, ci urmărind principiile pieței libere. Să nu mai stăm ca niște soldați de lut, uitându-ne cum alții pompează sume colosale în inteligența artificială și să vedem ce putem face și noi. În această cheie, poate ne gândim și cum va arăta economia viitorului și dacă nu cumva ne este necesară reformarea pieței muncii pentru încurajarea anumitor tipuri de meserii practice.
               

Billy Kelleher,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, the autumn economic forecast for the EU seems cautiously optimistic. After prolonged stagnation, we are returning to very modest growth. Inflation is still decreasing and should continue to ease. The labour market is holding up and employment is expected to continue to grow.
But the current geopolitical landscape means there are strong winds against us. We face a triple threat of trade wars, taxation and tensions. To withstand these challenges, we must ensure that our citizens can emerge from this cost-of-living crisis. We must redouble our efforts.
If President von der Leyen is able to garner the support of this House tomorrow for her College of Commissioners, in return we expect swift and assertive action in the area of competitiveness – for it to become the cornerstone of our policies. We want to see the implementation of the Draghi report and the Letta report, and we cannot continue to sit on our hands and watch the EU economies slowly stagnate.
I would also issue a word of caution to political factions around Europe. This is not the time to play politics and political games. We need to stabilise the EU economy and brace ourselves, what may come, because there are headwinds that could be very, very severe if we do not handle them well.

Marie Toussaint,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, nous sommes ici réunis pour parler de rebond économique dans un environnement défavorable. Mais de quel rebond économique parlons-nous, quand 118 millions d'Européennes et d'Européens s'enfoncent chaque jour dans la pauvreté? Quand sept des neuf limites planétaires – le climat, la biodiversité, la pollution – sont dépassées? Quand des fermes partout disparaissent ou que des entreprises ferment, par exemple en France, où 150 000 emplois sont menacés, Vencorex, Michelin, Auchan et maintenant Arcelor?
               

                  Votre obsession pour la croissance vous fait perdre des yeux les vraies priorités. L'économie n'est pas une fin en soi, mais c'est un moyen au service de l'intérêt général. Alors je vous écoute, et vous n'avez qu'un mot à la bouche, ce terme de compétitivité.
               

                  Pourtant, pour garantir la compétitivité européenne, Mario Draghi nous a dit que nous avions besoin de 800 milliards d'euros par an. Où est cet argent? Et je vais aller plus loin. Les estimations nous disent qu'au moins 10 000 milliards d'euros supplémentaires sont nécessaires chaque année d'ici 2050 pour garantir seulement la transition énergétique. Cela veut dire au moins 260 milliards d'euros publics par an. Là encore, où est cet argent? Parce que je regarde partout, mais je ne vois rien sur la table.
               

                  Au contraire, les règles austéritaires que vous avez remises en place entravent toute capacité d'investissement dans l'indispensable transition écologique et, soyons clairs, condamnent à terme l'économie européenne à la dépendance vis-à-vis d'États tiers et tout simplement à la disparition.
               

                  Alors il est encore temps de changer de cap. Sortons de cette économie de la prédation pour aller vers une économie du care, une économie du soin, des services publics, de la santé, du travail décent, des droits du vivant. En somme, une économie de la protection du climat et de l'éradication de la pauvreté.
               

Jussi Saramo,
The Left-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, koronapandemia ja Venäjän imperialismi osoittavat, kuinka riippuvaisia olemme öljyvaltioista ja Kiinasta.
               

                  Rajusta hintojen noususta kärsivät eniten kaasusta ja öljystä riippuvaisten maiden pienituloiset. Kun raha ei muutenkaan riitä, vei perustarpeiden, ruoan ja lämmön hintojen nousu pohjan luottamukselta koko järjestelmään. Se on myös nostanut demokratiaa halveksuvien puolueiden kannatusta.
               

                  Mutta pahinta mitä voisimme nyt tehdä, on tuudittautua näihin talousennusteisiin ja uskoa paluuseen vanhoihin hyviin aikoihin. Se, että energian hinnat nyt laskevat ja talous elpyy, antaa meille aikaa kiihdyttää siirtymää kohti itsenäisempää Eurooppaa.
               

                  Ennusteessakin mainitut uhat ja ilmastokriisi ovat jo käynnissä ja kun USA:n presidentiksi noustaan drill baby drill -intoilulla, on irrottautuminen fossiilituhon akselista myös taloudellisesti välttämätöntä. Kun Eurooppaa vaaditaan hylkäämään vihreä siirtymä halvan polttoaineen vuoksi ja koska salin oikealta laidalta suorastaan ihaillaan Trumpin ja Putinin kaltaisia heidän vahvoina pitämiään johtajia, on meidän hylättävä itsekkyys ja katsottava pidemmälle.
               

Marcin Sypniewski,
w imieniu grupy ESN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Bunkrów nie ma, ale też jest fajnie – tak wydaje się mówić Komisja Europejska w jesiennej prognozie gospodarczej. Ale w rzeczywistości wygląda na to, że zrobiliście gospodarce jesień średniowiecza. Zastanawiam się, w jakiej alternatywnej rzeczywistości żyjemy i czemu niby jest dobrze, skoro jest tak źle.
               

                  Tylko w tym półroczu rozmawialiśmy o kryzysie w branży motoryzacyjnej, w branży hutniczej czy o wysokich cenach energii. Dopiero co zaglądaliśmy kryzysowi w oczy, a teraz nagle jesteśmy karmieni umiarkowanym optymizmem. Coraz więcej ludzi żyje w ubóstwie. Są masowe zwolnienia ze względu na wysokie koszty pracy i wysokie koszty energii. A tutaj czytamy sobie laurkę i prognozę, że w sumie to teraz będzie trochę lepiej.
               

                  Na pewno nie dla milionów Polek i Polaków, którzy w pocie czoła pracują, nierzadko na dwóch etatach, żeby związać koniec z końcem. Ten raport to obraza dla moich rodaków, którzy często stają teraz przed dylematem: kupujemy leki, płacimy czynsz czy wysoki rachunek za prąd? Mimo że te wiadomości o spodziewanym odbiciu gospodarczym są optymistyczne, to odpowiedzią na te wieści jest niestety zwiększony udział Unii i rządów w gospodarce. Na marginesie, gdyby prognozy były bardzo złe albo bardzo dobre, to odpowiedź zapewne by była ta sama, bo po prostu tutaj nie umiecie inaczej myśleć, a to po prostu nie działa. Nie działało w Związku Sowieckim, nie działało w Niemczech Wschodnich, nie działało na Kubie, w Wenezueli nie działa i nie działa też w Unii Europejskiej. To nie politycy tworzą dobrobyt, a przedsiębiorcy, którzy konkurują między sobą o spełnienie potrzeb konsumentów. Politycy nie pomagają w budowaniu bogactwa, a wręcz przeciwnie – notorycznie przeszkadzają jednostkom, które działają na wolnym rynku. Pozwólcie ludziom działać, a nie tylko prognozy będą dobre, ale dobre będą też wyniki. Skończcie z Zielonym Ładem, z tymi szaleństwami klimatycznymi, które niszczą naszą gospodarkę. Zamiast uchwalać nowe programy, nowe raporty, zlikwidujmy tysiące przepisów, które utrudniają wszystkim życie. Niech Unia stanie się wielkim, wolnym rynkiem, a nie zielonym skansenem.
               

Fernando Navarrete Rojas (PPE). – Señora presidenta, las recientes previsiones económicas de la Comisión contemplan una débil recuperación sometida a grandes riesgos a la baja. Este contexto exige actuar con determinación para fortalecer nuestra capacidad de respuesta a corto y a largo plazo.
               

                  Para ello, en primer lugar, debemos impulsar una ambiciosa agenda de reformas estructurales que aumenten la competitividad y profundicen en el mercado único.
               

                  En segundo lugar, debemos mejorar la eficiencia del gasto público. Esto exige reorientar hacia el nivel comunitario el gasto y la gestión de aquellas políticas que proveen de bienes públicos europeos áreas como la defensa, las interconexiones energéticas o el desarrollo de capacidades tecnológicas.
               

                  Y, en tercer lugar, debemos garantizar la credibilidad de un nuevo marco de reglas fiscales con un cumplimiento estricto por parte de todos los Estados miembros.
               

                  Como bien señala el Informe Draghi, sin unos márgenes fiscales sólidos cualquier respuesta será insuficiente y tardía. Además, resulta esencial diseñar un mecanismo fiscal europeo contracíclico que permita asegurar que la respuesta fiscal del conjunto de la Unión sea la más adecuada al contexto macroeconómico y que sea compatible con el esfuerzo de consolidación fiscal en los Estados miembros.
               

                  En definitiva, es fundamental combinar la responsabilidad fiscal con la flexibilidad estratégica, priorizando las inversiones en innovación y adoptando una política económica que fomente la productividad y refuerce nuestro posicionamiento global.
               

                  Europa no puede permitirse otra década de retrasos en reformas estructurales y sostenibilidad fiscal. Es hora de liderar con visión y rigor.
               

Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, es un placer compartir con usted este último debate al que hacía referencia, en esta casa, y quería felicitarle por el trabajo en estos años.
               

                  Yo creo que hoy discutimos el marco en el que vamos a desarrollar la próxima legislatura y cuáles son las perspectivas, las previsiones de actividad económica, de empleo y de productividad. Realmente, el cuadro macro es —podríamos decir— mediocre. Es cierto que vamos recuperándonos de los últimos golpes, pero aún estamos muy lejos de las tasas de crecimiento y de inversión que necesitamos.
               

                  En mi opinión, la larga década que siguió a la crisis financiera dejó a Europa con unos niveles de inversión absolutamente insostenibles, inversión que necesitamos recuperar desde el lado privado, sin duda, pero también desde el lado público. Desde el lado público necesitamos inversión europea, necesitamos mantener el NextGenerationEU, y desde el lado privado necesitamos mejorar el funcionamiento de la unión bancaria y de la unión de los mercados de capitales. Esa es la misión que tenemos para esta legislatura y estamos todos destinados a trabajar en ella.
               

Paolo Borchia (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'allarme sull'economia credo che sia oltre i livelli di guardia. Io personalmente sono molto preoccupato e non posso accettare che l'orchestra continui a suonare mentre il Titanic sta affondando.
               

                  Abbiamo bassa crescita, elevati deficit pubblici, alti stock di debito pubblico. Poi non si capisce che il problema non sono le esportazioni: il problema è un mercato interno asfittico, ai limiti del moribondo.
               

                  Troppi investimenti vengono fatti al di fuori dell'Unione europea, perché qui le imprese faticano ad investire a causa della troppa burocrazia, a causa dei prezzi dell'energia troppo alti.
               

                  E queste problematiche sono legate ad errori che la maggioranza di questo Parlamento ha commesso. Quindi c'è una corresponsabilità da parte di questo Parlamento. Il malato è grave e la cura da troppi anni non sta funzionando.
               

Katri Kulmuni (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, talouskasvu on pysynyt Euroopassa ja erityisesti euroalueella hitaana jo pidemmän aikaa. Silti jäsenmaiden välillä on ollut suuriakin eroja. Toisissa jäsenmaissa talouskasvu on ollut jopa negatiivista, kuten Saksassa, Virossa, Irlannissa, Itävallassa ja Suomessa, kun taas joissakin jäsenmaissa on ylletty jopa muutaman prosentin kasvuvauhtiin, kuten Espanjassa, Kroatiassa, Maltalla ja Kyproksella.
               

                  Inflaation osalta on ollut isojakin alueellisia eroja ja se on vaihdellut euroalueella yhdestä lähes viiteen prosenttiin ja oma kotimaani Suomi kuuluu näihin ensin mainittuihin. Tämä kaikki tietenkin vaikuttaa siihen, että EKP:n rahapolitiikka kohtelee eri jäsenmaita eri tavoin. Vaikka koronlaskut ovat nyt alkaneet ja korkotaso on alentunut, olisi se voinut joitakin maita ajatellen alkaa jo aikaisemmin ja olla alemmalla tasolla näitä maita ajatellen. Nimittäin liian korkea korkotaso tietenkin lamauttaa taloutta ja aiheuttaa työttömyyttä, josta erityisesti rakennusala on kärsinyt.
               

                  Euroopan taloudet euroalueella ovat vaihtelevia. Valuutta-alue ei varsinaisesti ole optimaalinen. Miten EKP voi tämän huomioida? Sen perään kannattaa kysyä.
               

Catarina Martins (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, os bancos acumulam lucros recorde, mas os salários ainda estão longe de recuperar o valor real anterior à crise inflacionista. Entretanto, as previsões de outono da Comissão comemoram níveis baixíssimos de crescimento para os próximos anos e o BCE vai baixando as taxas a passo de caracol, mesmo perante uma inflação consistentemente baixa.
               

                  Bem pode a Comissão lamentar os níveis baixíssimos de investimento. São consequência da política monetária restritiva e da renovação dos votos de austeridade na política orçamental.
               

                  Claro que estas políticas têm interessados. Os lucros das oligarquias da energia, distribuição e sistema financeiro não brotaram do chão. Hoje, como no passado, o poder económico continua a viver acima das possibilidades de quem trabalha. E nas instituições europeias não há quem se responsabilize pela gestão danosa.
               

                  As guerras têm o seu papel, bem sabemos, mas também têm as costas largas.
               

Fabio De Masi (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Die europäische Wirtschaft hängt wie ein schlaffer Boxer in den Seilen, und die größte Volkswirtschaft in Europa – Deutschland – steckt seit zwei Jahren in der Rezession, obwohl die Regierung ein – Zitat – Wirtschaftswunder versprach. Die Gründe dafür sind ja nicht besonders schwer zu verstehen. Wir haben erstens Sanktionen, die uns von billigem Gas abgeschnitten haben, die aber die Fähigkeit von Putin, einen Krieg zu führen, überhaupt nicht getroffen haben, sondern uns mehr schaden als ihm. Wir haben zweitens viel zu wenig öffentliche Investitionen. Die Ausgaben des Staates sind eben auch die Einnahmen des Privatsektors.
               

                  Wir haben doch gesehen, was die Vereinigten Staaten zum Beispiel mit dem Inflation Reduction Act gemacht haben. Sie haben Geld in die Hand genommen. In Deutschland ist nun die Regierung an der Schuldenbremse zerbrochen. Gleichzeitig soll Frankreich laut den Plänen der EU-Kommission im nächsten Etat 110 Milliarden Euro sparen. Was sagt die EU-Kommission? Wir sollen jetzt über gemeinsame Schulden mehr in die Rüstung finanzieren. Fragen Sie doch einmal die Bürger da draußen, was sie sich wünschen – mehr Panzer oder funktionierende Straßen, Brücken und Züge? Das müsste die Priorität in Europa sein. Wir brauchen eine goldene Regel, die öffentliche Investitionen von der Schuldenbremse ausnimmt.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, caros Colegas, vamos ser claros. A Europa vai crescer, mas vai crescer pouco. A inflação vai reduzir, mas vai reduzir pouco. O défice vai baixar, mas vai baixar pouco.
               

                  Previsões como estas existem para nos informar, mas também para nos alertar. E a boa notícia é que estamos a tempo de mudar, especialmente neste início de novo ciclo político europeu. Essa mudança está, por isso, nas nossas mãos, basta vontade e responsabilidade.
               

                  Portugal é a prova disso. Se formos responsáveis – a oposição na votação e o governo na execução – teremos um orçamento que nos fará crescer acima da média e ter saldos orçamentais positivos.
               

                  As contas certas permitem-nos investir em serviços públicos de qualidade e reduzir o peso da dívida no bolso das gerações mais jovens. Chama-se responsabilidade.
               

                  Dizemos há demasiado tempo que há burocracia, obstáculos, empresas a saírem da Europa e a procurarem outros países. Fazemos diagnósticos e relatórios sem fim. Precisamos de avançar e precisamos de tomar decisões. E é tempo, por isso, de agir, com vontade, no futuro.
               

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)


João Oliveira (The Left),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Nestas previsões de Outono, a Comissão Europeia faz recomendações de que Portugal se concentre na consolidação orçamental, que mantenha excedentes orçamentais, que tenha saldos primários positivos, ou seja: contenção dos gastos com os trabalhadores.
               

                  A Comissão Europeia diz-nos isto ao mesmo tempo que nos faltam professores nas escolas, profissionais de saúde no SNS, técnicos de emergência no INEM. O flagelo dos baixos salários em Portugal é um flagelo nacional. Mas nestas previsões, a Comissão Europeia encara o aumento dos salários como pressões salariais sobre a economia.
               

                  Eu quero-lhe perguntar, Senhora Deputada, como é que se consegue dar concretização a estas recomendações da Comissão Europeia e, simultaneamente, resolver os problemas do país? Não se consegue. É uma contradição. E as opções que o Governo está a fazer no Orçamento mostram bem que, ou se cumprem estas recomendações, ou se resolvem os problemas do país.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Senhora Presidente, já vem sendo costumeiro. Eu nunca chego a receber a pergunta do Senhor Deputado João Oliveira.
               

                  Mas referiu várias coisas, entre as quais a educação. Bem, tanto quanto sei, as boas notícias que vieram a semana passada sobre a redução em 90 % de alunos sem professores creio que mostram bem o empenho que o Governo de Portugal tem em resolver o problema das pessoas e aumentar salários e baixar os impostos. É esse o caminho para o crescimento que Portugal precisa de afirmar e para a competitividade que a União Europeia tanto precisa.
               

Claire Fita (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, la croissance semble de retour en Europe. Une croissance limitée, mais confirmée. Je crois que nous devons tous reconnaître que ce rebond a été en partie, mais indiscutablement permis par un investissement public renforcé, décuplé, et renforcé notamment par l'Union européenne.
               

                  Vous, Commission, et nous, Parlement, nous avons deux responsabilités majeures pour consolider cette croissance fragile. La première, c'est de poursuivre, mais aussi d'inventer de nouveaux outils d'investissements publics européens pour l'innovation, pour la formation; c'est ça, notre compétitivité.
               

                  La seconde responsabilité, c'est de veiller à ce que ce Semestre européen ne signe pas l'arrêt de l'investissement public par nos États membres. Or, vous ne l'anticipez pas assez dans vos prévisions. Les restrictions budgétaires, voire l'austérité programmée dans certains États, comme la France, sont une menace pour notre croissance européenne.
               

Tomasz Buczek (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Gospodarka europejska co prawda jeszcze istnieje, ale przemija na naszych oczach. Nie możemy cieszyć się chwilowym i mizernym wzrostem gospodarczym, gdy widzimy nieodwracalny proces ucieczki produkcji z Europy. Nie możemy mówić o dobrej sytuacji gospodarki europejskiej, bazując wyłącznie na wątpliwych wskaźnikach ekonomicznych, zamykając oczy na całą antyrozwojową i antygospodarczą politykę Brukseli. Dotyczy to szczególnie rolników poddanych z jednej strony nierealistycznym normom produkcji, a z drugiej strony wystawionych na nieuczciwą konkurencję z Ukrainy czy ze strony państw Mercosur.
               

                  Unia na własne życzenie zabija europejskie bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe. Świadomość problemów, które widzimy na horyzoncie, nie zachęca ani do inwestowania, ani do swobodnej konsumpcji. Dziś rolnicy znów protestują, a europejscy decydenci uważają, że problemu nie ma. Dlatego najwyższa pora zmienić decydentów. Ursula von der Leyen powinna zająć się swoimi wnukami i przestać szkodzić Europie.
               

João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Renew). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário Hahn, na previsão económica de Outono, a Comissão tenta dar-nos razões para otimismo. Tenta, mas não consegue, porque crescimento de 0,9 % em 2025 e 1,8 % em 2026 é muito pouco e tudo parece demasiado frágil.
               

                  Porque a Europa tem vivido de crise em crise. Foi a crise da zona euro, a crise migratória, a crise do Brexit, a crise da pandemia, da guerra, do choque energético e a crise da inflação recente. E agora temos uma oportunidade de prevenir a próxima crise, de forma a – Draghi explica bem no seu relatório – agir de forma determinada e lúcida para que essa crise não apareça.
               

                  Porque o dinheiro dos contribuintes não pode ser esbanjado em remendos ou em projetos de vaidade política. O dinheiro deve ser gasto em investimentos estratégicos, em tecnologia, inovação, infraestruturas, energia e defesa, e tudo isto dentro de uma saudável disciplina orçamental.
               

                  Porque se queremos uma Europa mais forte, temos de antecipar as crises e não apenas reagir a elas. Só assim esta recuperação modesta será uma prosperidade duradoura. Porque a Europa precisa de uma visão de futuro, precisa de ação e precisa de ambas com urgência.
               

Marina Mesure (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, parler de rebond économique alors que nous entrons dans une crise sociale d'ampleur, il fallait oser.
               

                  L'hémorragie dans l'industrie est sans précédent, car, partout en Europe, nos usines ferment les unes après les autres; rien qu'en France, 46 sont actuellement menacées. Pour l'industrie automobile et la sidérurgie, on parle d'une perte potentielle de 15 millions d'emplois. Et ce n'est que le début de l'effet domino qui s'amplifie et qui touche des secteurs interdépendants, par exemple 70 % des débouchés industriels d'ArcelorMittal, Dunkerque et l'automobile – tout est lié.
               

                  Mais ne soyons pas naïfs pour autant: certaines multinationales utilisent le contexte économique pour faire toujours plus de profits. Je pense notamment à ArcelorMittal, qui a dégagé 800 millions de bénéfices cette année et a pourtant licencié des centaines de travailleurs.
               

                  Alors, quelles solutions pour ce rebond économique? Le protectionnisme, la régulation des prix de l'énergie, l'investissement public et le conditionnement essentiel des aides publiques au maintien de l'emploi. Mais certainement pas plus de libre-échange, la libéralisation comme vous le proposez, alors même que Trump s'apprête à nous lancer une véritable guerre commerciale. Agissons et vite.
               

Aura Salla (PPE). – Madam President, yes, the Commission's autumn forecast shows a slight uptick in our economic outlook. But the challenges in the horizon are rising: protectionism, escalating geopolitical tensions led by Putin and Trump, and the crisis situation in the Middle East.
Our economic stability and growth rely on open markets and rule-based ambitious trade. We need to ensure European companies have the ability to grow in an enabling home market. We need to act fast, finalise trade agreements, diversify supply chains, strengthen alliance on data use with the US, build rapidly one single entry point for our companies entering the EU market, harmonise and speed up our licensing processes, especially when it comes to the food sector, and make sure we have enough risk capital for our companies to grow and that there is a skilful workforce for them.
The clock is ticking, Europe. We must act fast and lead, not react and follow.

Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, let's face it, while we've been pretty good in overcoming the pandemic and the energy crisis, we are not as successful in relaunching our economy in the context of the great transitions that we are facing.
This is linked in part, of course, to persistent geopolitical uncertainty, but also to our own policies. Extraordinary measures such as the NextGenerationEU, SURE, the ECB's pandemic-purchase programme that have helped us out of the crisis have ended or are about to end.
Monetary policy has been restrictive since 2022, and only recently there has been a timid change of direction. New fiscal rules are in place, and judging by the multi-annual plans presented by the Member States, the euro area's aggregate fiscal stance risks being restrictive for years to come.
So a common initiative is urgently needed to relaunch the competitiveness of our economy and to steer it towards sustainable growth. I hope that the new Commission will rise to these challenges, also ensuring adequate public funding to tackle these challenges. Without such efforts, the Union as a whole will struggle to adapt to these transformations and the price will be paid by our citizens.

Jorge Martín Frías (PfE). – Señora presidente, señorías, las previsiones económicas de la Comisión reflejan, de nuevo, un crecimiento pobre cuya causa radica en el fanatismo ideológico de las políticas de la Unión; un fanatismo que empobrece e impide las legítimas aspiraciones de nuestros compatriotas de prosperar y mejorar las condiciones de vida de sus familias.
               

                  Hay que desechar toda la industria política e ideológica que lastra la riqueza de las naciones. Hay dos caminos: subordinar la economía a criterios ideológicos y sectarios con dinero de los contribuyentes europeos o seguir el ejemplo de la Argentina de Javier Milei y de las medidas anunciadas por Donald Trump.
               

                  Un camino genera pobreza y nos ahoga en impuestos y burocracia; otro favorece la creación de empresas, de empleos dignos y de oportunidades para nuestros jóvenes.
               

                  Señorías, guste o no, cada vez más europeos se van a inclinar por el camino de la libertad y de la prosperidad. La Comisión puede adelantarse y tomar nota o, de lo contrario, poco a poco y a través de las distintas citas electorales, no le quedará otro remedio que tomar esas medidas.
               

Andreas Schwab (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Ausblick der Europäischen Union zeigt, die Inflation ist in den letzten Jahren von 6,4 % im vergangenen Jahr auf 2,6 % gesunken. Nächstes Jahr werden 2,0 % erwartet. Die Arbeitslosenquote bleibt mit 5,9 % auf historischem Tiefstand. Das Wachstum wird 2024 allerdings bei nur 0,9 % liegen und bis 2026 EU-weit nur auf 1,8 % steigen. Diese Zahlen zeigen, dass wir in der Europäischen Union unsere Hausaufgaben noch nicht vollständig gemacht haben. Ich sage das ganz besonders auf mein Heimatland bezogen – auf Deutschland. Denn wir dürfen uns von dieser schrittweisen Erholung der Zahlen nicht täuschen lassen. Die Investitionen sind im Jahr 2024 um 2,5 % gesunken, und globale Krisen belasten unsere Wirtschaft. Das Beschäftigungswachstum in der EU – der Draghi-Bericht weist darauf hin – wird sich voraussichtlich von 0,8 % im Jahr 2024 auf 0,5 % im Jahr 2026 verlangsamen: ein Zeichen für schwache Innovationskraft und geringe Unternehmensdynamik.
               

                  Deswegen, meine Damen und Herren, möchte ich darauf hinweisen: Die Herbstprognose ist ein Anzeichen dafür, dass die Arbeit der Europäischen Union jetzt schnellstmöglich beginnen muss. Wir brauchen weniger Regulierung und mehr Investitionen. Mehr in die Wertschöpfung investieren müssen wir, weniger Berichtspflichten, und wir brauchen mehr vertrauensbasierte Regulierung.
               

Carla Tavares (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, as previsões económicas da Comissão mostram que nos próximos três anos a União Europeia continuará a afastar-se face aos Estados Unidos. Só em 2024, os Estados Unidos vão crescer o triplo da União Europeia. Até 2026, a Europa continuará a crescer menos, investir menos, inovar e gerar menos emprego que os Estados Unidos. E estes são dados preocupantes.
               

                  O programa da nova Comissão e o desenho do próximo orçamento pós 2027, são duas oportunidades únicas para avançarmos com medidas europeias urgentes, ambiciosas e inovadoras e quebrarmos alguns tabus. Num contexto de crescente insegurança, protecionismo e desigualdades, temos de ter a capacidade de acelerar a inovação e a competitividade, mas, ao mesmo tempo, e com a mesma ambição, temos de resolver problemas estruturais para a nossa coesão social interna, como é o caso da habitação e o aumento do custo de vida.
               

                  O custo da habitação tem crescido muito acima da inflação e são necessários apoios e investimentos ao nível europeu para apoiar os governos. Não nos iludamos. Sem acesso a habitação acessível e justa para todos, será mais difícil convencer os europeus a reforçar os investimentos também importantes, como a transição climática e digital ou mais apoios para a defesa.
               

                  Senhor Comissário Hahn, permita-me neste momento felicitar pelo trabalho realizado e agradecer-lhe a cooperação que sempre tem tido com este Parlamento. Muito obrigada.
               

Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, while the Commission's autumn forecast predicts a modest return to economic growth in the EU – 0.9 % GDP in 2024 – this cautiously positive outlook must not blind us to the reality. Let us compare that to global growth predictions, which are 3.2 %, United States 2.6 %, and China 4.8 % growth. Who is losing?
Also, it is vital to address geopolitical risks that could undermine this moderate long-term stability. Russia's continued brutal aggression against Ukraine and the escalating conflict in the Middle East impacts energy security and economic resilience.
Growing protectionism in global trade will harm EU's export-oriented economy. The automotive sector is under pressure from a shrinking workforce, rising costs of essential raw materials and unfair competition from China. European steel, heavy manufacturing and textile industry faces challenges as well. The European Union must act decisively to strengthen its industrial base, address labour force shortages, secure resilient supply chains, and focus on targeted policy interventions to ensure the competitiveness of our key sectors.

Adnan Dibrani (S&D). – Fru talman! EU:s prognos har kommit för 2024 och det börjar ljusna i ekonomin. Ekonomin återhämtar sig, men det går långsamt och det är fortfarande tufft för väldigt många där ute i vår union. Dessutom är säkerhetsläget oerhört osäkert.
               

                  EU måste jobba med sin konkurrenskraft, det tycker jag är otroligt viktigt. Draghi-rapporten har nämnts här tidigare. Det är en jätteviktig rapport. Men Draghi-rapporten efterlyser också mer medel. Ska man få in mer medel i systemet så behöver man jobba med sunda statsfinanser.
               

                  Plus och minus måste gå ihop i respektive medlemsland. Man måste anpassa kostymen utifrån sina utgifter, man måste våga omprioritera, man måste våga prioritera och man måste ha respekt för alla de människor i vår union som betalar in skattemedel. Det tycker jag är A och O.
               

Procedura ‘catch-the-eye’
                     


Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l'analyse de la Commission que vous nous présentez sur les prévisions économiques se veut optimiste. Mais pour qui et pour quoi?
               

                  Derrière les mots ‘réduction des déficits’, il y a une réalité. La semaine dernière, les maires et les élus locaux ont manifesté en France, car la réduction de 5 milliards de dépenses publiques leur est devenue insoutenable. À quoi devront-ils renoncer? Accueillir les enfants placés? Rénover les écoles? Conserver un service de santé? À quoi?
               

                  Une autre réalité, ce sont les salariés d'ArcelorMittal qui, à l'heure où je vous parle, manifestent pour sauver leurs emplois dans ma région, à Denain. Ils sont menacés à cause de la concurrence déloyale: c'est la moitié de l'industrie de l'acier qui est menacée en France.
               

                  Cette réalité nous oblige, à moins d'autosatisfaction, à sortir de l'austérité et à protéger notre économie pour une vraie prospérité durable et partagée en Europe.
               

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, to sum up, after the soft landing of 23, the European economy has started expanding again. However, growth remains modest and exposed to increasing risks. Economic policy, uncertainty related to escalating geopolitical tensions and, increasingly, domestic political instability have the potential to further delay firms' investment plans and hamper the projected decline in precautionary savings.
Against this background, the accelerated implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility remains a priority to support corporate households and public investment.
Looking beyond the horizon of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, however, the European Union must find ways to combine its large investment needs with the imperative of safeguarding public finances. The capital markets union is part of the answer. More efforts are needed to ensure innovative entrepreneurs can start and scale up new businesses and, more broadly, ensure access to finance for the needs of the EU economy to keep up with major technological innovations.
At the same time, as suggested by Draghi, the EU leadership must be able to devise instruments for funding the provision of those European public goods that will be crucial to ensure its competitiveness and autonomy.
The European Union economy is also facing a more unstable, complex and overall less favourable global trade environment. The European Union will need to navigate the possible trade off between pursuing its open trade agenda, that has been key to its post-war economic expansion, while improving economic security.
As indicated by Letta, the completion of the single market to sectors such as telecommunication, energy and finance is key to build domestic resilience and withstand shocks originated from an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
               

(La seduta è sospesa alle 14.40)


PRESIDENZA: PINA PICIERNO


Vicepresidente

9.   Resumption of the sitting

(La seduta è ripresa alle 15.00)

10.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Presidente. – Il processo verbale della seduta di ieri e i testi approvati sono stati distribuiti. Vi sono osservazioni? Non mi pare.
               

                  Se non vi sono osservazioni, il processo verbale è approvato.
               
11.   Question Time with Commissioners – Challenges in the implementation of cohesion policy 2021-2027

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca il tempo delle interrogazioni alla Commissione. Porgo il benvenuto alla commissaria Ferreira per il tempo delle interrogazioni che quest'oggi verteranno sul tema ‘Sfide per l'attuazione della politica di coesione 2021 2027’.
               

                  Alcune informazioni di servizio. La durata prevista per il tempo delle interrogazioni, come sapete, è di 90 minuti. Avrete a disposizione un minuto per formulare l'interrogazione e due minuti per la risposta.
               

                  Per il primo turno di oratori sarà possibile porre una interrogazione supplementare di 30 secondi, con due minuti per la risposta. Vi ricordo che l'eventuale interrogazione supplementare è concessa soltanto se strettamente correlata all'interrogazione principale e non consiste in una nuova interrogazione.
               

                  Chi intende formulare un'interrogazione è invitato a registrare ora la propria richiesta utilizzando la funzione ‘catch-the-eye’ sul dispositivo di voto, dopo aver inserito, ovviamente, la tessera. Durante il tempo delle interrogazioni, i deputati interverranno dal proprio scranno.
               

                  Dunque, vi invito sin d'ora a rispettare il tempo di parola assegnato. I deputati potrebbero aver bisogno di alcuni minuti per registrare la loro richiesta tramite il dispositivo di voto. Quindi vi rammento che è necessario presentare la vostra richiesta ora e inizieremo sin da subito, dandovi il tempo necessario per registrarvi per le interrogazioni.
               

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, dolazim iz Hrvatske, najmlađe članice Europske unije, i mislim da je Hrvatska jedan od sjajnih primjera kako zapravo kohezijska politika može promijeniti vizure jedne zemlje.
               

                  Do kraja prošle godine Hrvatska je povukla gotovo četiri puta više sredstava nego što je uplatila u europski proračun, ostvarivši neto dobitak od gotovo 17 milijardi eura. Ovo je snažan pokazatelj kako članstvo u Europskoj uniji donosi konkretne mjere našim građanima od ulaganja u naše ceste, bolnice, škole, poduzeća, digitalizaciju i zelenu tranziciju. Ali moramo biti iskreni – postoji još prostora za napredak.
               

                  Administrativne prepreke i nedostatak lokalnih kapaciteta često usporavaju povlačenje sredstava. Kako Komisija planira podržati države članice koje se suočavaju s prekomjernim administrativnim opterećenjem u istovremenoj implementaciji višegodišnjeg financijskog okvira i nacionalnog plana oporavka i otpornosti? Hoće li se razmatrati dodatna tehnička pomoć ili fleksibilnost u rokovima kako bi se osiguralo učinkovito povlačenje sredstava i da – kohezijska sredstva ne smijemo smanjivati.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question, and thank you, in particular, for testifying how important cohesion policy is and the incredible impact it had in countries such as Croatia.
In fact, Croatia is a good example of how you can grow faster with more resilience and, at the same time, how you can address some unforeseen disasters, because also the two earthquakes that affected so seriously the Zagreb and also the nearby 60 km distance area that was also affected in the first and second earthquakes. There was EUR 1 billion that, in fact, supported this reconstruction.
Now you put an important question: that is how we can do even better. So I think there is a part of the issue has got to be addressed internally by the Member State, and the internal cohesion must be at the core, at the internal agenda.
From our side, we have different ways to help, to support. We have been supporting Member States, and Croatia has been using the technical support instrument with DG REFORM, but also the specific support that is offered by DG REGIO with JASPERS, with technical assistance. But naturally we need to progress and to reinforce this interchange of good practices.
Having said this, there is this – and I finish with this – there is this reflection for simplification that is already allowed by the 2021-2027 framework, like having payments without invoices. There is an interchange of good practices that I completely support together with the Erasmus for civil servants. That is a simple way because the time is not there, a simple way to illustrate what we can do together in exchange of good practices.

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Hvala lijepa, samo možda nije bilo prevedeno do kraja. Nadam se da se sredstva za kohezijsku politiku neće dovoditi u pitanje. To je ono što zapravo donosi dodanu vrijednost nejednako razvijenim zemljama ili onim zemljama koje žele dostići stupanj razvoja država članica koje su duže članice u Europskoj uniji ili takozvanih starijih članica. To je bilo moje pitanje na koje nisam dobila odgovor. Bila bih zahvalna.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you again for this statement and for this conviction. I have the same conviction. I think cohesion policy is what keeps Europe together, and it's a necessary, indispensable condition for the internal market to function. And we see it from our practical examples. I have mentioned this several times already, but I think it is so obvious that I cannot refrain from citing the figure again. All the countries that joined after 2004 – and Croatia is the last in this series, but all of them in general, on average, 20 years ago, had a GDP per capita of 50 % to 52 %. Now, on average, they have 80% of the European average. So this is what offers the possibility also for the companies of the richest and more developed members of this community to invest through foreign direct investment in those countries, to win the bids for the building of roads, the building of highways, together with local companies and progressively, in fact, to make sure that we don't have unintended impacts like brain drain from these countries into the more dynamic centres of Europe. If we want to have a sustainable and good quality of life for all citizens across Europe, of course, we have to think of competitiveness of Europe also from a space-based approach, so that in fact we all grow together and that whatever a country can offer and Croatia can offer so much. And I want to mention so many things because I don't have the time. But whatever you can offer that you offer in the best possible conditions so that you create good jobs also locally for your own citizens. Thank you very much for your statement.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora comisaria Ferreira, ante todo, quiero reconocer el impresionante trabajo que ha desempeñado durante estos cinco años al frente de la cartera de Cohesión y Reformas —es decir, de política regional—, ciertamente central para la identidad de la Unión Europea, para el vector de la solidaridad, que es la razón de ser de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Y solo espero que su trabajo imprima carácter a la próxima Comisión Von der Leyen II, de modo que su estándar sea difícilmente degradable o rebajable, porque es absolutamente imprescindible mantenerlo en dos ámbitos que son prioritarios en esta legislatura.
               

                  En primer lugar, el mantenimiento de los fondos de cohesión y los fondos estructurales para financiar una política de vivienda europea, de vivienda asequible en alquiler o en compra, pero en todo caso asequible, no solamente para las nuevas generaciones —solidaridad intergeneracional—, sino también para la clase trabajadora —solidaridad directamente social—.
               

                  Y, en segundo lugar, es absolutamente imprescindible que se prolonguen esos fondos de cohesión y fondos estructurales a través del relanzamiento del NextGenerationEU para financiar una política regional que afecte a las regiones menos favorecidas y, particularmente, a las regiones ultraperiféricas, aquellas que tienen mayores dificultades para integrarse en el mercado interior. Usted lo ha puesto de manifiesto: la verdadera razón de ser de la política de cohesión es, precisamente, servir a la realización del mercado interior, porque de otra manera no sería posible.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much indeed. Yes, you touched upon two issues.
One of them is, in fact, a housing problem. I think the housing problem is an issue. I think the cohesion policy has been extremely active in helping to solve this housing problem, particularly for those citizens that are, in a way, outside the market gain because they need affordable housing and they don't earn enough money or they don't have the condition to pay either for buying a house or for renting a house with the prices that now they have.
I just suggest that – and this is a personal opinion – that in the future, to address this issue, we touch upon the different aspects of the housing issue. One of them is, in fact, the imbalance in the different locations across Europe and inside each country. We have regions that are losing the young population because they are not able to retain them, although there are lots of houses there, whereas in the big centres, we are facing a congestion problem that is difficult to solve if we do not combine a global agenda with the individual support to the housing issue.
This comes together with the need to address also the aspect that relates to the financial sector and to real estate having become a kind of safe asset in the present times. Having said this, I want to address also the issue of the outermost regions. We have a huge variety of situations, I think that the Canary islands that you represent is one of the prosperous areas. But, nevertheless, we revise the strategy and we have got to keep attention in order to give the conditions for them to go on playing the important strategic, geostrategic and economic role that they have played.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Thanks for your commitment with the regions, and particularly with the outermost regions and with the Canaries, as you have just mentioned. And just do one last service: convey your message, your commitment, gather your experience and send a message to your successor in the portfolio. Make a difference till the very last minute, like you have made it so far. Thank you!

