Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the PPE Group, Kader Arif, on behalf of the S&D Group, Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Yannick Jadot, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Joe Higgins, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, and Robert Sturdy, on behalf of the ECR Group, on the Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences - B7-0018/2010)
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), the European Union is currently granting market access by way of reduced import duties to 176 developing countries. These are benefits that we as the European Union offer without expecting anything in return from our partners. There is also GSP+ for certain countries facing particular challenges and for those that fulfil special conditions.
What is our starting position? We will need a new regulation from 1 January 2012 onwards because the old one will have expired. We need time for a proper procedure that gives us the opportunity to have two readings. On behalf of my group, I therefore expect the Commission to submit a new proposal as quickly as possible. As I said, we need sufficient time for a procedure with two readings and it would be unacceptable if we, as the European Parliament, were to have to take dubious decisions under pressure. We also need an evaluation of the existing system. I hope that we will very soon receive facts, figures and data that reveal how successful the existing system has been in practice. Has the existing system really facilitated trade for the States that benefit from it? Have the export figures also risen? Are the right countries benefiting from this system? I will throw this question out to everyone here: is everything in order with the existing system? For example, if countries like Qatar, whose per capita income is higher than that of 25 Member States of the European Union, are included in the GSP system, I am certain that we need to take a very critical look at this when reviewing the whole system.
There is one thing I would ask of my fellow Members from all of the groups in respect of the vote tomorrow: we should keep the resolution very general, as agreed in the original draft. I would be very grateful to my fellow Members if we did not mention in the resolution the specific cases that have been discussed.
deputising for the author. - Mr President, like Mr Caspary, I welcome the three preference regimes we have under the GSP - Everything But Arms, GSP and GSP+.
It is right that the 49 poorest countries in the world should get open access to our markets for everything but their arms. It is right, as Mr Caspary has said, that the 176 developing countries should be given preferential access to our market. It is also right that 16 countries should get even better access to our market, through GSP+, in return for setting up and implementing 27 specified international conventions on human rights, co-labour standards, sustainable development and good governance.
However, it is also right that we expect those 16 beneficiary countries to apply and respect their commitments under those conventions.
If we allow countries to get away with not applying their commitments or respecting the laws under those conventions, then we lose the incentive that GSP+ is supposed to give. That is not all, as we in effect punish the other GSP countries by eroding their preferences and giving preferences to 16 countries not respecting their rights.
That is why I welcome the fact that Sri Lanka has been investigated by the Commission, which has also proposed action against Sri Lanka. That is also why I believe strongly that the Commission should launch an investigation into Colombia's respect or otherwise of the 27 conventions. That does not mean that we would take action against Colombia. It simply means that we would investigate it, as we did with El Salvador but decided that there was no need for action.
I have three questions for the Commissioner.
Does the Commission accept that, in the future, Parliament should be given the right to call for investigations under GSP+?
Secondly, in the meantime, will the Commission present to Parliament the requested report on the status of the ratification and implementation of the conventions by the existing GSP+ beneficiaries?
Finally, when does the Commission plan to transmit to Parliament the revised regulation for the next phase of GSP? We were promised it by June and we would like to see it delivered by June.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, shortly after this Parliament was voted in, we were immediately faced with the issue of suspending the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP+), in particular, with regard to the application or nonapplication of this mechanism to Sri Lanka and Colombia.
In the first case, we witnessed a series of errors, some serious, being committed by Sri Lanka, a country which has the extenuating circumstance of having emerged from a very long civil war against a terrible terrorist organisation. The Commission, in my view, acted rather hastily in this case, and this quickly gave rise to the proposal to suspend the GSP+. However, Sri Lanka had no 'guardians', if we may call them such, in the Council, and so the decision was taken. As for the European Parliament, it had no role to play: nobody asked our opinion.
In the second case, we have a country that has to combat terrible internal guerrilla warfare and where there have been serious human rights violations, including the frequent killings of trade unionists. Up to now, the Commission has not expressed an opinion on the timeliness of opening an investigation and, in actual fact, it has continued on the path of the free trade agreement, which I personally am in agreement with. In the Council, we know that there are governments that are very active in protecting the interests of the Colombian authorities and, once again, the role of the European Parliament has been nonexistent: nobody has requested Parliament's opinion, despite the fact that it has to listen to the opinions of the others nearly every day.
In both cases, we have had no impact studies on the occupational and economic consequences of the possible suspension. However, among all the inconsistencies, there is one common element: the marginal role of the European Parliament. Yet these decisions are eminently political, not technical, and I find this unacceptable. We therefore need a new regulation, taking advantage of the end of 2011 expiry date, and I believe that these two concrete examples demonstrate this. In the meantime, however, it would also be beneficial to discuss what has been happening in recent months in these particular countries.
For example, it would be interesting to know what threshold of human rights violations the Commission believes must be surpassed before it launches an investigation in Colombia or in another country, and what concrete steps the Sri Lankan Government should take, for example, such as suspending martial law, to halt the suspension.
Commissioner, we are asking for the following: a new proposal, if possible by June; clear criteria regarding the eligibility of beneficiary countries, bearing in mind that the GSP is a development instrument and that we have some countries on the list that are frankly not really developing countries; the signing and application of the 27 International Labour Organisation conventions in the beneficiary countries; transparency of the rules on their conduct; a system by which to assess the impact of the GSP; and a communication to Parliament. As Mr Martin also mentioned, Parliament must have a full role in the event of suspension, since this is, I repeat, an eminently political decision.
Mr President, our debate today is motivated by three aspects concerning the generalised system of tariff preferences.
First, the current regulation expires on 31 December 2011. To allow the European Parliament to exercise the powers it possesses under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission must give us a new draft regulation by June 2010 at the latest.
Secondly, the way the Generalised System of Preferences+ (GSP+) operates is anything but perfect. Who decides the list of beneficiary countries and on the basis of which criteria? Amazing! Who actually monitors the implementation of the 27 international conventions on social and environmental issues that are a requirement for becoming a beneficiary of the GSP+? We do not know.
What results has the GSP+ shown? Has it resulted in sustainable development, the diversification of production and the creation of respectable employment, or rather in the proliferation of shortterm contracts, an increase in the number of abandoned farms and the concentration of large holdings dedicated to export? We have no idea.
Therefore, a thorough reform of the regulation is required to guarantee democratic control and to ensure that the measures taken do indeed achieve the desired objectives.
However, the real reason for the debate this evening is the regrettable case of Colombia. Until today, the Commission has refused to launch an investigation into the very serious human rights violations in that country. Such an investigation is, however, provided for in the regulation.
It is inconceivable, given the values advocated by the European Union, that, in seeking profits in the dairy, automotive, pharmaceuticals, telecoms and banking sector for our own multinationals, the EU should abandon GSP conditionality and, in the past few days, rush into a free trade agreement with Colombia. This is a fatal blow to Colombia's trade unions, small farmers and consumers and to its national industrial production.
author. - Mr President, the system whereby the EU gives preferential treatment in trade to some countries has been in place since 1971. It is supposed to be a mechanism to resolve trade imbalances between developed capitalist countries and the poorer countries of the world and to contribute to sustainable development.
Commissioner, will you agree that in that respect, it has been really a dismal failure and that EU trade agreements have mainly benefited EU-based transnational corporations who use their superior resources to batter small local producers in many poorer countries, causing serious dislocation, including loss of local employment and environmental destruction? Is that not the real meaning of the EU Commission's document strategy paper on 'Global Europe: competing in the world', published only three years ago?
