Political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Giannakou on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (A7-0062-2011).
Mr President, Parliament is being called upon today to debate the report which I drafted on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding by the European Parliament. Despite the fact that there is a similar regulation, European political parties have not enjoyed a statute in keeping with the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union in the past, by which I mean a statute as defined in Article 10(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which talks of political parties at European level helping to form European political awareness and express the will of the citizens of the Union. Obviously, this does not mean that European parties will operate as international non-governmental organisations at the level of the Belgian State. That is why, having accepted the Secretary-General's report on party funding and his proposal to create a statute and the European Parliament's proposal in the previous 2003 report on the need for such a statute - except that the Treaty of Lisbon had not yet been adopted then - and, finally, the Bureau's decision of 10 January, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, following a serious hearing with all the political parties, chairmen and secretaries at European level and distinguished professors of economic and constitutional law and following a hearing of Transparency International and the EU Court of Auditors, approved this report, which calls on the European Commission to table a corresponding proposal, so that we can have a real European statute for political parties.
Of course, this statute will have certain criteria, as defined in the report: national parties in at least seven countries or regions, where the regional authorities of those countries have legislative powers, must be members. At the same time, a distinction will be made between recognition of European parties and their funding. In order to obtain funding, they must have elected at least one MEP. Of course, individuals, simple citizens, as well as parties, will be able to join.
The proposals cover not only European political parties, but also their foundations. They call - and this is important - for a legal, political and fiscal status for European parties, within the framework and under the aegis, of course, of the European legal statute and European laws in general.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs debated the issue at length and arrived at this proposal, with slight differentiations, of course, which are shown in the amendments. Basically, it arrived at the conclusion that this is a question of strengthening democracy, of achieving a stronger presence for citizens within the European institutions by creating such a statute and, of course, as regards the question of funding, it stipulates that 10% should come from own resources and that donors should be able to give EUR 25 000, rather than the current EUR 12 000. Thank you, Mr President. Naturally, I hope that plenary will vote in favour of this report.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the report on European political parties and their foundations. I would also like to thank Mrs Giannakou for preparing this own-initiative report.
We in the Commission consider that report to be a very important one. We know that European political parties play an important role in European integration. In particular they contribute to ensuring that political issues are presented and discussed from the European perspective in time, before the elections to the European Parliament, thus avoiding situations where these elections are dominated by purely national issues, which, as we well know, is very often liable to be the case. I therefore welcome the forward-looking tone of the report and look forward to discussing its content tonight and in the future as well.
Article 12 of Regulation (EC) 2004/2003 stipulates that the European Parliament shall publish by 15 February 2011 a report on the application of this regulation and the activities funded. The report shall indicate, where appropriate, possible amendments to be made to the funding system. We welcome, as I said, Mrs Giannakou's own-initiative report and the accompanying resolution as a positive step, but it must be underlined that information on the actual implementation of the current regulation and the activities funded could be more precise and improved.
In this context and in the light of the vote by Parliament tomorrow, the Commission could be called upon to act through a further revision of Regulation (EC) 2004/2003 and the Financial Regulation, or through new legislation. Should Parliament come to the conclusion that the relevant existing legislation requires modifications, or that new legislation is required, the Commission will seriously examine these conclusions and, if it agrees, will take the necessary initiatives.
The Commission will also reflect on how Regulation (EC) 2004/2003 could be further improved in the longer term in order to support the development of stronger and genuinely transnational political parties and foundations at European level, with a view to developing a truly political European public space.
On the specific issue of a legal statute for European political parties, I am aware that this is not the first time that Parliament has called for such a statute. This issue is addressed in some detail in a study that was commissioned by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and I believe that the study itself clearly demonstrates that a range of complicated constitutional, political and practical issues are at stake with regard to establishing such a statute. The matter therefore requires a very careful and detailed analysis indeed.
The same can be said about some of the other issues brought up in the report. For the proposals that would require amendments to the Financial Regulation, the Commission also sees the need for a wider reflection on legislative solutions and the timing of the possible changes.
In conclusion, Mrs Giannakou's report and the accompanying draft resolution raise issues that are at the heart of European integration and its democratic nature, and which therefore need our full attention. I look forward to the debate on those issues tonight and in the future as well.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mrs Giannakou, since she has carried out a great and intelligent piece of work.
When we talk about political parties, we must take two problems into consideration. Firstly, parties are not much esteemed in any country. Secondly, when European elections take place, political parties are generally considered to pursue the interests of their national state and not the interests of Europe as a whole. At the level of public opinion, there is therefore a lack of positive esteem either for the parties or for their function in relation to the forging of Europe.
We must therefore act urgently. Not only in the Treaty of Lisbon, as has already been noted, but in many constitutions, in almost all European constitutions, the function of the parties is considered to be of national interest, and thus crucial in the creation of democracy and the pursuit of common interests. It is important to stress that I am speaking about constitutions, and not ordinary laws, and that thus I am referring to the fundamental structures of the States and the European Union as a whole.
It is thus pressing that we define a statute for parties that are truly European-facing, and not only an algebraic sum of individual national formations that have no permanent European structure on the ground. We need to see parties that think and act in a European context instead. The need I am describing is much more pressing if we really do want to see a uniform European electoral law which, hopefully, could even lead to a single European constituency to sit alongside the national constituencies. This will increase the individual European citizen's sense of belonging to Europe.
I come now to the core of my argument. As has already been emphasised - and I thank the Commissioner in advance - my committee has worked very hard, holding hearings and many meetings, but we need a proposal, an initiative from the European Commission, which brings together European parties within the law of the Union with a new legal form under public law, with a legal personality that is also valid in all Member States and with a uniform structure that allows them to act as representatives of the European public interest. I thank Mrs Giannakou and the Commissioner for their pledges.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Giannakou, thank you for drawing up this report, which I think will be very helpful in spurring the Commission to make progress in forming a better system for recognising and protecting European political parties.
European democracy is genuinely representative democracy. The edifice of representative democracy has remained steady ever since, in the mid-19th century, the expansion of suffrage made real the promise of the liberal revolutions to give the people representation, so that they could control their own destinies. The representative edifice has firm foundations, but from time to time it needs reforms and new ways to express itself with greater quality. An example of that would be the work that Parliament has done on adopting the Citizens' Initiative.
In short, democracy has never survived without free representation, and representation has never been free without plural competition. It is political parties that enable this plural representation. In democracy, the parties express pluralism and are fundamental instruments of political participation: they contribute to shaping public opinion; they offer alternatives, and general and sectoral government programmes; they coordinate and harmonise social interests; and they contribute to communication between the demands of the people and those who govern.
As a theorist of political parties has correctly pointed out, parties did not develop to communicate the needs of the rulers to the people, but rather to communicate the aspirations of the citizens to the rulers.
We now need this, which has worked at national level, to work at European level. It is therefore a case of providing a framework and opportunities for European political parties to carry out at European level the functions that they have been carrying out in the national arena. The most essential thing to achieving that is for parties to have legal status, and that is what this report is proposing: parties that have a territorial presence and that, at the same time, conduct themselves according to democratic rules; and a differentiation between recognition of the parties and financing, which requires popular support.
Finally, we expect the Commission to set in motion the mechanism to perfect the currently imperfect situation of regulation of political parties.
Mr President, Mrs Giannakou's report reflects the logical sequence of events over recent years which were aimed at raising citizens' interest in politics in the European Union.
Regulating European parties means nowadays creating a civic space without borders. In this respect, the Giannakou report is an invitation to reform-minded politicians. The plans outlined in this report are important. They will help turn European parties into a real instrument for enhancing participatory governance in the Union.