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your positive comment. Yes, I have been speaking with Minister Raffaele Fitto, the future Commissioner. I truly believe that he will be able to develop a very positive agenda with all his experience, but also with the permanent dialogue with this House, because this is absolutely essential so that, in fact, you transmit to the Commission all the information that we have, all the different shades, because one size never fits all.
When we are talking about regional development and cohesion, we have got to be able to really keep not only the policy in terms of volume of funding, but also to keep the DNA of cohesion policy: the DNA is to work from the places, it is a place-based approach, but it has to have a dialogue and a response with the national level and with the European level. If we do not keep this place-based approach, if we decide universally as if all the regions were the same, we are bound to have asymmetric impacts across Europe, and this is a disaster.
So, we have problems with the transition regions and we have the Just Transition Fund. We have problems with the outermost regions; problems and potential because the two things come together. You have mountainous areas, you have sparsely populated areas, you have islands, you have cities, you have urban problems. But going back also to the question of housing, I think we have got to reflect on how it is possible that Europe is losing population every day and at the same time is facing an important and huge real estate problem. So this requires deeper research on the origins, causes and solutions for this problem that you correctly have pointed out.

Denis Nesci (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto volevo ringraziare il commissario Ferreira per il lavoro che ha svolto in questi anni. Ha già citato qual è il ruolo centrale della politica di coesione e siamo tutti d'accordo che è indispensabile per lo sviluppo dei territori. Ma è centrale anche la sfida posta sulla sua implementazione.
               

                  Ha citato anche alcuni esempi di risultati raggiunti e, nonostante siano tanti, purtroppo ancora persiste una disparità territoriale tra diverse regioni d'Europa che ci induce a fare delle riflessioni ma soprattutto ad apportare delle modifiche.
               

                  E proprio nel corso del 2025, anno della prevista mid-term review, avremo modo di intervenire, certamente per superare le frammentazioni esistenti.
               

                  La domanda che Le vorrei porre è: quali considera siano state in questi anni le azioni più incisive per ridurre la lentezza burocratica e semplificare le procedure, rendendo così la politica di coesione più agile e accessibile a tutti?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you, honourable Nesci. I think cohesion policy has performed very, very well, but I think it can be improved. There are lots of elements that are embodied in the Common Provisions Regulation on which we are implementing the 2021-2027 framework that have not yet been tested. You have simplified cost options. You have other mechanisms that you can use. Certain countries are starting them. So let's see how it works.
The other aspect, I think, is to refine the quality and to support the public administration, and to train the public administration in order to make them really be able to cope with so, so many issues. But there is also the need to have a coherent approach when we talk about simplifying and making sure that what we consider is a movement in the right direction is also agreed and compatible with everything that we are asking, because it is this House, and rightly so, that asked, for instance, for the identification of the ultimate beneficiary. Of course, we have got to take into account that when we register that, we are asking for more information from the managing authorities. Of course, we have got to be very careful in how you use state aid. But for this, we have got trained managing authorities and also the auditors in order to make sure that, in fact, we introduce the simplifications that function and that can perform.
So we are always identifying the sources of errors or mistakes, even from a formal point of view, and trying to organise webinars, training missions and the level of fraud, for instance. That is one of the issues on which we really are focusing a lot. It has been reduced progressively, and the last figure I had is of about in the last period of about 0.57 %. It is too much because one euro is too much. But in fact, when we manage so much funding, it is important to note all this effort that we are trying to do.

Denis Nesci (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, volevo concentrarmi ancora un po' su uno degli aspetti principali, soprattutto per l'azione politica che svolgo io, ma penso che facciamo tutti noi, che riguarda i giovani.
               

                  Su questo volevo chiedere come valuta le strategie specifiche implementate in questi anni per garantire che la politica di coesione risponda adeguatamente alle esigenze dei diversi territori, in particolare a sostenere le aree svantaggiate e valorizzare i giovani e i talenti locali?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you again. For the policy to work you have got to have this capacity to analyse and study a region at the right level. What I mean by the right level; if you do it from a very centralised perspective, naturally, in most cases, you lose a lot of local and regional details because the knowledge at the central level, of course at European level but also at national level, is often not sufficient for you to identify what is blocking and what are the hidden untapped potentials of that region. Then you have got to study it not also at such a small level that you lose the vision and then you multiply it same investments, which is a bad option in terms of using scarce resources like money. So the right scale, and I think you have got to combine things that are rightly done at European level, at the national level, at the regional level and then at the local level.
But for this to work, you have got to engage the partners. That is why we have managing authorities and then the monitoring committees. I think these monitoring committees are in fact a place of dialogue, of exchange of views, in which you have got to engage not only the municipalities, but also the young people, in particular the universities and the technological centres, also non-governmental actors if they are credible, in order that, in fact, you construct a programme and that you present a programme. If you present a programme that is very well drafted, I think you can ask the Commission to put landmarks or milestones and then to pay against them. But this requires a level of quality in the public administration or in the entities that manage this programme that we need to reinforce, because for the time being, sometimes we have it, but sometimes we don't. So this is a work in progress, I think.

Presidente. – Prima di passare al prossimo oratore, ricordo ai colleghi che sono in sala che, se intendono proporre delle interrogazioni, devono iscriversi tramite il pulsante ‘catch-the-eye’.
               

Ciaran Mullooly (Renew). – Commissioner, I would like to speak to you today to address the critical challenges, as you say, in the implementation of the cohesion policy. I have two questions for you, Commissioner. Firstly, congratulations on your period in office and the work you have done, and you acknowledge yourself the challenges that are there.
And the challenge of the overly bureaucratic process is in my focus. I know the success of cohesion funding, but I also know what the regional authorities say to me about the complexities and the administration and the burden that places on them. So there is a clear need to ensure that administrations and beneficiaries can navigate the systems better. It's imperative we cut through the red tape when we can.
Then, specifically, there is evidence why it is not working. We know in my own country of Ireland, the implementation rate currently sits at 5.4 %! Member States really have to refocus their attention on cohesion funding to ensure they can reduce these regional disparities. I'd like to know your view on how that can be done.
Secondly, the Just Transition Fund – you mentioned it yourself briefly – is working, but not supporting the families directly who lost their jobs because of decarbonisation in many areas. I am asking if you would be in favour of a more targeted approach. So we look at the coal mine in Poland – we look at the specific area around the coal mine of 20 km. Or we look at the peat bog land in Ireland – we look at the specific area around that area, and try and target the families in that area so we can assist them in the future.

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. I think it touches upon very important issues. But I would not confirm completely this complexity you are talking about. In reality, the policy was quite flexible in order to be able to address the consequences of the COVID crisis, then the refugees coming from Ukraine after the invasion by Russia, to address energy – a complex impact of this war, or of this invasion, in reality – and more recently to allow also for financing highly technological companies.
And in what concerns Ireland, we have for 2021-2027, on average, a level of commitment of around 26%-27 %, and I am quoting figures, so more than a quarter of the budget is already allocated. But in the case of Ireland, we have a figure of 50 %. So half of the allocation to Ireland is already committed by Ireland to specific projects. In fact, this is the starting point. Then the transfers of money come as the projects are implemented on the ground. But when we have this amount of commitment, this is a good indicator that things will go on.
Also, you are benefiting from the Just Transition Fund, exactly to allow or to stimulate a transition from the dependence on carbon-based industries to new things. But it is up to the Irish and to the regions and to the trade unions to define and to propose. From that perspective also, you are already proposing. It takes time, because the simple thing is to finance hanging fruit. The difficult thing is to organise a transition for a region. So I call your attention and your support to the process of really changing an area.
I have been visiting Poland and I was also in Ireland – not in the Midlands unfortunately, but I visited Ireland, and I think one of the aspects from where you benefited a lot was from the BAR – the Adjustment Reserve – and also from the PEACE project. That is a very special project by Interreg.
So I would be not so vocal on the inefficiency of cohesion policy, and the inflexibility and complexity, because I think reality goes in a different sense, with the support of this House.

Ciaran Mullooly (Renew). – Thank you, Commissioner, and I fully accept what you have said about the purposes of the fund and the way they are being operated. And I suppose at the end of the day, the power and responsibility are of the Member States to identify the priorities.
But I put one exception to you and one example to you before I sit down. On a personal front, you will know that many people affected in the Just Transition regions are perhaps heading towards retirement. They may be 40 years old, 50 years old, 60 years old. They feel they have been left behind by this fund. They said training was coming for younger staff, and the new industry you mentioned, the new green sector was coming, but for people who are over 50 years old, they say 'we were forgotten'. 'We have been left on the scrapheap'.
We have our new Rust Belt in our country, like the Americans have had in the car sector, and this sector did not target us and our community in the way it might have done.

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – You are putting very crucial questions and I accept your case. I have been visiting a lot of Just Transition areas and my comment is the following. We have – and that's the free economy – yes, there are transitions, there are changes. We had lots of other changes all across Europe and you have witnessed them, I think. You have witnessed them in the steel industry, in the textile industry, in shipbuilding. So transitions occur.
Of course, we can do our part at the European level, but a country as rich as Ireland can also help by addressing by itself some of the aspects on which the legal framework does not allow us to come forward. So for those people who really are at a certain age, for whom really there is a retirement or there is an alternative of this kind, we cannot pay for pensions and I think we shouldn't.
Nevertheless, I have seen and I have visited a lot of areas where even people who are over 50, first of all, are very happy if their children get a place in a new and dynamic industry in the area, and the state legislation allows you to use the funding to attract the new areas and the new industries. Ireland has all the conditions for that, because the dynamic that you have in Cork or the dynamic that you have in Dublin can be expanded also to other areas.
On the other hand, there are other aspects, for instance areas in which you invest in solar panels or in renewables or insulation of houses, in which some of the previous miners or people that worked in carbon-based industries can really perform extremely well with their experience, as well as starting new businesses, small businesses, services. So if the dynamic exists, they will find a mission in their life until they decide to actually retire.
So this is a situation that we all face. It's not Europe that is forcing this. It is the reality of the world. And if you look across the world, you see that the green agenda – we probably anticipated it verbally and we tried to minimise the costs of transition – is in fact the new agenda all over, and we are all working in that direction. So thank you very much for your interest.

Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE). – Madam Commissioner, thank you very much for your work. My question goes from the bottom-up approach, and this is being a mayor for 14 years – there was ongoing debate how to integrate more local and regional authorities in the design of a new cohesion policy, because at the end of the day, it is really difficult to use the funds properly and rationality to the people on the ground.
So what will be your recommendations maybe for the future? How can we more integrate the local and regional authorities that make everything easier – and also make more foreseen – for those who are working at the bottom of this?
And the second question is: of course, the cohesion policy always is understood as a pool of resources that could be shifted to something else. For example, we will be voting on Restore just another day, and, of course, we are still in danger that this money being allocated to the other position.
Of course, nobody is discussing whether or not this is appropriate, but at the end of the day, we know why we have the cohesion policy. So what will be your recommendation to keep this money also available for us, in the European Union, to diminish the differences between the regions that are still big? For example, the difference is almost 500 % between really well-developed regions and less-developed regions.

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you again for a very interesting and important question. It touches upon two issues. One is the design of the policy, and I think this is really a very crucial element when you reflect and when you organise, as a country, the partnership agreement that is negotiated with the Commission.
I also recognise that probably the Commission has got to reinforce the knowledge of the country, but it is the country itself working under democracy that has to make the right choices. Of course, there are the legal texts, and we converge on this, that they don't allow for violating the environment or violating the basic principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – let's put it like this – and other aspects similar to this.
But within this framework, I think the principle of subsidiarity is extremely important in this context. So I believe that in the monitoring committees, in the definition of the plan, more focus should be done on the substance of the proposals, and not only on money and funds, although money and funds are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, though.
In what concerns the other aspect that you referred to, yes, I'm very much aware. And, I think, all the colleagues that took the decision with the Commission in the previous Commission in this period, we discussed it very thoroughly, if we should take the purpose of the funding, the overall funding, and allow for a percentage of it to be used in emergency situations.
And the truth is that with CRII and CRII+ for Covid-19, with CARE and with SAFE we used, I don't know, I mean 10 %, 12 % of the funding. But with this allocation, this so flexibility, we managed to keep alive the communities in certain countries and certain regions that would have completely collapsed if they were not there. And this is a choice that we have to make.
So I don't have more time. I will stop here, but probably I have a chance to go on if you follow up.

Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE). – Gospa predsednica. Hvala lepa za vse vaše delo. Na koncu bi samo še eno vprašanje, ker odhajate, pa me vendar zanima.
               

                  Tudi znotraj kohezijske politike obstaja seveda dogovor, da se določene cilje išče tudi skozi implementacijo klimatskih zavez oziroma boja proti klimatskim spremembam. Trideset odstotkov virov naj bi namenili tudi temu.
               

                  Pa vendar se danes dogaja, da se te stvari pozabljajo. Zakaj oziroma kakšen bi bil vaš pogled na to, da nas spodbudi k temu, da na koncu sredstva, ki so namenjena koheziji in tem ciljem, ne izgubijo barve in namena, za kar so namenjena.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much. You have a good example in the case of Slovenia. We have a special fund for emergency situations of climate origin. Of course we used it, I mentioned in Croatia the case of the earthquake, and in the case of Slovenia you had these incredible floods last August that were really terrible. So we had to use it and we managed because although the damage was dramatic for Slovenia, the amount of money we could manage.
But in the past, this Solidarity Fund that addresses different aspects of emergency, the funds were not enough. And I regret deeply, but we had no alternative, in the past, we had to have a haircut in the support to regions that were affected by this. And now you see more and more that climate dramatic situations occur. So we decided, with the Solidarity Fund, we just financed building back what was there. But probably we have got to enlarge a little bit the concept, because if certain areas are prone to be flooded, probably we should not rebuild exactly in the same area.
If the Cohesion Funding can finance long-term growth and development, probably we could use the fund to anticipate or to correct some of the things that were not correct in the past and prepare for the future. If we think from that perspective, it's just an option of the Member States to use the available envelope to finance a certain area and to reconstruct it, also allowing for more flexibility in the way you reconstruct it: a preventive environmental approach. So it is not imposed, it is not taking the money out of cohesion, it is in fact in an area that has been devastated, to help it to contribute to the welfare of the community, but on a sounder basis than the ones that created or contributed to the disaster that we are trying to address. It is up to you now: we made a proposal.

Valentina Palmisano (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora commissaria, innanzitutto complimenti per il lavoro da Lei svolto negli scorsi anni, in tutti questi anni, in cui è riuscita a fare in modo che la politica di coesione fosse e rimanesse un pilastro fondamentale del progetto europeo.
               

                  Un progetto europeo fatto di Paesi, di Stati membri, che cooperano tra loro, che si aiutano, che cercano di andare alla medesima velocità. Quindi questo è davvero molto importante, perché è importante anche creare un rapporto di fiducia tra gli Stati membri che possano tutti avere dei benefici, nessuno escluso.
               

                  E soprattutto in un momento particolare di crisi delle istituzioni, in cui i cittadini sentono il distacco con le istituzioni e con la politica, secondo me l'Unione europea può e deve andare nella direzione opposta e deve far sentire la sua vicinanza ai cittadini e lo può fare proprio attraverso le politiche di coesione.
               

                  Noi dobbiamo fare in modo che tutti sappiano che qui si lavora sempre per non far sentire nessuno indietro e per fare in modo che tutti possano avere una vita dignitosa.
               

                  A questo proposito io Le chiedo se Lei conferma l'impegno della Commissione a mantenere una politica di coesione forte e regionalizzata, con programmi negoziati direttamente dalle regioni e se si sta esplorando qualche meccanismo, che consenta alle regioni e agli enti locali di poter, diciamo, modulare direttamente l'accesso a questi fondi per fare in modo che possano essere compatibili con le esigenze dei vari territori.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you for your positive comments. And I completely agree with you that we need to create trust. We have in the ninth cohesion report that I think you have seen, we have a reflection that comes from academic work in which it is evident that people feel left behind. And you can feel left behind if you are in a very low-level of development or at an intermediary-level of development, or even sometimes at a high-level of development when you don't have perspective of growth, of development, when you see that you were better off than your children are and then you feel okay, this life is too difficult for me to participate in, for me to be a winner, because it is.
And also, when we talk about digital or the green jobs, we have got to think who is going to benefit so that we create the conditions for everybody to share. And this is absolutely essential because it is exactly in those areas that are forgotten that you see the movements of revenge, of distrust, of feeling neglected.
So I think the whole structure of cohesion policy is the right ingredient for that. But it has to be interpreted in reality like that. So that is why in the negotiations with Member States, because this is the structure of European Union. So we aid Member States. We ask Member States not to centralise the decisions, but to reflect and to incorporate this need and this requirement to have a place based and to recognise the regional level and local level.
And this is the negotiation that we have every seven years, and then we keep controlling for it, because that's the philosophy that is behind cohesion policy. There is a project that probably I can address later on, but a very interesting project that is called New European Bauhaus, on which Italy was very active. But I think this is just one aspect to illustrate other aspects of what your concern touches upon. That is in fact going close to people.

Valentina Palmisano (The Left). – Sono molto soddisfatta della risposta, commissaria.
               

                  E a tal proposito Le chiedo, diciamo, sempre nel solco della Sua risposta, cosa possiamo fare per quelle regioni e per quegli Stati che, proprio a causa del fatto che scontano delle fragilità e delle limitazioni, hanno una capacità amministrativa anche limitata; come possiamo fare in modo che possano avere accesso ai fondi disponibili in maniera proporzionata rispetto a tutti gli altri?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – You are putting a question that is over the limits and the framework of cohesion policy, that is the quality of democracy. And of course, in certain countries, it is really important to stimulate this reorganisation of the administrative framework so that, really, you can recognise the capacity at the different levels where it exists. But in fact, until now the Commission has refrained from interfering on an issue that is considered from a sovereignty kind of framework. So there is no interference from that perspective. There is really only the requirement that if the country is very centralised, that at least the centralised government has got to go to the places and to propose the right agenda for each of the different jurisdictions or regions adequate to make these regions grow and develop the potential that is hidden there.
And what I was about to refer to, when my time was over, was, in fact a very bottom-up approach that we did with the New European Bauhaus. That was an experiment that was not mediated necessarily through the Member States. It was a high-level group of individuals coming from different European countries, also coming from Japan, from India reflecting on the methodologies on ways how you can do things, considering three aspects. One is to be a project that is not an elite project. It is a project that touches the people, that is inclusive. A project that is that is climate adequate and environmental adequate. And that is beautiful. And if we manage to expand this culture on all the funding that we are using, we are touching the people themselves. We are improving the quality of a place inside a city, a place inside a small urban area, or a place in the middle of a mountain.
And the examples that we have in the New European Bauhaus are so amazingly interesting that I hope you spend a little time checking on them and publicising them, touching upon also ideas from young people that can offer – and they have been offering – incredible solutions to improve the quality of their environment.

Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE). – Señora Ferreira, la ejecución es, sin duda, el talón de Aquiles de la política de cohesión y no podemos ignorarlo. Entre sus causas están, sin duda, la cantidad de fondos, cada uno con sus propias normas de ejecución, lo que incrementa excesivamente su complejidad y supone costes administrativos para las autoridades y para los beneficiarios. Si, a esto, le añadimos el solapamiento de varios períodos de programación y la concurrencia de los fondos NextGenerationEU, el resultado es administraciones desbordadas.
               

                  Con una futura reforma en ciernes, le pregunto: ¿cree usted que es el momento de apostar por un nuevo marco legal estable en la política de cohesión? Ya nos ha dicho que sí apostaría por la formación de los funcionarios y las capacidades, pero ¿piensa que hay que avanzar en la auditoría única, en la digitalización documental, en la eliminación de las barreras de acceso, por ejemplo, para las empresas? Porque hablamos de que estos fondos tienen que llegar a las familias y a las pymes.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – I think, in fact, this is an issue. But we have got to get away from this impression that it is complex. It is complex, of course, but on the other hand, it is not that complex because there are lots of improvements that at least the Commission has the capacity to accept. So it is a mutual work with Member States, with the managing authorities, with the national auditors. That is the first issue.
Of course, there is also an issue that has been addressed here in this room previously, and this is, for instance, the use of artificial intelligence or data mining into acceding to the crossing of data. On this I will suggest that you visit the situation because, in fact, in the initial proposal we have simplified the structure of digital registration. It's called Arachne and we offer it to Member States for registration of projects and beneficiaries free of charge, with training, for instance, and I think (I'm quoting by heart) 23 Member States are already using it in specific projects. But maybe we could do even better. This was not accepted in the trilogues in the past. Maybe in the future, in the next phase of funding, we can really make better use of these technologies so that we can ask less things from the beneficiaries and can really benefit from this interchange and interconnection of these networks so that we use technologies to our own benefit.
Two more details. One is convergence with, for instance, the Court of Auditors in the interpretation of the concept of error. If it is a legal interpretation or if it is a more substantive one. And the other aspect is the effort done by Member States in also working in this simplification, because for the same legislation, some countries have a very simple way of doing it, and other countries are very complex in delivering the funding.

Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora comisaria, gracias por asistir hoy a este turno de preguntas y gracias, sobre todo, por los cinco años al frente de la política de cohesión y por el trato que ha tenido con este Parlamento.
               

                  La política de cohesión es estabilización económica, es desarrollo equilibrado entre regiones —así ha sido desde la creación del proyecto común que es nuestra Unión Europea— y ha contribuido a minimizar los desequilibrios provocados por el mercado único.
               

                  Señora comisaria, usted también sabe que lo que hoy es una región exitosa mañana podría convertirse en una región estructuralmente débil —por los cambios económicos, por los nuevos sectores productivos…— si no acompañamos adecuadamente las transformaciones.
               

                  ¿Cree usted o está de acuerdo conmigo en que la política de cohesión no solo debe ser reactiva, sino también proactiva, anticipando los cambios estructurales? Y ¿cómo cree que la política de cohesión puede apoyar a estas regiones en el futuro inmediato 2021-2027?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Muchísimas gracias por tus palabras, Marcos. Thank you very much for all the support of this Parliament. If we did a good job it was also due to your active participation, your requests, your questions, your proposals. In fact, it was really an amazing time for me.
But you are right, in fact, competition brings value added to the Community, it does not necessarily share equally the benefits of this competition. So if we have unequal partners competing, we have got to create the conditions for boosting or accelerating the capacity to compete of the ones that are not so far away in this race. In particular, I think one of the elements of flexibility is in the seven years period, and I believe that you need seven years, in order to be able to prepare things that are not falling, that are not hanging fruits, in order to change the natural trends. For this, you need time to prepare projects, to get the will of different partners converging, and then to implement with the defence what needs to be done.
In the meantime, as you said, there are lots of changes. That is why I think flexibility is in fact to have this monitoring and this serious and honest approach to the development problems in the region and to have this dialogue with the Commission, because maybe you need to alter something: maybe you have another crisis in another sector. To adapt to the circumstances, we came to this Parliament seven times or eight times to change the legislation, but probably we need to create the flexibility in order to adapt or adjust within the programme, if needs be, in the face of a common understanding that something is needed from a different direction.
That is why it is so important that also the follow up is done on the Just Transition Fund, because it is an experiment. It is about 90 or 100 regions all across Europe, all countries are covered. And the dialogue that we establish in the Just Transition platform network is absolutely amazing on identifying what works, what doesn't work, and how we can make it work. So this technique can be spread in all the programmes and can anticipate and be proactive in relation to the future. But the quality of the administrative capacity, the quality of the public service and the quality of institutions is an essential ingredient for success, together with adequate funding, of course.

Maravillas Abadía Jover (PPE). – Señora comisaria, la sequía permanente y las tormentas torrenciales que asolan el sur de Europa están acabando con la industria de nuestras regiones, especialmente con la agricultura. Pero, señora comisaria, de la necesidad, virtud.
               

                  En muchas regiones del sur —como Murcia, mi región, donde vivimos en una permanente sequía— nos hemos visto obligados a inventar y desarrollar formas con las que no quedarnos secos, aún más secos. Solo un ejemplo: el 98 % de las aguas residuales de la Región de Murcia se reutilizan. En Europa, únicamente, el 5 %.
               

                  Pero, mientras nuestras regiones cumplen, las grandes inversiones en infraestructuras para la gestión del agua, que ayudarían a la industria en tiempos de sequía y evitarían catástrofes como las recientes en tiempos de exceso, son postergadas e, incluso, olvidadas por las autoridades nacionales. Por eso, le pregunto, señora comisaria: ¿considera que la política de cohesión bajo su mandato ha cumplido con la necesidad de involucrar el agua y su gestión como vectores de cohesión del proyecto europeo?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – I think the availability that is offered by the funding includes, of course, this possibility and this capacity to have the right projects, anticipating what is the problem from a climate perspective, which is, in fact, the drought and the excess of water. And the two things come together because as you kill through the excessive heat, the roots of the plants, then when it rains with a lot of intensity, it's very likely that the arable land will go away. So in fact, there is this possibility and this wish.
Now another aspect is to find out and to address what is the perception on this issue of the Member State and of the region. You are talking about Spain, I am not going to address the region and situation Murcia at all, because it is out of the of the scope of this discussion. But in fact, the offer is that the envelope is there, the possibility is there. But then you have to make the right choices in dialogue between the municipalities, the region and the Member State. And it is in this mutual understanding of what is necessary, what is needed, that we have got to solve the issues.
Having said this, also the proposal that the Commission has offered of restoring, of creating a certain envelope exactly to address after a dramatic situation, to rebuild better, may be an opportunity to address from a renewed perspective this option. But more and more, we cannot go on building without taking into account the right scale of the problems to be addressed and the capacity to anticipate and prepare for a situation that, from a climate angle, will be not improving naturally, it will be more and more aggravated, and at least we have got to prepare for that and to anticipate it.
So yes, we offer it, but we have got to have the demands and the technical capacity and the choice from Member States to do it. There is always work to be done, but I think a lot has been done across Europe in that dimension exactly.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Senhora Comissária, muitíssimo obrigado pelo seu trabalho destes anos. Como a senhora sabe, eu sou um agente duplo. Comigo, a senhora pode falar português à vontade.
               

                  Señora comisaria, la gobernanza multinivel está en el ADN de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, cualquier política de centralización va contra los tiempos, va contra la participación democrática y es un mal ejemplo. Y es un mal ejemplo porque deja fuera —o al margen— a un actor principalísimo del proceso de integración: las regiones y las autoridades locales.
               

                  Ya lo ha advertido el Comité de las Regiones: la Unión Europea va a perder legitimidad y visibilidad ante las poblaciones si se avanza con esta política centralizadora, y volverá a sufrir financieramente, porque volveremos a tomar dinero de los fondos de cohesión para otras funciones. Y, además, puede sufrir una política que usted, como portuguesa, y yo, como extremeño, conocemos muy bien: la política de cooperación transfronteriza.
               

                  Las capitales no entienden muy bien la lógica de las fronteras; las regiones sí la entienden y, de hecho, han sido un actor principal de la integración europea: Europa se cose en cada frontera.
               

                  Por tanto, señora comisaria, ¿cómo vamos a garantizar la participación de las regiones y cómo vamos a preservar la política de cooperación transfronteriza en este insinuado nuevo modelo más centralizado?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – I think you have pointed to a rumour. I was looking, and I read the two articles that implicitly you are referring to, that were published in the press, and when I listened to some political, important actors in Europe, I was worried.
But then I also listened to the President of the Commission, and the President is the same, has been confirmed. And she made a formal commitment here in this House, exactly here in Strasbourg, when she was voted in, when she was appointed and confirmed as President of the Commission, in which she said, and I am quoting from memory: 'I commit that I will defend cohesion policy and the methodology of cohesion policy with countries and with regions and local authorities'.
So I trust her commitment. I trust your influence and your important control over the Commission according to the Treaties. And so I don't believe that this will happen at all. So that's my honest and true belief.
I also recognise the power of not only the European Parliament, but also the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee, so all these actors at the local level, at the regional level. I think we have been working under these criteria for too long to change it just like that.
On Interreg, I would like to underline that, as I mentioned, on average we have an execution or a commitment of about 26 %, 27 % – and this is from August because that's the last date we have – of cohesion policy for 2021-2027, with 13 Member States committing more than 30 % and 7 Member States committing already more than 40 %. But in the programmes, Interreg is already at 37 % of commitment, because there is this tradition of working together.
The exception, because the level is not so high, is the outermost regions, where things are more difficult, and the external borders, particularly the eastern part. And we need to reassess how to stimulate the economy and the society in those areas, particularly in the border regions with the East.
So we have really a very successful programme. The projects are flowing and flowing, and cooperation is progressing very, very quickly. The whole execution is speeding up incredibly after the middle of 2023, last year, and now it's speeding, speeding, speeding. But in fact Interreg is an example, because it's fantastic.

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Żyjemy w dobie zagrożenia ze strony agresywnej polityki Federacji Rosyjskiej. Jesteśmy świadkami okropnej wojny w Ukrainie. Nie mamy co do tego wątpliwości, że Unia Europejska, państwa członkowskie muszą wspierać i budować, praktycznie rzecz biorąc, na nowo swój przemysł obronny.
               

                  Mam w związku z powyższym pytanie: czy prawdą jest, że Komisja Europejska podjęła decyzję, aby w ramach polityki spójności dopuścić możliwość finansowania przemysłu obronnego państw członkowskich? Jeśli tak, to na jakich zasadach i kiedy? Jak wyglądałoby to skoordynowanie z Europejskim Funduszem Obronnym? Jak by przebiegała linia demarkacyjna? Czy to oznacza, że będzie można wspierać przemysł zbrojeniowy, ale także produkcję produktów podwójnego zastosowania czy też miejsc infrastruktury publicznej, takich jak szkoły, stadiony, dworce, które przy odpowiednim zaprojektowaniu mogłyby być miejscem schronienia dla ludności w sytuacji krytycznej?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Dziękuję bardzo, I will reply to you saying that you need to see case-by-case. The defence industry was for a long time outside the scope of the Cohesion Policy. Nevertheless, there is in fact a lot of support that cohesion can do for things like you just mentioned, so railway stations or schools. I think we should prepare, and when we do something we should be aware of the dangers, not only the climate ones, but all the other dangers that we are facing.
I think Poland is showing a lot of wisdom in the choices that you make. I have been speaking a lot, not only with the central level, but in particular with marshals from different regions. I can see how enlightened they are in their choices, and until now, every proposal that they have made to us has been accepted because they abide by the rules, by the legislation. They make sense in the development of the country and of the regions.
In particular, I think it is important that the STEP proposal that really allows also to use funds for high-technology projects like artificial intelligence, like biotechnology, it's very difficult to state that these projects do not create this kind of know-how and capacity that may be then extrapolated to other actions and uses.
It is a very important but complex question the one that you are putting. I cannot have a general answer like saying 'no', I mean defence as such. But when a project is relevant for the development of the region, for creating good jobs and to stabilise the economy in a region, or to build infrastructures that can be used also in case of a climate emergency or a security emergency, I think the legislation is open enough in order to be able to accommodate at least part of your concerns. But, of course this is not the support to the defence industry. If you really want to do defence industry, you have got to move to another level and not just to Cohesion Policy, because the purpose of Cohesion Policy is, in fact, to boost the development of the regions that need to be boosted in order to be able to play the game of an internal market in a normal economic framework and not for the defence industry as such. So defence requires another approach.

Sérgio Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Estimada Comissária Elisa Ferreira, a Política de Coesão é um instrumento fundamental da União Europeia. É através dela que combatemos as desigualdades entre regiões, enfrentando problemas estruturais, como a falta de desenvolvimento e de oportunidades.
               

                  Sabemos bem a importância que a política de coesão teve para o meu país, para o nosso país, Portugal, para a minha região, a região ultraperiférica da Madeira. E é por isso também que, como madeirense, como português, como europeu, lhe quero agradecer todo o trabalho que fez no desempenho destas funções.
               

                  Mas dada a sua experiência, queria também aproveitar esta oportunidade para questionar acerca de como manter o equilíbrio entre coesão e reformas, entre uma política de coesão que se quer descentralizada, que é executada e implementada essencialmente por autoridades regionais e locais, e, por outro lado, reformas que são, na maioria das vezes, competência dos Estados, dos governos nacionais, das autoridades nacionais e que pode levar naturalmente a uma tentativa ou uma tentação de centralização também da política de coesão.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Comissária. – Muito obrigada, Senhor Deputado, e coloca uma questão que é muito importante, porque, de facto, falamos muito de coesão e reformas e eu penso que as reformas de que normalmente se fala a nível europeu são reformas que, basicamente, só podem ser executadas por um nível central.
               

                  Isto não quer dizer que não haja reformas que podem ser implementadas pelo nível central e que podem e devem apoiar a política de coesão. Se nós tivermos políticas a nível central – e isto chama-nos a atenção para as recomendações, nomeadamente no âmbito do Semestre Europeu, onde progressivamente aparece já um anexo, um capítulo que trata da política espacial e regional-, se nós estivermos a falar de recomendações sobre, por exemplo, as infraestruturas do país, se estivermos a falar sobre a reorganização da administração pública ou até a reorganização das competências, provavelmente nós encontramos sinergias entre o desenvolvimento espacial mais equilibrado e essa tal reforma do Estado ou do país.
               

                  Mas seria lamentável que as regiões que não podem tomar por elas essa iniciativa fossem eventualmente penalizadas nos seus projetos e no seu programa por algum incumprimento a nível central. Isto requer, de facto, um trabalho muito fino de coerência entre níveis de responsabilidade e, digamos, aquilo a que se pode chamar um sancionamento por um eventual incumprimento.
               

                  Daí que a política de coesão, a meu ver, tenha de ter a sua própria lógica, o seu próprio funcionamento. E a política de coesão tem sido absolutamente crucial em períodos de abaixamento da economia, precisamente compensando alguns períodos em que a retração do investimento público tem gerado uma situação de degradação económica e de degradação social nos países. E, nalguns períodos mais críticos, tem sido a política de coesão aquilo que tem trazido dinâmica e mantido vivas, digamos assim, algumas empresas, empregos e, digamos, a dinâmica da economia e a dinâmica de algumas regiões.
               

                  E, portanto, eu penso que este papel, também de estabilizador e de anticíclico, que antes do NextGeneration a Europa não tinha de todo, foi outro dos papéis que a política de coesão teve e que, de facto, eu acho que é de valorizar e de mantê-la ativa, sobretudo quando ela é mais necessária. E nos períodos de crise ela é particularmente necessária. Vimos isso no Covid.
               

                  Mas é preciso também que os deputados e que todos nós sejamos capazes de transmitir aos cidadãos. E à colega que perguntava há pouco como é que os cidadãos se apercebem: transmitir aos cidadãos o que efetivamente a solidariedade europeia está a trazer e traz permanentemente de melhoria da sua qualidade de vida. Isto também requer visibilidade.
               

Nikolina Brnjac (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovana povjerenice, jedno ključno pitanje, pitanje za naše mlade generacije, a to je pitanje priuštivog stanovanja. Predsjednica Von der Leyen je u svojim smjernicama istakla da će Komisija omogućiti državama članicama da udvostruče planirana ulaganja iz kohezijske politike u cjenovno pristupačno stanovanje.
               

                  Možete li nam objasniti detalje, na koji način smatrate, te da li je to dovoljno za rješavanje problema priuštivog stanovanja u Europskoj uniji te kako iz trenutnog proračuna za koheziju osigurati sredstva za priuštivo stanovanje, budući da postojeća sredstva iz ERDF-a, znamo, itekako da nisu dovoljna.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. I cannot commit to the future – this is my last presence here so your question is, I think, welcome for the new Commissioner. From my point of view, I think until now we have used the regional fund in particular, and the social fund in combination, in order to address the most critical social and economic problems.
We have financed social housing, or affordable housing, and at the same time we have been supporting a very specific locally-based combination between the social fund and regional fund, for instance, with the programme like Housing First, to support the homeless and to re-establish the dynamic in a family that, due to certain disasters in their life, has lost the capacity to have a normal life.
Also, in the Social Summit that took place in Porto, this commitment has been reassessed and renewed, combined with support to children, to avoid and to prevent children from suffering from poverty. Because if you have poverty in your childhood, probably you will have a lot of difficulty, later on as an adult, being an active, normal, participating citizen in the economy, because you miss a lot of elements in your capacity. So children and old age: all this is a concern.
I also think, and this is a personal opinion, as I mentioned to a colleague that asked a similar question before, that we really need to address in housing – not just this kind of housing, but also the housing market – a lot of other aspects, such as the financial sector and also the rebalancing of the stimulus for growth across the territory.
If we don't retain people and if we don't support urban centres in the middle of rural areas or in sparsely populated areas, these people are going to increase the amount of people looking for jobs and houses in the already hyper-congested metropolises of our countries. So more balanced countries have less problems also from that perspective.
I don't know what is in the mind of the President, but you'll be here; I will not.

Ľubica Karvašová (Renew). – Commissioner Ferreira, welcome to the plenary for your last Question Time. I want to thank you for your service. Although I was not here during the past term, I heard a lot of positive feedback on your work for the European regions, so thank you very much for that.
I wanted to raise my concern over the growing flexibility of the cohesion policy. It has been mentioned several times by other speakers, so it really shows that there is a problem. I believe that by constantly reallocating resources from the cohesion policy, not just to crisis management situations, but also to new priorities – housing has been mentioned here, military equipment has been mentioned here – we might face a problem of undermining the long-term objective of the cohesion policy. That is – and we should stay true to the core purpose of the cohesion policy – building a Europe that is competitive and resilient.
And I think that is what is in front of us as the biggest challenge, and will help us to overcome any crisis or any bad situation. So my question to you: don't you think that it's within the next MFF discussions where we should really pay attention to reform crisis tools that the EU has, the EU budget already has, and also to find additional resources for new priorities, be it housing or the defence industry, instead of using cohesion policy to solve any EU problem?

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Well, thank you very much, and I think you touched again upon an issue that is in the minds of everybody. So I don't see the changes and the adaptations that we did, like CRII, like SAFE, like CARE, like now the Restore proposal or STEP, as moving the money from cohesion policy to other things. I see it inside cohesion policy and being exactly flexible when things occur.
So, take STEP, for instance: since 2014, cohesion policy could not finance a big company or support a big company in order to attract it to an area in which this company would be performing, creating jobs because the evaluation that was done at the time was that, in particular, multinationals were playing around with competitive levels of support. So, what we have done is, with STEP, saying, 'look, if the region, the country, the actors, the managing authorities so wish and if it is adequate for the development of the region to use the European funding in order to play the same game that countries with deep pockets can play to attract the future industries, yes, exceptionally, we can do it'. Because state aid was allowing for the countries that could afford it to attract companies. Is this a diversion? I don't think it is. Is it a diversion to say, 'OK, if a municipality is overloaded with refugees from Ukraine that are fleeing the war and cannot cope with it, and it's going to collapse'? Is it wrong if we allow them to incorporate these people and to make them live a normal life and even now participate in the life of this region? So, things happen, and flexibility requires that we adapt to the moving things. So I interpret it inside cohesion policy as an option shared with you.
But for Covid and for the refugees and for the energy impact, we used 10 %-12 % of the overall amount, and we managed to keep alive a lot of regions and a lot of countries, and this is the final result of this issue. But I completely agree with you: this has got to be controlled and managed, because the other issues that will be putting pressure on the budget cannot be solved at the cost of cohesion policy, for sure, or we will have a disaggregated Europe.