And, Commissioner, what hope have the working people of Africa, Asia and Latin America when your Commission, only in recent weeks, cravenly bent the knee to the criminal speculation of free-booting hedge fund merchants seeking massive quick profits through outrageous speculation against the euro and Greece in particular? And you handed over the working class of Greece and the poor of Greece to the tender mercies of these parasites - criminals in fact. What hope have the poor and working people outside the borders of Europe in view of that situation?
Now the question asks how the EU Commission evaluates whether the states that benefit from preferential trade agreements with the EU protect workers' rights and protect human rights. Please tell us that.
And how can you continue relations with the government of Colombia where, quite clearly, government-controlled agencies, especially the army, are ongoingly guilty of the most heinous crimes, as only recently shown in the horrific discovery of the mass grave of innocent murder victims in La Macarena.
And, finally, what is the Commission's up-to-date view with regard to continuing GSP+ with Sri Lanka, considering that, after the election, the policies of Mr Rajapaksa's government continue to be against human rights and workers' rights in that country?
deputising for the author. - Mr President, I think we all understand that one of the aims of the GSP system was to integrate the poorer countries into the global trading system. Granting preferential treatment was seen as a positive way of tackling some of the trade imbalances between the richer countries and the poorer countries.
As someone who has many friends and relatives in many of these poorer countries, I think we have to look no further than the governments of many of these countries: poor governance issues; state monopolies and corrupt governments that are preventing entrepreneurs in these countries from creating wealth; the fact that they find it difficult to import the materials that they need to add value and create wealth; also the fact that many citizens of the countries are denied access to goods and services that we take for granted here in the EU and in many richer countries.
Let us also recognise that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help the entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs will create the jobs, they will create the wealth and they will take poor people out of poverty.
During recent negotiations on the economic partnership agreements, many Members right across the political spectrum were concerned about the Commission's one-size-fits-all approach to the EPAs.
In one case in which I was concerned, the Commission official, when questioned in committee, said that the EPAs are not only about trade; they are also about regional integration and exporting the EU model. But when we asked whether some of the ACP countries that had specific concerns could be given GSP+ as an alternative, we were told this was not possible because they violate certain of the conventions and therefore do not qualify for GSP+.
Going forward, surely we should look to be more flexible in our application of GSP+, perhaps as an alternative to the EPAs. We can treat this in a number of ways. We can either impose sanctions on countries that do not meet standards or we can engage in ongoing dialogue to ensure that conditions in these countries are improved, and understand that Rome was not built in a day and neither were Europe's superior high standards. It is time to engage and to help entrepreneurs in developing countries rather than to over-politicise the issue.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the current GSP scheme expires on 31 December 2011. The Commission is already working on a substantive updating and review of the current scheme. Later this month, I will launch a wide public consultation on possible improvements and changes followed by a thorough impact reassessment. The Commission proposal for a successor regulation can therefore be expected to be ready during the first quarter of 2011. This proposal will, of course, be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, which may well last beyond the expiry date of the current scheme, 31 December 2011.
You will all agree that we must avoid a situation whereby GSP beneficiaries lose all their preferences on 1 January 2012. We will therefore submit, in parallel with the launch of this essential preparatory work for a new GSP scheme, a proposal to extend the current regulation granting continuity until the new scheme is in place. This should give you the time to work in earnest on the successor scheme whilst ensuring that GSP beneficiaries are not left out in the cold. You should receive this document in April.
I have noted your question on all concerns as regards the way in which the Commission monitors beneficiary countries' compliance with the current criteria for GSP+ treatment. The basic criterion for GSP+ is the ratification and effective implementation of 27 international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance. It is the Commission's task to closely monitor all beneficiary countries' compliance with these criteria.
The Commission is obliged and determined to operate GSP in a fair, objective manner. In this respect, we base our monitoring and evaluation of effective implementation of the GSP+ arrangements as much as possible on the findings and reports of international organisations such as the United Nations, the ILO and other relevant agencies, as well as on the monitoring mechanisms envisaged in the conventions themselves.
This provides for an unambiguous and impartial review process. The monitoring is also supported by the Commission's bilateral dialogue with the GSP+ countries on implementation issues. If such reports contain information that GSP criteria are not being fully respected, the GSP regulation provides for the possibility that the Commission undertake an investigation to clarify the factual situation and propose appropriate action.
This investigation tool is a serious instrument that should be deployed when the situation justifies it, but launching an investigation is not a step to be taken lightly as it may impact on our wider relationship with the partner countries. Think, for example, of the recent case with Sri Lanka.
As the objective of the GSP+ scheme is to incentivise countries to adhere to international good governance standards, GSP+ countries should first be given the opportunity to prove their commitment to the GSP+ objectives, their willingness to cooperate with international monitoring bodies and to address the shortcomings identified.
This approach gives credit for the steps already taken by those countries and is in line with the general incentive-based approach that underpins the GSP+.
I am eager to engage with you in a debate on the future of the GSP scheme and of the GSP+ in particular. In preparing the review of the current scheme, which will also concern the GSP+ criteria and the monitoring of respect, the themes raised by the European Parliament will be carefully looked at.
Since this review will now follow the ordinary legislative procedure, the European Parliament will be in an equal position with the Council in determining the final shape of the new GSP scheme.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, following on from what has been said by our colleague Daniel Caspary, whom I fully support, I would like to stress a few points. First of all, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in many ways reshapes the role of Parliament in the formulation of EU trade policy. The GSP is one of those areas where Parliament will have a bigger say and more leverage.
Commissioner, I would also like to urge you to look favourably on the increased role of Parliament in the domain you oversee. I therefore urge you to consult Parliament when it comes to the conclusion or the review of the GSP and GSP+ beneficiaries list.
Thirdly, Parliament should also be drawn into the process of monitoring whether the GSP beneficiaries uphold - not only ratify but also effectively implement - the 27 ILO and United Nations conventions. The Commission should, at least, consult Parliament on this issue and it is, of course, our duty in Parliament to make sure that we develop mechanisms inside our relevant bodies, our committees, to contribute to such monitoring. On a final note, I would like to reiterate the call expressed in the draft resolution we will be voting on tomorrow. The Commission should draft the new regulation on GSP as soon as possible.
Last but not least, I disagree with what has been said by some colleagues on Colombia. Colombia is a country like many countries in the region and we cannot ignore positive developments, achievements in the field of human rights and on the situation of human rights defenders in this country. There is no need to name and shame this particular country, as our resolution is on the new regulation and the need to have a new regulation.
Mr President, Commissioner, it is good to hear Commissioner De Gucht guarantee that, in short, the Commission will send Parliament the legislative initiative aimed at revising the scheme of generalised preferences so that the legislative process can be given enough time to prevent the expiry of the present scheme of generalised preferences, which is due to finish at the end of next year.
This system must be reviewed. In the first place, it is an instrument of development aid, providing countries with privileged access to the European market, without any reciprocity. Secondly, this scheme is also an instrument for improving the human rights situation and good governance in those same countries, given that its granting is subject to conditions which must be fulfilled by the beneficiary countries.
For these two reasons, the European Union must renew the use of this instrument, which places trade at the service of development and of human rights. Even so, renewal must make use of an evaluation of the results of the previous period.
On the other hand, the new regulation should observe the following requirements, which are based on practice up to now. Firstly, keeping the provision of the generalised preferences scheme temporary so that it can be withdrawn when it is no longer necessary. Secondly, deepening and refining the methods of differentiating and selecting beneficiary countries, based on the level of development of each one and its external competitiveness. Thirdly, and finally, improving mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the conditions related to the generalised preferences scheme, especially with respect to the observance of human rights.
Finally, Commissioner, it was beneficial that Parliament's opinion has been taken into account from the start of the legislative process.