It is no coincidence that almost 100 amendments were tabled for this report. As a result of the joint efforts made, seven compromise versions were produced, supported by all the parliamentary groups. I think that the interest in the report in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was kindled by the notion of the European party system becoming even more flexible, attractive and logical, not to mention suitable for the processes in Europe, by establishing a general political, legal and fiscal status for European parties.
This is not about organising parties according to a single, standardised structure, but about following a more general model. The basic differences between parties and foundations also still apply, but there are new opportunities for greater synergy in their actions.
The report and the expected subsequent developments must change the familiar status quo whereby current parties are simply organisations of national parties and do not have any direct link with the electorate in Member States. Based on this aspiration, it is recommended to start examining the conditions for direct individual membership and the participation of natural persons in the party's internal operation and even in the party's management.
A number of sensitive issues are raised in this report. For example, a proper distinction is made between the criteria for founding a political party and those for funding it. The report should be supported so that the Commission can start creating a new section in the Financial Regulation devoted solely to the funding of European parties and foundations.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, clear legal regulations for political parties in Europe are an important factor in shaping European society, developing European political debate and helping make the European elections truly European, with European campaigns and arguments rather than the national campaigns and arguments mainly encountered at present. For this reason I would like to thank Mrs Giannakou most sincerely for her report. We worked together very closely on this. We did not agree on all the points to begin with. However, we are happy to sign up to the final result.
I would like to point out a couple of areas that were particularly important to us during the debate. One of them is the fact that we believe that parties who wish to participate in the democratic process must also be democratic in their structures. This applies in particular to the election of party organs, the selection of candidates and the drawing up of lists and has now been included in paragraph 5. I believe this represents enormous progress. The same goes for a series of other points which I do not intend to mention here.
I would like to refer briefly to the most important point: the requirement that a party should already have one member in the European Parliament. This was originally required in order to receive recognition and funding. This condition now only applies to the funding issue. This was very important to us because recognition and funding must be very clearly separated. Recognition means that there must be free competition so that new parties with new issues and new faces can be formed in Europe. This should not be subject to excessive constraints. However, when it comes to the question of funding, this can, of course, be linked to a certain minimum level of electoral success. Accordingly, we can also agree to this, even if we would have liked to have worked this point out more clearly, which is why we intend to table an amendment.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, democracy is not just a periodic right to put a cross on a ballot paper. Democracy depends also on a connection between government and governed - an affinity. To have a functioning democracy you need a 'demos', you need a unit with which we identify when we use the word 'we'. If you take the 'demos' out of democracy you are left only with the 'kratos', with the power of a system that must compel by force of law what it may not ask in the name of civic patriotism.
You cannot create the institutions of functioning representative government by bureaucratic fiat. We have tried it in the European Union. We have created all the attributes and trappings: the European Parliament, the political parties, the elections and so on, but you cannot make people feel European in the same sense that somebody might feel Norwegian, Japanese, French, Portuguese or whatever it is.
A party should grow organically because its members recognise a community of identity and common interests. It is not something that we can do with public funding or at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. So, to be clear, the ECR opposes this legislation, we oppose the concept of having transnational parties. We form some of our constituent members into an alliance of parties but we oppose the single statute. We oppose the increases in the budget - which seems to me an extraordinary allocation of resources in the present economic climate - and I oppose my compatriot and my friend Andrew Duff's idea that these transnational parties should be allowed to spend effectively EU money in national referendum campaigns.
You will not create Europeans by spending public money. Not all the gold in all our national treasuries put together can serve to convince people of a false idea.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mr Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, I can only welcome the fact that the European Parliament is taking a serious-minded and practical approach to the issue of the democratisation of European decision-making processes. As Mrs Giannakou's report shows, this approach also involves the further development of European parties, which, although they have been an everyday political reality in Europe for many years, until now have not been equal partners and players in terms of their democratic influence on EU policy. We need political parties at EU level too that are firmly rooted in the societies they represent and that can play a strong role in the elections to the European Parliament and in establishing European openness, based on internal democratic structures and regulations.
With regard to this particular report, I must say that I would have liked the rapporteur to have shown a great deal more courage by using the Parliament's right of initiative to take a truly significant step in developing the political system and the party system in the European Union. This is a step that many citizens have been waiting for and that will encourage them to get involved. The interlocking European and national decision-making levels and the relations between the political parties could have been addressed more clearly as a common factor that is transparent and open to influence.
The European Parliament should now decisively call on the Commission and Council to take the initiative in this regard. I would expect constructive cooperation from the Commission and Council.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, this legislation will allow the EU to throw money at referendum campaigns to ensure that it purchases the right result first time, for a change!
The UK will in future be holding a referendum each time the EU proposes to remove power from its electorate. The EU is frightened out of its wits that we may give a series of wrong answers. So it intends to remove money from UK taxpayers to indoctrinate them into its version of the path of true righteousness.
Fronting the legislation is Andrew Duff, a liberal democrat MEP from my own region. Support in the UK for his party has collapsed recently - a party of course desperate for EU institutions to govern the UK. Never has the EU's gerrymandering been so clearly displayed alongside its contempt for UK voters. It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, because the legislation will allow us to fund the referendum campaign that many in my country have for a very long time been waiting for - the one that gives us the opportunity to remove ourselves entirely from its control.
Mr President, would my colleague Mr Agnew agree with me that a political party that would accept funding under this legislation, as a single European party, and which in particular would have to observe the EU's programme and activities and the founding principles of European law, and the development of European law at all levels regionally, nationally and at European level, would be a party which has lost its principles? Would you agree with me, Mr Agnew?
Mr President, I say to Ms Sinclaire that we will take what we can out of this because we use the devil's money to do God's work. That is what we do, and well you know it.
Will you accept the principle of European law though?
No, of course we do not. That is why we are here.
Mr President, let me first thank our rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou, and the Commission for their excellent cooperation and for an excellent report.
Are we really in a process of creating a European demos, as my honourable colleague Mr Hannan just told us? I do not know, I am not venturing that far. I think what we want to do at this particular moment is to strengthen the nascent European public space and basically invigorate the debate on European issues. I mean, the idea in this House is to bring European citizens closer to what we are discussing here and what could be simpler then basically starting to discuss European issues with them.
By the way, I can only speak for myself, but I am no bureaucrat - I am a directly elected member of this House.
The debate is actually to increase the visibility of European political parties, to which we all belong regardless of whether we are sitting on the Left, in the Centre or on the Right of this House. To bring them out of the shade, because at the moment no one really knows what they do, what is their status, whether they produce any added value - and we in the EPP believe that they do. That is the possibility, to actually have some programme presentation and in the future hopefully to fight European elections on European issues and not get bogged down in national rhetoric all the time.
This report is positive on three counts. First of all, it brings a certain balance between operational authority within the parliamentary groups and a clear link with what we do in this House, linking funding to presence in this House - in the European Parliament. Secondly, it brings organisational convergence between European political parties and European foundations, which is quite laudable, and thirdly it tightens and clarifies the funding of European political parties, which I think should be the goal for us all.
- (SK) Mr President, when we look at the history of European integration and at the current setup and functioning of the EU, it may be said that the EU can be seen not only as a grouping of states, but instead more as a political arena with the potential for creating a genuine European public. The EU not only has a single market, its own legislature, an elected body of representatives and its own judicial system. Political parties at the European level have also been in existence for a long time now. They are not just federations of national parties. They have their own agenda, a European agenda, and they are an integral part of European political life. The strengthening of political parties at the European level reinforces participatory administration in the EU, and thereby ultimately democracy as well.
For these reasons, I welcome the presented proposal to reform the statutes and funding of political parties at the Union level, and I would also like to thank you personally, Mr Vice-President, for your cooperation.