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Kommissarin! Im Namen der Partei des Fortschritts möchte ich den Kohäsions- und Strukturfonds ausdrücklich loben. Mein Land Deutschland erhält zwischen 2021 und 2027 11 Milliarden Euro aus diesen Mitteln, eine nicht zu unterschätzende Summe. Aber es gibt eben auch viele Probleme auf unserer Seite, die meiner Ansicht nach mit dem Föderalismus zusammenhängen. Die Mittel werden von der EU an die Bundesrepublik, an die Bundesländer, an die Kommunen weitergeleitet. Und das bedeutet, dass es für die Unternehmen und sonstigen Begünstigten sehr viel Bürokratie gibt, weswegen die Begünstigten manchmal diese Mittel überhaupt nicht erst in Anspruch nehmen.
               

                  Deswegen meine Frage an Sie, Frau Kommissarin: Wie können wir das Abrufen dieser Mittel im Allgemeinen vereinfachen? Würden Sie mir zustimmen, wenn ich sage, dass diese Mittel direkt von der EU an die kommunalen Akteure gehen sollten? Und wenn Sie bei der letzten Frage zustimmen, sollte Ihr Nachfolger Raffaelle Fitto bei der Bundesrepublik Deutschland auch dafür werben? Und schließlich möchte ich eine persönliche Frage stellen: Welche Erfahrungen und Werte geben Sie Ihrem Nachfolger mit?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Danke schön, honourable Mr Sieper I think you have put an important question. I have been speaking with German lenders, and I visited some of them, and I can confirm that they value very much the money that is transferred from Europe to them and that it is also particularly valued the fact that the Cohesion Fund covers all the regions, with a philosophy of helping proportionately more those that cannot help themselves. So the amount of money that is transferred to a poor area is much more per inhabitant than the money that is transferred to a lender on which the capacity to help themselves is higher.
What we do is to discuss with the federal level all these allocations. But then the bulk of the funding cannot be managed directly to the regions, because that is not the structure that we have institutionally at the European level. What we have is special projects like the Urban Initiative and the New European Bauhaus; we have very specific programmes that, similarly to Erasmus, for instance, or Horizon, don't go through the normal procedure of having a partnership agreement and then discussing with Member States the internal allocation. So the philosophy is like this: we make sure that the proportion of money that is allocated reflects the relative capacity of each region to help itself. But we cannot legally have established a dialogue directly with the regions, also, because across Europe the levels of decentralisation vary immensely. Of course we are dealing with a federal state, but not all the countries have this kind of structure. So this is for future discussion and thinking. But that's what it is for the time being. Thank you.

Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Komisja Europejska musi zdawać sobie sprawę z potrzeby zmiany zapisów polityki spójności, tak aby przepisy te były dostępne, jasne i skuteczne dla regionów, zwłaszcza dla tych najbiedniejszych. Aby te przepisy i ta polityka wyrównywaly szanse między regionami pomagały regionom.
               

                  Tegoroczne klęski żywiołowe dowiodły, że obecne przepisy są nieudolne i skostniałe i nie mogą w sposób szybki i skuteczny pomagać poszkodowanym regionom. Czy nie uważa Pani, że konieczne są zmiany i uproszczenia? Czy nie uważa Pani, że konieczna jest większa elastyczność? Czy nie uważa Pani, że konieczne jest większe zaangażowanie finansowe środków unijnych? Czy nie uważa Pani, że konieczne jest przeprogramowanie?
               

                  Szanowni Państwo! Unia Europejska musi stać się prawdziwą wspólnotą dla wszystkich, od wschodu do zachodu, włącznie z tymi najbiedniejszymi regionami Unii Europejskiej, regionami i krajami, które dzisiaj są strefą buforową w związku z wojną na Ukrainie, w związku z wojną hybrydową między Białorusią a Polską, w związku, na przykład, z niekontrolowanym napływem nawozów z Rosji czy z Białorusi. Pani Komisarz! Jak w ramach polityki spójności można pomóc krajom, które sąsiadują z Rosją, Białorusią i Ukrainą?
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Well, thank you very much. And I would not be that critical in relation to cohesion policy. I think you are Polish, right? You are from Poland? Yeah. And we look at Poland, we see the departing level of Poland, and we see where you are now. And in fact, there is a massive progress if we look around the roads, the railways, the quality of the urban areas. The change is absolutely amazing, and I had the chance to move inside Poland. So Poland is making a very good use of this support.
Also, Poland is the biggest beneficiary of the Just Transition Fund, and in a lot of your areas, like Silesia and many other areas, you have really also a programme going on that is really bringing life again to areas that, if it wasn't for the cohesion support, would have completely collapsed, I think. So I suggest that, when we make these kind of approaches, in fact Poland benefited a lot.
And I had the chance to visit Rzeszów, in the border area, when you were welcoming the refugees. And then I was in Warsaw and I saw the capacity and the quality of your welcoming to the refugees from Ukraine. So I think cohesion policy has a success story in Poland, and I hope you value it like that for the future.
I think when this Parliament addresses complexities, as you were mentioning, they still exist, of course, but I read very carefully what was the suggestion for the future from the Visegrad countries that organised a meeting and a proposal, and the paper they wrote was extremely, extremely nice. But we have got to narrow down the proposals. What exactly should be the change, in what legislation and for what, without losing control?
And I refer to it having the agreement of the interpretation also from the auditors and from the Court of Auditors and from the European Public Prosecutor, so that in fact we move forward in simplification, but we don't lose the control over the taxpayers' money, as usually we say, because it is a big responsibility to transfer money, not knowing exactly where it went or what was done, if we respected all the legislation. And you, as legislators, please think what is the impact in real life when new legislation is proposed and implemented and approved.

IN THE CHAIR: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS


Vice-President


President. – Thank you very much, Madam Commissioner.
That concludes Question Time.
12.   Continued escalation in the Middle East: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, UNRWA's essential role in the region, the need to release all hostages and the recent ICC arrest warrants (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the continued escalation in the Middle East: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, UNRWA's essential role in the region, the need to release all hostages and the recent ICC arrest warrants (2024/2942(RSP)).

János Bóka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the European Union is deeply alarmed by the continued escalation in the Middle East following the brutal terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023. The European Council has condemned, and continues to condemn, in the strongest possible terms such unjustified acts of deliberate violence, and stands with the families of the victims and the hostages taken by Hamas.
It has called on all parties to exercise the utmost restraint, put an end to all hostilities immediately and fully abide by international law, including international humanitarian law. In Gaza, the European Union deplores the unacceptable number of civilian casualties, including women and children, as well as the catastrophic humanitarian situation.
The European Union's position is clear: we call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the unconditional and immediate release of all hostages, the urgent improvement of access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout Gaza, and an enduring end to hostilities. We remain committed to continue to provide needs-based assistance to people in the Middle East, with particular attention to the most vulnerable. And given the increasing need, we are scaling up the humanitarian engagement.
Furthermore, the European Union stresses the essential role of the United Nations and its agencies, notably UNRWA, in providing essential services to millions of people in Gaza and the wider region. There is also further escalation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, following increased settler violence, the expansion of illegal settlements and Israel's military operation. We strongly condemn this escalation.
Regarding Lebanon, there is a growing humanitarian crisis, and a serious risk of the political and security situation further deteriorating. The Council hasn't had the opportunity to exchange views on the matter, but we follow the news on a possible ceasefire agreement, and are hopeful that it leads to the end of hostilities and sustainable peace, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The recent statements from both Israel and Lebanon give way for cautious optimism. The European Union will continue supporting the Lebanese people, the Lebanese army and the Lebanese institutions in coordination with our international partners.
I can assure you that the situation in the Middle East will remain a priority for the Council.

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am replacing now the High Representative Vice-President Josep Borrell, who could not be here today because he is in the G7 ministerial meeting in Rome.
In fact, we do not have words to describe the unprecedented level of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The Israeli operation in northern Gaza continues, leading to more casualties among civilians, a blockade of aid and people being prevented from returning to their homes. There have been several mass casualties, bombings and attacks on healthcare facilities and workers. The UN has warned that famine is imminent in areas within the northern Gaza Strip, which have practically received no humanitarian assistance for over a month. Either convoys are not allowed to enter or, if they are, looting prevents people from accessing the assistance provided. We therefore need an immediate ceasefire and release of all remaining hostages. We regret that the efforts of the US, Qatar, Egypt did not bear fruit yet.
At the October plenary you expressed clear support towards the United Nations UNRWA and rule-based international order. We are gravely concerned about the impact of the laws voted in the Knesset on 28 October, which can effectively obstruct all UNRWA's activities in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Israel's continued attacks against the United Nations must stop. We have to defend our vision of a rule-based global order, especially when the UN Secretary-General, peacekeepers or a humanitarian agency are being threatened.
UNRWA provides essential services to millions of people in the region, not only the West Bank and Gaza, but also Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. In addition to the delivery of life-saving support, UNRWA also plays a fundamental role in providing daily education, health and social services. No UN agency can take over UNRWA's special mandate, as repeatedly repeated by UN officials. It provides services to individuals based on their status, registered Palestine refugees, in several human development fields, namely education, health, relief and social services, and emergency assistance.
Let us stress that no other UN agency is specifically mandated to directly operate health or educational facilities. The Israeli legislation would directly impact UNRWA's delivery of essential education and healthcare services, leaving about 340 000 students and over 1 million patients without access to school or clinics over the occupied Palestinian territory. Additionally, more than 14 500 local jobs in education and healthcare, key for both service delivery and community stability, are at risk.
Recognising the disastrous consequences that this legislation would have on UNRWA's operations, the European Union reached out in advance of the vote in the Knesset to persuade the Israeli Government to reconsider. First, the EU, through its delegation in Tel Aviv, made an outreach to the Israeli authorities, to which 17 Member States and six like-minded partners were associated. On the day of the vote, the High Representative issued a statement urging the Israeli authorities to review its plans to adopt the bills. Then, following the vote, the High Representative Vice-President issued a statement on behalf of the European Union in which he once again condemned any attempt to abrogate the agreement between Israel and the UNRWA, reflecting what was agreed at the October European Council. The European Union also reiterated its firm support to the UN.
Now that the laws have been adopted, we have called on Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue carrying out its crucial work in line with its mandate adopted by the UN General Assembly. We believe we have to continue our strong advocacy efforts with key like-minded partners, including the UN and G7, towards the Israeli government. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu requesting him not to implement the legislation. The legislation is due to enter into force in less than 90 days.
As the UN itself has relentlessly expressed, there is no alternative to UNRWA. Thus, it is essential that we continue reaffirming our strong support of UNRWA further to the clear language in the European Council conclusions. As a sign of our support, the EU disbursed its entire financial support of EUR 82 million for 2024.
Finally, on the International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued on 21 November against the Israeli Prime Minister and his former Minister of Defence, we would like to call for European Union unity. Now, more than ever, we need to uphold the multilateral order and continue calling for respect for and implementation of the decisions of the International Criminal Court.

Alice Teodorescu Måwe,
för PPE gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag kan inte sluta tänka på de två små pojkarna, Kfir och Ariel, som fortsatt befinner sig i Hamas fångenskap. Mina tankar ackompanjeras av den gråtande pappan vars lilla dotter tillfångatogs den 7 oktober – han som inte visste vilket öde som var värst: Att Emely var död eller i Hamas våld. Flickan frigavs senare och pappan berättade att hon, enbart viskande, beskrev tiden i Gaza som ‘lådan’.
               

                  I går, på Internationella dagen mot våld mot kvinnor, borde världen skrikit ut sin avsky över de systematiska sadistiska våldtäkterna, tortyren och terrorn som israeliska kvinnor och barn utsattes för och som de fortsatt utsätts för i Gazas klaustrofobiska tunnlar.
               

                  Tystnaden är stötande. Europaparlamentet måste samla sig till en resolution om omedelbar villkorslös frigivning av gisslan. Att så fortsatt inte skett på grund av vänsterns terrorkramande är en skam för Europa.
               

                  Vi måste kräva att internationella Röda korset genast får tillträde till gisslan, så att de får tillgång till vård. Och vi måste agera mot det faktum att gisslantagandet i sig utgör en krigsförbrytelse.
               

                  Det är sedan länge känt att Hamas, liksom Iran, använder sig av gisslantagningar som medel för utpressning. Det Hamas gör – och som västvärlden i praktiken premierar – är att försätta Israel i ett moraliskt dilemma för att tvinga landets beslutsfattare till eftergifter.
               

                  Paradoxalt nog skapas därigenom ytterligare incitament för Hamas att ta nya gisslan och att använda det egna folket som civila sköldar. Kriget i Gaza kan avslutas när som helst. Det räcker att Hamas släpper de 86 gisslantagna, varav 13 kvinnor och två barn, och lägger ner vapnen.
               

                  För att så ska ske måste palestinska myndigheten ta kommandot, grannländerna kasta ut Hamas och västvärlden inse att det inte kommer att bli fred i regionen förrän Israels existens erkänns av samtliga inblandade parter.
               

Γιάννης Μανιάτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από την αρχή υποστηρίξαμε το δικαίωμα του Ισραήλ να αμυνθεί και να μπορεί να υπερασπιστεί τους πολίτες του, ώστε να ζουν με ασφάλεια και ειρήνη. Όμως, το δικαίωμα αυτό πρέπει να ασκείται στα πλαίσια του διεθνούς δικαίου.
               

                  Η κατάσταση στη Γάζα συνεχίζει να είναι απάνθρωπη. Σύμφωνα με τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη, πάνω από το 90% των κατοίκων της είναι εσωτερικώς εκτοπισμένοι. Πάνω από 43.000 έχουν χάσει τη ζωή τους. Η απόφαση για απαγόρευση της δραστηριότητας της UNRWA είναι μια αδιανόητα επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη. Η τήρηση του διεθνούς δικαίου δεν μπορεί να είναι εθελοντική, όπως υπενθύμισε την προηγούμενη εβδομάδα το Διεθνές Δικαστήριο.
               

                  Η μόνη λύση είναι η άμεση εκεχειρία στη Γάζα, η χωρίς όρους απελευθέρωση των ομήρων και η επανέναρξη των συνομιλιών για δίκαιη, διαρκή και βιώσιμη λύση που θα βασίζεται στην ύπαρξη των δύο κρατών, σύμφωνα με τα ψηφίσματα του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ. Ένα ανεξάρτητο Ισραήλ, το οποίο θα μπορεί να προστατεύει τους πολίτες του, καθώς και ένα ανεξάρτητο, δημοκρατικό και βιώσιμο παλαιστινιακό κράτος στα σύνορα του 1967.
               

Jorge Martín Frías,
en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señor presidente, señorías, la Comisión ha desempeñado un lamentable papel desde los terribles atentados cometidos contra Israel el 7 de octubre; un papel en el que ha predominado la equidistancia, cuando no el ataque al Gobierno de Israel.
               

                  Situar en el mismo nivel —como acaba de hacer la Corte Penal Internacional y ha abrazado, con entusiasmo, el señor Borrell— a una organización terrorista como Hamás y al primer ministro de una nación democrática como el señor Benjamín Netanyahu, denota una falta de claridad moral que demuestra hasta qué punto el multilateralismo está podrido y tomado por las peores causas e ideas del islamoizquierdismo.
               

                  ¿Cuántas órdenes ha emitido la Corte Penal Internacional contra los cabecillas criminales de regímenes totalitarios como el de La Habana, Caracas, Teherán y Managua? ¿O contra los responsables del UNRWA que han permitido que haya asesinos entre sus empleados?
               

                  Señorías, Israel debe defenderse y proteger a sus ciudadanos.
               

Bert-Jan Ruissen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dat de humanitaire situatie in Gaza uitermate zorgelijk is en dat we er daarom alles aan moeten doen om de hulp ter plekke te krijgen, ik denk dat we het daar vandaag snel over eens zijn.
               

                  Als dat echter onze belangrijkste zorg is, dan begrijp ik niet waarom de Commissie en sommige collega's alleen maar naar UNRWA kijken. Alsof dat de enige instantie is die zou kunnen helpen. Dat is namelijk niet zo. Er zijn wel degelijk alternatieven. Denk aan UNOCHA, UNHCR, het World Food Programme. Instanties die erop zijn ingericht om op heel korte termijn noodhulp te bieden in crisisgebieden. Zeker nu Israël UNRWA terecht in de ban doet vanwege de banden met Hamas, moeten we wel andere instanties gaan inzetten.
               

                  Laten we bij dat alles ook de gijzelaars inderdaad niet vergeten. Ook vandaag zeggen we: Hamas, laat ze gaan!
               

                  Tegen lidstaten die zich nu blind achter het ICC scharen en zeggen bereid te zijn Netanyahu te arresteren, zeg ik: u vergist zich! Landen hebben hierin namelijk ook een eigen verantwoordelijkheid en hebben op zijn minst de plicht na te gaan of de onderbouwing van het arrestatiebevel wel deugt. Daar zijn namelijk hele grote vraagtekens bij te zetten.
               

Hilde Vautmans,
namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het wordt moeilijk om me met mijn speech aan mijn blad te houden na zulke uitlatingen van collega Ruissen, maar ik ga het toch maar doen.
               

                  De oorlog in Israël en Palestina houdt Europa een fameuze spiegel voor. Wij hebben hier, collega Ruissen, altijd de mond vol over het internationaal recht wanneer het over China of Rusland gaat. Nu echter die westerse bondgenoot geconfronteerd wordt met datzelfde internationaal recht, horen we een oorverdovende stilte, en zelfs protest en ontkenning hier op de banken. Als het arrestatiebevel van het Internationaal Strafhof genegeerd wordt, is het internationaal strafrecht niets meer waard.
               

                  Wat me minstens evenveel zorgen baart, is de dramatische humanitaire situatie daar. Het is onwaarschijnlijk wat daar gebeurt. Vóór de aanslagen 500 vrachtwagens per maand, nu nog 37.
               

                  Ik heb hier heel veel analyses gehoord. Ik heb twee heel concrete vragen. Ten eerste: Hoe gaat Europa ervoor zorgen dat het Internationaal Strafhof en de uitspraken gerespecteerd worden door alle Europese lidstaten? En ten tweede: Hoe gaat u ervoor zorgen dat UNRWA nu, onmiddellijk toegang krijgt? Er is, collega Ruissen, geen alternatief … (De Voorzitter ontneemt de spreker het woord)


Catarina Vieira,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, international law emerged as a safeguard against the horrors that humanity should never repeat. But that safeguard is under immense pressure today.
In Gaza, we see unthinkable destruction, mass displacement, civilians that are deliberately targeted and starvation being used as a method of warfare. So, naturally, internationally recognised judicial bodies are ringing all the alarm bells about Israeli war crimes. The ICJ concluded that there is a risk of genocide. The ICC issued an arrest warrant against Prime Minister Netanyahu.
But what does this change? Israel is still a major Western partner. Our weapons are still being exported there, our agreements are still not being questioned. Some Member States are even outright dismissing the ICC decision. If we apply double standards for Israel, why would anyone adhere to the rules? International law only works if it's strongly enforced, regardless of the perpetrator, and that is what the European Union must do.

Lynn Boylan,
on behalf of The Left Group. – A Uachtaráin, the international order is very clear. Targeted attacks against civilian infrastructure, with the clear aim to cut off men, women and children from water, electricity and heating are pure acts of terror.
These are war crimes. I absolutely agree, and so did President von der Leyen, because they are her words in October 2022. However, fast forward to November 2024 and the ICC have issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, citing starvation and the deliberate deprivation of food, water and medical supplies to a civilian population as the basis for the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Yet there has been radio silence from President von der Leyen and frankly, the mealy-mouthed responses from some Member States have been shameful. The EU's credibility is in shreds, not just in Palestine and the Global South, but even within its own Member States. Israel is driving a coach and horses through the institutions of international law and multilateralism, and they are being aided and abetted by these institutions.
Arming Israel is complicity with genocide. Trading with Israel is complicity. Absence of sanctions is complicity. International law depends on the willingness of governments to support justice, no matter where the abuses are committed or by whom. The failure to defend international law is a threat to all of us. This is not about politics, it's not about personalities – it's about justice. It's time to sanction Israel.

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señor presidente, una vez más estamos reunidos aquí, como cada mes desde hace un año, para seguir discutiendo sobre este terrible conflicto, sin aportar ninguna solución desde esta Casa. Pero eso sí, servirá —me imagino— para justificar las redes sociales y las notas de prensa de la ultraizquierda.
               

                  Por favor, dejen de utilizar el sufrimiento de los pueblos palestinos e israelíes para sus campañas políticas, señores de la ultraizquierda, y aporten soluciones ya de una vez. Soluciones que yo mismo pienso estudiar si reconocen que Hamás fue la que empezó esa tragedia, si reconocen que Irán financia y apoya a Hamás y a Hizbulá, si piden la liberación de los rehenes israelíes, si condenan las torturas, las violaciones y los asesinatos de Hamás sobre ciudadanos, especialmente mujeres, israelíes, si reconocen el derecho de Israel a existir y a no ser borrada del mapa, como asociaciones con las que ustedes trabajan piden diariamente.
               

                  Si confirman estos cinco puntos, entonces merecerá la pena venir aquí a debatir en este pleno.
               

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor López-Istúriz, yo compro esas cinco premisas. Es difícil encontrar nuevas palabras, pero vamos a intentarlo.
               

                  Los dobles estándares son el cáncer de la política exterior de la Unión Europea: erosionan gravemente nuestra credibilidad en el mundo y, especialmente, en el sur global. Y, a pesar de ello, insistimos en exhibirlos con frivolidad cada vez que tratamos la guerra de agresión rusa y la monstruosa desproporción del invocado derecho de autoprotección de Israel.
               

                  La automática acusación de antisemitismo ante cualquier crítica está vaciando de sentido el concepto: si todos somos antisemitas, al final nadie lo es; estamos castrando el grave contenido de esa acusación de tanto manosearlo. El pueblo judío está perdiendo un escudo, una protección que ha conservado, hasta ahora, todo el sentido histórico y toda su capacidad de proteger.
               

                  No hay un Derecho internacional para Rusia y otro para Israel: son el mismo Derecho internacional, y nuestra posición tiene que ser la misma ante similares violaciones. Y eso, por supuesto, incluye los mandatos de detención de los tribunales internacionales, que merecen nuestra protección, para que, tras la guerra, no queden igual de arrasados que la Franja de Gaza.
               

                  No hemos podido salvar a Gaza; salvemos, al menos, la justicia internacional.
               

Jaroslav Bžoch (PfE). – Pane předsedající, já se budu věnovat v této debatě pouze jedné části, a to je role agentury UNRWA. Je opravdu ta role nezbytná? Je opravdu tak zásadní, nebo je agentura UNRWA součástí celého problému? Pokud vezmeme v úvahu, že agentura UNRWA funguje už dekády a dekády let, tak vlastně podporuje generace závislé na mezinárodní pomoci bez jasného plánu na ukončení uprchlických statusů. Nejde pouze o humanitární pomoc. UNRWA dělá samozřejmě i ostatní projekty, například školství. Co se učí ve školství? Co vyučují zaměstnanci agentury UNRWA? Je to džihád například vůči Izraeli? Je to džihád srdcem nebo mečem? Jak může být agentura nezávislá, pokud vezmeme v úvahu, že bývalý šéf se opakovaně scházel s teroristickými organizacemi? O to závažnější jsou informace o možném zapojení zaměstnanců do hrůzného teroristického útoku dne 7. října 2023. UNRWA nedokázala zajistit neutralitu personálu, ale umožnila, aby infrastruktura agentury byla zneužita k šíření nenávisti a násilí. Pokud opravdu chceme, aby ta role byla nezbytná, tak musí okamžitě dojít k reorganizaci celé agentury, protože v tuto chvíli je spíše součástí problému než jeho řešením.
               

Rihards Kols (ECR). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the escalation in the Middle East calls for moral clarity and actionable pragmatism. Israel has every right to defend itself against terror and peace cannot be built while hostages remain captive. We demand their unconditional and immediate release.
But let us address another obstacle to stability: UNRWA. This organisation – intended as temporary measure – has evolved into a bureaucratic nightmare, from educational curriculums promoting hatred to the misuse of facilities by Hamas, it has abdicated neutrality and failed its mandate.
Alternatives do exist, as we have heard in public expert discourse. Yet, Mr Borrell has continued to fuel anti-Israel sentiment, shifting the Overton window to dangerous extremes.
This failure of balance does not foster peace. It undermines it. Events like the recent pogrom-like violence in Amsterdam show us the consequences of this recklessness.
Peace in the Middle East demands engagement from all regional players and solutions that address the root issues, not one-sided narratives or institutional inertia.

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all say that Mr Kols is wrong, of course: the European Union carried out a very extensive evaluation to satisfy itself that there is no risk whatsoever of the diversion of EU funding from its intended purpose. That has been established time and time again by the European Commission.
I would call on the President of the Commission to make a statement putting the full weight of the European Commission behind a request to the Government of Israel to request the Knesset to extend the 90-day period, because, as everybody knows, there is no replacement for UNRWA.
As our HR/VP said, all ICC decisions are binding on all Member States. Despite the overwhelming support of EU Member States, we have had no statement from the President of the Commission, and I think it is reasonable to conclude that that silence undermines the legitimacy of the Court and of international law.
The EU Action Plan on the ICC states: 'The EU and its Member States will undertake consistent action to encourage full cooperation of states with the ICC, including the prompt execution of arrest warrants'.

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Rihards Kols)


Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Krigsbrott, brott mot mänskligheten – det allvarligaste och mest avskyvärda som vi människor kan göra mot varandra – det är vad ni som vägrar att göra vad som krävs för att stoppa Netanyahu har möjliggjort.
               

                  Alla de civila – som mest är kvinnor och barn – som dödats i Israels anfall eller som dött av svält på grund av att mat, medicin och annan nödhjälp medvetet hålls borta får vi aldrig tillbaka. Inte heller gisslan som dödats i Hamas tunnlar. Men ni har fortfarande chansen att tänka om och göra rätt. Upprätthåll ICC:s arresteringsordrar. Pausa EU:s associeringsavtal med Israel. Inför omedelbart vapenembargo. Och öka stödet till UNRWA.
               

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, quando propusemos este debate, tentaram travá-lo, mas a gravidade da decisão de Israel de tentar impedir a ação da UNRWA tornou impossível impedi-lo. Aqui continuamos a intervir pelos direitos do povo palestiniano, como na iniciativa que protagonizámos neste mesmo Parlamento Europeu, dando voz aos palestinianos e à própria UNRWA, através de Marta Lorenzo, sua diretora para a Europa.
               

                  Disse-nos que o que está em causa não é a agência, é o povo palestiniano que serve, as suas vidas, os seus direitos. São as 350 000 crianças palestinianas a quem a UNRWA garante educação nos territórios ilegalmente ocupados. É a garantia de metade da resposta humanitária e 2/3 dos cuidados de saúde primários na Faixa de Gaza.
               

                  Há que travar Israel nesta tentativa de impedir a ação da UNRWA, criada em 49 para acudir aos refugiados palestinianos, refugiados que Israel quer condenar à fome e à doença e retirar da equação política. O papel da UNRWA é fundamental. A questão que resta é: o que vai fazer a UE para o defender?
               

Grzegorz Braun (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący, trwa kolejna debata na temat ludobójstwa w Gazie, na temat ludobójstwa, które dokonywane jest tam przez terrorystyczne państwo żydowskie. Ale debata będzie jałowa, ponieważ w tym samym czasie jeden z premierów państwa członkowskiego zaprasza ludobójczego premiera państwa położonego w Palestynie i gwarantuje mu nietykalność w sytuacji, gdy międzynarodowy Trybunał upomina się o pana Netanjahu i jego rzeźników.
               

                  Może więc czas najwyższy podnieść tę debatę na wyższy poziom? I może czas ogłosić koniec eksperymentu, jakim jest żydowskie terrorystyczne państwo w Palestynie? To państwo powstało mocą demokratycznego głosowania w Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych przed laty. Proponuję głosowanie, proponuję inicjatywę Unii Europejskiej: wnieśmy do Narodów Zjednoczonych tę kwestię i przegłosujmy zakończenie eksperymentu, który kończy się ludobójstwem. Niektórzy mówią o rozwiązaniu dwupaństwowym. Poprę to rozwiązanie, jeśli…
               

(Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)


Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, (inaudible) defend democracy and the rule of law, separation of powers, independent justice, freedom of speech and opinion, freedom of press.
These are pillars our civilisation is about. And who is fighting at the utmost frontier for this civilisation and for these values? It's the Israeli Defence Forces, it's the Israeli government and it's the Israeli people in the first place.
So, I very much listen also to courts, but I also very much use my right to say my opinion in the framework of freedom of speech, freedom of expression.
I think Churchill won the Second World War, not alone, but he was the leader. Netanyahu will win the war for this very civilisation, not alone, but he is the leader.
He will be politically defined by the people of Israel in the first place because this is a democratic country – and this is one other of the pillars of our civilisation. This is also what people in The Hague, decision takers there should understand.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, let's be clear about the actions of some individuals and political groups in here. It is hypocrisy to question the ICC arrest warrant. It is shameful that the far-right groups and the conservative EPP attempted to block this issue from today's agenda. I expected such behaviour from anti-democrats, but what justification does the EPP Group have?
The ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Gallant and Hamas commander-in-chief Deif should not be questioned by anyone. It is an obligation of all our Member States to implement it. It is their obligation – not question it, by anyone.
Respect for international law must be maintained consistently, regardless of who is the aggressor and who is the victim. And as far as I know, there is not an international law for Israel and another international law for the rest of the world.
There is no difference between perpetrators and those silently and actively watching people being killed. Don't forget that silence is to be complicit. Stop defending war crimes, for God's sake!

Elena Yoncheva (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is an urgent matter that affects hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. We must acknowledge the essential role played by the humanitarian agencies actively working on the ground.
UNRWA is a leading organisation providing food, shelter and health care to nearly 2 million people and it's responsible for 63 % of primary health care just in Gaza. It's the only UN organisation, UN agency educating more than 350 000 children in Gaza and in the West Bank. Those services are crucial for the well-being and dignity of the people there.
Yesterday, positive news regarding the possible peace deal for Lebanon offers a hope, a powerful reminder that peace is achievable. We must extend similar efforts to Gaza, promoting a two-state solution. As the Union, we have the capacity to play a more active role in fostering peace.

Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, ahora mismo, 600 000 niños necesitan vacunas contra la polio en Palestina. Hasta un millón de personas han encontrado refugio durante la guerra gracias al trabajo y esfuerzo del UNRWA sobre el terreno. Sería una catástrofe humanitaria, señora comisaria, prohibir la presencia del UNRWA en Gaza y Cisjordania.
               

                  No existe un plan B por parte del Gobierno de Netanyahu; si se prohíbe la presencia del UNRWA, nadie proporcionará ninguna ayuda a los palestinos. Repito: nadie. Sin embargo, Israel sí tiene un plan A, y ese plan consiste en dos pasos, señores de la extrema derecha: limpieza étnica y genocidio; porque lo que está cometiendo es un genocidio.
               

                  La Corte Penal Internacional emitió un mandato claro: Netanyahu es un criminal de guerra, y los criminales de guerra tienen que ser perseguidos también en Europa. Sin embargo, la señora Von der Leyen —que estará aquí mañana— ni siquiera se molestó en hacer un comentario al respecto. Una verdadera vergüenza.
               

                  Dejen de socavar el Derecho internacional y humanitario y los derechos humanos y cuiden a la población palestina, que está pasando hambre, está sin hospitales y, sobre todo, está siendo asesinada. ¡Viva el pueblo palestino!
               

Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτό που συμβαίνει στη Γάζα, αυτό που συμβαίνει κατά του παλαιστινιακού λαού είναι γενοκτονία. Εμείς από την πρώτη στιγμή –η Αριστερά κατήγγειλε την ιμπεριαλιστική επίθεση του Πούτιν στην Ουκρανία, την εγκληματική επίθεση της Χαμάς– καταγγείλαμε την παράνομη κατοχή των παλαιστινιακών εδαφών. Όμως, η ιστορία δεν ξεκίνησε από την εισβολή ή από την επίθεση της Χαμάς. Είχαμε άλλα που είχαν προηγηθεί, με αποφάσεις που δεν έγιναν δεκτές από τον Οργανισμό Ηνωμένων Εθνών, που απαιτούν την ελεύθερη ύπαρξη του παλαιστινιακού κράτους.
               

                  Εμείς καταγγέλλουμε την παράνομη κατοχή της Κύπρου από τον τουρκικό στρατό. Στο δίκαιο δεν υπάρχουν δύο μέτρα και δύο σταθμά. Τα δύο νομοσχέδια που υπερψήφισε η Κνέσετ παρεμποδίζουν τη δραστηριότητα της UNRWA, που είναι ο βασικότερος πάροχος ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας στην Παλαιστίνη. Είναι βάρβαρη, είναι απάνθρωπη η πολιτική του Νετανιάχου, είναι σαφές. Διαβάστε, λοιπόν, την πρόσφατη απόφαση και το ένταλμα σύλληψης του Διεθνούς Ποινικού Δικαστηρίου, όπως διαβάσατε και τα προηγούμενα. Όχι δύο μέτρα και δύο σταθμά. Ή με το δίκαιο ή με την παρανομία. Και εδώ το δίκαιο φωνάζει.
               

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is one single action that could decisively change the situation in Gaza: the release of the hostages by Hamas, unlike an ICC arrest warrant that oversteps its competences. It's been 417 days!
The State of Israel has had to fight repeatedly for its survival. The attack of 7 October was not spontaneous: it was backed by extensive military preparations and significant funding. Israel, understandably, is now determined once and for all to ensure its security with all its might.
However, the release of the hostages by Hamas would put significant pressure on Israel to alter its current actions in Gaza. Releasing 100 hostages in exchange for improving the humanitarian conditions for millions of Palestinians – only terrorists devoid of any humanity can reject that logic. Israel is offering USD 5 million per hostage to anyone who assists in their liberation.
Blurring the lines between terrorists and civilians, as well as the tolerance of terrorism, is one of the greatest threats to any society. I hope more and more people will become aware and engaged in this fight, and draw a clear line between those who are willing to embrace the values of life, dignity and humanity, and those who don't.

Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o último relatório de avaliação do Comité Especial da ONU é inequívoco. Em Gaza, os palestinianos são alvo de ações que intencionalmente lhes são apenas dirigidas por serem palestinianos, de condições de existência fatais, com privação de água e alimentos, de assassinatos em massa e atentados à sua integridade física e psíquica, de desumanização permanente. Em suma, de uma política com características consistentes com aquilo que é um genocídio.
               

                  Já na Cisjordânia, onde a expansão dos colonatos israelitas e a restrição de direitos económicos, sociais e culturais dos palestinianos constituem efetiva discriminação, vive-se um regime de apartheid. Foi neste contexto que o TPI emitiu mandados de detenção, nomeadamente em relação ao primeiro-ministro Netanyahu, por responsabilidade criminal, à luz do direito internacional. Esta não é uma decisão política. É uma decisão judicial. E cumpre aos 123 signatários do Estatuto de Roma, nomeadamente os 27 Estados-Membros da União Europeia, garantir o seu cumprimento.
               

                  Mas sabemos bem que, para a população de Gaza e Cisjordânia, confrontada com uma estratégia para lhe tornar a vida insuportável, confrontada com o novo modelo de guerra sem precedentes, o cumprimento deste mandato chegará sempre tarde de mais. Por isso, não deixaremos de insistir para que os Estados-Membros da União honrem a sua especial responsabilidade histórica e usem a sua diplomacia comum, agora mais do que nunca.
               

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Mr President, I used to believe that the European Union embodies its core values, but how can anyone still believe that? What we are witnessing is crimes against humanity. Israel went as far as to making targeted deadly attacks on UNRWA staff and property, and when that didn't make them leave, they decided to ban them.
Still, the EU's silence and failure to condemn Israel's actions means we are de facto supporting it. I'll admit, I was hopeful last week that the EU will stand united in backing of the ICC ruling to issue arrest warrants against senior Israel leaders and Hamas officials, as we portray ourselves as defenders of the rule of law.
Yet, once again, the deeply rooted double standards have prevailed. You should be ashamed. And to all of you who still pick and choose when and for what you uphold EU values, there is no decision to be made. Do better colleagues and be quiet when the children are sleeping, not when they are being killed.

Emma Fourreau (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, s'en prendre à l'UNRWA, comme le fait Israël, c'est affirmer définitivement que l'on veut la fin du peuple palestinien. Mettre en doute sa neutralité, jusqu'ici en Europe, c'est affirmer définitivement que le droit international n'a plus aucune valeur aux yeux des défenseurs du génocide.
               

                  Les pires criminels de guerre, toujours, piétinent le droit international et entravent l'action humanitaire. Israël détruit, massacre les femmes, affame les enfants, assèche les ressources vitales pour les Palestiniens pour les regarder mourir à petit feu.
               

                  Le boucher Netanyahou veut couper la dernière main tendue à la Palestine et porter le coup fatal à une population plongée dans un effroyable désastre humanitaire, que les ONG et les médecins constatent avec impuissance.
               

                  Israël interdit les activités de l'UNRWA; l'Union européenne doit répondre avec fermeté, en suspendant enfin l'accord d'association et en réaffirmant son soutien aux actions de l'ONU. Tous les États membres ont le devoir d'exécuter le mandat d'arrêt délivré par la Cour pénale internationale à l'endroit du criminel de guerre Netanyahou.
               

                  ‘L'affirmation de la paix est le plus grand des combats’, disait Jean Jaurès. Ajoutons aujourd'hui qu'il n'y a pas de paix sans justice. Justice pour le peuple palestinien!
               

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, slušajući neke rasprave, mogli bismo se zapitati je li postoji razlika između Rusije i Izraela. Njihovi lideri imaju optužnice Međunarodnog kaznenog suda. Međutim, ipak postoji jedna fundamentalna razlika. Ona je sljedeća: 24. veljače 2022. Rusija je pokrenula agresiju. 7. listopada 2023. Izrael je bio žrtva agresije. I to je ključna razlika.
               

                  Kad se neki pitaju zašto se tretiraju različito Rusija i Izrael – zato. Jer je jedan pokrenuo agresiju, drugo je bila žrtva agresije. To ne znači da žrtva agresije može činiti što želi. Mora se držati međunarodnoga prava i ako to ne čini, mora se i odgovarati. Ali međunarodna zajednica, ako je išta od nje još ostalo, ne smije izjednačiti agresora i žrtvu. A ne smijemo to ni činiti mi, ovdje, u ovome domu.
               

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, in the light of the daily war crimes committed in Gaza and Lebanon, the ICC arrest warrants are a grim consolation for tens of thousands of victims. I welcome the ICC's decision and call on all states to respect it and to defend international law and institutions. Let us be clear: protecting international law and ensuring accountability for all, regardless of nationality or position, is imperative.
The ICC must fulfil its mandate to uphold justice and prevent future violations. This applies equally to Putin and Netanyahu – both facing war crimes charges. What's even more striking than the double standards often applied, including in the EU institutions, toward Israel, is the silence of President von der Leyen. Silence is complicity.
In 2012, the European Union received a prize for its contribution to post-war peace in Europe. The question is: does it still deserve it? The actions of its leaders speak for themselves. Not in my name!
Ceasefire now! Sanctions now! Peace now!

Lucia Yar (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, nothing can justify the brutal Hamas attack on 7 October or the suffering of Israelis still held hostage. While recognising Israel's right to self-defence, it is impossible to justify its response, resulting in over 40 000 civilian deaths in Gaza.
And I want to address this humanitarian catastrophe happening in front of our eyes: this winter, millions of Palestinians face hunger and diseases, lacking homes, food and medical supplies.
The role of UNRWA is vital. It is providing essentials like food, water, healthcare and education, and there is no replacement in the region. Israel's bills labelling this UN agency as terrorist organisation take effect in two months. Yet, as I said, there is absolutely no viable alternative in the region that can replace this agency's crucial aid.
Let me be clear: Israel has no plan B for war refugees, and if we all fail to act, history will judge us.