(EL) Mr President, the treatment which derives from the generalised system of preferences, as an exception to the WTO principle of most favoured nation, must be targeted; in other words, it must be accepted by the developing countries, as they have the greater need. The new list of beneficiary countries must reflect the real economic standing and competitiveness of developing countries.
Besides, the lack of differentiation between developing countries ultimately operates to the detriment of the least developed countries. It is logical for the proposed review to be preceded by an evaluation of the impact which the system had on beneficiary countries during the previous period of application.
Trade policy, especially commercial conditionality, can, without doubt, contribute to more effective global governance through the exercising of mild power. It can contribute, by providing incentives, to the promotion of the social dimension of globalisation in the broad sense: decent work, viable development and democratic accountability.
The European Parliament should have the facility for creative participation within the framework of the new, revised system and for effective monitoring of the application of contracts by beneficiary countries.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that GSP is a good system and that GSP+ is a very good system. We also need to ensure their extension and so we need your proposal so that we can have a proper debate in Parliament. So, Commissioner, please speed things up.
Even for GSP+, we may be able to introduce a few improvements. In this regard, there are five points that I would like to make concerning areas where we may be able to make further improvements. Firstly, who determines how the 27 standards are actually implemented, not only recognised in practice, but formally implemented? Is that the task of the ILO alone, or do we not need an assessment committee to provide specific support during implementation?
Secondly, how are we involving civil society? I would like to see the coordination of civil society in the country in question in the assessment of the implementation of GSP+, just as we have now agreed in the agreement with South Korea.
Thirdly, who actually initiates an investigation if any problems are detected? Parliament needs to be involved here, because I have the feeling that, in the Council, interests other than actually having an investigation carried out come into play. Parliament should also initiate an investigation in this connection.
We surely also need clear structures for the next steps that we are to take as well as clearer structures for withdrawal, but perhaps we can talk about this in detail another time.
(DE) Mr President, GSP mainly grants trade privileges to developing countries and emerging economies. This modern kind of development aid from tariff reductions to tariff relief on the markets of the industrialised nations has achieved a great deal. The GSP+ special arrangement is intended to bring about the implementation of social and environmental standards. It is also the reason for the increase in the signing of UN and ILO conventions.
However, Commissioner, how does the Commission control the implementation of these criteria? Is the withdrawal of privileges carried out consistently when goods are exported that have been produced by forced or slave labour, when dishonest trade practices are discovered and when no control of the originating products is guaranteed? Moreover, should the improvement in human rights that is intended to be achieved through GSP+ not also ultimately include larger States? I am thinking of China, for example. All of our resolutions, the demonstrations and the bilateral negotiations between the EU and China have brought no improvement in the human rights situation. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people will take to the streets tomorrow, the International Tibet Memorial Day, and Tibetan flags will be hoisted in ten thousand cities and communities in the European Union. We will express solidarity with the people who are fighting for their cultural, linguistic and religious autonomy.
Commissioner, do you share the view that human rights standards, social standards and environmental standards need to be removed from the special arrangements and incorporated in the list of GSP criteria? Cooperation with our trade partners must not be restricted to purely economic concerns.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important opportunity to reaffirm, above all, the importance of the Generalised System of Preferences. Both the basic GSP system and the GSP+ system, which are both linked to the 'Everything But Arms' initiative, contribute to reducing poverty, in strict accordance with the primary obligation of ensuring respect for human rights. It is the violation of these basic principles of coexistence that recently led the European Union to withdraw Sri Lanka's preferential tariff benefits following a detailed investigation by the Commission.
The new institutional framework must, however, fully include Parliament in the legislative process aimed at modifying the legislation in force. We therefore hope that it will include a complete review of the regulation, in accordance with the ordinary procedures, since it has several shortcomings, including on the very subject of investigations. The next step will be the joint resolution.
The effectiveness of the regulation depends on its credibility, the objectiveness of the criteria upon which it is based and the strictness with which it is applied. In a Europe in which the vast majority of citizens do not agree with exporting democracy at gunpoint, trade and traderelated aid are essential vehicles for disseminating principles of coexistence based on respect for fundamental human rights. It is our duty not to lapse into indifference - which would be wrong - but also to avoid making hasty judgments about certain parties, judgments which sound like irrevocable sentences, as is the case with Colombia.
This is why I do not feel able to support what are almost one-sided inflexible attitudes to one country or another, but I do strongly support the need for enhanced monitoring of all of the problematic situations, in the spirit of the legislation in force and according to the principles of the rules on which we want to base the legislative review that we are demanding.
(SV) Mr President, the Generalised System of Preferences that is being debated today is an extremely good and important instrument, because it makes it easier for some of what are perhaps the poorest countries of the world to export to and trade with Europe. Many of the countries of Europe have built their wealth in this way, which is why it is important for us to try to extend this to other countries.
In a debate such as this and in the forthcoming work on reviewing the Generalised System of Preferences, we have to think about and focus on the basic task and the basic aim of the Generalised System of Preferences, which is to combat poverty. Trade is, by far, the most effective way to combat poverty and create economic growth, and it is important that we remember this.
Of course, the Generalised System of Preferences is also a good way of putting pressure on countries to get them to abide by international agreements and conventions as well as commitments concerning human rights and so on. We must not forget, however, that the aim is development. Naturally, the EU must be able to refuse or remove this preferential treatment from countries that do not meet their commitments, but it is important to remember that we tread a fine line. A country that is denied greater freedom to trade and new export opportunities will not find it any easier to meet the commitments and the demands that we make of it.
There is a connection: corruption, poor working conditions and poor respect for human rights contribute to poverty, but poverty also makes it harder to fight corruption, human rights problems and poor working conditions. I would like to know the Commissioner's view on paragraph 22; in other words, the risk that withdrawal of trade preferences will make it harder for countries to get away from situations such as poor working conditions.
Then I would also like to note that we are now demanding that a number of countries ratify 27 ILO and UN conventions and implement these in full. I would like to see a genuine analysis of whether all the EU Member States have fully implemented and ratified all these UN and ILO conventions. I think it is at least unlikely that all have been fully implemented, and it is important to bear that in mind when we start making demands of others.
(RO) I have a simple question for the Commissioner. According to Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, states which wish to obtain preferential terms as part of the GSP+ system have the opportunity to submit applications by the end of April this year. Given that the deadline is approaching, I would like to ask the Commissioner, if he has this information available, which states have applied so far and whether we should grant preferential terms to some new states when we are preparing to change the required criteria. I also add my support to my fellow Members who have emphasised that the European Parliament should be consulted on the application of the Generalised System of Preferences.
Thank you.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, several questions have been asked on Sri Lanka and on Colombia, and on why, in one case, we decided to have an enquiry and take a decision and in the other case we did not.
In the case of Sri Lanka, the Commission's attention was drawn to publicly available reports and statements from the United Nations as well as to other relevant sources, including non-governmental organisations, indicating that Sri Lanka was not effectively implementing various human rights conventions, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
However, unlike Colombia, Sri Lanka's general approach was to deny the existence of any problems and not to cooperate with the Commission at any stage of the investigation.
In the case of Colombia, the United Nations and ILO monitoring results show that there are question marks on the degree of effective implementation of certain UN and ILO Conventions, but it is also clear that Colombia has engaged with the ILO and the United Nations bodies and has made substantial changes to its legal system, and that steps are being taken by the government to amend its legislation and improve its implementation on the ground. There is an ongoing dialogue in cooperation with the United Nations and the ILO.
With regard to the question put by Mr Moreira, I would like to say that in the review of the GSP regulation, we are working to find a balance between the different requests that have been made here. We have been asked to do that as soon as possible, and will do so. We were asked to have an impact assessment and will receive the 2009 GSP data only in July this year, which will be followed, of course, by consultation of Parliament.