It is now very important for political parties to get a common and single legal statute. We must do away with the differences between the system for political parties and the rules applied to European institutions. This is possible on the basis of introducing a common political, legal and fiscal statute for political parties at the European level. It would also be appropriate to consider whether the right to establish such a party should be restricted to political parties operating at the national or regional level.
The issue of a funding system is also appropriate. The system for approving funding for political parties at the European level should be simplified. It should be possible to perform financial inspections, in order to maintain transparency. A transparent and secure environment for the operation and funding of European political parties is also a desirable and welcome step for the citizens of EU Member States. It may help them in their everyday lives. A statute of the European political parties is a significant step forwards towards greater interaction with citizens, more democracy and greater public interest in European issues.
Mr President, national political parties are now failing to sustain European integration in a democratic and efficient manner. This is very serious. There is a gap to fill, and essential democratic sinew is needed to connect the citizen and the European powers that are exercised in Parliament and the Council. The time for European political parties has come, not as a substitute for national political parties but as a complement to them, to challenge and compete with each other for support for ideas and for candidates.
The development of European political parties is a critical link for the success of the transnational list proposal that this House is to be considering next month. I urge Parliament to support the Giannakou report with great courage and optimism for the future of post-national democracy.
(FR) Mr President, the creation of the European political parties was a major step forward towards a more democratic Europe capable of expressing the wishes of its citizens.
Mrs Giannakou's report is on the right lines in terms of making the activities of European political parties and their foundations simpler and more straightforward. It will ease the burden of the conditions required in return for obtaining public funding and will broaden the options for making use of this funding. We are particularly in favour of the possibility for the foundations to act outside EU territory also.
However, alongside this general approach, which encourages and extends provisions supporting a stronger European democracy, one of the measures goes in the opposite direction and restricts the freedom of European political parties. Among the criteria for recognising a European political party's basis in a Member State, the regulation will now require the party to have elected representatives sitting in a regional assembly that has legislative powers.
My party is specific to Corsica. It is a member of the European Free Alliance (ALE), which has been a European political party since it began. We obtained 26% of the vote in Corsica and have a large body of members on the Corsica Regional Assembly. However, since France refuses to grant the Corsican Assembly legislative powers, even if our party were to gain a majority on the island it would not count towards the criteria for the ALE. This provision is to be deplored. We wanted to draw your attention to this point.
(PL) Mr President, European political parties are a new phenomenon in European politics, but, together with the rise in integration and subsidies, they are starting to play an increasingly important role. Political parties and foundations have become participants in the political life of the EU, and as such they should be subject to appropriate regulations which prevent abuse. In certain cases, however, supranational structures aim to have too much influence over politics in the sovereign Member States. For example, I am concerned at the announced intervention of EU parties in domestic matters. As a Polish politician, I could not agree to a situation in which one or several of the European political parties were to organise a referendum campaign in my country, for example, using EU funds to achieve a specific result, for example in the referendum on my country's accession to the euro area. Similar fears may be harboured by politicians in other countries, for example the United Kingdom.
I am also opposed to demands to increase spending on European political parties, using money from taxpayers' pockets. This is all the more true since the government in my country is halving subsidies for national political parties and preventing the opposition from reaching the public. Let us first support national parties, and then international ones. After all, the European Union is a Europe of nation states.
(NL) Mr President, you just observed that I was too late with my blue card. I was not. Even while Mr Duff was speaking I had already clearly indicated that I wanted to speak. I am not sure exactly what the procedure is. Can I still use my blue card or will you carry on with the debate? I would still like to ask Mr Duff a question about what he had to say, as he did start talking about the transnational list. I was not aware that we were discussing that and I wanted to ask him a question about it.
Mr van der Stoep, as far as I am concerned you may ask your question.
My problem with the transnational list with which Mr Duff commenced his report - a report that we are to debate soon - is not so much the fact that a transnational list is to be made. Obviously, I am already completely against that idea. My problem, rather, is that only parties can participate in this - but what we are talking about here is European political parties - which means parties that are active in at least seven Member States.
My party is a party that stands for the interests of the Netherlands. As a result, parties in other Member States that stand for the interests of their own countries are little concern of ours. They are most welcome to do so, but in doing this you are excluding a whole range of parties that are unable to compete for the 25 seats required. That causes me terrible worries. I do not know how exactly you envisage this or how exactly you plan to participate. Could you make things less difficult in this connection? In any case we feel seriously excluded.
Mr President, the proposal that I am promoting is that a transnational list should be drawn from at least a third of the Member States. That is not very many. If Mr van der Stoep cannot attract colleagues with political affinity from six other states, I recommend that he examines the validity and credibility of his political opinions.
(DA) Mr President, let me start by saying that I am a strong supporter of political parties at national level, European level and also at international level. However, a political party is not merely the party apparatus; it is much more than that. One of the truly major democratic challenges we face is the fact that political parties are reflecting the population as a whole to an ever decreasing extent. This is demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that political parties are losing members. Many countries have chosen to compensate for this by increasing government subsidies to the parties. However, higher government subsidies are no guarantee of a closer connection between the parties' leadership and apparatus on the one hand and the parties' membership on the other. On the contrary, the risk of an independent bureaucratic apparatus developing is greater the more financially independent from their members the parties' apparatus becomes. I therefore have to say that I am sceptical about the idea of European parties approved by the EU and supported by payments from it. This is not because I have anything against European parties. European parties should grow politically, organisationally and financially from the bottom up. If this is not possible it is probably because there is not enough support. There is no shortcut to democracy, not even when it comes to establishing European parties.
(EL) Mr President, firstly my congratulations to our rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou, on her balanced and accurate report. I consider that the development of political parties with European prospects which are more than national vehicles will be crucial in galvanising public opinion in the Union and interesting the citizens of Europe in participating in joint parties.
We are living in times when, as we are all aware, it is fashionable to denigrate politicians and the political parties to which they belong, as European citizens feel alienated from political, economic and civil developments. At this juncture, therefore, Mrs Giannakou's report will help to improve the appearance of political parties and support the unification of Europe and the reforms needed to create a Europe with equal citizens, with a common political, legal and fiscal status and with opportunities for growth.
Mr President, earlier today I spoke in this Chamber about my constituency, the West Midlands, and the economic hardships it is going through. One of the last things that people there want is more money to be spent on politicians - they already have too many politicians, including MEPs, wasting their money as it is.
What this is, is a step, and Europe is willing to throw this money at creating that further step on the road to a super state. It has its Parliament, its President and its Foreign Affairs Adviser, and now it wants the political parties to go with that. Because what it wants is a nation called the European Union. Even the most euro-sceptic members of this Parliament are willing to trade their principles to take their money. Well done! Is that what Europe wants? Does it want to buy its way to power?
(FR) Mr President, in our democracies we have our parliaments, which are the voice of citizens, then we have the political parties and their foundations, which are the masterminds, think-tanks and leaders of the debate. Parliaments are the motors of democracy and political parties are the fuel.
Here in our Parliament, we complain all the time about citizens' disinterest in the European Union. We lament the abstention rate in European elections and 'No' votes in referendums. If we want real European democracy, we must take a serious look at the place we want to give to European political parties in the European space we are trying to build.
We have already done a good deal with the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Citizens' Initiative. We must now give European political parties the resources they need to achieve their ambitions. Please note that I do not think these resources should be a vehicle for allowing the big parties to turn into immovable hegemonies. Small organisations should also be able to take part in the debate. This is important if we are to combat the parties' negative image among citizens and their image as the unpopular face of democracy.
I believe it is essential to clearly establish the conditions on funding and transparent management of funding if we are to strengthen the European public space we are trying to create. The initiative must be inclusive, so that the larger parties are not favoured to the detriment of the smaller parties and vice versa.