Per Clausen (The Left). – Hr. formand! Arrestordren fra Den Internationale Domstol var klar. Den israelske regering har systematisk brugt sult som krigsvåben mod den palæstinensiske befolkning, forhindret dem adgang til lægehjælp og bevidst angrebet civile, og vi kan kun forvente, at Israels bandlysning af UNRWA vil få yderligere katastrofale konsekvenser for den humanitære situation i Palæstina. Man må stille sig selv spørgsmålet: hvordan kan EU forsvare sin troværdighed, hvis vi tillader Netanyahu at fortsætte dette folkemord uden konsekvenser? EU må i det mindste suspendere sin associeringsaftale med Israel, indføre en våbenembargo og indføre sanktioner mod Israel. Jeg må sige, at jeg skammer mig over EU's hykleri, over, hvordan EU på den ene side hævder at forsvare menneskerettighederne og den internationale lov, og på den anden side har forholdt sig passive, mens tusindvis af uskyldige palæstinensere er blevet dræbt. Menneskerettigheder og international lov kan ikke gradbøjes. Det er på tide, at EU sætter handling bag ordene og gør alt, hvad vi kan for at forhindre krigsforbrydelserne mod det palæstinensiske folk.
               

Wouter Beke (PPE). – Voorzitter, een moorddadige aanslag op 8 oktober in Israël. De beelden uit het Midden-Oosten: tienduizenden burgerslachtoffers, waaronder veel kinderen, ook in de Gaza. Onafgebroken Israëlische bombardementen in Libanon. Om nog maar te zwijgen van de gruweldaden van Hamas en Hezbollah die hele samenlevingen ontwrichten, vaak gesteund door het Iraanse regime.
               

                  Er is geen goede kant aan dit verhaal. Er is maar één kant waar we achter moeten staan en dat is die van het internationaal recht. Als vredesproject, par excellence, moet Europa meer doen, zowel in de humanitaire ondersteuning van slachtoffers als rond sancties tegen daders van zulk geweld.
               

                  Meer dan ooit moet er een duurzame oplossing gevonden worden in het Midden-Oosten, te beginnen met een tijdelijk en een gedragen vredesbestand. Daarvan is vandaag sprake. Een tijdelijk bestand van zestig dagen kan een eerste stap zijn. Het kan het begin zijn. Waar is Europa om dat mede mogelijk te maken?
               

Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per la seconda volta ci troviamo a discutere di Gaza e di Medio Oriente ma di nuovo senza un testo da votare, lasciando il Parlamento ancora vergognosamente muto davanti a una catastrofe umanitaria, davanti a un genocidio.
               

                  Ogni mese a Strasburgo parliamo di Ucraina, giustamente, e votiamo ogni tipo di sostegno alle vittime e di condanna dell'aggressore. Su questo invece stiamo zitti, nonostante le gravissime violazioni dei diritti umani e del diritto umanitario, l'invasione della sovranità territoriale del Libano, i mandati di arresto per la leadership di israeliani e di Hamas, le vergognose leggi anti-UNRWA che aggraveranno ancora di più la situazione della popolazione palestinese, che è già allo stremo.
               

                  Io ringrazio davvero di cuore l'alto rappresentante per aver mantenuto la barra dritta sui diritti umani in questi mesi, di fronte a un Consiglio invece incapace di mostrarsi responsabile.
               

                  Alla vigilia – forse – di un accordo sul cessate il fuoco in Libano, possiamo solo ribadire quel che chiediamo da inizio legislatura: cessate il fuoco a Gaza, che si vieti il commercio con gli insediamenti illegali e l'esportazione di armi verso Israele, che si liberino gli ostaggi e che i criminali di guerra vengano perseguiti senza impunità, quando sono terroristi e anche quando sono capi di governo.
               

Ingeborg Ter Laak (PPE). – Voorzitter, ik vraag u om even stil te staan: 90 % van de bewoners in Gaza hebben geen huis meer. Van alle doden: vier op de tien doden zijn kinderen, de meesten tussen de vijf en negen jaar, en toegang tot humanitaire hulp is nul. Wij mogen niet wegkijken.
               

                  Momenteel is de hele regio instabiel, met meerdere fronten waar gevechten plaatsvinden. Daarom zijn humanitaire organisaties zoals UNRWA nodig om humanitaire hulp te verlenen en meer slachtoffers te voorkomen. Wij moeten blijven werken aan een vreedzame en duurzame oplossing voor het complexe conflict. De onderhandelingen over een staakt-het-vuren en de onderhandelingen over het vrijlaten van alle gijzelaars moeten daarom doorgaan. Want alleen samen, met alle partijen, kan er een oplossing worden gevonden voor dit conflict.
               

Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Voorzitter, de geweldspiraal in het Midden-Oosten draait door. Dag in, dag uit. We gaan het normaal vinden: enorme aantallen slachtoffers verdwijnen naar pagina zes en zeven, terwijl we wegkijken en de vernietiging van Gaza, de Palestijnse bevolking en dorpen/wijken in Libanon op haar beloop laten. De struisvogelpolitiek moet stoppen!
               

                  Er is geen rechtvaardiging voor het onvoorstelbare aantal burgerslachtoffers door geweld, maar ook door honger en verdrijving als wapen. De EU moet het internationaal recht strikt naleven. De arrestatiebevelen van het ICC zijn gerechtvaardigd en simpelweg bindend. Netanyahu's barbaarse en disproportionele moordcampagne ondermijnt duurzame vrede en de vrijlating van de gijzelaars, want Netanyahu heeft de gijzelaars vanaf het begin in de steek gelaten.
               

                  Geen enkele hoeveelheid humanitaire hulp van de EU verbloemt het gênante gebrek aan concrete actie richting Israël. Schort het associatieverdrag op. Stop de levering van wapens en stop het goedpraten van oorlogsmisdaden. Een mensenleven is een mensenleven. Recht op leven zou niet af moeten hangen van je nationaliteit of afkomst. En de reactie van de EU evenmin.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, dámy a pánové, osobně příliš často nekomentuji rozhodnutí jakéhokoliv soudu, protože moc soudní má být nezávislá na moci politické. Ale odmítám jako občan, aby bylo vlastně využíváno Mezinárodního trestního soudu k politickým hrám. Zatykač na představitele státu, který se brání barbarským útokům proti civilistům – dávat na úroveň těch, kteří tento barbarský čin spáchali, to jsou vůdci Hamásu –, to je podle mě naprosto, naprosto neskutečné. Jakým právem soudci hodnotí vlastně utrpení nevinných civilistů, kteří byli zavražděni, uneseni a vyhnáni ze svých domovů? Jakým právem soud zlehčuje útoky teroristů, které jsou zločinem proti civilizovanému světu? Já chci žít ve společnosti, která se drží právních zásad. A pevně věřím, že Evropská unie řekne tomuto absurdnímu rozhodnutí jednoznačné NE.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, dana 7. listopada 2023. izvršen je najsmrtonosniji napad izravno usmjeren na židovski narod još od vremena Drugog svjetskog rata. I budimo iskreni, Izrael je mnogo puta ponudio ruku Palestincima. Dopustio je stvaranje Palestinske samouprave devedesetih. Ehud Barak nudio je stvaranje palestinske države na najvećem dijelu Zapadne obale i cijelom teritoriju Gaze. Ariel Šaron je 2005. naredio povlačenje iz Gaze i rušenje svih židovskih naselja. Od tada goleme količine novca ušle su u Gazu, dovoljno da postane nova Švicarska. Što su s time napravili? Gradili tunele i proizvodili rakete kako bi mogli ubijati izraelske civile.
               

                  Ukratko, stvari su jasne. Teroristička organizacija Hamas treba prestati postojati. Bilo kakvo relativiziranje toga je sramotno. Zato žalosti da i sada neki zastupnici u ovome domu pokušavaju izjednačiti teroriste sa žrtvama, dok istovremeno diljem Europe islamisti, propalestinski pristaše, šire govor mržnje i podržavaju teroriste. Zato je važno nastaviti solidarizirati se sa žrtvama terorističkog napada na Izrael i poduprijeti pravo Izraela na samoobranu. Islamizam predstavlja prijetnju, ne samo Izraelu, već i budućnosti Europe i zato treba podržati Izrael u njegovoj pravednoj borbi protiv ovog zla.
               

Hana Jalloul Muro (S&D). – Mr President, we have to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza, for humanitarian aid to reach families in northern Gaza. We have always condemned the terrorist attacks of Hamas on 7 October. We demand the release of all hostages with no conditions. Families are suffering and Netanyahu is not bringing them back home.
We need an arms embargo that will avoid more deaths. We need the terrorists of Hezbollah to surrender arms and to reinforce the Lebanese Government and Lebanese institutions. We need to support the ICC decisions: we support them for Putin, so we need to support their decisions for Netanyahu, who is responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians.
We need to maintain the international law system. We need peace. People in the Middle East have the right to live. The lives of Jews and Arabs are worth the same. They are brothers and sisters. Ceasefire now!

Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, a política externa da União Europeia parece ter esquecido a máxima do cardeal Richelieu, segundo a qual os Estados não têm imortalidade. A sua salvação é agora ou nunca.
               

                  Os idealistas capturaram os realistas e estão a destruir as relações internacionais da Europa. A UE ataca e ofende o presidente eleito dos Estados Unidos da América, um aliado fundamental. Ataca e ofende o primeiro-ministro de um Estado-Membro, a Hungria. Ataca e quer prender o primeiro-ministro de Israel, uma democracia amiga e o principal poder no Médio Oriente, que foi vítima de um ataque genocida a 7/10.
               

                  O resultado está à vista. Amiga dos seus inimigos e inimiga dos seus amigos, a União Europeia vai acabar cercada de inimigos e sem amigos para a ajudar a defender-se.
               

Nina Carberry (PPE). – Mr President, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached unprecedented levels, with countless lives depending on the indispensable work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Suspending funding for UNRWA would be catastrophic, cutting off critical services to millions of Palestinian refugees. No organisation matches UNRWA's comprehensive aid delivery in Gaza, and recent Israeli legislative efforts to ban its operations threaten to violate international law and jeopardise regional stability.
At this critical moment, the international community must uphold humanitarian principles, stand against these violations, and strengthen support for UNRWA's vital mission to save lives and maintain stability in the region.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, cred că avem datoria să nu tratăm cu dublă măsură. Avem două conflicte și trebuie să avem aceeași definiție a atacatorului și a celui care se apără. Trebuie neapărat să fie eliberați ostaticii. Discutăm din octombrie anul trecut eliberarea de ostatici și nu s-au întors acești ostatici. Trebuie, de asemenea, să se găsească căi diferite și multe pentru a aduce ajutoare umanitare. Totuși, nu putem să spunem că Israelul este singurul vinovat atât timp cât Hamas a atacat, atât timp cât Hamas este o organizație teroristă, atât timp cât am avut și alte atacuri din partea acestor organizații teroriste.
               

                  Cred că trebuie să ne poziționăm corect și să încercăm să găsim soluția pentru pace, pentru a nu mai muri oameni și a nu mai rămâne copii fără hrană, copii fără mamă și tată. Asta este soluția, nu să ne poziționăm de-o parte și de alta, în funcție de alte principii. Asta este datoria noastră: să tratăm la fel conflictele internaționale.
               

Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, por orden de la Corte Penal Internacional, Netanyahu ya es un fugado de la justicia que debe ser perseguido, detenido y juzgado.
               

                  Pero no olvidemos una cosa importante: al lado de él, en el banquillo de acusados, deben estar también los Estados Unidos y Europa, porque los líderes occidentales no participan directamente de los crímenes de Netanyahu, pero los hacen posible con su apoyo financiero, político y militar.
               

                  Es cierto: los cientos de miles de víctimas —la mayoría niños, niñas, mujeres…— apuntan con su dedo acusador a Netanyahu, pero también a Occidente. Su complicidad no es pasiva, es activa; como decimos los abogados penalistas: es cooperador necesario, tiene las manos manchadas de sangre.
               

                  Por eso, estas órdenes de detención son un aviso a esos líderes —a muchos de sus compañeros y compañeras— que, quizá algún día, reciban algún aviso de la Corte Penal Internacional, que ya no es un mero instrumento al servicio de los poderosos, al servicio de Occidente, para perseguir a sus enemigos, a Putin, o los crímenes cometidos en África o en Asia; ahora está ganando independencia.
               

                  Por tanto, yo que muchos de ustedes, no dormiría tranquilo porque, a veces, la justicia actúa, y no siempre sale gratis cometer delitos o apoyarlos.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, quel embarras pour la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, alors qu'aujourd'hui la Cour pénale internationale dit de Netanyahou – l'homme qu'elle a rencontré à Tel-Aviv, à qui elle a serré la main avec un grand sourire, à qui elle a promis tout son soutien, l'homme à qui l'Europe vend encore des armes, à qui on donne des fonds publics européens – qu'il faut l'arrêter pour crimes contre l'humanité, pour crimes de guerre!
               

                  L'embarras de Mme von der Leyen, qui n'arrive pas à poster un tweet pour dire: ‘Ah ben oui, Poutine, oui oui, je veux qu'il soit arrêté, mais M. Netanyahou, mon allié, mon ami, doit être arrêté aussi!’, est palpable partout dans le monde. Et, partout dans le monde, on voit que cette Union européenne a deux poids, deux mesures et – même si elle prétend le contraire – que les vies palestiniennes ne valent pas, pour cette Union européenne, ce que valent les vies ukrainiennes. Que même dans ce Parlement, on n'arrive pas à voter une résolution pour condamner les crimes de guerre israéliens. C'est inacceptable!
               

                  Alors aujourd'hui, dans ce monde, l'Europe a un choix à faire: est-on du côté de la justice ou du côté du colonialisme, illégal, israélien? Faisons ce choix et faisons-le maintenant.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μαίνεται η σφαγή του παλαιστινιακού λαού από το κράτος-κατακτητή Ισραήλ, με την εισβολή στον Λίβανο, τις δολοφονικές επιθέσεις σε Συρία και Ιράν και την εγκληματική απαγόρευση της UNRWA. Τα προσχήματα για τις ισραηλινές θηριωδίες έχουν καταρρεύσει. Το Ισραήλ διώκεται διεθνώς για γενοκτονία και ο Νετανιάχου είναι υπό σύλληψη ως εγκληματίας πολέμου.
               

                  Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση στερείται πλέον άλλοθι για να συνεχίζει τη στρατιωτική, οικονομική, πολιτική συνεργασία με το κράτος-δολοφόνο Ισραήλ. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εντείνει τους εξοπλισμούς και η ελληνική κυβέρνηση, με τη στήριξη όλων των κομμάτων του ευρωατλαντικού τόξου, εμπλέκεται όλο και πιο βαθιά. Απόδειξη, η επίσκεψη του Γενικού Γραμματέα του ΝΑΤΟ Ρούτε στην Ελλάδα, που κηρύχτηκε ανεπιθύμητη από τον λαό με τεράστια διαδήλωση στην Αθήνα.
               

                  Αλληλεγγύη στο δίκαιο του παλαιστινιακού λαού. Λευτεριά στην Παλαιστίνη με αναγνώριση ανεξάρτητου παλαιστινιακού κράτους στα σύνορα πριν τον Ιούνιο του 1967, με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ, μία ανεξάρτητη πατρίδα δίπλα στο κράτος του Ισραήλ.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President and honourable Members, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Too many people are dying. We believe that the European Union cannot stay silent.
Last week, at the Foreign Affairs Council, the High Representative / Vice-President proposed to the European Union foreign ministers to suspend the political dialogue with Israel. Member States did not agree with this proposal. We do hope that Member States will be able to agree on sanctioning violent settlers and those that enable them in the West Bank, as well as Hamas supporters.
After the United States election, the European Union's engagement on the two-state solution will be all the more important, including through the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. Some 100 states and international organisations participate in the initiative.
The recent meeting in Riyadh, which gathered nearly 100 representatives of states and international organisations, demonstrated the broad interest in this platform. The High Representative / Vice-President will chair – with the Belgian Foreign Minister, incoming Commissioner Hadja Lahbib – the next meeting of the Global Alliance in Brussels on 28 November, at the invitation of Belgium and the European Union.
Our intention is to use the meeting to push for more structured cooperation on practical contributions to help protect and advance the two-state solution. We should try to reinforce this alliance, as we know well that only a political solution with the deep involvement of Israel and Palestine's neighbours will bring peace and stability in the Middle East.

President. – The debate is closed.
13.   Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)

President. – Dear colleagues, pursuant to Rule 251(4), I would like to inform you that there was no request to put to the vote the six corrigenda announced in plenary yesterday at the opening of the sitting. The corrigenda are therefore deemed to have been approved.
14.   Outcome of COP 29 and challenges for international climate policy (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the outcome of COP29 and challenges for international climate policy (2024/2948(RSP)).

Wopke Hoekstra,
Member of the Commission. – Dear Mr President, honourable Members, and in particular those Members who have been with me at least part of the last week, thank you very much for having the opportunity to reconvene and there are a couple of messages that I'm sure many of you have already incorporated yourselves, but I do feel are good to share.
First of all, we have all seen and all of us who were there have also sensed that this was truly very difficult. It was truly very difficult to come to an agreement. I have to tell you, at many moments, particularly in the last evening, we were on the on the verge of collapse. I do feel at the same time that it is of tremendous importance that we did manage to strike a deal, a deal that is in many ways less than ideal, but still is very important for the world.
The first reason that that is the case is that in the end, we did manage to build bridges to our friends and allies and partners from all over the world, particularly those most in need. Secondly, because if you look at the world today, geopolitics, the geopolitical situation is already tremendously complex and a deal in it has value in itself, has inherent value in itself because it shows that multilateralism is still possible.
The other reason, of course, why it is so important that we did manage to broker this deal in the end, and again, after very intensive conversations with people from all over the globe, is that we managed to reach an agreement on the funding and the USD 300 billion where it is crystal clear that that the European Union and other developed countries will continue to lead, where many of the multilateral development banks are actually making a significant step up, but where we also manage to bring others to the table.
So it is not just a tripling, but it is also that we have managed to enlarge the contributor base and that is to many here in Europe, whether they are ambitious or even very ambitious on climate, this is important because it helps to bring more money to the table and it helps in the domain of of fairness.
Where I am, frankly speaking, disappointed, even though that was not the main focus of the COP29, is the domain of mitigation itself. The good news is that, against the odds, we did manage to safeguard the agreements that we put on the table last year in Dubai, so the UAE Consensus is safeguarded. But I'm also not going to hide the fact from this Parliament that was not easy and that of course, ideally, we would have made a step up because that is one of the reasons why we came to the COP29 this time. So, a lot of work ahead of us, particularly in the domain of mitigation, but also in the domain of adaptation and everything that is related to it in the 12 months that we have ahead of us.
Another part of good news, and I wanted to to highlight that because it is something that you might not have seen in the various newspaper articles, but that was part of the core of what we were striving for, is the agreement on carbon markets. It got a lot less attention, but it is of pivotal importance from a content perspective, but also because it builds a bridge between those in the Global North and the Global South in terms of ambition, so I think that is also a very clear win, even though, as I said, it is less prominently featured than the tripling of the amounts that we put to the table.
Dear Mr President, last but not least – and it is of course up to Parliament to judge what they make of the result and what they like or potentially dislike about it – I do want to express my thanks to the many many actions and conversations ministers from the whole European Union have been involved in, but also Members of this Parliament who played a very active role and with whom I had the pleasure to meet a couple of times, so thank you very much for that.
This was truly a team effort. It was truly a European effort. The notion that we that we managed to sing from the same hymn sheet all the time was actually of vital importance in making sure we would land this truly complex deal.

Lídia Pereira,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, 93 % das pessoas consideram as alterações climáticas um problema sério, com 78 % a classificá-lo como muito sério. Estes dados do Eurobarómetro revelam que, para as pessoas, para os europeus, as alterações climáticas são o problema mais grave que o mundo enfrenta atualmente.
               

                  Temos a obrigação de ouvir as pessoas, de responder às suas preocupações. Foi com esta consciência que, na COP29, a delegação do Parlamento Europeu defendeu a nossa posição adotada nesta Casa com mensagens claras. Temos de ser mais ambiciosos nos objetivos, mais eficazes nas soluções, mais solidários com os países em desenvolvimento e aqueles que mais sofrem com as alterações climáticas.
               

                  O nosso compromisso foi fundamental para os resultados da COP29. Conseguimos um acordo para triplicar o financiamento às economias em desenvolvimento e mais transparência, evitando a corrupção. Avançámos nos mercados de carbono. Quem mais polui tem de pagar.
               

                  Esta COP29 ficou também marcada, infelizmente, por países como a Arábia Saudita, que estavam interessados em não serem mais ambiciosos, mas em vez disso, porem em causa o abandono gradual do uso dos combustíveis fósseis. E também pela relutância de países como a China em serem doadores permanentes no financiamento climático.
               

                  Apesar destes desafios, apesar do contexto geopolítico, a Europa liderou. E eu gostava de dar uma palavra de reconhecimento pelo trabalho do comissário Wopke Hoekstra, que conseguiu nunca desistir e continuar a liderar em matéria de ambiente.
               

                  Não podemos falhar. A ciência é clara e a vontade dos cidadãos é evidente. E juntos, de facto, fazemos a diferença. E, portanto, uma palavra também à Team Europe, que foi bem-sucedida em mais uma COP.
               

Mohammed Chahim,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, laat ik eens positief beginnen. We hebben onze ambities gelukkig niet teruggedraaid, maar stilstand is, wat mij betreft, ook achteruitgang. Het is niet gelukt om tijdens deze klimaattop COP29 het hoofdstuk klimaatfinanciering af te sluiten, wat echt nodig is om van andere landen meer ambitie te vragen. Voor eilandstaten als de Malediven en Samoa is klimaatverandering elk jaar een stukje meer verdwijnen in de oceaan.
               

                  Daarom is die 1 300 miljard nodig. Waar we in 2022 pas voldeden aan de 100 miljard die we in 2015 beloofden, beloven we nu in 2035 300 miljard, wat vooral bestaat uit leningen. Dus ik snap de teleurstelling, kritiek en het gebrek aan vertrouwen bij veel landen. Met dit tempo hebben we meer dan honderd jaar nodig om die 1 300 miljard te bereiken.
               

                  De vraag is hoeveel van die eilandstaten er dan nog bestaan. De dialoog rond klimaatverandering blijft gelukkig, maar hebben we een goede uitgangspositie voor volgend jaar? De vraag stellen is hem beantwoorden. Eén ding staat vast: we hebben veel werk te verzetten, niet alleen voor de financiering voor klimaat, maar ook om de ambities op te trekken. Want klimaatactie wacht niet op het juiste podium.
               

Isabella Tovaglieri,
a nome del gruppo PfE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, alla conferenza sul clima appena terminata a Baku abbiamo assistito ad un surreale gioco del Monopoli dell'ambiente, perché siamo passati dai 1.300 miliardi inizialmente richiesti per la transizione ambientale, ad accordarsi a tarallucci e vino, per soli 300 miliardi, che ovviamente saranno i cittadini europei a pagare.
               

                  È stata l'ennesima conferenza a consentire di fatto al più grande inquinatore del mondo, la Cina, di continuare ad inquinare senza limiti e senza che gli si chieda nemmeno di mettere un euro per ciò che fa, perché tanto il conto della transizione lo paga l'Europa.
               

                  Sempre l'Europa che con i suoi soldi finanzia le auto elettriche cinesi prodotte in fabbriche ancora alimentate a carbone. Per cui, alla fine, siamo solo l'unico continente a pagare per la transizione: con la distruzione dell'industria, con la perdita dei posti di lavori, ma in più ci tocca ancora una volta dare i soldi per finanziare i grandi inquinatori, per cui è ora che l'Unione europea difenda il nostro sviluppo e pretenda che siano i veri inquinatori, finalmente, a pagare il conto.
               

Anna Zalewska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Kilka słów prawdy o tym, co działo się na szczycie klimatycznym.
               

                  Po pierwsze, porozumienie po zakończeniu COP-u wymęczone, powierzchowne i życzeniowe. Chociażby owe 300 miliardów co roku, właściwie bez konkretnych wskazań i konkretnych kwot, przy bardzo małym zaangażowaniu Stanów Zjednoczonych, które dostarczały pieniądze. Mamy zapowiedź, że Stany Zjednoczone w ogóle wyjdą z porozumienia paryskiego. To po pierwsze.
               

                  Po drugie, ogromne emocje związane z tymi, którzy są rozwinięci i bogaci, a nie chcą być na liście inaczej nazwani. W związku z tym są zwolnieni z tychże opłat, jak na przykład Chińczycy. Po drugie, absolutna negacja tych ambitnych planów Unii Europejskiej. Większość krajów mówiła po prostu: możecie sobie realizować swoje ambicje, ale my nie pozwolimy na to, żeby niszczyć nasze gospodarki. Tak naprawdę w kuluarach każdy chodził z raportem Draghiego i pokazywał, do czego doprowadziła zielona polityka i ambicje niemożliwe do realizacji. Wreszcie po raz pierwszy wyraźnie nie ma mowy o wycofywaniu się z paliw kopalnych. Czas zweryfikować Zielony Ład Unii Europejskiej, bo prowadzi on do zapaści gospodarczej i do katastrofy finansowej Europejczyków.
               

Sigrid Friis,
for Renew-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Det var en interessant tur til Baku i sidste uge på COP 29. Omgivet af oliedampe og lugten af gas kunne man alligevel blive enige om tre hundrede milliarder dollars årligt i klimabistand til verdens mest udsatte lande, men det er tusind milliarder mindre, end der er brug for, for at kunne investere i de nødvendige klimatiltag. Og ja, en aftale er bedre end ingenting, især når Trump truer med at trække USA ud af Parisaftalen. Men COP 29 er stadigvæk en skuffelse. Saudi-Arabien og resten af olieproducenterne er kommet ud som sejrherrer, og de kan grine hele vejen til banken. Det samme kan Kina. Et land, som kan sende rumraketter til månen, men som stadig anses som et udviklingsland og ikke er forpligtet til at betale deres fair del. Og i modsætning til sidste år på COP 28 kunne verdens lande heller ikke blive enige om, at vi skal nedbringe brugen af fossile brændsler. Men vi skal jo ikke gå i bakgear, når det kommer til at bekæmpe klimaforandringerne. Vi skal sætte speederen i bund. Så nu haster det. Hvis det globale klimalederskab så skal EU altså indsende et ambitiøst klimamål før 2035, før COP 30, inden fristen i februar. Vil du som klimakommissær garantere det og sikre, at klimamålet stemmer overens med det lovede 2040-mål på 90 %?
               

Michael Bloss,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Das Ergebnis dieser Klimakonferenz ist zu mickrig, um der Klimakrise gerecht zu werden. Daraus ziehe ich drei Lehren: Erstens: Fossile Autokratien dürfen nie mehr Gastgeber einer Klimakonferenz sein. Aserbaidschan hat seine fossile Agenda vorangetrieben, während unser Planet brennt. Der Brandstifter soll das Feuer löschen. Das geht nicht.
               

                  Zweitens: Stimmen aus Bangladesch, den Malediven und den Philippinen haben es auf den Punkt gebracht. Jeder verlorene Tag kostet Leben. Die Klimakrise ist überall angekommen. Sie wartet nicht, sie verhandelt nicht, sie verschärft sich.
               

                  Und drittens: Europa ist seiner globalen Führungsrolle noch nicht gewachsen. Die Abwesenheit von Scholz, Macron und von der Leyen zu Beginn war fatal. Ich danke Herrn Hoekstra für seinen Einsatz. Aber Europa muss nach vorne gehen und sein neues Klimaziel, seinen NDC schon im Januar vorlegen. Europa trägt nicht nur Verantwortung, Europa hat die Pflicht, Klimaschutz anzuführen.
               

PRÉSIDENCE: YOUNOUS OMARJEE


Vice-Président


Νικόλας Φαραντούρης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πόση υποκρισία μπορεί να αντέξει ο πλανήτης; Πόση υποκρισία μπορεί να αντέξει η κοινωνία; Τα αποτελέσματα της Παγκόσμιας Συνδιάσκεψης για το Κλίμα είναι απογοητευτικά. Δεν προχωρήσαμε τη συζήτηση για την υποχώρηση των ορυκτών καυσίμων, που είχε ξεκινήσει στην προηγούμενη συνδιάσκεψη, και, αυτή τη φορά, διοργανωτής ήταν μια χώρα η οποία βασίζει την οικονομία της στα ορυκτά καύσιμα.
                  

                     Πώς αλλιώς, λοιπόν, θα καταπολεμήσουμε τις επιπτώσεις από την κλιματική κρίση, αν δεν μιλήσουμε με ειλικρίνεια μεταξύ μας, αν δεν καθιερώσουμε τη γενική αρχή ‘ο ρυπαίνων πληρώνει’ –που ισχύει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο– με την επιβάρυνση και τη φορολόγηση των εταιρικών ορυκτών καυσίμων; Σας καλώ, λοιπόν, σε πιο ενεργητικές πολιτικές.
                  

Anja Arndt,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Auf der Klimakonferenz in Baku ging es wieder hoch her. Es soll noch mehr Geld fließen für den aussichtslosen Kampf gegen den Klimawandel, und zwar von den Industriestaaten zu den Entwicklungsländern. Das Geld soll für klimafreundliche grüne Technologien verwendet werden. Wer hat sich das eigentlich ausgedacht? Die Anbieter grüner Technologien? Vertreter von Entwicklungsländern nannten die neu vereinbarte Summe, die recht hoch ist – sie ist nämlich in der Höhe von 300 000 Millionen Dollar pro Jahr angesetzt –, sie nannten sie einfach mal abgründig klein und dürftig. Sie sei eine Beleidigung und ein Witz.
                  

                     Bisher flossen schon jedes Jahr 100 000 Millionen Dollar von den Industriestaaten zu den Entwicklungsländern. Dieses Geld wird – und das ist nun der echte Witz des Tages – auch an Indien, China, die reichen Golfstaaten und Südkorea gezahlt. Warum? Weil sie nach der 30 Jahre alten UNO-Einstufung als Entwicklungsländer eingestuft werden. Es wird aber noch absurder: Durch die EU-Klimapolitik werden die eigenen Industriestaaten im Eiltempo deindustrialisiert, zahlungsunfähig und damit selbst zu Entwicklungsländern gemacht. Das arme Portugal und Griechenland und schon in Kürze das arme Deutschland sollen für das reiche China und Saudi-Arabien zahlen. Wir ruinieren uns selbst mit unserer Klimapolitik. Das ist klimapolitischer Extremismus. Wir von der AfD und dem ESN sagen: Schluss damit!
                  

Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Klimawandel bleibt eine der größten Herausforderungen unserer Politikergeneration. Und bei aller berechtigten Kritik an dem internationalen Prozess – ich habe noch niemanden getroffen, der eine bessere Methode vorgeschlagen hat. Einfach nur zu sagen, ja, man müsste es irgendwie anders machen, das hilft nicht weiter.
                  

                     Sondern – so schwierig dieser Prozess auch ist – wir müssen mit ihm arbeiten. Aber ich kann es auch nicht verhehlen, dass wir nur teilweise erfolgreich waren: Dass China und andere sich nicht gesetzlich, nicht rechtlich verpflichtet haben – verbindlich –, dass sie beitragen zur Finanzierung des Klimaschutzes, bleibt ein Problem. Und die Kommission ist aufgerufen, wir alle sind aufgerufen, an diesem Thema weiterhin zu arbeiten.
                  

                     Entscheidend ist, dass wir auf dem Weg bis nächstes Jahr gute Ziele für das Jahr 2035 erreichen. Und hier haben wir, glaube ich, noch eine Herausforderung. Wir haben eine Position der Kommission für 90 % für 2040. Ich bin noch nicht davon überzeugt, dass das ein Ziel ist, das wir auch wirklich schaffen können. Daran müssen wir hart arbeiten, die Wege aufzuzeigen, wie es dann am Ende wirklich funktioniert. Aber international haben jetzt erste Staaten schon ein Ziel für 2035 vorgelegt. Wenige – alles noch nicht so dramatisch –, aber die Europäische Union braucht eben auch ein Ziel für 2035. Und ich glaube nicht, dass man da einfach die Mittellinie nehmen kann zwischen 55 % und 90 %, sondern da bedarf es noch einmal besonderer Anstrengungen – auch ein impact assessment, Zusammenarbeit mit der Wirtschaft –, da wirklich ein gutes Ziel vorzulegen. Und ich bitte die Kommission, an diesem Thema hart zu arbeiten.
                  

Annalisa Corrado (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è vero, la conferenza sul clima di Baku si è conclusa con risultati fortemente inadeguati alla dimensione della crisi in atto, che sempre più spesso impatta drammaticamente sulle nostre comunità.
                  

                     Ma voglio dirlo, avendo avuto l'onore di prendervi parte con la delegazione del Parlamento: abbiamo scongiurato come Unione europea, e con pochissimi altri alleati, che la conferenza fallisse. E per questo voglio ringraziare il commissario Hoekstra.
                  

                     L'obiettivo di finanza climatica al 2035, con la roadmap per arrivare a mobilitare 1.300 miliardi, tiene aperto un passaggio strettissimo che ci impegna a lavorare, in vista della COP30 di Belem, con maggiore determinazione su mitigazione, adattamento e fondi per le perdite ai danni.
                  

                     Porto con me da Baku un'immagine in particolare: l'incontro con il dissidente azero Gubad Ibadoghlu, finalista del nostro Premio Sacharov, in regime di detenzione anche per aver denunciato i legami opachi tra l'industria di petrolio e gas del suo Paese e la Russia.
                  

                     Lavorare per la transizione energetica significa anche questo: liberarci dalle dipendenze fossili che non ci consentono di alzare la voce quanto necessario per il rispetto dei diritti umani.
                  

Ondřej Knotek (PfE). – Pane předsedající, vážně tady oslavujete, že země, které snižují emise skleníkových plynů, včetně těch evropských, budou platit 300 miliard dolarů ročně zemím, které naopak emise v posledních letech výrazně zvýšily, s tím, že možná nakonec přestanou? Ukazujete tím, že tyto konference a mezinárodní panely pro klima již dávno neslouží k zajištění udržitelné klimatické politiky. Stal se z nich nástroj na přerozdělení bohatství a uspokojení klimatických alarmistů. Výsledkem je okradení našich občanů nejenom o jejich peníze, ale i o jejich budoucnost. A vy tomu ještě tleskáte? Klimatu nepomůžete a Evropu hospodářsky zahubíte. Vaše ideologická, zelená, progresivní a neudržitelná politika je cestou do záhuby. Tak ji prosím skončete.
                  

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na vystoupení na základě zvednutí modré karty)


Emma Wiesner (Renew),
blue-card question. – Ondřej, the 3.1 oC scenario of climate change – that is what will destroy Europe's economy. Is that really your message to the small island states, the developing countries that have not emitted historically but are now suffering from climate change? Their islands are disappearing, and your message is 'we are destroying our economy'? We built our economy based on fossil fuels. They have none, and we are destroying their possibilities of living. That is what the USD 3 billion is all about, taking responsibility for what we have caused them.

Ondřej Knotek (PfE),
blue-card answer. – (Start of speech off mic) … is that your policies, policies of climate activists, as you are, are not leading to saving the climate. You are lying to people about that if they will be ambitious, that there will be no floods and so on and so on. But that's not true. You have no data, you have no science base, you have no impact assessments: you are just lying. So you are the root cause.

Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, já se pokusím tu debatu trošičku zklidnit. Když jsme před dvěma týdny diskutovali mandát na COP 29, tak já jsem vyjadřoval ohledně zásadního posunu skeptickou pozici. Konference proběhla, jsem rád, že jsem mohl být součástí parlamentní delegace, nicméně ohledně dohody, která vznikla stran financování, nemůže být podle mého soudu spokojen vůbec nikdo. Ukázalo se, že hlas Evropské unie není nejsilnější. Musíme být realisté a musíme se poučit z toho, co se stalo. S ostatními státy nemůžeme jednat z pozice síly a nadřazenosti, ale kreativně. Jenom tak můžeme dosáhnout toho, aby účet neplatili jenom tradiční plátci včetně nás, ale i další ekonomicky vyspělé země, jako je třeba Čína. A našim partnerům musíme neustále připomínat, k čemu se zavázali. Nesmíme zůstat izolovaným ostrovem, který jako jediný vzorně plní svoje dekarbonizační – a chci dodat ambiciózní dekarbonizační – cíle bez ohledu na závažné ekonomické a společenské dopady.
                  

Emma Wiesner (Renew). – Mr President, so, how to summarise this COP29? It's a mixed bag of feelings: from disappointment to embarrassment to determination and a relief that there is a deal. But we have to ask ourselves, what will future generations remember from Baku?
And just as many times before, we didn't do enough, we didn't do it in time, and we didn't do it in place. We have to face it. The USD 300 billion – well, looking at inflation until 2035, it's barely an increase of ambitions.
We have to learn from this. The EU, in this Parliament, we can do more, we can do better, we can do it earlier and we can do it sooner. And this will have to be done if we are going to change and get away from the 3.1 oC hell scenario of climate change. Next year in Brazil, we have to do better!
I'm not satisfied with the efforts of this Union. I am not satisfied by the efforts of this Parliament, nor with the global commitment. But I am determined that we can improve, simply because we have to.

Lena Schilling (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I would love to start with talking about climate finance, but I need to start with a message I received a lot in the last few days from Azerbaijan:
'Shame on you and glory to Azerbaijan! COP29 turned out to be a fantastic success story, and you have failed'.
This is one of dozens of messages I have received from Azerbaijani numbers since COP. Fossil fuel regimes try to sabotage phasing out fossil fuels, even as they witness the destruction and suffering it causes. Fossil fuel dictators host climate conferences, put gas deals over fighting the climate crisis and call it a success story. Dear President Aliyev, no, COP was not a success story. You silenced activists, journalists and civil society. You imprisoned 300 individuals who dared to stand against you. You tried to use COP29 as a stage to greenwash your regime: you failed.
We need climate action above fossil interests. We can't continue making oil and gas deals with these autocratic regimes. And that is what we need to do right now.

Li Andersson (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, parempi vähän kun ei mitään. Näin ilmastokokousten lopputulosta on kuvattu, mutta niin ei ole. Meillä ei ole enää aikaa ajatella, että ‘vähän’ on tyydyttävä ratkaisu ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisessa taistelussa. Meillä ei ole enää aikaa yhteenkään välikokoukseen tai kädenlämpöiseen kompromissiin, kun kyse on planeetan elinkelpoisuudesta.
                  

                     Kokouksen pääaiheena oli rahoitus. Tutkijoiden mukaan ulkoisen rahoituksen tarve kehittyville maille on tällä hetkellä vajaa tuhat miljardia vuodessa. Silti kokouksessa päätettiin vain 286 miljardin vuosittaisesta rahoituksesta ja tästäkin osan pitäisi tulla markkinoilta.
                  

                     Markkinaehtoisen rahoituksen ongelma on, että monet köyhemmät ja ilmastonmuutoksen vaikutuksille alttiit maat ovat jo raskaasti velkaantuneita ja niiden markkinoilta saaman rahoituksen hinta on moninkertainen vauraampiin maihin verrattuna. Samaan aikaan vauraat maat käyttävät 6,6 biljoonaa euroa fossiilisen energian tukiin. Tämä on täysin kestämätöntä.
                  