I would also like to recall the commitment I made to the Committee on International Trade at the time of my hearing and subsequently to provide a timetable for our legislative proposals that will be submitted to that committee in the coming months. As you will know, we are scheduled to meet tomorrow. We will try to work something out together that gives Parliament the maximum possibility to discuss in all openness the different dossiers, including the new GSP regulation and the roll-over system, which we should introduce as early as April.
I have received two motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 10 March 2010.


13. Radio spectrum policy (


Internet governance: the next steps (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Francisco Sosa Wagner, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on Internet governance: the next steps -.
Madam President, the report that I, working closely with the shadow rapporteurs, have had the honour of drawing up is concerned with defining the Internet as global public property that must be managed according to the general public interest.
Based on a public-private model, we must prevent it from being controlled by a single entity or group of entities, and halt any attempt by state or supranational authorities to control the flow of information to the network.
A fundamental concern in this report was the position of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in the global governance of the Internet. As it is a private institution, subject to US law, we have highlighted its unusual nature, given its delicate task, and although we advocate maintaining it because it has been effective in general terms, we propose a reform that will enable the European institutions to play a greater role in its governing bodies.
The Internet is, above all, an essential tool for exercising fundamental freedoms and for the public to enjoy genuine democracy. There must, therefore, be significant guarantees to protect against new forms of surveillance, control and censorship by public or private players, so that freedom of access to the Internet and the protection of privacy are real rather than ineffective. In particular, governments are asked to refrain from limiting Internet access through censorship, blocks, filtering or other means, and from engaging private entities to do these things.
Any restrictions deemed essential, for example those to protect minors, must be limited to what is strictly necessary in a democratic society. They need to be founded on law and to respect the principle of proportionality, as set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Court of Human Rights.
All Europeans must be given access to the Internet effectively and, above all, a particular effort must be made without discriminating in relation to those who live in rural areas, in line with the Digital Agenda adopted by Parliament.
We maintain that it is very important for Europe's voice to be united and strong in the governance of the Internet, both in ICANN and on other international stages, especially in the Internet Governance Forum, as it is a powerful tool for dialogue between governments, civil society and the private sector. The next session of this Forum is to be held in September in Vilnius, and its importance did not go unnoticed when we were drawing up this report. We therefore strongly supported it while proposing a few corrections to the way that it operates.
On these stages it is very important that the European Union's principles as expressed in Article 2 of the Treaty are defended, especially in our relations with countries whose values might be different to European values.
Respected colleagues, the Internet is the great sea: the ocean that must unite Europeans in freedom.
I would like to conclude by expressing my thanks to my fellow Members who have worked with me on drawing up this report, as well as the Commission staff, who have given me an invaluable amount of help. Thank you very much for listening at this time of night.
(DE) Madam President, the importance of the Internet - and this links seamlessly with the previous topic - has increased considerably over the last 20 years. Entire sectors have come into being, business models depend on the uninterrupted use of the Internet and now we are linking education to it. The Internet provides a substitute for social encounters. However, we also have a very different form of private communication, and it now has an infrastructure that resembles that of general public services. We therefore also need some sort of voice when it comes to decisions regarding the further development of the Internet.
However, we always have to say that, firstly, the freedom of the Internet will naturally be abused and, secondly, it also has a value in itself that we must retain and we cannot allow something online that is prohibited offline. However, this self-regulation is not working in the way that we would like it to. Therefore, freedom on the one hand and data protection and privacy on the other are not opposing aims, but belong together in a single concept.
I would therefore like to urge the Commission to also be involved in this consultation and further development of the Internet.
(CS) The Internet has so far been managed without government involvement. From a security perspective, self-regulation is no longer acceptable. Cyberterrorism or the one-sided influence of states such as China and its secret services are matters of great urgency. The US Government currently has influence over key decisions concerning the Internet, since the main organisation is subject to Californian laws, and that may not be advantageous for the European Union in the future. I support the Commission, which wants to reform the internal structures of the Internet management bodies towards greater transparency and responsibility. Incorporating the administration of the Internet into a UN agency would not be a good solution in my opinion, as it would offer little flexibility. We need an effective mechanism for appealing against any key decision made by the organisation to date, for example in the form of arbitration. We also need to increase democratic representation. User or consumer organisations and associations of Internet businesses do not currently have sufficient space to express their views. I trust that the European Commission will take all of this into account.
(RO) We have reached the point where citizens and organisations cannot do without using the Internet. Since the Internet facilitates our access to a wide range of services and facilities, it can be regarded as a global public good which everyone must have unconditional access to.
I support our use of specific European funding programmes to facilitate access to this service and develop its communications infrastructure in every region in Europe, especially in rural areas and in developing Member States. This will enable us to successfully narrow the digital, social and cultural disparities in Europe, compared to the rest of the world.
At the same time, the European Union must ensure that the presence and security of its own Internet infrastructure are well protected against any kind of cyber attacks. I believe that the efforts made in this direction must be identified and backed up with other protection measures and good practices adopted by the international community.
(PL) I would like to offer my congratulations on this report.
The digital agenda is, of course, a crucial matter, which will result in every European being able to have access to broadband Internet within the next few years. In addition, we are, indeed, dealing here with a classic question of recognition. Participation in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers must be based on partnership. I think, therefore, that this reform should make the European Union a full partner with the ability to influence the function of ICANN.
Of course, freedom in the Internet and fundamental rights are key principles. However, let us remember the most important things, chiefly associated with the protection of minors. The question of Internet gambling, which is being discussed in parallel, is also an important factor. There will also be many questions over what kinds of data can be filtered, taking account, of course, of fundamental rights and what the governments of Member States will want to monitor on their own. However, the most important thing is that the European Union will really be recognised in ICANN and be able to contribute, as a partner, to the principles which guide that organisation.
(SK) The Internet is beyond doubt a vast information source - a sea or even an ocean of information. However, we must also consider the value of this information, because some of it is misleading and false, misinforming rather than informing people.
The Internet also brings pornography and online gambling into our homes and into children's rooms. In my opinion, this is a problem we should tackle at the same time as opening up the Internet market. We must also take note of the consequences of openness, and take note of whether parents or families are able to defend themselves against all of this information and all of these things which the Internet brings.
In my opinion, Internet openness must go hand in hand with responsibility, including the responsibility of the institutions which provide these opportunities.
(RO) The European Parliament suggests that the Commission create the chance for European civil society to have proper representation at international forums on Internet governance and in organisations and consortia promoting Internet standardisation.
The important priorities for the European Union are to protect the Internet infrastructure and ensure its resistance to cyber attacks, as well as protect data and privacy. The Commission and Member States must increase their efforts to safeguard the security of cyberspace in the European Union and to take part in international cooperation in the area.
I believe that additional measures are required to reach a better understanding and awareness of the jurisdiction governing computer crime and cloud computing on a standard basis and to set out clear obligations and responsibilities for the parties involved.
I must stress the importance of electronic services, especially digital signatures, and of the need to create a public key infrastructure at pan-European level, thereby ensuring cross-border interoperability for digital signatures and enhancing Internet security.
I wish to end by highlighting that in order to increase consumer confidence in access to information and services available via the Internet, it is becoming increasingly necessary to issue security certification for websites.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, the active interest of the European Parliament in the important area of internet governance has helped to consolidate and underpin the position of the European Union.
In recent years the public policy dimension of internet governance has become more visible and more important as internet use has grown and its governance has taken on wider implications. The rapporteur Mr Sosa Wagner - and I pay tribute to him - and his colleagues are to be congratulated for addressing the relevant public policy issues in the report.