Another point I would like to deal with relates to the continuity we will be creating between the European, national and regional levels. The European regulations we will be introducing must be capable of fitting in with the different national legal frameworks on the subject, to ensure that the different levels do indeed mesh with each other.
Finally, we also need to look very closely at what paragraph 23 of the report says, because by extension we need to think about the links that European parties would be able to form with parties in the rest of the world. We must be able to share our democratic values with our partners in the rest of the world, because the globalised world in which we live today requires political decision-makers to come up with solutions to problems together.
(LT) Mr President, the importance of the role played by European political parties is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, which aims to create an effective European political space. It is the job of our politicians' to encourage citizens to take an interest in the European Union, to make it more understandable and accessible and to involve them in decision making. However, to that end it is necessary to regulate the activities of European political parties and foundations in a clear and uniform manner, and to ensure that the internal functioning of such parties is democratic. As enablers for democracy these political parties must have a uniform legal and fiscal status, which would ensure that European citizens have a better understanding of political parties and are better represented. It is particularly important for the formation of political parties' internal management bodies to be based on transparent principles, in order to ensure the democratic election of all party bodies and democratic decision-making processes.
(DE) Mr President, very few of our citizens are aware of the existence of European parties and foundations. Until now these have simply been umbrella organisations for their national member parties, established according to national laws, mainly Belgian laws in this case.
What is it that these European parties do? They discuss European issues, hold party conferences and play an indispensable role in reforming the European Parliament's electoral system. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, they are required to help establish European democracy - a political forum at European level.
The own-initiative report to be voted on tomorrow calls on the Commission to reform the legal basis for these European parties. In future, these parties will be based on a European legal statute and will have a European legal personality. As liberals, we have campaigned to ensure that a clear distinction is made between recognition as a European party and an entitlement to funding, as there was a certain greed in evidence. It is also important that European parties should follow democratic principles in their internal workings, something that cannot be taken for granted.
Mr President, the tide of opinion is moving one way in many of our nations, but the European Union and this Parliament curiously seek to swim in a different direction. There is no demand from our citizens for transnational politicians. This Parliament now wants to spend even more public money, when our national governments are having to make reductions in public expenditure.
I speak, Mr President, in my capacity as President of New Direction, the Foundation for European Reform. To my mind, it is unacceptable that the costs of political foundations should be increasing at a rate of over 30% year on year. In 2009, EUR 6.3 million was spent; by 2012 this will have doubled to EUR 12.3 million. Some might say that if you object to this, why does your Foundation accept funding? Well, the answer to that is quite simply that any funds we do not accept are distributed among the foundations of the other political groups; we would be funding the activities of our political opponents. We need to find a way of returning money to our national exchequers.
(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the European Union is being tested by a democracy crisis and a credibility crisis, as well as an economic crisis. The policies being applied are angering and disappointing our citizens and the decision-making procedures discourage their participation, as the recent European elections demonstrated. That is why, subject to certain preconditions, European political parties, with their specific political attributes, may help the public to become more pro-active in seeking solutions for the benefit of the people, not the financially strong. Therefore the rules of political and legal recognition and the necessary funding must facilitate their action to freely develop their policies and their alternative proposals - because that is the essence of democracy - and they must not be influenced by outside political or economic restrictions. That is why I have reservations about certain points in the report, insofar as they might be used as restrictions on the free and independent organisation and action of political parties.
The operation, action and organisation of parties must be matters of their own choice and must not be contingent upon political sovereign correlations.
- (SK) Mr President, the report on the application of a regulation on a statute for political parties at European level and their funding evaluates experience from the application of this law in the administration of political entities with a broad European scope.
As well as evaluating the current situation, Mrs Giannakou has decided to formulate a number of proposals for improving the current legal environment.
Perhaps the most significant change would be the transformation of the form of the statute from the current equivalent of a Belgian non-governmental organisation to a common and single European legal statute for political parties.
The second significant change would be setting the percentage share of independent funding sources at 10% of the overall budget of political parties.
In view of the fact that European political parties and their foundations should receive more than EUR 30 million from the European Parliament in 2012, however, we must ensure maximum transparency in the management of this funding. Changes such as these can be supported, in the interests of further improving political work in the EU.
(NL) Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is in this House to represent the Dutch people. We are here because we believe that the European Union, as it currently exists, does not serve the interests of the Netherlands. We are not opposed to the European Union, we just want it to restrict itself to economic cooperation. For us, Mr President, a European political union is therefore completely unthinkable. Power must rest with the Member States, as only they can determine what is best for their own citizens. European political parties would provide no added value at all for the well-being of citizens of the European Union or of the Netherlands.
Mr President, the provision in the Treaty of Lisbon which states - and I quote - that political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union is an absurd and out-of-touch statement. It does not interest the citizens, and quite rightly so. Between them, the European political parties received around EUR 67 million in European subsidies between 2004 and 2010. This is a completely senseless pouring of taxpayers' money down the drain. A political party must, by definition, be able to function without subsidies, and that includes European political parties. These are special interest groups that nobody knows, that nobody monitors and that we need like we need a whole in the head.
(EL) Mr President, the core issue raised by the report in connection with the funding of European parties and the policies to found them is the creation of a single statute for European parties in accordance with Euro-unifying legislation.
The European Union - with its legislation setting out a single structure and modus operandi for European parties and interfering in their internal operation, their charters and their political programme, on the pretext of allegedly relaxing the funding regime - is opening a Pandora's box of economic and, by extension, political sanctions against political parties in the form of an EU stranglehold on their operation and action, pressure on national political parties to integrate more fully into the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union and an attack on parties that question the anti-grassroots policy, the EU strategy and the authority of capital. This is not about parliamentary coordination; it is about European parties as ideological and political tools of the European Union to manipulate the working and grassroots movement.
That is why we shall vote against the report on regulations governing European parties, political foundations and their funding.
(RO) Mr President, transparent funding of European political parties is an essential means of supporting democratic values. We need a European space where political parties will be active and citizens will be at the heart of the European Union's concerns. Adopting European legal status marks a step towards improving European parties' regulatory framework.
In the case of my own country, we have Act no 334 of 2006, revised in 2010, in force. However, the public debate is about whether it would not be more appropriate for funding for municipal and parliamentary candidates to be provided by the state budget. The ceiling being proposed for each candidate is approximately EUR 11 600. Adopting these cost regulations would eliminate electoral bribery and illegal funding. The parties would have primarily competent candidates rather than people capable of promoting their own campaign.
Mr President, this debate tonight is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the 'more Europe' agenda. It is simply staggering for me to have listened and to see how greatly removed the debate is from the agenda of ordinary citizens. Mr Duff quite rightly acknowledges that there is a gap to fill between the European powers and the individual citizens. That is absolutely right, but that gap will not be filled by developing European parties and, as another contributor to the debate has said, giving those parties the resources to match their ambitions.
I would challenge Mr Duff to go to his constituency at the weekend and try to sell those views to local community groups that have had their funding cut because of austerity measures imposed by his coalition government in the United Kingdom. The gap will be filled, however, by giving people their say on Lisbon, on increasing federalism, and on the litany of red tape that comes from these institutions.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I start my concluding remarks by thanking once again Mrs Giannakou for her report because I think that this debate has very clearly proven that the concern and the issues she raised in her report are legitimate; they are at the heart of European integration and of its democratic nature.
The exchange of views clearly demonstrated as well how sensitive these issues are and, therefore, if this House approves this proposed legislative resolution tomorrow, the Commission will respect its commitment stemming from the framework agreement and will respond to this resolution within three months.