Milan Mazurek (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, chcete zachrániť planétu? Tak v prvom rade prestaňte s vašimi zelenými nezmyslami, ktoré ničia život ľudom v členských štátoch Európskej únie. Vy snáď nevidíte, koľko dnes v Európe stoja nehnuteľnosti? Koľko musia ľudia platiť za to, aby si mohli kúpiť dom alebo byt, prípadne si túto nehnuteľnosť prenajať? Vy snáď nevidíte, že mladí ľudia si už nemôžu v Európe zakladať rodiny, pretože je všetko extrémne drahé? A čo je vaša odpoveď? Zavediete ďalšie opatrenia? Zavediete ďalšie náklady? Poviete im, že budú mať emisné povolenky na vykurovanie vo vlastných domácnostiach? Poviete im, že budú platiť špeciálnu daň z benzínu, špeciálnu daň z plynu, aby ešte aj energie, ktoré sú neuveriteľne drahé, boli ešte drahšie rok za rokom? Vy snáď nevidíte, kam sa Európa prepadá? Nevidíte, že chudobnieme? Nevidíte, že celý svet nás predbehol? Uniká nám a vy poviete, že máme platiť ďalších 300 miliárd na vaše zelené nezmysly, ktoré doteraz vždy a zákonite zlyhali? Planéta potrebuje zachrániť od vašich hlúpych nápadov.
                  

Ingeborg Ter Laak (PPE). – Voorzitter, je bent de puinhoop nog aan het opruimen en daar komt de volgende overstroming alweer aan. Het is nu letterlijk dweilen met de kraan open voor eilanden in de Stille Oceaan. Dit gebeurt nu daar, maar het staat Europa ook te wachten. De boodschap op de klimaattop was duidelijk: geef meer geld!
                  

                     De meest kwetsbare mensen worden het hardst geraakt. Het is aan ons om te zorgen dat niemand achterblijft. De kosten van nietsdoen zijn vele malen groter. Gelukkig is er uiteindelijk een akkoord gekomen, maar dit is niet het punt waarop wij kunnen stoppen. Volgend jaar op de klimaattop in Brazilië zullen wij gezamenlijk doelen voor 2035 vaststellen. Deze doelen zijn belangrijk, maar nog veel belangrijker is het dat wij en andere landen deze doelen gaan naleven.
                  

Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, as part of the delegation at COP29 in Baku last week, I can assure you that the participation of the European Parliament there is key and crucial. Apart from the call for greater financing for the developing countries, which was one of the requests from the Global South, there was an additional one: a clear and foreseeable regulatory framework.
The agreed commitment for USD 300 billion of investment is a small step. However, in the upcoming years, we will not only be facing the lack of financing; we will also need clear and predictable investments from the developing countries that are already experiencing impressive economic growth.
What I saw on the ground during our meetings with the various national delegations is the same desire for predictability that I see here in Europe, in the Just Transition regions. People want to be certain that the rules of the game will not change midway. If Europe wants to remain at the forefront of climate diplomacy, we must first make sure that we solve our problems domestically and lead by example.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE). – Señor presidente, he leído el discurso de cierre de la CP29 y estas son mis conclusiones.
                  

                     Cuando un burócrata dice una barbaridad, como que triplicar la financiación en políticas verdes es una póliza de seguros para la humanidad, pero que hay que pagar la prima íntegramente y cuanto antes, acaba de desvelar que su único interés es vaciar los bolsillos de los europeos para llenárselos él. Su discurso es el de otro sociópata que se cree con derecho a planificar nuestra sociedad y nuestra economía. Poner como ejemplo al Reino Unido y Brasil —dos Gobiernos izquierdistas que se han pasado el verano metiendo en la cárcel a disidentes políticos y violando las libertades civiles— demuestra cuál es su clase de referentes.
                  

                     ¿Qué creen que pensaron los vecinos de Valencia cuando vieron a Pedro Sánchez subirse al Falcon y dirigirse a la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático para esconderse de los españoles? ¿Qué creen que piensan los que han padecido en carne propia las consecuencias letales de la histeria climática a la que quieren triplicar su locura? Lo que hubiera salvado vidas es triplicar la inversión en limpiar los cauces de los ríos y ejecutar presas y canalizaciones.
                  

                     Miren, el Acuerdo de París se ha revelado como una soga al cuello de nuestra libertad y nuestra prosperidad.
                  

(El orador acepta responder a varias preguntas formuladas con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’)


Lídia Pereira (PPE),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – Senhor Deputado, depois do que aconteceu recentemente com as cheias em Valência, com os incêndios em Portugal no início de setembro, com as cheias no Leste Europeu, o senhor acredita ou não acredita nas alterações climáticas? É que, se acredita, se calhar convém que a União Europeia faça mais do que tem feito. E isso tem sido possível à custa do diálogo com outros países e com os países mais vulneráveis. Portanto, a pergunta que lhe faço é muito simples: acredita ou não acredita nas alterações climáticas?
                  

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Su pregunta es sencilla y mi respuesta también es sencilla: creo, claramente, en la capacidad del ser humano para adaptarse, innovar, trabajar y, sobre todo, buscar soluciones a los problemas. El hombre ha tenido siempre que enfrentarse a la naturaleza, dominarla.
                  

                     Lo que sí le puedo decir es que, respecto a Valencia, la responsabilidad exclusiva es de Teresa Ribera, a la que ustedes van a nombrar vicepresidente de la Comisión Europea, que dejó de ejecutar las canalizaciones, las presas y la limpieza de los cauces, provocando la muerte de más de 230 españoles. De eso no tengo ninguna duda.
                  

Emma Wiesner (Renew),
blue-card question. – I didn't get it. Do you believe in climate change or you don't?

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Pues se lo voy a volver a repetir. Creo en la capacidad del hombre y creo en Dios, evidentemente, no creo en teorías políticas o en teorías ideológicas. Por supuesto, creo que el hombre, desde que llegó a este planeta, se ha adaptado, ha ido innovando, ha ido descubriendo, inventando. Tenemos ciudades y países que están por debajo del nivel del mar. Hemos sabido canalizar ríos. Gracias a las obras que se hicieron en España en el año 1957, la ciudad, la capital de Valencia, no ha sido arrasada por las inundaciones. No, si con tanta tarjeta azul me tendrá que dejar hablar. Esa es la realidad. Creo en esto, en la capacidad del ser humano de adaptarse y mejorar.
                  

Rasmus Nordqvist (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, this year we have witnessed devastating floods in Central Europe, wildfires in Greece and most recently, human catastrophe in Spain – all driven by climate change.
Climate change is no longer a distant future scenario. It is here. It's tangible, it's costly, and it's dangerous. Climate change has entered a new and more critical phase, but the way we talk about it remains the same. And the poor outcome of this year's COP29 is clear proof of that.
The Global North bears an historical responsibility for the crisis we are facing. This was acknowledged in Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. And yet, the Global North has shown itself to be unwilling and unprepared to honour its commitments by failing to provide necessary funding.
We are creating policies that are totally disconnected from reality. Instead, we must make reality the foundation of our political decisions. I am sorry, we actually decided on 1.5 and we already breached this.

Sebastian Everding (The Left). – Herr Präsident! Zusammenfassung der COP 29 in einem Wort: enttäuschend. Zu wenig und zu spät, sagen beispielsweise afrikanische Unterhändler. Und es sind gerade die Länder des globalen Südens, die am allermeisten unter Klimafolgen leiden müssen. 300 Milliarden US-Dollar bis 2035 – ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein. Es braucht viel mehr Investitionen und auch beispielsweise einen Schuldenerlass für den globalen Süden.
                  

                     Ein Weg, erforderliche Gelder bereitstellen zu können, könnte der dänische Green Deal sein. Der Agrarsektor ist für einen erheblichen Teil der Klimaemissionen verantwortlich, weswegen Dänemark ab 2030 eine Klimasteuer auf Fleisch und Milch einführt. ‘Die Tier- und Klimaschützer wollen mir mein Schnitzel wegnehmen!’ Nein, wir wollen ausschließlich, dass das Schnitzel den Preis bekommt, der auch die Umweltzerstörung, den Klimawandel und auch Tierleid enthält.
                  

András Tivadar Kulja (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Múlt héten részt vettem a COP29 klímacsúcson Bakuban. Ennek során számos ország delegációjával volt szerencsénk találkozni és tárgyalni. Az egyeztetések pedig újfent rávilágítottak arra, hogy csak az együttműködésen alapuló nemzetközi közös cselekvés vezethet eredményre. Az éghajlatvédelmi intézkedéseket úgy kell kialakítanunk, hogy azok ne csak a károsanyag-kibocsátás mérséklését szolgálják, hanem egyben társadalmi problémákra is választ adjanak. Így tarthatjuk meg az emberek bizalmát és akadályozhatjuk meg a populisták előretörését.
                  

                     Épületenergetikai beruházásokkal javíthatjuk az emberek lakhatási körülményeit, miközben csökkentjük az energiafüggőséget, és a szegényebb társadalmi rétegek számára egészségesebb környezetet teremthetünk. Európának példát kell mutatnia. Az éghajlatvédelem sikerét csak akkor érhetjük el, ha egyúttal a társadalmi igazságosságot és gazdasági stabilitást is szolgáljuk.
                  

Andrea Wechsler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Hoekstra, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Auf der Klimaweltkonferenz COP 29 hat sich gezeigt: Wir Europäer haben die globale Führungsrolle im Bereich des Klimaschutzes in Verantwortung für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger übernommen. Allen, die dazu beigetragen haben, möchte ich an dieser Stelle herzlich danken. Wir haben klare Fortschritte erzielt, gemeinsam mit unseren internationalen Partnern.
                  

                     Mit dem neuen globalen Finanzierungsziel von 300 Milliarden Dollar jährlich bis 2035 haben wir Solidarität bewiesen, ohne unsere europäischen Möglichkeiten zu überfordern. Ein entscheidender Erfolg ist nun, dass auch Länder mit wachsender wirtschaftlicher Stärke ihren Beitrag leisten werden. Dabei ist eines klar: Basis eines verlässlichen und erfolgreichen Klimaschutzes ist eine wettbewerbsfähige Industrie in Europa. Daran arbeiten wir Hand in Hand mit dem Klimaschutz. Dabei werden wir weiterhin den Menschen in das Zentrum unserer Klimapolitik stellen.
                  

Interventions à la demande


Nikolina Brnjac (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani povjereniče, dolazim iz Hrvatske, jedne od zemalja Mediterana, koji je suočen s ozbiljnim izazovima zbog klimatskih promjena. Mediteran, dom više od pola milijarde ljudi, zagrijava se brže od globalnog prosjeka, što ga čini jednom od klimatski najranjivijih regija na svijetu.
                  

                     Hrvatska, s više od 1200 otoka i trećom najdužom obalom Sredozemnog mora, duboko razumije da vrijeme za odlučnu borbu protiv klimatskih promjena istječe. Zato mi je drago da nakon Glasgowske deklaracije imamo i novu deklaraciju o unaprijeđenoj klimatskoj akciji u turizmu.
                  

                     Nastavljanje dosadašnjeg modela turizma, prema procjenama bi moglo dovesti do čak 25 % povećanja emisija stakleničkih plinova povezanih s turizmom, koji je već sada odgovoran za 8,8 % globalnih emisija. U tom kontekstu vjerujem da će i Europska unija, kao najposjećenija destinacija svijeta, preuzeti vodeće mjesto u stvaranju politika koje će smanjiti štetni utjecaj turizma na klimu.
                  

João Oliveira (The Left). – Os resultados desta COP 29 podem bem ser caracterizados pela indefinição quanto a metas, a insuficiência de financiamento e desadequação dos mecanismos para a adaptação e mitigação das alterações climáticas.
                  

                     Os países desenvolvidos sacodem as suas responsabilidades históricas e procuram determinar as ações a implementar, condicionando-as a mais empréstimos e endividamento dos demais países. Insistem em falsas e perigosas soluções de mercado, garantindo que, quem pode pagar, polui. Não é possível garantir uma relação harmoniosa entre o ser humano e a natureza, mantendo as mesmas políticas que aqui nos trouxeram.
                  

                     Alterar paradigmas produtivos, recuperar setores estratégicos para o controlo público, desenvolver políticas de combate ao desperdício e à obsolescência programada, reforçar o investimento na investigação científica, promover adequadas políticas de ordenamento territorial, reconhecer a cada país e a cada povo a sua soberania e o seu direito a produzir, e rejeitar a guerra. Esses são elementos de uma política alternativa imprescindível para responder aos desafios ambientais com que a humanidade se confronta.
                  

Grzegorz Braun (NI). – Mr President, it's good and nice to hear that some of you are beginning to back up from your doctrine of global warming, Green Deal and other superstitions that are proposed here. It's nice that some back up, but it would be much nicer if you simply rejected this false, not scientifically-based, not fact-checked doctrine because it's devastating. It's ruining Europe and all the world wherever you Marxists, Leninists, Lysenkoists take power. So it's really high time and probably the last minute to jump off this crazy train that is heading to some abyss.

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Menschen Europas! Wie bei jeder klimabezogenen Debatte hören wir viele gute Dinge, aber auch viele Dinge, die einen wirklich in die Verzweiflung treiben. Und damit beziehe ich mich nicht nur auf einen Kollegen, der von Aberglauben spricht, während er gleichzeitig viele seiner Reden mit einer religiösen Preisungsformel an Jesus Christus beginnt, sondern ich beziehe mich auf Kollegen, die den Klimawandel grundsätzlich leugnen, und – am allerschlimmsten, und das habe ich heute wirklich zum ersten Mal in dieser Deutlichkeit gehört – auf Kollegen, die behaupten, wir hätten den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel bereits verloren.
                  

                     Wir haben den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel nicht verloren. Wir werden ihn so lange nicht verlieren, wie wir weiterkämpfen. Und selbst wenn Russland sich nicht darum schert, selbst wenn China sich nicht darum schert, selbst wenn jetzt ein lustiger, oranger Mann im Weißen Haus sitzt, der ebenfalls behauptet, das wäre alles nicht wahr, können wir trotzdem hier in Europa wenigstens unsere Umwelt schützen, unser Klima schützen. Also, liebe vernünftige Kolleginnen und Kollegen: Bitte geben Sie niemals auf!
                  

(Fin des interventions à la demande)


Wopke Hoekstra,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, many thanks for the questions and comments by the various Members, and particularly those who came with those supremely nuanced perspectives and solution-oriented contributions.
I think it is probably helpful to underline at least three things that might have been misunderstood. But before I move into these areas, let me once again say that indeed, this was hard fought. This was not easy. This type of international deals are never perfect. But not having a deal would have been dramatic, and I truly do think this is a significant step in the right direction.
First, let me say also because there was misunderstanding in this area why this is a significant step. It is to a large extent because of the USD 300 billion, but we all know also from our part of the world the meaning of the word leverage. And if you put 300 on the table, you do have more than a fighting chance to indeed reach the USD 1.3 trillion. That is actually essential – that does move the needle in terms of climate ambition.
Secondly, it is important to understand what was reached in terms of the contributions of those who have not yet contributed. Clearly, the logic of developed and developing is something that we in this room question in the sense that at least a significant group of countries made huge steps forward in terms of their wealth, their affluence, and we feel that they have the responsibility to contribute to the solution. It was never in the making that they would formally change these categorisations. But what is a huge step forward is that we managed to persuade them to voluntarily contribute to the solution, and many of them said that they will indeed do so.
By the way, the nature of any type of these arrangements is voluntary. There's no legal way to make sure that countries live up to them: it is a commitment, it is a diplomatic commitment that, of course, we first of all, should acknowledge and respect.
Thirdly, I do want to articulate to those who suggest that this is a huge amount of money, that this is the end of our economy and also suggest that, you know, all sorts of ministers have made all sorts of wide-ranging commitments: please truly look at the various budgetary implications. The number we are talking about is a 2035 number. There is no allocation key, so it is up to Member States to decide. Many of our Member States, by the way, do a lot because Europe pays for one third of international climate ambitions. But it is in particular an invitation to other developed, and certainly also other developing, countries to join and become part of the solution space even more.
A couple of our Member States have articulated that they indeed do want to step up and do want to do more, but that is up to Member States. As I've said before, a large chunk of this money is brought in by the MDBs, the development banks. Why is that relevant? Well, because that means that many of our Member States allocate capital, but it is something else than a cash out. So I do think those who have been critical about the money being too much or that it would be unfairly spent, given the positions of Member States that the reality truly is different.
I hope that this helps. I very much agree with all those who have articulated, once again, the tremendous importance of following science – that is at the very heart of this. That is why we do this. It is not an opinion. It is not something that we just pursue for whatever fancy reason, it is a necessity. It will continue to be a necessity – things are getting worse rather than better, and the cost of doing nothing will be much larger than the cost of action today.

Le Président. – Nous arrivons au terme de cette discussion. Le débat est clos.
                  


Déclarations écrites (article 178)



Nicolás González Casares (S&D),
por escrito. – La CP29, celebrada en Bakú, ha concluido con resultados claramente insuficientes ante la magnitud de la crisis climática.
                  

                     Aunque se acordó una nueva meta colectiva global cuantificada de movilizar 300 000 millones de dólares anuales para los países en desarrollo, este compromiso sigue siendo insuficiente frente a las necesidades de las naciones más vulnerables, como los pequeños estados insulares que se enfrentan a amenazas existenciales.
                  

                     Es crucial avanzar con medidas ambiciosas de adaptación, eliminar progresivamente los subsidios a combustibles fósiles y fortalecer las estrategias de gestión del agua y la resiliencia climática. Además, llamamos a una actualización ambiciosa de las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional (CDN) antes de la CP30 para garantizar el cumplimiento de los objetivos del Acuerdo de París.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles creemos firmemente que la Unión Europea debe liderar con ambición y determinación no solo en la financiación climática, sino también en la promoción de una transición justa y sostenible. Es nuestra responsabilidad demostrar que, frente a la mayor amenaza global de nuestro tiempo, es posible actuar con rapidez y determinación, asegurando justicia climática y un futuro sostenible para todas las generaciones.
                  

Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – La CP29, celebrada en Bakú, ha concluido con resultados claramente insuficientes ante la magnitud de la crisis climática.
                  

                     Aunque se acordó una nueva meta colectiva global cuantificada de movilizar 300 000 millones de dólares anuales para los países en desarrollo, este compromiso sigue siendo insuficiente frente a las necesidades de las naciones más vulnerables, como los pequeños estados insulares que se enfrentan a amenazas existenciales.
                  

                     Es crucial avanzar con medidas ambiciosas de adaptación, eliminar progresivamente los subsidios a combustibles fósiles y fortalecer las estrategias de gestión del agua y la resiliencia climática. Además, llamamos a una actualización ambiciosa de las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional (CDN) antes de la CP30 para garantizar el cumplimiento de los objetivos del Acuerdo de París.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles creemos firmemente que la Unión Europea debe liderar con ambición y determinación no solo en la financiación climática, sino también en la promoción de una transición justa y sostenible. Es nuestra responsabilidad demostrar que, frente a la mayor amenaza global de nuestro tiempo, es posible actuar con rapidez y determinación, asegurando justicia climática y un futuro sostenible para todas las generaciones.
                  

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR),
in writing. – USD 300 billion each year by 2035. That's how much money will be ripped off from European and other developed countries as a result of the climate conference. For what? For funding climate work in Africa, for instance.
Europe accounts for only eight per cent of global emissions. However, we are told to pay up, while China and India only keep polluting more and more.
Once again, we have been fooled.
And one thing I cannot understand: how can we agree on financing other countries' climate goals with these astronomical sums, and at the same time have troubles finding the resources needed to defend our own continent?
So let's not be fools anymore and let's put our priorities in order. For us Europe must come first.
15.   Full accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Area: the urgent need to lift controls at internal land borders (debate)

Le Président. – Je suis très heureux d'appeler à l'ordre du jour la déclaration de la Commission sur l'adhésion pleine et entière de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie à l'espace Schengen, la nécessité urgente de lever les contrôles aux frontières terrestres intérieures (2024/2943(RSP)).
               

Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, this is a bit of an emotional moment for me. This is my last Strasbourg session. Standing here, I think back on the many discussions we have had here, often emotional ones. Fires, shipwrecks, terrible crimes, Covid, war – that reminds us everything we do is always about people, human beings. But there are also happy moments and today is one of those. I am convinced that Bulgaria and Romania will enjoy all the benefits of the Schengen Area, and I think that will be from the start of the new year.
Think about how far we have come. Five years ago, Schengen enlargement was not on the agenda when I took office. Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania were stuck in the waiting room, even though they were ready, the Commission said they were ready, we have said that we are ready for 13 years, Parliament said they were ready, but the Council still had to take the decision.
But sometimes change can come very quickly – quickly, but not automatically. We all worked very hard to make this change happen by working together and building trust. Last two years have been pivotal. Croatia entered Schengen in January last year. Romania and Bulgaria joined in March this year and checks, first at the air and sea borders, were lifted. The decision changed the lives of millions. For Romania alone, 12 million passengers have travelled without border checks and without hiccups. And now we are close to taking the final steps to lifting also the land border controls.
Last Friday, I was in Budapest. I took part in an informal ministerial meeting chaired by the Hungarian Presidency with the participation of ministers of interior from Austria, Bulgaria and Romania. The ministers reached a very important agreement last Friday, and this meeting was an important step forward. The ministers committed to put the issue on the agenda for the next Justice and Home Affairs Council in December, and I expect the Hungarian Presidency to propose to the Council in December to lift the border controls in the land borders for Bulgaria and Romania from the 1 January 2025. I expect that this will be actually the case.
And if you ask how we got here, it's not only by negotiations; it's about working together, taking concrete measures on the ground to counter irregular migration, to fight the smugglers, to build and invest in our common security. And measures are paying off: since Bulgaria and Romania joined the Schengen family, Dublin transfers are increasing and work very well today. Frontex is reinforcing the external borders, with nearly 250 officers in Bulgaria, 220 in Romania. Since these two Member States joined, irregular border crossings at their external borders have dropped with 80%.
I have only a few days left as Commissioner, so it will be my successor who will be present at the JHA Council next month. I won't be there, but you can be sure I will be following. I already had the champagne ready, and you can be sure that on New Year's Day, I will be thinking of my friends in Romania and Bulgaria. I am very happy because they have worked towards this goal for many, many years. And I'm very happy that at the end of this mandate, we are so close to the decision to fully welcome Bulgaria and Romania. But most importantly, I am so happy for all the citizens in Bulgaria and Romania. I would like to say to you: you belong to Schengen. You deserve to benefit from all the freedoms in the Schengen Area.

Le Président. – Merci, Madame la Commissaire, c'est effectivement un moment historique dans l'histoire des peuples bulgare et roumain, dans l'histoire de l'Union européenne.
               

Lena Düpont,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, soon we will see three days in one. One will be a day to celebrate. Finally, after long years of negotiations, after fulfilling the criteria since 2011, after going through the gradual approach, finally Romania and Bulgaria will be members of the Schengen Area – hopefully as of next year.
By saying so, we leave no space for the Council. The decision needs to be approved, and we will not and cannot accept any other outcome. It will not only mean a significant boost for business and travel, for trade and free movement; most importantly, for Romanians and Bulgarians it means 'welcome to the family of Schengen countries'.
Second, it is a day to take stock. Critically, it's safe to say Schengen has been in better shape. By now, nine Member States have introduced, or will introduce, internal border checks for various reasons. But Schengen is not under threat because of the decision of the Member States, because of the reasons to take that decision. The rise of migrant smuggling, organised crime groups exploiting the Schengen Area, terrorist threats we are facing, the challenging geopolitical landscape and the security picture: it is a call to action.
And this leads me to the third day. It is a day to restart and to continue the work of strengthening Schengen: by working and delivering on a true European strategy for internal security; by implementing and further developing the Asylum and Migration Pact in all its facets; by taking up the fight against organised crime; by boosting the capacities and the competences of our security agencies, both at national and European level; by allowing them and finally trusting them to do their work, especially in these times; by finally understanding customs as part of our security architecture; and by preparing ourselves for a dynamic and rapidly changing security landscape.
That will require strength. It will require capabilities and flexibility. But it's time that we deliver on a European Union internal security strategy that is worth its name. So we celebrate, but we also roll up our sleeves. It's time for more Europe, not less.

Кристиан Вигенин,
от името на групата S&D. – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, колеги, провеждаме днешния дебат при обявена готовност на Австрия да допусне окончателното приемане на България и Румъния в Шенгенското пространство с техните сухопътни граници.
               

                  Благодаря на унгарското председателство за положените усилия. Благодаря и на Вас, г-жо Йохансон, за подкрепата.
               

                  Все пак има смисъл Европейският парламент отново, както много пъти досега и може би за последно, да потвърди своята подкрепа и да даде допълнителни аргументи за финализирането на този процес. Че България и Румъния отдавна са изпълнили всички критерии, че могат да упражняват ефективен контрол по границите си е добре известно. Че е време дискриминационното отношение към гражданите на двете страни да приключи – също. Но нека кажем, че България и Румъния изцяло в Шенген означава също значително съкращаване на времето за доставка на стоки и намаляване на транспортните разходи, което ще засили устойчивостта и конкурентоспособността на европейския бизнес.
               

                  Надявам се, че на 12 декември ще имаме окончателно решение без допълнителни условия. И така, дългогодишната сапунена опера ‘България и Румъния в Шенген’ ще завърши с хепиенд.
               

Fabrice Leggeri,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, la Bulgarie et la Roumanie s'apprêtent à intégrer pleinement l'espace Schengen, ouvrant leurs frontières terrestres intérieures à la libre circulation. C'est une bombe migratoire pour l'Europe de l'Ouest. Les frontières extérieures ne seront pas prêtes si Bruxelles persiste dans sa fuite en avant.
               

                  La nouvelle Commission européenne, sans Mme Johansson, devra renforcer la frontière terrestre entre la Bulgarie et la Turquie, ainsi qu'entre la Grèce et la Turquie, y compris en finançant des murs. Tout franchissement illégal doit être stoppé. Pas de discours, pas de demi-mesure. Ce sont nos nations qui sont en jeu.
               

                  Au lieu d'aider les ONG complices du chaos migratoire, l'Union européenne doit aider la Bulgarie et la Roumanie à payer des salaires dignes à leurs gardes-frontières, car, avec Schengen, ils deviennent nos gardes-frontières. Frontex doit protéger l'Europe et ne plus faire la propagande des ONG.
               

                  Enfin, anticipons de futurs flux migratoires à travers la Bulgarie et la Roumanie vers l'ouest de l'Europe. Laissez faire, et ce sera l'effondrement de Schengen. Il est temps que l'Europe défende ses frontières ou elle disparaîtra.
               

Claudiu-Richard Târziu,
în numele grupului ECR. – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, România îndeplinește de mulți ani toate condițiile pentru aderare completă la spațiul Schengen. Este un adevăr pe care nu-l poate contesta nimeni. Cu toate acestea, am fost ținuți într-o prea lungă și umilitoare așteptare la ușa Schengen, fără prea multe explicații. Până la urmă, după negocieri, amânări și concesii foarte serioase făcute de către România, ni s-a recunoscut doar o parte din dreptul care ni se cuvine.
               

                  În această perioadă, economia și demnitatea românească au avut mult de suferit. Câteva dintre statele Uniunii Europene încă blochează acceptarea țării mele în spațiul Schengen. Este inadmisibil să se prelungească controalele la frontierele terestre pentru încă vreo câteva luni. România merită să adere la spațiul Schengen și sunt aici pentru că vă cer sprijinul pentru ca acest obiectiv să se realizeze imediat.
               

Fabienne Keller,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chère Ylva Johansson, c'est une victoire pour les citoyens bulgares et roumains bien sûr, qui vont bientôt bénéficier de la libre circulation complète au sein de l'Union européenne. Après tant d'années d'efforts, la Bulgarie et la Roumanie ont mis les moyens nécessaires et apporté toutes les garanties requises en matière de contrôle et de sécurité aux frontières extérieures.
               

                  C'est une victoire aussi, chers collègues, pour le projet européen. Un espace Schengen qui se renforce, c'est une Union qui grandit. Plusieurs décennies après sa création, l'espace de libre circulation des personnes, des biens et des capitaux est un succès incontestable au service de la prospérité de notre continent. Rappelons-nous que ce projet est né d'une poignée de dirigeants qui croyaient dans la coopération et dans l'unité des pays européens; un héritage politique qui nous est cher et que nous continuerons de porter.
               

                  Madame la Commissaire, je voudrais saluer votre engagement résolu, tout au long de votre mandat, pour l'ouverture de l'espace Schengen à la Roumanie et à la Bulgarie. Avec mon groupe Renew Europe, Madame la Commissaire, nous vous en remercions sincèrement.
               

Nicolae Ștefănuță,
în numele grupului Verts/ALE. – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, trebuie să recunosc că am emoții și că m-a emoționat discursul dumneavoastră pentru că am simțit că vine din suflet. Croația, România, Bulgaria – nu e puțin pentru un comisar, așa că simt că ați făcut tot ce ați putut și vreau să vă mulțumesc personal pentru asta și pentru milioanele de români, pentru că 13 ani de așteptare au însemnat pentru români suferință, costuri foarte multe, miliarde, miliarde de euro care au plecat din buzunarul românilor, poluare, emisii de dioxid de carbon, dar au mai însemnat și un sentiment parșiv de cetățean de mâna a doua.
               

                  Mulți au luat acest sentiment cu durere, pentru că ei iubesc Europa. Mai mult, a alimentat discursul extremei drepte, care acum a împins un candidat care este prorus în runda a doua a prezidențialelor. Este trist, dar să ne bucurăm totuși astăzi că auzim aceste mesaje încurajatoare. Să vedem România și Bulgaria în ianuarie în tot Schengenul, inclusiv terestru, maritim și aerian. Simt că pleacă astăzi un european convins de la cârma Europei. Noi rămânem aici să ducem mai departe spiritul acesta european. Trăiască România și Bulgaria în Schengen!
               

Pernando Barrena Arza,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señorías, voy directamente al grano para referirme al tema que nos ocupa y unirme al llamamiento a los Estados miembros y al Consejo para que admitan a Rumanía y Bulgaria como miembros de pleno derecho del espacio Schengen, también en las fronteras terrestres.
               

                  Queremos, además, aprovechar esta intervención para denunciar el uso abusivo del Código de Fronteras Schengen que algunos Estados miembros están cometiendo, encadenando peticiones extraordinarias a la Comisión cada seis meses. Alemania ha establecido controles fronterizos en septiembre, Francia los ha vuelto a instalar hace un mes, Austria los tiene con sus vecinos del este y del sur, y Eslovenia, Suecia, Italia y Dinamarca los utilizan de manera esporádica.
               

                  Quiero subrayar que esta situación provoca un gran malestar en las comunidades transfronterizas, amenaza el derecho a la libre circulación de personas en Europa —recuerden que estamos hablando de un derecho fundamental de la Unión— y, además, causa serios problemas de seguridad en las rutas migratorias, como en el caso del río Bidasoa en el País Vasco donde, debido a los controles fronterizos franceses, diez migrantes han perdido la vida en los últimos años.
               

                  Europa necesita volver a sus orígenes humanistas y de defensa genuina de los derechos humanos. Aquí es donde se juega, especialmente, la credibilidad y el futuro del proyecto europeo.
               

Mary Khan,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Letzte Woche war ich in Sofia bei unseren bulgarischen Freunden von der Partei Wasraschdane zu Gast – einer Partei, die übrigens immer mehr im Aufwind ist und vor allem Unterstützung von den Bürgern gewinnt. Warum? Weil sich in ganz Europa vor allem patriotische und europafreundliche Kräfte erheben.
               

                  Und was nicht europafreundlich ist, ist Ihre Politik der Massenmigration. Seit fast zehn Jahren sorgt diese dafür, dass die Sicherheit auf unserem Kontinent gefährdet wird und der Geist von Schengen regelrecht zerstört wird. Natürlich wünschen wir uns in einer idealen Welt einen starken und vor allem funktionierenden Schengen-Raum. Doch wie so viele gute Ideen wurde auch dieses Vorhaben von Ihrer linksgrünen Politik ruiniert. Solange die Außengrenzen der EU nicht sicher sind, ist es unverantwortlich, die Binnengrenzen dort abzuschaffen.
               

                  Sie streichen 1079 Kilometer Grenzkontrollen und öffnen damit die Tür für noch mehr illegale Migration nach Deutschland. Der Schengen-Raum wurde nie dafür geschaffen, illegale Fluchtrouten noch weiter auszubauen. Die Menschen in Europa fordern Grenzkontrollen. Sie tun hier das Gegenteil. Sie öffnen kriminellen Netzwerken und Menschenhändlern Tür und Tor. Das ist nicht europäisch, das ist realitätsfern. Unsere bulgarischen Partner sehen das übrigens genauso. Sie wollen keine unkontrollierte Migration. Und wenn Bulgarien in den Schengen-Raum aufgenommen wird, wird die Route über diese Länder noch attraktiver für Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge.
               

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, la finalul lunii martie a acestui an, România și Bulgaria au aderat la spațiul Schengen cu frontiera aeriană și cu frontiera maritimă și am văzut cu toții cum aderarea României și a Bulgariei la spațiul Schengen cu frontiera aeriană și maritimă a făcut spațiul Schengen mai sigur. Autoritățile din România și din Bulgaria au cooperat cu autoritățile din toate celelalte state membre ale Uniunii Europene, cu instituțiile Uniunii Europene, pentru a combate migrația ilegală, pentru a proteja frontiera externă a Uniunii Europene și am văzut că spațiul Schengen este mai puternic cu Bulgaria și România în interiorul său.
               

                  Pe baza acestor evoluții pozitive și ținând cont de faptul că România și Bulgaria deja de mulți ani îndeplinesc toate criteriile pentru aderarea la spațiul Schengen, acum, aderarea se va finaliza și cu frontiera terestră. Sunt convins că acest lucru va fi un beneficiu pentru cetățenii României și ai Bulgariei, pentru întreprinzătorii din țările noastre, dar va fi un câștig pentru toată Uniunea Europeană. Este și un semnal foarte clar pe care îl trimitem extremiștilor și populiștilor: Uniunea Europeană este unită, Uniunea Europeană livrează. Așteptăm implementarea acestei decizii în următoarele săptămâni.
               

András László (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A magyar EU-elnökség egy történelmi megállapodás küszöbén áll. 2007-es EU-s csatlakozásuk után január 1-jétől Bulgária és Románia a schengeni övezet teljes jogú tagjaivá válhatnak. A magyar EU-elnökség keményen tárgyalt, hogy feloldja a 13 éve tartó vétókat. Bulgária és Románia schengeni csatlakozása két okból is fontos lesz. Egyrészt véget vet annak a méltatlan helyzetnek, hogy a határok két oldalán lévő európai polgárok nem élvezhették ugyanazt a szabad mozgást, amit más EU-s állampolgárok százmilliói igen.
               

                  Másrészt az alku része, hogy közös, többnemzetiségű rendőrkontingens segíti védeni az új külső schengeni határokat az illegális migránsok ellen. Ez a jó megoldás a migrációs válságra, nem a belső határok lezárása. Ez az igazi szolidaritás, nem a migránskvóták. Ez az uniós migrációs politika jövője, nem a tagállamok büntetése. Tegyük újra naggyá Európát! Védjük meg együtt a külső határainkat, hogy Schengenen belül minden európai élvezhesse a szabad mozgás előnyeit. A gazdasági migránsokat pedig tartsuk kívül!
               

Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, за нас очакваното приемане на България и Румъния в Шенгенското пространство и по сухопътните граници е положителна развръзка. Положителна, но абсолютно закъсняла.
               

                  Твърде много време беше загубено. Време, в което България и Румъния покриваха техническите критерии за Шенген, но не биваха допускани по политически причини. Това загубено време доведе до засилване на евроскептицизма в двете страни, като електоралните нагласи и резултати го показват особено ясно. Антиевропейски популистки формации и субекти спечелиха и печелят подкрепа.
               

                  Европа си позволи да създаде усещането, че има нации втора ръка и че дори да изпълним всичко нужно, отделни страни могат да поставят допълнителни условия, обслужвайки не общото благо, а просто решавайки свои вътрешнополитически проблеми.
               

                  Сега, след като тази несправедливост най-накрая е на път да бъде поправена, България и Румъния очакват пълната подкрепа на Европейския съюз. Тази подкрепа, в случая на България, неизменно изисква подходящо финансиране за изграждане и възстановяване на физическите съоръжения по външните граници на Съюза. Тази мярка трябва да залегне трайно в европейския бюджет, ако искаме вътрешните граници да останат отворени и единният пазар да функционира успешно.
               

Dan Barna (Renew). – Domnule președinte, în acest Parlament s-a spus de nenumărate ori: România a îndeplinit cu răbdare fiecare cerință de aderare la Schengen. Cu toate acestea, locul nostru de drept în Schengen ne-a fost refuzat timp de 13 ani, cel mai recent prin vetoul injust al Austriei. Această obstrucționare cinic-politică contrazice principiile Uniunii Europene de unitate, solidaritate și încredere, ignoră angajamentul nostru ferm față de responsabilitatea comună de a asigura frontierele externe ale Europei, subminează exact potențialul economic al regiunii noastre și desconsideră dreptul la liberă circulație al cetățenilor români și bulgari.
               

                  România a fost și este în tot acest timp un partener de încredere, un apărător ferm al valorilor europene și un contributor la securitatea și prosperitatea Uniunii. Ianuarie 2025 nu mai este o aspirație, este un imperativ. Noi întârzieri sunt inacceptabile. Cerem ca acest termen să fie respectat nu ca o concesie amabilă, ci ca o recunoaștere a locului nostru de drept în spațiul Schengen. În plus, vă rog să vă întrebați când constatăm valul de populism și extremism din Europa dacă refuzul acestui drept nu a fost, poate, una dintre cauze.
               

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Zuallererst möchte ich Ihnen danken für die Arbeit, die Sie geleistet haben in den letzten fünf Jahren. Ich glaube, dass Sie in einem wirklich schwierigen politischen Umfeld das Bestmögliche geschafft haben, was Sie schaffen konnten. Und auf der anderen Seite wissen Sie auch: Es sind noch einige Aufgaben übrig, uns wird also nicht langweilig. Danke dafür, dass Sie nicht alles erledigt haben und wir hier weiterarbeiten können.
               

                  Ich glaube, was wir, wenn es um Schengen geht, verstehen müssen, ist, dass erst einmal der Beitritt von Rumänien und Bulgarien nicht nur ein politischer Erfolg ist, sondern ein ganz konkreter Gewinn für über 25 Millionen Menschen in Bulgarien und Rumänien, die jetzt endlich auch vollständiger Teil des Raums der Sicherheit, der Freiheit und des Rechts werden. Ich denke, was wir in diesem Zusammenhang verstehen müssen, ist, dass wir in schwierigen geopolitischen Zeiten am stärksten sind, wenn wir als Europa zusammenhalten, wenn wir auf der einen Seite für die Sicherheit vor organisierter Kriminalität sorgen, für die Freiheit – zum Beispiel die Reisefreiheit –, wenn wir aber auch dafür sorgen, dass das Recht an den Grenzen von Schengen gilt, dass wir die Stärke des Rechts an unseren Grenzen hervorheben, das als Stärke begreifen, nicht das Recht des Stärkeren durchsetzen, wie wir es an einigen Außengrenzen immer wieder sehen.
               

Станислав Стоянов (ESN). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, сухопътните граници в Шенген най-вероятно ще бъдат отворени за българи и румънци цели 13 години след като Европейската комисия потвърди, че двете страни изпълняват всички критерии.
               