Parliament and the Commission share many similar ideas and goals in this respect. You will have noticed that, when I presented the digital agenda for Europe to you, many of the issues raised in this report are reflected in its actions. The principle that I would like to highlight is the need to ensure that European values, as you have underlined, are enshrined in the global debate. We must ensure that the interests and rights of EU citizens and enterprises are taken into account in the international debate in managing this global resource.
We will be interacting with some of the global internet governance stakeholders at the next meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) later this month in Brussels. Another major event this year which has already been touched upon will certainly be the Internet Governance Forum in Vilnius in September. I warmly welcome the European Parliament's intention to participate again this year with a strong delegation. Of course I am aware that you, as the Presidency, will decide who is in that delegation but I sincerely hope that we will be privileged to have Mr Sosa Wagner and his ideas in that delegation. Your active involvement in this forum over the last four years has indeed promoted European values and I can only thank you as Members of Parliament for this, as well as for the excellent cooperation between our institutions. I hope we can continue to work in this spirit in the area of internet governance.
What I would like to underline, with reference to the remark that your rapporteur, Mr Sosa Wagner, made - and this is a very emotive question - is that we are responsible for the protection of minors from abuse over the internet and that we have to combine our efforts to be successful. This is not easy, not because we are not aware of the need to tackle this problem but because those who are involved in this process are people who will use every means they can. You can be absolutely sure of this. If you read the key action plans, you will see that they talk about safety, protection, security and trust. Key Action 6, for example, is worded already but there are a number of other key actions that are very relevant to the problems you have mentioned.
I could not agree more with those who were saying that the role of the EU in ICANN cannot be underestimated. We should take our responsibility and fulfil our important role. Of course with such a huge challenge as that presented by the internet there is also a downside, and we should do our utmost to tackle the problems involved in that downside. In any case we can do more together than each on his own.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday 15 June 2010).
Our thanks to all the interpreters and staff.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I would like to mention an amendment which I tabled in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection regarding the need to facilitate access to and support the development of the Internet in new Member States, particularly in rural areas. European villages, especially those in the eastern part of the EU, must not be excluded from the discussions on the next steps in Internet governance. In 2009 the rate of Internet access among households was 38% in Romania, the second lowest in Europe after Bulgaria. I therefore welcome European financial support which will enable Romania to guarantee every household Internet access. I must emphasise that this investment will make a significant contribution to modernising Romanian villages and to the economic development of rural areas.


Use by Parliament of the symbols of the Union (new Rule 202a) (debate)
The next item is the report by Carlos Carnero González, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on insertion in Parliament's Rules of Procedure of a new Rule 202a on the use by Parliament of the symbols of the Union.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, the decision my report proposes to this Chamber is, above all, political, in the strictest sense of the word. The formal decision we are about to adopt, though clearly relevant, is the very least of it.
Indeed, we are about to amend our Rules of Procedure to make official what is already a reality, what the different Union institutions have been doing for years. I would like to remind Members of that.
We are proposing that this House should use the Union flag in all its meeting places and on the most formal occasions, for example, at constituent sittings or when receiving heads of state. We also propose that the anthem should be played on these occasions, that the motto 'United in Diversity' should be included in all our written documents and that Europe Day should be celebrated.
Mr President, although you were in favour of the idea, we are not suggesting that the euro should be used as a symbol. However, in our opinion, the euro is a great tool, a wonderful instrument that is undoubtedly helping us to deal with the international financial crisis. Where would we be without the euro? We would be back in this torturous situation of competitive devaluation that would have brought our real economy to its knees in the face of international financial speculation.
The most important aspect of my report is the political message to citizens. This message is very clear: the symbols of the Union are alive and well in the institution that represents, more directly than any other, the 500 million inhabitants of our 27 Member States. This means that the constitutional process that was launched in 2002 with the European Convention lives on in spite of frequent and sizeable obstacles and setbacks.
The Convention, of which I had the honour of being a member, along with other distinguished Members here today, had no doubts about including the symbols of the EU in the Union's primary law for the first time. It thus happily brought to an end a curious situation whereby the most important body of law did not recognise what the public had long accepted: the symbols.
The decision in this respect was unanimous and no one challenged it during the ratification process; on the contrary, it was one of the provisions most welcomed by Europe's supporters. I have to say that it came as a huge surprise, therefore, when the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Lisbon Treaty decided to remove all mention of European symbols from this document.
The fact is that, through our decision today, we can undo this error. Of course, we are not amending primary law, but we can do our part and move a step closer to formalising Union symbols within the institutional framework.
Symbols express a shared goal and shared values. In Europe's case, it is the desire to build a Union of and for all citizens who want unity, freedom, democracy, justice, equality and solidarity, which are European values that we also consider to be universal.
Symbols also allow us to establish what we are and who we want to be in relation to the rest of the world, which recognises us by them. Who, for instance, has not felt proud to represent the Union when wearing the election observer's waistcoat?
Furthermore, symbols help us to remember where we came from, that day when our story of unity, growth and freedom began to be written.
What the President of Parliament said a few days ago in Madrid about young people and history has much to do with symbols. We must remind young people where we came from, who we are and where we are going. Symbols get this message across quickly and clearly. These symbols unite, not divide, us. This is not only a great virtue, but, more than anything, a huge advantage.
Mr President, the wonderful writer Aldous Huxley said that the most important thing is not experience, but what you do with that experience. The same applies to symbols. The flag is not intended to be an icon, but to be used in our everyday lives to strengthen the unity for which we are known.
on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (HU) Mr President, I went to Kiev recently and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry building could hardly be seen as it had been adorned with a three-storey-high European flag. If this symbol can be given so much respect and honour outside the European Union I am sure that here too the European Union can treat the symbols with respect. I would like to correct my colleague, who has prepared an excellent report, on this point. The rule on the symbols of the European Union is at present part of the acquis communautaire, of European legislation: the flag with twelve stars and a blue background, the anthem based on the Ode to Joy, the long-standing meetings of the heads of State and Government, and even the headquarters of the European Parliament, Strasbourg, and of course we hold our sessions in Strasbourg. And at this moment, so to speak, there is no regulation vacuum since, at this moment, rules do exist for the symbols of the European Union, whether they are in the Lisbon Treaty or not.
At the same time, an important aim of this report is to regulate how our own institution, the European Parliament, does honour to our standard. It is my conviction that the sense of identity, of where we belong, is very important. We often talk about how our citizens do not understand our complicated Europe. The symbols are one approach, helping them to feel closer to the European Union. Many, many people are fond of these symbols, honour and respect them, and I am sure that it is for us too, here in Parliament, as committed Europeans, a point of major importance to bring in a rule on how we use the symbols of the European Union in our own institution. Thank you for your attention.
Mr President, why is it so very important that we should make such an effort and hold this debate, especially now, on the subject of the symbols of the European Union? I believe that there are two reasons. Firstly, we as the European Parliament must show in the way we habitually go about our business that the EU is about more than just legal texts. Let me remind you that, as the rapporteur has said, the symbols originate from the Constitutional Treaty. An attempt was made to institutionalise them, but it is very significant that today we are continuing this effort to keep them alive. Why? Because they happen to show that Europe is not built on flawed legal texts, which are necessary but are difficult for the various nations to understand. They happen to symbolise something else, and how appropriate that fine Greek verb is here: a political project, an idea of Europe. As such, I think it must be kept alive, especially today.
The second reason lies in what the symbols conceal - the symbols behind the symbols: in other words, the idea of the EU's common action based on its values. That is what the symbols are: a common action based on values that we need now more than ever.