However, as you may have felt from this debate, it is quite clear that this would be a very sensitive, elaborate, political and legal task because there are a lot of issues that are both legally and politically very sensitive. Our preliminary analyses on the statute of the European political parties is in this direction but, of course, we now need to study very carefully the legal basis, potential legal form and, as we see now, we would most probably need a separate legal act on this issue. That is because the revising of the regulation from 2003-2004 would simply not be sufficient because it targeted the funding issue and not the issue of the statute of the political groups. So this would be one angle, which we would have to look at very carefully.
Several speakers raised the question of amending the Financial Regulation. Here, again, we would need to look very carefully at the requirements, scope and the timing and we certainly took very careful note of the calls in this report for more flexibility. As you know, we already took some steps in 2007 and we will examine these proposals very carefully. However, it is quite clear that it might be very difficult to agree on the changes and have them incorporated into the current revision of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules.
Of course, Parliament is a legislator and is free to raise this issue in the current ongoing interinstitutional process, if it so wishes. My thanks again, Mr President, and we are certainly looking forward to the ensuing debate on this issue once the resolution has been adopted and the Commission's response has been prepared.
Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner in particular for what he said and for the undertakings he made and my fellow members who supported this report.
Firstly, I think that it is important to repeat that, as far as the funding procedure is concerned, the parties will not seek more funding and that the amendment to the 2007 regulation has brought about greater transparency, as Transparency International itself has admitted. Secondly, it is only fair that the parties should seek a European statute and to bring their statute into line with the European institutions and with European legislation and this is, of course, intended to satisfy the citizens.
Finally, creating a secure and transparent environment for the operation and funding of parties is a deeply democratic act. We need a European area of active political parties which will bring citizens into the heart of the Union and help them in their daily lives. This will mean greater participation, more democracy and, in the final analysis, more Europe.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on 6 April at 12:00.
Written Statements (Rule 149)
The European Union has faced repeated criticism due to the lack of democracy. To achieve genuine democracy, we need to have a European political space in the true sense of the term, and political parties at European level are a key instrument for attaining this goal. The proposals for reforming the regulation on the rules governing European political parties and their funding, which feature in this report, mark a step towards streamlining how they operate. I think that they can fulfil their role much better if they enjoy a uniform political and legal status based on European law. The current system where these parties have a legal personality based on national legislation does not offer the conditions which are most conducive to ensuring effective communication between these parties and the electorate in the 27 Member States. Introducing a European statute would help political parties at European level to adapt to any reform of the electoral system for the European elections, which is currently under discussion. Furthermore, I welcome the move to facilitate the involvement of European political parties in campaigns for referendums relating to European issues at Member State level. In most cases, these referendums are dominated by purely domestic issues. The involvement of European parties could help redirect the debates towards the real issues of these referendums.
in writing. - (LT) Discussions about how to strengthen the role of European political parties by developing democracy in Europe and forming public opinion are very relevant. Although Parliament is acquiring increasing powers there has been no reduction in its democratic deficit due to citizens' ever declining participation in European Parliament elections. Political parties at European level are essential instruments of parliamentary democracy, raising European political awareness, promoting interest in EU affairs and expressing the will of the citizens of the European Union. I therefore agree entirely with the rapporteur that it is necessary to enhance the situation of political parties at European level and prepare a clear and uniform legal status and financing model for them. Such parties should not remain foreign bodies. Currently the role of European political parties in the public sphere is rather limited. They are merely umbrella organisations for national parties and not directly in touch with the electorate. The new legal status of such parties in the European Union would ensure organisational uniformity and provide the opportunity to carry out its role more effectively. I would like to stress that we must continue to strive for the creation of a safe and transparent environment for party funding. Party funding should not be based purely on grants, we must also promote funding from our own resources, which are a sign of party vitality.
in writing. - (SK) I would not like to be a member of a political party established on the principles sketched out in the submitted report. These parties are supposed to become the representatives of the 'European public interest', but if you ask any two Members of this Parliament what that is, they will each answer differently. Who will determine this interest? Parliament? The Commission? Members are not nominated by EU institutions, however, but elected by the citizens of the Member States. It is my duty to represent actual citizens, not what the EU institutions consider to be the 'European public interest'. Nor do I agree that European parties should also operate at regional and national levels. They simply do not have a mandate for that. If they start doing that, they will get into conflict with the parties on whose ballots we were all elected, and with the voters represented by these parties. My loyalty belongs to my voters, not to a European political party. That is called a free mandate. I therefore completely disagree with the philosophy of super parties presented in this report. It is another attempt by the social euro-engineers, who are so obsessed with the utopian super-state that they ignore common sense. If they listened to common sense, they would realise that the stubborn assertion of such proposals demolishes the foundations on which European integration stands. As a staunch European, I must therefore vote against this report.


3. EU-Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement (vote)


1. (


2. Guantánamo: imminent death penalty decision (debate)
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on Guantánamo: imminent death penalty decision.
author. - Mr President, the ECR Group believes that capital punishment is a personal conscience issue for each MEP and, although we acknowledge the EU's common position opposing execution in all circumstances, the fact of the matter is that many millions of European citizens, our constituents, are still in favour of capital punishment.
Furthermore, this resolution refers to the potential death penalty being imposed on some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, who thought nothing of conspiring to murder thousands of innocent people. Indeed, when reading this resolution, I thought of my own constituents who were mercilessly blown up by al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists in London six years ago. The struggle against global Islamic terrorism is an asymmetric war with unforeseen results and unprecedented consequences, and new jurisprudence internationally is now needed to address this.
The detention camp in Guantánamo Bay is a reflection of this tragic situation. It is also a reflection on the fact that the United States is carrying a disproportionate share of the burden for the global war on terror. Of course, all such trials by the US authorities - which, after all, is a country that is a democracy and shares our common values - must nevertheless be conducted fairly with all legal safeguards of due process, and ideally by civilian courts.
author. - Mr President, Europe stands right against capital punishment. It should be abolished and the EU, particularly the High Representative and the upcoming Polish Presidency, and all the Member States, must firmly demand that the US exclude the death penalty as an option in the first military commission trial for a Guantánamo detainee. The case of the Saudi citizen, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, must set the standard.
Not only would it be a disgrace to the US human rights record to put him on death row, but it could be totally counterproductive in the fight against terrorism. President Obama is committed to bringing to an end President Bush's outrageous legacy of running over international law in the name of national security. President Obama has yet to deliver on his promise and to close Guantánamo - an area where EU Member States could and should have assisted him more. But Congress should also help him and press him to reverse this decision to reinstate the military commission system, as it offers no guarantee of a fair trial, and it must also reverse the decision to keep in indefinite detention detainees against whom no charges are brought.
The EU must be very clear on this: charge them or release them. Mr Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in US custody for nine years and he claims to have been secretly detained by the CIA in a secret detention centre in Poland. The upcoming Polish Presidency of the EU has, therefore, a particular responsibility to bring justice to a man who has been subjected to torture, unlawful detention and now faces an unfair trial before a military tribunal. It is time to set the record right; both in the United States and in Europe.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(PL) Mr President, I would like to ask a question: where did Mrs Gomes get this information about secret detention centres in Poland? An investigation into this matter is under way in Poland, and so far there is no evidence at all that such centres existed. Perhaps they did exist, but there is no proof of this. So I am interested as to the source of this information.
author. - Mr President, this Parliament conducted an investigation into the so-called renditions programme and went to Poland and two other countries, including Romania, where there were allegations of secret prisons. We now know that something was found in Lithuania and a parliamentary inquiry has been set up in that country.
We expect nothing less from the forthcoming Polish Presidency than a proper investigation to establish the truth about these serious allegations.
author. - (FR) Mr President, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left took the decision not to associate itself with this resolution on Guantánamo. We do not deplore its substance; rather, we find it pretty feeble. For my part, I regret the way in which we worked on drafting this resolution.