                  Но нека приемем реалността. Шенген, системата, която някога олицетворяваше мира и свободата в Европа, днес е неефективна и уязвима. Една трета от държавите членки на Шенген упражняват контрол по своите граници, а Нидерландия ще се присъедини към този списък през следващия месец. В сегашния си вид Шенген е заплаха за сигурността на Европейския съюз и създава нови разделителни линии.
               

                  Дъблинският регламент натоварва граничните държави, докато новият пакт за миграцията позволява на по-богатите страни да си плащат, за да избегнат приемането на мигрантите. За сметка на по-бедните, разбира се. Надявам се не това е мотивацията за приемането на България и Румъния след 13 години.
               

                  Европейският съюз трябва да измести своите приоритети към сигурността на външните си граници. Трябва да гарантираме финансово, техническо и логистично подсигуряване на страните членки, носещи тази отговорност. Те могат достатъчно добре да опазват външните граници на Съюза, просто не бива да им пречим.
               

Nora Junco García (NI). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la plena integración de Rumanía y Bulgaria en el espacio Schengen es incuestionable. ¿Saben ustedes a los desafíos que se enfrentan los transportistas rumanos y búlgaros cada vez que tienen que trabajar en la Unión Europea? ¿Saben de qué manera esta exclusión afecta a la igualdad de derechos y oportunidades en comparación con otros ciudadanos de la Unión Europea?
               

                  En un momento en el que hablamos permanentemente de unidad no tiene sentido mantener las barreras internas entre europeos. Tanto Rumanía como Bulgaria cumplen con todos los criterios técnicos desde hace más de una década. Entonces ¿cuál es la justificación para seguir bloqueando su acceso completo? ¿No estamos fallando a los valores que tan repetidamente dicen que compartimos?
               

                  Integrar a Rumanía y a Bulgaria plenamente no es solo una cuestión técnica o económica, es un reconocimiento a su papel como aliados clave en esta estabilidad del este de Europa. Y por eso les pido que apoyen esta medida y doten de ayudas a estos países para reforzar sus fronteras exteriores.
               

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, разбира се, че приемам с облекчение приключването на сагата с приемането на България и Румъния в Шенгенското пространство. За съжаление това се случва цели 13 години след едно несправедливо отлагане. Период, през който Европейската комисия и този Парламент многократно потвърждаваха готовността на двете страни за пълноправно членство в европейското пространство за свободно придвижване.
               

                  През тези 13 години България и Румъния стриктно изпълняваха своите задължения и демонстрираха ангажираност към общите европейски ценности и стандарти, но въпреки това останаха блокирани заради популизма в няколко страни.
               

                  Опазвайки своите граници, България допринася за сигурността на целия Европейски съюз. Искам от тази трибуна да благодаря на българските правителства в последните най-малко 20 години, както и на всички служители на Министерство на вътрешните работи, Гранична полиция, Агенция ‘Митници’ и на всички други служби, които допринасят всекидневно за нашата обща сигурност.
               

                  Необоснованото отлагане нанесе сериозни щети на българската икономика, особено в транспортния сектор и инвестиционния климат в страната. Надявам се, че всички тези страни членки ще извлекат поуки от това, което се случи, и бъдещото развитие и единство на Европейския съюз няма да бъде спирано от такъв популизъм.
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, România va adera complet la spațiul Schengen începând cu anul viitor. După 13 ani de așteptare, această nedreptate poate fi în sfârșit corectată. Românii vor face parte din Europa fără frontiere dacă pe 13 decembrie miniștrii de interne vor valida decizia privind integrarea deplină a țării noastre în spațiul Schengen. Astăzi sper că este ultima dezbatere de acest fel aici, în plenul Parlamentului European.
               

                  În toți acești ani de așteptare am acționat în mod constant, am inițiat petiții, am discutat și convins oficiali europeni și am modificat chiar și legislația europeană. În ultimii trei ani am obținut zeci de milioane de euro, fonduri europene pentru aderarea României și Bulgariei la spațiul Schengen. De altfel, în bugetul pentru anul viitor am inclus o alocare suplimentară de 10 milioane de euro în acest sens. Am fost implicat direct în negocierile care s-au purtat. Îi mulțumesc doamnei comisare pentru efortul și implicarea domniei sale și da, România a demonstrat că poate proteja frontierele externe ale Uniunii Europene. Sper ca antieuropenii să nu pună în pericol acest obiectiv. Le mulțumesc românilor că au crezut în noi și sunt convins că până la finalul anului acest obiectiv va fi realizat.
               

Petra Steger (PfE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Schengen ist gescheitert – gescheitert durch die zügellose Masseneinwanderung und gescheitert wegen Ihnen, wegen Ihrer Unfähigkeit und Unwilligkeit, diese Massenzuwanderung zu bekämpfen und endlich die Außengrenzen zu schützen. Von Schengen profitieren heute nur noch die Wirtschaftsmigranten und ihre Schlepper – anstatt die Bürger. Es ist daher nicht verantwortungsvoll, zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt den Beitritt von Rumänien und Bulgarien zum Schengen-Raum weiter voranzutreiben, während die EU-Spitzen vollkommen versagen, einen funktionierenden Außengrenzschutz endlich sicherzustellen.
               

                  Das ist kein Vorwurf an Bulgarien oder Rumänien, sondern an die Versager in der Europäischen Union. Sogar innerhalb des Schengen-Raums müssen immer mehr Länder wieder Grenzkontrollen einführen, um die Asyltouristen an der Einreise zu hindern – ein Armutszeugnis für die Europäische Union und die von ihr versprochene Reisefreiheit.
               

                  Doch anstatt die Probleme zu lösen, sehen wir, wie die EU einen politischen Kuhhandel eingeht. Österreich ist nun offenbar bereit, das Veto gegen die Erweiterung des Schengen-Raums aufzugeben. Und wofür? Offensichtlich dafür, dass die abgewählte ÖVP den fachlich vollkommen inkompetenten Magnus Brunner als EU-Migrationskommissar bekommt. Nicht nur ein fauler Deal auf dem Rücken der Österreicher, sondern insgesamt ein schlechtes Zeichen für die Zukunft.
               

Alessandro Ciriani (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'area Schengen è un pilastro dell'Unione Europea: Bulgaria e Romania aspirano da tempo per completare il percorso di adesione e noi non possiamo non apprezzare il lungo lavoro svolto dai due Paesi per soddisfare i criteri tecnici richiesti ed esprimere il nostro convinto sostegno.
               

                  Resta tuttavia un dato, un dato che non possiamo ignorare: nello stesso momento in cui parliamo dell'abolizione dei controlli alle frontiere per loro, altri Paesi li ripristinano a causa di un'immigrazione incontrollata che spaventa, che impedisce qualsiasi razionale politica di inclusione e che, al contrario, alimenta la povertà economica, quella culturale e la criminalità.
               

                  Se vogliamo che l'area Schengen torni a rappresentare un cardine europeo, occorre creare le condizioni di base con un deciso e realistico cambio di rotta, puntando sul controllo delle frontiere esterne, sull'accordo con i Paesi terzi, sull'apertura di hotspot fuori dai confini europei, seguendo la strada aperta in Italia dal governo Meloni.
               

Танер Кабилов (Renew). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, България и Румъния отдавна изпълниха всички критерии за пълноправно членство в Шенген. Бяха поставени нови и нови изисквания. Реформирахме правилата за Шенгенското пространство, както и европейската политика относно миграцията.
               

                  На 12 декември е крайно време държавите членки да направят последната стъпка за присъединяването ни към Шенген. Но наред с това нека гарантираме, че Шенгенското пространство ще функционира така, както е замислено – свободно движение в рамките на Европейския съюз без граничен контрол.
               

                  Само за последната година девет шенгенски държави са въвели граничен контрол. Групата ‘Обнови Европа’ ще направи всичко възможно да защити Шенген. Това ще укрепи сигурността на Европейския съюз, ще стимулира икономиката и ще даде свобода на гражданите ни без бариери в и без това трудните времена, които предстоят. Европейските граждани на България и Румъния очакват с нетърпение този безспорно закъснял вече акт. Наш дълг е този път да не ги разочароваме.
               

Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Koledzy i Koleżanki! W czasach międzynarodowego kryzysu my jako Unia Europejska musimy stać się tak bliscy i solidarni jak nigdy. Sytuacja, w której niektóre państwa członkowskie wciąż walczą o prawo do bycia częścią wspólnoty Schengen, jak Bułgaria i Rumunia, inne lekceważą tą fundamentalną wartość i próbują ponownie wprowadzać granice wewnątrz wspólnoty.
               

                  Jako Parlament Europejski musimy wszystkich członków traktować uczciwie, z szacunkiem, jako równych partnerów, a wartości swobodnego przepływu osób i towarów powinny być w sercu Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego wspieramy Rumunię i Bułgarię w dążeniu do integracji ze strefą Schengen. Przepływ towarów, jak i osób spoza Unii Europejskiej nie może być zagrożeniem bezpieczeństwa gospodarczego i militarnego krajów, tak jak ma to miejsce w Europie Wschodniej. Dlatego zewnętrzne granice Unii Europejskiej muszą być szczelne, aby wewnątrz Unii nie robić sztucznych podziałów.
               

Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Leider haben die letzten Jahre gezeigt: Mitgliedstaaten benutzten Debatten zum Schengen-Raum als innenpolitischen Spielball. Dabei ist das grenzfreie Reisen wichtig für den Binnenmarkt und für immer mehr Bürgerinnen und Bürger selbstverständlicher Alltag.
               

                  Für Rumänien und Bulgarien ist der grenzüberschreitende Alltag jedoch nicht selbstverständlich. Immer wieder wurde ihnen unter fadenscheinigen Begründungen der umfassende Beitritt zum Schengen-Raum verwehrt. Nachdem die Kommission vor 13 Jahren ihr grünes Licht gegeben hatte, scheinen nun endlich Blockaden einzelner Mitgliedstaaten zu enden. Ich erwarte jetzt, dass der Rat den vollen Beitritt beider Länder unmittelbar beschließt, ohne weitere Verzögerungen. Doch zugleich müssen wir das grenzfreie Europa schützen, insbesondere durch die Aufhebung der zahllosen Binnengrenzkontrollen. Denn der Schengen-Raum ist wichtig für Wirtschaft und Arbeitsplätze, aber insbesondere für die Menschen und für unseren europäischen Zusammenhalt.
               

Marieke Ehlers (PfE). – Voorzitter, we staan aan de vooravond van de volledige toetreding van Bulgarije en Roemenië tot het Schengengebied. De Schengenketting wordt daardoor nog iets langer, maar zoals we weten, is een ketting zo sterk als de zwakste schakel.
               

                  Recent heeft de linkse regering in Spanje ervoor gekozen om de immigratieregels te versoepelen. Zelfs afgewezen asielzoekers, die dus illegaal in Spanje verblijven, komen in aanmerking voor een verblijfsvergunning.
               

                  Dankzij het vrije verkeer binnen Schengen kunnen deze gelukszoekers, eenmaal in het bezit van een verblijfsvergunning, ongehinderd naar Nederland doorreizen. En hoewel we ieder jaar wel heel blij zijn met de komst van Sinterklaas en zijn Pieten uit Spanje, keren zij tenminste wel weer terug. Illegale migranten doen dat niet, want ons terugkeerbeleid faalt keer op keer.
               

                  Schengen is simpelweg niet bestand tegen de enorme toestroom van migranten. Zolang we de buitengrenzen niet goed kunnen beschermen, is het onze plicht de binnengrenzen te controleren.
               

Șerban Dimitrie Sturdza (ECR). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, dragi colegi, este binevenit și necesar să ne amintim că intrarea României în spațiul Schengen are loc după nu mai puțin de 13 ani de umilințe și amânări nejustificate. Intrarea noastră în Schengen nu este o favoare, ci un drept ce ne-a fost prea mult timp refuzat. Această înfăptuire vine sub presiunea unei frustrări naționale de proporții și a unor calcule politice meschine, nu din respect pentru români sau pentru regulile europene.
               

                  Intrăm în Schengen, dar cu condiționalități absurde. Controalele la granițele dintre România și Bulgaria și dintre România și Ungaria vor fi menținute încă șase luni, în timp ce nouă state din spațiul Schengen au reintrodus controalele interne la frontierele lor. Cum vom salva dreptul la liberă circulație? Spațiul Schengen trebuie reformat, dar nu prin excludere sau discriminare, ci prin solidaritate și respect. România și Bulgaria au demonstrat deja că sunt parte a soluției și nu a problemei.
               

Илхан Кючюк (Renew). – Г-н Председател, ако мога да имам едно пожелание към себе си преди новогодишните празници, е това да ми бъде последната реч за присъединяването на България и Румъния към Шенгенското пространство. Защото преди близо 11 години започнах политическата си дейност в Европейския парламент точно с такава реч – ‘Кога България и Румъния ще бъдат част от Шенгенското пространство?’. Заедно с това обаче и дължа едно огромно ‘благодаря’ на колегите в Европейския парламент, които показаха политическа мъдрост, много зрели позиции и най-вече постоянство, защото осъзнават възможността този въпрос да бъде решен не в интерес на българските и румънски граждани, а в интерес на европейския проект като цяло.
               

                  Благодаря и на Вас, г-жо Комисар! Знам откъде започна дневният ред и колко трудно беше, но днес е важно да зададем няколко въпроса. Кому беше нужно всичко това – български и румънски граждани да бъдат държани извън Шенгенското пространство? Кой спечели? Европейската икономика стана ли по-конкурентоспособна? Не, не стана. Решихме ли си големите въпроси със сигурността по външните граници с това, че българите и румънците бяха извън нея? Не, не се получи и това. Точно обратното. С нашите усилия Шенгенското пространство става по-силно. Днес е и момент да препотвърдим още веднъж, че сме си научили уроците, защото ако не сме ги научили, ще ги повторим отново.
               

Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, тук, в сърцето на европейската демокрация, непрекъснато говорим за необходимостта от сигурност и справедливост. Това означава не обещание или поредно отлагане, а пълноправно членство на България и Румъния в Шенген. За нас премахването на граничните проверки още от януари не е просто техническа мярка, а тест за справедливост и за способността на Съюза да действа единно, когато всички критерии са изпълнени.
               

                  Готови сме отдавна. Доказали сме, че сме надежден партньор. Ежедневно го доказват и стотиците гранични полицаи, които са на пост, за да охраняват външните ни граници и сигурността на всички европейски граждани.
               

                  След срещата в петък в Будапеща очакваме историческо решение на 12 декември. То е важно за превозвачите, за туристите, за бизнеса, който също понася загуби от опашките по границите, но е важно и за бъдещето на Шенген.
               

Vasile Dîncu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, aderarea la spațiul Schengen este o obligație a comunității europene pentru România, iar accesul deplin la spațiul Schengen este o necesitate urgentă pentru întărirea unității și a securității Uniunii Europene. Atât România, cât și Bulgaria, s-a spus aici de atâtea ori, îndeplinesc de 20 de ani toate criteriile tehnice necesare aderării, iar aderarea la spațiul Schengen este un semnal puternic al solidarității europene și ar confirma că respectarea criteriilor și a angajamentelor asumate este o valoare respectată și de instituțiile europene. Nu vrem un cadou – vrem ceea ce suntem obligați să avem și, mai mult, suntem îndreptățiți să obținem.
               

                  Am avertizat de la această tribună că acest lucru va afecta electoral România. Călin Georgescu, candidatul populist care a câștigat primul tur al alegerilor prezidențiale în România, spunea despre Schengen: ‘Europa este o temniță. Mă bucur că nu am intrat.’ Vrem pe 12 decembrie ca Uniunea Europeană să acționeze în mod just și decisiv. Doamnă comisară, vă mulțumim foarte mult pentru lupta dumneavoastră de câțiva ani, pentru dreptate și pentru libera circulație.
               

António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, é da mais elementar justiça o que hoje se tem dito aqui em relação à adesão a Schengen da Bulgária e da Roménia, ambos membros da União Europeia desde 2007, membros da NATO, parceiros de confiança. E que menos sentido faz ainda quando nós compararmos com o caso da Albânia e do Kosovo, que usufruem da isenção de vistos desde 2010 e 2024. E querem comparar a Bulgária e a Roménia com esses países? Não, meus amigos.
               

                  Nas mãos da Roménia e da Bulgária, as fronteiras externas da União ficarão mais fortes, mais resistentes, porque o que é importante é que Schengen funcione. E estes dois países estão dispostos a que Schengen funcione, o que não acontece em muitos países, como no meu país, por exemplo, onde assistimos a uma imigração sem quaisquer regras, sem qualquer respeito pelo país e pelos seus cidadãos. Parabéns à Bulgária. Parabéns à Roménia. Sejam bem-vindos!
               

Никола Минчев (Renew). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, намираме се в ключов момент за нашия Евросъюз. България и Румъния изпълниха всички критерии за членство в Шенген, демонстрираха непоколебим ангажимент към нашите общи ценности и стандарти.
               

                  През март 2024 г. отпадна контролът по въздушните и морските граници, но продължаващият контрол по вътрешните сухопътни граници остава неоправдана бариера, която възпрепятства икономическия растеж и засилва ненужните разделения.
               

                  Неотдавнашният положителен резултат от срещата в Будапеща и обявената готовност на Австрия да оттегли ветото си бележат значителен напредък. Все пак трябва да действаме решително, за да завършим този процес и то в рамките на настоящата година.
               

                  Пълното интегриране на България и Румъния в Шенгенското пространство е победа за Евросъюза. Като българин и европеец ви призовавам да се възползваме от тази възможност, за да укрепим нашия Европейски съюз и да отстояваме ценностите, които ни свързват.
               

                  И благодаря на уважаемата г-жа Йохансон, че каза, че принадлежим към Шенген и заслужаваме да се ползваме от членството. Вашата емоционална последна сесия в Страсбург е емоционална и за нас.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe immer und immer wieder in jedem einschlägigen Interview gesagt: Ich werde der Erste sein, der feiert, wenn endlich Bulgarien und Rumänien in den Schengen-Raum kommen können, wenn der Schengen-Raum erweitert werden kann. Und das ist jetzt – in greifbarer Nähe – beinahe schon der Fall, weil die Kriterien erfüllt sind. Es war nie so, dass jemand auf Dauer Bulgarien und Rumänien aus Schengen fernhalten wollte. Vielmehr war es so, dass es die Zahlen an illegalen Grenzübertritten eben nicht erlaubt haben, dass das früher geschehen konnte.
               

                  Es waren nicht Bulgarien und Rumänien, die verantwortlich dafür waren, dass die Zahlen schlecht waren. Es war die europäische Ebene gemeinsam, die sich anstrengen musste, um die Zahlen zu reduzieren. Gemeinsam mit der europäischen Ebene konnten die Zahlen reduziert werden. Innenminister Gerhard Karner hat es in Österreich möglich gemacht, maßgeblich die Zahlen an der österreichischen Ostgrenze zu reduzieren. Generationen vor uns haben das vereinte Europa aufgebaut für offene Grenzen. Und wir können jetzt verantwortungsvoll diesen Schritt machen. Es gibt da und dort noch Binnengrenzkontrollen, wo sie nötig sind. Aber die Außengrenzen zu schützen, das ist die gemeinsame Aufgabe.
               

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, puno pristupanje Bugarske i Rumunjske schengenskom prostoru pitanje je pravednosti i od strateške je važnosti za Europsku uniju. Još 2011. ispunjeni su tehnički uvjeti. Vaš je put bio dug, pun izazova, pa i onih političkih.
               

                  Kao Hrvatica, dobro razumijem što će to značiti za vaše građane. Članstvo u Schengenu jača i sigurnosni okvir Europske unije, bez obzira na sve ove skepse koje dolaze s jedne ili druge, desno-lijeve ili desno-desne strane, rekla bih. Unatoč izazovima, Schengen potiče sigurnosnu suradnju i jačanje zajedničkih mehanizama. Imperativ je da tim pitanjima pristupimo osiguravajući da sigurnosne mjere ne narušavaju slobode koje pruža Schengen.
               

                  Za Bugarsku i Rumunjsku ulazak u Schengen znači, u punom smislu, europsku pripadnost i jednakost. Na kraju, ja sam prije dvije godine dočekala Novu godinu dižući rampu koja više nikada nije postojala na mojoj granici. To želim i vama. Čestitam.
               

Adina Vălean (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, doamnelor și domnilor, noua mantră europeană este competitivitatea economică, dar competitivitatea nu poate exista fără o piață internă completă și funcțională. Spațiul Schengen este esențial pentru o economie puternică, fără bariere, iar România și Bulgaria trebuie să facă parte din el. Piața internă nu se poate opri la frontiere. Studiile arată că fiecare graniță generează prețuri mai mari la mărfuri, o piață internă fragmentată pentru transporturi și emisii de carbon inutile.
               

                  O Europă cu România și Bulgaria în Schengen înseamnă mai multă prosperitate nu doar pentru cetățenii acestor țări, ci pentru toți cetățenii europeni. Mulțumesc Comisiei Europene și în special comisarei Ylva Johansson pentru eforturile constante depuse, eforturi care sper că în cele din urmă vor fi răsplătite cu o decizie pozitivă la reuniunea din decembrie.
               

                  We will toast for you when opening the champagne.
               

Interventions à la demande


Андрей Новаков (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, 15 години по-късно, десетки резолюции, стотици речи, над 44 хиляди подписа, събрани срещу опашките по границите – днес сме на прага на Шенген.
               

                  Използвам случая, за да отдам заслуженото не само на всички политици, които допринесоха за това, но и на българския народ, на българския бизнес, на българските шофьори, които изстрадаха тази несправедливост, които изтърпяха обидите, които изтърпяха униженията, студа и жегата по границите в Европа, които бяха далеч от своите семейства.
               

                  Шенген не е просто успех, подаяние – той е наше право и наша заслуга. Затова вместо ‘Благодаря!’ днес на всички българи и румънци искам да кажа ‘Вие успяхте! Добре дошли в европейското семейство! Най-после!’.
               

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, este Parlamento Europeo se ha pronunciado insistentemente, a lo largo de años, a favor de que Bulgaria y Rumanía finalmente entrasen en el espacio Schengen. Si lo hemos conseguido después de haber superado las fronteras marítimas y aéreas, ahora con el compromiso del levantamiento de las fronteras interiores, también terrestres, en buena medida es por la insistencia de este Parlamento Europeo —y por su trabajo, comisaria Johansson, que le reconocemos y agradecemos—.
                  

                     Este no es el fin de la historia, porque entrar en Schengen supone, es verdad, disfrutar finalmente, en igualdad, de un derecho fundamental muy preciado de la ciudadanía europea, como es la libre circulación, pero también el cumplimiento de un derecho europeo legislado que aprobamos la legislatura anterior, el Código de Fronteras Schengen. Este hace que el restablecimiento de fronteras interiores sea un último recurso sujeto al control de la Comisión y, en su caso, a la revisión del Tribunal de Justicia de que las razones sean de orden público o de seguridad interior, y estrictamente acotadas en el tiempo, y, por tanto, con compromiso del restablecimiento de la libre circulación tan pronto como sea posible.
                  

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, Itävalta on luopumassa pitkäaikaisesta linjastaan vastustaa Bulgarian ja Romanian täysimittaista liittymistä vapaan liikkuvuuden Schengen-alueeseen. Tämän myötä rajatarkastukset ovat poistumassa nyt kyseisten maiden maarajoilta.
                  

                     Hyvät kollegat, vapaa liikkuvuus on hyvä ja kannatettava asia, mutta emme saa olla sinisilmäisiä. Jäsenvaltioilla on oltava oikeus ja keinot puolustautua kohtaamiltaan uhilta, kuten laittomalta maahanmuutolta, Venäjän vakoilulta ja järjestäytyneeltä rikollisuudelta. Juuri tästä syystä Saksa ja monet muut maat ovat ottaneet sisärajatarkastukset käyttöön takaisin.
                  

                     Rajatarkastukset eivät ole huono asia, päinvastoin niillä edistetään kaikkien EU-maiden turvallisuutta. Jos joku pitää passin näyttämistä rajaa ylittäessään vaivalloisena, on hyvä kysyä: kenellä oikeasti on syytä huoleen, tavallisella kansalaisella vai rikollisilla ja laittomasti maassa olevilla?
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Madam President, our lands where once the borders stood, now flows the breath of brotherhood. No sentry halls, no gate delays, the open roads greet sunlit days. Through valleys deep or hills that climb, a fearless union breaks through times. In market hum and hearts alight, the ties of Schengen bind the night. Bulgaria's plains, Romania's streams, now wave into our shared dreams. From east to west, from sea to sea, the pulse of Europe beats so free. What walls we raised, our hearts unbind. Through Schengen doors we seek, we find no greater gift, no finer art, than Europe's soul in every heart. So travel on, let journeys weave, the thoughts of borders we shall leave. For here in freedom's vast embrace, the union spirit finds its place.

Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospa predsednica. Schengen je bilo nekaj najlepšega, kar se je zgodilo moji generaciji. Jaz se še spominjam, kako smo ure in ure čakali na mejnih prehodih in, hvala bogu, je Slovenija tista država, ki je danes obdana z vsemi schengenski državami. Ampak glej ga, zlomka, kljub temu, da naj bi bil Schengen okrog in okrog Slovenije, imamo vsaj na treh mejah ponovno vzpostavljene mejne kontrole.
                  

                     In prav Schengen je bil tista najbolj otipljiva stvar, tista stvar, ki so jo ljudje najbolj čutili kot enega izmed pozitivnih sadov naše skupne Evropske unije. In prav ta sad je ponovno ogrožen. In veste zakaj? Zaradi slabega upravljanja migracij. Ker se slabo upravlja z migracijami, so se ponovno vzpostavile mejne kontrole.
                  

                     Zato pričakujem od Komisije, ki bo jutri potrjena, da vzpostavi red in da se ponovno vzpostavi Schengen, kakršnega si želimo. In seveda Romunija in Bolgarija si zaslužita mesto v Schengnu.
                  

Цветелина Пенкова (S&D). – Г-жо председател, г-жо Комисар, България и Румъния в Шенген! Това не е важно само за региона, а за цяла Европа.
                  

                     Над десетилетие доказваме готовността си. Изпълнили сме всички критерии, модернизирахме границите си и доказахме, че сме надежден партньор. Равни сме по изисквания и задължения, но не и по постигнати резултати.
                  

                     Крайно време е дискриминацията срещу български и румънски граждани да спре. Шенген означава свобода, справедливост и равенство, а българските граждани заслужават тези права.
                  

                     Миграцията е общоевропейски проблем и затова трябва единни решения. И тук искам да подчертая, че България е част от тези решения. Именно заради това България е нужна на Шенген и е нужна на Европа.
                  

                     Шенген не е привилегия, а право на тези, които са готови. Да се държат България и Румъния извън Шенген, подкопава основните принципи на Европейския съюз. Време е за справедливост, за единство. Време е да премахнем преградите в рамките на нашия Съюз.
                  

Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Doamnă președintă, voiam să vă întreb dacă știți cumva cam câți bani a pierdut România în fiecare an prin neaccederea în Schengen. Vă spun eu: 10 miliarde de euro. Dacă discutăm doar de 13 ani, deși România era pregătită înainte de 13 ani, discutăm de cel puțin 130 de miliarde, poate 150 de miliarde de euro. Cine va da României acești bani care au fost pierduți? Bănuiesc că nimeni, nu? Este pur și simplu o pierdere. Dar acum aud că, iată, nu este de fapt o accedere la 1 ianuarie, ci va trebui să mai așteptăm 6 luni și că, pe de altă parte, alte nouă state au introdus controale. Suntem noi cumva de vină? Nu. Și ce o să facem, să mai pierdem și alți bani?
                  

                     Aș recomanda Comisiei, poate, ca în viitor să aibă în vedere ca atunci când cineva aruncă un veto pe masă și nu mai primește o țară în Schengen sau pentru cu totul alte motive să fie penalizat. Așadar, propun ca Austria, de exemplu, să ne dea vreo 50 de miliarde de euro pentru că s-a opus cu veto intrării României și a Bulgariei în Schengen.
                  

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, doamnă comisară, România și Bulgaria au fost furnizori de securitate și stabilitate la granița Uniunii Europene de peste 11 ani. După mulți ani de așteptare, iată că, în sfârșit, acestea vor adera în ianuarie 2025 la spațiul Schengen – un moment istoric pentru ambele țări, dar și pentru întreaga Uniune Europeană. Drumul până aici a fost lung, am avut perioade de incertitudine, de descurajare, care au alimentat, din păcate, un curent antieuropean printre cetățenii noștri, dar iată că astăzi putem spune că am reușit.
                  

                     Acest succes nu este doar o realizare pentru România, ci și un pas semnificativ pentru întreaga Uniune Europeană, consolidându-ne unitatea și valorile fundamentale. Într-o perioadă în care curentele extremiste se răspândesc tot mai mult, aderarea noastră la spațiul Schengen transmite un mesaj puternic despre angajamentul nostru comun față de democrație, stabilitate și cooperare. Cetățenii României și ai Bulgariei vor putea călători liber, iar beneficiile apartenenței la Uniunea Europeană vor fi resimțite cu adevărat, de asemenea, și de mediul economic și de afaceri și noi cu siguranță vom avea o Uniune Europeană mai puternică.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for putting this debate on the agenda. Thank you for reminding us again that Bulgaria and Romania belong in Schengen, fully and unreservedly. We are now very close to achieving that goal, and I am very happy, on a personal note, that one of my final debates in this House is dedicated to fully welcoming Bulgaria and Romania, because this has been an important goal of mine during my mandate. And I know that today I am among friends. The European Parliament has always been a strong supporter of Schengen membership for Bulgaria and Romania.
Soon it will be goodbye from me, but I am glad that the much too long waiting will soon be ended. We will be able to say 'welcome' to the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania to fully benefit from the Schengen freedoms. It is a big win for the whole of Schengen. It is a big win for all EU citizens. It is a big win for our internal market, for our businesses, for our economy – finally!

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 178)



Georgiana Teodorescu (ECR),
în scris. – Sunt mai bine de 13 ani de când România îndeplinește toate condițiile pentru a fi în spațiul Schengen!
                  

                     13 ani de când toate amânările și refuzurile au avut la bază doar calcule politice, de oportunitate economică, și nicidecum motive de nelegalitate, de nerespectare a cerințelor!
                  

                     13 ani de când România ajută Europa (și nu numai) în mod continuu și dovedește că este un partener de încredere, fără a fi tratată astfel!
                  

                     13 ani de când cetățenii noștri stau ore în șir, la cozi kilometrice, în punctele de trecere a frontierei pentru a pleca sau a reveni în țară!
                  

                     Suntem sau nu egali toți cetățenii europeni? Sunt toate statele membre egale în cadrul UE? Condițiile pentru aderarea la spațiul Schengen sunt aceleași pentru toată lumea? Dacă da, atunci nu există niciun motiv pentru ca România să nu fie admisă urgent în Schengen și să se spele, astfel, rușinea și umilința celor 13 ani de refuzuri nejustificate!
                  

Michał Wawrykiewicz (PPE),
na piśmie. – Strefa Schengen to fundament Unii Europejskiej umożliwiający swobodne przemieszczanie się osób pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi bez kontroli na wewnętrznych granicach. To nie tylko praktyczna korzyść, ale także symbol tożsamości UE, który sprzyja integracji gospodarczej i społecznej.
                  

                     Swoboda przemieszczania się nie powinna być ograniczana bez uzasadnionych przyczyn. Dowolne interpretowanie tej zasady podważa fundamenty Unii i osłabia zaufanie do jej instytucji. Kontrole graniczne wewnątrz Schengen muszą pozostać wyjątkiem, nie regułą.
                  

                     Bułgaria i Rumunia dowiodły swojego zaangażowania w zabezpieczanie zewnętrznych granic Unii, spełniając wszystkie kryteria niezbędne do pełnego przystąpienia do Strefy Schengen. Rozszerzenie Schengen o te kraje nie tylko wzmocni stabilność i bezpieczeństwo Unii w regionie południowo-wschodniej Europy, ale także wyśle jasny sygnał, że inkluzywność i solidarność są podstawowymi wartościami UE.
                  

                     Wzywam do pilnego podjęcia decyzji o zniesieniu kontroli na wewnętrznych granicach lądowych z Bułgarią i Rumunią dla dobra nas wszystkich.
                  

Iuliu Winkler (PPE),
în scris. – După 13 ani de amânări nejustificate, săptămâna trecută, la Budapesta, s-a luat o decizie importantă pentru intrarea României și Bulgariei în spațiul Schengen și cu frontierele terestre de la 1 ianuarie 2025.
                  

                     În acești ultimi ani, pentru europarlamentarii UDMR, aderarea țării noastre la Schengen a fost o prioritate, iar decizia luată sub președinția ungară a UE este salutară și încununează și eforturile și munca noastră din PE. Sper că în cele din urmă se va face dreptate, iar cetățenii noștri vor putea călători cu adevărat liber în UE fără controale la frontierele terestre. Pe lângă circulația liberă a cetățenilor, aderarea la spațiul Schengen aduce și libera circulație a mărfurilor. Acesta este un obiectiv economic extrem de important pentru economia noastră, pentru antreprenorii noștri, pentru producătorii noștri agricoli și nu în cele din urmă, pentru comunitățile din Banat și Partium, unde dimensiunea economică și comercială a cooperării transfrontaliere poate să primească un nou impuls.
                  

                     Aderarea la spațiul Schengen este un obiectiv extrem de important pentru comunitatea noastră, la fel cum este pentru întreaga țară. Am speranța că am depășit piedicile politicianiste și meschine și că vom reuși imediat să eliminăm dublul standard care ne împovărează din punct de vedere al dezvoltării economice.
                  
16.   Prison conditions in the EU (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie warunków w więzieniach w UE. (2024/2944(RSP)).
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I thank this House for putting the situation of prisons in the EU on the agenda of this plenary. As you know, whereas detention issues are mainly a competence and responsibility of the Member States, the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that, within the scope of EU law, detention conditions do not lead to violations of fundamental rights. Moreover, all EU Member States have committed themselves to respect the standards drafted by the Council of Europe on this matter, such as the 2006 European Prison Rules.
At EU level, the Commission adopted in 2022 a recommendation on the procedural rights of suspects and accused in pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions. The recommendation describes minimum standards, a number of which are already present in different international instruments, such as using pre-trial detention as a measure of last resort and introducing periodic reviews where its use is justified. The recommendation also provides minimum standards for cell sizes, outdoor time, nutrition and healthcare conditions, as well as initiatives with a view to regeneration and social rehabilitation.
Given the vast number of international standards in this area, it is useful to systematise the relevant existing international standards which are most relevant for judicial cooperation between Member States. This aims to facilitate the work of judicial authorities, who have to take rapid decisions in the context of the European arrest warrant, and to lead to a more uniform approach in the EU.
In order to monitor the follow-up given to the recommendation, the Commission has developed a questionnaire in close cooperation with experts in the field of detention. Member States were expected to inform the Commission on their follow-up to this recommendation by 1 October, and we are still waiting for the replies of some of them. Once all Member States have submitted their replies, the Commission will assess the measures taken at national level and submit a report in the course of next year.
The issue of detention was also one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency of the Council, and during the Justice Council in June, conclusions on small-scale detention were approved. These conclusions focus on the advantages of so-called small scale detention facilities in terms of resocialisation and rehabilitation, and call upon Member States and the Commission to take further action to promote this concept.
The Commission also continues to work on the EU framework decisions that are relevant in the field of detention, such as the framework decisions on the transfer of prisoners on probation and alternative sanctions, and on the European Supervision Order. It has turned out that the latter two framework decisions are scarcely used in practice. To better understand the functioning of these instruments, and to examine whether and how best these pre-Lisbon instruments could be modernised, a study has been launched this year and it should be completed by autumn of next year.
Organisations that receive operating grants from the Commission, such as EuroPris and the Confederation of European Probation, have created specific expert groups on the framework decisions relating to detention, which meet on a yearly basis. Numerous action grants funded by the Commission have also been dedicated to awareness-raising and support in the practical application of the EU instruments which I have just mentioned.

Salvatore De Meo,
a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, i dati frammentati sulle condizioni carcerarie e quelli sul sovraffollamento impongono da subito l'adozione di interventi coordinati e soluzioni condivise a livello europeo per affrontare questa emergenza.
               

                  Mi soffermo sul dato del carcere sovraffollato, che peggiora le condizioni di vita dei detenuti e la qualità di servizio degli operatori, facendo aumentare le tensioni e compromettendo l'efficacia dei programmi di riabilitazione e di reinserimento. A ciò si aggiunga anche il delicato tema dei suicidi sia tra i detenuti che tra gli addetti al controllo.
               

                  Voglio segnalare l'esperienza del mio partito, Forza Italia, che durante l'estate, su iniziativa del ministro Tajani, ha visitato le carceri italiane e avanzato alcune proposte, alcune delle quali sono al vaglio anche della Commissione europea per migliorare le condizioni carcerarie, tra cui il trasferimento dei detenuti tossicodipendenti nelle comunità di recupero e la riduzione dei tempi di attesa per il carcere preventivo, considerando che oltre il 50% dei detenuti molto spesso viene assolto dopo o durante il giudizio.
               

                  Queste sono solo alcune delle misure su cui ragionare per definire subito una strategia europea necessaria, non solo a ridurre il sovraffollamento, ma a restituire umanità al sistema penitenziario, trasformandolo da un semplice strumento punitivo a mezzo per la riabilitazione. Perché, cari colleghi, non dimentichiamo che la reclusione non deve essere una privazione della libertà ma soprattutto non deve essere una privazione della dignità.
               

Sandro Ruotolo,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, il grado di civiltà di un Paese si può giudicare entrando nelle sue carceri.
               

                  A livello di Unione europea, secondo Eurostat, nel 2022 c'era un detenuto ogni 924 abitanti e undici Stati membri su 27 soffrivano di sovraffollamento, che è la maggiore causa di suicidio, su cui ancora non esistono statistiche a livello dell'Unione.
               

                  In Italia dall'inizio del 2024 ad oggi ci sono stati 81 suicidi, uno ogni quattro giorni. Sia chiaro: siamo contro l'impunità ma certamente ci piacerebbe vedere pagare il conto con la giustizia anche ai colletti bianchi, cosa che succede raramente.
               

                  Ci dobbiamo però chiedere come prevenire e come recuperare: non è accettabile, per esempio, che nel carcere di Napoli oggi ci siano 2.103 detenuti invece dei 1.400 previsti.
               

                  Vi sembra civile che detenuti e agenti di custodia vivano in quelle condizioni? È troppo facile chiudere a chiave la cella e dimenticarci di loro.
               

Matthieu Valet,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, une fois n'est pas coutume, n'en déplaise aux gauchos, la prison, ce n'est pas le Club Med. Son premier rôle, en France comme en Europe, n'est pas de réinsérer le détenu, mais d'abord et avant tout de protéger la société. En effet, tant que ces détenus sont dedans, ils ne font pas de victimes dehors. Donc construisez des prisons, vous sauverez des victimes.
               

                  N'en déplaise à nos amis de l'Observatoire international des prisons, entre autres maux de notre système carcéral, il est à bout de souffle, par manque de places de prisons dans tous les pays d'Europe. Pas besoin d'être polytechnicien pour comprendre que de nouvelles places garantiront un encellulement individuel, des conditions de sécurité pour les agents pénitentiaires et, surtout, l'effectivité de la peine.
               

                  Surtout, les juges européens, au lieu de défendre en permanence les détenus, devraient protéger les agents pénitentiaires en réautorisant les fouilles systématiques après les parloirs, qui sont de véritables incubateurs à objets prohibés, interdits et dangereux pour nos agents pénitentiaires.
               

                  En prison, les détenus doivent aussi travailler pour se réinsérer, mais surtout pour indemniser les victimes.
               