Thus if we say that the crisis we are all experiencing - and I am referring not only to the economic crisis, but also to Europe's present institutional and moral crisis - is a symbol of these difficult times, I think the EU's response must be united action. This means that we could potentially all move forward together.
I believe there could not be a more apt and at the same time more bitter example than that of Iceland today. This country does not belong to the EU, but it is so buffeted by the economic storm that its people are wondering whether they should indeed be part of this 'Europe of ideas'.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the symbols of the European Union are a celebration of the unity that we have achieved and that we hope to strengthen. Symbols such as the EU flag, the anthem and the motto are already widely used at official events and within all Member States.
The European flag and anthem, with which we all are so familiar today, were first adopted at the 1985 Milan European Council. By then the flag had already been in existence for 30 years. The flag is intended to represent perfection, complementarity and solidarity and to symbolise Europe's unity. The motto 'unified in diversity' is the most recent of the symbols. It originates from an initiative by the European Parliament and can now be seen as a definition of the European project.
During the plenary yesterday, Ingrid Betancourt of Latin America and France said that she dreams of a Latin America that could cooperate and be as united as the European Union. It is clear that our symbols serve as an identity and an indication to the rest of the world that we have accomplished great things together.
Although I believe in this unity and hope that it continues, I have been disappointed that on many occasions we have not been unanimous. For example, last week the European Union President, Mr Sarkozy, invited only four of the Member States to discuss the financial crisis. It is very interesting that the President of the European Union does not pay attention to the solidarity and unity of the European Union. This action - like all actions of this kind - only serves to divide rather than to unite us. It is ironic that we are so proud of our unity and solidarity, but at the same time the President of the Union seems to pick favourites with regard to the most important current issue.
I hope that by using the flag, anthem and motto more often we will all be reminded of the values that are vital to the existence of the European Union but, at the same time, we must remember that how we behave is most important of all.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, as the rapporteur stated, this debate is entirely political in nature and is taking place in a very specific political context. I agree with previous speakers that Europe is currently experiencing a crisis of values and that values are Europe's lifeblood. Imposing symbols in violation of legislation currently in force in Europe is no substitute for these values. The symbols concerned were rejected at the Intergovernmental Conference that confirmed the Lisbon Treaty. Nonetheless, Parliament is today endeavouring to impose them. In so doing, Parliament is acting in defiance of clear principles according to which measures to be directly implemented and binding on all Member States may only be imposed through a treaty.
Such a method of imposing measures intended to be binding is unacceptable. It violates the fundamental principle upon which the European Union is based, and which involves unconditional compliance with international law and agreements. It amounts to side-stepping the provision rejected in the European Treaty and bringing in measures aimed at establishing via the back door a pseudo-state called Europe.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, I fully support the parliamentary initiative on the flag and the anthem. European unity needs these symbols because they bring Europe closer to the people and create an identity, and so they need to be officially recognised. Against this background, I see our decision today as a small but significant step to bring us back, as soon as possible, to normality.
The removal of the anthem and the flag from the Treaty - the background to which I of course am fully aware of - is and remains an essentially barbaric act against European unity, for which those who called for this step ultimately bear responsibility. The fact is that we have played into the hands of the Ganleys, Klauses and Haiders: their nationalist slogans about a European 'superstate', which were targeted against European integration, have thus gained a veneer of credibility.
However, that is just one side of the coin. There is another issue which I would like raise and which causes me no less concern. The citizens of the European Union do not want or need a furore about flags and anthems in Brussels. What they want is a social and democratic Europe, a European Union which offers them effective protection from the negative repercussions of globalisation. They want a clear answer as to what, or whom, the Union is protecting, the people or the markets? They want serious action to be taken against wage, social and tax dumping and an end, once and for all, to the galloping casino capitalism promoted by financial jugglers. For that, we need a political European Union.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, I wonder if there is anyone in this Chamber who still remembers when the Constitution was changed to the Treaty of Lisbon after its rejection in the Netherlands and France. The symbols of the EU were removed, as it was thought that EU citizens were particularly sceptical about the Constitution's objective of turning the EU into a polity. Now, the European Parliament - which of course is the only EU body for which citizens can vote - is in the process of reintroducing them. This most closely resembles a parody of democracy; one executed by institutions with no respect for those they are there for. The EU is there for citizens; citizens are not there for the EU. For this reason, it is improper to first remove something on the grounds of wanting to fulfil citizens' wishes, only to reintroduce it a few months later.
I must say with regard to this matter that I am quite simply ashamed to sit in the European Parliament. We cannot allow ourselves to become notorious for duping citizens in this way. I would call on everyone who has even a modicum of respect for the voters who elected them, to vote against this proposal today.
Mr President, this Parliament wants these symbols for one reason only - to inflate its ego and attach the trappings of statehood to the EU.
I have a much better anthem and flag, thank you very much, and I am not about to trade them for the tawdry baubles of Eurofederalism. Ode to Joy, which we are going to purloin, may be a very nice tune, but so is Jingle Bells, and like Jingle Bells it heralds a fantasy, the fantasy that the EU is good for you. But unlike Jingle Bells, it will damage your national sovereignty and the right to control your own destiny. More like 'code to destroy' than Ode to Joy!
As for the flag, which we have stolen from the Council of Europe, even its proponents do not know what it means. We have as many explanations in the AFCO Committee as to what the stars signify as there are stars on the flag.
This proposal to me exposes the insatiable fanaticism of Europhiles. The ink was not dry on the Lisbon Treaty, which deliberately excluded these symbols, before there was an insistence that Parliament give them official status nonetheless.
My constituents do not want an EU flag and an EU anthem. They want the right to say 'yes' or 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty, thank you very much!
(ES) Mr President, I would like to mention a compatriot of yours, who, during the French Revolution, was upbraided in the street by a sans-culotte, who said: 'Why are you not carrying the Tricolore, the symbol of the revolution?'. That compatriot of yours replied that there was no need to show on the outside what one felt in his heart.
I am more one of those who, no doubt out of modesty, like a good Spaniard, do not externalise their feelings. However, this does not mean that I do not feel moved when I see the European flag hanging from Ljubljana Town Hall or when, at a meeting with our colleague Pierre Lequiller in Yvelines, I heard the European anthem follow the Marseillaise, or when, yesterday, I read in a newspaper that the winner of the Prince of Asturias Prize, the Bulgarian Tzvetan Todorov, had said that 'united in diversity' was what European meant today. That is our motto.
I am not one of those with a narrow, restrictive mentality or a beleaguered outlook on life, who think that the European flag is in competition with the national flag or that the European anthem aims to replace their national anthem. That, Mr President, is simply ridiculous.
Symbols show that we belong to a community; they do not, in any way, represent an attempt to eradicate our individual native countries. They indicate added value, that we share something with other Europeans.
I therefore believe that the initiative taken by Mr Carnero, whom I congratulate, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is the right one. It is an initiative that, at a time when we are 'stitching together the two Europes', to use the wonderful expression of our dearly remembered colleague Bronisław Geremek, shows our fellow Europeans that we have the same values. These values are also expressed outwardly, including, but not exclusively, through symbols.
The Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats will therefore vote in favour of this proposal to amend the Rules of Procedure, and I look forward to feeling moved, like everybody else, when I next hear the 'Ode to Joy' in this Chamber.
(FR) Symbols are to sentiment what allegories are to thought. As colourful as it is, this quotation by the philosopher Alain is nevertheless a clear illustration of what these symbols represent for the European Union today. Listening to the Beethoven symphony or celebrating Europe together on 9 May are precisely the elements we are going to use from now on to ensure that Europe stays alive. They are a concrete expression of the values on which the Union is built, markers that gradually become implanted in the memories of the 500 million Europeans.