How cautious we have been in the way we have talked about condemning the human rights violations perpetrated by a country which claims to be the greatest democracy in the world, which still has the death penalty, and for which Guantánamo is an illustration to the world of human rights and international law violations committed in the name of combating terrorism.
Men have been held in detention for almost ten years on this part of Cuban territory for the sole purpose of bypassing US legal jurisdiction and in spite of the lack of evidence against some of them. For those men, this is a case of arbitrary detention. Worse still, some of them have been tortured, including on European soil: in Romania, in Lithuania and in Poland. This must not be spoken of, however. We can lecture the entire world on human rights but we are incapable of enforcing them on our own territory.
We must not even speak of it today, in this resolution! I regret this most sincerely and I do not think that this is how we will promote respect for human rights in the world.
Yes, it is essential to prevent the death sentence being imposed on Mr Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and on many others, but we could have condemned more strongly the position of the United States in this regard, while regretting, at the very least, the change in attitude on the part of President Obama, particularly with regard to military tribunals.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
author. - (RO) Mr President, I have a question for Mrs Vergiat and I am sorry that I could not ask Mrs Gomes it as well. Referring to these allegations against Romania, just like those Mrs Gomes made against Poland, does Mrs Vergiat believe that they help al-Nashiri's case? In what way does referring to these allegations help us identify the means by which we can prevent capital punishment? Or is our resolution not about the death penalty but, somehow, about these allegations?
author. - (FR) Mr Preda, we were together at the same session, but we do not share the same conception of those Thursday afternoon sessions. I am against double standards being applied to human rights. For some countries, we overdo it, we make sweeping statements and, for others, rather arbitrarily, we only take into account specific situations. That session, which was held to prepare this resolution, was, from that point of view, a farce, and that is why I left it.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Mr President, I would like to ask Ms Vergiat if it is true that her hatred is really directed towards the United States of America in its war against terror, rather than the issue of the death penalty? I have never heard her group condemn the execution of people in places like Cuba, or even in China, where it is a common occurrence, unfortunately.
author. - (FR) Mr Tannock, I refer you to my statements on Cuba. I said that I condemn human rights abuses anywhere in the world, in Cuba as elsewhere.
I do not need any lessons from you in this regard. I do not defend Christians against Muslims. I defend all human beings who live on this planet, so that they can live free and equal - all of them!
Mr President, what I would like to suggest is that we focus specifically on the al-Nashiri case. There is the possibility of the death penalty being imposed during the military commission trial on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. I wish to remind you, just as Mr Tannock has also done, that al-Nashiri has been accused of very serious crimes, including involvement in the attacks against a US aircraft carrier and the oil tanker MV Limburg. Our opposition in principle to the death penalty must make us ask the US authorities not to impose the death penalty.
On the other hand, I would like to say that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has regarded and does regard a strong transatlantic relationship as a priority, in that this is based on the conviction of the existence of a set of common values and on respect for human rights. We are all united in this Chamber in utterly rejecting acts of terrorism and in expressing our support for the victims of these attacks. However, I regret that a democracy like the United States and dictatorships which Mrs Vergiat is defending explicitly or implicitly are grouped together.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
author. - Mr President, I would ask Mr Preda what he has to say to the fact that, in this Parliament this morning, many colleagues including myself heard Mr Thomas Hammarberg, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, state clearly, in response to a question on this matter, that he indeed had corroboration of the serious suspicions of the existence of secret detention centres in Poland, in Lithuania and in Romania, and that he expected investigations to proceed.
Let me say that I do not have any animosity towards the US. I have only admiration for a US which defends the rule of law and human rights, and for a US that distinguishes itself from terrorists whose aim is indeed to detract from the rule of law and to violate democracy and human rights.
Allow me to take the opportunity to say that I very much regret that throughout this whole discussion, you have never believed the position of the Romanian authorities. I must remind you that Romania is a member of the European Union and I believe that we can at least trust our partners. In fact, I want to remind you that the Romanian authorities have always supplied all the information required in these international inquiries. All the investigators were given access to the airports at Otopeni, Bucharest and Constanţa, as well as to the base at the Torrejón Satellite Centre. Matters were always conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation and there is no way of credibly confirming these actions. I do not really understand why, in this game of slinging the same retorts all the time, you never believe the authorities of a partner state. Mrs Gomes, Romania is part of the European Union and should not be confused with the countries which we discuss in this Chamber every Thursday.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
author. - (FR) I note that Mr Preda is straying far away from the situation we were discussing to come to the aid of Romania, but that was not my point.
I regret that he is hurling what I consider to be insults at me. I am sorry, Mr Preda, but I have never defended, here in this Chamber, or at any other time in my life, a single dictatorship anywhere in the world. I have always denounced all human rights abuses, wherever they are committed.
I would therefore ask him to kindly withdraw the comments he made about me and thank him in advance.
Mr President, I had understood that a question was being asked, but one was not put to me. What I would like to say is that I still feel it is wrong that we can put in the same boat, on an equal footing, democracies such as the United States or EU Member States, and countries and societies where power is exercised in an authoritarian and totalitarian manner, with ordinary citizens suffering excessive abuses. This is what I wanted to say. If Mrs Vergiat felt offended by this, I am very sorry about that.
author. - Mr President, I do not know if we are about to vote on the resolution, but we will eventually do so after the end of this debate. I think this issue is a good example of what it means to be consistent with our own principles and values, because this Parliament has spoken out on several occasions against the death penalty, wherever it may occur. It has also spoken on what due process of law means; these two fundamental human rights issues are at stake in the case of al-Nashiri.
Due process of law excludes military commissions. We have already criticised this system as it fails, in every respect, to meet international standards on fair trails. Moreover, in this case, the Saudi Arabian national faces the death penalty imposed by a military commission, although in 2009, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions specifically asked the US not to conduct capital prosecutions before military commissions.
The Liberal group in this Parliament remains fully committed to combating terrorism, but without any concessions with regard to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Mr President, Mr Oettinger, the current US Government initially spoke out clearly in favour of closing the detention camp at Guantánamo.
Unfortunately, the US Government was not able to follow up on its announcement. This included closing the military commissions set up there because they do not meet any of the standards for fair court proceedings. This makes the fact that there is an imminent death penalty decision and the threat of an execution all the more dramatic. Therefore, our resolution calls urgently on all EU institutions and on the Member States to do everything possible to prevent Mr al-Nashiri from being executed.
We are calling again for the USA to impose a moratorium on the death penalty and to join a worldwide movement in which 96 states have made an irreversible decision to abolish the death penalty. The number of states which have retained the death penalty and still make use of it has fallen to 58. This is a positive development.
Mr al-Nashiri was imprisoned in Poland in a secret prison set up by the CIA where he was subjected to intense torture. We Europeans must finally seriously come to terms with our shared responsibility for these grave violations of human rights. The practice of hushing this up, sweeping it under the carpet and allowing those responsible to remain largely immune from prosecution must not continue. Today's debate also shows that it is not helpful to talk in superficial terms about anti-Americanism or anti-European sentiments. Instead, we must deal with the facts, including the sources which Mrs Gomez referred to. In addition, the UN special rapporteur on torture submitted a useful document during the last committee meeting which proves that prisons of this kind were established by the CIA in Poland.
Mr President, the USA is not the largest democracy in the world, as another speaker said. It is the third largest. However, I believe that the USA will not be impressed when the second largest democracy in the world after India - the European Union - collapses into internal polemics on this important topic.