                  Face à l'urgence de la surpopulation carcérale, expulsion des détenus de nationalité étrangère: un quart des détenus en France – les prisons françaises sont surpeuplées, vous le savez – sont de nationalité étrangère.
               

Michael McNamara,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, the Council of Europe's 2023 annual report on prison populations noted that Cyprus, Romania, France, Belgium, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia are all grappling with severe overcrowding, with the prison density of more than 105 inmates per 100 places available, with Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Denmark not far behind.
Cork prison, in the constituency that I represent, is already at 120 % capacity, with 60 of its 355 inmates sleeping on the floor. Of course, those levels of overcrowding make the prisons extremely dangerous – not just for inmates, but also for those who work with those inmates. Yet we hear our government parties, as they campaign, talking about increasing minimum sentencing.
I mean, the question arises: where are you going to put these inmates? Who is going to be Barabbas? Who is going to be released instead? Instead of just talking about more prison spaces, which, yes, are needed, we also need to ensure that there are fewer people serving short-term sentences, and prisons don't become a place where we are housing people with addiction problems and mental health issues. Fundamental reform is needed of our prisons across Europe.

Saskia Bricmont,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, catastrophique, c'est l'état de nos prisons en Europe: 100 % ou plus de taux d'occupation dans douze pays sur 27, jusqu'à 200 % dans certaines prisons. Des personnes détenues partagent des matelas dans des cellules surpeuplées et vétustes. En conséquence: problèmes d'hygiène, de dignité, d'accès aux soins, au droit et à la réhabilitation, pourtant indispensable pour prévenir la récidive et la radicalisation.
               

                  Au manque de places, la réponse de nos autorités est généralement la construction de nouvelles prisons. Plus de places entraînent pourtant plus de détenus. La méga-prison de Haren en Belgique n'en est qu'un exemple flagrant parmi d'autres. La grève du personnel en témoigne: les conditions de détention déplorables entraînent aussi des conditions de travail catastrophiques.
               

                  La question fondamentale est celle de la vision de la société et du modèle pénal que nous souhaitons. Depuis cinq ans, je demande que l'Union européenne adopte un cadre contraignant commun sur les conditions de détention en Europe. Et c'est grave que nos gouvernements aient rejeté un tel cadre commun en 2022: grave pour les droits fondamentaux des personnes détenues et des travailleurs, grave pour la coopération judiciaire en Europe, grave pour l'État de droit, dont l'Union européenne doit être la garante.
               

Ilaria Salis,
a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Benito, Mussa, nome sconosciuto, Vincenzo, Federico, Giuseppe, Pasquale, nome sconosciuto, nome sconosciuto, Salvatore, John, nome sconosciuto, nome sconosciuto, Salvatore, Abdel Jalil, Atef, nome sconosciuto, nome sconosciuto, Luca, nome sconosciuto, nome sconosciuto, nome sconosciuto, Giuseppe, Lulsim, Alessandro Patrizio, nome sconosciuto, Fabiano, Fabrizio, Vincenzo, Fedi, Youssef, nome sconosciuto, Giuseppe, Majon, nome sconosciuto, Francesco, Alì, nome sconosciuto, Giuseppe, Alin Vasili, nome sconosciuto.
               

                  Un minuto non è sufficiente per nominare tutte le persone che nel 2024 si sono tolte la vita nelle carceri italiane.
               

Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, as condições dos estabelecimentos prisionais são também uma preocupação com a dignidade da condição humana. Em Portugal, a realidade que o atual Governo encontrou foi metade dos reclusos em cadeias sobrelotadas, reduzidas áreas de alojamento por recluso e infraestruturas obsoletas e degradadas, acesso inadequado a cuidados de saúde e guardas prisionais abandonados. Rapidamente chegou a acordo com os guardas prisionais para uma progressão na carreira mais rápida, está a acelerar a entrada de novos profissionais e a desenvolver experiências-piloto com recurso a novas tecnologias.
               

                  Mas destaco a cadeia de Ponta Delgada, na Região Autónoma dos Açores, com uma taxa efetiva de ocupação superior a 120 %, com perfil de idade jovem, em condições sub-humanas – e temos, por exemplo, 47 pessoas no armazém transformado em sala – e com a deslocação de centenas de reclusos para as cadeias de outras ilhas e continente português, passando estes a cumprir uma dupla pena também pelo isolamento, quer para os próprios, quer para as suas famílias, dificultando o processo de reabilitação, que é o objetivo último desta privação de liberdade.
               

                  E isto tem de acabar. As promessas têm mais de duas décadas e nada foi feito. Saúdo por isto o atual Governo pelo compromisso com o início da construção de uma nova cadeia já em 2027.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria Dalli, durante la primera legislatura en la que tuve el honor de presidir la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, presidí también una misión del Parlamento Europeo de supervisión del sistema de prisiones europeo solo para constatar, de primera mano, las enormes variaciones entre los Estados miembros y algunas terribles deficiencias, incompatibles, para empezar, con el artículo 3 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que prohíbe la tortura y los tratos inhumanos y degradantes, y con el artículo 4 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, que dice lo mismo.
               

                  Y es por eso que, en esa legislatura, aprobamos normas procesales que garantizan medidas mínimas de convergencia europea en relación no solo con el acusado, sino también con las condiciones de detención.
               

                  Pero el trabajo no estará completo hasta que no cumplamos los objetivos de la Resolución de este Parlamento Europeo sobre las condiciones de la prisión preventiva en la Unión Europea, para establecer no solamente un código de duración mínima y máxima de la prisión preventiva, sino también de duración media de la prisión preventiva y de garantías de dignidad que sean compatibles con la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea para las personas detenidas y en prisión preventiva en la Unión Europea.
               

Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal (PfE). – Señora presidenta, la condición preliminar que debería garantizarse en cualquier prisión de la Unión Europea es que los funcionarios que trabajan en ellas estén seguros. A día de hoy, en Europa, las cárceles tienen presos cada vez más peligrosos.
               

                  Con demasiada frecuencia hemos de escuchar noticias de ataques a los trabajadores y de cómo, muchas veces, las prisiones actúan también como centro de radicalización de los internos.
               

                  Por eso, es tan inaudito como intolerable que quienes ejercen claramente una profesión de riesgo —como los funcionarios de prisiones— no dispongan de los medios adecuados para su trabajo. Esto incluye su reconocimiento como agentes de la autoridad, que se les provea de todos los recursos materiales, humanos y jurídicos necesarios para salvaguardar su integridad física en el desempeño de sus funciones, así como su dignidad en el trabajo. La seguridad de toda la sociedad comienza garantizando la de aquellos que vigilan a los que la perturban.
               

Friedrich Pürner (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Viele Jahre habe ich in Bayern als Gefängnisarzt in einer Krankenabteilung gearbeitet. Die aktuellen Foltervorwürfe gegen das bayerische Gefängnis Augsburg-Gablingen schockieren mich. Von unmenschlicher Unterbringung und Misshandlung ist hier die Rede.
               

                  In Deutschland sind die Bundesländer für den Strafvollzug zuständig. In Bayern scheint es hier ein massives Problem zu geben. Ja, es braucht mehr Transparenz in den Gefängnissen. Bei Fixierungen oder Unterbringungen in besonders gesicherten Hafträumen müssen unbedingt bessere Kontrollen durch Gefängnisärzte erfolgen. Auch könnte man für diese Gefangenen ein Antragsrecht, um einen Anwalt zu konsultieren, regeln. Strafvollzugsbeauftragte, die als neutrale und unabhängige Ansprechpartner für die Justizverwaltungen zur Verfügung stehen, können dem entgegensteuern. Ich erinnere ausdrücklich an das Subsidiaritätsprinzip. Deutschland kann das ohne die EU regeln, und deshalb rufe ich nach Bayern: Machen Sie bitte Ihre Arbeit! Dann braucht es keine EU-Regelung.
               

Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, nonostante le sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo, gli appelli delle ONG e le risoluzioni del Parlamento, il sovraffollamento delle carceri e il trattamento degradante dei detenuti rimangono problemi gravissimi diffusi in tutta l'Unione.
               

                  In Italia, il mio Paese, il 110% dei posti in carcere è occupato ben oltre la capienza massima e i suicidi nel 2024 sono stati 81, quasi due alla settimana. Il sovraffollamento carcerario, lo sappiamo, può costituire, come già accaduto in diversi casi, una violazione del divieto di tortura sancito dalla CEDU e dalla Carta di Nizza e porta all'aumento della violenza e porta al peggioramento delle relazioni tra detenuti e tra detenuti e personale. Il sovraffollamento limita l'accesso alle cure, alla formazione professionale e ai necessari percorsi di reintegrazione.
               

                  Le soluzioni ci sarebbero: dobbiamo occuparci dell'applicazione di misure alternative al carcere per i reati minori; dobbiamo dedicare particolare attenzione ai progetti di reinserimento per giovani detenuti e minorenni, fornendo loro gli strumenti per non tornare in galera da adulti; dobbiamo necessariamente concordare standard europei per il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dei detenuti e delle detenute. Facciamolo.
               

Julien Sanchez (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ce débat sur les conditions de détention en Europe est intéressant. Alors que, dans de nombreux pays du monde, il y a encore une vision saine du bien et du mal, la prison y étant une punition, un endroit austère où l'on est admis parce qu'on s'est mal conduit et où on est donc traité en conséquence comme un coupable, de nombreux pays européens ont, hélas, plus de considération pour les coupables que pour les victimes.
               

                  En France, on peut narguer ses victimes depuis la prison. On se souvient, parmi d'autres, de l'organisation d'une sorte de jeu Koh-Lanta avec des détenus faisant du karting dans la cour de la prison de Fresnes. En France, certains détenus introduisent objets, armes et téléphones, et continuent à organiser les trafics depuis la prison, sans oublier la radicalisation islamique.
               

                  Si la surpopulation carcérale est une réalité, elle a deux causes principales: les promesses non tenues des gouvernements successifs en matière de création de places de prison et l'immigration massive soutenue par l'Union européenne, qui est un grand fournisseur de délinquants et criminels qui peuplent nos prisons.
               

                  Il est temps de réinstaurer en France la double peine, les peines planchers, de stopper l'immigration massive et de renvoyer dans leur pays de manière effective les personnes frappées d'OQTF. De faire en sorte que nos prisons ne soient plus des foutoirs. D'aider les surveillants pénitentiaires, qui font un métier difficile et sont totalement oubliés, en leur donnant enfin moyens et soutien. D'imposer la discipline et d'arrêter d'être plus attentionné envers les détenus qu'envers les victimes.
               

Zgłoszenia z sali


Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, carcere di Regina Coeli a Roma: 1.100 detenuti per 627 posti; carcere di Agrigento: il bidet viene usato sia per l'igiene che per pulire i piatti; San Vittore, Milano: il tasso di affollamento è del 227%. In Italia sono più di 80 i detenuti che si sono suicidati solo nel 2024.
               

                  Questi sono soltanto alcuni dati che raccontano le gravi violazioni dei diritti umani nelle carceri italiane. I detenuti, nella maggior parte dei casi, non hanno nemmeno lo spazio vitale minimo di tre metri quadrati a persona, stabilito dalla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo.
               

                  L'Unione europea definisce giustamente la superficie minima per garantire il benessere di un maiale in allevamento ma non ha norme altrettanto chiare per garantire condizioni dignitose ai detenuti. Così il carcere diventa una pentola a pressione in cui cresce la rabbia.
               

                  Serve porre fine a questa vergogna e garantire che il trattamento delle persone detenute non violi i principi fondamentali sui quali si fonda la nostra Unione.
               

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, Suomessa on yhdet Euroopan mukavimmista vankilaoloista. Ne ovat niin mukavat, että eräs avovanki jopa luonnehti asiaa mediahaastattelussa näin: ‘Rautaa ei ole missään, saa saunoa ja syödä kolme kertaa päivässä firman laskuun, se oli hienoa aikaa’.
               

                  Tästä huolimatta sekä Euroopan neuvoston että YK:n kidutuksenvastaiset komiteat ovat pitäneet Suomea hampaissaan. Ne ovat kertoneet meille, että tutkintavankeja ei saisi säilyttää edes lyhytaikaisesti poliisin tiloissa. Nyt jotain rajaa! Säilytettäviä tutkintavankeja epäillään vakavista rikoksista, jolloin on tehtävä kaikki sen eteen, että tutkinta saadaan suoritettua onnistuneesti ja syylliset vastuuseen. Jos tutkintavanki viettää muutaman päivän poliisin tiloissa vailla yhteyksiä ulkomaailmaan, kyse ei ole kidutuksesta. Kyse on normaalista rikostutkinnasta.
               

Anthony Smith (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, oui, le système carcéral fonctionne mal, mais l'extrême droite s'obstine à défendre un modèle archaïque et autoritaire.
               

                  N'en déplaise aux fachos, les faits vous donnent tort: en France, par exemple, le taux de récidive des détenus en sortie sèche est de l'ordre de 65 %, alors qu'il n'est que de 40 % pour ceux qui bénéficient d'un accompagnement social, comme par exemple une fin de peine en milieu ouvert.
               

                  Comment et pourquoi soutenir les services d'insertion et de probation? Voilà le débat, Mesdames et Messieurs de l'extrême droite. Dire cela est tout sauf être laxiste: c'est être humain!
               

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas! In dieser Debatte über die Haftbedingungen innerhalb der Europäischen Union haben wir viel Verbesserungsbedarf im Hinblick auf unsere Gefängnisse feststellen müssen. Ich möchte aber vielmehr auf eine Aussage eingehen, die ein Kollege dort unten in der Mitte getroffen hat. Er sagte: Wir müssen die Menschen in die Gefängnisse sperren, weil wir die Opfer schützen wollen, aber keinesfalls die Insassen. Natürlich sperren wir Leute in Gefängnisse, um die Opfer von potenziellen Straftaten zu schützen, um diese Leute für das, was sie den Opfern ihrer Straftaten getan haben, zu bestrafen.
               

                  Aber solange wir in einem Rechtsstaat leben, schützen wir immer auch die Gefangenen. Ein Staat, der nicht in der Lage ist, einen Menschen unter menschenwürdigen Bedingungen einzusperren, ist nicht besser als die unzähligen Diktaturen, die wir zu unserer Schande auf unserem Kontinent bereits erleben müssen. Deswegen möchte ich, auch wenn sie es an anderer Stelle nicht verdient haben, hier eine Lanze für die Täter brechen. Auch Täter haben eine menschenwürdige Haft verdient.
               

Diego Solier (NI). – Señora presidenta, ¿qué puede ser más peligroso que tratar diariamente con asesinos, violadores y maltratadores? Pues eso mismo pienso yo. ¿Cómo es posible que la profesión de funcionario de prisiones no esté catalogada como profesión de riesgo? ¿Cómo es posible que ni estén considerados como agentes de la autoridad en España? Cada dieciséis horas un funcionario de prisiones en España es agredido, pero no es profesión de riesgo. Y estos trabajadores deben esperar hasta los sesenta y cinco años para poder jubilarse con todos los derechos. Y, al igual que pasa con la policía, dependiendo de dónde ejerzan su trabajo, su remuneración es diferente, por el mismo trabajo. ¿Dónde está la igualdad? Y lo mejor de todo, que desde el Gobierno se legisla para proteger a los presos y desproteger a los funcionarios. Vamos, el mundo al revés.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this debate. The Commission wants to underscore the need to improve the situation in prisons within the EU and – since poor prison conditions risk violating fundamental rights of citizens and seriously affect the proper operation of judicial cooperation – instruments such as the European arrest warrant. I recall that, as part of the political priorities of the next Commission, President von der Leyen announced work to strengthen the European arrest warrant and to step up cooperation between Eurojust and Europol.
The report that the Commission will publish in the course of 2025, assessing compliance with its recommendation on detention, will provide more transparency on the situation in the Member States. The Commission will also continue to develop synergies with the work done by the Council of Europe in this area, by providing funding to the European network of national bodies that monitor detention conditions in the Member States. In close cooperation with the Council of Europe, guidance and training for judicial professionals will also be developed in order to raise awareness of the recommendation on detention.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 178)



Enikő Győri (PfE),
írásban. – Két éve öt támadást hajtott végre egy külföldi állampolgárságú tagokból álló csoport Magyarországon. Hátulról rontottak rá olyan magyar és külföldi járókelőkre, akiket ők egy fasiszta rendezvény résztvevőinek véltek. Magyarországon ugyanis nincsenek fasiszta felvonulások, törvény tiltja ezeket, a rendőrség fellép ellenük.
               

                  Az áldozatokat különféle eszközökkel, viperával és gumikalapáccsal, brutálisan bántalmazták. A megtámadott kilenc ember közül négyen súlyos, öten könnyű sérüléseket szenvedtek.
               

                  Ilaria Salis, aki a vád szerint részt vett a támadások kitervelésében és esetenként a végrehajtásukban is, az Európai Parlamentben ül. Kérdezem, az áldozatok hangját ki hallja meg?
               

                  Salis az európai parlamenti képviselőségével járó mentelmi jogára hivatkozva akarja megúszni az igazságszolgáltatást. Bízom benne, hogy az EP ebben nem lesz partner, így nem tud majd kibújni a felelősségrevonás alól. Ne felejtsék el: közönséges erőszakos bűncselekménnyel vádolják, semmi politikai indíttatás nincs az ügyben.
               

                  A Patrióták Európáért képviselőcsoport mindent meg fog tenni annak érdekében, hogy ilyen visszaélés a mentelmi joggal ne történhessen a jövőben. Köztörvényes és erőszakos bűnözőknek nincs helyük ebben a Házban!
               
17.   Urgent need to tackle the gender pay gap (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku obrad jest oświadczenie Komisji pt. ‘Pilna potrzeba zaradzenia zróżnicowaniu wynagrodzeń ze względu na płeć’ (2024/2945(RSP)).
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, two weeks ago we marked the European Equal Pay Day. This day quantifies the number of extra days women must work to earn men's take-home income. This year, women must shoulder 46 extra days of work to match men's pay, which is about twice the number of vacation days the average European worker gets a year. During this Commission's mandate, we reduced the gender pay gap by the equivalent of five days, and I augur that during the upcoming mandate it will be shrunk further.
Yet, despite the gender pay gap's decrease, the drop I am reporting is, of course, modest. Women's gross hourly earnings remain, on average, 12.7 % below those of men. At the current rate of progress, we would need another 28 years before achieving pay equality for women and men in the EU.
The gender pay gap is caused by various factors, among them discrimination and biases between women and men in pay systems. The new European legislation on pay transparency was developed to usher a new era of fairness. It is expected to empower workers to claim their rights by finally giving them access to the information they need and alleviating administrative obstacles. It will also trigger action by companies to address the systemic undervaluation of women's work, and address structural discrimination in pay. Effective implementation is now key.
I stress that equal pay is not only about equal pay for men and women carrying out the same job. It is also about equal pay for work that appears to be different, but in fact requires comparable skills, efforts and responsibilities, and is therefore worth the same.
We will put extra effort into supporting the proper application of the principle of equal pay between men and women for work of equal value in the Member States. We have had the principle of equal pay in our Treaty for 67 years, but it proved not effective in practice, as you know. The Pay Transparency Directive changes this, as it puts forward tools, mechanisms and obligations to address lingering discrepancies.
We are supporting the development of tools and methodologies for employers to detect and correct any unjustified gender pay differences. A solid methodology to compare jobs of equal value will be essential. To support this development, the European Institute for Gender Equality is developing a step-by-step toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems, which will be accessible online at the beginning of 2026.
But putting in place pay transparency is, of course, not the end of the story. The European Equal Pay Day reminds us of how much work must be done to address the other causes of the gender pay gap. Among these other causes are the underrepresentation of women in decision-making positions, gender stereotypes about the roles of women and men in society, unequal sharing of domestic and care responsibilities, and the perpetuation of inequalities in pension systems.
I recall that during this Commission's mandate, we addressed several of these other causes, as you know. We ensured other achievements: the adoption of the Directive on gender balance on corporate boards in 2022, and the increase of female representation on the boards of the EU's largest listed companies, will give many qualified women a real chance to reach a top position.
It is, however, not enough to have women in top positions or equally represented. Women must have a safe and supportive environment to thrive professionally and take on leadership positions within their organisations. The support can include mentoring programs, inclusive and family-friendly work arrangements, and the assurance of a safe work environment free from internal and external harassment.
This goes hand in hand with fighting deeply ingrained stereotypes, which are often used to question women's skills and competencies. Such hostile environments cause many women to leave public office.
We have also put substantial efforts into fighting harmful gender stereotypes. We have developed an EU-wide communication campaign. The campaign tackles gender stereotypes in all areas of life: career choices, sharing of care responsibilities and decision-making. We invite you all to share the campaign material with the hashtag #EndGenderStereotypes.
But if we want to give women an equal opportunity to participate in the labour market, and value our contribution in achieving a competitive European economy, we must create the adequate structures for care responsibilities to be used equally by women and men.
Women continue to bear the brunt of household and caring responsibilities, making them leave the labour market or work less hours. Currently, 7.7 million women are unable to join the labour market due to a lack of available care services, even though they are qualified and even though it is not their choice to not be in the labour market. But because of these care responsibilities and the lack of care services, they are not in the labour market.
In 2003, the employment rate for men stood at 80.4 % and for women at 70.2 %. The gender employment gap is wider when considering full-time equivalent employment. The share of women in part-time work is much higher: 27.9 % compared to 7.7 % for men in 2023; and even wider among employed women with children: 31.8 %, compared to 5 % in 2023.
This matter is addressed in the Work-Life Balance Directive and the Care Strategy. The work-life balance rules improve the conditions to balance work and family choices to achieve a better sharing of domestic and caring responsibilities between women and men, and to create the conditions for women to enter or remain in the labour market. It does so by designing family leave and flexible working arrangements. We are pursuing work on enforcement to ensure the correct implementation of this Directive in all Member States.
Through the European Care Strategy, we also urge Member States to invest in high-quality, affordable and accessible care. Available care services allow both women and men to engage in paid work. Strong public care services not only enhance women's participation in the labour market, but also provide employment.
Finally, we must keep in mind that all the inequalities women face during their working life culminate at old age. In 2023, the gender gap in pensions stood at over 25.4 %. One of the objectives of the Gender Equality Strategy is that women receive fair pensions. The Commission included the gender dimension in our triennial Pension Adequacy Report, prepared together with the Social Protection Committee. These efforts will need to be stepped up and sustained during the coming years.
My mind is at rest looking at this House this evening where I can see many of you who were a great support to the Commission's work. I really thank the Parliament for pushing us harder so that we could achieve what we have so far achieved. I am sure, seeing your faces here, familiar faces, that you will continue doing this, so that we can achieve more and more. Thank you so much for your work.

Ελεονώρα Μελέτη,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, υπάρχει κάποιος μέσα σε αυτή την αίθουσα που θα μπορούσε να μου εξηγήσει με επιχειρήματα για ποιον λόγο μια γυναίκα πληρώνεται λιγότερα χρήματα απ' ότι ένας άντρας για να κάνουν την ίδια δουλειά, ακόμα και αν αυτή έχει περισσότερα προσόντα; Αν υπολογίσουμε πόσα χρήματα βγάζουν λιγότερα ετησίως οι γυναίκες σε σχέση με τους άνδρες για να κάνουν την ίδια δουλειά, θα δούμε πως αυτά αντιστοιχούν στην αμοιβή ενάμιση μήνα. Θα άρεσε σε κάποιον να δουλεύει χωρίς να πληρώνεται ενάμιση ολόκληρο μήνα;
               

                  Μη μου πείτε πως φταίει το γεγονός ότι οι γυναίκες διαπραγματεύονται λιγότερο επιθετικά τις αμοιβές τους. Μη μου πείτε ότι οι γυναίκες κάποια στιγμή θα κληθούν να κάνουν ένα διάλειμμα από την εργασία τους για να φροντίσουν τα μωρά τους. Είναι μια επιχειρηματολογία που την ακούμε συχνά, αλλά είναι αυτή ακριβώς που συντηρεί και αναπαράγει το πρόβλημα.
               

                  Μία μέρα μετά τη Διεθνή Ημέρα της Εξάλειψης της Βίας κατά των Γυναικών, συζητάμε την ανάγκη να καταρρίψουμε ακόμα μια βίαιη ανισότητα. Μόνο που, αν το καλοσκεφτούμε, για να το πετύχουμε αυτό, δεν χρειάζεται κάποιος ευφάνταστος νόμος ή κάποια πολύπλοκη πολιτική στρατηγική. Χρειάζεται απλά οι άνδρες και οι γυναίκες, όταν καλούνται να κάνουν την ίδια δουλειά, να πληρώνονται τα ίδια χρήματα. Τόσο απλά. Γιατί, όσο δεν γίνεται αυτό, συντηρείται μια βαθιά άδικη διάκριση που προσβάλλει την κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, σε πολλές περιπτώσεις παραβιάζει τις εργατικές νομοθεσίες, ενισχύεται η φτώχεια, κάνοντας τις γυναίκες –και ιδίως τις μητέρες– οικονομικά πιο ευάλωτες, τροφοδοτείται η οικονομική βία που συνδέεται με άλλες μορφές βίας, μετατρέποντας τις γυναίκες σε υπόδουλες. Αυτή η οικονομική ανισότητα και οι επιπτώσεις της διαρκούν καθ' όλη τη διάρκεια ζωής μιας γυναίκας, γιατί το μισθολογικό χάσμα μετατρέπεται και σε συνταξιοδοτικό χάσμα.
               

                  Η οδηγία για τη διαφάνεια των αμοιβών είναι μια καλή νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία. Τα κράτη μέλη, όμως, έχουν κι άλλη δουλειά να κάνουν. Οφείλουν να νομοθετήσουν εθνικά με τρόπο τέτοιο, ώστε να αποτρέπεται η μισθολογική διάκριση, αλλά να δημιουργήσουν και πιο ασφαλή εργασιακά περιβάλλοντα, όπου θα ενθαρρύνεται η καταγγελία σε περιπτώσεις που αυτό δεν συμβαίνει.
               

                  Οφείλουμε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, να εργαστούμε όλοι για να αποκαταστήσουμε αυτήν την κοινωνική αδικία και να διασφαλίσουμε ότι κανείς δεν θα μείνει πίσω –ούτε εμείς, ούτε οι κόρες μας, ούτε οι μητέρες μας, ούτε οι γιαγιάδες μας.
               

Heléne Fritzon,
för S&D gruppen. – Fru talman! Tack kommissionär Dalli för allt det arbete ni har gjort för jämställdheten under de här åren.
               

                  Hur länge ska kvinnor vänta? Det är tredje året i rad som kvinnor i EU tjänar över 12 % mindre än män, och det motsvarar en och en halv månadslön per år. Detta är helt oacceptabelt. Kvinnor dominerar låglöneyrken och de tar dessutom ofta huvudansvaret för hem, familj och omsorg. Priset de betalar är lägre löner och lägre pensioner.
               

                  Det handlar inte om ett val, utan det handlar om strukturella orättvisor. Flickor är ofta duktiga i skolan. Kvinnor har hög kompetens som behövs i både samhälle och företag. Om vi fortsätter i samma takt som i dag så kommer det att dröja nästan en livstid innan vi uppnår jämställdhet i EU, och det kan vi aldrig acceptera. Ett av mina barnbarn är tio år, en flicka som går i skolan. Ska jag berätta för henne att det kommer att ta 60 år innan hon får leva i ett jämställt Europa? Då är hon pensionär, och så länge tänker inte jag vänta. Vi ska inte acceptera något annat än att våra barn och barnbarn förtjänar ett Europa där lika arbete ger lika lön.
               

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señora presidente, señorías, nuestras constituciones, así como la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, ya garantizan la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres en materia de empleo, trabajo y retribución. Ahora, la diferencia de salario entre personas es natural y debe existir, y tiene, casi siempre, una justificación en el nivel de formación, experiencia previa, tipo de horario, sector…
               

                  Los datos solo confirman la existencia de una importante brecha salarial que se suele olvidar: la de las madres trabajadoras. La Directiva de transparencia retributiva se presenta aquí como una herramienta para la igualdad, pero, en realidad, es una herramienta para ahogar en más burocracia e inseguridad jurídica a las empresas y a los emprendedores. Esto se traduce en menos oportunidades laborales para todos, también para las mujeres.
               

                  Lo que es urgente es generar un entorno de prosperidad. Dejen de poner palos en la rueda a las empresas, poniendo a las mujeres como excusa. Si les importáramos de verdad, dejarían de hablar tanto por nosotras y querrían escucharnos.
               

Marlena Maląg,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Dyskryminacja ekonomiczna to temat, który ma dwa wymiary – realny i ideologiczny. Parlament jest miejscem, w którym wygrywa czasami ta druga opcja. Te same osoby potępiają dyskryminację zawodową kobiet, ale jednocześnie zmuszają je, na przykład w sporcie, do rywalizacji z osobami transpłciowymi. Gdzie tu równość? Odstawmy ideologię na bok. Spójrzmy na problem realnie. Pogłębianie się luki płacowej to problem systemowy. Nie rozwiążemy go jedną czy drugą regulacją, która zrobi więcej krzywdy niż pożytku.
               

                  Czasami tutaj, w Parlamencie, słyszymy słowa o losie kobiet w moim kraju. A spójrzmy na fakty. Średnia luka płacowa w Unii Europejskiej to 12,7, a w Polsce – 7,8, jedna z najniższych. Budowę tego systemu należy rozpocząć od podstaw, przede wszystkim od zapewnienia elastycznych form pracy, dostępu do opieki nad dziećmi, do wzmocnienia regulacji prawnych chroniących rodziców, ich równych praw i obowiązków, od podnoszenia świadomości społecznej, a także jawnego raportowania różnic wynagrodzeń. Tylko zintegrowane, zdecydowane działania pozwolą nam stworzyć bardziej sprawiedliwy i równy rynek pracy. Szukajmy realnych rozwiązań. Budujmy uczciwy, sprawiedliwy system oparty na jasnych zasadach.
               

Jana Toom,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the question around the gender pay gap is sometimes the same: how can we encourage women to take part in the labour market? All I hear is 'how much more juice can be squeezed out of these lemons?'.
All across the EU, women shoulder the majority of unpaid work such as cleaning, cooking and caring. Women spend weekly on average 13 hours more than men in unpaid work, while spending less time in paid work. Annually, women work the equivalent of eight full-time weeks more, while earning less.
The situation becomes even worse with an increasing ageing population. This is a societal problem reflected in outdated policies in many countries where there is no early childcare available because it is the norm that mothers stay at home. In many countries, there is limited elderly care and even a legal obligation for the family to take care of the elderly. It is women who pay the price.
What we need is the Member States to invest in care and make it available so that women can have a break and finally work the same amount as their male counterparts and have the same amount of income.

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I get a sense of joy and nostalgia being in this room today with all of you thinking of a Parliament that definitely was, but maybe still is. But now I will turn to my speech.
Fru formand! Snart får vi en ny Kommission, og selv om ansigterne måske er nye, så er mange af vores udfordringer de samme. Europas kvinder tjener stadig i gennemsnit 12,7 procent mindre end mænd. Deres pensioner er i gennemsnit 29 procent mindre, og kvinderne har markant færre penge investeret i aktier. Det er uretfærdigt, og vi skal gøre mere for at sikre økonomisk ligestilling. Heldigvis har vi vist, at vi kan skabe resultater sammen. Vi har forhandlet Europas ligelønslov om lønåbenhed. Det betyder, at vi får løngabet frem i lyset og kan bekæmpe løndiskrimination, men samtidig er det også klart, at det ikke kan løse alverdens ligestillingsproblemer. Vi skal nemlig finde måder at lukke pensionsgabet på og sikre, at vores formuer bliver mere ligeligt fordelt. I SF er vi klar til at kæmpe den kamp for at sikre mere ligestilling i Europa.

Estrella Galán,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señorías, ¿saben que la brecha salarial implica que, desde el 15 de noviembre hasta fin de año, la inmensa mayoría de las mujeres está trabajando gratis? Significa más de un mes y medio sin cobrar cada año, un 13 % menos que los hombres que hacen el mismo trabajo. Significa que el patriarcado sigue presente. Significa que seguimos infrarrepresentadas en los puestos de poder. Y significa que seguimos asumiendo los cuidados.
               

                  Lo que esconden los datos son mujeres agotadas, discriminadas, incluso explotadas, por un trabajo injustamente remunerado. Mujeres que sienten que no les da la vida, que no les llega el dinero a fin de mes, aunque se dejan la piel cada día trabajando y cuidando a los demás.
               

                  Europa debe liderar una respuesta, un cambio a esta injusta situación. Y el primer paso tiene que ser el incremento del salario mínimo, porque reduce la brecha salarial, como ya hemos demostrado en España, pero también es necesario acabar con un sistema patriarcal que normaliza esa diferencia salarial, así como que las mujeres tengamos que asumir los trabajos más precarios y la carga de los cuidados.
               

Irmhild Boßdorf,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Noch immer – so sollen Statistiken uns glauben machen – gibt es einen signifikanten Unterschied zwischen der Bezahlung von Frauen und Männern – das Gender-Pay-Gap. Regelmäßig wird uns erzählt, Frauen seien benachteiligt, weil sie weniger verdienten als Männer. Schauen wir uns diesen Lohnunterschied einmal genauer an. EU-weit verdienen Frauen fast 13 Prozent weniger als Männer, in Deutschland immerhin noch 6 Prozent weniger.
               

                  Warum – diese Frage stellt sich natürlich – ist das so? Frauen arbeiten häufiger in Teilzeit als Männer. Frauen sind weniger risikobereit, sie tummeln sich weniger auf Fort- und Weiterbildungen und in Netzwerken. Tatsächlich bringen sie familiären Werten eine höhere Wertschätzung entgegen, und sie lassen sich nicht für alles, was sie tun, bezahlen. Wenn wir die viele Zeit, die Männer auf ihr Weiterkommen verwenden, und die vielen Arbeitsstunden, die sie leisten, zusammenzählen würden, würden wir vermutlich zu dem Schluss kommen, dass das Gender-Pay-Gap eher in die umgekehrte Richtung besteht und Männer ein viel höheres Einkommen haben müssten, als es ihnen tatsächlich gezahlt wird. Wir könnten den Spieß aber auch umdrehen und endlich die vielen unbezahlten Stunden, die Frauen für ihre sogenannte Care-Arbeit, in denen sie ihre Kinder und ihre Familie umsorgen, angemessen bezahlen. Ich verspreche Ihnen, das Gender-Pay-Gap wäre dann ganz schnell geschlossen.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, apesar de décadas de progresso na Europa, as mulheres ganham hoje, em média, menos 13 % do que os homens. Esta disparidade atinge valores de 19 % na Áustria ou 18 % na Alemanha. São valores chocantes.
               

                  Em Portugal, uma mulher ganha menos 12 % do que um homem. Estamos melhor do que a média? Sim. Mas não podemos ficar satisfeitos, nem satisfeitas. Pagar menos a uma mulher é negar-lhe o que é seu por direito, o reconhecimento e o valor do seu trabalho. A luta pela igualdade salarial é, por isso, uma luta pela dignidade humana, pela independência económica e pela justiça social.
               

                  Natália Correia, uma antiga deputada do meu partido, do PSD, e defensora dos direitos das mulheres, escreveu um dia: ‘Uma mulher tem de deslumbrar, não com conquistas pequenas ou vitórias adiadas, mas com um brilho que desafia as normas, que sacode a indiferença e transforma o mundo. Porque quando uma mulher brilha, ela não ilumina apenas a sua vida. Ela ilumina a de todos à sua volta’.
               

Estelle Ceulemans (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, ce 25 novembre était la Journée internationale contre la violence à l'égard des femmes. Avec les violences physiques, sexuelles, sociales et institutionnelles, l'inégalité salariale constitue une autre forme de violence, économique et financière celle-là. Cette même violence économique est incontestablement liée aux violences physiques et sexuelles.
               

                  En effet, une femme qui dépend financièrement de son partenaire court plus de risques de subir des violences physiques et sexuelles au sein de son couple. L'inégalité salariale est donc une discrimination et une violence faite aux femmes, inacceptable en 2024. Elle est évaluée à seulement 13 % de différence de salaire horaire moyen en Europe. Mais ce chiffre cache des réalités très différentes entre États membres ou entre secteurs professionnels, et les femmes restent très majoritaires dans les emplois à bas salaire.
               

                  Sans parler de la différence de revenu annuel, conséquence directe du travail à temps partiel, qui concerne essentiellement les femmes et a des conséquences négatives non seulement sur les salaires, mais aussi sur les droits sociaux, comme les pensions, et sur le niveau de carrière. Tout cela est évidemment la conséquence notamment de l'inégalité dans la répartition des charges domestiques. Soyons donc vraiment clairs: ces 13 %, aujourd'hui, sont sous-estimés par rapport à la réalité des femmes et aux vraies inégalités salariales.
               

                  Il est donc temps d'agir, de garantir un droit soi-disant ‘acquis’ depuis le traité de Rome de 1958 et de s'attaquer réellement à cette inégalité et à cette discrimination envers les femmes.
               

Pál Szekeres (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Első férfi hozzászólóként hadd jegyezzem meg, hogy a hölgyeknek igaza van. Vitán felül áll, hogy a nők és a férfiak közötti esélyegyenlőséget az élet minden területén, így a foglalkoztatás szintjén is biztosítani kell. Azt azért szeretném megjegyezni, hogy a kisebb bérszakadék egy adott országban sajnos nem feltétlenül jelenti a nemek közötti nagyobb esélyegyenlőséget. Sok esetben már el is hangzott korábban, hogy a különbség oka az is, hogy a nők közül sokan részmunkaidőben dolgoznak, mert a családban végeznek több munkát, a gyerekeket és az idősek gondozásával is foglalkoznak, amiért nem jár bérezés.
               

                  Szeretnék mondani erre egy jó magyar példát. Nálunk van főállású anyaság, tehát aki azt választja, hogy a munka világa helyett ő inkább családanyaként szeretne érvényesülni, akkor ezért ő fizetést kap, ezért a nyugdíjalapja is nő. Sok még a tennivaló, és szeretném külön felhívni a figyelmet, hogy figyeljünk a fogyatékossággal élő nők helyzetére is.
               

Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, essere donna non può e non deve essere un motivo di discriminazione. Eppure ancora oggi siamo ben lungi da una parità sostanziale nei diritti fra uomini e donne.
               

                  Il principio di parità retributiva è sancito dai trattati: ma le donne continuano a guadagnare mediamente il 14% in meno rispetto agli uomini. A maggior ragione oggi, che ci troviamo a vivere un inverno demografico, non possiamo rinunciare alla metà della nostra forza lavoro.
               

                  Le interruzioni di carriera sono dovute a maternità e responsabilità familiari: tutto ciò non può essere un fattore discriminante. Una donna lavoratrice è spesso anche una madre, che dopo il lavoro si occupa della casa, dei figli, talvolta sola. E va sostenuta anziché penalizzata, sia sul fronte della carriera sia per gli aspetti salariali.
               

                  Dobbiamo creare regole di partenza che siano uguali per tutti. Le statistiche dicono che le donne hanno in media un'istruzione superiore agli uomini, anche nelle materie STEM ed un'aspettativa di vita più lunga.
               

                  Mi auguro che questo Parlamento, insieme alle altre istituzioni, possa responsabilmente offrire soluzioni concrete per colmare un divario retributivo oggettivamente iniquo e ingiustificato.
               