By inserting this Rule in Parliament's Rules of Procedure, the work by our colleague Carlos Carnero González, whom I congratulate, is sending out a political message from Parliament to the citizens based on these values, as proven by the opposition of the Eurosceptics. No politics without symbols! Giving Europe an identity through an anthem, a flag and a motto gives the citizens living and working in Europe an opportunity to see themselves as part of a single entity united in diversity. Displaying these symbols at all levels and in all institutional areas will ensure that there is a constant reminder of the values that inspire Europe.
I would nevertheless like to stress today that Europe is experiencing a serious crisis of confidence and that we need to go even beyond these symbolic elements and envisage and rebuild together a strong sense of belonging.
(PL) Mr President, symbols such as a flag, an anthem, a common currency and holidays are intrinsic features of statehood. This was the very reason why it was decided not to adopt them during negotiations on the Lisbon Treaty. It is duplicitous to maintain that a decision on reinstating them may be taken internally by one of the European institutions. The European Parliament is a legislative body. It must not send out a signal that it is acceptable to find ways to circumvent previous intergovernmental agreements. Parliament must act as the guardian of democracy and the rule of law. If the European Parliament attempts to resurrect previously rejected symbols, it will become an anachronism. One can readily understand that every institution should wish to use specific symbols. In this case, however, it must be understood that a broader political dimension is involved, as the rapporteur pointed out. The move should therefore be opposed.
(DA) Mr President, as has already been said, the common symbols - the anthem, the flag, the motto - were removed from the Constitutional Treaty when it was changed to the Treaty of Lisbon. Some proponents of the Treaty of Lisbon even claimed this demonstrated that we were attentive to popular reluctance. In some countries the removal of the quasi-constitutional symbols was actually used to argue that there was no reason to hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. For example, the Danish Government stated in a document addressed to the Danish people that the Treaty of Lisbon, and I quote, 'will be purged of symbolic provisions on the EU anthem, motto and flag'.
'Will be purged of'! We should ask at this point what difference this has made in reality. The answer is 'none'. In its reply to my enquiry, the Commission itself wrote that the fact that the symbols are not mentioned in the Treaty does not alter their status in any way. 'Does not alter their status in any way'! And now Parliament is to go one step further. Perhaps someone believes that more intensive use of the symbols will arouse enthusiasm about the EU. Perhaps someone believes that the symbols can mask a lack of benefits for the people. I personally do not. Many citizens would just see it as a further example of the EU elite doing exactly as it pleases. This would send out completely the wrong signal, and I do not think that we should adopt this proposal.
(NL) Mr President, I wonder what is really the point of this report and the amendment to the Rules of Procedure that is the purpose of the report. According to the explanatory statement, the fact that they are not included in the Treaty of Lisbon does not prevent the institutions from continuing to use them, so why do they have to be enshrined in the Rules of Procedure of this Parliament?
The context in which we should place this debate is that of the European Constitution and the referenda that have invalidated the Constitution. The symbols were deliberately not included in the Treaty because the Dutch, for example, want nothing to do with a European superstate and with the outward symbols of a European superstate. In the meantime the Netherlands has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon. What are we going to do now? Now we are going to enshrine the European symbols in our Rules of Procedure anyway, through the back door.
This amendment to the Rules of Procedure is unnecessary. It is in fact a gratuitous provocation and it is sticking two fingers up at the Dutch voters and, by extension, all European voters who want nothing to do with a European superstate. Well done, ladies and gentlemen!
(PT) Yesterday, here in plenary, the European anthem could have formed a backdrop to Ingrid Betancourt's tears. The anthem would have culminated in a call for the collective sharing of memories and desires. Every human project needs a symbolic dimension, from the strength of the words with which we govern the people of Europe to the rituals of political representation that seat us on the left and on the right, in the dialectic of parliamentary debate. There can be no history without symbols.
We need words, a flag, an anthem or a motto. The universal project of Europe cannot be forged in the collective imagination without the chemistry of symbols, because symbols depict not only the world that we have, but also the world that we want to have. They link the deepest reason and emotion within us. Their value comes from the identity process that they trigger. How can the great project of Europe, based on the transcendental value of human dignity, open towards the world, leading the way in terms of rights, manage without a symbolic dimension? European thought has left us with a long record on the meaning of symbols. Politics cannot ignore this, because politics carries with it all the dimensions of the human being in terms of what is also ideal and sublime.
Mr President, I am somewhat surprised at the storm in a teacup that this change to our Rules of Procedure has provoked in some quarters. We know that the Member States decided some time ago not to elevate the European flag and anthem to Treaty status. They decided not to give them such an elevated status but to leave them with their current status.
What is their current status? They are simply recognised by the institutions. The European Council did so as long ago as 1985. By the way, Mrs Thatcher was a member of the European Council then. I see some of her admirers are now repudiating her decision. I must say that I myself had some hesitation about adopting a symbol chosen by Mrs Thatcher as the flag of the European Union. However, in the spirit of all-party compromise and consensus, I am willing to accept it.
That is the status the flag and anthem were given - recognition by the institutions. There is, however, an anomaly. We, the European Parliament, have never actually recognised them in our Rules. It is quite logical that we tidy up this anomaly and put a reference to the flag in our Rules of Procedure.
How people can make such a fuss about such an obvious thing to do - about such a normal procedure, which respects the decisions of the Member States not to elevate it to Treaty status - I do not know. But then the ways of working of the Eurosceptics - not least in my own country - have always been a bit of a mystery. When you see that this flag has been around for many years, if you saw the European supporters at the Ryder Cup, when Europe played America at golf just a couple of months ago - where people, who probably included Conservative Eurosceptics, were waving the European flag - it really does look a little ridiculous when they now make such a fuss about this reasonable change to our Rules of Procedure.
(EL) Mr President, as all the previous speakers have said, the symbols of the European Union have existed for many years. What are we in the European Parliament aiming for by amending the Rules? We wish to emphasise what is called the proper use of symbols, as is done in all organisations.
Unfortunately, there have been unjustified reactions from both Member States and citizens. These are reactions from Member States that think that adopting and promoting the symbols of the EU will lead to the creation of a super-state. For heaven's sake, will symbols really create the super-state that some Members have talked about?
Some say that the national morale of peoples and states will be affected. If the national morale of anyone is so low that it can be eclipsed by a symbol of unity of all states, then I pity what some call 'national pride'. Such arguments have been heard in this House.
There is another question. If some citizens and Member States react so badly to these symbols, how can they continue to be members of this EU when they cannot even bear to look at its symbols? This is a contradiction.
The European Parliament is right to proceed as usual today with the formal adoption of these symbols. It is sending out a message: the EU must advance united under its symbols in order to become complete and reach a point where it can play its part. Its role is to promote principles and values throughout the world.
Mr President, we frequently hear the opinion that symbols are a waste of time and that the European Union should not concern itself with such irrelevant questions. Rather, this argument goes, the European Union's job is to focus on bread-and-butter issues like employment or trade.
This approach is completely mistaken and wholly misunderstands what symbols are about. If you look carefully at how institutions work, then it will rapidly become clear that every institution maintains a set of symbols. These symbols carry a message that people will recognise and act as a shorthand version of that institution. Without institutions, democratic politics cannot exist.
So symbols are a necessary part of democracy that the EU regards as being central to its identity. Besides, if symbols were as marginal as their opponents say, then why bother to oppose them? The European Parliament, as the pivotal democratic body of the European Union, has every reason to promote the symbols of Europe as a means of connecting itself with the voters of Europe. Those who are against the symbols of Europe are basically questioning European democracy itself.