The subject is far too serious and it has rightly been said that our partnership with the USA is based on human rights. We are fighting in support of the rule of international law. Guantánamo is a zone where national and international law do not apply and, therefore, it goes against the principles of international law. We are fighting against military jurisdiction and for the rule of law, which is not compatible with military jurisdiction. We are fighting for the right to life and this is not compatible with the death penalty. We are fighting for human rights and these human rights are being violated in Guantánamo. Therefore, we must make it quite clear to an important ally, like the USA, that we are not prepared to accept this. This has been Parliament's position right from the beginning and across all the groups. It has also been the position of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). Guantánamo must be closed. Even terrorists have human rights, but they must, of course, have a legitimate punishment imposed on them in the interests of their victims. However, that must be the subject of proper legal proceedings.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Mr President, I have enormous respect for Bernd Posselt. The biggest democracy in the world is, of course, India. I have never heard the European Union described as a country before. Could he confirm whether this is the view of his group now: that the European Union is a country alongside India, Brazil, America, the great democracies of the world, as it were?
(DE) Mr President, I am following in the tradition of Winston Churchill, who said: 'We must build a kind of United States of Europe'.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, the continued existence of the death penalty in the US and the situation in Guantánamo Bay undermines the United States' legitimacy as our partner in advancing human rights. I appreciate President Obama's earlier calls to close Guantánamo very much, but we have yet to see decisive action by the US Government to respond to those calls or take action to reform their system for dealing with detainees, especially in the al-Nashiri case.
It is impossible to explain to people in Europe or in the world why the death penalty, abolished in Ukraine, Russia, Azerbaijan and everywhere else in Europe except Belarus, still exists in the USA. I believe it will be not too long before we get good news from America on this score.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, no one will disagree that terrorism needs to be prevented and that suspects need to be tried and held accountable, brought to justice in a fair trial, but in the so-called war on terror, we risk compromising precisely those freedoms and values that we claim to defend against destruction through terrorism. If we allow the erosion of fundamental rights and principles, we will have allowed the terrorists to win. If we act unjustly, we are less credible and even weak.
The declaration of the end of the war on terror was one of the first landmarks by President Obama. However, the failure to close Guantánamo Bay is disappointing and we must also look at ourselves in Europe. We are unwilling to take remaining inmates and we must get clarity on the participation in renditions and extrajudicial acts, including torture, on European soil. Yes, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards and open these dark pages of recent EU history. That means we must openly be able to talk about countries involved. Even in this Parliament, that still appears to be difficult.
The EU and US need to work together, not in violating human rights, but rather to address the most pressing threats in our world. We generally share core values, but the difference in our position on the death penalty, which I am proud to say is entirely banned in Europe, makes our joint voice less effective and less credible in the world. Let us lead by example in the free world and let us be known for our respect for human rights, indiscriminately of whether we are dealing with friends or enemies.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank all those colleagues who have reminded me that thinking on human rights can only be based on a non-discriminatory treatment of all violations of human rights, wherever they happen. This also applies whether they happen inside the European Union or outside the European Union. I believe that the time has come for Parliament to take a second look at the possible involvement of the EU Member States in these renditions and secret detention centres.
I do not think that anyone should be afraid to face the truth and certainly Parliament could, with a new report on this issue, bring some daylight to the issue and also do away with unjustified claims and suspicions.
As was mentioned this morning, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, whom I very much admire, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, explained to us that this is not a closed story, that it is still going on, and that he would very much wish for Parliament to cooperate with the Council of Europe on this important issue.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, the hypocrisy of the imperialist powers and their double-speak about human rights is demonstrated most graphically behind the wire in Guantánamo Bay. The WikiLeaks files have now given an even clearer picture of the grossest abuses of human rights that have taken place there - the widespread use of waterboarding, other forms of brutal torture to extract confessions and information - and they also revealed that hundreds of people were held in Guantánamo with no real evidence against them.
Yet Barrack Obama has not only ditched his promise to shut that horrific prison but has now approved the resumption of military trials for detainees. This hell-hole must be shut down immediately with all of the current detainees having access to fair trial before a civilian court, all of the secret CIA torture prisons in Europe must be shut down, the use of Shannon airport in Ireland for military and rendition flights by the CIA must be ended, and the barbaric death penalty must be brought to an end.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(RO) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Murphy whether he can also very quickly describe how political prisoners are tortured in Cuba.
Mr President, similar to Mrs Vergiat, I do not support torture. I do not support abuses of human rights anywhere. Here, I think we are talking about Guantánamo Bay. I think we are talking about secret prisons. I think we are talking about gross abuses of human rights and I think they are taking place in the biggest imperialist power in the world - the United States - and they should be condemned here.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, Guantánamo is important, but let us put it in perspective. The total number of detainees at Guantánamo since it was opened is 775. If you look around this Hemicycle now, there would be room here for all the 775 people that have ever been detained at Guantánamo.
Of course, this Parliament is strongly concerned about individual liberty and the due process of law, and rightly so, but we should recognise that some detainees do present a problem. For example, there was a British citizen who, when arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan carrying weapons and wearing the black turban of the Taliban, gave the explanation that he was in Afghanistan in order to take a computer course.
Parliament's concern for the absolute probity of the legal process at Guantánamo is impressive. However, I put it to the House that the cause of individual liberty under the law in the world would be better served if Parliament took more interest in the operations of the European Arrest Warrant. That European Arrest Warrant, by its nature, outflanks and bypasses legal protections from arbitrary arrest, and 500 million people in Europe are subject to it, while there are now just 171 detainees at Guantánamo.
(IT) Mr President, five days ago, we had news that five presumed authors of the 11 September attacks on the Twin Towers had been formally charged for the second time and that in doing so, the Obama administration had formally opened the way for these people to be tried before military commissions in the prison in the Guantánamo base.
Although my outrage at, and condemnation of, all terrorist attacks and of fundamentalist terrorism remains absolute, I believe it is necessary to call for the abandonment of the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances. I say this because we are opposed to every violation of fundamental human rights, always and wherever they occur.
In fact, we have already condemned the violation of the right of Guillermo Fariñas to come here to Strasbourg to receive the Sakharov Prize. We are talking here of the Mr Fariñas to whom members of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left did not wish the Sakharov prize to be awarded, saying that the designation had been exploited for political ends.
(FR) Mr President, here we have a prime example of the way in which the human rights issue is being used by the European Union for its own ends! We refuse to clearly condemn the United States for the criminal attitude it is displaying at Guantánamo. We refuse to acknowledge the responsibility of Member States of the European Union for allowing incarceration and torture in the secret prisons of the CIA.
We refuse to talk about the minors incarcerated and tortured by the United States at Guantánamo despite their being recognised by UNICEF as child soldiers who have been arrested, whereas we would not hesitate to denounce appalling dictatorships and vote for sanctions in other countries. When it comes to ourselves and to the United States, human rights appear to be less of a problem.
We, for our part, ask for universality of human rights. We also ask that our attitude be guided solely by the desire to serve the people and, in that context, want the United States to be tried for human rights violations, as well as the Member States of the European Union found guilty of complicity. International law must be complied with at all times, and torture and killings in the name of the war against terrorism must be stopped.
Last but not least - it is worth repeating - the base at Guantánamo must be closed, and Cuba must regain control of its entire territory.
Mr President, just as the right to life has a very special place among human rights, the death penalty has no place in democratic societies. Today, Europe is the only region in the world where the death penalty has been abolished, with the sad exception of Belarus. I would like to emphasise that the European Union remains strongly committed to the abolition of the death penalty everywhere.
There is no doubt that the transatlantic relationship is invaluable to the European Union, as is our mutual cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Still, I would like to take this opportunity to support the call on the United States authorities not to seek the death penalty in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
In conclusion, I would like to join all colleagues who urge countries that retain capital punishment to follow the European model, outlaw the death penalty and make abolition a universally accepted value. All executions, wherever they take place, should be condemned.
Mr President, I agree with my colleagues who are saying that, when we make such a serious accusation against a country, we have to be sure that we have all the necessary information. I do not think it is about double standards: it is about honesty and being professionally informed.
Regarding our subject, the USA is responsible for detainees' rights and has the moral obligation to abolish capital punishment. As transatlantic relations are primarily based on a set of common values, I hope that the American authorities will be more receptive to the EU's commitment to dropping the death penalty worldwide.
(RO) On a different note, I would like to reply to Mr Preda. The fact that we have this stance supporting the abolition of the death penalty does not mean that we undervalue the strategic partnership which we have with the United States and which we want for both the European Union and our countries. Relations with the United States are a priority not only for your group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), but also for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and will be from now on as well.
Mr President, I wish to stress the case of Abd al-Nashiri. He is not only emblematic because of Guantánamo and the death penalty, but also because he is one of the only two named victims of secret detentions in Europe. He has actually been granted victim status in the Polish judicial investigation, together with Abu Zubaydah, and given some concrete hope that the accountability process can move forward in Europe.
I believe it is, therefore, very important that the final resolution includes a clear call for full effective investigation into the European Union Member States' complicity and their renditions and secret detention programmes. As Amnesty suggested, however, it is vital to link these with the TDIP report and with the follow-up that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has agreed to take up in a new own-initiative report. Work in the European Parliament on the accountability front is absolutely key to keep these issues on the EU agenda.
(PT) Mr President, we have here yet another sorry example of the double standards that are so often evident in this House. What is at issue in this debate is the violation of human rights on the part of the United States authorities, arbitrary and illegal detentions, denial of the right to a fair trial, the practice of torture and capital punishment.
Some of these violations were committed with the proven complicity of Member States of the European Union, which placed their territories at the disposal of the CIA. Deplorably enough, however, in the joint motion for a resolution, we do not find a single word of condemnation of the United States authorities or of the European countries that were complicit with them in this activity. Such words are never in short supply when it comes to condemning certain other countries! In this case, demands have been softened into requests and the preferred approach is to emphasise, in the first point of the resolution, the close transatlantic relationship based on shared values and respect for human rights. You can see what this respect amounts to. It is lamentable, but very revealing.
Mr President, allow me to conclude by saying that, rather than to appeal for the Guantánamo base to be closed, it would be more to the point to call for the restoration of Cuba's sovereignty over this part of her territory, which is illegally occupied by the United States.
(FI) Mr President, we are certainly all unanimous on one thing: the EU must continue to cooperate closely in order to eradicate international terrorism. We must, however, make it much clearer that the war against terrorism cannot be waged at the expense of human rights and other basic values.
The EU has opposed torture and the death penalty for a long time, and this also holds true in the case of al-Nashiri. Two important principles must be borne in mind: an unconditional 'no' to the death penalty, and the fact that the war against terrorism must also be a war against the causes of terrorism. As you know, our transatlantic relations are based on values that we have shared for a long time, such as universal human rights and the right to a fair trial. That is why the United States of America must examine its military courts, shut down Guantánamo, and refrain from torture in all cases.
(PL) Mr President, many fellow Members have spoken of evidence of the existence of detention centres in Poland and Romania and evidence of the use of torture. I would like to make an earnest appeal for this evidence to be given to the Polish prosecution service, because an investigation into this matter is under way in Poland. The service is independent, and is also independent of the government, and the investigation is being monitored by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Lawyers acting for two Guantánamo prisoners are involved in the investigation, so if any evidence does exist, it should be placed in the hands of the Polish prosecution service so that it can be examined. In the previous parliamentary term, there was a parliamentary committee which investigated this matter. One of the members of that committee says about this in Poland today that there is evidence, in the form of a document signed by a former socialist prime minister of Poland, and which regulated the question of a detention centre. Asked whether he had seen this document, he said that he had not seen it, but had heard of it. So I hope those people who do have evidence and documents will hand them over, and not just talk about them.
(FI) Mr President, it has to be said that this debate and the political squabbling that goes on between us have not entirely served the purpose of this resolution in the best possible way or shown that in this House, and unanimously across the EU generally, we are keen to defend each person's right to an impartial trial and, moreover, that we are opposed to the death penalty.
We are categorically opposed to the death penalty, regardless of what crimes the accused may be guilty of. As has been made clear in many speeches here, the charges against al-Nashiri are very serious. He is accused of acts of terrorism in which many dozens of people have been killed. Consequently, it is by means of this resolution that we want to say that we indeed do not accept what he has done. We do not support terrorism, but we want to defend the principle where each person has the right to an impartial trial, and we are pleading in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
Mr President, honourable Members, the European Union is working closely together with the United States of America in the war against terror. Nevertheless, we attach a great deal of importance to protecting human rights as part of the process of combating terrorism. In June of last year, we - the EU and the USA - drew up a joint declaration on combating terrorism which states that the war on terror must be in accord with the fundamental values and the principle of the rule of law. The agreement specifies that all court proceedings against terrorist suspects must take place within a proper legal framework which ensures that appropriate procedural law will be followed and guarantees a fair trial which, as far as possible, is accessible to the public and efficiently run.
The European Union has been calling for the closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay for many years. We believe that a long imprisonment without trial is not compatible with international law. The EU therefore welcomed the fact that, more than two years ago, President Obama announced and organised the closure of the camp within one year. We have agreed a joint framework with the USA which forms the basis for the release and the admission into the EU Member States of some of the former prisoners. We are still prepared to work closely with the United States on further measures to close the detention camp.
Despite the decree issued by the President in March of this year in which he officially authorised a longer stay in Guantánamo for some prisoners, the Union hopes - no, in fact, expects - the government of the United States to continue to discuss this subject in Congress and to work towards closing the detention camp as quickly as possible.
The European Union and the Member States resolutely oppose the death penalty under all circumstances. We stand up for this viewpoint in the context of our relationships with all the countries of the world. In accordance with the EU guidelines on the death penalty, we are exerting strong pressure on the United States to abolish the death penalty at a national level, and at the level of the US federal states, and we are calling for a pardon in individual cases. We are therefore concerned about those prisoners who could be facing the death penalty.
We assume that the US authorities have not yet decided whether Muhammed al-Nashiri and the five people accused of complicity in the terrorist attacks 10 years ago can be sentenced to death by the court. I can assure you that the European Union is monitoring the proceedings carefully and will regularly raise its concerns with regard to the death penalty and the fairness of the trial with the US authorities in an appropriate manner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Saudi citizen Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was arrested in 2002 by the United States and transferred to the Guantánamo base in 2006, accused of war crimes and terrorism. The US Attorney General called for the death penalty. Indeed, the US authorities will decide by 30 June 2011 whether to support this punishment or not before a military commission which is due to issue a verdict. Terrorism must be condemned and those guilty of this crime must be punished without exception. However, all defendants must enjoy the right to a fair trial. The death penalty does not have a place in a country that defends human dignity, which is at the core of human rights. I share the sentiments of those calling for the Commission and Council to urge the US authorities to abolish capital punishment and ensure that this Saudi citizen receives a fair trial.
in writing. - The United States Department of Defence and its agencies have bluntly disregarded international law, in particular, the Geneva Conventions, with regard to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. It is unacceptable that the United States of America - considered a torchbearer of human rights and democracy - has engaged in ill-treatment and torture of the detainees of the camp. The European Union must insist that the US closes the camp immediately and conducts an independent and impartial investigation of the alleged violations of human rights that have taken place in the camp. The death penalty should not be exercised by any democratic country; therefore, we call on the US authorities not to implement it in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri or any of the other cases. The European Union and its Member States ought to persuade the United States to set a moratorium on the death penalty. In the interests of the credibility of the European Union, we must, at all costs, avoid setting double standards on matters of principle such as this.