Lucia Yar (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, who among us would willingly accept being paid less than another colleague for doing the same work? Of course, no one. Yet, it is an acceptable notion in Europe. For women across the EU, this is everyday reality. They are paid 13 % less than men, on average, for work of the same value. And even though we are hearing that it is a made-up problem, the numbers speak for themselves. This difference persists even after accounting for feminisation of some sectors or for working hours. There is only one explanation: the 13 % is the value of discrimination.
We try to address it through legislation. The Pay Transparency Directive is the right way to go – we need to implement it. But real change will require action from every single one of us. Let's question disparities. Let's demand fairness. And to my fellow women, insist on what is rightfully yours, because equality is a fundamental right and it applies to your paycheque as well.

Katrin Langensiepen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir Frauen, wir müssen immer für unsere Rechte kämpfen. Es waren unsere Großmütter, es waren unsere Mütter, jetzt sind es wir. Wenn man sich auf Social Media umschaut, was wir wieder für Trends haben: Da gibt es die sogenannten tradwives, wo einem in bunten Farben dargestellt wird, was das Hausfrauendasein doch alles bringt. Da sind überbezahlte Influencerinnen, die dann darstellen, wie toll Hausarbeit ist.
               

                  Das ist aber nicht die Realität. Wenn wir über den Gendergap in der Bezahlung sprechen, müssen wir auch über die unbezahlte Care-Arbeit sprechen. Dann haben wir vielleicht den Kindergarten, wo ich dann das Kind hinbringen kann. Aber wer organisiert das denn? Wer hat dann am Ende des Tages die Orga-Last, den mental load, zu sagen: ‘Du musst als Vater dich drum kümmern, und ich bin raus, dass ich hier in diesem Haus parlamentarische Arbeit machen kann’. Das muss bezahlt werden. Dafür müssen wir in der nächsten Kommission kämpfen, in der hoffentlich starken Care-Strategie.
               

Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, aš manau, kad moteris turi būti gerbtina, gerbiama ir mylima. Žiūrėkit, 9 valandos nakties. Čia Europos Parlamente naktį išnaudojamos moterys. Kaip tai gali būti? Jūs rodykite pavyzdį, jos turi būti namie, jos turi ilsėtis tokiu laiku, o ne vargti čia. Net musulmoniškuose kraštuose vyrai gerbia moteris, jie išlaiko moteris, jie puošia jas, jas myli, o mes įdarbinome kaip arklius kažkokius ir turi dirbt, dirbt ir dirbt. Tiktai gerai, kad dar mes reikalaujame, kad jos negautų mažesnio atlyginimo. Moterys turi puoselėti šeimą. Moterys išvis galėtų nedirbti ir Europos Sąjunga jas turėtų išlaikyti kaip pensininkams moka pensiją, jeigu mes gerbtume moteris. Mes negerbiame moterų, todėl moterys Europoje pavargę, jos negimdo. Europa sensta ir greitai Europą tikrai užkariaus musulmoniškos šalys. Taip neturėtų būti. Moterys, būkit mylimos Europoje.
               

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Chciałabym z tego miejsca podziękować za wszystkie działania, które podejmuje Pani na rzecz kobiet, na rzecz walki z przemocą czy z luką płacową. I chcę powiedzieć też z tego miejsca, że to jest wstyd, że w XXI wieku kobiety zarabiają blisko 13% mniej niż mężczyźni.
               

                  Oczywiście w moim kraju statystyki wyglądają dużo lepiej, ale nie oznacza to, że problem nierówności został rozwiązany. Często maskuje on szerszy problem strukturalny – ograniczony dostęp kobiet do stanowisk wysokopłatnych czy ich nadreprezentację w sektorach nisko płatnych, takich jak edukacja czy opieka. Gdy popatrzymy na stanowiska kierownicze, różnica płacowa sięga nawet 23%. I to pokazuje jasno, że kobiety wciąż zderzają się ze szklanym sufitem, który ogranicza ich potencjał i możliwości awansu. Równość płac, proszę Państwa, to nie tylko kwestia sprawiedliwości. To inwestycja w lepszą przyszłość. Badania jasno pokazują, że zmniejszenie różnic płacowych wzmacnia gospodarkę, buduje zrównoważony rynek pracy i podnosi jakość życia całego społeczeństwa. Nie możemy czekać kolejnych dziesięcioleci, by zobaczyć zmiany. Kobiety w Europie zasługują na równe szanse już dzisiaj. Zróbmy wszystko, aby nasze słowa przekuć w zmiany i realne efekty, które nastąpią zaraz, w niedalekiej przyszłości, a nie za najbliższe 10 lat.
               

Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, en Europa ahora mismo hay más mujeres que obtienen diplomas universitarios que hombres. En algunos países, desde hace ya dos o tres décadas, hay más mujeres que hombres con estudios superiores entre la población con edad de trabajar y, a pesar de eso, la brecha salarial es del 12,7 %, favorable no a las mujeres que tienen más formación, sino a los hombres. Y eso solo se refiere al salario por hora. Así que no hay nada de natural en esto.
               

                  Si miramos, además, la brecha de ingresos anuales aumenta y aumenta también a lo largo de la vida. Y hay estimaciones de que la brecha en las pensiones es del 40 %, algo, por cierto, muy relacionado con la feminización de la pobreza.
               

                  Las y los socialistas hemos promovido iniciativas como la Directiva sobre transparencia retributiva, que ahora queremos que se aplique a todas las empresas —y no solo a las grandes— y que aborde la minusvaloración de los sectores feminizados, incluyendo el principio de ‘igual salario por trabajo de igual valor’. Pero eso tendrá solo un alcance limitado si no abordamos también un reparto equitativo del trabajo doméstico y de los cuidados no remunerados, porque las mujeres no tenemos ningún gen de la plancha ni ningún gen de la escoba, y si garantizamos una red de calidad y accesible de servicios de cuidados y de servicios públicos, de educación y sanidad. Y, para ello, promoveremos el pacto de cuidados que Europa necesita para que abordar la crisis demográfica no recaiga exclusivamente en los hombros de las mujeres.
               

Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, we speak tonight on the urgent need to address the gender pay gap, and time and time again, discussions about equality seem to echo late at night in an empty Chamber, leaving me with a great sense of frustration. There are 20 colleagues here tonight, representing over 51 % of our population in the EU.
Last mandate we delivered binding pay transparency measures through the directive on pay transparency, but gender equality isn't just about pay, it's about securing women's future. Take pensions for example. Women on average retire with significantly lower pensions compared to men, a direct consequence of the pay disparity faced throughout their careers.
Let's not forget pink tax too. Women pay a higher price for products simply because they are marketed for us as female – from toiletries to clothing to services like dry cleaning, thousands of euros are hidden in tax that hits the wallets of women across the EU, further widening the financial gap.
We desperately must build on the directive for the thousands of women who are currently setting up their businesses and can't access capital, or the many who are experiencing physical, mental and financial abuse in partnerships but stay to protect their families.

Marc Angel (S&D). – Madam President, dear Commissioner Dalli, a 13 % gender pay gap in our Union is a scandal and is a slap in the face of our core values. And while I welcome EU legislation and in particular the Pay Transparency Directive, we must face the facts: these initiatives will only be successful if there is real political will for change. And I can hear those in this House who will claim that the administrative burden of this legislation is too high – that's not true – and it's the EU and not we are responsible for that – it's the exact opposite.
It is up to our Member States, up to our companies to guarantee gender equality and to ensure the principle of equal pay for equal work. If they had respected our treaties and the Commission recommendations, Europe would not have had to legislate. We all have a responsibility in transforming patriarchy into a Union of equality.
And to those who want to portray this fight as an invention of what they call gender ideologists: equal pay is enshrined in our treaties since 1957. Therefore, they must stop blaming the progressives. They should stop making women and workers feel guilty and rather look at their own inability or unwillingness to guarantee equality. Enough is enough. Let us together put an end to the gender pay gap. And thank you very much, Commissioner Dalli, for all the work you have done.

Zoltán Tarr (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Magyarországon, ahonnan én jövök, a nők még mindig átlagosan 17%-kal kevesebb fizetést kapnak ugyanazért a munkáért, mint férfi kollégáik. Sőt, vannak olyan munkakörök, olyan feladatkörök, ahol a nők fizetése 20%-kal is kevesebb, mint a férfiaké, jellemzően az oktatásban és az egészségügyben. A probléma gyökeréhez tartozik az is, hogy egyes országokban nem biztosítanak egyenlő, megfelelő képviseletet a nők számára, ezzel is azt a meghaladott és hamis képet erősítve, hogy a nőknek nincsen helye vezető pozíciókban. Ezért is látom azt örömmel, hogy ezt az ülésünket is egy hölgy vezeti, és hogy ennyi hölggyel lehetünk együtt itt a Parlamentben, ennyi felelős hölggyel.
               

                  Válsághelyzetben a női vezetők a felelősség elsődleges áldozatai, ahogy ez nálunk történt februárban, amikor a kegyelmi ügy kirobbant. Azt gondolom, hogy ‘gender pay gap’-ről beszélve ‘appreciation gap’-ről, vagyis elismerési hiányról is beszélünk. Ezen kellene változtatnunk.
               

Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Ja, natürlich gibt es sie, die Instrumente, damit wir den unsäglichen Gender-Pay-Gap bekämpfen. Natürlich gibt es sie. Wir haben ja auch eines dieser Instrumente beschlossen. Ich sage jetzt noch einmal verspätet ‘Danke’ an all diejenigen, die das so angepackt haben, denn dieses Instrument ist stark. Deshalb heißt es jetzt: umsetzen, umsetzen, umsetzen! Das, was auf dem Tisch liegt, sorgfältig und gut umsetzen, damit auch wirklich alle spüren, dass wir diesen Gender-Pay-Gap schließen können.
               

                  Erst vor vier Tagen war in meiner Heimatstadt Wien der Unequal Pay Day – also schrecklich, dass wir den noch immer haben; absurd, dass das in diesem Jahrhundert ist. Ich kann nur sagen, wenn wir jetzt sorgfältig umsetzen, dann können wir auch die Situation von Frauen und damit auch von Männern verbessern. Wenn wir anpacken, was jetzt noch zu tun ist – nämlich auch gleichen Lohn für gleichwertige Arbeit in einen Rechtsakt zu gießen –, können wir etwas tun. Wenn wir die Care-Arbeit anpacken, wenn wir endlich auch das Thema unbezahlte Arbeit zu einem europäischen Thema machen, dann können wir etwas tun. Deshalb sage ich: Unser neues EU-Lohntransparenzgesetz soll und wird diesen Tag in die Geschichtsbücher verbannen, und wir werden all diese anderen Themen in diesem Haus mit genau diesem Elan angehen.
               

Nina Carberry (PPE). – Madam President, the gender pay gap is a pressing issue right across Europe. Women earn on average 13 % less per hour than men, and this inequality has lifelong consequences. Women's economic empowerment demands urgent action.
It is our role as lawmakers to foster policies that empower women, especially young women, to become the leaders of tomorrow. Advancing women into leadership roles, enforcing pay transparency and fostering workplace cultures that prioritise inclusion are the key to this.
And while this Parliament has taken close steps to close the gender pay gap, we must continue to expand programmes that promote female entrepreneurship, skills development and STEM participation.
We can and we must do more to empower women in all walks and in all stages of life. There is so much more to be achieved if we put our political weight behind the fight against inequality and discrimination.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Elena Sancho Murillo (S&D). – Señora presidenta, todavía hoy existe una brecha salarial entre hombres y mujeres y, ante discursos y partidos políticos que niegan este hecho, nosotros aportamos datos.
               

                  Las mujeres de la Unión Europea en 2024 siguen ganando, de media, un 13 % menos que los hombres que realizan el mismo trabajo y durante las mismas horas. Esto supone que, desde el 15 de noviembre hasta que acabe este año, las mujeres de Europa han dejado de ser remuneradas por su empleo y esto les pasa en cada año de su vida laboral.
               

                  Desde Europa, debemos seguir trabajando por atajar la brecha salarial de género, pero debemos ir más allá. Hay que avanzar en medidas de conciliación real, en brindar oportunidades a las mujeres para cualquier tipo de trabajo y en la Directiva sobre transparencia retributiva, porque solo así conseguiremos la igualdad real, en la que cada persona, independientemente de su género, pueda prosperar y avanzar en una Unión Europea justa e igualitaria.
               

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, nyt puhutaan sukupuolten välisistä tuloeroista, mutta tarkastellaanpa asiaa rehellisesti. Sukupuolten välisiä tuloeroja ei ole olemassa siinä muodossa kuin täälläkin annetaan ymmärtää.
               

                  Kun palkkaeroja tarkastellaan pintapuoleisesti, kyllä, voidaan löytää eroja miesten ja naisten tulojen välillä. Mutta näyttäkää minulle työsopimus, jossa palkka määräytyy sukupuolen mukaan. Ei sellaisia meillä täällä Euroopassa ole. Ero ihmisten palkkapusseissa ei johdu sukupuolesta vaan yksilöiden tekemistä valinnoista. Miehet ja naiset haluavat itse hakeutua erilaisille aloille. Tämä on aivan luonnollista, mutta tämän päivän woke-ilmastossa tämän sanominen ääneen aiheuttaa jo pahennusta.
               

                  Mitä meidän pitäisi sitten tehdä? Asettaa sukupuolikiintiöt kaikkiin ammatteihinko? Minä puolustan mieluummin miesten, naisten ja yritysten vapautta valita.
               

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, as mulheres ganham, em média, menos 13 % que os homens na União Europeia.
               

                  Essa disparidade é o reflexo da crescente exploração laboral como causa de fundo das desigualdades entre mulheres e homens. A solução não está, nem em bonitas proclamações de políticas de igualdade, nem em diretivas superficiais se elas, afinal, acabam por consagrar na letra da lei disparidades salariais discriminatórias das mulheres.
               

                  A solução está sim, em políticas que concretizem o direito ao trabalho e ao trabalho com direitos; que valorizem os salários, que deem combate efetivo às discriminações das mulheres no trabalho e no emprego; uma efetiva e mais abrangente ação política para a igualdade no trabalho; a garantia da aplicação do princípio de salário igual para trabalho igual; a capacitação das autoridades nacionais competentes na fiscalização e punição das discriminações e violação dos direitos laborais e o reforço desses direitos, nomeadamente na contratação coletiva.
               

                  Essas são as políticas que podem, efetivamente, eliminar as disparidades salariais que penalizam as mulheres.
               

Idoia Mendia (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la igualdad plena sigue siendo un reto democrático de primer orden porque afecta a la mitad de la población. La brecha salarial se sigue derivando de hábitos sociales, pero también afecta a la negociación colectiva. Por eso, es fundamental la perspectiva de género en la negociación colectiva y el impulso a las políticas activas de empleo que fomenten la contratación de las mujeres en sectores masculinizados. Pero es grave que haya en este mismo Parlamento personas que niegan la misma existencia de la brecha salarial. Por eso, es necesario seguir reforzando los espacios de diálogo con propuestas que ayuden a corregir la desigualdad y a sensibilizar a los agentes sociales y a la ciudadanía.
               

                  Hace más de un año que entró en vigor la Directiva sobre transparencia retributiva, gracias al trabajo y al empeño de mi grupo, S&D, y fue un gran paso. Ahora, es el momento de pedir a los Estados miembros que den un paso al frente para verificar su compromiso con su aplicación plena en todos los Estados de la Unión.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – (Start of speech off mic) … But also as a global leader in tackling multiple challenges, such as keeping the EU's economy robust, resilient and sustainable, where all talents and skills will be needed and will need to be valued.
Women's contribution and value is, of course, no less. While we are making progress on the gender pay gap, we are still far from reaching a zero gap. During this mandate, we took many measures from the adoption of the directives on women on boards and pay transparency to the care strategy and combating stereotypes.
Enforcement of the principle of equal pay is long overdue – over 60 years since it was included in the Treaty. We expect all the actions taken to bring about change, especially the new directive on pay transparency, which should contribute to fair pay. It is a key step towards a union of equality. I count on all of you here and, of course, those who are not here for your continued support and determination to combat this gender pay gap.
Your commitment to gender equality is invaluable in the development of EU policies. I am sure that my successor will be able to count on your support in the implementation and the raising of awareness about the new rules in the Member States. Workers must know about their rights and employers must understand their obligations.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTS ZĪLE


Vice-President


President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Cristina Maestre (S&D),
por escrito. – La diferencia salarial media entre hombres y mujeres se sitúa en torno al 13 % —concretamente, un 12,7 % de media— en Europa. Por cada euro que gana un hombre, una mujer gana 0,87 EUR. Esta brecha salarial equivale a una diferencia de aproximadamente un mes y medio de salario al año, diferencia que se incrementa si hablamos de ingresos anuales. La brecha va aumentando a lo largo de la vida y supera el 30 % de media, lo que explica en parte la feminización de la pobreza en Europa, especialmente de las mujeres mayores.
                  

                     Los y las socialistas consideramos necesario tanto transformar la Estrategia Europea de Cuidados en un Pacto de Cuidados como trabajar en la implantación efectiva de la legislación que puede contrarrestarla, que incluye tanto la Directiva de transparencia retributiva como la Directiva sobre el equilibrio de género en los consejos de administración, la Directiva sobre conciliación y la Directiva sobre salario mínimo. Debemos continuar avanzando en la transversalidad, llevando la igualdad a toda la acción política de la Unión y a sus Estados miembros.
                  

Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak (PPE),
na piśmie. – Szanowny Panie Komisarzu, Szanowny Panie Wiceprzewodniczący, państwa członkowskie mają czas do 2026 roku na wdrożenie dyrektywy o transparencji płac. To dobry krok, by płace kobiet i mężczyzn za ten sam zakres działań zrównały się, ale nie możemy też zapomnieć o luce ze względu na płeć, która ma miejsce w świadczeniach emerytalnych.
                  

                     Ze względów kulturowych to właśnie kobiety są najczęściej opiekunkami osób z niepełnosprawnościami.
                  

                     By opiekować się swoimi dziećmi, nierzadko rezygnują one z pracy zawodowej i w związku z tym mają mniejsze doświadczenie zawodowe, co przekłada się na niższe emerytury i poczucie zależności od partnera czy męża.
                  

                     Niepełnosprawność dziecka nie musi być przeszkoda do kariery zawodowej, naukowej bądź sportowej.
                  

                     Z mojej perspektywy, perspektywy matki osoby z niepełnosprawnością, kluczowe jest, by zapewnić taki system asystencji osobistej, dziéki czmu opiekunki-matki będą mogły pójść do pracy, płacić podatki i składki emerytalne. To jest krok do niezależnego życia ich oraz ich dzieci. Tylko pełne wdrożenie Konwencji ONZ o Prawach Osób z Niepełnosprawnościami gwarantuje nam asystencję osobistą, mieszkania wspomagane oraz opiekę wytchnieniową.
                  
18.   Political and humanitarian situation in Mozambique (debate)

Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Komisijas paziņojumu par politisko un humanitāro stāvokli Mozambikā (2024/2946(RSP)).
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, now from the gender pay gap we go to Mozambique. Following the elections of 9 October, the situation in Mozambique remains highly volatile and marked by violence and disorder.
Before going deeper into the subject, let me salute the work and the efforts of honourable Member Ballarín as Chief Observer of the EU Electoral Observation Mission, of honourable Member López-Istúriz White, and of all the Members that were part of the European Parliament's delegation in the Mission Mozambique. Your efforts and pertinent observations have been instrumental for us to follow the situation and give us a deeper understanding of the facts.
So, allow me to give a few indications about our general partnership with Mozambique, which is a very positive and far-reaching one, with considerable support when it comes to development, humanitarian aid, peace-building, as well as security to tackle the Cabo Delgado insurgency.
The EU has contributed to providing security in the north of the country through the EU Military Assistance Mission on the ground, and the European Peace Facility. The support is essential to fight the insurgency and the risks of spill-over effects in the region, and ultimately to create possibilities for the return to a normal life for the local people.
Thanks to our cooperation with Mozambique, we have established close relations with the Mozambican Government. The EU has become a valued partner, which can speak frankly and openly, and this is why, among trusted partners, we cannot remain silent in the current situation.
Since the election of 9 October, we are witnessing a worrying spread of violence, looting, vandalism and desperation. The brutality of the repression from the state apparatus and the police has exacerbated the situation. We deplore the considerable number of fatalities over the past weeks, and we also condemn the assassination of two opposition politicians on 19 October, and we demand clarity on the facts and a full investigation.
In our public communication and numerous statements, the EU's messaging has been very clear. It is imperative for all sides to maintain restraint and orderly conduct. While it is important that everybody's voice is heard, harsh rhetoric and the disproportionate use of force and violence from all sides should be avoided at all costs.
I stress that the EU and the Electoral Observation Mission are not taking any sides, and only act on the basis of principles as an important partner and friend of Mozambique, solely in the interest of the Mozambican people. Their will has to be fully respected. It is important to reiterate this, as the electoral process is far from finished, as you know. We look forward to the final announcement of election results by the Constitutional Council. Until the final result, the EU will remain vigilant that the people's will is upheld and that human rights are respected.
In the medium term, we will strive for a conducive environment for democratic reform and addressing the Electoral Observation Mission's recommendations. We will work with Mozambique in the most constructive way, and in full respect of the EU's interests and values.

Hélder Sousa Silva,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, enquanto membro da Missão de Observação Eleitoral do Parlamento Europeu às eleições gerais de Moçambique, testemunhei in loco a determinação e, eu direi até, a alegria do povo moçambicano em exercer o seu direito democrático ao voto. Contudo, é com grande preocupação que acompanho os acontecimentos pós-eleitorais, marcados por tensões, confrontos, centenas de feridos, algumas dezenas de mortos e resultados finais ainda não validados.
               

                  A violência nega, claramente, os princípios e os valores democráticos. É crucial que todas as partes envolvidas respeitem o Estado de direito. E, congratulo-me também com a disponibilidade da comunidade de países de língua portuguesa para facilitar o diálogo entre as partes.
               

                  A história também nos mostra que a paz é possível em Moçambique, mesmo em circunstâncias difíceis, como é o caso.
               

                  Termino desejando que Moçambique reencontre o caminho da paz e da democracia que o seu povo anseia e merece.
               

Francisco Assis,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, quero começar por saudar o povo moçambicano. Um povo que praticamente não conhece outra realidade que não a pobreza e a violência. A violência do colonialismo no passado; a violência das milícias islâmicas sobre as populações do norte do país; a violência do extrativismo e das forças de segurança privatizadas por multinacionais; a violência policial que reprime manifestações e que por vezes mata manifestantes e até opositores políticos; a violência da fome e da falta de cuidados básicos; a violência de não ter um futuro de prosperidade no horizonte, apesar dos seus cobiçados recursos naturais.
               

                  Moçambique tem sido um país pouco audível na cena internacional. Apelo, por isso, à União Europeia para olhar mais amiúde para este país. Para organizar uma resposta internacional ainda mais adequada ao terrorismo islâmico que o assola há oito anos. Para exigir investigações independentes às violências de que ele é vítima, doa a quem doer. Para responsabilizar legalmente empresas europeias que, direta ou indiretamente, o violentem. Para exigir o respeito pelo seu voto democrático. Para exigir justiça eleitoral. Para dar alguma esperança a este grande povo que é o povo moçambicano.
               

György Hölvényi,
on behalf of the PfE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, as a member of the European Parliament's election observation delegation, I had the opportunity to see elections in Mozambique were forward-looking, with a new generation entering into power. However, the discrepancies in voting registration and tabulation have led to severe demonstrations with really tragic consequences.
The current developments are the result of the lack of security, weak institutions and mistrust. This happens when the country contains only traces of statehood. In a country where near half a century the same party is ruling, this certainly calls for strengthening the democratic transition. The newly elected political leadership has a responsibility to restore the trust, security and strengthen the institutions.
Mozambique has a huge potential for development, with the third largest natural gas resource in Africa. However, without security, the people of the country will not ever benefit from it. The political instability favours only extremists, as we see in Cabo Delgado. Here, the Islamist extremists attacked 27 villages in February. The EU can and must be a partner of finding the solution but cannot lead instead of the Mozambicans.

Sebastian Tynkkynen,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, elections were filled with electoral fraud, including ballot tampering, voter suppression and restricting press freedom, all conducted by the ruling party. After the elections, violence has escalated to a point where members of the opposition parties have been murdered. This is the reality of politics in Mozambique.
Meanwhile, the country faces another challenge in the north, where a jihadist insurgent group with links to ISIS is killing and displacing people from their homes. This situation in Mozambique highlights to us what we should fight against globally. We must fight against terrorist organisations like ISIS and Hamas. Where these kind of organisations have set foot, we are not going to see flourishing societies.
Besides this, we must preserve democracy by standing against anti-democratic countries like China, Russia and Iran, which are promoting their ideologies globally. If their systems win, the world loses. Any amount of development aid is not going to help at that point. We would just witness countries ending up like Mozambique – countries in chaos.

Ana Vasconcelos,
em nome do Grupo Renew. – Senhor Presidente, Comissária, Caros Colegas, nas últimas sete semanas, Moçambique tem vivido os momentos mais violentos da sua história recente.
               

                  Por contestarem a legitimidade das eleições de 9 de outubro – de que há indícios fundados de graves irregularidades –, os moçambicanos têm sido sujeitos a uma forte repressão violenta dos seus direitos. Este tipo de conduta é inaceitável e exige uma resposta firme por parte da comunidade internacional.
               

                  Não basta condenarmos a violência e apelarmos à defesa do Estado de direito, a União Europeia deve exigir uma investigação independente para apurar violações de direitos humanos, bem como as alegadas irregularidades eleitorais.
               

                  Não podemos ignorar os relatos de homicídio e agressão de adultos e crianças levados a cabo, seja por forças policiais, seja pelas forças de resistência política. E temos de nos certificar que as violações dos mais elementares direitos democráticos dos moçambicanos, desde o direito ao voto ao direito de protesto, são investigados.
               

                  Finalmente, a União Europeia deve também monitorizar a utilização dos fundos europeus destinados à paz em Moçambique. Qualquer suspeita de desvio mina a nossa credibilidade e fortalece os atores políticos que apostam no retrocesso democrático nesta região e no resto do mundo, nomeadamente a China e a Rússia.
               

                  É a democracia moçambicana que está em jogo, mas não só. A desestabilização da região abre portas aos inimigos da democracia liberal europeia…
               

(O presidente retira a palavra à oradora)


Marie Toussaint,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, depuis les élections du 9 octobre, le Mozambique connaît une immense vague de répression qui doit être condamnée.
               

                  Une autre vague de violence inouïe a frappé le pays et concerne directement l'Union européenne. À l'été 2021, plusieurs centaines de personnes ont été enfermées dans des conteneurs, privées d'eau, affamées, battues, asphyxiées et torturées. Des femmes ont été soumises à des agressions sexuelles répétées, des bébés ont été démembrés, des milliers de familles ont été déplacées de force. Ce bain de sang a été perpétré par l'armée mozambicaine opérant dans un site gazier géré par la plus grande entreprise pétro-gazière européenne, j'ai nommé Total Energy. Total savait, mais a laissé faire.
               

                  Alors je vous pose la question: est-ce vraiment cette économie-là, qui sème le désespoir et le chaos à travers le monde, que nous souhaitons laisser prospérer depuis l'Europe? Ne cédons pas à Pouyanné et consorts, qui nous demandent de détruire nos normes sociales et environnementales. Dans l'urgence, demandons, sur cet événement tragique, une enquête internationale indépendante susceptible de mettre au clair les responsabilités et de condamner celles et ceux qui ont été coupables de telles atrocités.
               

Catarina Martins,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, as eleições moçambicanas de 9 de outubro não foram justas, nem livres nem transparentes. A observação eleitoral da União Europeia relata problemas nos cadernos eleitorais, na campanha e na integridade dos resultados.
               

                  Foi precisamente o anúncio de resultados sem credibilidade que despoletou os protestos populares que temos assistido. Seguiu-se uma repressão injustificável e inaceitável. Sessenta e sete pessoas mortas, incluindo dez crianças, centenas de feridos e mais de 2 000 detidos, incluindo menores.
               

                  O presidente de Moçambique anunciou conversações para uma saída desta crise. A reunião de hoje, infelizmente, não respondeu às expectativas.
               

                  Garantir a transparência eleitoral e parar a repressão são passos essenciais que a União Europeia deve apoiar no respeito pela autodeterminação e soberania moçambicanas. Deve também reconhecer a grave situação humanitária – incluindo a fome –, e reforçar, assim, o apoio à população moçambicana.
               

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Mr President, last month I led the European Parliament electoral observation mission to Mozambique. I would like to thank my colleagues that participated in that delegation and also the Chief of the European Mission, Ms Laura Ballarín, my colleague, for the very good collaboration that we had there.
We were welcomed by kind people hopeful to overcome a very challenging social and security context. As Europeans, we have responsibility in Mozambique. Unfortunately, today we still do not have the official results of the elections. The irregularities observed during the electoral process and the lack of transparency from the electoral administration, which is putting into question the integrity of the results, is fuelling social unrest, violence and has already caused dozens of deaths. We must keep urging all parties to exercise restraint.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court must fulfil its mandate with responsibility so that the voice of the people will be respected. We have to do this, and it's our responsibility to support the Mozambican people, and especially the young generations that are also speaking in these elections. They voted for that in their aspirations for democracy, safety and prosperity.

Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, como chefe da Missão de Observação Eleitoral para Moçambique, considero fundamental que o resultado das eleições de 9 de outubro seja reflexo da vontade expressa nas urnas.
               

                  Embora a campanha e o dia eleitoral tenham decorrido de forma relativamente pacífica, as irregularidades observadas pela nossa missão tornaram-se catalisadoras da violência que o país tem vivido nas últimas semanas com o resultado trágico de, pelo menos, 50 mortes.
               

                  Infelizmente, o anúncio dos resultados preliminares pela CNE não dissipou as nossas preocupações.
               

                  A fim de assegurar a integridade e transparência no processo eleitoral, devolver a confiança dos moçambicanos nas instituições públicas e reduzir as tensões públicas no país: 1. Instamos o Conselho Constitucional a analisar os recursos apresentados. 2. Pedimos à CNE a publicação de resultados desagregados por mesas de voto. 3. Reclamamos que o exercício do direito de manifestação pacífica seja respeitado, que o uso excessivo da força seja evitado e que todas as partes se abstenham de usar retórica inflamatória.
               

                  Finalmente, considero essencial que as autoridades investiguem e levem perante a Justiça os responsáveis pelos assassinatos de Elvino Dias e Paulo Guambe.
               

Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, Moçambique é um Estado soberano, cuja independência deve merecer o maior respeito e apoio de Portugal e da União Europeia.
               

                  O país enfrenta hoje a dura realidade de uma crise humanitária e de segurança persistente.
               

                  Desde 2017, o terrorismo em Cabo Delgado já causou mais de 4 000 mortos e forçou mais de 1 milhão de pessoas a abandonar as suas casas.
               

                  Apesar de melhorias recentes, muitos moçambicanos enfrentam a fome e a falta de acesso a cuidados básicos, agravados por cortes na ajuda humanitária, como os anunciados pelo Programa Mundial de Alimentação. A capital, Maputo, também sofre com uma onda de tumultos políticos que se juntou à criminalidade dirigida, incluindo o rapto de empresários, muitos deles cidadãos portugueses.
               

                  Este cenário reforça a urgência de apoiar Moçambique através de mais ajuda humanitária e com programas de cooperação delegada financiados pela União Europeia. Desenvolvimento e segurança andam de mãos dadas.
               

                  Recordemos que Moçambique é mais do que um lugar de dificuldades. É um país de resiliência e esperança. Como escreveu Mia Couto: ‘Quero morar numa cidade onde se sonha com chuva. Num mundo onde chover é a maior felicidade. E onde todos chovemos.’.
               

Ana Miguel Pedro (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Moçambique e Portugal partilham não só uma língua, mas também uma história que nos chama à responsabilidade de agir em solidariedade.
               

                  A crise política é apenas uma peça num cenário muito mais devastador. Milhares de moçambicanos enfrentam uma crise humanitária, consequência de uma combinação de fatores naturais – como ciclones e inundações –, aliados a uma escala de ataques terroristas que espalham insegurança pelo território.
               

                  Desde 2017, o norte de Moçambique é palco de uma brutalidade de ataques terroristas com ligação ao Estado Islâmico. Mais de meio milhão de pessoas foram deslocadas, metade delas crianças. Sabemos que o Mecanismo Europeu de Apoio à Paz, originalmente destinado a auxiliar países africanos, tem sido cada vez mais redirecionado para responder à guerra na Ucrânia. Compreendemos a necessidade, mas rejeitamos critérios duplos: se apoiemos às forças armadas ucranianas com equipamento letal para combater uma agressão injustificada, então devemos ter a mesma determinação em capacitar Moçambique para enfrentar o terrorismo que devasta comunidades inteiras.
               

                  Moçambique é um país de luta, resiliência e esperança. Mas até mesmo os mais fortes precisam de aliados. Que os moçambicanos, ao olharem para nós vejam, não um continente distante, mas um irmão solidário.
               

Marit Maij (S&D). – Mr President, Commission, despite Mozambique's abundant natural resources, 73 % of the population lives in poverty; 670 000 people are displaced by armed conflict. Young Mozambicans calling for change are met with violence and human rights violations. Forty people have died in the post-election violence. Internet restrictions, including blockades of social media platforms, constitute violations of freedom of speech and access to information, and affects young people disproportionately in their livelihoods.
We need to stand with the young Mozambicans fighting for common values of democracy and prosperity, including the right to protest and to peacefully assemble.
Therefore, I ask the Commission, can you commit to investing in programmes with a main priority to advance the position of citizens? Will you sanction those committing human rights violations under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime? Will you refrain from supporting investments in Cabo Delgado, which violate the social and economic rights of the Mozambican population?

Rody Tolassy (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, alors que la province de Cabo Delgado au Mozambique sombre dans l'horreur, avec 70 000 déplacés en quelques semaines, des villages détruits et des enfants arrachés à leur avenir, que propose l'Union européenne? Rebaptiser une mission et allouer 14 millions d'euros supplémentaires pour des formations militaires déjà insuffisantes. Mais où est l'efficacité? Où sont les résultats?
               

                  Depuis 2021, des millions d'euros ont été investis et, pour autant, la situation ne cesse de s'aggraver. Pendant ce temps, les besoins humanitaires, eux, restent financés à hauteur de seulement 17 %. Ce manque de cohérence entre les discours et les actions est une insulte aux populations locales et un gaspillage des ressources européennes.
               

                  Alors que l'aide humanitaire est laissée à l'abandon, combien de temps encore l'Union continuera-t-elle à investir massivement dans des missions militaires sans résoudre les causes profondes de ces crises? La crédibilité de l'Europe et la dignité des peuples sont en jeu.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, os moçambicanos sabem decidir o seu destino. Confiam na força do diálogo, tomam ações, transformam. São um povo irmão que já superou desafios difíceis no passado, conquistou a paz após anos traumáticos de guerra civil e, estou certa, será capaz de ultrapassar o momento delicado que atravessa.
               

                  Na União Europeia, devemos contribuir para promover o diálogo entre todas as forças políticas. Somente através de conversas abertas e construtivas podemos encontrar soluções duradouras que beneficiem toda a população, garantam a democracia e devolvam a Moçambique as condições para o seu desenvolvimento.
               

                  As eleições de 9 de outubro representam um marco importante, mas é essencial que os resultados sejam apurados com transparência e justiça e que a publicação dos resultados desagregados, tal como reclamado pela União Europeia, seja consagrada.
               

                  Devemos empenhar-nos ativamente em contribuir para que, através do diálogo, seja possível restabelecer um clima de tranquilidade, fundamental para o desenvolvimento e para a prosperidade de Moçambique.
               

                  Os moçambicanos têm a força e a determinação para moldar o seu futuro. A sua resiliência e espírito de união são a chave para um Moçambique melhor.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, os factos confirmam o despropósito do agendamento deste debate.
               

                  Segundo diversas entidades, as eleições gerais em Moçambique decorreram, em geral, de forma calma e pacífica.
               

                  Os resultados anunciados pela Comissão Nacional de Eleições estão a ser sujeitos à validação e promulgação pelo Conselho Constitucional. Apesar disso, um dos candidatos derrotados autoproclamou-se vencedor. Apelou ao confronto e à paralisação da atividade económica no país, rejeitando os apelos ao diálogo e ao recurso às instâncias próprias para contestar os resultados.
               

                  Os sequentes atos de violência provocaram dezenas de mortos e centenas de feridos, assim como vandalismo, destruição e saque de bens públicos e privados, ataques e ameaças a cidadãos.
               

                  Associamo-nos à ampla condenação destes injustificáveis atos, expressa por parte das autoridades, forças políticas e sociedade moçambicana, assim como aos apelos ao diálogo, no respeito do normal funcionamento das instituições democráticas moçambicanas.
               

                  Solidarizamo-nos com o povo moçambicano, instando ao respeito pela soberania e independência da República de Moçambique, rejeitando quaisquer ingerências externas nas decisões que só ao povo moçambicano e às suas instituições democráticas cabe tomar.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this very rich conversation tonight. This debate exemplifies the complexity of the current situation in Mozambique.
We will have to wait for the final proceedings of the Constitutional Council and to have a new administration in place in order to be able to assess how to shape the future of our relations. Our long-standing and fruitful relation with Mozambique allows the EU to have a credible voice. We can say to our Mozambican friends very clearly that the EU demands reform, answers to the desire of change by youth, upholding democratic values and human rights, and maintaining the element of trust and good cooperation which is so important for the EU-Mozambique relationship. Our intention is to continue supporting Mozambique and its people. We want to remain good friends and strong partners. We will continue engaging with Mozambique for the good of the Mozambican people, and to strengthen democratic institutions and civil liberties. The EU's intention is also to continue the integrated approach for Cabo Delgado, with development, humanitarian aid, peace-building and security measures and focus on the well-being of the people.
Any kind of recalibrations in our relationship, of course, will have to be assessed in light of the current and future events and it is way too early to say this now, as I think you can all well understand.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Marta Temido (S&D),
por escrito. – Desde o início da crise pós-eleitoral, Moçambique vive dias de desrespeito pelos direitos cívicos e políticos, com repressão policial violenta dos protestos de rua, detenções arbitrárias de ativistas e jornalistas e limitações do acesso à Internet. Contam-se dezenas de mortos e milhares de feridos. A crise económica continua a acentuar-se, num país onde dois terços da população vive abaixo da linha de pobreza. Mais de 30 dias depois das eleições, os resultados oficiais ainda não são conhecidos.
               

                  Por isso, neste debate, quero, sobretudo, deixar um apelo. Um apelo para a pacificação política.
               

                  É urgente que o Serviço Europeu para a Ação Externa e os Estados-Membros (incluindo o Governo português) instem as autoridades nacionais a pôr termo imediato ao uso desproporcional da resposta policial, gerindo os protestos de acordo com as obrigações internacionais de Moçambique em matéria de direitos humanos. Que instem as autoridades nacionais a divulgar, com urgência, os resultados eleitorais e a publicar, transparentemente, os resultados desagregados por mesa de voto. E que instem todos os partidos políticos a abster-se de fomentar a violência e a procurar a via do diálogo para devolver a Moçambique um futuro com esperança.
               
19.   Explanations of vote

(Explanations of vote submitted in writing under Rule 201 appear on the Members' pages on Parliament's website)

20.   Agenda of the next sitting

Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamā sēde sāksies rītdien, proti, trešdien, 2024. gada 27. novembrī, plkst. 9.00.
               

                  Darba kārtība ir publicēta un ir pieejama Eiropas Parlamenta tīmekļa vietnē.
               
21.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Priekšsēdētājs. – Šīs sēdes protokols tiks iesniegts Parlamentam apstiprināšanai rītdien pēc balsošanas.
               
22.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 21:35)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)