One could further argue that this is too fluid and crisis-ridden a time to be thinking of the symbols of Europe, and thus that it is not the right moment for Parliament to spend time on symbols. Maybe so, but timing is something that always can and will be debated. In the long run, it will not matter whether the symbols of Parliament and of the European Union are debated now or at some later date. So I give my full support to this important and cogent report.
Mr President, our federalist friends should not try and recruit Mrs Thatcher to their cause. She would be appalled at the developments that have taken place in the European Union.
We have heard that symbols are important, yet we are constantly reassured that the European Union has no ambition to become a state despite every resolution and piece of legislation through this Parliament taking us further in that direction. Of course, the outstanding example of this was the Constitution. This was rejected and then re-emerged as the Treaty of Lisbon.
In order to try and sell the Treaty of Lisbon, national negotiators decided that parts of the Constitution that could be interpreted as impinging on statehood, such as the flag and the hymn, should be removed.
Indeed, British Government ministers used as a selling point when they were trying to sell the Treaty of Lisbon to our people that it was somehow different to the Constitution.
My constituents in the East of England do not want a Constitution, they do not want the Treaty of Lisbon and they certainly do not want a state called Europe. I think it is an affront to them to try and introduce, or give official character to, these symbols.
(RO) The symbols of the European Union ensure that its identity is asserted and can be decisive elements in the communication with the public and its emotional attachment to the European institutions.
The Parliament has recognised and adopted the following symbols of the Union: the flag, which consists of a circle with twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem, excerpt from the "Ode to Joy” which comes from the Ninth Symphony of Ludwig van Beethoven and the motto "United in diversity”. The flag is raised on all premises of the Parliament and on the occasion of official events. By introducing regulations concerning the use by the European Parliament of the European Union symbols in the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, the Parliament is sending a strong political signal.
The Parliament celebrates Europe Day on 9 May. I suggest that the European Parliament should organise a yearly competition for Europe Day dedicated to the young generation who should show how they see the future of Europe and especially how they wish to contribute to making this future a reality.
Mr President, in the northern part of European Cyprus, on the Kyrenia mountain range, there is a mammoth one-kilometre-long Turkish flag, not an EU flag, to be seen. In fact in the whole of the northern part of Cyprus, there is a plethora of Turkish flags present, not EU flags. This is symbolic not of the unity of Europe but of the division imposed by the Turkish army on a small EU Member State.
With the EU-Turkey accession negotiations in progress and with peace talks in Cyprus under way, pressure must be applied firmly on the Turkish Government by the EU to remove its troops and accompanying symbol from Cyprus and allow our proud EU flag to fly freely in that corner of the EU. The EU flag in Cyprus symbolises unity. The Turkish flag symbolises division.
Let us all help to raise the EU flag in the whole of Cyprus as soon as possible.
Mr President, I find it especially strange - tragic even - that the symbols are attacked by people who were formerly from Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. We recall the flags being waved in the crowds in Tallinn, East Berlin and Budapest. We recall the anthem being played at the Brandenburg Gate. These things were not imposed or prescribed by parliamentary rules of procedure but were inspired by the hearts and emotions of the citizens. The symbols are symbols of our dignified values of peace and solidarity.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to put the following question to those who have said that symbols and anthems belong to the State.
The city in which I live has a flag - the flag of Madrid - and the community in which I live - the Community of Madrid - has its own flag and anthem. Is it because they are states? Do they harbour ambitions to become a state? Do those who say that flags and anthems are national symbols wish to abolish local and regional flags?
I would like an answer from my fellow Members.
I myself have the flag of my rugby club at home!
Mr President, just to add to Mr Méndez de Vigo's point, the International Olympic Committee has a flag and an anthem. From what the British Conservatives have just been saying, I can only conclude that the International Olympic Committee is a state by their definition.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking all those who spoke during this debate, although it is clear that I openly disagree with some of them.
Symbols do not represent only states. At this stage of our development, symbols do not embody confrontation, combat or battles; they are a means of conveying ideas and of uniting people around values. This is what our flag, our anthem, our motto and Europe Day represent.
The Intergovernmental Conference was forced by some to remove symbols from the Treaty, against the will of the vast majority. This vast majority preferred to forge ahead with the essentials of the Constitution rather than get caught up in the traps set by those challenging not only the symbols but also the need to progress further in political union. For that reason, 16 countries, including my own, issued a statement to the effect that, in their view, the use of symbols was a fact of life, official and, what is more, something that should be welcomed.
Nobody questioned the European Union's symbols during the referendum campaigns that resulted in the non-ratification of the Constitution. Let us be serious: can anyone remember large sections of the French and Dutch population saying 'no' to the Constitution because it referred to Union symbols? I, for one, cannot, and I campaigned actively in France. There could be other reasons that may or may not be common to a number of people, but the matter of symbols was not one of them.
Of course, I feel Spanish because I am European and European because I am Spanish. This means that when I see my country's flag next to that of the 12 stars, the conviction that both are part of my life grows stronger. When I see the President-in-Office of the Council appear with both the French flag and the European Union flag, I also feel proud.
Above all, I feel proud to have been cheered, like many of you, when someone has received humanitarian aid or has noticed our election observation team and recognises us by the flag and applauds it. We would be foolish to deny ourselves what others recognise with friendship and with joy.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - The European Union is without any doubt at a crossroads in its evolution, when it is of the utmost importance to acknowledge the need to move forward by tackling all the current complex issues that potentially could stalemate the dynamics of the European integration process. In this process, the European symbols are a crucial linking element for developing a positive identity at European level, complementary to and not replacing well-established national identities.
The absence of the European symbols in the rejected Lisbon Treaty was most regrettable from the point of view of the critical democratic deficit currently confronting the European Union. The claim that their inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty would be inappropriate turned out to be profoundly unrealistic for there is no doubt that they would not pose any peril to the concepts on which the EU was built.
Thus, in order to increase the popular support for and commitment to the European Union in the forthcoming years, it is imperative to maintain and adjust these symbolic elements, so as to bind the European institutions and decision-making processes to acknowledgement of the 'demos' factor.
in writing. - I support the introduction in the Rules of an official recognition of our European flag, the European anthem Ode to Joy, a European Day on 9 May and the motto of 'Unity in Diversity'. This support does not diminish my commitment and loyalty to my own country, England, where I was born, brought up, educated and now live.
I reject the view that one has to choose to exclusively give one's loyalty to one region. I am proud to be from the Forest of Dean, to be English and European.
in writing. - (PL) Symbols do indeed generate an emotional attachment to an organisation or country dear to us. As we gaze at flags or mottos, listen to anthems and even as we handle coins, we identify directly with a particular country or organisation. The European Union does of course also have symbols of this nature facilitating identification and emotional attachment.
The blue flag with 12 golden stars, the 'Ode to Joy' from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, Europe Day celebrated on 9 May and the euro, which is the official currency of 15 Member States, are established, familiar and generally accepted symbols. Initially they were symbols of the Communities, and they have now become symbols of the European Union. Taken together with the Union's slogan or motto, namely 'United in Diversity', these symbols encapsulate the essence of the European project.
As a member of the Convention, I very much regret that the Union symbols described in the European Constitution never came into being. They were perceived as features of a pseudo-state and therefore deleted from the text of the Lisbon Treaty. Even so, however, I believe that they have not lost any of their character or their appeal to European citizens. These symbols continue to be vehicles of the values on which the European Union is based. They are an expression of the feeling of community felt by its citizens.
It is right, therefore, that the move to use the European symbols should have arisen precisely in the European Parliament.


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes