PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA
President

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 9 June 2022.

(The sitting opened at 14.04)

  President. – Dear colleagues, last week, the remains of Dom Phillips, a journalist, and his friend and indigenous rights advocate, Bruno Pereira, were found in a remote region of the Amazon. They were murdered while travelling deep into the rainforest to speak with indigenous people to research on a book on the challenges they face. Our thoughts are with their relatives and their loved ones.

  Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicz?ca! Chcia?em z?o?y? formalny wniosek o prze?o?enie g?osowania w sprawie elementów pakietu „Fit for 55” na kolejn? sesj? Parlamentu. Dlaczego? Ju? uzasadniam. Europejczycy zmagaj? si? ze skutkami inflacji. ?ycie jest coraz dro?sze, bankructw coraz wi?cej, rodzinom nie starcza od pierwszego do pierwszego. Nie starcza dlatego, ?e w Europie brakuje stabilnych ?róde? energii.

S? trzy stabilne ?ród?a energii: w?giel, gaz i atom. Przez ostatnie lata walczyli?cie pa?stwo z atomem i walczyli?cie z w?glem. Zosta? nam gaz. Jakie s? tego konsekwencje? Widzicie. I dzisiaj, je?eli uchwalimy ten projekt, to b?dzie oznacza?o koniec dla w?gla, a jednocze?nie b?dzie oznacza?o dla wszystkich Europejczyków podwy?szenie cen ?ycia. Zastanówcie si? nad tym, bo trzeba wyci?ga? wnioski ze swoich b??dów. Inaczej b?dziemy znów uzale?nieni od Putina. Nawet Holandia, pe?na wiatraków, wraca do w?gla, Niemcy wracaj? do w?gla. Zastanówcie si? nad tym. Jeste?my odpowiedzialni za ?ycie Europejczyków.

  President. – Thank you very much. We have a specific item on the agenda on this before the vote and many colleagues will be given the floor to speak.

So there are no comments on the minutes.

(The minutes of the previous sitting were approved)

  President. – The S&D and ID groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations. Those decisions will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and shall take effect on the date of this announcement.

  President. – The PECH Committee has decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The report which constitutes the mandate for the negotiations is available on the Plenary webpage and its title will be published in the minutes of the sitting.

Pursuant to Rule 71(2), Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by tomorrow, Thursday 23 June at midnight, that the decision to enter into negotiations be put to the vote. If no request for a vote in Parliament on the decision to enter into negotiations is made before the aforementioned deadline, the committee may start the negotiations.

  President. – I would also like to inform you that, together with the President of the Council, I shall on Thursday sign one act adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 79 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The title of the act will be published in the minutes of this sitting.

  President. – We now come to the order of business. The final draft agenda, as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 9 June pursuant to the Rule 157, has been distributed.

I have received one request for urgent procedure from the AGRI Committee pursuant to Rule 163, on the following legislative file: ‘Exceptional temporary support under EAFRD in response to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’.

The vote on this request will be taken today once the order of business is established. If adopted, the vote will be held on Thursday.

Next, with the agreement of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposal for changes to the final draft agenda.

On Wednesday, one round of political group speakers on the Fit for 55 package is added before the vote on the reports by Mr Liese, Mr Casa and Ms de Lange, and Mr Chahim. As a consequence, the sitting is extended until 23.30.

Finally, on Thursday, the vote on the objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), ‘Veklury – remdesivir’, is taken off the agenda due to its rejection in the ENVI Committee.

If there are no objections, these changes are approved.

  President. – Thank you very much Mr Lamberts. I have received the same request from The Left and the S&D Group. This is a request for Council and Commission statements on ‘National vetoes to undermine the global tax deal’ to be added as the second point in the morning on Thursday. This would mean that the Council and Commission statements on ‘The relations of the Russian Government and diplomatic network with parties of the European extreme right and extreme left in the context of the war’ would be postponed, and this new debate would be wound up with a resolution that will be voted in July. I now put the request to the vote.

(Parliament approved the request)

The debate will take place and what was previously foreseen will be postponed.

The agenda is adopted and the order of business is thus established.

  President. – We now come to the vote on the request for urgent procedure from the AGRI Committee on ‘Exceptional temporary support under EAFRD in response to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’ (COM(2022)0242 – C9-0185/2022 – 2022/0166(COD)).

Before the vote only the mover and one speaker against may be heard, along with the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible. Is there any Member who would like to speak or shall we go directly to the vote?

We shall go directly to the vote.

(Parliament agreed to the request for urgent procedure)

The vote will be held tomorrow, Thursday 23 June at 11.30. The deadline for tabling amendments is today, Wednesday 22 June at 17.00. The deadline for tabling split and separate votes is today, Wednesday, at 20.00.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais vous dire que vous avez exercé une de vos prérogatives, c’est-à-dire le recours à l’article 183 pour changer l’ordre normal des votes sur le texte sur le marché de quotas d’émissions en Europe. C’est certes votre prérogative, mais normalement on vote en commençant par la proposition la plus ambitieuse et puis on recule jusqu’à ce qu’on trouve une solution qui recueille une majorité.

Je ne peux pas contester la légalité de ce que vous avez fait. Par contre, après que nous nous soyons parlés hier soir, j’ai bien lu votre message et là j’ai un problème. En effet, l’argument principal que vous utilisez consiste à dire: il y a trois groupes politiques qui représentent une majorité qui me disent qu’ils ont un accord – d’abord, le premier moyen de savoir qu’il y a une majorité, c’est de procéder au vote –, mais surtout, si ceci est considéré comme un argument recevable, alors je crains fort que la plupart des amendements des groupes qui ne font pas partie de la majorité von der Leyen ne seront plus jamais votés dans cette Assemblée, puisque l’argument que vous avez utilisé pour justifier le recours à l’article 183 est un argument qui peut être appliqué à peu près à tous les textes législatifs de cette maison.

Et je ne le dis pas parce que je suis dépité, parce que nous allons voter contre. Au contraire, je peux déjà vous annoncer que mon groupe votera pour le compromis, parce que nous pensons que c’est un bien meilleur compromis que celui qu’on avait atteint il y a deux semaines. Mais quant à la procédure, nous avons un véritable problème, parce que si ceci devient la règle générale, alors vous privez en fait les groupes politiques – passez-moi l’expression – minoritaires, de tout réel droit d’expression politique dans cette maison.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais, au nom de notre groupe de la gauche, appuyer la demande qui a été faite par mon collègue Philippe Lamberts.

On va examiner aujourd’hui, on le sait, un paquet de propositions majeures pour lutter contre le changement climatique. Notre planète brûle littéralement sous nos yeux et nous allons voter pour agir, parce que nous savons que nous n’avons plus le temps. Et, passez-moi l’expression, j’ai le sentiment d’assister à une forme de tripatouillage dans l’organisation des votes parce que, cela a été rappelé, il y a un principe assez simple qui gouverne l’organisation de nos travaux et de nos discussions, c’est de toujours examiner l’amendement le plus ambitieux. Et que vous soyez d’accord ou non avec la proposition, c’est plus ambitieux de mettre fin aux droits à polluer gratuits des grandes entreprises en 2030, plutôt qu’en 2032, c’est évident, tout le monde l’a compris.

Alors, Madame la Présidente, que certains ici dans cet hémicycle soient des fossoyeurs du climat, c’est une chose, mais je le dis, au moins assumez vos votes et laissez-nous un minimum nous prononcer sur la possibilité de rehausser le niveau d’ambition de ce paquet climat. C’est un enjeu climatique, mais c’est aussi un enjeu, je pense, démocratique.

  Esther de Lange, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would respectfully say to Philippe Lamberts, of course, that this is not a normal vote, in the sense that a lot of the amendments that are put forward now have already been voted on and rejected in the first vote that we undertook in the previous plenary. So, in that sense, I’m not that worried about setting a precedent, and I would therefore say that using Rule 183(3) is justified –voting on the compromise amendment first – which will also allow us, dear colleagues, I hope, to speed up the vote that we have to undertake today.

  Peter Liese, rapporteur. – Madam President, just to remind us, in committees we often have compromises that are voted first. I don’t remember that those colleagues that protested today are protesting when they are part of the compromise. So when there is a compromise, it can be voted first – and that’s what we should do.

I’m very grateful to everybody that worked so hard to bring us to a position in which we have brought compromises now. What is ahead of us is the biggest piece of climate legislation that we have ever had. If we agree on it, we will save more CO2 in the next eight years than we did since 1990 – and we are really leading the way. But to do that, we also need to look at competitiveness and jobs. That’s why some of the amendments that have been negotiated are also important to give the industry the necessary time to adjust.

What we are doing – and I’m heading here on the speaker that asked for a postponement – is that we give industry and citizens more breathing space in this difficult time. We give less ambition until 2026, but then we catch up.

One thing should be clear, it’s a hard time now, and we need to use more coal to replace Russian gas. But the future is for renewables and energy efficiency and clean technologies, and that’s why we are doing the right thing to take into account the crisis but also taking care of our planet and the future of our children and grandchildren.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, the substance of today’s vote – I think you all are aware – is to try to give an answer to the biggest challenge of our generation and not allow ourselves to play one crisis against the other, with the war, as the climate thing cannot wait.

I thank everyone for their readiness for the compromise today, even if we had to tell Frans Timmermans that we changed a lot in his proposal to improve it. Now, I think it’s a good compromise and we all understood how difficult it is to bring interests together. On the one hand, Fridays for Future, on the other hand, the ‘Yellow Vest’ movement – the social dimension – and the fear of a lot of young people in Europe to be another lost generation in terms of jobs and competitiveness. So I think we achieved a lot, and that’s why the EPP Group will vote in favour.

I want to use the opportunity, Madam President, to make a more general remark, because Philippe Lamberts, last time, when we had the vote and the defeat for the outcome, spoke about the pro—European majority. I thought a lot about this, also because of Assita, as she was also asking me about what I said, and I want to reflect a little bit also for our culture in the House, that, for example, the Czech colleagues from the ECR Group, having now the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic in their ranks, together with the Pirates from the Greens, are they allowed to vote? Are their rights populistic? For example, is our Belgian colleague, Mr Van Overtveldt, the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, a very respected colleague from the ECR family, allowed to vote? I would say ‘yes’.

Is it for the colleagues, for example, even for Marco Zanni, governing in Italy with Mario Draghi currently in office as prime minister, is he allowed to vote? I would even ask the question, Philippe, is it for the French Greens to be allowed now and in the future to vote because they work together with the Left Populist, Mélenchon – a person who was really asking for a breach of EU law.

So that’s why I am really …

(Boos and whistles from the floor)

(The President asked Members to respect the speaker and be quiet)

I really take it seriously. But Philippe, you have to answer the question as to who decides finally about who has the right to vote and be part of a compromise with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’? That’s why my only appeal – and that’s why I am using this opportunity – is don’t continue this talk about who is allowed to vote and who not. We are all elected and we all have the same right to decide about the future of Europe.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, hace dos semanas, mi Grupo de Socialistas y Demócratas votó en contra de un texto que no daba respuesta a las necesidades que plantea el cambio climático. Fue una decisión dura, sí, pero necesaria. Hubo quienes culparon a un grupo u otro de bloquear una legislación crucial.

Pero, ¿saben cuál fue la realidad de ese voto? ¿Lo que nos enseñó a unos y a otros? Que no podemos luchar contra el cambio climático si no estamos unidos, si no nos escuchamos entre nosotros y nosotras, si no somos capaces de hacer que estas ambiciones climáticas estén pendientes de una gran mayoría y no de una pequeña minoría, lo que hubiera sido una irresponsabilidad.

Desde ese voto hasta hoy, Europa ha sufrido una ola de calor extrema, sequías severas en muchas regiones y, tristemente, miles de hectáreas que han sido devastadas por incendios. En mi región, en Castilla y León, se han quemado más de 30 000 hectáreas en el mayor incendio de la historia de nuestro país, en la provincia de Zamora, en la Sierra de la Culebra —me permitirán que lance un mensaje de solidaridad con todos los vecinos y vecinas—. Tenemos que actuar.

Hoy votamos un compromiso. Y no es perfecto, claro que no lo es, como todos los compromisos a los que llegamos, porque los compromisos lo que implican es que todos cedamos para poder tener una posición común. Pero este es el punto de inicio que nos ha de permitir, como Parlamento Europeo, negociar con el Consejo y hemos de hacerlo sin perder ni un minuto. 2030 se acerca rápidamente y el único modo de actuar es hacerlo desde ya.

Por eso invito a todos y a todas, a todos aquellos responsables de esta Cámara, a todos los eurodiputados y eurodiputadas, a que dejen de colgarse medallas sobre quién es más responsable o no de este resultado y nos pongamos todos manos a la obra. Dejemos de culpabilizarnos y seamos responsables.

El paquete «Objetivo 55» es la respuesta necesaria en una emergencia climática, no solo para que este Parlamento pueda sacar adelante esta propuesta, sino para ser responsables con un planeta que no puede esperar más tiempo.

Y lo repito: desde el Grupo de Socialistas y Demócratas queremos trabajar por una transición verde con un corazón rojo y hoy damos un paso más para poder hacerlo posible.

  Pascal Canfin, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, il y a quinze jours, nous avions échoué et en tant que Parlement, c’était un échec collectif. C’était un échec pour le climat et c’était un échec pour cette institution. Et en quinze jours – en quinze jours seulement –, nous avons réussi à retourner la situation et à trouver les compromis qui nous permettent, je l’espère, de voter massivement le plus gros paquet en faveur du climat jamais voté en Europe. D’abord, avec une réforme du marché du carbone qui va nous permettre d’avoir le prix le plus élevé au monde, de très, très loin, et nous sommes à ce rendez-vous. Ensuite, avec une première mondiale: la taxe carbone aux frontières, le mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, et aussi un fonds social pour le climat qui nous permet de faire la transition, mais de la faire de manière juste. Je rappelle ce que disait Peter Liese à l’instant, nous avons aussi tenu compte de la situation exceptionnelle dans laquelle nous sommes, avec des prix de l’énergie déjà très élevés pour nos citoyens et pour nos entreprises. Nous avons donc trouvé les flexibilités nécessaires pour nos industries et pour les familles et les ménages les plus vulnérables.

Je remercie les négociateurs, Esther de Lange pour le PPE, Mohammed Chahim, pour le groupe socialiste et l’ensemble des négociateurs des trois textes qui sont soumis au vote aujourd’hui. Nous avons travaillé dur. Nous avons travaillé avec une méthode de coopération européenne, la seule qui nous permette de gagner à la fois en tant qu’institution et pour le climat. Je vous invite donc à voter massivement ce résultat, c’est un bon résultat pour le Parlement, un bon résultat pour le climat. C’est maintenant ou jamais.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, calm down, calm down. I think the French elections are over last time I checked.

Thank you very much. Every time I hear colleagues talking about ‘reality’ and ‘a realistic approach’, I want to remind you of one thing, and that is the reality outside. The reality outside is that temperature records are being broken on a daily basis almost. Look at the temperatures in Spain and France last week. Look at the flooding in Bangladesh and India. We now have forest fires in Alaska. That is the reality that we have to look at.

That is also why we as a Parliament, already two years ago, called for a climate emergency – because of that reality out there. And that’s also why we have said from the start, yes, this package is ‘Fit for 55’, but this package is not fit for 1.5 degrees – and that we should all acknowledge.

That doesn’t mean that we will not support this package. We as the Green Group will support this package because we know that for now, 55 is where this House wants to be. But let’s see, and let’s also use this as a stepping stone to do more for the climate, because we have to – not only for the climate, also for the new generation, also for the businesses. Everyone is talking about business, but the only way to give certainty to the business is to address climate change wholeheartedly.

And then the last point, and this is why we are happy with the current deal – finally, we have a social climate fund on the table as well, because really the hardest hit by climate are the poorest in our society. There is no climate justice without social justice and that all together brings the Greens on board in this package. But it’s a start. It’s a start to addressing the climate emergency that we declared together. So let’s act on it together.

  Aurélia Beigneux, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, c’est avec acharnement que les rapporteurs nous présentent aujourd’hui ces trois rapports du paquet climat. Il y a évidemment une urgence climatique, mais ce que vous appelez, vous, «urgence climatique» est en réalité une volonté de faire accepter de force votre projet idéologique.

Plutôt que de proposer un texte plus favorable aux classes populaires, vous vous êtes enfermés pour négocier un rapport encore plus contraignant. La droite et les socialistes se sont d’ailleurs mis d’accord sur toutes les compromissions possibles. Voici donc les conséquences irresponsables de votre politique: le charbon devra tourner à plein régime pour alimenter vos énergies renouvelables, coûteuses et peu efficaces; les prix des produits importés vont augmenter pour financer les efforts environnementaux des autres continents, sans aucune garantie de résultat, d’ailleurs; enfin, les citoyens européens devront répondre à l’injonction hors de prix du tout électrique, quitte à exploiter le travail d’enfants dans les mines de cobalt et de lithium à l’autre bout du globe. Mais visiblement, personne ne se sent concerné par cette ignominie. À en croire vos discours, c’est en alourdissant les contraintes environnementales en Europe que nous réglerons la crise climatique mondiale. Les Européens ne doivent pas assumer seuls l’intégralité des mesures environnementales pendant que les autres continents attendent de récupérer tranquillement nos parts de marché.

Enfin, autre hypocrisie: le gaz et le pétrole. En voulant vous débarrasser du gaz et du pétrole russes, vous ouvrez la porte au gaz de schiste américain et à son impact écologique désastreux. Vous savez pertinemment que nous devrons rouvrir encore plus de centrales à charbon, comme chez nos voisins allemands. Face à votre idéologie, nous proposons un investissement ambitieux dans la recherche, dans l’hydrogène, dans l’essence synthétique, ou encore dans les biocarburants. Nous mettrons en place un véritable réseau de circuits courts.

Enfin, nous le répétons sans cesse, ces efforts resteront inutiles si l’UE continue d’autoriser ces néfastes traités de libre échange. Un autre modèle de bon sens existe, et il a d’ailleurs été plébiscité la semaine dernière en France.

  Alexandr Vondra, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, two weeks ago in Strasbourg, we failed, but decided to mandate a solution to the ENVI Committee. The ENVI Committee, by vote, decided that every political group would have the right to table their amendments. And then in the meantime, some kind of a back room deal of the three major parties here changed this, without the committee. So we, the ECR Group, were ready to look for common ground and common solutions, but not under those undemocratic circumstances, not in supporting this package deal, which will bring more harm to businesses, which will bring more harm to poor people, and which will not solve the climate problem.

So we, the ECR Group, under protest against this undemocratic procedure, but also in disagreement with the substance of this so-called compromise proposal, will be voting against.

  Silvia Modig, on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, the process with this ETS file does not live up to what I consider to be the highest values of democratic decision-making.

In the last plenary session, the ETS proposal was voted down and referred back to committee. Where I come from, referring back to the committee means the plenary did not find the proposal sufficient, for whatever reasons, and by referring back to the committee, it gives the message it wants the proposal to be reworked and brought back with changes.

In this case, the committee sent back the exact same text the Parliament already once dismissed. The only action in the committee was a decision by the majority of coordinators to put the vote in the committee to send back the exact same text. No discussion in the committee was held. The shadows from each group who, even if the negotiations would be really tough, were all committed to finding a common compromise, were not called even for one discussion on how to proceed, nor on the content.

And now, with the facilitated voting order, we won’t even have the opportunity to express our position as the Renew, EPP and S&D compromise is exceptionally voted first.

Democratic decision-making is a competition between the best possible alternatives. It’s about defending yours with the best possible arguments, not trying to block others with any possible means you can find.

Madam President, this process was far from the respect this House deserves and far from what the climate needs. The climate politics of this House is completely contradictory. On one hand, we passed a climate law where we state all targets must be based on science and aligned with the Paris Agreement, and yet today we are voting on a proposal which is not according to science. And Mr Canfin, we are not in line with 1.5 degrees. This fact does not change however you try to spin it. And that’s not my opinion – that is science.

The climate crisis is not something far in the future. It is happening as we speak. Just put on the news and try to imagine how will you explain that you did not do enough when there was still a chance?

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, merci de me donner la parole, parce que j’ai été pris à partie par mon collègue Manfred Weber et je veux lui répondre.

Monsieur Weber, je n’ai jamais dit ni pensé, ni impliqué qu’un des 705 membres de cette Assemblée avait moins de droits à s’exprimer, ou moins de responsabilités à s’exprimer que n’importe quel autre. Nous sommes tous élus de manière égale par les citoyens européens. La seule chose que j’ai dite, Monsieur Weber, c’est que si d’emblée, au début des discussions sur le paquet «Ajustement à l’objectif 55», il y avait eu une volonté de discuter entre les quatre groupes – qui étaient d’ailleurs prêts à soutenir votre candidature au début de cette législature à la tête de la Commission; le PPE, les sociaux-démocrates, les libéraux et nous –, si d’emblée nous avions travaillé dans cette configuration-là, nous serions arrivés quinze jours plus tôt au résultat que vous et moi allons observer dans quelques minutes. C’est tout ce que j’ai dit!

Et qu’on ne me fasse pas croire que pour les Verts, il y a des députés plus égaux que d’autres. Il y a des députés avec lesquels nous ne sommes pas d’accord. Ça, c’est autre chose. Mais ils sont tous égaux, tous autant qu’ils sont – Monsieur Zanni, Monsieur Legutko, je ne suis pas d’accord avec leurs idées, mais ils sont députés, tout comme moi.

  President. – We will now proceed to the vote.

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

  President. – The next item is the ‘This is Europe’ debate with the Prime Minister of Croatia, Andrej Plenkovi? (2022/2709(RSP)).

Dear colleagues, we have the Prime Minister of Croatia, Andrej Plenkovi? with us today.

Prime Minister, welcome back to the European Parliament. It is a House that you know so well. We know you as a proud pro-European who, as State Secretary for European integration, laid the groundwork for Croatia’s accession to the European Union in 2013, and as a Member of the European Parliament you worked closely with all of us and also our Ukrainian colleagues.

Today, it is under your leadership, as Prime Minister of Croatia, that your country has successfully met all the legal criteria for entry into the euro area. Congratulations!

At the start of the year, our House celebrated the euro’s 20th anniversary and it is fitting that Croatia will soon become the 20th member of the eurozone. This marks a true defining moment for Croatia and our Union, but in order to remain credible we must also be consistent. Croatia is ready for Schengen. The European Parliament has long recognised that Croatia has met all the necessary requirements to join the Schengen area and we will continue to support that.

Croatia’s European story is a success story. It gives hope. It shows results. With a war on our continent, with the decisions that we must take this week, the importance of hope cannot be underestimated. But hope alone will only get us so far. When countries look to Europe, they expect us to keep our promises and they expect tangible progress, because Europe can be more. On that note I thank you, Prime Minister, dear Andrej, for being a staunch supporter of Europe, for your leadership and for your tireless endeavours to maintain a viable EU perspective for the region.

Prime Minister, Andrej, the floor is yours.

  Andrej Plenkovi?, Prime Minister of Croatia. – Honourable President of the European Parliament – dear Roberta, honourable Vice-Presidents, leaders of political groups, honourable members, I may even say dear friends and dear colleagues, honourable Vice—Presidents of the European Commission – dear Dubravka, dear Maroš, dear citizens of Croatia, dear citizens of the European Union’s Member States, it is my great pleasure to speak in front of you here in the European Parliament already for the third time during my six years as the Prime Minister of Croatia. But also it is my pleasure to be here with you as a friend, as a former colleague that was here between 2013 and 2016. And also, I would like to remember my friend David Sassoli, who was President of the European Parliament and who unfortunately left us too early almost half a year ago. This was a great loss for his family, but also to his home country Italy, and to the entire European Union.

Dear friends, when I was speaking last time here in this house of European democracy, I presented at the time – it was January 2020 – the programme of the first ever Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The title of this programme was ‘A Strong Europe in the World of Challenges’. What unfolded literally two weeks after that speech was the breakout of a COVID—19 pandemic, an event that has entirely altered the way of our lives, the way of our work, of our business, of our transport, of our education. It has literally altered the decision-making process the way we used to know it in the European Union. Croatia’s Presidency couldn’t have guessed better that the world was really facing a challenge, and the challenge was the biggest pandemic in 100 years. The challenge that made us be creative. The challenge that has demonstrated more togetherness among the EU Member States. The challenge that has shown the unprecedented solidarity and the incredible swiftness and efficiency in our common actions to protect our citizens from this plague that has hit the world and that has hit the European Union, that has threatened the lives of our citizens.

And in that respect, I think now – looking back at what was done in such a short period of time, not only with epidemiological measures, with the provision of protective equipment, with the incredibly fast discovery of the vaccines – we can say that we saved jobs, that we have kept the existential needs of our families, that we have managed to help our companies, our businesses, especially in the private sector, to bridge the threats that they were facing.

In that respect, I as a Prime Minister was conducted by the concept of our policy, which we call the modern approach, the modern take on sovereignty, what it means to a country which became internationally recognised only 30 years ago is important to understand. We were a nation that was seeking its independence, that was seeking its state for many centuries. We finally attained this strategic national objective only 30 years ago in the context of tectonic global changes and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the entire fall of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

And for us, attaining our sovereignty was very important. Having our own state was very important. But we have very quickly decided that the future of our nation belongs to the European Union, and everything we have done for two decades after we became internationally recognised – and the day of our international recognition is 15 January – we strived to become a member of the European family and we managed that in 2013. And when I say today my fellow Croats’ ‘modern take on sovereignism’ means that we are achieving our national goals by pooling and sharing our sovereignty with our friends and partners in the European Union, that we are helping our citizens with the extension of the Christian principle of solidarity, something that brings us together, something that helps us to overcome all the difficulties and problems that we would have otherwise overcome in a far more complicated and difficult and most likely slower manner.

That’s why this approach that we have for our own country, we are systematically advocating for the entire future of our European Union, because this debate comes in the context of a series of debates on ‘This is Europe’.

And I will say a few words about the biggest challenge, the challenge that started on 24 February this year, the brutal Russian invasion and aggression against Ukraine has literally annihilated the main principles of international law, the main approach to global governance, to international relations that we were cultivating for decades. A United Nations member country, a sovereign country, a neighbouring country has suffered a brutal aggression. For Croatia, who was also a victim of aggression of the Greater Serbian policy pursued by Miloševi?’s regime at the time, at the beginning of the 90s. It was very quick, spontaneous, almost a reflex reaction of first of all understanding what was going on in Ukraine, and second in extending our support and help.

The policy of Moscow has two elements. It has two sticks: one stick is the nuclear arsenal, the other stick are the fossil fuels. With these two sticks they were able to conduct such an aggression against Ukraine. At the same time, the two narratives, the narrative of literally not recognising the Ukrainian identity – if you say that you are not Ukrainians, but you are small Russians, then you’re going to the essence of the identity of a nation – and second, the almost incredible narrative of the ‘denazification’ of Ukraine was, in our view, quickly translated into a similar type of narratives that we had in 1990 vis-à-vis the Croats, almost the same when it comes to the identity and when it comes to the so-called denazification. And these parallels were very clear to us.

In my speech at the European Council on 24 February I said that this has happened in the moment where obviously the analysis in Moscow was that there were some weaknesses in the context of the timing of the state of play of the West, I will put it in general. The first one was the way of perception that the West left Afghanistan. Perhaps not in the most dignified manner. The second was the fact that there was a change of era in political terms in Germany. Second was that France was preoccupied with the Presidency of the Council and the presidential, and then, of course, which we witnessed recently, parliamentary elections. Third, the United Kingdom left, of its own reasoning, the European family. All this happened immediately, just as in 2008, when there were Olympic Games in Beijing – at the time there were Summer Olympic Games and there was an invasion of Georgia. Now it happened again after the Olympic Games, again in Beijing, the winter Olympic Games; it happened in Ukraine.

What were the ramifications? The ramifications for the Ukrainian nation are devastating. Tens of thousands of dead civilians and soldiers, 13 million people displaced, 6 million refugees, incredible material destruction and the occupation of territory. But what we have witnessed was the incredible mobilisation of the international community and support for Ukraine. We did the same. We paid our contribution with a lot of heart in political, in diplomatic, in economic, in financial terms, in humanitarian terms, by hosting the refugees in our country. There are over 20 000 Ukrainians who found shelter in Croatia and we are ready to receive them more. And of course we helped them, just as many other members of the European Union, by providing them means to fight for their freedom, for their independence, for their lives. And that was the procurement of military aid.

In that context, Ukraine applied for membership of the European Union. I was one of the members of the European Council who was immediately very clear and articulate about supporting this candidacy, not only because I was the Chair of the Delegation for Relations with Ukraine when I was an MEP here several years ago, but because I know how important this gesture in this context is for the Ukrainian leadership, but most of all for the Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian people, and therefore I am pleased to see that the position of many Member States is now being assembled around the wording that will most likely, at the historic European Council tomorrow and on Friday, actually grant Ukraine candidate status. I think this is important, it’s courageous and it is certainly deserved by a nation that is fighting for the European principles of freedom and of democracy. And therefore our support to Ukraine will remain very clear and unwavering.

Similarly, we support the candidate status for Moldova. We support the candidate status for Georgia, with conditions. We feel that this great leap of putting all of those three countries into the context of those states in the European continent who do have a European perspective is an important political evolution on the architecture of our Europe and of our continent. So if this is a debate on Europe, this is a big change on the way that we are looking at countries who are not yet members of the European Union.

In this context I will just say that the global perception of the current state of play of international relations is going to be focused on a rather simple notion – and that is not the cooperative way of conducting international relations, but more a conflictual way of international relations – whereby we should, on one side, have democracies and on the other side the authoritarian regimes. This is the gist of the historical moment that we are going through, and this is where the European Union, as one of those who are at the peak of the democratic standards globally, should have a leading role in explaining and doing the so-called political pedagogy wherever we can of what is actually at stake.

The ramifications are hitting everyone now of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, in terms of energy crisis, in terms of spike of the prices of the raw materials, construction materials, food, even risking famine, especially in the eastern part of Africa, but elsewhere globally too, and putting inflationary pressures on our own Member States. This is important to understand. No one is untouched by the magnitude of this first of all energy crisis, but even more deeper, by the rise of the prices of food. And here, just as we did in COVID, where we had a huge, unexpected problem, but we provided a very big and efficient answer, and the answer was powerful, The Next Generation EU was a bold European answer of the European Union of today to the problem that was hitting every single one of our citizens. And therefore the attempt which we are now doing with the initiative of the debates of the European Council, the Commission has come up with REPowerEU. It was an important gesture and the guidance of the Commission how we can organise ourselves by being true to the commitment which we said in Versailles we should gradually abandon the fossil fuels coming from Russia.

In order to be able to do that and still be able to organise a secure supply of energy to our economies and to our households, we need to organise ourselves in terms of energy grids in the European Union, and that means investments in gas pipelines, in oil pipelines, in liquefied natural gas terminals. Croatia did its part of the homework already before: we have one LNG terminal on the island of Krk with a capacity of 2.9 billion cubic metres now. We decided to invest in it to upgrade it to 6.1 billion cubic metres, which would be enough not only for our needs in terms of our economy and our citizens and our industry, of course, but also for the needs of our neighbouring states such as Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. Similarly, we use in the same way the Croatian Adriatic pipeline, which can provide enough oil for Hungary, for Slovakia, for Serbia; a pipeline that can easily provide enough for all the refineries in our neighbourhood.

That means that our geostrategic position is that we are one of the energy hubs – and the energy map of Europe is something we shall try to foster and strengthen in the years which are ahead of us.

Talking about the debate on This is Europe and our debate in the European Council tomorrow and on Friday, and especially the summit that is organised tomorrow morning with the Western Balkans, I will mention here to again the countries that are close to us, which we know well, where we are supporting their path towards the European Union, their European perspective, especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, with whom we share more than 1 000 kilometres of border, where Croats – people who are the same as Croats in Croatia – are one of the three constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina with which we have tremendous economic exchange. We are the second investor in Bosnia and Herzegovina and there are so many linkages – historic cultural, economic, transport – that bind us together. And we of course have been in favour of granting candidate status also to Bosnia and Herzegovina, very clearly because we feel that this country should not be the last wagon in the train of the Western Balkans towards the European Union. It would be a historical injustice, and therefore we are one of those Member States who are advocating granting a candidate status also to Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which context we would like also the urgent solution for the changes to the electoral law, which would enable that we have fair and just elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina where all the three constituent peoples, and especially Croats, are after the elections are represented as duly as they should be, as it was the letter and the spirit of the Dayton Peace Agreement, whose Annex IV is the constitution of the country.

And this position is very clear. It’s a friendly position. It’s a good neighbourly position. It’s a position that will help the European future of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia will be the one who will be the first one to support it wholeheartedly and continuously.

When it comes to the future of Europe and the debate after the Conference on the Future of Europe, I would here like to thank Dubravka Šuica, who is a Croatian member of the European Commission and the Vice—President for demography and democracy, and I think that she has done a great job, that the European Parliament has done a great job, that national parliaments have participated in this all-encompassing and inclusive process in bringing the European citizens closer to the European institutions, but more essentially to the gist of the debate of what we can do better together and how we can fill, perhaps, those voids in our cooperation, or how we can rectify some elements that should be done better.

From that respect, I think that the Conference on the Future of Europe, especially its conclusions with the suggestions and the recommendations, are a very clear signal of the European peoples, of European citizens from all of our Member States – in Croatia we had more than 250 events – on what the European institutions should do, what would be our direction. I was in particular pleased that there was a very, very clear signal that we should do more in terms of mixed shared competences when it comes to health cooperation. If there was one lesson learned from the pandemic, and we were in the driving seat, we had the presidency, our ambassador here, our permanent representative, triggered the mechanisms at the beginning, already at the end of January in 2020, and then we realised that actually this was an area where the European Union Member States should have more structured cooperation, more shared competences, more competences for the Commission to lead the processes which were done in the crisis management in such an efficient way as if everything was planned, and it wasn’t. So I think that this message that came from the recommendations should certainly be taken into account.

When it comes to this critical debate on the decision-making process, when it comes to the issues of foreign and security policy, I understand and fully can have a good comprehension of what the position of the European Parliament is, and I’ve read the resolution. Here, when you sit in the position of a Member of the European Parliament – and I’m lucky to have this experience – and when you sit in your position as a head of government, the optic is a little bit different. There are perhaps 97, 98, 99% of the situations where we find a compromise and agreement almost on everything. Occasionally there are situations where we differ, and we have sometimes difficulties in finding the understanding of other partners for the particular position we have. I’m always saying that conditioning or blackmailing is a very bad policy. We were a victim of blackmailing for several years before we became member and we don’t like it and we don’t support it. Then we always advocate how to use the right argument with the right approach to our friends, to our partners – we are all part of the same family – on how we can reach a compromise. And I have noted that many of the Member States, let’s say small and medium-sized Member States, are a little bit reticent because they know what the mathematics and calculation of the voting in the Council means.

And therefore I think that this issue merits a very careful and diligent follow—up. And we shall enter into this debate. We shall take duly into account the messages that were clearly sent to us by the European Conference and by the resolution of the European Parliament.

May I say a few words about the Croatia’s ambitions in this almost exactly ninth year of our membership – the end of the ninth year of our membership – because I think it’s important to mention it as well. I conduct as a prime minister a very pro-European policy, taking into account the national interest of my country, just as everybody else is doing and should do. And we decided in our programme six years ago that we want to be part of two deeper integrations: first the eurozone, and second the Schengen Area. And I was very pleased that Roberta has mentioned that Croatia’s membership of the eurozone seems to be set. I would like to thank your colleague Siegfried Mure?an, who is the rapporteur for Croatian membership of the eurozone. After a visit to Croatia he made a very sober, correct, but also positively toned report that the relevant European Parliament committee has overwhelmingly supported, and I’m sure the same happens in the plenary. And that gesture of the European Parliament is highly appreciated in Croatia, by my government, by our citizens. And that means that after the endorsement tomorrow and the European Council, we are facing the final decision at the Ecofin Council on 12 July.

That means that Croatia will join the eurozone on 1 January 2023, just as we planned, and just as we have carefully and diligently implemented our strategy for joining the euro, the programme for the conversion of the Croatian kuna to euro, the action plan that followed after our joining of the exchange rate mechanism and the banking union on 10 July 2020, five days after the second victory at the parliamentary elections that we had, and that we shall fulfil this key political, first of all, but also economic and financial objective on time and as we planned. And I thank you for your support and your understanding that Croatia becomes the 20th member of the eurozone.

At the same time, I think already next week, the Council will send the formal proposal for the decision to be taken on the Croatia’s membership of the Schengen Area also to the European Parliament, where I expect we will quickly have a rapporteur for Schengen who will also take a very diligent view on our readiness, and we have also worked very, very hard to fulfil these criteria where both Juncker’s Commission at the end of their mandate in October 2019 and again the Commission of Ursula von der Leyen – and I would like to thank in particular her and Commissioner Ylva Johansson – have estimated that Croatia has fulfilled the necessary criteria, and the relevant decision of the Council, after the opinion of the European Parliament, will be taken in autumn, and that we should also join this deeper integration on 1 January 2023.

That would mean that Croatia will be with both feet firmly in the centre of the European Union, firmly in the deeper integration, thus fulfilling the decision of the Croatian Parliament and of the Croatian people, and the referendum where we joined the European Union.

In that respect, we shall strengthen our economy. We shall strengthen the free movement. We shall facilitate the free movement of people. And it will be a back-up to a situation which we have today. We have the lowest number of unemployed people in Croatia in the last 30 years, only 103 000. We have the biggest employment in Croatia in the last 20 years, and we shall try to continue intervening, as I said many times, whether it was COVID or now the energy crisis, to keep the economic and social standard of our citizens, because this is clearly a key priority, which we will make sure happens because of synergy of using the European and Croatian sources.

The membership of the European Union has proven itself in times of crisis as one of those essential tools how we can fulfil the key national objectives and provide shelter and security for our citizens. In that respect, I will mention one important project also co-financed by the European Union budget means, and that is the Pelješac Bridge, the bridge that will be opened on 26 July this year that will physically connect the southern part of Croatia with the rest of the country. For us, it is a strategic objective that could not have had more symbolic connotations than it has, and that we should be continuing to invest in the new security threats, into our defence capabilities and into the contribution of Croatia to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. Croatia will procure 12 French Rafale multi-combat planes that will arrive in a little bit more than a year’s time, and that will strengthen our role as a partner in the European Union’s defence, but also as a reliable ally in NATO.

All of this brings me to a conclusion that the times are full of challenges, just as much as we thought when we were preparing our Presidency programme two and a half years ago. But even more when I look at the health crises, security crises, political crises, but also energy and existential crises for many of our citizens who without the role of the state, and without the concerted action, joint action through the principle of solidarity of the European Union, would not look for a better future as we can look at it today. Thank you very much.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Vice-Presidents Šuica and Šef?ovi?, dear Prime Minister, dear Andrej, welcome back to the European Parliament, as a former colleague. It’s great to have you here. A second term now as Prime Minister is a strong mandate from your citizens. You are leading Croatia and you are also leading the European debate.

When I have in mind that Croatia is the youngest member inside of the European Union today, it is impressive to see the European success story behind it. When I look for the arguments for this success story, what first comes to my mind is the dramatically reduced youth unemployment – to give the young generation a perspective, to reduce the demographic brain drain and all the negative developments over the last decades.

You mentioned already, and also Roberta mentioned, two other success stories, with now joining the eurozone, a big success. I want to underline, it’s not only for Croatia, it’s also for Europe, for the eurozone, a big success because it’s proof that it makes sense to do it together. It strengthens the authority of the euro in the world. Also now with the Schengen enlargement, you have the full support of your political group and I think also from the European Parliament, because you managed to do the necessary steps.

When we talk about the future of Europe, Croatia is there in a leading role. I also want to thank Dubravka Šuica for her service, for her work on the Conference on the Future of Europe. You also referred to the history of Croatia – and whenever I speak about the general approach, Croatians towards the euro, one event comes to my mind: when I was for the first time as a young MEP in Dubrovnik, in Dubravka’s city, and we visited there the Memorial Centre showing the pictures of the soldiers who died fighting, defending freedom, defending the country, but also freedom and democracy and the rule of law. I saw the pictures, I saw then the subtitles about the names and about the age of the people and of the soldiers that died. Then I read 1971, 1972, and that is my birth year as well. I grew up in Bavaria in a peaceful time and I always had and still have a lot of respect for those who fought for democracy in Croatia.

Croatia is, in a way, a good proof for what we have to do today. You said it. Because now it’s a similar situation to Ukraine and Moldova, for those who now stand up and fight for our values, to give them a similar perspective: that enlargement works, that we should be convinced about this model and this approach.

This is also true towards the Western Balkans, where we need now a clear timeline. I want to thank the opposition in Bulgaria today, because Boyko Borisov and GERB voted in favour of North Macedonia, to give them a perspective. I also want to express towards the Serbian friends that they have to decide whether they want to join the European Union or whether they are on the side of Russia. There is no in—between anymore.

We are making enlargement possible and we have to improve Europe. There you mentioned one aspect, when we speak about the unanimous vote, where we have probably different points of views. Croatia is now joining the eurozone. That means to give up sovereignty because you have no national currency anymore. But the idea behind it is to be stronger together, to be stronger together when we vote by majority. The same is for foreign affairs. We have no China policy currently as a European Union; this gives us clear proof that we are not capable to answer the big challenges, due to the decision—making mechanism.

So that’s why, you can imagine, we would be happy if you also would show up in the Council to present the idea of a Convention, because we need a deepening of the European Union to make Europe better, stronger for the future and Croatia will contribute to this. Thank you so much, dear Andrej, and welcome.

  Biljana Borzan, u ime kluba S&D. – Poštovana predsjednice, poštovani kolegice i kolege, poštovani premijeru, svakoj krizi najviše stradaju najsiromašniji i najranjiviji.

I dok neki razmišljaju kako staviti hranu na stol ili platiti režije, drugi se bogate. Energetska ovisnost te poreme?aji u proizvodnji rezultirali su rastom cijena, ali neke su otišle u nebo samo i isklju?ivo zbog pohlepe.

Oporezivanje neo?ekivane dobiti, kvalitetna kontrola cijena, borba protiv rastu?ih nejednakosti preraspodjelom resursa te stvaranje poštenijeg tržišta nam svima treba biti u interesu. No, to se ne?e dogoditi samo od sebe. Vi kao premijer i vaše kolege imate odgovornost zaštiti naše gra?ane. Ja to stalno ponavljam, no možda u Buxellesu bolje ?ujete.

Na kraju želim re?i kako je ulazak u eurozonu pozitivan. No, euro nije cilj, ve? sredstvo koje treba omogu?iti našim ljudima bolji život. Naš europski put ide dalje prema Schengenu, no zasad zastaje na slovenskoj granici. Kao i naši gra?ani, nadam se da ?emo i taj cilj što prije ostvariti.

  Klemen Grošelj, v imenu skupine Renew. – Gospa predsedujo?a, spoštovani predsednik vlade, pozdravljeni še v imenu Renew Europe in dovolite mi, da izpostavim nekaj vprašanj in dilem, o katerih bi želel slišati vaše mnenje.

Veseli nas, da bo Hrvaška vstopila v evroobmo?je in to vidim kot veliko priložnost tako za Hrvaško kot tudi za celotno Evropsko unijo. A zanima me, kaj bo hrvaška vlada storila, da bo v teh draginjsko zaostrenih ?asih prepre?ila zlorabo uvajanja evra za neupravi?ene podražitve, saj to vpliva na podobo Evropske unije v o?eh prebivalcev.

Naj še enkrat izpostavim popolno podporo naše politi?ne skupine evropski pomo?i pri obnovi potresno prizadetih obmo?ij, kjer pri?akujemo hitrejše in u?inkovitejše delovanje tako državnih organov, kot vseh vpletenih v obnovo. A naj ob tem izpostavim tudi naše odlo?no pri?akovanje, da bo hrvaška vlada prepre?ila zlorabe evropskih sredstev, kakršnim smo bili pri?a v preteklosti.

Vprašanj meja v regiji ne bom odpiral, a dovolite, da poudarim, da se v duhu na?ela vladavine prava, na katerem temelji in pade Evropska unija, pri?akuje, da se bodo odlo?itve sodiš?, tudi arbitražnih, spoštovale in implementirale ne glede na morebitna druga?na politi?na stališ?a.

Glede na aktualno vprašanje migracij v Evropski uniji bi rad slišal vaše mnenje in poglede na evropski migracijski pakt ter še posebej stališ?e, ali bo Hrvaška tudi v lu?i poro?il o »pushbackih« in smrtih na mejah, vklju?no z utopitvami v reki Kolpi, spoštovala in tudi uresni?evala v sodelovanju z vsemi sosedami najvišje standarde mednarodnega evropskega prava ter hkrati u?inkovito varovala zunanje meje Evropske unije.

Menim, da je naš skupni interes, da Schengen deluje, da je ne samo skupni prostor prostega gibanja ljudi in pretoka blaga, ampak tudi prostor skupnih in enotnih pravnih norm.

In na koncu ne morem mimo vtisa, kljub vašim današnjim besedam, da Hrvaška ostaja na neki na?in talka lastne politike do Bosne in Hercegovine, ki žal ostaja še vedno vpeta v podpori ozkoglednih in zgrešenih nacionalisti?nih politik. Tu so politike, ki na eni strani onemogo?ajo evropsko pot Bosni in Hercegovini in na drugi strani škodijo tako Republiki Hrvaški kot tudi hrvaškemu narodu v Bosni in Hercegovini. Gre za svojevrsten paradoks, katerega lahko kljub vsej kompleksnosti reši le jasna in trdna pot Bosne in Hercegovine v polnopravno ?lanstvo v Evropsko unijo. Bosna in Hercegovina kot del Evropske unije je v interesu ne samo Evropske unije, ampak predvsem Hrvaške in hrvaškega naroda v Bosni in Hercegovini.

Dovolite, zaradi pomena, ki ga ima turisti?na sezona, da želim Hrvaški uspešno turisti?no sezono, nam obiskovalcem pa ?im manj zastojev na tej poti.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Premier ministre, au nom du groupe des Verts, bienvenue ici au Parlement européen.

Dimanche dernier, je débattais avec Piotr Tolstoï, le vice-président de la Douma, le Parlement russe. Il m’affirmait que peu lui importait que l’Ukraine devienne candidate à l’Union européenne, parce que si tout se passe bien, d’ici un an, l’Ukraine n’existera plus. Il le disait comme ça! Il appelait à un nouveau Yalta en Europe. Autrement dit, nous avions de la part du pouvoir russe, et vous l’avez justement dénoncé, la réaffirmation de la doctrine Brejnev, celle de la souveraineté illimitée. Autrement dit, il y a des États, les superpuissances, qui peuvent être souveraines et les autres n’ont qu’à se soumettre à la volonté de ces grandes puissances. C’est ce qu’on appelle, en d’autres mots, l’impérialisme. Rien ne pourrait être plus éloigné de ce concept que cette idée, que vous avez justement soulignée, de souveraineté partagée. Une souveraineté librement partagée. Et je voudrais vous dire à quel point ça m’a touché de voir, après le démembrement de l’ex-Yougoslavie et le nationalisme qui s’est exprimé à l’occasion de la guerre, comme vous l’avez bien dit, la Croatie choisir. Choisir pour sa vocation européenne, choisir de renoncer… Je ne dirais pas de renoncer, mais de partager sa souveraineté nouvellement acquise avec une trentaine d’autres États, ici en Europe. Et le fait de voir la Croatie rejoindre l’euro, rejoindre Schengen, continue à me réjouir. J’étais membre du Parlement européen quand votre pays est devenu membre et je reste aujourd’hui absolument convaincu que l’Union européenne est la gouvernance du futur.

Je voudrais vous dire, peut-être parce qu’il appartient aux amis de se dire leurs préoccupations respectives, deux points, deux soucis que j’ai à l’égard de ce qui se passe dans votre pays – je rêve évidemment que tous les États membres soient exemplaires en tous points. Il y a deux sujets que je voudrais évoquer.

Le premier, c’est la manière dont les fonds européens sont attribués dans votre pays. Il me revient que trop souvent, l’argent européen est attribué plutôt sur une base de premier arrivé, premier servi, que sur la base des mérites des projets qui sont déposés. Or, la valeur du budget européen, la valeur des projets européens, c’est précisément d’être capable de faire ensemble des choses que chacun d’entre nous est incapable de faire seul. Concernant ces projets, vous ne serez évidemment pas étonné qu’un Vert vous rappelle le défi de la transition écologique de respecter les limites biophysiques de la planète. La Croatie est aux premières loges aussi du changement climatique, mais dispose aussi d’un potentiel énorme en termes d’énergies renouvelables. Et donc, je voudrais tellement que la Croatie soit un pionnier de cette transition.

Deuxième point d’inquiétude: vous avez parlé de l’accession à la zone Schengen. Vous le savez, parce que je vous l’avais dit lorsque nous étions venus à Zagreb pour l’ouverture de la présidence croate, nous continuons à recevoir des messages étayés selon lesquels il continue d’y avoir des refoulements violents aux frontières du pays. Vous nous aviez promis, à l’époque, que tout cela serait investigué et que cela cesserait si des choses illégales se passaient, mais nous continuons à recevoir ces messages et donc notre préoccupation demeure. Oui, absolument, la Croatie a toute sa place dans Schengen, mais pas au prix de contribuer, quelque part, à faire de l’Europe une forteresse.

Je voudrais terminer, Monsieur le Premier ministre, sur une note un peu plus personnelle. Depuis plus de 30 ans, j’ai la joie d’avoir un beau-frère d’origine croate. Il se trouve dans les tribunes au moment où on se parle. Son père, originaire de Varaždin, arrivé en Belgique dans les années 60, était travailleur dans la construction, mais il a toujours eu la passion de l’écriture. L’un de ses multiples ouvrages décrit à hauteur d’homme la réalité de la vie en Yougoslavie au XX? siècle. Il y décrit son attachement viscéral à sa terre ancestrale, où il est retourné vivre le dernier chapitre de sa vie, à ses coutumes, à sa religion, aux valeurs familiales. Alors, je sais l’estime qu’il vous porte et je sais donc qu’il sera fier que vous receviez cet ouvrage de mes mains.

  Gunnar Beck, on behalf of the ID Group. – Madam President, I am not going to speak for two, or two and a half, additional minutes, but maybe a few seconds more. I’m counting on your indulgence.

Frau Präsidentin! Premierminister Plenkovi?, meinen Glückwunsch zum Euro-Beitritt!

Aber die Eurozone hat seit Jahren kaum Null- oder Negativwachstum. In der Hochtechnologie und den Wachstumsindustrien sind wir hoffnungslos abgeschlagen hinter China und den USA. Die Inflation grassiert und liegt bei 9 %; in der Schweiz liegt sie bei unter 3 %. Den deutschen Sparer allein kostete der Euro 2021 rund 160 Milliarden Euro – unbezahlbar, volkswirtschaftlich desaströs und auf Dauer vertragswidrig angelegt, denn die Eurorettung vollzieht sich seit Jahren im offenen Widerspruch zu den Artikeln 123 AEUV, 125 AEUV, 127 AEUV und 310 und 311 AEUV.

Der allen Katholiken wohlbekannte und damit auch Ihren Landsleuten geläufige Thomas Morus rügte einst seinen meineidigen Widersacher Cromwell mit den Worten: „Der Einzelne mag versucht sein, sein Heil für die ganze Welt zu geben, aber für Wales?“ Sie nun geben Ihr Land auf für den Euro. Eigentlich sollten das nur Länder, die sich selbst längst schon abgeschrieben haben. Das will ich nicht hoffen für Ihr Land.

  Eugen Jurzyca, za skupinu ECR. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, chorvátsko sa budúci rok stane dvadsiatym ?lenom eurozóny a to je príležitos? nielen zažela? Chorvátsku úspech, ale aj poveda? si zopár slov o eurozóne, ktorá bola zamýš?aná ako klub krajín s nízkym dlhom, zdravými verejnými financiami, ktoré budú zdie?a? stabilnú menu. No s príchodom finan?nej krízy sa táto paradigma do ve?kej miery zmenila. Nákupy štátnych dlhopisov zo strany ECB menia eurozónu na transferovú úniu. Pravidelne sú porušované fiškálne pravidlá a tie boli vlastne s príchodom pandémie de facto zrušené. Verejné dlhy narástli, inflácia dosahuje rekordy. Možno aj to sú dôvody, pre ktoré korektný akademický výskum nazna?uje, že viacero nových aj starších ?lenov eurozóny by dnes malo vyšší výkon ekonomiky, keby si ponechali vlastné meny. A to hovorím ako podporovate? vstupu Slovenska, mojej krajiny, do eurozóny. Želám Chorvátsku a eurozóne, nech je jeho ?lenstvo v nej úspešným príbehom pre obe strany.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Ministerpräsident! Lassen Sie uns über Europa reden, denn es gibt doch einiges zu ändern, und darüber müssen wir sprechen. Wir brauchen eine EU, die sich öffnet, und dazu gehört – das ist meine Position –, erst einmal alle Länder des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens auf gleicher Augenhöhe in die EU zu führen, als Vollmitglieder. Es ist Zeit, dies zu tun.

Wir brauchen eine EU, die nicht nur vermeintlich den Großen das Sagen überlässt, sondern vor allem auch mehr Mitsprache für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ermöglicht, und eine EU – Sie haben das angedeutet –, die Armut bekämpft: Wir reden über Lebensmittelpreise, Energiepreise und vieles andere mehr; dazu muss mehr beigetragen werden.

Und – das sage ich auch: Nichts ist ohne Freiheit und Demokratie in diesem Europa – nichts. Das fängt damit an, dass in allen, allen Mitgliedstaaten – auch in Ihrem und auch in meinem, das sage ich ganz offen – Frauen ein Selbstbestimmungsrecht gewährt wird über ihren Körper und in diesem Fall auch eine Abtreibung akzeptiert und nicht sabotiert wird. Das ist so eine simple Sache, die wir immer noch nicht im Griff haben.

Und es geht weiter, dass Menschenrechte an den EU-Außengrenzen endlich respektiert werden müssen. Ich bin ganz oft in Ihrem Land gewesen, ganz oft. Und ich sage Ihnen, es ist unerträglich, wie dort mit Geflüchteten umgegangen wird – ich kann es nicht sehen –, die täglich wirklich gepushbackt werden, wieder und wieder. Wie passt das zusammen mit Ihrer positiven Aussage, ukrainische Flüchtlinge mit offenen Armen aufzunehmen – was ich für sehr, sehr wichtig erachte? Das passt nicht. Ich kann dem afghanischen Soldaten an der bosnisch-kroatischen Grenze, der jahrelang gegen die Taliban gekämpft hat, nicht erklären, warum er nicht in die EU darf, und auch nicht der nigerianischen Christin, die in ihrem Land verfolgt wird. Wir müssen das ändern.

Es muss Schluss sein mit dieser Schubladenpolitik, mit zweierlei Maß. Und weil das so ist, übergebe ich Ihnen das Werk von sehr vielen NGOs: Es ist ein Black Book über Pushbacks und viele andere Dinge. Da geht es nicht nur um Kroatien, es geht um viele Länder Europas. Lassen Sie uns bitte über diese Themen sprechen und wirklich etwas ändern!

  Ivan Vilibor Sin?i? (NI). – Poštovana predsjednice, poštovani gospodine Plenkovi?, recesija u Hrvatskoj dostigla je najvišu razinu. To je u redu. To je politika koju vi vodite sa svojom pravomo?no osu?enom organizacijom sasvim legitimno jer su gra?ani naše Hrvatske to odabrali.

Ve?ina stranaka u našem Hrvatskom saboru dignula je ruke za sankcije Rusiji. Dakle, imali ste podršku svoje stranke i oporbenih stranaka u hrvatskom parlamentu. Stoga vam se recesija koja nas je snašla doista ne može zamjeriti.

Od 195 zemalja svijeta Rusiji su sankcije uvele njih tek 45 i sve snose posljedice, ali to je volja gra?ana i nema se što prigovoriti. Me?utim, ja se ne bavim samo kratkoro?nom politikom, nego dugoro?nom politikom. Ja istražujem korupciju, sakupljam, slušam gra?ane, prijavljujem, gradim mrežu u koju vaši koruptivni ?lanovi i najbliži suradnici padaju jedan za drugim.

Vi danas možda imate odre?enu podršku naroda, hrvatskih gra?ana, kojima se informacije selektiraju i koji ne znaju pravu i cijelu istinu, ve? onu koju vi i vaši zaštitnici želite prikazati. Ali nemojmo zaboraviti, bugarski premijer Bojko Borisov imao je podršku državnih institucija i medija. Procesi protiv njega razvla?ili su se 13 godina, a Bruxelles mu je nažalost ?uvao le?a. A onda je bugarski narod progledao, izašao je na ulicu 2020. godine. Mjesecima su trajali prosvjedi u Sofiji. Ogor?eni bugarski gra?ani zaustavili su me na ulicama Bruxellesa i molili me za pomo?. Do?ite u Sofiju. Zašto EU tolerira toliku korupciju u Bugarskoj ? Bio sam govornik na tim bugarskim prosvjedima i dao svoj doprinos borbi protiv kriminala.

Na koncu i gospodin Borisov pao je s vlasti. Bruxelles mu je okrenuo le?a i danas je u zatvoru.

Vrijeme je, gospodine Plenkovi?u, da i vi sami sebe zapitate tko se zadnji smije, gospodine Plenkovi?u.

  Andrej Plenkovi?, Prime Minister of Croatia. – Madam President, thank you very much to the President of the European People’s Party and the EPP Group in the Parliament, Manfred Weber, for the positive comments about Croatia’s advancement and especially the fulfilment of the criteria for joining the eurozone. When it comes to the follow-up on the Conference on the Future of Europe, we shall certainly debate it within the Council.

As I told you, having been in the European Parliament, I can completely understand the position of the European Parliament and I will certainly give a constructive contribution of Croatia to what we can do to improve our decision-making. And as I said, in terms of foreign policy, we basically agree on 97, 98, perhaps 99% of issues, and there are a small margin of those dossiers where we need more consultation and perhaps more time to forge a compromise.

To Ms Borzan on energy, it’s good that you mentioned it, now I can repeat that we have provided an HRK 5 billion package to subsidise our households, to subsidise our micro-, small and medium-sized business, to subsidise our farmers, to subsidise our fishermen, to subsidise our pensioners, to lower the VAT from 25 to 5% from 13 to 5 for all those products which are mostly used by our citizens and thus mitigate the effects of the spike of the prices. And we shall continue to do that again. And not only the government, the state inspectorate, but also the watchdogs in terms of consumer protection should play their role and strongly blacklist those who are trying to profit in this crisis and unduly and unjustifiably raise the prices of their products.

When it comes to Mr Grošelj, thank you for the support for the euro. When it comes to the EU funds and to the aid of the European Union through the EU solidarity fund for earthquakes, I’m grateful here for the Commission who has helped us to not only receive for two terrible earthquakes in Zagreb and the Banovina region almost EUR 1 billion, we are streamlining the efforts of all the ministries in order to speed up the process of reconstruction and also, on the general comments on the use of funds, we are using them in the best practices that exist in the European Union with all the scrutiny and the controls that are required.

On the rule of law and pacta sunt servanda, generally, yes, absolutely, but at the same time, you are aware, coming from Slovenia, that the unfortunate arbitration process on the border dispute fell and was inevitably and irretrievably lost and denounced by the Croatian Parliament because of the fraudulent activities that were happening between the Slovenian agent and the Slovenian member of the Arbitration Council. So we want to solve the bilateral border issue, but not on the basis of the process which could not have been cleansed as if it was the mistake of a first grader at school by making a typing error on the alphabet.

When it comes to the migration pact, we of course support it, it is part of our approach to Schengen. Schengen needs to be renovated, upgraded and updated, but Croatia should be within Schengen.

When it comes to your comment on Bosnia and Herzegovina national politics – nationalistic politics – please bear in mind Bosnia and Herzegovina applied for membership of the European Union in February of 2016, when Dragan ?ovi?, – the leader of perhaps in your eyes a nationalist party which is Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina, our sister party – was chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This démarche of filing an application was more supported by the Members of this House – Croatian Members of the European Parliament, both from HDZ but also from Social Democrats and some other friends such as at the time Romanian rapporteur Preda – than many Member States of the European Union. And we were the first one to support the European Union membership path of Bosnia and Herzegovina and we shall continue to do so and continue to extend the knowledge and understanding of the country that is based on the concept of one state, two entities and three constituent peoples which should be equal. None of the constituent peoples, in this case Croats, in the territory or federation should not be treated as not equal. This is the only basic, simple, normal, decent demand and we will stick to it.

The other issue that Mr Lamberts mentioned, when it comes to the choice of Croatia for being part of the European Union, I think we had this debate when you visited Croatia two and a half years ago, I really enjoyed it and I think you understood that we are doing this of our own choice, of our own free will. We shall continue to do it. Pooling and sharing of sovereignty is something we support. We think we are stronger in the European Union than we would have been if we were not. And therefore, the full understanding of the concept of European integration is something that we fully support.

On Schengen and the fact that Croatian police – more than 6 000 members of the Croatian police – is protecting Croatia’s external border, is a job which is very difficult to do, a job where they have the total scrutiny of the entire Ministry of the Interior. Every single complaint is being checked and verified. We have established an entirely independent monitoring mechanism out of our own will in cooperation with the European Commission. I think that the report of the independent monitoring mechanism will be out sometime next week.

In the process of scrutiny in the European Parliament when the opinion on Croatia’s membership of Schengen will be done, we will be open to explain and to provide arguments on any potential allegations, if there are some, and we shall provide answers. But generally the Schengen acquis, we are ready. The legal standards we are ready. The protection of the border, we are completely ready.

Plus, we are the country that never made a political decision to elevate walls, no fences, no barbed wires, not with Serbia, not with Bosnia and Herzegovina, not with Montenegro. These are our friends and neighbours, with whom we should not have physical barriers. And this is something that we can only protect by the presence of Croatian police along more than 1 300 kilometres of our external border.

To Mr Beck and Mr Jurzyca, two points: Croatia is a highly euro-ised economy. Our savings, our loans are basically more than 50-60% in euros. Some 70% of tourists that visit Croatia come from the eurozone. Our trade is with the eurozone. This was the logical choice, logical follow-up of our accession treaty. We are basically abrogating the derogation and this is the work that has been done diligently, fulfilling all the criteria with the action plan and clear opinions of the Commission and of the ECB actually give us argument to continue to do that. For our economy the euro will bring benefits and it will not be a negative circumstance.

When it comes to Schengen, I think I have answered Ms Ernst. I will look at what you have given me. When it comes to Mr Sin?i?, I think that it’s no surprise to the Croatian public that you come here and advocate basically the Russian position. This is very clear. You will belong to one of those political actors who is strongly supported by the Russian actors. You did this in the Croatian Parliament. You are doing this now in the European Parliament. It’s your right, but also your responsibility.

When it comes to the fight against corruption, I said at the beginning of my mandate six years ago, no one is immune to the independent work of our judicial institutions, our state prosecutor, our special prosecutor for corruption and organised crime, our police, they do their work independently.

Those who will, in the legal process, be declared as responsible for something, they will be condemned, or if they are not, they will be free, just as in any other country in Europe. Corruption is a negative phenomenon, but is not a phenomenon that is only applicable to Croatia. It is unfortunately a phenomenon that exists for many years and we are fighting it strongly with the means, with the changing of the laws, with the action plans, and with concrete cases.

And those who know Croatia better certainly know that there is no government influence whatsoever on the work of the prosecutor or our judiciary or the police. And it will remain in such a manner because at the end of the day, when we joined the European Union in 2013 and you of course didn’t contribute one millimetre for Croatia becoming a member of the European Union, I did, members of my party did – unlike you and perhaps yours, so this is a huge difference between the two of us. We have been Europeans from the first day. You have joined the train and you are enjoying the benefits of being an MEP, even though you obviously do not believe in the European Union and haven’t contributed to Croatia’s European journey at all. But that is democracy. I respect it. And I was very happy to be here with you today.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über die Vorbereitung der Tagung des Europäischen Rates mit den Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission betreffend die Vorbereitung der Tagung des Europäischen Rates am 23. und 24. Juni 2022 und des Treffens mit den Staats- und Regierungschefs des westlichen Balkans am 23. Juni (2022/2660(RSP) sowie den Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission betreffend den Status der Ukraine, der Republik Moldau und Georgiens als Bewerberländer (2022/2716(RSP)).

Ich erinnere Sie daran, dass mit Ausnahme der ersten beiden Reihen, die für die Fraktionsvorsitzenden vorgesehen sind, freie Sitzplatzwahl besteht. Nachdem Sie Ihre Abstimmungskarte in das Abstimmungsgerät eingeschoben haben, können Sie über Ihr Abstimmungsgerät spontane Wortmeldungen und blaue Karten beantragen. Bitte führen Sie daher Ihre Abstimmungskarte stets mit sich. Entsprechende Anleitungen sind im Plenarsaal verfügbar.

Wenn Sie sich für eine spontane Wortmeldung melden möchten, ersuche ich Sie, dies ab jetzt zu tun und nicht bis zum Ende der Aussprache zu warten. Außerdem möchte ich Sie darauf hinweisen, dass blaue Karten auch für eine kurze Wortmeldung hochgehalten werden können und dass danach eine Anschlussfrage zulässig ist.

Ich weise darauf hin, dass Wortmeldungen im Plenarsaal weiterhin vom zentralen Rednerpult aus erfolgen, außer spontane Wortmeldungen, blaue Karten und Bemerkungen zur Anwendung der Geschäftsordnung. Ich ersuche Sie daher, die Rednerliste im Blick zu behalten und sich kurz vor Beginn Ihrer Redezeit zum Rednerpult zu begeben.

Die Bemerkung betreffend die ersten beiden Reihen betrifft natürlich nicht Rat und Kommission.

  Clément Beaune, président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente de la Commission européenne, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, demain et vendredi, les chefs d’État et de gouvernement de l’Union européenne se réuniront à nouveau à Bruxelles pour le Conseil européen du mois de juin, où ils auront l’occasion de discuter – dans un moment qui reste évidemment extrêmement préoccupant pour notre Europe – de la situation de notre continent, au sens le plus large, de la situation, bien entendu, en Ukraine, des demandes d’adhésion formulées par l’Ukraine, la République de Moldavie et la Géorgie, de questions économiques importantes et de la conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe.

Nos dirigeants rencontrent également leurs homologues des Balkans occidentaux, dès demain, et ils discuteront à cette occasion des défis découlant de l’agression perpétrée par la Russie contre l’Ukraine, car il est essentiel, dans ce moment où la déstabilisation de notre continent touche aussi la région des Balkans occidentaux, de rappeler notre engagement collectif et d’assurer notre volonté de stabilisation, aussi, de cette région qui reste essentielle à notre sécurité collective.

Bien sûr, en premier lieu, le Conseil européen reviendra sur les différentes dimensions de la guerre d’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine, avec un point sur les derniers développements et sur le soutien continu qu’il convient d’apporter et d’amplifier à l’égard de l’Ukraine pour préserver sa capacité de résistance économique, sociale, militaire et financière et, le plus rapidement possible, permettre sa reconstruction. Je salue à cet égard, au nom du Conseil, les initiatives de la Commission européenne, qui a assuré notre réponse forte et unie avec votre plein soutien, très large sur ces bancs.

L’Union a montré tout ce soutien politique par un ensemble de sanctions visant à faire pression sur la Russie et sur la Biélorussie. Nous maintiendrons cette pression pour affaiblir – et nous le faisons d’ores et déjà concrètement – la capacité du Kremlin à financer sa guerre, en œuvrant aussi à l’alignement des pays tiers sur les sanctions de l’Union européenne et en luttant contre toute forme de contournement.

Le Conseil abordera également les enjeux de sécurité alimentaire liés à la crise actuelle. L’instrumentalisation parfaitement cynique des denrées alimentaires par la Russie engendre une insécurité alimentaire supplémentaire qui n’est pas liée aux sanctions, mais bien liée à l’agression produite par la Russie. Nous soutenons tous les efforts engagés en ce sens. Le Président de la République et le G7 avaient eu l’occasion de défendre une initiative alimentaire, dite FARM, que nous développerons dans les prochains jours. Nous soutenons pleinement les efforts du Secrétaire général des Nations unies en ce sens et accélérons nos efforts sur les corridors de solidarité pour permettre au maximum l’exportation des denrées alimentaires, par la voie terrestre notamment.

Bien sûr, ce qui retiendra le plus notre attention dans nos débats, c’est la demande d’adhésion que j’évoquais de l’Ukraine, de la Moldavie et de la Géorgie. Nous l’avons dit dès les premiers jours de ce conflit, dès le sommet de Versailles: l’Ukraine fait partie de notre famille européenne, sans aucune hésitation.

À la suite de la demande d’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’Union, le 28 février 2022, le Conseil a agi rapidement et a invité la Commission européenne à rendre son avis, ce qu’elle a fait également extrêmement rapidement – je veux saluer aussi les efforts du gouvernement et du président d’Ukraine eux-mêmes, qui, dans une situation ô combien tragique et difficile, ont produit l’ensemble des éléments nécessaires à l’examen de cette candidature, comme la République de Moldavie et la Géorgie.

Je tiens à remercier la Commission d’avoir procédé de façon aussi diligente et publié les avis détaillés il y a quelques jours. Le Conseil européen se penchera dès demain sur cette question afin de discuter de l’approche à suivre. Soyons très clairs, je crois et j’espère que nous serons capables de dégager, dès ce sommet européen, un consensus pour donner un signal attendu, celui de l’octroi d’une candidature, qui n’est pas à confondre avec une adhésion immédiate. J’ai eu l’occasion d’en débattre lors du Conseil des affaires générales avec les différents pays. Je crois que cet équilibre – le signal rapide et l’adhésion exigeante – est celui qui est aujourd’hui le plus partagé du côté des États membres et du Conseil.

Il y aura sans doute une différenciation à faire entre les questions de l’Ukraine, de la République de Moldavie et de la Géorgie, comme l’indique la Commission dans son propre avis. La Géorgie a manifesté une intention européenne très claire et la reconnaissance d’une perspective est sans doute nécessaire. Il y a une situation qui est différente, notamment dans les gestes attendus. Je pense à la libération de prisonniers, symbolique pour les réseaux humanitaires, et d’autres actions européennes nécessaires.

La question des Balkans occidentaux n’est évidemment pas déconnectée, je le disais. Il ne peut pas y avoir de concurrence des processus d’adhésion. C’est pourquoi nous devons accélérer notre effort de soutien concret dans les différents domaines de coopération – énergétique, sécuritaire et autres – avec les Balkans occidentaux – c’est l’objet de la réunion –, et redire que l’adhésion la plus rapide possible des pays des Balkans occidentaux est nécessaire, mais je le disais aussi, que l’adhésion aux valeurs de l’Union européenne, l’alignement sur nos politiques de sanctions en particulier, qui témoignent de ces valeurs, est indispensable.

Je veux dire un mot, pour conclure, sur cette idée de grande Europe qui se trouve dans le projet de conclusions du Conseil européen et qui fait l’objet d’une discussion politique importante. La situation tragique que nous connaissons, la guerre à nos portes et sur notre continent, nécessite de repenser nos cadres. Nous ne le ferons pas d’un coup, facilement, en un jour. Mais, au-delà du processus d’adhésion et en complément de celui-ci – j’insiste sur cette dimension complémentaire.

C’est dans cet esprit que le Président de la République, le 9 mai dernier, a fait une proposition de communauté politique européenne. Nous aurons à débattre des modalités, des noms, mais je crois qu’il est indispensable d’avoir un cadre dans lequel nous pouvons rapidement, plus rapidement encore que dans un processus d’adhésion, nous réunir sur des initiatives politiques, des coopérations concrètes et des valeurs partagées. Il ne s’agit pas d’un moins, il s’agit d’un plus. Il ne s’agit pas d’une alternative, il s’agit d’un complément.

Enfin, le Conseil européen fera le point sur les derniers développements en matière de politique étrangère, notamment en ce qui concerne nos relations avec la Turquie et le Bélarus.

Je ne veux pas oublier – très brièvement – deux points. D’abord un point économique, sur la situation dans la zone euro, et c’est une bonne nouvelle, car je crois qu’elle témoigne aussi de l’avancée, même dans les circonstances difficiles, de notre Union européenne – le Premier ministre Plenkovi? était ici il y a quelques instants –: nous pourrons consacrer l’adhésion, dès le 1er janvier 2023, très probablement, de la Croatie à la zone euro. Je crois que c’est un signal fort, attendu, de renforcement de notre économie collective.

Nous aurons aussi à tirer les premiers enseignements d’un exercice inédit de renforcement de notre projet politique européen: cette conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe, qui s’est conclue devant votre assemblée à Strasbourg, le 9 mai dernier, en présence de Madame la Présidente de la Commission européenne, de Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen et du Président de la République française. La Commission européenne a analysé en détail les propositions de la conférence. Le Parlement européen s’est déjà prononcé. Le Conseil, hier, a eu un débat qui n’est pas encore conclusif sur les grandes priorités thématiques. Mais nous aurons besoin, dès les prochaines semaines, dès les prochains mois, de montrer que nos actions sur le climat, sur la sécurité alimentaire, sur la sécurité et la défense, sur tous les grands défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés, accélèrent, que notre action se renforce et que la guerre ne nous empêche pas de renforcer notre Europe, mais au contraire, en souligne la nécessité vitale.

Je crois que c’est notre engagement commun et ce sommet européen, qui est le dernier qui se tient sous la présidence française semestrielle avant que la République tchèque ne nous remplace dans cet exercice, est un rendez-vous qu’on ne peut pas manquer et qui sera, à bien des égards, historique.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Mr President, Mr Minister, honourable Members, from the early days of the Maidan, Ukraine has very bravely resisted Russia’s aggression. Ukraine went through repression and uprising. It went through territorial annexation and now an outright war. It is the only country where people got shot because they wrapped themselves in the European flag. Ukraine has gone through hell and high water for one simple reason: their desire to join the European Union.

I have read your resolution from the European Parliament and thank you very much for being very clear and very explicit. And the European Commission also answered to this desire explicitly. The opinion we presented last week recognises Ukraine’s aspirations. It acknowledges the immense progress that Ukraine’s democracy has achieved since the Maidan. Our opinion stems from a careful and thorough assessment of the reality on the ground. And this evidence tells us that Ukraine, in the opinion of the Commission, deserves a European perspective, it deserves candidate status, of course on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further, important reforms.

Und in der Tat, die Ukraine hat bewiesen, und das schon lange vor dem Krieg, dass sie auf dem richtigen Weg ist. In den letzten Jahren hat sie in kurzer Zeit mehr reformiert als in den letzten Jahrzehnten.

Wir wissen viel über die Ukraine. Dank des Assoziierungsabkommens, das wir seit 2016 mit ihr haben, wissen wir, dass ungefähr 70 % aller EU-Standards und -Normen durch die Ukraine bereits übernommen worden sind. Sie nimmt an wichtigen Programmen der Europäischen Union bereits teil, zum Beispiel Horizon Europe oder das erfolgreiche Erasmus-Programm.

Die Ukraine ist eine sehr robuste parlamentarische Demokratie. Sie verfügt über eine gut funktionierende Verwaltung. Die Verwaltungsreform und vor allen Dingen die Dezentralisierung sind ein Erfolg gewesen. Das merken wir jeden Tag, weil wir ja eng mit der Ukraine zusammenarbeiten. Und das schafft die Verwaltung auf der föderalen Ebene, der Regionsebene und den Städten und Gemeinden trotz des Krieges, der ein massiver Stresstest natürlich auch für diese Verwaltung ist.

Es gibt in der Ukraine freie und faire Wahlen. Die Ukraine hat, das wissen wir alle, eine sehr aktive und dynamische Zivilgesellschaft, die ihre Regierung zur Rechenschaft einfordert. Wir sehen, dass viele kleine Unternehmen und vor allen Dingen junge Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer sich selber einen neuen Raum in der Wirtschaft des Landes erobern. Das ist gut, vor allen Dingen auch, um die Macht der Oligarchen zurückzudrängen. Die Ukraine punktet zudem, wenn es um innovative Start-ups und digitale Wirtschaft geht.

Das sind alles wichtige Fakten, Evidenz, die wir sehen. Aber zum Schluss werden alle diese Fortschritte erreicht, weil die Menschen in der Ukraine in ihren Köpfen und in ihrem Herzen vor allen Dingen Europa tragen. Das ist das Entscheidende.

Toutefois, nous savons aussi qu’un travail important reste à faire. Prenons la lutte contre la corruption: l’Ukraine a déjà pris des mesures essentielles dans la bonne direction. Elle a mis en place les organismes anticorruption nécessaires. Mais ces institutions doivent désormais prendre vie. Elles ont besoin de mordant.

Prenons également l’influence excessive des oligarques sur l’économie: l’Ukraine a adopté une loi audacieuse afin de briser l’emprise des oligarques sur la vie économique, politique et publique de l’Ukraine. De fait, c’est le seul pays du partenariat oriental à l’avoir fait. Alors maintenant, aujourd’hui, il s’agit de transformer cette loi en un changement positif et durable.

J’ai discuté de cette question et de bien d’autres avec le président Zelensky et le premier ministre, Denys Chmyhal, quand j’étais à Kiev. Ils veulent vraiment le faire et je sais que le peuple ukrainien ne souhaite rien de plus que de continuer sur le chemin de la modernisation. Ils savent que c’est le chemin de la démocratie et ils savent que c’est le chemin qui mène à l’Europe.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, après la chute du mur de Berlin, Jacques Delors a dit: «L’histoire a repris sa marche en Europe, mais c’est à nous de donner un sens à l’histoire».

Jacques Delors was referring to the need to open up our Union to all European countries, and I think his words are still true today. History is on the march, and I’m not just talking about Putin’s war of aggression. I am talking about the wind of change that is again blowing across our continent. And with their applications, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are telling us that they want change. They want more democracy. They want more freedom and stronger reforms. They are telling us that they want Europe. And we have the responsibility towards them, but we also have a responsibility towards ourselves to make the right choices.

So, let me speak briefly about our assessment for Moldova. Moldova has taken decisive steps towards Europe too, with a very clear mandate from its citizens. It is on a real pro—reform, anti—corruption and European path for the very first time since independence. And this is why it deserves a European perspective and European candidate status, again on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further important reforms. In particular, its economy and public administration require major reforms and efforts. But provided that the country’s leaders stay the course – and I have no doubt about that – we believe that the country has the potential to live up to these requirements.

Georgia shares the same aspirations and potential as Ukraine and Moldova. Its application has strength, in particular the market orientation of its economy, with a strong private sector. To succeed, however, the country must now come together politically. It must design a clear path towards structural reforms and towards the European Union, a path that concretely sets out the necessary reforms, brings civil society on board, and benefits from broad political support. And this is why we recommend to the Council to grant Georgia the European perspective, but to come back and assess how the country meets a number of conditions before granting it candidate status.

Honourable Members, how far Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will come and how quickly they proceed will depend, first and foremost, on their actions and their progress. It’s a merit—based approach. But how we respond to their passion and their progress is our choice and ours only. This Parliament has clearly spoken, loud and audible, and I would like to thank you for that again. It is now up to the European Council to decide and to live up to the historic responsibility we are confronted with.

The whole history of our European Union is one of young democracies getting stronger together. It’s the history of Germany’s rebirth after World War Two. It’s the history of Greece, Spain and Portugal moving decisively from dictatorship to democracy in the mid—1970s. It’s the democratic uprising that brought down the Iron Curtain in 1990. It is the long path of reconciliation in the Western Balkans and, I believe, a path that must lead all six Western Balkan countries to join our European Union. And the next chapter is being written now by the brave people of Ukraine, and by all of us, who must accompany them on their European path. Again, I believe it’s Europe’s moment and we will seize it.

Long live Europe.

  Rasa Juknevi?ien?, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, today we are writing the history textbook of our generation. More precisely, the Ukrainians are writing the history of the new Europe with their own blood.

Thank you, dear Ursula, for your leadership. Granting EU candidate status to Ukraine is so widely supported. However, that will not be enough. It is necessary to help Ukraine win the war and give Ukraine the weapons it needs. I call on some EU Member States’ politicians to stop sending pessimistic messages to the struggling Ukraine by saying that Ukraine’s path to EU membership will take decades. Show your leadership so that this country becomes part of our family as soon as possible. The impression is that it is not Ukraine but the politicians of some EU countries not ready for Ukraine’s membership. Just as after making the mistake of friendship with Putin, they are not ready for a different Russia.

I sincerely congratulate Moldova. I visited the country last week. They have performed a miracle when in peaceful democratic elections they managed to overcome the Kremlin’s candidate. They have turned their country back towards Europe. We must help Moldova seize this historic opportunity.

On Monday, with the largest demonstration in the history of modern Georgia, the people sent us a signal from Tbilisi that they are determined to follow the path of Europe. I say very clearly, we are with you Georgians. Unfortunately, it seems that Georgia’s Government did its best not to make the European Commission recommendation more favorable to Georgia. I appeal to all Georgian politicians – both the ruling elites and the opposition – find the strength for a strong European agenda. Your amazing people deserve it. Releasing the imprisoned two former presidents and owner of the opposition media would be an important step towards a European way of life.

Regarding the Western Balkans, we must be decisive and ready to move ahead with a clear timetable and concrete milestones. The Western Balkans deserve fair treatment from us.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señorías, en todos mis años en el Parlamento Europeo creo que no había vivido un momento tan determinante como este. Una legislatura trepidante que nos ha obligado a reaccionar de manera urgente a acontecimientos tan brutales como la pandemia y ahora la invasión de Ucrania.

Tenemos la responsabilidad de ser los protagonistas de la historia de hoy para poder decidir el futuro de millones de europeos y de europeas mañana. Y para ello necesitamos altura de miras y mucho sentido común.

Mientras seguimos avanzando con medidas urgentes, como la ayuda a Ucrania o las sanciones a Rusia, hemos de pensar también en nuestro futuro común: en qué Unión queremos y qué pasos son necesarios. Este ejercicio comenzó con la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa y aún no ha terminado.

Igual que sucedió tras la caída del muro de Berlín, es hora de dar un nuevo impulso a la ampliación. Nadie desde fuera, ningún dictador trasnochado, podrá excluir a quien por derecho propio merece entrar en la Unión. Pero esto exigirá no solo reformas en los aspirantes, sino también reformas en nuestra propia Unión, empezando por eliminar la unanimidad en las decisiones de política exterior.

La perspectiva de la ampliación es, sin duda, la política exterior más exitosa de nuestra Unión, porque el horizonte de la integración es la única vacuna para superar resentimientos históricos entre nuestros países y nuestras comunidades, para evitar guerras y promover la paz.

Pues bien, Macedonia del Norte es un país candidato desde hace diecisiete años y lleva esperando trece años a empezar las negociaciones; y eso, después de haber hecho importantes sacrificios en favor del sueño europeo. ¿En serio esto les parece normal?

Por otro lado, Albania, que es candidata desde 2014 y lleva más de cuatro años esperando para comenzar las negociaciones.

Señores y señoras del Consejo: dañan la imagen de la Unión cuando no mantienen su palabra con aquellos que llevan mucho tiempo esperando para poder entrar en nuestra Unión.

Debemos cumplir nuestras promesas y lanzar un mensaje claro: el futuro de los Balcanes Occidentales está en la Unión Europea. Ucrania, la República de Moldavia y Georgia también. Nuestro compromiso es claro. El camino es largo, pero merece la pena hacerlo.

Y también deben abordar las reformas necesarias en todos los ámbitos. En el del Estado de Derecho, por supuesto, pero también deben fortalecer el papel de la sociedad civil y de los interlocutores sociales.

Para finalizar, no podemos olvidar la dimensión interna de esta crisis, de esta guerra; las consecuencias sociales y económicas. Lo dije en el Pleno pasado y lo vuelvo a repetir: si no somos capaces de atajar la inflación, de garantizar los precios de los combustibles y de los alimentos, tendremos un invierno muy complicado: a corto plazo, inestabilidad social y, a largo plazo, el incremento de los populismos.

Líderes del Consejo, abran los ojos. En un momento crucial para avanzar en la Europa que queremos no descuiden a la ciudadanía. Escuchen lo que nos dijeron en la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa. Nos jugamos demasiado. ¿Ampliación? Sí. ¿Cuidar de nuestra casa? También.

  Stéphane Séjourné, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, Monsieur le Ministre, pour cette dernière de la présidence française, le Conseil européen de demain s’annonce encore une fois historique.

Mon groupe salue l’esprit de responsabilité dont fait preuve l’ensemble des États membres et le travail de la Commission pour y parvenir. Madame la Présidente, le statut de candidat de l’Ukraine est une juste reconnaissance du sacrifice du peuple ukrainien pour nos valeurs européennes. Nous ne pouvions ignorer – je l’ai redit déjà dans cet hémicycle à de nombreuses reprises – le sang versé au nom de l’idéal de paix, de démocratie et de souveraineté dans cette guerre injuste.

J’espère que ce même esprit de responsabilité habitera également les membres du Conseil sur la question des Balkans occidentaux. Nous avons aussi un devoir de construire le chemin européen de ces nations. C’est la position de mon groupe, qui est également favorable au statut de candidat de la Moldavie.

Le Conseil sera également amené à enfin se prononcer sur les suites à donner à la conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe. Je sais que certains pensent que ces questions institutionnelles sont secondaires et, par comparaison, sûrement, ne comptent pas parmi les urgences de notre temps. Je pense qu’ils ont tort. Quel est notre avenir proche? Nous, Européens? Probablement une conjugaison de crises qui obligera l’Europe à décider de manière cohérente, ambitieuse, rapide: l’inflation s’installe durablement, avec une possibilité de répercussion sur les dettes souveraines; crises alimentaires, crises humanitaires et migratoires, probablement; le dérèglement climatique, lui, continuera son œuvre si nous n’agissons pas… Et face à ces défis, sommes-nous prêts, aujourd’hui, avec nos institutions, à agir?

On peut, peut-être, reproduire une nouvelle fois le miracle de la crise COVID, qui a créé, avec le plan de relance, une réaction massive, rapide et urgente des institutions européennes, un vrai élan de solidarité européenne, avec une rapidité que nous n’avions jamais connue. Mais certains États utiliseront probablement notre architecture institutionnelle, et notamment le droit de veto, pour bloquer les efforts nécessaires pour faire face à ces nouvelles crises. Et c’est exactement pour cela, Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Ministre, que nous ne laisserons pas en friche le chantier institutionnel. Ce chantier est important. Certains États membres – et, pardonnez-moi, toujours les mêmes – bloquent les réformes nécessaires. Les vetos ne sont pas des vetos des peuples, mais sont des vetos et des chantages de gouvernements en difficulté. Le blocage sur l’impôt minimum mondial est autant un symptôme qu’un avertissement pour nous, et nous sommes évidemment attentifs à tous ces points-là.

Nous avons tant à faire et nous ne devons pas décevoir. Monsieur le Ministre, Madame la Présidente, vous savez que notre famille politique porte cette réforme institutionnelle en Europe. Nous avons une majorité de membres au Conseil qui sont ulcérés du comportement de certains États. Vous savez que les citoyens n’accepteront pas le spectacle de l’inaction sur ces questions-là. Alors, mon mot d’ordre, et le mot d’ordre de mon groupe, sera d’ouvrir cette réforme et d’y donner suite au Parlement européen, qui a ouvert la voie de cette procédure.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I’m happy that the Commission has taken the historical decision to propose the status of an accession candidate for Ukraine and Moldova, as called for by this House, and I hope that the Council will also decide accordingly.

The war Russia is raging against Ukraine, is also one against European values and is also one against European integration. And as a European family, we need to stand together.

Ukraine and Moldova have made important steps and reforms, notably against corruption. Not all is well – much remains to be done – but the progress is there and it will be given new impetus also with a candidate status.

Georgia, too, has European ambition that we want to support. And I would strongly encourage the Georgian Government not to undermine the country’s past progress and to go forward making the necessary reforms.

Apart from those three countries, we also need to see a clear commitment and perspective for the Western Balkans. These countries have all been waiting for years for any sort of progress in their accession perspective. Many have made enormous reforms – North Macedonia even changed its name – but are still being held in limbo and this must finally come to an end. We need a clear and reliable path to the EU for the Western Balkans for their own sake, but also for the growth and the strength of our Union.

While the countries joining have to undertake the tough task to implement reforms, it’s not only their job – the EU needs to grow with this challenge and do everything in its power to unite the Union’s family and to stand up for our values. Let us not let this opportunity slip away.

And what Ukraine has reminded us is how much drive and how much passion is behind the way towards European membership, how much energy this perspective for the future involves, how much it lifts people’s spirits.

Too often we who have managed to join this Union forget about this kind of passion, forget about this power of hope that it holds. Let us use this moment as an opportunity to bring new life into the accession process. There is much at stake, but there is also so much to win.

  Marco Zanni, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, Presidente von der Leyen, Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, ci sono grandi aspettative per quello che sarà un Consiglio europeo delicato, proprio perché la fase che stiamo affrontando in questo momento è una fase delicata, non solo per il significato politico e simbolico che avranno alcune scelte che verranno prese – ci auguriamo che ci sia una decisione unanime sul garantire lo status di paese candidato all’Ucraina – ma anche perché oggi è il momento che le istituzioni europee prendano decisioni concrete di fronte a una situazione sempre più deteriorata, che cittadini e imprese europee si trovano ad affrontare.

Lei, Ministro, ha parlato bene e voglio focalizzarmi sulle sanzioni. L’obiettivo dello strumento sanzionatorio è chiaro ed è l’unica arma che oggi abbiamo per portare la Russia a un tavolo di negoziazioni. E Lei ha detto bene quale deve essere l’obiettivo delle sanzioni: deve essere stoppare il flusso di denaro che entra nelle casse della Russia e che finanzia la guerra.

Se questo è l’obiettivo che condividiamo e condividevamo all’inizio, credo che i risultati non siano del tutto soddisfacenti e credo che l’impatto che queste sanzioni hanno avuto sul prezzo dell’energia stia aiutando Putin non solo a finanziare sempre più la sua guerra, ma anche a usare il gas e l’energia come arma di ricatto. Se i flussi finanziari alla Russia non fossero stati così alti, in questi mesi, in queste settimane, a causa degli aumenti dei prezzi, oggi la Russia non avrebbe potuto tagliare le risorse energetiche e mettere in pericolo anche il piano che la Commissione europea ci aveva presentato per mettere al sicuro il nostro inverno, le forniture per poterci permettere di portare avanti quei passi in termini di diversificazione delle risorse energetiche, in termini di costruzione di nuove infrastrutture, in termini di garantire un’indipendenza energetica all’Europa.

Ecco, credo che su questo si debba riflettere e credo che sia finalmente giunto il momento che si trovi un accordo su un tetto al prezzo dell’energia, una proposta che il mio governo da molto tempo porta sui tavoli europei.

E chiudo con un aspetto molto importante, sempre su azioni concrete, che chiediamo, che i cittadini chiedono alle istituzioni europee. Lo scenario economico si sta deteriorando sempre di più, l’aumento dei prezzi, l’aumento dell’inflazione sta mordendo sempre di più sulle caviglie di cittadini e imprese europei.

Di fronte ai passi che con forza portiamo avanti per proteggere, per difendere l’Ucraina, credo sia necessario portare avanti oggi e concordare azioni concrete per aiutare cittadini e imprese europei ad attraversare questo momento di grande difficoltà che arriva dopo due anni di pandemia che hanno già morso con le difficoltà cittadini e imprese europei. È necessario che le istituzioni portino avanti un progetto per far sì che non ci ritroviamo nei prossimi mesi a dover affrontare una nuova crisi economica.

  Raffaele Fitto, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Presidente della Commissione, Ministro, sono due gli aspetti importanti per la riunione del Consiglio di queste ore: il primo ha una valenza esterna e il secondo ha una valenza interna.

Per quanto riguarda l’azione da portare avanti sulle questioni e sulle scelte che la Commissione prima, il Parlamento e il Consiglio poi hanno fatto rispetto al sostegno all’Ucraina, io penso che sia importante ribadire anche in questa circostanza qual è la posizione netta e chiara di supporto pieno all’Ucraina. Ma per far questo penso che sia importante anche in queste ore leggere con attenzione le dichiarazioni non casuali di Putin, laddove ci indica in modo molto chiaro qual è l’idea del futuro, quella di riproporre i confini che tradizionalmente hanno fatto parte del dominio sovietico del passato.

Per questo noi dobbiamo sostenere lo status dell’Ucraina. Per questo , con le regole che Lei giustamente ha sottolineato, bisogna esprimere un supporto netto e chiaro anche nei confronti della Georgia e della Moldavia, perché è molto importante che ciò avvenga, così come è altrettanto importante mettere in campo un’azione attenta sulla questione dei Balcani. Perché, così come è accaduto e sta accadendo in alcune aree del Nord Africa, anche nei Balcani c’è il rischio di infiltrazioni, c’è il rischio di interventi che devono essere visti con la massima attenzione e contenuti, per mettere in campo invece un’azione che possa rafforzare quei principi della nostra democrazia, quei principi fondamentali che sono alla base dell’azione che ci vedrà impegnati nel futuro.

La seconda riflessione è collegata alla dimensione interna rispetto a ciò che sta accadendo. Io voglio citare – non lo ha fatto nessuno e non lo faccio in alcun modo per polemica, come semplice elemento di riflessione – il risultato delle elezioni francesi, che è un risultato sul quale riflettere. È un risultato dal quale emerge in modo molto chiaro uno stato d’animo che è anche preoccupante, che noi dobbiamo cercare di comprendere perché dobbiamo mettere in campo delle dinamiche e degli interventi che siano in grado di dare risposte chiare soprattutto a quei paesi che, sostenendo con forza e decisione le sanzioni, ne subiscono anche delle conseguenze dal punto di vista economico e su questo è necessario dare risposte chiare.

La prima, la ripeto, è stata poc’anzi citata, il tetto e il prezzo del gas è la prima in questo senso, la seconda cercare quella dimensione complessiva, al di là delle posizioni, delle polemiche, di compiere delle scelte che non ci facciano passare da una dipendenza ad un’altra. Perché alcune questioni collegate anche al dibattito e ai provvedimenti che abbiamo approvato in queste ore ci pongono questo tema.

Ci pongono un tema molto serio, che è quello che ci ha visto fino ad oggi guardare con preoccupazione a scelte sbagliate, che ci hanno fatto emergere dopo la guerra in Ucraina, la dipendenza energetica dalla Russia e che dobbiamo stare attenti per evitare che ciò possa determinare un’altra dipendenza da altre realtà, in modo particolare dalla Cina, soprattutto rispetto alle scelte che vengono portate avanti.

Per questo c’è bisogno di una dimensione ampia e di una risposta forte anche all’interno dell’Unione europea e dei paesi membri, che possano portare avanti una politica di intervento in grado di poter dare risposte ai cittadini e quindi essere nelle condizioni di affrontare una stagione che abbiamo di fronte, che non sarà certamente una stagione semplice.

Penso che questo sia l’approccio che le istituzioni europee debbono avere in questo ambito e io mi auguro che il Consiglio possa confermare quanto detto e fatto alla Commissione e quanto il Parlamento europeo ha indicato in modo chiaro nei giorni scorsi.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, la guerre en Ukraine dure maintenant depuis plus de quatre mois. Quatre mois que Vladimir Poutine commet quotidiennement l’irréparable en envahissant un État souverain, au mépris du droit international, en mettant à feu et à sang un pays voisin, en se rendant coupable de crimes de guerre abjects contre des populations civiles, en mettant en danger la sécurité de tout notre continent.

Je l’ai déjà exprimé à maintes reprises et ce n’est pas la première fois qu’on en débat, mais je souhaitais le redire avec la plus grande fermeté au nom de notre groupe de la Gauche, ici au Parlement européen: l’Europe doit porter une voix forte pour continuer à dénoncer cette agression inacceptable et à apporter un soutien sans faille au peuple ukrainien dont la résistance héroïque force notre plus profond respect.

Le retour de la guerre à nos portes et la tragédie subie par les Ukrainiens ont amené dans nos débats, et c’est légitime, la question de leur adhésion à la construction européenne. L’appel en ce sens du Président Zelensky et du peuple ukrainien doit et devrait être entendu. Et la perspective du rapprochement entre l’Ukraine et l’Union européenne est un symbole politique fort dans ce contexte qui est si particulier.

Il fallait et il faut continuer à marquer par des actes concrets notre solidarité avec les Ukrainiens. Mais soyons sincères, nous leur devons aussi la transparence, le respect et l’honnêteté. L’Ukraine est aujourd’hui un pays en guerre. Ses institutions sont encore fragiles, son niveau de vie est encore très éloigné des standard du reste de l’Union européenne. Alors, nous le disons depuis toujours, l’élargissement peut avoir du sens pour l’Ukraine, comme pour d’autres pays de notre continent européen. Mais il doit toujours se faire avec un objectif d’harmonisation par le haut, pour que tous les peuples européens bénéficient d’un progrès à la fois social et démocratique.

Nous le savons tous ici: même si la paix revient dans les mois à venir – ce que nous espérons évidemment tous collectivement –, le chemin pour l’adhésion est encore long. Je le redis ici aux Ukrainien: l’Union européenne est à vos côtés. Nos destins sont communs. L’adhésion est une piste qui doit être explorée sérieusement, sans fausses promesses. C’est ce message à la fois de fraternité et d’espoir, mais aussi de vérité, qui peut être donné.

  Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Presidente von der Leyen, come diceva Nelson Mandela “la pace è un sogno e può diventare realtà”, ma per costruirla bisogna essere capaci di sognare.

Le atrocità compiute dall’esercito russo in Ucraina sono enormi e noi europei non lo dimenticheremo mai, ma per evitare nuove e ben più gravi atrocità serve adesso la pace. Dopo quattro mesi di guerra è tempo di voltare pagina. Il prossimo Consiglio europeo promuova un’escalation diplomatica che porti prima al cessate il fuoco e infine al negoziato di pace. Trasformiamo i sogni in realtà.

Presidente, per i distratti e per chi è in malafede, ripeto ancora una volta che il Movimento 5 Stelle è europeista e atlantista e dice sì al processo di adesione di Ucraina, Moldavia e Georgia, ma non dimentichiamoci delle legittime aspirazioni dei tanti cittadini dell’Albania e dei Balcani che aspettano da anni una risposta.

L’Unione europea è oggi la speranza di pace per milioni di cittadini nel mondo ed è faro di benessere, solidarietà e diritti, non dimentichiamolo mai.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are all witnessing a once-in-a-lifetime general shift in Europe’s history. Ukraine is spilling blood, defending both Europe and itself from the imperial evil of Putin. Moldova accepted thousands of refugees and is now resisting the huge economic pressure caused by the war. Georgia was the first one in the region to be punished by Russia for its legitimate wish to become European.

The future of this continent is to be reshaped, either according to our values or to Putin’s rules. Therefore, it is high time that the EU starts speaking in the language of power and demonstrates its firmness and geopolitical credibility. We also have long-standing commitments towards the Western Balkan states. Europe won’t be complete unless we deliver the concrete steps now regarding the promise of their European integration.

I call on all European leaders to take political responsibility and shape the Europe of tomorrow, where the Western Balkans, as well as Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, have a place.

  Jaak Madison (ID). – Mr President, Commissioner, the representative for the Council is missed, also Ms von der Leyen has left, unfortunately. First of all, I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the EU, of course, as you know. But at the same time, I absolutely understand Ukrainians who really are willing to move closer to the EU. If Ukraine is really dreaming and really wanting to have candidate status, I think there is no question: of course, we have to give it. Absolutely.

I think there is likely an absolutely majority in the House also here who agrees on this. I’ve told, several times also, the Ukrainians that the main goal can’t be just to be a member of the EU. The main point is to really be a successful country with a functional economy, with less corruption and to really move on the right way. Then, of course, it can be also in years, membership to the EU. There’s no doubt of this.

For the final sentence, many of us have all said today here that the Council have to really understand that we are paying even more money now to Russia, to finance the war thanks to the huge energy crisis.

So what will be the plan from the EU to really have a limit for energy prices? Because it’s terrible what is happening now. So I really would like to hear the answers. What is your plan?

  Beata Szyd?o (ECR). – Panie Przewodnicz?cy! Szanowni pa?stwo komisarze! Panie ministrze! Jutro Rada Europejska musi da? jasny i bardzo wyra?ny sygna?, ?e Ukraina, Mo?dawia, Gruzja s? kandydatami do Unii Europejskiej. Ukraina potrzebuje Unii Europejskiej, ale Unia Europejska potrzebuje bardzo Ukrainy i tych wszystkich pa?stw, równie? pa?stw Ba?kanów Zachodnich, ?eby sta?y si? cz?onkami naszej Wspólnoty. Je?eli b?d? w Unii Europejskiej, nie b?d? w strefie wp?ywów Putina. A wojna na Ukrainie i bohaterska walka Ukrai?ców toczy si? równie? w imieniu naszym, nas wszystkich Europejczyków. Musimy mie? ?wiadomo??, ?e Ukrai?cy walcz? dzisiaj o nasz? wolno?? i suwerenno??, i musz? mie? jasny i solidarny przekaz. Wszyscy musimy by? solidarni, musimy ich wspiera? militarnie, humanitarnie i gospodarczo. To jest nasz obowi?zek wobec przysz?o?ci Europy, wobec przysz?o?ci naszych narodów, nas wszystkich.

Chc? te? powiedzie? o kwestiach, o których pa?stwo te? wcze?niej wspominali?cie ? o kryzysach, które dr?cz? i tocz? Europ?. O kryzysie ?ywno?ciowym, który puka w tej chwili do bram Europy. Trzeba wesprze? Ukrain? w mo?liwo?ciach transportu zbo?a. Trzeba te? rozwi?za? wreszcie kryzys energetyczny. Takie decyzje, jak chocia?by dzisiaj podejmowane na tej sali, wp?dzaj? Europejczyków w ubóstwo. Trzeba chroni? klimat, ale trzeba mie? ?wiadomo??, ?e przede wszystkim musimy my?le? o mo?liwo?ciach Europejczyków i o ich bezpiecze?stwie.

  Idoia Villanueva Ruiz (The Left). – Señor presidente, cualquier país que quiera ser parte del proyecto europeo puede hacerlo a través del Tratado de la Unión Europea y para eso debe cumplir con los criterios de Copenhague en materia de democracia, derechos humanos y Estado de Derecho.

La ampliación era un debate muerto. Se ha apartado de expectativas de pueblos como Albania o Macedonia del Norte: trece y dieciocho años sin iniciar negociaciones de adhesión.

Es necesario hacer un análisis sobre dónde estamos, pero sobre todo un debate honesto sobre qué queremos ser, si continuar una unión meramente económica o ir hacia una mayor integración política y cuál: valores democráticos, Estado de Derecho, derechos laborales, lucha contra la corrupción, compromiso con la Europa social…

No hay atajos. Todos los países, como Ucrania, Moldavia y Georgia, pueden acceder a la condición de candidato bajo el mismo procedimiento y bajo los mismos estándares y al mismo tiempo. Y, lo más importante, tenemos una responsabilidad enorme de no generar falsas expectativas a los pueblos.

Todos sabemos que el proceso de adhesión es largo, repleto de reformas profundas, necesarias, y que un país invadido como Ucrania no puede ejercer su soberanía ni decidir su futuro con libertad.

La Unión Europea necesita un plan. La autonomía estratégica debe dejar de ser unas palabras bonitas para convertirse en un proyecto constituyente real.

  Kinga Gál (NI). – Elnök Úr, Biztos Úr, Miniszter Úr! Támogatjuk Ukrajna, Moldova és Georgia tagjelölti státuszát is, valamint a nyugat-balkáni országok európai integrációjának felgyorsítását. A jelenlegi háborús kihívásokkal teli id?szakban ez jó lehet?ség az európai egység el?mozdítására, és er?síti ezeket az országokat. Természetesen minden ország eleget kell tegyen a csatlakozási feltételeknek, beleértve a koppenhágai kritériumokat is. Az országok tagjelöltségét azonos értékek és feltételek mellett kell mérlegelni, ezért Ukrajna és Moldova tagjelöltségének támogatása mellett Georgiának és Bosznia-Hercegovinának is biztosítani kell a tagjelöltséget egy ütemben. Csak így tud az EU hiteles maradni.

Az Unió szavahihet?sége múlik a nyugat-balkáni országok csatlakozási folyamatának felgyorsításán is, hiszen különösen ebben a geopolitikai helyzetben, az Unió alapvet? érdeke a térség biztonsága és stabilitása. Ehhez szükséges Szerbia és Montenegró esetében a csatlakozási tárgyalások el?relendítése, Észak-Macedóniával és Albániával a tárgyalások megindítása, Koszovónak pedig vízummentességet kell biztosítani. A b?vítésnek új lendületet kell adni.

  Antonio Tajani (PPE). – Signor Presidente, signor vicepresidente Šef?ovi?, il Consiglio europeo di domani rappresenta una tappa importante nel processo di integrazione europea.

Fermo restando i criteri richiesti per l’adesione, la decisione di concedere lo status di paese candidato all’Ucraina e alla Moldova è fondamentale in questa fase segnata dalla guerra.

In questo percorso attendiamo anche i passi in avanti che la Georgia si è impegnata a compiere, ma serve anche dare, come hanno detto anche molti colleghi durante questo dibattito, una prospettiva concreta di adesione ai paesi dei Balcani occidentali. Dobbiamo farci interpreti della loro domanda di libertà e democrazia e della voglia di essere europei. Non possiamo abbandonare questa parte importante dell’Europa a mire di altri.

Allo stesso tempo dobbiamo sostenere i nostri cittadini. La crisi alimentare, aggravata dalla siccità che affligge il Sud Europa, l’inflazione e il caro energia stanno seriamente danneggiando le nostre famiglie e le nostre imprese.

Per questo è necessario garantire approvvigionamenti di grano all’Ucraina attraverso i corridoi di solidarietà che per ora ancora non sembrano molto operativi e sostenere i nostri agricoltori. Serve un tetto al prezzo del gas e il disaccoppiamento dei prezzi del gas e dell’elettricità. Non serve solo questo, serve anche pensare alla revisione dei trattati.

  Drago? Tudorache (Renew). – Mr President, dear Vice-President, dear colleagues, true political leadership doesn’t come easy, and certainly doesn’t come often. It requires long—term, steadfast vision as well as the ability to take agile, bold decisions when such decisions are necessary. We are now living one of these moments in history when true political leaders must rise up to the task.

We are at a time when the balance between vision and decisiveness is crucial for the future of the Union and its role in the world. Dear Vice-President Šef?ovi?, as standing rapporteur for the Republic of Moldova of this House, I applaud the leadership that the Commission has shown in last week’s recommendation. Now it is time for the Council, for the heads of state and government, to also see that granting candidate status to Moldova and Ukraine cannot be about the size of the country, but about whatever we must do to put our house in order.

It is about shared values and those deep motivations that animated the founding fathers of our Union. Moldova and Ukraine belong here. This Parliament has said it. The Commission has said it. It is now time for the Council to say the same.

  Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! In Vorbereitung auf die kommende Ratssitzung ersuche ich um etwas Selbstreflexion. Man kann in seinem politischen Leben schon da und dort einmal Fehler machen; das ist menschlich. Was aber hier geschieht seitens einer Mehrheit der europäischen Nomenklatura, das macht diese Mehrheit europäischer Politiker zu Serientätern politischer Fehlentscheidungen.

Sie haben sechs Sanktionspakete mittlerweile verhängt, mit Embargo für Öl, und überlegen auch Gas. Wundert man sich da wirklich, wenn der Aggressor, der Betroffene, hier auch Gegenreaktionen macht und langsam den Gashahn Richtung Europa zudreht? Wundert man sich dann, dass der Gas und Öl verkauft Richtung Indien und China und wir es wieder teuer zurückkaufen müssen?

Diese Politik ist ein Schuss ins europäische Knie und eine falsche Politik. Putin lacht sich ins Fäustchen mit dem, was hier gemacht wird. Ich kann nur appellieren, am Drehen dieser Sanktionsschraube aufzuhören. Ich kann nur appellieren daran, dass Sie hier alles unternehmen, Frieden herbeizuführen, eine Politik, die den europäischen Bürgern die Versorgungssicherheit auf unserem Kontinent mit Energie auch entsprechend sicherstellt, und dass Sie diese Eskalationsschraube endlich beenden.

  François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-président, ce Conseil sera marqué par les inquiétudes qui se multiplient, bien sûr, sur le front économique: l’inflation atteint des niveaux sans précédent et touche maintenant de plein fouet des millions de citoyens dans nos pays qui, en travaillant ou en ayant travaillé toute leur vie, n’arrivent plus à s’en sortir.

Est-ce que nous aurons les moyens de soutenir dans la durée l’effort de guerre qu’il faudra faire pour tenir, après le COVID, face au conflit en Ukraine? Pour cela, il est urgent de reconstruire la capacité d’action de nos États en revenant enfin au sérieux sur le plan budgétaire. La Russie a de quoi tenir longtemps sa guerre. Et savez-vous pourquoi? Elle n’est endettée qu’à hauteur de 17 % de son PIB. Un pays comme le mien, endetté à hauteur de 113 % de son PIB, est infiniment plus vulnérable, surtout quand la moitié de sa dette est détenue par des acteurs étrangers. Et c’est, je le crois, l’une des clés bien trop peu évoquée du combat qui nous attend.

Nous le savons tous, nous allons au devant de tensions très fortes pour les familles, pour les travailleurs, pour les entreprises de nos pays. Il est urgent que les États européens qui vivent encore dans des illusions budgétaires intenables aient enfin le courage de revenir à des équilibres économiques indispensables pour agir dans la durée et faire face aux crises futures et garantir notre souveraineté.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – Domnule pre?edinte, domnule vicepre?edinte al Comisiei Europene, Šef?ovi?, domnule ministru, sunt de acord cu to?i colegii ?i toate colegele care au spus c? tr?im un moment istoric. Haide?i s? ne întoarcem cu 70 de ani în urm?, pe data de 22 iunie, pentru c? azi este 22 iunie. Pe 22 iunie, în 1940, Fran?ei i se impunea un armisti?iu. Pe data de 22 iunie 1941 începea opera?iunea în estul Europei, acea opera?iune numit? Barbarossa.

Ast?zi, Uniunea European? se afl? în fa?a celei mai mari provoc?ri geostrategice, care genereaz? la rândul ei o imens? criz? de securitate, cu crize colaterale umanitare, criza energetic? ?i criza alimentar?. Trebuie s? r?spundem cu sanc?iuni agresorului ?i cu solidaritate fa?? de victime. Trebuie s? acord?m statutul de stat candidat Ucrainei ?i Moldovei, deoarece, trebuie s? recunoa?tem voca?ia european? a acestor dou? ??ri ?i dac? Uniunea European? dore?te s? fie geostrategic?, atunci trebuie s? ne ap?r?m valorile ?i s? d?m statutul de stat candidat acestor dou? state.

(Vorbitoarea a fost de acord s? r?spund? unei interven?ii de tip „cartona? albastru”)

  ????? ????? (Renew). – ?-? ???????????, ???????? ??????, ??????? ??, ?? ? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ? ??????. ???? ? ?? ?????????????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????. ??? ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ????????, ??????? ???????, ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ???????????????, ??????? ?? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ????.

?? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ??-???????? ? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ???????. ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????????? ????. ?? ????? ? ??????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ????, ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??. ???? ?? ????, ??????. ????????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????????. ???-??????? ????????? ? ??????????? ????, ???-??????? ????????? ? ???-????????????????? ? ???????? ?? ????????? ???????. ?????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??????.

?????, ??????? ????????? ? ???????. ???? ????????? ???????????? ?????, ?? ??-????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????????, ???? ?? ??????? ?????????. ????? ? ? ?????????? ????? ?? 7-8 ??? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????????????, ???????????, ? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????????? ? ??? ???????, ?? ?? ??????? ????? ? ??????????? ????. ? ????? ? ???????????. ????? ? ?? ????? ??????????? ? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ????.

  Ladislav Il?i? (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavaju?i, poštovani kolege, ne dijelim puno toga s njema?kim premijerom Scholzom, ali u potpunosti podržavam dvije poruke koje je on prije deset dana prenio srpskom premijeru Vu?i?u. Rekao mu je ako Srbija želi u Europsku uniju, mora priznati Kosovo i mora se odmaknuti od Rusije.

Dakle, Srbija više ne može sjediti na dvije stolice. Srbija se mora odmaknuti od agresorske ruske politike i mora osuditi i svoju agresorsku politika koju je provodila prije 30 godina.

No, ne?e biti dovoljno da Srbija to u?ini samo rije?ima. Morat ?e to pokazati i djelima. Dakle, Srbija mora Hrvatskoj vratiti ukradeno kulturno blago. Mora nam dati podatke o 1800 nestalih, vjerojatno ubijenih Hrvata. Mora pokazati otvorenost za rješavanje pitanja granice na Dunavu i, iznad svega, mora Hrvatskoj platiti ratnu odštetu za sve što je uništila u Hrvatskoj tijekom agresije. Tek kad Srbija do?e na taj civilizacijski nivo, može na tom nivou nastaviti svoj put prema Europskoj uniji.

  ???????? ?????????? (PPE). – ????? ???????, ???????? ??????????, ? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????????? ????? ?????????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????????, ?? ????????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????. ????? ??’ ???, ? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????, ????? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????????.

???? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????, ????????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ?. von der Leyen ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????????????? ?? ??? ????????, ?? ???????? ??? ?? ???????, ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????. ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????????????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????. ????? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ????????, ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????????????? ??? ????????? ??????. ????? ? ??????, ??????, ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????, ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ???? ????? ??? ?????????, ??? ??????, ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????.

  Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Es herrscht Krieg in Europa, und es ist die richtige Botschaft, jetzt auch der Ukraine, Georgien und Moldau den Kandidatenstatus zu geben. Und man muss dabei auch klar und ehrlich kommunizieren, dass das in diesen Ländern enorme Anstrengungen hervorrufen wird, eben auch tatsächlich diesen Prozess, der lange dauert, durchzustehen.

Aber es ist auch wichtig, dass sich die Europäische Union erweiterungsfähig macht. Und hier sind die Schlussfolgerungen, die Entwürfe, die wir gesehen haben, lahm und nicht hinreichend. Auch die EU muss enorme Anstrengungen unternehmen, in Bezug zum Beispiel auf Handlungsfähigkeit, auf die Sicherung von Demokratie und auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit – ich will hier nur Artikel 7 nennen –, darauf, die Reformen auch durchzuführen, die die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Ihnen ins Stammbuch, uns ins Stammbuch geschrieben haben.

Und deshalb ist es wichtig, dass wir jetzt hier wirklich ein klares Signal auch vom Rat erhalten, Zusagen, die EU erweiterungsfähig zu machen und sicherzustellen, dass wir eine gute Zukunft in einem geeinten Europa haben – hier, demokratisch.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Ministro, Senhor Vice-Presidente, a guerra de agressão da Rússia contra a Ucrânia, ilegal, injustificável e brutal, mudou a natureza da União Europeia. Putin fez da União Europeia uma entidade geopolítica e, nessa medida, nós temos de ter novos critérios e novos padrões para o alargamento da nossa União Europeia.

Assim, é claro que temos que aceitar o estatuto de país candidato da Ucrânia. O PPE está a defendê-lo desde o primeiro minuto e eu também estou a defendê-lo desde o primeiro minuto. Saúdo aqui a Presidência francesa, que estava relutante e reticente quanto a conceder o estatuto de país candidato, e mais ainda estava o primeiro-ministro português, António Costa. Foi realmente a vontade dos ucranianos e a pressão deste Parlamento que fez com que o chanceler Scholz, o presidente Macron e, depois, atrás deles, o primeiro-ministro Costa, viessem reconhecer aos ucranianos e aos moldavos aquilo que, depois desta agressão, se tornou um destino necessário para haver paz na Europa no futuro, para haver prosperidade.

Todos os povos europeus têm direito a integrar a União Europeia. A União Europeia, e não uma comunidade política europeia.

  Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, onde o deputado Paulo Rangel vê hesitações, nós vemos coerência, clareza e firmeza no propósito de dar uma perspetiva europeia à Ucrânia, à Moldávia e à Geórgia. Mas não esquecemos os Balcãs Ocidentais e, não esquecendo os Balcãs Ocidentais, não esquecemos aqui o facto de a Macedónia do Norte e a Albânia terem satisfeito todas as condições que lhes foram impostas pelo Conselho para que vissem marcada a sua primeira conferência intergovernamental e, até hoje, continuam paradas. Estão à espera há dois anos, embora todos reconheçam que todas as condições foram de facto preenchidas.

Ontem, recebemos uma carta subscrita por 1000 jovens dos Balcãs Ocidentais. Senhor Ministro, espero que amanhã, na sala do Conselho, se não ouvirem as vozes uns dos outros, nem ouvirem as nossas vozes, oiçam pelo menos as vozes desses 1000 jovens de todos os países dos Balcãs Ocidentais que, juntos, pediram que finalmente se desse uma luz verde à primeira conferência intergovernamental.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), blue-card speech. – It is also my football team, so the colour is the same. And, by the way, it’s the EPP colour.

Senhora Deputada Isabel Santos, queria só fazer uma pergunta muito clara. Não vê uma contradição entre a entrevista que o primeiro-ministro António Costa deu ao Financial Times, em que praticamente disse que não havia perspetivas europeias para a Ucrânia, e a atitude que ele tomou passados quatro ou cinco dias?

Não vê que o presidente Macron andou a dizer que não se podia humilhar a Rússia e sempre a tentar, de alguma maneira, protelar a concessão do estatuto de país candidato, aparecendo depois lado a lado com Draghi e com Sholz em Kiev?

I made the question. Is there or is there not a contradiction? That was the question. It was the first thing, by the way.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner Šef?ovi?, the Commission’s recent recommendations to the European Council to grant Ukraine and Moldova EU membership status was very encouraging news. We must make it clear that Ukraine belongs firmly within our European family. Our future lies together, side by side, in peace. This is also true for the Republic of Moldova, which has shown itself to be a great ally during the current crisis, ready to fight for a European future. I commend both Ukraine and Moldova and hope candidate status will be finally confirmed by the decision of the Council tomorrow.

As regards the decision on Georgia, I acknowledge that it shares these aspirations, along with other countries of the Western Balkans, and these expectations should not be neglected. I am pleased that the European Commission officially recognised its European perspective and offered Georgia a specific guide to obtaining candidate status. I strongly recommend to the Council to grant EU candidates status to Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, in line with Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union.

A Uachtaráin, tá súil agam go ndéanfaimid dul chun cinn suntasach ar an ábhar seo go luath.

  Sven Mikser (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, there are only two possible ways of resolving the vital security deficit of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. The first one is weakening Russia beyond the point where it can present a real threat. And the second one – more realistic, in my opinion – is the full integration of those three countries into the European economic and security structures.

It is true that none of those three is today ready to function as a full member of the European Union. So candidate status is just a first step of a much longer way. But we must be clear and sincere with regard to the final objective, which is membership. What we must not do is tell Ukrainians that we support their aspirations, but then turn to our own voters, give them a wink and say that this status doesn’t mean that Ukrainians are going to be full members.

Finally, while everyone must proceed on their own individual merit, we must not ignore the dangers of splitting the three Eastern partners up at this critical juncture and therefore leaving one or two more vulnerable, because all these peoples deserve a place in Europe.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to congratulate the courage of the Ukrainian people. Their heroism opens the doors for the historical decisions of European Union to give candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. But today, after authoritarian Russia started criminal war against democratic Ukraine, we need to say even more.

First, enlargement policy is the most important geopolitical policy of the EU, because this is the only way to expand the area of democracy, stability and prosperity. And this is the only way that long-term peace can be established on the whole continent.

Second, we need to understand that EU enlargement is needed not only for Ukraine, Moldova or Western Balkans; it’s very much needed also for the whole EU, because enlargement makes the EU stronger, not weaker. That is why we, on the European side, not only Ukrainians, need to be ambitious and courageous.

For the last decades, we in the EU, we were living with the philosophy of ‘geopolitical laziness’. Now the war demands from us to come back to the philosophy of ‘geopolitical courage and enlargement’. Let’s do it.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule pre?edinte, domnule comisar, domnule ministru, am luat cuvântul ast?zi, aici, pentru c? voiam s? v? întreb, domnule ministru, – v? încheia?i Pre?edin?ia – dac? nu crede?i c? la Consiliu nu ar trebui s? existe niciodat?, s? nu lipseasc? niciodat? de pe ordinea de zi ?i discu?ia legat? de situa?ia cet??enilor din Uniunea European??

Ast?zi am avut o dezbatere în ?ara mea despre perspectiva Uniunii Europene ?i am fost întrebat? ce se întâmpl? cu viitorul Uniunii Europene? Oamenii au s?r?cit. Nu ?tiu, domnule comisar, ce voia s? spun? doamna pre?edint?, legat de vântul care bate în Europa, dar oamenii au s?r?cit. Le bate vântul în buzunare.

Vreau s? cer Consiliului ca de acum înainte s? nu existe nicio ?edin?? de Consiliu f?r? a discuta aceste lucruri ?i nu pot s? nu închei cu am?r?ciunea, domnule ministru, c? în ?ase luni pre?edin?ia francez? nu a reu?it nici de aceast? dat? s? treac? România pe lista ??rilor care merit? s? fie în Schengen, pentru c? î?i respect? toate criteriile. Discriminarea aceasta duce la scepticism ?i la neîncredere. Trebuie s? l?rgim Uniunea European?, dar trebuie s? ne gândim cum ac?ion?m ?i în interior.

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, because of our lack of vision and political leadership, non—democratic regimes are today challenging European peace and security and threatening the stability of our neighbours. The doors of the European Union must remain open to all European countries fulfilling the necessary criteria: Ukraine, Moldova, but also Georgia, when it fulfils the necessary conditions.

The countries of the Western Balkans who express a clear desire to join our Union also belong in our family. It is my hope that one day a free and democratic Belarus will join us too. However, we must also be creative about the integration processes for candidate and associated countries, done by establishing an enhanced and structured political dialogue with our partners, and to include them as observers in the Commission comitology procedures and Council working groups, as well as the specific meetings of the EU Ministers and Heads of State.

Let us work together already today with our partners to the east and to the south of our borders, sitting around one table to pursue a Europe whole and free and to address the many challenges facing us today.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, sveikinu objektyv? Komisijos ?vertinim?, rekomendacij?. Ukraina, Moldova, Sakartvelas savo pažanga nusipelno Europos S?jungos kandidato statuso. Ypatingai šiandien europines vertybes savo gyvyb?mis ginanti Ukraina. Beje, tuo pa?iu dr?siai priimanti teisinius sprendimus, kaip, pvz., ratifikuodama Stambulo konvencij?. Mes turime t?sti param? Ukrainai sunki?ja ginkluote, reikiamai finansuodami ir stiprindami sankcijas agresoriui. Ateityje, tikiuosi, prie šio trejeto prisijungs ir pasikeitusi demokratin? Baltarusija, bet turime jokiu b?du nepalikti už d?mesio rib? Europos S?jungos pl?tros Vakar? Balkanuose, ypatingai bendradarbiaujant su Šiaur?s Makedonija ir Albanija. Manau, kad j? progresas, j? pasirengimas prad?ti derybas yra ?rodytas. Dabar reikia Vadov? Tarybos sprendim?. Linkiu vieningo sprendimo Vadov? Taryboje, nes mums reikia platesn?s Europos S?jungos, taikesn?s Europos S?jungos.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Clément Beaune, président en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je serai bref en conclusion de ce débat, en insistant sur trois mots et trois objectifs, au fond, de notre action depuis le début de cette guerre et de ce Conseil européen, demain, en particulier: la solidarité, la cohérence et l’ambition.

La solidarité et la cohérence, d’abord, parce que ce sont les maîtres-mots de notre attitude depuis le début vis-à-vis de ce conflit en Ukraine. En apportant d’abord un soutien – nous l’avons rappelé, et je salue à nouveau les efforts de la Commission européenne et l’implication du Parlement européen – sur le plan budgétaire, sur le plan humanitaire, sur le plan militaire, de manière inédite à l’égard du peuple et des dirigeants de l’Ukraine.

Attitude de solidarité et de cohérence, en ayant désigné de manière claire, unie, l’agresseur, le seul, la Russie, et avec l’adoption régulière renforcée de paquets de sanctions qui rendent d’ores et déjà plus difficile l’effort de guerre mené par la Russie. Une solidarité directe entre États membres en faveur de l’Ukraine dans l’accueil des réfugiés, sur tous les plans, comme je l’ai indiqué, qui se poursuit.

La cohérence et l’ambition aussi dans l’avenir de notre projet européen. Car nous devons en effet donner un signal d’ouverture à l’Ukraine et à la République de Moldavie, et, de manière différente, différenciée, sans doute décalée, aussi, à la Géorgie; une perspective européenne, en tout cas, avec les efforts supplémentaires que j’ai rappelés au départ. Mais avec un sens des responsabilités – c’est la cohérence que nous avons rappelée –, parce que nous savons que l’ouverture, si elle est décidée, d’une possible négociation ne veut pas dire une adhésion rapide. Et je crois que ce serait une désillusion pour les Ukrainiens comme pour les Européens que de forcer un processus de manière précipitée. Mais donner un signal de perspectives européennes et, au-delà, de candidature est évidemment extrêmement important. Je crois que là sont la cohérence et l’ambition.

Cohérence aussi, parce que prévoir de nouveaux élargissements le moment venu, cela ne veut pas dire oublier ceux qui se préparent de longue date avec beaucoup d’efforts et parfois des difficultés ou des impatiences. C’est donc ne pas oublier les pays des Balkans occidentaux. Cela a été rappelé par les intervenants au cours de notre débat et par la Commission européenne également.

La cohérence aussi, parce que quand un processus peut prendre du temps, il faut compléter ce processus. C’est l’idée que nous avons défendue d’une communauté politique européenne. J’entends qu’elle pose des questions, qu’elle suscite des réserves. Mais nous devons y travailler parce qu’il devra y avoir un complément à un processus qui, nécessairement, prendra du temps.

Ambition et solidarité, enfin, car gérer les crises, donner des perspectives à nos amis, à nos voisins, n’empêche pas – au contraire –, de travailler à la réforme et à l’avenir de notre projet politique européen. Ce fut le sens de cette conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe, ne l’oublions pas. Je l’ai entendu rappelé au cours de ces débats. La présidence française s’y est impliquée avant même le début de cette présidence, pendant ce semestre, jusqu’au bout, et je sais à quel point le Parlement européen a défendu cette initiative, la prise en compte aujourd’hui de ses résultats. Nous travaillons main dans la main entre institutions, et il faut remercier la Commission européenne d’avoir pris un certain nombre d’engagements de suivi et de propositions vis-à-vis des réformes proposées par les citoyens.

Cette conférence, cette préparation de l’avenir de l’Union européenne est aussi notre meilleure et, au fond, notre seule garantie qu’une Europe plus large, une Europe agrandie dans les années qui viennent, sera aussi une Europe qui fonctionne. Sinon, je crois que nous serions incohérents, que nous manquerions d’ambition et que nous manquerions de solidarité au-delà des mots. Nous avons donc besoin de mener – ce sont les exigences de l’histoire que nous vivons – ces chantiers tous ensemble, sans les choisir, sans les sélectionner, mais en les combinant, parce que notre avenir européen en dépend.

  Maroš Šef?ovi?, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, Minister Beaune, first and foremost I would like to thank all the honourable Members for the very clear support to welcome Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia into the European family.

I also appreciate the support for the European Commission’s opinion that I think was very clear in the statements by Mr Kelly, Ms García Pérez, Mr Auštrevi?ius and Mr Bütikofer, who spoke just a few minutes ago, and indeed I believe history and the European family will, with these three countries and the countries of the Western Balkans, be stronger, our economy will be bigger and Europe will be an even more influential actor on a global scale.

On our side in the Commission, I just would like to underscore and send a message to the peoples of these countries that we are ready to help. We are prepared to assist for the next steps, for opening, eventually, the accession talks, and to be ready for being the member of the European family. I would like to thank Ms Plumb and Mr Tudorache for acknowledging this readiness of the European Commission. Also, I think it is important to add to that this applies to Georgia as well as to Ukraine, Moldova and all the Western Balkan countries.

I also agree with the several of you who highlighted the importance – and Minister Beaune just said it a few minutes ago – to have to prepare also our Union to function more efficiently in the 21st century, and to be prepared for working in this enlarged family. I think it was one of the very clear messages we heard from the citizens in the Conference on the Future of Europe. It was coming very clear from the European Parliament, and you have seen already our first Commission reaction to the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, how the Commission is intending to go further, and that more clarity will also come in the State of the Union address of our President, Ursula von der Leyen, and we want to put as many concrete measures as possible into the next the Commission Work Programme.

Ms Keller and Ms García Pérez have been also referring to North Macedonia and Albania, and here I would like to use the presence of Minister Beaune to thank the French Presidency, and the Minister himself personally for the important work the Presidency is doing right now to unblock the talks with these two countries. We all would agree that North Macedonia and Albania have been waiting for a long time and now is indeed the time, and we hope that will happen very soon, that they will be able to move to the next stage.

Several Members made reference to the food crisis – Ms Bonafè and Mr Tajani, and I think that we have to be absolutely clear here that the food and energy crisis is of Russia’s making. Weaponising energy supply led already last year to an increase of energy prices, but blocking Ukrainian ports, bombarding grain storages and destroying the agricultural infrastructure of Ukraine – even stealing Ukrainian grain and then charging an export surcharge on agri—exports – is a deliberate push to create an artificial food crisis and tension in the world, for which Russia is entirely responsible.

We must be very vocal and explain this not only to our citizens, but also to our partners in Africa, in Latin America and other countries in the world.

What we are doing on our side is that we are looking for different possibilities how to transport Ukrainian grains and cereals, especially to countries in Africa. We have introduced so-called solidarity lanes, we are using our railways, we are using European ports, to get the grain to the customers. And we are, of course, supporting the efforts of Secretary General of the UN in his talks to unblock Ukrainian Black Sea ports so we can also resume using shipping lines for transporting the grain to existing customers.

Several of you made very pointed, and very understandable, points on the economic situation, on energy prices and on high inflation. As you know, these issues will be discussed by the leaders on Friday. On the side of the Commission, reflecting on the economic uncertainties of today, we have proposed to extend the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact for the next year. We have to learn the harsh lesson that dependencies cost a lot – be it in energy or in critical raw materials and we just have simply to rely more on our indigenous renewable sources and we have to diversify much more our supplies so nobody can threaten us with cutting supplies to us any more in the future.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Vizepräsident, herzlichen Dank für Ihre Ausführungen. Ich glaube, dass diese Debatte sehr deutlich gezeigt hat, dass die große Mehrheit der Redner sich eindeutig hinter den Vorschlag der Kommission stellt, in diesem historischen Moment, Moldau und der Ukraine den Beitrittskandidatenstatus zu erteilen, die europäische Perspektive für Georgien deutlich zu machen und die Westbalkanstaaten nicht zu vergessen, sondern individuell: Nordmazedonien, Albanien – Eröffnung der Beitrittsverhandlungen, Bosnien und die anderen Länder – Beitrittskandidatenstatus. Der nächste Schritt in diesem historischen Moment ist überall zu eröffnen, und dieses Parlament sagt eindeutig „ja“. Dazu alles Gute für die Verhandlungen im Rat diese Woche.

Die gemeinsame Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Zum Abschluss der Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Status der Ukraine, der Republik Moldau und Georgiens als Bewerberländer wurde ein gemeinsamer Entschließungsantrag eingereicht, der die Geschlossenheit und die Einigkeit des Europäischen Parlamentes zeigt.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

  Alin Mitu?a (Renew), în scris. – Republica Moldova, Ucraina ?i Georgia fac parte din familia european?. Este momentul ca Uniunea European? s? le acorde statutul de state candidate la aderare. Acest lucru este imperativ pentru Republica Moldova ?i Ucraina, care au primit o recomandare favorabil? de la Comisia European?. Georgia mai are reforme politice de realizat, dar are nevoie de o perspectiv? european? clar? pentru a le duce la cap?t.

Ob?inerea statutului de candidat este în primul rând meritul cet??enilor din Republica Moldova ?i din Ucraina, care au continuat s? sus?in? calea european? indiferent de presiunile enorme venite dinspre Moscova, care au degenerat zilele acestea în agresiunea oribil? împotriva Ucrainei.

Este ?i meritul liderilor din cele dou? ??ri, Maia Sandu ?i Volodimir Zelenskiy, care au prezentat candidaturi foarte bune în condi?ii extrem de dificile. Încrederea cet??enilor din Moldova ?i Ucraina în valorile europene, pe care le ap?r? chiar cu arma în mân?, ar trebui s? fie o inspira?ie pentru cei care, odat? intra?i în Uniune, au început s? le dea la o parte, oferind tot felul de justific?ri. Uniunea European? ?i valorile europene sunt ceva pentru care merit? s? lupt?m, iar exemplu ??rilor din vecin?tatea noastr? nu ne las? s? uit?m asta.

  Riho Terras (PPE), kirjalikult. – ELil on ülemkogul võimalik teha otsus, mis annab lootuse riikidele, mis väärivad kandidaatriigi staatust ja on võimelised selle rakendama edasiste reformide vankri ette. Täna käib Euroopas sõda. Putin ei ole teinud saladust oma ambitsioonidest. Soovi Vene impeerium taastada ei tule enam Putini jutust ridade vahel otsida – ta räägib seda avalikult ja tema juttu tuleb tõsiselt võtta. Vene impeeriumi taastamiseks ei vali Putin vahendeid. Euroopa Liit peab sellele vastu seisma ja pakkuma paremat alternatiivi. Me ei tohi kindlasti seista käed taskus ja vaadata, kuidas vaenlane samm-sammult vabu riike ja ühiskondi tükeldab. EL pole iialgi laienenud relv käes. ELiga liituda soovinud riigid peavad läbi tegema reformide kadalipu, tõendamaks oma sobivust liidu liikmena. Sellise tee peavad läbi tegema ka kõik kandidaatriigid. Täna tuleb kandidaatriigi staatus anda Ukrainale, Moldovale. Loodetavasti näevad ka seni skeptilised Orban ja Rutte võimalust ja vastutust parema Euroopa ees, mida positiivne otsus endas kätkeb. „Jah“ on selge sõnum ELilt neile rahvastele – oleme teiega teekonnal, mis sõltumata selle pikkusest, toob teid ELi liikmesriikide sekka. Kahjuks ei vasta olukord Gruusias täna kriteeriumidele, millest tuleks lähtuda. Gruusia valitsus on riiki juhtinud ebademokraatlikult. Ma ei toeta täna kandidaatriigi staatuse omistamist Gruusiale, kuid loodan, et tuleb ka see päev, mil Gruusia vastab tingimustele.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – A União Europeia não pode ser insensível ao apelo dos povos europeus para integrarem, cumpridos os necessários requisitos, a parceria europeia. A atribuição do estatuto de candidato à Ucrânia abre um caminho que tem que ser percorrido de forma consistente, sem criar falsas expectativas nem frustrações. Deve ser também articulado com um esforço de aceleração nas negociações de adesão dos países dos Balcãs Ocidentais. O apoio político, económico, social e militar da União Europeia à Ucrânia no contexto da guerra deve ser reiterado e reforçado pelo Conselho. Em complemento, é fundamental concretizar políticas de cooperação global para mitigar o efeito da guerra nas cadeias de valor e em particular no acesso à energia e na criação de melhores condições para a produção e a distribuição de alimentos, evitando uma catástrofe humanitária de grandes proporções, em particular em África. Os desafios com que a União Europeia se confronta exigem respostas firmes e adequadas. Saúdo, por isso, o debate sobre a proposta de lançamento de uma Comunidade Política Europeia englobando os países candidatos à adesão e permitindo aprofundar o diálogo e a cooperação na resposta a assuntos de comum interesse como a segurança, a estabilidade e a prosperidade do Continente europeu.

  Der Präsident. – Bevor ich zum nächsten Punkt der Tagesordnung komme, möchte ich eine Mitteilung machen. Die S&D-Fraktion und die Renew-Europe-Fraktion haben der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über die Änderung von Ernennungen in Ausschüsse und Delegationen übermittelt. Diese Beschlüsse werden im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung veröffentlicht und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.

  Barry Andrews, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, every issue that we’ve been debating today and tomorrow in the European Parliament is linked to the Sustainable Development Goals, and yet the SDGs have fallen dramatically off the political agenda. Seven years since the EU is the lead negotiator of the SDGs. No European country is on track to achieve the SDGs. In fact, according to the SDSN report, no progress has been made over the past two years in the EU. No progress.

We talk about building back better. We talk about a just transition for workers. We talk about global climate justice, brokering peace and protecting democracy. And yet, the framework for delivering all of these objectives lies right under our noses. I would like to convince you today that the SDGs are our last and best resort.

The EU has often been criticised for ignoring the concerns of ordinary citizens, as well as the grievances of developing countries. The SDGs are an opportunity to change this perception, because at their heart is the notion of justice. While we policymakers are terrified at the prospect of the end of the world, many of our citizens are terrified about the end of the month. Without our citizens on board, we put the success of the Paris Agreement at risk. What good is it if we reduce our emissions by 55% by 2030, if inequality continues to rise, as it has done in recent years? If wages continue to stagnate while the cost of living rises?

Income and wealth, inequality is an example of one SDG where we are failing spectacularly. Wealth distribution in today’s world is more lopsided than ever. The wealthiest 500 people on the planet have amassed $7 trillion in wealth, an increase of $1 trillion in wealth since the beginning of the pandemic. If, for example, there was a global wealth tax on these 500 people that left them with EUR 1 billion each, we could feed and educate every child in the world. We could have universal health care. We could achieve SDG 2, 3 and 4 and still have many billions to spare. And inequality has a tipping point beyond which we end up with social unrest, with conflict and massive political change.

We shouldn’t, therefore, be surprised when developing countries cannot be persuaded to do some of the heavy lifting on the issues that I’m talking about, when we are cutting aid, when we are blocking access to vaccines, when we are enabling gross inequality and erecting barriers to trade. And what good is it to have achieved our European climate targets if developing countries can’t afford to decarbonise, or if they are preoccupied by conflict or food insecurity on their own territories or mountains of unserviceable debt? By recognising our goals and those of our partners as inextricable, the SDGs are a blueprint for climate justice.

I think that the centre of the challenge is governance. The fact is that the EU still has no strategy for implementing the SDGs. This is despite the calls from the European Council in European Council conclusions in 2017 for a strategy. Yes, there is alignment, but there is no strategy and there is no roadmap for implementation of that strategy. It is welcome that the EU will present an EU voluntary review by 2023, but a review is no replacement for a genuine strategy with concrete targets, with benchmarks and a new approach to leadership and resources.

Leadership is crucial. This report contains concrete guidelines informed by the leading experts in civil society for revamping the implementation of the SDGs in the EU and beyond. It is political and it is clear. With this report and your support in the vote tomorrow, we will provide the EU with a democratic mandate to show true leadership on the SDGs once and for all.

  Petros Kokkalis, rapporteur. – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, the reason that I am here today is because I believe that until 2030, the single duty of all politics is to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the political twin of the Paris Agreement. We all know that our world is in dire straits and in dire need of systemic change. There can be no starker, nor crueler, proof of our current systemic failure than the cascading security crises in climate, in peace, in energy, in crisis, in food and public health that are ravaging populations all over the globe. The SDGs are our collective roadmap of effective and rapid collaboration towards preserving the very foundations of human civilisation, of maintaining the twin hard limits of social cohesion and the planetary boundaries, by addressing the twin anthropogenic causes of their demise: exploding inequalities and runaway climate change.

Seventeen goals with 169 measurable targets – indivisible, applicable equally to governments, regions, cities, corporations and SMEs, NGOs, sport clubs and trade unions, schools and hospitals, families and individuals, including refugees, already politically agreed by all nations on Earth – provide us with our best and only tool to effect the monumental transition in an organised, peaceful and democratic manner.

This is the first time in human history that we share a global common danger, and we need this universal language that allows all nations to work in the same direction, at the same very little precious time, exchange problems and solutions, and be transparent and accountable to all people in pursuing evidence-based policy and reporting measurable policy outcomes.

As hundreds of millions of people are backsliding into extreme poverty and billions are vulnerable to severe climate disruptions, we have the moral obligation to honour the promise that links the Sustainable Development Goals with our own European Green Deal: to leave no one behind. To lead the way forward into a safe world with prosperity for all, within the planetary boundaries and in true respect of fundamental human rights.

With our report today, we aspire to give a new political drive to the delivery of the SDGs in the EU and globally. Ahead of the high-level political forum in July and the summit in 2023, our report hopes to serve as a wake-up call for more and better urgent political action by the EU to restore and accelerate progress in all 17 goals.

At the start of her mandate, we welcomed the decision of the President of the Commission to make the delivery of strategies her priority and personally coordinate their efforts to this end. This whole-of-government approach to sustainable development is in the right direction. However, this task has been so far only partly successful, with great steps taken, albeit in disparate places of government. We therefore ask for a new implementation strategy with clear, measurable, time-bound targets, with a clear chain of accountability and a roadmap of concrete actions to be presented before the 2023 SDG Summit, along with a thorough EU voluntary review, which is very welcome, Commissioner.

We recognise that the strategy and our efforts to deliver the SDGs will not be successful without the active involvement of citizens and civil society organisations. One cannot ensure that no one is left behind unless everyone has a voice. That is why we call for a mechanism of structured engagement with a balanced, diversified and full democratic participation. There’s a lot we can learn from the Future of Europe Conference here.

The report recognises that effectively addressing the multiple crises we’re facing can no longer rely on a system that has failed us and that the radical reorientation of policies is necessary. That is why we are calling for a beyond-GDP approach and a reformed semester process that will be at the heart of a new sustainable development pact that will enshrine the climate law in the European Social Pillar and replace the Stability and Growth Pact.

I would like to thank my colleague Barry Andrews and the shadow rapporteurs and the technical teams for the work that they have put into this report. The SDGs are the global green deal, and I am sure that we agree that achieving the Green Deal only in Europe really makes no sense. So we have to get on with the programme.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by saying clearly that I welcome this own initiative report. Let me thank the rapporteur. In his most recent report on progress toward the SDGs, António Guterres notes that years or even decades of development progress have been halted or reversed by the pandemic, and that was before Russia invaded Ukraine. So we are not on track, but in these challenging times, the 2030 Agenda vision is particularly precious. It offers a blueprint that should inspire us to mitigate crisis and build back better.

The Commission remains fully committed to this agenda under the leadership of Ms von der Leyen. The Commission has presented an ambitious and comprehensive policy programme to deliver on sustainability in the EU and beyond. Several transformative initiatives have been launched since the beginning of this Commission’s mandate – the European Green Deal, the Climate Law, the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy, the Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, an updated European Skills Agenda and a European Education Area, to name just a few.

We have integrated the SDGs in the European Semester, a process that will be further reinforced. And Eurostat’s annual monitoring of progress towards the SDGs is now part of the Spring package of the Semester. As you know, prompted by the pandemic, the EU adopted, at record speed, Next Generation EU, and this includes taking action on the SDGs on which Eurostat has concluded that we were lagging behind, such as combating climate change and environmental degradation. As your report notes, a major feature of the recent revision of the Better Regulation Framework is to require that, from now on, all Commission impact assessments, legislative proposals and evaluation integrate an assessment on how the proposal contributes to the implementation of the SDGs.

We are active at home, though of course also trying to act multilaterally. At multilateral level, we actively support the annual meeting of the High—Level Forum on Sustainable Development, and I’m delighted that several of you will also be there as part of the EU delegation to take stock of all these achievements, but also to reflect on the remaining challenges. The Commission will present at next year’s UN High-Level Political Forum a comprehensive voluntary review of the EU’s internal and external implementation of the SDGs. Voluntary reviews are the core of the 2030 Agenda Global Accountability Architecture, and I am grateful that your report calls for ambition here. We want this review to be a comprehensive, political and inclusive document, laying down our main actions, internal and external, to implement the SDGs and setting out the way for enhanced efforts ahead. We are looking forward to our cooperation with Parliament in its preparation.

  ??????? ??????????????, ?? ???????? ??? ?????? PPE. – ????? ???????, ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????????, ????? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???????????? ??????. ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????????? ??? ?? ??????????????????? ??? ?????????????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??? ?? 2015 ??? ???????????? ????? ?? ??????.

? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ??? ?????????? ???????, ??? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ???????????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ???????????, ??? ??????????? ???? ?????, ??? ??????? ??????????, ??? ????????? ??? ??? ??????????, ??? ???????, ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ???????????, ??? ??????????? ???? ????????, ??? ???????? ??? ?????, ??? ???????????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????????? ???????????.

?????, ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????, ???? ? ?????????????? ??? ?????????? ??????, ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????????? ??? Next Generation EU, ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ?? 1,8 ??????????????? ????, ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????????????? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ??????????? ??? ?????????.

(??????????????)

  Rovana Plumb, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, it’s my turn now to congratulate the co-rapporteurs. We worked very well together in order to obtain a good result as a report, taking into account that this will represent the new mandate for the high-level political forum next month.

Well, there are there are only eight years left to implement the SDGs until 2030 and we are facing increasing challenges. The SDGs’ implementation progress is dramatically damaged, as you said, by the current geopolitical, health and humanitarian crises. Therefore we must act to ensure that the social inequalities resulting from those crises and well-being- and economy-related impacts are minimised; that measures taken to protect the environment, climate and security are carried out in a socially fair and inclusive way, with a comprehensive mapping of the financial envelopes of EU policies, which have been reinforced by the additional Next Generation EU funds to create a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe, as well as the social and demographic priorities set by the SDGs and the European Pillar of Social Rights to be fully implemented.

Furthermore, we must have a holistic approach to the SDGs in the EU, in the use of beyond—GDP indicators as well as reforming the European Semester to take due account of the SDGs.

  Stéphane Bijoux, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, absolument personne ne peut dire qu’il n’a pas compris que le dérèglement climatique est un rouleau compresseur mortel pour absolument tout le monde, absolument partout. Ce n’est pas une simple course contre la montre, c’est une course contre la mort. La réalité est là, plus de 40° C en France, il y a quelques jours, un incendie terrible en Espagne, la sécheresse, la canicule, sur absolument tous les continents.

Face à la menace climatique, les objectifs de développement durable sont à la fois une boussole et un thermomètre. La boussole dit le cap, et nous savons tous les efforts massifs que nous devons faire rapidement maintenant pour changer nos modes de vie. Le thermomètre dit où nous en sommes, et c’est un signal d’alarme, parce que la réalité est là: le dérèglement climatique menace tout le monde. C’est pour chacun une urgence et il faut agir vite. Il faut protéger tous les Européens, bien évidemment, et en particulier les plus éloignés, sur les îles, dans les outre-mers.

Mais je veux aussi redire notre responsabilité d’accompagner nos partenaires dans les pays en développement, parce que la solidarité de l’Europe face au dérèglement climatique, cette solidarité ne peut absolument pas s’arrêter aux seules limites géographiques du continent européen.

  Caroline Roose, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, nous votons un rapport consensuel sur la mise en œuvre des objectifs de développement durable. C’est une bonne nouvelle. Nous sommes tous d’accord sur les objectifs et le besoin d’agir. Mais si nous n’agissons pas concrètement, objectif par objectif, nous n’y arriverons jamais.

Par exemple, la semaine dernière, les membres de l’OMC sont parvenus à un accord ambitieux pour atteindre l’ODD 14.6 sur l’interdiction des subventions à la pêche néfastes pour l’environnement marin. C’est historique. L’accord permet d’interdire les subventions aux pêches illégales, mais aussi toutes les subventions aux navires qui ciblent des espèces surpêchées. Sauf que l’accord n’interdit pas les subventions encourageant la capacité de pêche et ne dit rien sur les subventions aux carburants. Ce sont donc près de 18 milliards d’euros, au niveau mondial, d’argent public dont une partie entraîne la surpêche et laisse des millions de personnes dans la faim et la pauvreté. Il faudra aller encore plus loin.

Alors que les crises humanitaires et le changement climatique s’accélèrent, les politiques européennes et mondiales sont encore loin d’être alignées sur les ODD. La politique agricole commune est-elle compatible avec les accords de Paris? Non. Les politiques commerciales sont-elles compatibles avec la sécurité alimentaire? Non. Atteindre les ODD, c’est avant tout agir concrètement pour transformer nos politiques.

  Beata Kempa, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodnicz?cy! Panie komisarzu! Sprawozdanie w sprawie wdra?ania przez Uni? Europejsk? celów zrównowa?onego rozwoju przyj?te przez komisje ENVI i DEVE s?usznie zwraca uwag? na negatywny wp?yw kryzysu wywo?anego pandemi? COVID-19 oraz wojn? na Ukrainie na wdra?anie celów zrównowa?onego rozwoju.

Przede wszystkim nie osi?gniemy celów zrównowa?onego rozwoju bez stabilno?ci na ?wiecie ? stabilno?ci politycznej i gospodarczej. Bezrobocie, nierówno?ci, bieda, g?ód to kombinacja, która w wielu rejonach ?wiata prowadzi do konfliktów, co cofa nas na drodze do osi?gni?cia celów zrównowa?onego rozwoju. Pandemia i wojna na Ukrainie w ogromnej mierze zdestabilizowa?y i tak ju? trudn? sytuacj? na ?wiecie. Wobec zwi?kszaj?cych si? potrzeb ?rodki przeznaczone na oficjaln? pomoc rozwojow? ju? okazuj? si? by? za ma?e.

Potrzebne jest spo?eczno-instytucjonalne partnerstwo na rzecz wdra?ania celów zrównowa?onego rozwoju. Musimy stawia? na wspó?prac?, partnerstwo, wspó?odpowiedzialno?? podmiotów publicznych, prywatnych, organizacji pozarz?dowych i obywateli za przebieg procesów rozwojowych.

  Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, plus aucun progrès; depuis 2020, le monde ne fait quasiment plus aucun progrès pour atteindre les objectifs de développement durable que la communauté internationale s’est fixés pour 2030. Non, le défi climatique et environnemental n’est pas résolu, et nous en sommes loin. L’indice ODD qui mesure la trajectoire des pays vers la réalisation des 17 objectifs de développement durable baisse, et ce pour la deuxième année consécutive.

Nous pourrions nous dire que c’est la crise sanitaire, puis la guerre en Ukraine qui en sont responsables, mais ce n’est pas le cas. Depuis 2016, le nombre de personnes souffrant de la faim augmente. Et l’objectif nº 2 de supprimer la faim dans le monde d’ici 2030 s’éloigne à grands pas. La vérité, c’est que nous sommes en fait au cœur d’une métacrise du système capitaliste: crise sanitaire, économique, sociale, environnementale, crise géopolitique et, demain, crise financière. Et nos politiques actuelles sont en conflit permanent avec nos limites planétaires et humaines. C’est ça qui doit changer.

Les solutions, nous les connaissons. Chaque semaine, de nouveaux rapports d’experts s’ajoutent aux anciens. Ce qu’il nous manque, c’est la volonté politique de tourner la page du néolibéralisme. Ici, au Parlement européen, nous avons clairement un rôle à jouer. Le pacte vert comme l’autonomie stratégique européenne sont des opportunités majeures pour renouer avec l’État-providence et retrouver des politiques efficaces. L’Union européenne a la responsabilité d’inscrire son projet dans la trajectoire des 17 ODD et nous devons faire tout ce qu’il est possible de faire pour amener le reste de la planète dans cette direction. Nous devons impulser et accompagner le changement.

IN THE CHAIR: KATARINA BARLEY
Vice-President

  Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, o desenvolvimento sustentável não é, hoje, um soundbite ou uma moda, é antes uma necessidade fundamental para garantir um desenvolvimento harmonioso da sociedade e a coesão social entre as gerações, geografias e comunidades.

A União Europeia não pode apenas reafirmar um compromisso teórico com os 17 Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, tem de os colocar em prática e avaliar o seu desempenho. E deve avaliar o seu desempenho porque os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável não são uma campanha política ou um número mediático, são a face visível de uma estratégia ambiental, social e económica que visa elevar a qualidade de vida de todos.

O momento atual na Europa é difícil. A guerra, os preços dos alimentos que já sentimos e os demais fenómenos climáticos extremos pressupõem ações concretas como resposta.

Precisamos, então, de mais coordenação e mais capacidade de resposta aos problemas, sendo também essa, com resultados, a melhor forma de responder ao populismo que continua a assolar a Europa.

  Barry Andrews, rapporteur. – Madam President and Commissioner, thank you very much for your response to the debate. And I think, you know, you’re right, we’re lagging behind. However, we have to remember, Eurostat’s latest report is based on data collected before the pandemic and before the war. So we’re in for a shock when we get our next set of data as to how far we really are lagging behind here. We can talk a good game about leaving nobody behind and reaching the furthest behind first. But I think we’re going to find shocking statistics around how bad the situation really is.

That’s why I think it is so timely that we have this conversation today, that we have a conversation that’s based on the reality that, unfortunately, this agenda has really fallen off dramatically, and it’s really time that we bring it back onto the agenda, because fundamentally we cannot achieve our Paris climate targets without the SDGs. They are two sides of the one coin. They are mutually reinforcing and they are an off-the-shelf conceptual framework to build back better. You couldn’t imagine a better international global agreed framework to build back better based on solidarity with those that are suffering the most.

I want to make a final point about democracy. The European Parliament is the second largest democratically elected body in the world, and I’m very proud that, thanks to the work of my colleagues (particularly my co-rapporteur Petros Kokkalis and my colleagues in the SDG alliance, which I am honored to chair), this House will express its views on the EU’s implementation for the very first time this term. European Parliament’s core function is democratic scrutiny. We communicate to you, Commissioner, the future that your half a billion citizens want. We neglected our duty to scrutinise the European Commission’s implementation over the last couple of years. From now on, this will not be the case.

  Petros Kokkalis, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to thank everybody for their contribution. It shows, with a plethora of views and a plethora of concerns, how holistic this agenda is and how much we need to take care of the whole picture.

I would like to take a moment to note the great work that’s been done by the JRC and agencies in the Commission in providing monitoring, in tying data, especially localising the SDGs in cities, their application in cities and regions. I think this is very important as we go forward to COP27 where we are going to have to discuss a globally—agreed, scientific—based global goal of adaptation, which is becoming more and more important. I think it is very critical that as we talk about innovation, we recognise our duty to provide basic services, as an organised state, to protect our citizens from the inaction of the past 40 years that has brought us to a world that would be, at a minimum, 1.5 degrees in the best case of international global cooperation on climate action.

Now what is important about localising the expertise and having this data is that we will have to prove our word. We will have to show that our policies actually work. It will be not enough anymore to monitor progress, to have little ideas that are yellow or green or blue. We will have to come up with hard data to prove that we are doing the right thing. It’s time, eight years before we finalise this progress, to agree and say that even with these indicators we have today, what will be the number that should be in that box in 2030, that we will agree constitutes a success and that we have done our job right? I think that it’s time that we take it much more seriously, and I’m very happy that we see that we are all doing that.

  Enik? Gy?ri (NI), írásban. – Egyetértek azzal, hogy fontos az Európai Parlamentnek is áttekintenie, miként zajlik a Helyreállítási és Ellenállóképességi Eszköz végrehajtása. Ez azonban Magyarország esetében lehetetlen, hiszen még meg sem kaptuk azt a pénzt, amely egyébként a jogszabály alapján járna. A Bizottságtól továbbra is az unalomig ismételt kifogásokat halljuk. Magyarország tételes válaszokat ad a Bizottság felvetéseire, de azokra nem kap választ. A korrupciós vádakat illet?en például épp az európai legf?bb ügyész, Laura Codruta Kövesi asszony mutatott rá a napokban, hogy Magyarország mennyire elkötelezett az együttm?ködésre. Teljesen világos tehát, hogy politikai ügy áll a magyar terv jóváhagyásával kapcsolatos huzavona mögött.

Ezt egy ECOFIN ülésen egyébként már maga a Bizottság is beismerte. Az Európai Parlament havonta tart Magyarország-gyalázó üléseket, a mai vita is ebbe a sorba illeszkedik. A baloldal zsarolja a Bizottságot, utasítja a magyar terv visszatartására. A lengyel terv jóváhagyása miatt még bizalmatlansági indítványt is kezdeményezne a Bizottság elnöke ellen. Kérdezem, a magyar terv jóváhagyása esetén a Berlaymont-t is megostromolnák? Magyarország a jelenlegi háborús helyzetben erején felül támogatja az ukrajnai menekülteket. Egyike azon tagállamoknak is, amelyeket leginkább sújtanak a háború nyomán kialakult gazdasági nehézségek. Jó lenne, ha baloldali képvisel?társaim, ahelyett, hogy energiájukat politikai viszályok szítására fecsérelik, háború idején inkább az összefogást és az egységet er?sítenék.

  Die Präsidentin. – Ich habe die Ankündigung zu machen, dass die fraktionslosen Mitglieder der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über die Änderung von Ernennungen in Ausschüsse übermittelt haben. Diese Beschlüsse werden im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung veröffentlicht und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señora presidenta, comisario Gentiloni, la Comisión tiene que presentar antes del 31 de julio la evaluación sobre el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia. Y con este informe del Parlamento Europeo pretendemos contribuir de manera constructiva a dicha evaluación.

Es cierto que apenas llevamos un año en la ejecución de los planes de recuperación, pero creo que los datos de los que disponemos hasta el momento pueden ser considerados como bastante positivos.

La respuesta a la crisis ha sido, a diferencia de en 2008, contundente, coordinada y sobre todo innovadora, superando muchas barreras y rompiendo algunos tabúes. Porque no solo decidimos crear un fondo de casi 700 000 millones EUR, sino que ese fondo ha sido financiado con deuda europea y, además, será reembolsado con nuevos impuestos europeos. Es decir, un fondo que aplica una doble solidaridad tanto por el gasto como por el ingreso. Y esta vez sí, la Unión ha demostrado su claro compromiso con sus ciudadanos, sus empresas y sus territorios.

El fondo ya ha tenido y tendrá efectos muy positivos en las economías de nuestros países. Está dando estabilidad a nuestras economías y está permitiendo mantener altos niveles de inversión en un momento de gran incertidumbre mundial. La pandemia primero y la guerra después han sacudido muchas de nuestras estructuras organizativas y, sobre todo, han puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica en las cadenas de suministro esenciales, en los servicios críticos y en las infraestructuras.

Este fondo no es la solución de todas nuestras necesidades, pero sí que está poniendo una base muy sólida gracias a las reformas e inversiones que se están financiando.

Acertamos cuando, como Parlamento, propusimos añadir a los objetivos de transición verde y digital cuatro pilares más que se han centrado en la economía, en la cohesión social y territorial, en la salud y la resiliencia institucional y, por supuesto, en medidas de apoyo y protección para nuestros niños y jóvenes.

Los seis pilares se han traducido, por ejemplo, en un objetivo ecológico del 37 %, que seguiremos muy de cerca para que sea real, algo que por el momento parece que puede estar en duda, y en un objetivo digital del 20 %, que ha sido superado con creces con los planes presentados y llegamos casi al 30 %, gracias al que pymes, servicios públicos o el sector sanitario se están viendo beneficiados.

En el ámbito social, según las estimaciones de la Comisión, estamos alrededor del 20 % del gasto, lo que no es un mal dato y gracias a él se están financiando, por ejemplo, incentivos al empleo para grupos desfavorecidos o se están modificando legislaciones laborales para dar mayor protección, calidad y estabilidad en los empleos.

Pero también hemos detectado que algunos Gobiernos no han tenido suficientemente en cuenta las repercusiones socioeconómicas de la pandemia ni en las mujeres ni en los grupos más vulnerables y que, por lo tanto, no han calibrado bien la dimensión social de sus planes.

Los sistemas sanitarios también se están viendo beneficiados por la inversión europea, con una notable mejora de la infraestructura hospitalaria, el refuerzo de la atención primaria y la prevención. Pero hay que dar un tirón de orejas aquí, por la falta de compromiso con la salud mental. Esto tiene que ser una prioridad europea.

Y me gustaría acabar con dos puntos transversales que considero esenciales. Primero, el respeto al Estado de Derecho. Este Parlamento se ha posicionado muy claramente —los Estados miembros tienen que cumplir con todas y cada una de las obligaciones derivadas del Estado de Derecho— y ha sido contundente en que no se deberían aprobar los planes de recuperación de los países que no cumplen.

Es el caso de Hungría y era el caso de Polonia, aunque aquí tanto la Comisión como el Consejo opinan que sí se dan las condiciones para seguir adelante, algo que como Parlamento no compartimos, y lo vuelvo a repetir: ni un solo euro desembolsado hasta que todas las medidas acordadas se hayan ejecutado.

Este es un tema de máxima prioridad e importancia para el Parlamento, para mi Grupo y en especial para mí, como ponente de los dos Reglamentos en materia de recuperación y resiliencia, pero también el de la condicionalidad presupuestaria en relación con el respeto al Estado de Derecho.

Y segundo punto, el nuevo escenario tras la invasión rusa a Ucrania. El impacto de la guerra se está traduciendo en millones de refugiados que tenemos que acoger, en tasas de inflación muy altas, en precios de la energía por las nubes. Esto añade mucha más presión a la situación creada por la pandemia.

Cuando negociamos este Mecanismo, éramos conscientes de la necesidad de una transición verde por ecología, pero también por economía. Hoy la urgencia es más evidente: por las olas de calor, por el precio del gas y por la necesidad de desconectarnos de Rusia. Y, con el REPowerEU, intentaremos ajustar necesidades con financiación disponible para maximizar el impacto, pero no nos hagamos trampas, no hay mucho más dinero. Es casi el mismo presupuesto y los presupuestos europeos también están al límite.

En pandemia hicimos lo más difícil: cambiar nuestro paradigma. Reflexionemos ahora juntos sobre cómo construir una nueva arquitectura financiera basándonos en estos últimos pasos que tan fructíferamente hemos dado todos juntos.

  Siegfried Mure?an, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, dear colleagues, the European Recovery and Resilience Facility is the biggest package of economic support ever launched at European level: EUR 672.5 billion for the people affected by the pandemic, for enterprises and regions affected by the healthcare crisis and by the economic and social consequences.

We have together adopted legislation one year ago, and since then 26 of the 27 Member States of the Union have put forward their national recovery plans, and 22 of the 27 Member States have received the 13% pre-financing before the end of last year and are now in the process of implementing the plans and presenting the milestones and targets fulfilled to the European institutions and are also in the process of receiving the next tranches.

This instrument was launched to help those affected by the pandemic, but also to improve the resilience of our economies, of our public systems, to make our hospitals more modern, to enlarge capacities, to digitalise the education system. We have established clear rules at European level – a clear direction, six pillars into which money can flow, clear rules at European level – but also allowed for flexibility for the priorities of Member States, knowing that the needs differ from Member State to Member State.

Eider Gardiazabal, Drago? Pîslaru and myself as the three co-rapporteurs are putting now before this House the first implementation report in which we are issuing the opinion of the Parliament on the plans, on the assessment done by the European Commission and the process so far. And we are concluding that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has already made a positive contribution to the recovery of the European economy following COVID. It already has a positive contribution to the development of our economies, upon growth, and we expect its impact upon growth and upon job creation to increase in the months to come.

Once adopted, a national plan needs to be implemented. It should not be changed and amended on a permanent basis. This is why, in the European legislation, we have allowed for amendments and changes to the plans only on an objective basis. No to political changes. But the illegitimate invasion of Russian armed forces into Ukraine changes a lot in the European economy. And this is why if Member States intend to make investments in improving energy efficiency, reducing dependency on Russia, investing in renewables, in new sources of energy, in energy infrastructure in the Member State, in a way in which this helps the whole European Union, I believe we should facilitate this.

Food safety, food security: we have also seen we will be missing imports of agricultural products from Ukraine. We have to do everything we can to increase production here at home, at European level. If Member States intend to amend their plans into these directions, I believe we should be open.

Our report underlines that this is an instrument for investments, but also reforms, and it underlines that the implementation of the country—specific recommendations, of the reforms agreed by the Commission and the governments, will strengthen the economies, will make them more resilient. We would like to see more cross-border projects, particularly in the area of energy, because this will help us to bring the energy from where we have it to where we need it.

Commissioner, we will also work with the Commission and with the governments of Member States to make sure that the loans which were not yet accessed by some Member States will be accessed and preferably in areas which are linked to reducing the energy dependence.

The European Parliament also expects that local and regional authorities be involved properly, because the amounts of money are big, the time is short. The Recovery and Resilience Facility can much better be implemented together with local and regional authorities.

And one last thing: transparency and control. The European Union will spend more money than ever from its traditional budget and from the Recovery and Resilience Facility in the next years together. The more we spend, the more we need to make sure that money really reaches the beneficiaries for which it is intended; strong goals for the European Public Prosecutor, for OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, to make sure that money really reaches people in need and that the rule of law is observed before any payment is made from the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

We are united as a Parliament. Thank you, Eider, thank you Drago? for the very good cooperation. Many thanks to the shadow rapporteurs of the other groups as well.

  Drago? Pîslaru, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, dear colleagues, it is indeed a great privilege to see that today the Parliament takes one step further in ensuring, first and foremost, democratic accountability as a solid principle at the core of the largest financial instruments that the EU has ever seen.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility marks, and will mark for the generations that follow, a new chapter in the history of our European Union. It is indeed a beautiful symbol of solidarity in one of our darkest times, showing that only united we can emerge more resilient following crises such as the pandemic. It puts forward a new concept in EU funds that blends reforms with investments and guides EU Member States in how best to invest the allocated funds. And it has created ownership on responding to the country-specific recommendations that were not taken on board by Member States for years beforehand. It’s also setting the ambition higher for our economic governance framework in showing that the Parliament can and should have a greater role to play.

Back in 2020, this House stood united in negotiation with an amazing negotiation team of our rapporteurs and shadows. And we have been demanding at that time things that right now are already in regulation and in course of implementation. The Member States have been asked to draft the recovery and resilience plans in a balanced way, including measures on six pillars, also demanding from Parliament side that there will be proper consultations with stakeholders in the drafting and implementation of plans and, as has been underlined by my colleague, co-rapporteurs, demanding transparency in how money should be spent, highlighting beneficiaries, creating proper control mechanisms and setting up monitoring too.

We are right now halfway through this Facility, which we decided back then we would make it last until 2023. Where do we stand on the points that we so much defended? Until now, the Parliament had many initiatives to ensure the proper and effective implementation of the Facility. We organised, as you well know, several plenary debates, drafted several resolutions, expressing our position on key moments in its evolution. We organised much-needed recovery and resilience dialogues with Vice-President Dombrovskis and Commissioner Gentiloni and held recurrent RRF working groups, meetings and discussions with Commission representatives and civil society organisations.

Now in this initiative that we have today debated, related to our own implementation report, it’s an analysis on how we see the progress Member States registered so far. And together with my dear colleagues, Siegfried Mure?an from the EPP and Eider Gardiazabal Rubial from the S&D, together with all the shadows, we produced an extensive analysis on the current state of play.

We are glad to see that Member States made the effort and submitted their plans. It was not an easy task. We knew from the beginning that drafting a plan of reforms and investments will be a complex task with a lot of pressure and a lot of expectations. We are glad that almost all plans managed to obtain approval. But do not forget: a plan must never be approved at any cost. Always remember that EU values are essential, non-negotiable, and they must set the foundation of each action, project, reform or investment that uses EU funds.

The plans are much more than paperwork to justify the money. The plans in several Member States are a roadmap to development to further expand and develop their economies. The plans are the ways to launch important social reforms. The plans are important steps in being sure that children and youth are taken care of with enough attention. We have read many good ideas in the plans. We have seen investment that could easily be scaled up in other Member States.

But I just wanted to say that I am also having things that we could have done better. For instance, too many plans do not properly reflect the ambition set by the European Child Guarantee, and they reflect only partially those of the Reinforced Youth Guarantee. And there are even two Member States that have chosen not to include in their plans measures specifically dedicated to children and youth, but prefer to present measures that foster only skills and digital skills for all citizens.

We are living in challenging times, which require both unity and flexibility. Unity also means inclusiveness and Member States did little or not too much to include local and regional authorities, civil society organisations, social partners, academia or other relevant stakeholders in the design of the plans. Governments have now the chance, the opportunity, to prove that the implementation of the plans is done together with the stakeholders, in order to involve them in implementation and monitoring, based on clear and transparent principles.

And then flexibility. The current situation in Ukraine is having a heavy impact on energy prices and the need to strengthen this energy security. All these elements can be achieved through REPowerEU, a necessary instrument, which Member States will be able to add in their planned measures to achieve energy sovereignty and independence.

Finally, and I would like to end here, we need to choose if the RRF will be just the story or a legacy. And I think that right now the Parliament is doing that and we are doing since we started the work on the RRF, and all this work can be continued if the Parliament gains an increased role in future EU initiatives.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, we jointly created the RRF to face the economic and social impacts of the pandemic. Today we face a new crisis provoked by Russia. Inflation has reached a record high, hitting both consumers and businesses across Europe. And we see a major increase in prices, especially in energy and raw materials. So we have to monitor closely the impact of these developments on RRF implementation.

But let me say very clearly that the situation confirms the importance and the timeliness of the Facility. The RRF ensures that the Union acts as one in such difficult times, creating effective and aligned measures to boost investments and reforms across all Member States. And this is especially important with the low level of growth that we have in these months. Of course, it is not easy to deliver under such a short time frame. As your report highlights, the Commission must and will closely monitor Member States’ progress in implementing the plans. And we will only disburse funds when Member States fulfil the milestones and targets they have committed to.

Overall, the RRF is supporting the green transition by allocating almost 40% of national plans to the climate and financing only measures that do no significant harm to the environment. Digitalisation is also crucial, with over well over 20% of the funds. The plans also contribute to social objectives and the implementation of the pillar of social rights. Around 30% of funds contribute to social expenditure for education, labour market, health and skills. So a swift implementation of measures across the six pillars of the regulation is key, and Member States are acting on all six pillars.

When looking back at the progress made so far, we have almost EUR 100 billion in RRF funds disbursed and EUR 114 billion issued in just one year. We can proudly say that implementation is well on track and I am happy that your implementation report expresses the same view. It acknowledges the work done by Member States and the EU institutions to bring the RRF to life, and I am glad that the Parliament has found our Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard and the first RRF annual report useful.

We take note of the Parliament’s call for better communication in the Member States. We will take up this call with our interlocutors in the Member States and discuss how each can be more transparent and proactive in communicating the implementation and the content of their plans with the stakeholders.

I would like to reaffirm that we will make no compromise when it comes to the protection of the Union’s financial interests. This is why we must also protect the Union’s budget against breaches of the rule of law. As you know, a few weeks ago we published our assessment of the Polish plan. The Commission has worked closely with the Polish authorities for more than one year since the submission of the plan and scrutinised each measure. Poland has committed to strengthen important aspects of the independence of the judiciary.

To leave no ambiguity on the matter, when the Council adopts a plan the real work begins. Poland needs to deliver on its commitments on the rule of law before any payment can be made. The positive assessment and adoption of the plan does not lead in itself to any disbursement. We will also continue to address rule of law issues through other instruments specifically designed for this purpose.

Let me end now with a glimpse to REPowerEU. You have seen the proposal for which we want to use the power and the available loan capacity of the RRF, as well as additional funds, to swiftly and effectively strengthen Europe’s open strategic autonomy, wean ourselves off Russian fossil fuels, support renewables, and reduce energy consumption overall. So I look forward to hearing your views also on REPowerEU during this debate, and to work with you in the coming months to bring this important proposal to life.

  Isabel García Muñoz, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Control Presupuestario. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en 2020 la Unión Europea estuvo a la altura y frente a una crisis sanitaria, económica y social sin precedentes, concibió los fondos Next Generation EU y el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia como una oportunidad única para impulsar la recuperación de Europa; esta vez sin dejar a nadie atrás.

Ahora son los Estados miembros los que tienen que demostrar que están a la altura, cumpliendo sus planes de reformas nacionales aprobados por la Comisión. Y a medida que los países alcanzan los objetivos fijados en esos planes, la Comisión debe garantizar que las ayudas siguen llegando.

Es imprescindible que se lleve a cabo de una forma rápida, pero esto no quiere decir que tenga que haber menos control. La implementación del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia debe ser transparente, eficaz y rigurosa, para lo que necesita mecanismos de vigilancia y control que aseguren que el dinero se utiliza según las reglas establecidas y que ni un solo euro se pierde por culpa del fraude o la corrupción. Solo así sacaremos el máximo provecho a los fondos para la recuperación, lograremos la transición ecológica y digital de Europa y mantendremos la confianza de los ciudadanos.

Con estos objetivos, desde el Parlamento, continuaremos realizando la supervisión democrática del mecanismo que nos corresponde.

  Niklas Nienaß, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. –Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, if we take a look back to the hard times when COVID hit us the first time, we remember probably two distinguished moments. One was when all cultural entities were closed, the other one was when schools were closed. I think those are the two most prominent and also the hardest hit structural entities that we see.

The cultural sector makes up 4.4% of Europe’s GDP. Over 8.7 million people are employed in the cultural sector. Every child goes to school, thankfully, but still we have asked for 2% of the RF to be spent on culture and 10% in education. We had to follow up on this, and see that this has not been done across Europe – the problem there being that some Member States actually invest money in culture and education while others don’t. They have not followed Parliament’s proposal to do the rightful investments, and what we see now is underfunded cultural entities in several Member States, especially those where freedom of speech is threatened by other means.

We are seeing a recovery of different speeds. We see Member States like Italy that have invested heavily in culture and others that have invested nothing and we know that this threatens the European diversity of culture. This has to be reversed, and therefore we are calling on the Commission to reuse the unused RF resources for culture and education to make sure that every European can enjoy diversity and can enjoy very well education.

  José Manuel Fernandes, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caras e Caros Colegas, os planos de recuperação e resiliência em termos de subvenções correspondem a 338 mil milhões de EUR que resultam de uma dívida que a Comissão Europeia fez. Isto significa que os nossos governantes têm de agir com responsabilidade. Tem de valer a pena. Isto é um esforço de solidariedade que, se necessário, deverá repetir-se no futuro. Para isso, esta ação e os resultados têm de acontecer e têm de ser positivos.

Por isso, é necessária uma maior execução. No meu Estado-Membro, Portugal, em 2021, recebemos 2100 milhões de EUR e executamos 90 milhões de EUR e há Estados-Membros que têm uma execução ainda pior do que esta. Para além disso, é necessário assegurar que não há substituição de despesa, que os PRR não substituem o Orçamento de Estado. Os PRR têm de ser adicionais e também não podem promover o centralismo ou concentração, quer em termos de investimentos no território, quer em termos de investimentos numa mesma empresa. É necessário que haja coesão territorial e que estes montantes sejam também eles bem distribuídos.

Por fim, termino com uma pergunta: há Estados-Membros que vão receber mais do que aquilo que estava previsto, porque reagiram de uma forma pior, digamos assim, e responderam pior à crise. O meu país, por exemplo, vai receber cerca de 1600 milhões de EUR adicionais, que vão ser somados aos 13,9 mil milhões de EUR em termos de subvenções. Significa que os programas de recuperação e resiliência vão ser mudados. A Comissão vai participar nestas alterações face à guerra e às novas exigências? Vai direcioná-los? É uma pergunta para a qual nós precisamos também de uma resposta, porque a Comissão Europeia tem de fazer cumprir o regulamento e tem de atender à nova realidade decorrente da situação que vivemos.

  Costas Mavrides, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the Commissioner will need his headphones.

????? ???????, ? ?????????? ????????? ????????????? ??? ???????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????????. ???? ?????????? ?????????????? ??? ??????????????? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ??????. ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???, ???? ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????????? ???, ???? ????? ? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????????, ? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????????? ?????. ?????, ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????????? ??? ? ????????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????.

?????????? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????. ? ?????????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????, ??? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????????, ???? ??? ????? ????. ? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ???? ??????????. ???????????, ??? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???.

  Luis Garicano, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, it’s good to see Mr Gentiloni. Two years ago, we had to shut down all our social and economic activity to fight this awful disease, and our workers and entrepreneurs wondered if they could make it through the shock. But this time, Europe rose to the task. It had long been considered unthinkable for the European Union to issue common joint debt. But it did this time. And many workers today have a job, thanks to the SURE programme financed by the European Union. And many businesses survived thanks to the liquidity provided by Europe. And many workers will go back to work thanks to this Recovery and Resilience Facility that we examine today.

And it is precisely because issuing debt together is so unprecedented that we must succeed. The Commission must ensure, Mr Gentiloni, that the Recovery Facility is used to make our economies stronger and more resilient, and that our citizens are freer and our values are respected. Unfortunately, Mr Commissioner, the Commission has sometimes come up short in this task.

Three examples: first, the Commission gave the highest grades to most recovery plans on exactly the same old criteria, the same one in all of them, and the lower grade in most plans to the exact same other criteria. I don’t know, I’ve graded lots of exams and I’ve never seen that. Second, amidst massive internal disagreement, the Commission just a couple of weeks ago approved the Polish recovery plan, taking at face value the promises – very deceptive promises, I’m afraid – of the Polish Government. And third, the Commission has approved a change in the Spanish pensions that reverses the reforms led by the European Commission 10 years ago to make them sustainable.

Commissioner, we really understand the pressure that the Commission, that you all are under. But for this Recovery and Resilience Facility to succeed, the Commission must do its job. We must make future generations of Europeans proud of what we do here today.

  Damian Boeselager, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I was informed there would be additional speaking time because my colleague Ernest Urtasun cannot come, so it will be a bit longer.

The Recovery Fund negotiations were extremely intense – and I can still feel parts of this mini—trauma when I see the colleagues here, because of all the all—night sessions that we spent – but they have also been extremely successful. For the first time ever, the European Union decided to take up common debt of such as size to invest us out of the Corona pandemic crisis and all the horrible social and economic effects that ensued. With a large majority in this House, we decided that we wouldn’t just build back in any way, but that we would build back better, that we would build back by fuelling the green transition, by fuelling the digital transition, by making sure that we have new standards for green investment when we do that, and that we also apply this new standard for green investment to cohesion funds.

Since then, actually, a lot of remarkable things have happened. We have seen countries implement reforms that have not been tabled for years. We have seen a lot of countries with very good and innovative ideas of how to actually do this green and digital transition. And we have seen that and we have also fought for the fact that no euro should actually go into any form of spending that would harm the environment.

That’s the positive side. But we have also obviously seen some issues and I think it’s really important that we point them out so that we can address them and also learn for the future. Some countries still did greenwashing, and I can name Germany with their hybrid cars is one example. Some Member States refuse to adhere to the necessary safeguards for our European taxpayers’ money when it comes to, for example, the rule of law. We have talked about this in the last session, obviously in the case of Poland, but also when it comes to corruption.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Gentiloni, ritengo che allo stato attuale il Recovery and Resilience Facility abbia questi vulnus.

Primo: un modesto impatto di crescita per effetto degli investimenti programmati, così come nel rapporto del working group sull’RRF, e procedure troppo burocratiche.

Secondo: condizionalità troppo stringenti e scarsa flessibilità per ottenere finanziamenti, che hanno indotto molti paesi membri ad utilizzare spese in deficit invece di chiedere i prestiti.

Terzo: indisponibilità delle istituzioni a ricalibrare gli obiettivi ambientali del Recovery in modo che siano realisticamente sostenibili per garantire un’effettiva sicurezza energetica europea, avendo seguito eccessivamente l’ideologia green, la quale rischia di esacerbare le problematiche socioeconomiche, con l’amara prospettiva di essere ancora più dipendenti dalla Cina.

Pertanto auspico che l’RRF venga maggiormente implementato da RepowerEU, unitamente alla ridefinizione di obiettivi sostenibili e di uno snellimento delle procedure attuative, in modo da consentire ai paesi di riformulare i rispettivi PNRR rendendoli effettivamente realizzabili.

  Johan Van Overtveldt, namens de ECR-Fractie. – President, Commissioner, colleagues, het zijn onzekere tijden. De ene crisis volgt op de andere en niemand weet wat we de komende tijd nog mogen verwachten. En de mens doet in zulke gevallen wat hij of zij het beste kan, namelijk zich aanpassen. Op Europees vlak hebben we een herstelplan toegevoegd aan het meerjarig investeringskader. Dat herstelplan zal ook dienen voor een nieuwe focus op onze gezamenlijke energieonafhankelijkheid met REPowerEU. U wees er zelf op, commissaris, om dit actief in dit debat te betrekken.

De middelen die we hebben, zijn beperkt en dus moeten we ze uitgeven waar we als collectief het meeste rendement hebben. De EU moet zich dus concentreren op die domeinen – en dat zijn er heel wat – waar ze het verschil kan maken. In dat opzicht is die nadruk op energieonafhankelijkheid een zeer goede zaak.

Daarnaast roept REPowerEU toch ook op tot een versnelde groene transitie. En hier moeten we toch iets in ogenschouw nemen wat vandaag belangrijk is. De huidige inflatie wordt niet enkel gedreven door de stijgende prijs van fossiele brandstoffen en door de verstoring van de globale aanvoerlijnen als gevolg van de pandemie. We hebben ook te maken met greenflation, namelijk de opwaartse druk op het prijsniveau, juist door die transitie. Het gaat dan niet in het minst om alsmaar stijgende grondstoffenprijzen, zeker van broodnodige zeldzame metalen en mineralen.

Het Internationaal Energieagentschap, het IMF en de Wereldbank zijn eensluidend in hun conclusies: deze prijsstijgingen zullen zich nog een tijd doorzetten. Wat mij betreft, zijn de blinde verhogingen van klimaatdoelstellingen contraproductief. Ik vind het een beetje zorgwekkend dat bepaalde groepen in het Parlement zichzelf blijven verliezen in een opbod aan klimaatdoelstellingen. Die torenhoge ambitie zal de burger straks tegenkomen in de vorm van hogere lasten. En dat op een moment dat de koopkracht al, om een eufemisme te gebruiken, zwaar onder druk staat.

Ik zou de Commissie dan ook willen vragen verder de nadruk te blijven leggen op energieonafhankelijkheid en dus niet om de crisis aan te grijpen om de groene transitie te versnellen, met nog steeds verder stijgende prijzen als gevolg.

  ????????? ????????????, ?? ???????? ??? ?????? The Left. – ????? ???????, ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????????????? ????? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????, ????? Gentiloni, ??? ??’ ???? ?????? ?? ???????. ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????. ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????????, ??? ???????? ??????, ???????, ?????????, ?????????, ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ??? ????????. ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????????, ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ???????, ??? ???????? ??????, ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??????????, ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????, ??? ??? ???????????? ????????????, ??? ?????? ?? ????????. ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????, ??????, ??????? ?????? ??? ??????????????????.

??’ ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????????, ??? ? ????????? ????? ??? ? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????????. ???? ??? ??? ????????, ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????????????? ??? ??? ???????????? ??? ??????????? ??? ??? ????????? ????????? ??? ???????. ???????????? ??? ????????, ??? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ?? ???????????????? ?? REPower EU.

  Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Madam President, the reality around us, from the Russian aggression to the turbulence on the energy market, confirmed the genuine need for the Recovery Fund. Many of the decisions that we took during the negotiations, from the inception of the European instrument to avoid internal market fragmentation to fostering the renewables in the energy mix, were forward-looking, and the Parliament largely contributed to it. So I think this is something we need to learn from what we’ve done and be happy about it, but we also believe that further action is needed.

Fiscal capacity at the European level is currently missing. That’s something that would allow us to cope with external shocks like the Russian aggression, for example. REPowerEU represents a very good opportunity, absolutely. It’s an opportunity to drastically accelerate our energy transition and increase Europe’s energy independence. But its swift deployment is possible thanks to previous decisions taken in terms of budget and own resources. What would happen if we had new crises coming up? We wouldn’t have new tools. We wouldn’t have resources. That’s why I think we need to move forward. We need to complete our economic and monetary union, because when we are united and look forward, we are capable of great things. But we just need the tools.

  Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, parce qu’imaginé pour la première fois, le plan de relance européen était perçu comme politiquement infaisable. Et pourtant, nous l’avons fait. Et depuis son lancement, les effets sur notre croissance, sur notre PIB, sont significatifs. Le financement de «MaPrimeRénov’» ou du Ségur de la santé en France, la modernisation des hôpitaux en Roumanie, des lignes à grande vitesse en Italie: c’est du très concret pour les Européens.

Néanmoins, ces réussites ne sont pas le fruit du hasard. Si le plan de relance est un succès, c’est parce que les États qui en bénéficient partagent une chose en commun, Monsieur le Commissaire: ils ont respecté les objectifs et les conditions fixées en commun pour recevoir cet argent. Certains se sont engagés sur la voie de réformes courageuses et historiques. Ils ont respecté ce qu’ils avaient promis à leurs partenaires.

Aujourd’hui, Monsieur le Commissaire, la Pologne ne respecte pas les conditions qui lui ont été assignées, notamment par la présidente de la Commission européenne elle-même – réengagement des juges démis de leurs fonctions de manière arbitraire; fin de la réforme judiciaire; abolition de la chambre disciplinaire ou de toute autre instance similaire. Et donc nous, au Parlement européen, restons déterminés – et particulièrement chez Renew. Pas un seul euro ne doit finir dans la poche de ceux qui détricotent les institutions démocratiques de la Pologne qui ont été si durement arrachées à l’Histoire. Il en va de même pour la Hongrie, bien sûr.

Chers collègues, le plan de relance européen est une réussite, c’est incontestable. Nous devons désormais le parachever en finalisant les ressources propres pour son remboursement et en empêchant qu’il soit versé à ceux qui s’obstinent à ne pas respecter les valeurs qui fondent notre Union – Union qui est à l’origine de ces fonds.

  José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, se há algum problema com a ambição climática do Fundo de Recuperação e Resiliência é a falta de ambição e não os sucessos. Infelizmente, no regulamento, o princípio da exclusão de financiamento à indústria fóssil não foi aprovado e as suas consequências já estão à vista nos planos de recuperação e resiliência dos vários Estados-Membros. E é curioso que aqueles que, no passado, contribuíram para adiar os objetivos climáticos na União Europeia apresentem, hoje, essa perspetiva como sendo realista. Se os tivéssemos cumprido há mais tempo, não estaríamos hoje na situação de dependência em que estamos. É uma curiosa perspetiva realista esta. A que opta por ignorar não apenas a evidência científica em torno da emergência das alterações climáticas, mas os próprios fenómenos meteorológicos extremos que já estamos a sentir hoje, que já se desenrolam perante os nossos olhos, e que essas forças políticas insistem em ignorar e insistem em não ver. Insistem também em não perceber que o futuro da economia europeia passa pela aceleração da transição energética e industrial do nosso continente. Não passa certamente por adiar essa transição inevitável, permitindo que outros o façam primeiro.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, încep prin a felicita raportorii. Este un raport foarte bun, pentru c?, practic, mecanismul de rezilien?? ?i redresare, instrument cheie pentru investi?ii ?i reforme, este mesajul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene pentru a ajuta cet??enii, dar ?i companiile, pentru a diminua impactul negativ al crizei sanitare, dar ?i tot ceea ce înseamn? criz? care s-a întâmplat ca urmare a agresiunii Rusiei în Ucraina.

Sigur c? salut?m „REPowerEU”. Este o ?ans? pentru Uniunea European? pentru a-?i asigura independen?a energetic?, dar, domnule comisar, eu cred c? este nevoie de o mai mare flexibilitate din partea Comisiei, astfel încât s? le da?i posibilitatea statelor membre s? î?i readapteze planurile na?ionale de redresare ?i rezilien?? pentru a putea face fa?? acestor crize: infla?ie, cre?terea pre?urilor, criza energetic?.

  ????? ????????? (Renew). – ?-?? ???????????, ?-? ???????, ?????????? ?? ?????????????? ? ??????????? ? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ????, ????? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????, ???? ? ?? ???????????? ??????????, ??? ????????? ? ????????? ?? ???????????, ???????? ?? ?????????????? ???? ??????????? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ? ????????? ?????????????.

?? ?????????? ???? ???? ???????????? ?????? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ? ???????????. ??? ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ? ???????? ?? ??????????, ?? ????? ????? ????? ????, ?? ?????????? ???????????. ???? ?? ?????????????? ? ??????????. ???????????? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ? ???????? ??????, ???????? ? ?????????? ??????, ???????????? ???????, ???????????? ????????, ??????? ? ?????? ?????????????? ????????. ???? ? ??????? ???????????? ????? ?? ????????????, ???? ? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????????. ??????, ????? ???????????? ???? ???????????? ??? ???????????? ?? ?????????, ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????.

?????????? ? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???????, ???????? ? ???????????? ???????, ?????????? ? ?????? ? ???????????? ????????, ?????????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ??????. ????????? ???????????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ????????.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en el futuro nos juzgarán por la rapidez y la eficiencia con la que se gestionaron estos fondos; nos juzgarán por si, en este momento de tremenda incertidumbre económica, fuimos capaces de generar oportunidades y crecimiento.

Por eso, ahora es el momento de exigir a los Estados miembros una ejecución rápida, eficaz y transparente de estos fondos para garantizar que lleguen a las empresas, a los autónomos y a las pymes; para que lleguen a las familias y a las clases medias; y para garantizar que se llevan a cabo unas reformas que nos ayuden a ser más competitivos y que, entre otras cosas, faciliten la creación de empleo, no reformas que sirvan como pago político para mantener coaliciones de gobierno.

También es el momento de mandarles a ustedes ?a la Comisión y al Consejo? que sean exigentes en sus evaluaciones.

Me preocupa en especial mi país, España, que es uno de los grandes receptores de fondos. No estamos logrando que lleguen al tejido productivo, tienen un bajísimo ritmo de ejecución, y no se está contando con las autoridades locales ni con las comunidades autónomas para implementar este plan.

Ni España ni ningún Estado miembro puede perder esta histórica oportunidad. Por ello, seamos exigentes y cumplamos con las normas y los objetivos que nos hemos marcado.

  Marek Belka (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicz?ca! Panie Komisarzu! Krajowe programy odbudowy, jak sama nazwa wskazuje, powinny by? szans? dla ca?ego kraju. Zwa?ywszy, ?e w ka?dym planie nale?y przeznaczy? kilkadziesi?t procent zasobów na transformacj? energetyczn? i cyfrow?, z pozoru wydaje si?, ?e jest to wprowadzenie naszych miast, wsi i spo?eczno?ci w now? epok?, w now? cywilizacj?.

Wydaje si?. Nie chc? zawodzi? jak miastowa m?odzie?, cho? to rzeczywi?cie ona b?dzie najbardziej dyskryminowana w KPO, ale podej?cie rz?du PiS do wi?kszych o?rodków jest niesprawiedliwe. Trudno nie mie? wra?enia, ?e udost?pnienie miastom takim jak Warszawa, Wroc?aw czy moja rodzinna ?ód? po?yczek, a niemal ca?kowite odci?cie ich od grantów z KPO ma pod?o?e stricte polityczne. Dlaczego? Mi?dzy PiS-em a w?odarzami tych du?ych miast oraz ich mieszka?cami po prostu nie ma fal. Ju? polityka podatkowa PiS uderza w du?e miasta.

Zwracam si? wi?c do Komisji, by w zwi?zku z wdra?aniem polskiego KPO zwróci?a uwag? na to, ?e te pieni?dze nie mog? mie? barw partyjnych. To jest krajowy, a nie pisowski program odbudowy.

  Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, the Recovery Fund Regulation forces the EU to finally confront democratic backsliding after one decade of inaction. And in case of the Orbán government in Hungary, the conditions could not be clearer: address the fact that the chief prosecutor is a party loyalist – joining the EPPO could be a good first step for her; reform the public procurement system; let journalists access public information. The conditions are very clear and the tools are there.

Now, all we need is credible enforcement, and sadly, it is not the Commission’s strongest suit. Non-transparent backroom deals will not get us results, as the Polish case very clearly shows. So this begs the question, why aren’t the Commission’s negotiations public ? Why aren’t local governments or civil society involved more? More transparency would go a long, long way to actually achieve results.

Hungarians suffer under a terrible cost-of-living crisis. Our currency exchange rate is in freefall. Hungarians need these funds, but they also need them to get to struggling schools, hospitals and businesses.

  ???????? ??????????? (PPE). – ????? ???????, ????? ????????, ? ?????????? ????????? ??? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??????. ??????? ????????? ?????????, ????? ?? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ????, ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ??????????? ???????????????????? ??????. ??????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???? ??????? ????????, Siegfried Mure?an, ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????????, ?? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???. ???? ?????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????????????, ??? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ???????????, ???? ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ????.

????, ? ?????????? ????????? ????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????????, ? ????? ??????????? ???? ???????????????????? ?????????? ??? ???????, ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??????????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????, ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????????, ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????????. ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ??????????, ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????????????????? ??? ???????????. ? ???? ??? ???????, ? ??????, ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????, ??? ?????????, ??? ????????? ??? ??? ?????????.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – (início da intervenção com o microfone desligado) “…” levanto hoje três pontos. O primeiro, a guerra na Ucrânia, não reduziu, não pode reduzir as nossas ambições assumidas no MRR no pós-COVID, em termos de transição climática e digital e de economias e regiões mais coesas. Segundo, a proposta necessária da Comissão Europeia para criar o RepowerEU vem revolucionar o QFP e o MRR. Já aqui o referi em debate anterior. Temos de tirar daí as consequências e fixar os limites. Finalmente, calendário. É claro, hoje, que diversos fatores, alguns externos aos próprios Estados-Membros, como a inflação ou a evolução dos preços das matérias-primas e da energia, impedem o cumprimento do calendário do NextGenerationEU para 2023-2026. Por isso, deixo aqui um apelo à comissão, caro Comissário Gentiloni, para que faça o necessário para que este calendário seja revisto, de forma a assegurar que atingimos os objetivos políticos, económicos e sociais do MRR.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, mechanizmus na podporu obnovy a odolnosti je bezprecedentným nástrojom, ktorý má pomôc? pri zmier?ovaní sociálno-ekonomických dopadov pandémie, ale aj pri zvládnutí ?alších výziev, ktorým ?elíme. Je preto nevyhnutné, aby sme tieto financie využili ?o najefektívnejšie a aby boli dostupné rýchlo a bez zbyto?ných administratívnych prekážok. ?lenským štátom by mali by? zo strany Komisie poskytnuté podrobné usmernenia aplikovate?né v rámci národných odlišností. Zárove? by som chcela apelova? na to, aby bola Komisia ústretová v prípade objektívnych zmien plánov obnovy. V dnešnej rýchlo sa meniacej situácii, v rámci ktorej pribúdajú mnohé výzvy spojené s dopadmi vojny na Ukrajine, ako aj ?alšími socio-ekonomickými dopadmi ako zdražovanie, inflácia, je potrebné, aby ?lenské štáty mali dostato?nú flexibilitu a možnos? predloži? zmeny odrážajúce ich potreby. Práve flexibilita prepojená s rýchlymi procesmi a jasnými pravidlami je k?ú?om k tomu, aby boli ciele mechanizmu na podporu obnovy a odolnosti úspešné a dosiahnute?né.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, crizele pe care le travers?m ?i volatilitatea mediului economic actual fac ca planurile de redresare ?i rezilien?a aprobate anul trecut s? nu mai corespund? în totalitate nevoilor noastre de ast?zi. Fie c? vorbim de zona de agricultur? sau de s?n?tate, educa?ie sau energie, de pensii sau beneficii sociale, lista de priorit??i s-a schimbat profund în cazul multor state europene.

Este ?i cazul României, unde am avut un plan f?cut pe repede înainte, cu multe caren?e, aloc?ri de milioane de euro pentru consultan?? ?i ?inte care afecteaz? stabilitatea social? a ??rii. De aceea, este important ca regulamentul european s? permit? o flexibilizare mai mare, o optimizare în func?ie de nevoile statelor membre, dar ?i o distribu?ie echitabil? a fondurilor între domeniile de investi?ii ?i zonele beneficiare.

Nu în ultimul rând, am militat mereu pentru o alocare semnificativ? de fonduri pentru educa?ie ?i formarea continu? ?i am fost chiar autorul amendamentului prin care solicitam, noi, Parlamentul European, minim 10 % din fonduri pentru acest domeniu.

M? bucur s? constat c? majoritatea statelor membre au respectat recomandarea noastr? ?i c? aceast? propunere este preluat? în noua perspectiv? a Parlamentului European.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, digam o que disserem, o mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência não é uma panaceia. Vejamos:

Uma dotação financeira largamente insuficiente para compensar os impactos da pandemia, a que agora se somam os impactos da guerra e das sanções, sendo ainda mais insuficiente para relançar e modernizar as economias dos Estados-Membros. Uma parte substancial sob a forma de empréstimos, a que os Estados não acedem para não contraírem mais dívida. Uma antecipação de verbas por conta de pagamentos futuros que rejeitamos, no contexto de debilitação dos orçamentos da UE e das políticas de coesão que deveriam, ao invés, ser reforçados pelas contribuições nacionais dos Estados-Membros segundo o seu rendimento nacional bruto.

Um mecanismo que amarra as políticas de relançamento da economia e de investimento aos constrangimentos dos instrumentos de governação macroeconómica como o Semestre Europeu, condicionalidades que urge eliminar. Uma resposta desalinhada com a realidade e com as necessidades mais prementes e estruturais dos países, que não se desliga das intervenções e pressões da Comissão, a que se somam os atrasos na disponibilização dos fundos, adiando a resposta que se quer urgente à criação de emprego, à recuperação do investimento e à promoção da capacidade produtiva.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I had a sense of pride in this debate. And I think that we the Parliament, the Commission, the European institutions, we should be proud of what we were able to decide in the circumstances of the pandemic crisis.

Is this plan for the previous crisis and not so useful for the situation we are in? I think this would be a big mistake that we should avoid. We are in a moment of low growth. We hear the decision-making persons speaking about the risk of stagflation or recession. We can avoid these risks. But these plans – reforms and investments, not digging holes and filling holes, but reforms and investments coordinated with common goals – are essential if we want to address the situation we are in now.

I am not saying that the Commission will not consider targeted and limited amendments to the plans. I am saying that it would be a mistake, in my view – and I think we agreed on this with the rapporteur – to restart the design of these plans. Now we have to implement, implement, implement with the necessary amendments, but implementing what we decided in the last one year and a half, and of course, respecting milestones. Milestones should be respected. I think that the Parliament control will help the Commission also to make the milestone respected in the plans where they are very challenging. And the Polish plan is one of them with very challenging milestones. They should be respected before any payment.

Last point, of course there is a discussion on how can we strengthen what we have on the table. This discussion is perfectly legitimate. We have now REPowerEU, which is part of the possibility to strengthen our tools. But honestly, the discussion on further tools, which I perfectly understand, is a discussion that will be stronger if we will be able to implement what we have. So let us work together to make RRF function well, because this will be the basis also to strengthen it in further initiatives.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, yo también he sentido ese orgullo que, como Parlamento y como Comisión, y supongo que como Consejo, todos tenemos de haber aprobado el plan de recuperación. Y aquí se ha visto un apoyo unánime y, además, una valoración muy positiva de los efectos que esto ha tenido.

También creo que hemos visto, en este debate, el compromiso por parte del Parlamento de seguir muy de cerca la implementación de los planes de recuperación y, sobre todo, de hacer sonar la alarma si vemos que nos estamos desviando de los objetivos. Pero creo que también —y aquí lo han dicho varias personas— tenemos que ser conscientes de que ha cambiado la situación de cuando negociamos el plan de recuperación a ahora, tras la crisis o la guerra de Ucrania, lo que hace que tengamos que ver los planes de recuperación con cierta flexibilidad. No nos podemos abstraer del contexto que estamos viviendo.

Y también creo que se ha destacado, y creo que ese es el camino por el que tenemos que transitar y sobre el que tenemos que debatir —compartiendo las palabras del comisario—. Pero hay una voluntad de explorar que este Mecanismo, que ha sido una respuesta coyuntural, se convierta en algo estructural. Evidentemente, tiene que funcionar para que podamos trabajar sobre esas bases, pero creo que la voluntad está ahí, y desde luego nuestra apuesta por ello.

  Siegfried Mure?an, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for this positive and constructive spirit during this debate. This was also the spirit, an inclusive spirit, this was the spirit through which Eider Gardiazabal, Drago? Pîslaru and myself tried to work. And I am confident that when we will be adopting this report tomorrow, it will be supported by a large majority of colleagues.

We, when adopting it, will want to make sure that money reaches beneficiaries, it reaches the people in need it, it reaches the people it was intended for, and it was well spent. Now we will need to work all together to make the Recovery and Resilience Facility a success up to the end of its implementation – European Parliament, the Commission and the governments of Member States. We expect the Commission to make sure that the regulation is applied properly. We intend to make sure that the governments absorb the funds without delays. And the Parliament will, of course, ensure the democratic accountability and the supervision. We shall all work together on this.

And Commissioner, you have asked us for the opinion on REPowerEU. We as a European Parliament want to make sure that the money which was not yet accessed by Member States from their loan component from the Recovery and Resilience Facility will be accessed, will be made good use of, particularly in the area of energy efficiency. We believe REPower EU is the right proposal to incentivise the absorption of those funds.

Money should be used where it is needed, but it should not be taken away from where it is needed as well. This is why we will be working together with our experts, our colleagues from the Agriculture, from the Regional Development Committee, to make sure that money is not transferred away from other priorities which are already in the plans where it is needed.

Of course, last word, implementation of reforms will be important and we are aware that the Member States have planned the most difficult reforms towards the end of the implementation, and this is why we call on the Commission to provide to the Member States all technical assistance, all assistance that it has available to make sure that the Member States can also implement those reforms, which are good for the countries which strengthen their economies.

Once again, thank you, dear colleagues, and we are looking forward to the vote tomorrow. Commissioner, thank you again for being with us tonight.

  Drago? Pîslaru, rapporteur. – Madam President, I have listened very carefully in these late hours of the evening to the Commissioner’s concerns and ideas and am sure that the Commission will put all efforts into ensuring that this Facility will be properly implemented. But its success, to be very honest, relies mainly on the Member States, and it can only happen through more transparency, better involvement of stakeholders and strong monitoring tools.

Rest assured, the Parliament will continue its oversight. We will not stop the activity of our working group. We will soon start our work to ensure that the REPowerEU, as you have mentioned, is properly introducing the objectives of this Facility. It is in indeed an important appeal that goes towards the Commission – and thank you very much for your openness on that: we truly hope that you will fully take into account the views adopted today in the upcoming review report on the implementation of the RRF, which you will soon present to us.

One last word relating to how the RRF is seen outside the EU. It is an exercise of economic governance, of accountability, of legitimacy and, even more important, an exercise in which we would like to give a model worldwide. I have been attending two high—level conferences at United Nations level, and it’s very important to say that the international community looks at the RRF as an important model of how to deal with crises and to boost resilience. The Sendai framework that relates to disaster risk reduction, and all the other things that are done right now – and we had the earlier debate on SDGs – are very much linked to how we how successful we will be with the RRF. So the European Union, of course, needs the RRF for its internal development, but it is also very important to give a model worldwide that will put the EU leadership again in the right place at the global level.

I would like to thank my co-rapporteurs, Siegfried Mure?an and Eider Gardiazabal, and all the shadows, the Commission and all the people that have worked towards preparation and adoption of this report.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2022, statt.

  Laurence Farreng, rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, plus de 10 millions de personnes ont pu bénéficier d’Erasmus + depuis son lancement en 1987. Et combien d’autres en rêvent encore? Combien rêvent de voyager, de rencontrer, d’apprendre et de goûter la culture européenne par la mobilité?

Lors de la conférence pour l’avenir de l’Europe, les 800 citoyens nous l’ont dit, ils en ont fait une priorité: il faut encourager une culture de l’échange et promouvoir l’identité européenne et la diversité européenne. Et la première réponse identifiée, c’est Erasmus. Le programme a profondément évolué depuis 1987 et s’est ouvert aux apprentis, aux lycéens, aux collégiens, aux adultes en formation, aux enseignants, aux chercheurs d’emploi. Erasmus +, en 35 ans, s’est élargi, s’est démocratisé pour mieux coller aux évolutions de notre société.

Pourtant, il remonte régulièrement du terrain des témoignages décourageants: un étudiant qui n’a pas pu partir en raison de son handicap, faute de structures d’accompagnement adaptées, un apprenti dont la famille n’a pas autorisé le projet de mobilité, un jeune qui n’a pas pu concrétiser son projet par manque de moyens financiers ou encore un adulte en formation pour qui la situation géographique reculée a été un frein trop important. Sans oublier tous ces jeunes qui, tout simplement, pensent qu’Erasmus, ce n’est pas pour eux, que c’est seulement pour les étudiants du supérieur ou pour ceux qui ont de l’argent, un soutien parental, pour ceux qui habitent des grandes villes; bref: pour les autres. Erasmus est encore trop souvent pensé comme le succès européen qui ne bénéficie qu’à quelques-uns. Nous devons changer cela. Chaque jeune doit pouvoir se dire: «Erasmus, c’est pour moi».

C’est en partant de ce constat que le Parlement européen a négocié et obtenu, dans le nouveau programme Erasmus + 2021-2027, un chapitre entier consacré à l’inclusion de ce que nous nommons des personnes avec moins d’opportunités, c’est-à-dire rencontrant des obstacles géographiques, sociaux, culturels, de santé, un handicap ou encore des difficultés scolaires. Pour que cette volonté d’inclusion se traduise en faits pour Erasmus 2021-2027, il était donc indispensable de faire un retour en arrière et de voir ce qui avait été fait pour inclure ces publics en difficulté, que ce soit de manière isolée, par les porteurs de projets, ou plus concertée, à l’échelle des agences nationales Erasmus +, en l’absence de réelle stratégie européenne. C’est ce que j’ai fait avec mes collègues rapporteurs fictifs dans ce rapport de mise en œuvre.

Nous sommes arrivés à un rapport complet, porteur de constats et de recommandations clairs pour l’actuel programme. L’analyse de la situation lors de la période de programmation 2014-2020 montre clairement plusieurs obstacles, que j’ai souhaité souligner dans ce rapport.

En premier lieu, le besoin crucial d’adaptation des bourses et des aides financières à la situation des participants. Je pense notamment au préfinancement, qui permettrait aux participants de ne pas avoir à avancer d’argent. C’est un point qui revient vraiment régulièrement de la part des porteurs de projets.

Un deuxième obstacle est le dysfonctionnement quasi structurel des outils informatiques de la Commission. Nous savons que c’est un problème récurrent qui existe encore dans l’actuel programme. Une association qui a peu de moyens, peu de personnel, a vraiment des difficultés et c’est quelque chose qu’il faut absolument corriger.

Un troisième point crucial est celui du soutien apporté aux professeurs, aux accompagnateurs et aux équipes des associations porteuses de projets. Ils sont souvent bénévoles et ont besoin d’aide pour compléter les dossiers à fournir, un processus qui peut être complexe. Or, sans eux, la plupart des programmes ne peuvent pas se réaliser et se dérouler de manière optimale. Un meilleur accompagnement donnerait également plus de confiance aux familles, parfois réticentes, et aux participants, tout en assurant un déroulement optimal des projets.

Enfin, il est apparu qu’il y avait, sur la participation des personnes avec moins d’opportunités, un manque de données précises et fiables qui nous permettraient de suivre la performance du programme sur ce sujet.

Les recommandations dans ce rapport sont le résultat de plusieurs mois de travail, de concertation – avec les acteurs de terrain, des associations porteuses de projets, des chercheurs, auteurs de l’étude de l’EPRS – et de l’étroite collaboration avec mes collègues rapporteurs fictifs, que je souhaite remercier pour leur travail, leur collaboration en faveur d’un Erasmus + vraiment plus inclusif, facteur de cohésion et vecteur de citoyenneté européenne en ces temps de défiance et de repli sur soi.

VORSITZ: NICOLA BEER
Vizepräsidentin

  Mariya Gabriel, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, tout d’abord, je voudrais remercier Mme Farreng, rapporteure de la commission CULT, et M. Cañas, rapporteur pour avis de la commission des pétitions. Je voudrais également remercier la présidente de la commission CULT, Mme Verheyen, et tous les rapporteurs fictifs pour leurs travaux sur ce rapport ô combien important. En effet, je connais le soutien sans faille de votre assemblée au programme Erasmus+ qui vit sa 35? année en 2022, et j’apprécie d’autant plus votre dévouement et votre vision critique ainsi que les idées proposées.

Votre rapport, tout d’abord, concerne le programme précédent, entre 2014 et 2020. Je me réjouis que vous ayez constaté une évolution globalement positive des mesures d’inclusion au cours de cette période. En effet, le programme précédent a réussi à toucher un bon nombre de personnes moins favorisées et à promouvoir l’inclusion dans l’ensemble de ses activités. L’une des réalisations du programme précédent est certainement l’expérience positive de l’utilisation de la stratégie pour l’inclusion et la diversité dans le domaine de la jeunesse en tant qu’outil pratique pour soutenir les organisations et accroître le caractère inclusif des actions mises en œuvre. Une autre réalisation est l’existence d’un Centre de ressources pour l’inclusion et la diversité, également actif dans le domaine de la jeunesse.

Cependant, votre rapport constate aussi certaines lacunes dans le cadre du programme précédent et je suis d’accord avec ce constat. Il est possible de faire plus pour toucher un nombre de personnes encore plus important – confrontées à des obstacles pour participer aux programmes –, ainsi que pour améliorer les mécanismes qui font que l’inclusion puisse être mise en œuvre. À ce titre, je porterai une attention particulière aux points que vous venez de soulever, Madame la rapporteure, chère Laurence.

Maintenant, nombreuses sont les recommandations du rapport qui ont déjà été prises en compte dans la nouvelle génération Erasmus+ 2021-2027. Premièrement, la dimension inclusive est au cœur du nouveau programme. Les personnes moins favorisées auront un meilleur accès au programme grâce à des mesures d’inclusion spécifiques allant de mécanismes financiers à une communication plus ciblée. Madame Farreng, vous avez dit qu’il nous manque des données; je pense que c’est une très bonne remarque sur laquelle il va falloir se pencher puisque justement, comme je viens de le dire, il y a maintenant des mesures qui visent à combler cette lacune.

Deuxièmement, un cadre de mesures d’inclusion a été adopté par la Commission en octobre dernier, sous la forme d’une décision de la Commission. C’est ainsi qu’un centre de ressources pour tous les secteurs de l’éducation et de la formation a été créé en 2021.

Troisièmement, afin de mieux relever les défis spécifiques liés à l’accès aux programmes dans leur contexte national, les agences nationales élaborent leur propre plan d’inclusion sur la base du cadre européen. De plus, un réseau de responsables de l’inclusion et de la diversité au sein des agences nationales a été créé pour faciliter ce travail et l’échange de bonnes pratiques.

Quatrièmement, nous avons aussi maintenant des mesures d’inclusion dédiées, comme je viens de le dire, allant de mécanismes financiers à la communication ciblée. Elles visent à permettre à beaucoup plus de personnes d’acquérir une expérience d’apprentissage à l’étranger, dans un autre pays, notamment en associant davantage de personnes moins favorisées au projet.

Enfin, de nombreuses mesures liées à l’inclusion ont été mises en place depuis 2021. Permettez-moi d’en donner quelques exemples concrets. Ce sont le nouveau système d’accréditation, un coût unitaire spécifique pour soutenir les organisations impliquant des personnes moins favorisées, l’extension des visites préparatoires à tous les secteurs ou une plus grande flexibilité dans la durée des activités de mobilité pour les personnes moins favorisées. Dans le cadre aussi de DiscoverEU, une nouvelle action vise à aider un plus grand nombre de jeunes moins favorisés à participer à cette initiative et à en apprendre davantage sur l’Union européenne en voyageant en train dans ses différents pays. Et ces participants sont directement soutenus par des organisations de terrain et peuvent bénéficier d’un soutien et d’un financement plus ciblés.

L’inclusion, comme je viens de le dire, est désormais une priorité transversale du programme. Par exemple, dans les activités dans le domaine de l’éducation non formelle, telles que des échanges de jeunes ou encore des activités de participation des jeunes, ce sont des formats d’activités très appropriés qui sont proposés justement pour travailler sur l’inclusion et la diversité en tant que sujet du projet. Nous avons en outre inclus spécifiquement la dimension sociale dans les critères d’évaluation des centres d’excellence professionnels, que le Parlement a aussi tant soutenus lors des négociations de nouveaux programmes, ainsi que dans les académies Erasmus+ des enseignants – soutien pour lequel je vous remercie encore une fois.

Maintenant, pour conclure, je souhaiterais souligner que votre travail dans ce rapport sera particulièrement utile pour alimenter l’évaluation finale du programme Erasmus+ 2014-2020 dont la préparation vient de débuter et la transmission à votre institution est prévue dans les délais impartis. Cette évaluation accompagnera l’évaluation intermédiaire de nouveaux programmes qui inclura aussi une analyse de l’impact des mesures d’inclusion lancée depuis 2021. Si aujourd’hui nous pouvons maintenir nos ambitions dans le programme Erasmus+, c’est grâce à votre engagement. Je voudrais donc encore une fois vous remercier chaleureusement et je me tiens maintenant à votre écoute.

  Jordi Cañas, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Peticiones. – Señora presidenta, en primer lugar, quería aprovechar para felicitar a la ponente por su extraordinario trabajo en este informe sobre medidas de inclusión en el marco de Erasmus+ 2014-2020 y darle las gracias por haber incluido y desarrollado las ideas que, desde la Comisión de Peticiones, planteamos para su incorporación en este informe.

En primer lugar, corregir la inaceptable falta de datos cuantitativos y cualitativos fiables sobre el número de personas con discapacidad y personas de grupos vulnerables e infrarrepresentados que acceden a las oportunidades que ofrece Erasmus+. Sin estos datos, no podemos diseñar buenas medidas para que estas personas puedan realmente participar plenamente en este programa.

En segundo lugar, apoyar la eliminación de los obstáculos físicos, psicológicos, sociales, socioeconómicos, lingüísticos y digitales que limitan la movilidad educativa de los grupos más vulnerables y les impiden participar en el programa Erasmus+.

En tercer lugar, instar a las agencias nacionales que gestionan Erasmus+ a designar agentes de inclusión y diversidad específicos para llegar directamente a los alumnos con necesidades especiales o con menos oportunidades y garantizar la igualdad de derechos para evitar que nadie que quiera no pueda.

En resumen, más datos, menos obstáculos y más apoyo es igual a más igualdad de oportunidades para todos, para que el próximo Erasmus+ sea realmente más Erasmus.

  Željana Zovko, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, this year we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Erasmus+. More than 12 million European citizens have participated in this exchange programme. The programme has evolved over time and has offered life—changing experiences, from students to young professionals, from higher education to vocational training. Despite its great success, the programme still can be improved and increase its accessibility to more participants.

The report that we will vote tomorrow assesses the inclusivity of the programme and recommends measures to widen the audience even more. We want to provide chances to those citizens with fewer opportunities and to people living in more remote areas such as peripheral regions and islands. Based on the EPP proposal, the report calls for more cooperation with countries in the Western Balkans and the Eastern and Southern neighbourhood. I would like to thank the rapporteur for including all our suggestions as well.

In addition, we call for more assistance to Ukrainian students and more support to be provided to sustain Ukraine’s higher education and academic community. In the report, we also call to lower the administrative burden, to better access to impact of actions by national agencies and to facilitate participation of people with specific needs and disabilities.

Erasmus+ is a not a privilege. It must be available to all. And I hope that this report will serve as a guideline for the Commission as well to make it happen.

  Alex Agius Saliba, f’isem il-grupp S&D. – Sinjura President, dawn huma ?minijiet diffi?li ?afna g?a?-?g?a?ag? tag?na. Il-pandemija laqtet u laqtithom bl-aktar mod qawwi, mhux biss fejn jid?ol nuqqas ta’ xog?ol imma wkoll laqtet b’mod negattiv is-sa??a mentali ta?-?g?a?ag? tag?na. Is-sitwazzjoni tag?hom re?g?et kompliet tmur g?all-ag?ar min?abba ?ieda fl-inflazzjonijiet, ?ieda fil-prezzijiet u l-effetti ekonomi?i u so?jali negattivi tal-gwerra li qeg?din ng?ixu b?alissa. Miljuni ta’ tfal u ?g?a?ag? qeg?din ja?arbu mill-kunflitt fl-Ukrajna u qeg?din jaffa??jaw faqar, i?olazzjoni u in?ertezza.

L-Erasmus huwa wie?ed mill-aktar pro?etti Ewropej illi kienu su??ess, illi g?enu miljuni ta’ ?g?a?ag? sabiex jibbenefikaw minn tag?lim, minn mobbiltà u minn opportunitajiet tax-xog?ol. Il-programm il-?did huwa aktar relevanti f’dan il-lat ukoll, g?aliex jiffoka fuq l-inklussività u jiffoka wkoll fuq id-diversità. L-Erasmus huwa u g?andu jkun a??essibbli g?al kul?add, imma bl-aktar mod spe?jali g?al dawk i?-?g?a?ag? illi ma g?andhomx opportunitajiet, dawk i?-?ag??ag? li qeg?din jaffa??jaw problemi tas-sa??a, diffikultajiet ekonomi?i, diffikultajiet fit-tag?lim, diffikultajiet u ostakoli so?jali fil-?eneru, fir-reli?jon u anke fl-orjentazzjoni sesswali tag?hom.

U g?alhekk huwa importanti li nkomplu nsa??u dan il-programm sabiex naraw illi ji?i implimentat bl-aqwa mod possibbli u jkun dejjem u kullimkien a??essibbli g?al kul?add.

  Vlad-Marius Boto?, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kollegen, liebe Laurence! Programme vom Typ Erasmus haben die Tür zur europäischen Integration geöffnet – für viele. Sie haben die Grundlagen für eine gemeinsame Bildungskultur gelegt. Aber wir müssen sie als einen Anfang betrachten. Um junge Menschen wirklich zu unterstützen, müssen wir vorankommen und Programme entwickeln, die sich auch an junge Menschen und Lehrer in benachteiligten Regionen, an Menschen mit begrenzten materiellen Ressourcen oder an Menschen mit besonderen Bedingungen richten.

Erasmus+ muss sich entsprechend der Erfahrungen der Vorjahre weiterentwickeln und inklusiver werden, um diskriminierungsfreie Teilnahmebedingungen zu schaffen. Gleichzeitig müssen wir sicherstellen, dass Lehrkräfte ermutigt werden, sich zu beteiligen, um ihre Schüler bei der Umsetzung von Projekten zu unterstützen.

Erasmus+ ist ein Programm, das wir bei jungen Menschen fördern müssen, die sehen können, was die Europäische Union bedeutet, was uns verbindet, und um Europaskepsis und -skeptiker praktisch zu bekämpfen.

  Romeo Franz, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Unser europäisches Flaggschiffprogramm Erasmus+ ist ein europäisches Vorzeigeprojekt, aber immer noch gibt es junge Leute, die davon noch nie gehört haben. Das müssen wir verbessern, denn Inklusionsmaßnahmen sind der Schlüssel zu einem erfolgreichen Erasmus+-Programm. Alle jungen Menschen innerhalb der EU, egal welcher Zugehörigkeit oder Ethnie, aber gerade solche aus benachteiligten, marginalisierten Gruppen wie Menschen mit Romanes-Hintergrund müssen einen Zugang zu diesem Programm erhalten und partizipieren können.

Kleinen Organisationen, gerade Selbstorganisationen kommt hier dabei eine wichtige Rolle zu, denn sie haben den Kontakt zu den Jugendlichen. Das ist wertvoll. Zudem brauchen diese Organisationen mehr Unterstützung – finanziell, aber auch was den Verwaltungsvorgang angeht. Dieser muss vereinfacht werden.

Der Bericht bezieht sich zwar auf das vergangene Programmintervall, aber eine Analyse von Defiziten ist sinnvoll, um zu wissen, was wir in Zukunft noch besser machen müssen.

  ?????? ???????? , ?? ????? ?? ??????? ECR. – ?-?? ???????????, ?????? ??, ?? ?? ??????, ???????? ?-?? ???????. ?? ????? ????????? ?????????? ??????+ ? ?????????????, ????? ?? ????????.

??????? ??, ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ????, ????? ?? ???? ???, ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ? ???? ?????. ?????? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ????, ????? ?? ?? ?????????????? ?????, ????? ??????? ??, ? ?? ???-??????? ???????, ? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????.

?? ????????? ?????, ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????, ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????, ?? ????? ??? ????????? ?????????????, ?? ????? ??????????, ? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ?????????????. ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ? ???? ????. ???? ?? ??????? ???????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????.

??? ?? ???? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ? ??? ????????? ?? ?????????? ???????????, ????? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ????????, ? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????????????. ? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????????. ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????, ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????????, ? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ????????? ? ?????????????, ????? ?????????? ???-????? ? ?? ????????? ?????, ? ?? ??????????????, ? ? ??????? ? ?? ????????????????.

  Andrea Bocskor (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony ! Az Erasmus+ az Európai Unió egyik legsikeresebb mobilitási programja, mely 30 éves fennállása alatt több mint egymillió fiatal életére volt nagy hatással, hiszen segíti a fiatalok munkaer? piaci esélyeit, a nemzetközi tapasztalatszerzést, a nyelvtudást. Magyarország és a magyar fiatalok mindig is nagyon aktívan részt vettek a programban, ezért külön üdvözlöm, hogy a hátrányos helyzet? fogyatékossággal él?k, egészségügyi vagy oktatási nehézségekkel küzd? tanulóknak is egyre több lehet?séget biztosít az Erasmus program. Jó, hogy különös figyelmet fordít a program a Keleti Partnerség, így az ukrajnai tanulók segítésére is. Elismerem, hogy el?relépések történtek az Erasmus egyszer?sítése érdekében, azonban továbbra is sok akadály van például a nemzeti vagy és nyelvi kisebbségekhez tartozó fiatalok, illetve projektek számára.

Az Erasmus+ továbbá nem válhat a politikai és ideológiai propaganda eszközévé. A program befogadó jellege nem szabad, hogy az LGBT lobbi áldozatává váljon, és agymosásra szolgáljon. A gyermekek és fiatalok szexuális nevelése a szül?kre tartozik, ezt hagyjuk rájuk. Az Erasmus pedig szóljon az európai oktatási mobilitásról, képzésr?l és sportról.

  Massimiliano Smeriglio (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissaria Gabriel, Erasmus+ è il programma europeo più longevo, che meglio rappresenta i valori cardine dell’Europa, che valorizza lo scambio culturale tra i giovani e la loro crescita.

Per essere un successo a 360 gradi, Erasmus+ deve riflettere appieno i valori progressisti, iniziando dall’inclusione e dalla diversità. Deve essere un programma aperto a tutti, indipendentemente da barriere fisiche, economiche, sociali, geografiche o di altra natura.

Questa relazione di implementazione ci ha permesso di valutare quali effetti hanno avuto le misure di inclusione nel precedente programma. Sebbene nel 2014 il programma si è dotato di una strategia di inclusione e diversità, questa deve essere armonizzata tra i vari Stati membri e diventare obbligatoria per non limitarne l’impatto.

Spesso gli importi per le borse di mobilità risultano insufficienti e questo rappresenta un motivo di esclusione sociale per alcuni studenti. Per questo chiediamo un aumento del bilancio per il 2023 e un’integrazione da parte degli Stati membri da dedicare alla piena attuazione delle misure di inclusione e uguaglianza. Grazie Laurence per il lavoro svolto.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní p?edsedající, vážené kolegyn? a kolegové, paní komisa?ko, d?raz na inkluzi ve vzd?lávání a v mobilit? je velmi d?ležitý práv? v této dob?, kdy zažíváme dopady pandemie COVID-19 na mladou generaci, kdy COVID-19 také prohloubil rozdíly ve vzd?lávání, v jejich výsledcích. A ješt? dlouho budeme dohán?t to, co jsme za uplynulé dva roky promeškali. Proto tedy všechna ta inkluzivní opat?ení v programu Erasmus+ i Solidarity Corps jsou velmi d?ležitá. Výsledkem by m?ly být rovné šance pro všechny žadatele a jejich podpora, od p?ihlášky až po samotný pr?b?h tohoto projektu. Proto zd?raz?ujeme nezbytnost navýšení financování a vyzýváme ke zvýšení pro rok 2023. Program Erasmus+ by m?l umožnit inkluzi také pro vým?nu se t?etími zem?mi v?etn? Velké Británie a je velmi d?ležité, aby podpo?il inkluzivní vzd?lávání a za?le?ování také student? z Ukrajiny a spolupráci s ukrajinskými školami. Dovolte mi na záv?r jednu poznámku. Aby tento program byl skute?n? inkluzivní, musí p?edevším dojít k jeho výraznému navýšení.

  Agnès Evren (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, alors que nous fêtons cette année les 35 ans du programme Erasmus, prenons ensemble un engagement: levons enfin les derniers freins qui empêchent les personnes moins favorisées de bénéficier de ces mobilités emblématiques.

Depuis 35 ans, des efforts sont faits, bien sûr, mais des obstacles nombreux demeurent. Ils sont économiques, ils sont culturels, liés à la santé, au handicap, à l’isolement géographique, à la barrière des langues, aux difficultés d’apprentissage ou tout simplement à la méconnaissance du programme même ou à sa complexité administrative. Nous devons évidemment y remédier.

D’abord, nul ne doit ignorer qu’il peut partir en Erasmus. Nous devons insister sur le rôle moteur des enseignants et des établissements pour faire connaître le programme et accompagner les futurs apprenants. Nous pouvons également soutenir davantage les activités des réseaux des anciens étudiants en les encourageant à agir comme des ambassadeurs, par exemple lors des «Erasmus Days». Le niveau des bourses aussi est souvent jugé insuffisant. Il est primordial d’accentuer le soutien financier, de garantir que les bourses correspondent au niveau de vie des pays d’accueil. Enfin, et j’en terminerai par là, la simplification des démarches administratives du programme doit se poursuivre, notamment grâce à des initiatives telles que la carte d’étudiant européenne. Continuons donc notre mobilisation.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, I very much welcome the findings of this report, particularly in the areas of outreach and inclusion. However, while the inclusion measures in the Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020 were much improved, considerable challenges and shortcomings continue to persist. We must ensure that anyone wanting to avail of Erasmus+ has the opportunity to do so and has access to information and financial assistance to really enjoy and flourish from the experience, as this continues to disproportionately affect those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, migrants, Roma people, Irish travellers and our disabled community members.

In addition, as an MEP representing a constituency on the border with Northern Ireland, continued inclusion of Northern Irish students in the Erasmus programme is key, given the current political climate we all live in. Erasmus was founded on the basis that cultural and educational exchanges between countries foster peace and this is now more important than ever. The Erasmus+ programme must be, at its heart, guided by a spirit of inclusion for all.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, iš tikr?j? galime pasidžiaugti programos „Erasmus“ rezultatais, nes tai atv?r? duris daugeliui Europos jaunuoli? pažinti vienas kit?, pažinti mokslo naujoves ir ?gyti patirties. Ta?iau negalime sustoti. Iš tikr?j? mes turime pasiži?r?ti šiandien ir ? tas šalis, iš kuri? tikim?s didesnio bendrumo. Šiandien daug kalb?jome ir par?m?me Ukrainos, Moldovos, Sakartvelo b?sim? kandidatavim? ? Europos S?jung?. Tod?l padidinti finansavim? programai „Erasmus“, suteikti galimyb? atvykti ir pasinaudoti šia programa ši? šali? jaunimui, man atrodo, yra labai svarbu. Tai leidžia supažindinti su Europos kult?ra, su Europos istorija ir sukurti bendresn? atmosfer?. Labai pritariu koleg?s min?iai, kuri kalb?jo apie param? alumn? tinklui, kurie iš tikr?j? gal?t? b?ti Europos programos „Erasmus“ ambasadoriai.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Mariya Gabriel, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je vous remercie pour la qualité de ces échanges sur ce sujet qui visiblement nous est tellement cher. Je voudrais encore une fois remercier la rapporteure, Mme Farreng, et tous les membres qui se sont exprimés, tout comme les membres de la commission CULT pour les recommandations très pertinentes.

Un mot sur un point en particulier: je partage votre point de vue concernant le rôle clé des agences nationales chargées de la mise en œuvre d’Erasmus+, dans cet objectif d’accroître la portée du programme auprès des personnes d’horizons divers. Au niveau national, ces agences sont en effet bien placées pour connaître les groupes cibles spécifiques pour lesquels un effort doit être fait; elles peuvent se concentrer sur ces groupes.

À cette occasion, je voudrais vous faire part de ce que, pour la première fois, une réunion a eu lieu entre tous les directeurs des agences nationales et le commissaire en charge du programme Erasmus+. Nous avons eu cette réunion la semaine dernière et j’ai été vraiment intéressée d’entendre leurs activités impressionnantes à cet égard. Nous avons eu une présentation, entre autres, sur la stratégie d’inclusion développée par l’agence roumaine, par exemple. Le nouveau centre de ressources pour l’inclusion dans le domaine de l’éducation et de la formation vient d’être lancé cette année par l’Agence nationale croate. Ceci vient compléter le centre de ressources déjà très actif dans le domaine de la jeunesse en Belgique. En effet, aujourd’hui, la recommandation est que toutes les agences puissent suivre ces beaux exemples et puissent avoir une stratégie d’inclusion qui leur permette de mieux communiquer, de mieux cibler et de faire venir vers le programme ceux qui ne sont pas encore convaincus ou qui rencontrent des obstacles pour le faire.

Et je vous assure que la question des outils informatiques, Madame la rapporteure, ne nous a pas échappé. Avec mon équipe, nous veillerons à ce que des améliorations se réalisent à un rythme différent. Il y a déjà des choses qui ont changé depuis le début de cette année, mais nous devons redoubler d’efforts. Donc, je me réjouis tout simplement de continuer à travailler avec vous pour renforcer la dimension inclusive d’Erasmus+. Je suis convaincue que nos efforts paieront et que, bientôt, nous pourrons aussi constater ensemble que le programme Erasmus+ sera devenu une référence encore plus spontanée, visible et appréciée en matière d’inclusion dans les secteurs de l’éducation, de la formation, de la jeunesse et du sport.

Merci encore une fois, de tout cœur, pour les recommandations concrètes. Évidemment, mon équipe et moi nous tenons à votre disposition et comptons sur notre bonne coopération.

  Laurence Farreng, rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, je voulais vraiment remercier tous les collègues qui se sont exprimés pour nourrir ce débat. Je vous remercie également, Madame la Commissaire, d’avoir répondu avec des propositions. Je voulais, en conclusion, notamment saluer le travail de la Commission pour la publication des lignes directrices de mise en œuvre de la stratégie d’inclusion et de diversité d’Erasmus + et du Corps européen de solidarité qui, combinées aux recommandations de ce rapport, pourront améliorer considérablement les mesures d’inclusion dans Erasmus +.

Nous avons donc appris du passé dans ce rapport et il faut maintenant saisir toutes les opportunités qu’offre le programme actuel pour renforcer encore – et on a vu combien c’était important – les possibilités d’inclusion. Je parle des opportunités d’inclusion des apprentis, le fait de pouvoir développer beaucoup d’initiatives pour les plus jeunes – parce que c’est dès le plus jeune âge que se prépare l’ouverture à l’Europe, aux habitudes à l’étranger, à cette expérience irremplaçable, parce qu’on s’adapte également. Il faut donc que toutes ces mesures soient suivies.

Pour cela, il y a un nerf de la guerre qui est le budget. J’avoue que le budget que j’ai vu pour 2023 est une source d’inquiétude, parce qu’on a besoin de l’augmenter plus radicalement chaque année. Ce budget fait aussi partie des mesures d’inclusion d’Erasmus et nous attendons donc beaucoup, ma collègue l’a rappelé tout à l’heure.

Ce rapport tire donc les enseignements du passé et nous projette dans l’avenir d’un Erasmus encore plus inclusif. J’espère, bien évidemment, que ce rapport qui sera soumis au vote remportera une très large unanimité dans notre Assemblée et sera un signal fort vers tous les Européens, jeunes et moins jeunes.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2022, statt.

  Tonino Picula, Rapporteur. – Poštovana predsjedavaju?a, uvaženi povjereni?e, poštovane kolegice i kolege, ?asno je i po drugi put predstaviti izvješ?e o Crnoj Gori, ovaj put za 2021. godinu.

Na po?etku želim naglasiti dvije klju?ne ?injenice. Crna Gora je najdalje odmakla na eurointegracijskim putu i otvorila je sva poglavlja. I gotovo 80 % gra?ana Crne Gore podržava ulazak zemlje u Europsku uniju.

Crna Gora je predvodnik politike proširenja u praksi. Ta se ?injenica ne smije zanemariti u raspravama o dodjeljivanju statusa kandidata i bržem pristupanju Europskoj uniji. Proteklu godinu, na koju se ovo izvješ?e odnosi, obilježile su politi?ke blokade na unutarnjem planu i stagnacija na europskom putu.

Ove godine obilježavamo i deset godina od po?etka pregovora o ?lanstvu Crne Gore u Europskoj uniji, ali nijedno poglavlje, nažalost, nije zatvoreno od 2017. godine. Glavni politi?ki prioritet, dakle, treba biti zatvaranje pregovara?kih poglavlja, odnosno ispunjavanje privremenih mjerila za poglavlja 23 i 24 koje se odnose na vladavinu prava. Za to je potreban kompletan pregovara?ki tim, a upravo pregovara?ka struktura nije bila funkcionalna dulje vrijeme.

U izvješ?u je naglašena zabrinutost zbog nedostatnog napretka u reformi pravosu?a i zbog raširenosti korupcije, dvama klju?nim sektorima koji traže zakonodavnu podršku. Treba pozdraviti napredak u borbi protiv organiziranog kriminala i u me?unarodnoj policijskoj suradnji, dok ostaje ograni?en napredak u podru?ju slobode medija.

Iznova naglašavamo važnost ja?anja zaštite novinara, više napora u borbi protiv dezinformacija, govora mržnje, uznemiravanja na internetu, politi?ki pristranog izvješ?ivanja i stranog utjecaja u crnogorskim medijima.

Strani utjecaj u Crnoj Gori je evidentan. Svjedo?ili smo opasnim zbivanjima na Cetinju. Bilježimo direktni utjecaj Srpske pravoslavne crkve na politi?ka doga?anja u Crnoj Gori. Osim toga, podcrtan je trajni interes Rusije da destabilizira regiju, što se u Crnoj Gori tako?er moglo direktno i osjetiti.

U izvješ?u se osu?uju prosvjedi protiv tada još neimenovane manjinske vlade koji su iskorišteni od nekih politi?kih opcija za iskazivanje podrške Rusiji i na dan po?etka agresije na Ukrajinu.

Jasno smo naveli da se ne smije tolerirati negiranje genocida, retorika za potpirivanje netolerancije ili veli?anje ratnih zlo?ina. Zbog toga je važno pozdraviti kontinuirano i potpuno uskla?ivanje Crne Gore sa zajedni?kom vanjskom i sigurnosnom politikom Europske unije, me?u ostalima i sankcijama Europske unije Rusiji i njezino aktivno sudjelovanje u misijama i operacijama u okviru zajedni?ke sigurnosne i obrambene politike Europske unije.

Problemi evidentirani u izviješ?u predstavljaju prije svega obveze koje traže predani rad svih grana vlasti u Crnoj Gori. Baš sada treba ubrzavati tempo njihovog rješavanja jer je ve? previše vremena kao najdragocjenijeg resursa potrošeno uzalud.

Pozdravljamo formiranje nove manjinske vlade sastavljene od proeuropskih stranaka kao i izbor novog predsjednika parlamenta. Ujedno pozivamo da se što prije imenuje supredsjednik parlamentarnog odbora za stabilizaciju i pridruživanje Europske unije i Crne Gore.

Crnoj Gori je potreban kontinuirani i angažirani dijalog me?u svim parlamentarnim strankama i relevantnim dionicima s ciljem izgradnje snažne proeuropske i demokratske platforme. To bi bio optimalan na?in da se ublaže politi?ka polarizacija ili mogu?e radikalizacije. Cilj je trajno osigurati društvenu stabilnost, poštovanje demokratskih procesa, normi i standarda, kao i proeuropske težnje velike ve?ine gra?ana Crne Gore.

Crna Gora u Europskom parlamentu ima dokazano iskrenu podršku svih proeuropskih politi?kih grupa. Postoji konsenzus oko provedbe reformi nužnih za otklanjanje nedostataka u institucijama koje su klju?ne za prilagodbu standardima Europske unije.

Brutalna ruska agresija na Ukrajinu ponovo je dala snažan zamah stati?noj politici proširenja Europske unije. Kada se radi o europskom jugoistoku, politika proširenja Europske unije treba svoju vjerodostojnost pokazati otvaranjem blokiranih pregovora s Albanijom i Sjevernom Makedonijom. Me?utim, vjerujem i da Crna Gora može biti kolateralni dobitnik u novonastaloj situaciji. Naravno, pod uvjetom da operativnu sposobnost rješavanja još uvijek otvorenih pitanja iz pregovara?ke agende dovede na razinu iskazanih ambicija. U tome najodgovornijima za proces u Crnoj Gori želim puno uspjeha kako bismo Crnogorke i Crnogorce što skorije mogli pozdraviti kao punopravne gra?ane Europske unije.

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, dear rapporteur Picula, good evening, honourable Members. Europe is facing turbulent times. Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine is not coming to an end and the consequences of this war are deepening. In this geopolitical context, the enlargement policy of the European Union is revived. Three months ago, three of our partner countries, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, have decided to send a strong signal to the European Union and to the world when they decided to apply for EU membership. For them, clearly, the EU membership is the most important and most reliable tool for their long—term peace, stability and prosperity.

In this changing geopolitical context, when we are tightening our regional partnerships and cooperation, our priority remains the Western Balkans. We are committed more than ever to bring the entire region closer and within the European Union, because Europe does not end in Zagreb or Budapest: the Western Balkans naturally belong here too. It is more important now than ever to work on that not only fast, but with full commitment and will by all the institutions. I thank this honourable House for its continued strong support for the European perspective of the whole of the Western Balkans.

Let me now turn towards Montenegro and the progress report on 2021. First, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Picula, for his work and the commitment as well as for the very balanced report we see today. I agree with him that our common interest is to speed up the enlargement process. We have no time to lose. The process continues to be built on strict but fair conditionality and the principle of own merits. This means that the pace of negotiations depends first and foremost on the progress in the fundamental reforms. In the current context, there is a window of opportunity for those countries willing to speed up the pace of their reforms and clearly demonstrating their EU commitment, not only in words but also in deeds. This is clearly the case that Montenegro will have to face.

The new coalition government’s strategic priority is to accelerate the country’s EU accession negotiations. This paves the way to move forward on Montenegro’s EU path. We have encouraged all political actors and institutions to take forward EU-related reforms in a constructive spirit and in line with the expectations of the Montenegrin citizens. We welcome that Montenegro maintains 100% alignment with the CFSP and is therefore vocally standing on the same side as the EU.

We are also including our Western Balkan partners, wherever possible, in the EU mechanisms to mitigate the socio—economic impact of the war, notably when it comes to the gas and food-security crises.

The Commission is supporting and will continue to support Montenegro’s economic and social development. The EU is the largest provider of financial assistance and Montenegro’s main trading and investor partner. Our economic and investment plan for the Western Balkans offers a platform to support the socio—economic recovery from the COVID—19 pandemic and the country’s longer—term resilience and prosperity. To fully grasp the benefits, we are encouraging Montenegro to prepare mature and strategic long—term progress urgently. Unfortunately, for the moment, Montenegro is lagging when it comes to these EU—funded projects. Therefore a much stronger focus should be put on having in place enhanced national administrative structures to prepare these programmes and these projects. Retaining and expanding EU expertise in the Montenegrin public administration will be key to address these challenges.

Also, regional cooperation is essential…

(Off-mic interjection from Mr Lacapelle)

  Željana Zovko, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I will follow on from your remarks on Montenegro. A few weeks ago I was with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, first in Albania, then to Montenegro. The lack of administrative capacity makes me really sad, as the co-rapporteur for IPA III funds, that we do not have these absorption capacities and prepared projects.

I welcome Montenegro’s new government and the inclusiveness that they showed and the inclusiveness regarding ethnic minorities this time. It looks like there is finally some understanding in the Western Balkans region that this plays a crucial part – to be inclusive in order to have everybody on board and to apply European principles. But still there is work to be done regarding Croatian cultural heritage in the Bay of Kotor and respect for the language. So I am watching with great interest for what the Montenegrin Government will continue doing in the future.

We are the greatest advocate for Montenegro because we need the success story in the Western Balkans and we will follow with all the support that we can from our side. It is unfortunate that we are discussing this issue tonight so late, with the empty room that shows the respect for the Western Balkans, and I hope that in the future we will have more attention, we will have success stories and we will have success for the summit as well, for these countries that really deserve it. Because for what’s happening in the Western Balkans, if we don’t deal with it, tomorrow it will be in France, it will be in Germany, it will be somewhere else. The borders are not ending just on the Croatian side.

  Thijs Reuten, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this very good report.

The Western Balkans deserve a real, genuine commitment, and Montenegro demonstrates why. A year ago, in this same annual report, I called on Montenegro’s leadership to set political differences aside and make the right choices for all Montenegrins.

I commend Montenegro’s new government for their support to Ukrainian refugees, for aligning with the sanctions – thus fully embracing our shared European values – and for pursuing the necessary reforms.

The report also clearly indicates remaining – and very important – shortcomings, but Montenegro is in pole position and has an opportunity to rewrite history which should not be wasted. It is a sign of hope for the region and the European Union.

This is the moment to maintain political unity and go the extra mile. I ask the Council to do the same: act decisively for the Western Balkans, unblock North Macedonia and Albania, and give Kosovo visa liberalisation – write history together!

  Klemen Grošelj, v imenu skupine Renew. – Gospa predsedujo?a, ?rna gora je po politi?ni krizi, ki je nastopila z odstopom prejšnje vlade, pred pomembno prelomnico.

Oblikovanje nove manjšinske vlade je omogo?ilo, da se je nastala politi?na kriza rešila demokrati?no in znotraj ustavnopravnih okvirov. Lahko re?emo, da je ?rnogorska politika dokazala dolo?eno raven politi?ne zrelosti.

Aktualno vprašanje pa je, ali se bo ta politi?na zrelost prelila v oblikovanje širše družbene platforme, zavezane k uresni?evanju ?rnogorske evropske prihodnosti. Ta je nujna, saj so pred državo pomembne reforme, predvsem pa mora nadoknaditi pomembni reformni zaostanek. Zakaj le z reformami se lahko ?rna gora ponovno utrdi ne samo kot favoritka za ?lanstvo, ampak tudi kot ena prvih držav v regiji, ki si bo pridobila ?lanstvo v Evropski uniji.

Eno klju?nih vprašanj prihodnosti države bo ureditev razmerij z verskim organizacijami, predvsem srbsko pravoslavno cerkvijo in na na?in, da bo ?rna gora ohranila sekularnost in hkrati politi?no ter širšo družbeno stabilnost. To bo definiralo njeno prihodnost, ki bo ali evropska ali pa bo to vrnitev v mlako nacionalisti?ne preteklosti. Hvala lepa.

  Thomas Waitz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, with Montenegro we have a country that is a real jewel, that has a fantastic natural and cultural heritage, and we have a country that has a minority government, and this in Balkan regions. I think this is very exceptional. But having a minority government that is counting on such a broad support in the Skupština, the local parliament, is really exceptional. And what is keeping that government running is the unified and united will to join the European Union as fast as possible.

And if we look at our role in the Balkan region, the European Union has unfortunately lost a lot of credibility through not meeting the promises or at least the hopes that we were creating in the region. And if there is one country of Western Balkans where we can show that there is a path into the European Union, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – yes, if you do your homework, if you meet the criteria, if you do your job well – if there is one country, this is Montenegro. And with Montenegro, we should accelerate our efforts now to talk about accession, to close chapters. And I see a big willingness on the Montenegrin side, but they are also counting on our support, also to support them to rebuild capacities which have been lost in the past, to negotiate. And it will be also on our side to do our utmost to accelerate the talks, to accelerate the negotiations.

I am convinced that we can finalise all the chapters within two years and have Montenegro joining as the 28th member of the European Union, honouring the country for its merits, but also showing the whole Western Balkan regions that if you do your homework, there is a perspective, and you will join us in the European family in the European Union.

  Jean-Lin Lacapelle, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, si je vous dis 20? rang mondial, vous pourrez penser que j’évoque un classement ATP ou un autre classement sportif. Eh bien non. Selon un article du quotidien britannique The Independent, il s’agit du classement de la fortune de l’ancien président monténégrin Dukanovi? dans celui des dirigeants politiques mondiaux; sa fortune personnelle est estimée à plus de 10 millions d’euros, dont une partie provient, nous le savons, du trafic international, ce qui lui vaut des poursuites dans certains pays de l’Union européenne.

Pourtant, animés par la volonté de renforcer l’hégémonie européenne dans le domaine des affaires étrangères et d’avancer vers sa fédéralisation, vous voulez à tout prix intégrer le Monténégro. Votre obstination vous pousse à une hypocrisie sans limites. Ainsi, vous ne cessez de dénoncer les ingérences étrangères au Monténégro, mais vous multipliez les demandes d’ingérence de l’Union européenne pour qu’elle y déverse son idéologie. Vous condamnez la minorité serbe parce qu’elle manifeste, mais vous fermez les yeux sur les actes de violence soutenus par l’État, dont cette minorité serbe est souvent la victime. Enfin, vous soulignez le souhait des Monténégrins d’adhérer à l’Union européenne, mais vous ne tenez aucun compte du refus des citoyens des États membres de les intégrer.

Comptez donc sur nous, chère Madame, pour toujours nous opposer à votre expansionnisme fédéraliste, pour toujours nous opposer à toute expansion. Bien sûr, l’élargissement de l’Union européenne, nous le savons, a pour objectif la dissolution des peuples et des nations.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavaju?a, povjereni?e, kolegice i kolege, na svom je europskom putu Crna Gora ostvarila primjetan napredak, a posebno ohrabruje ?injenica da ona odnedavno ima proeuropski orijentiranu vladu koja je predana poštivanju vladavine prava i prava nacionalnih manjina.

U tom smislu dobar je znak da hrvatska nacionalna manjina, izme?u ostalih, sada ima svoga predstavnika u izvršnoj vlasti, ministra u Vladi Crne Gore. To je izrazito važno jer su Hrvati u Crnoj Gori autohtona manjina koja njeguje i ?uva svoje tradicionalne obi?aje i bogato kulturno naslije?e. Me?utim, ono što i dalje optere?uje Crnu Goru je sudjelovanje antieuropskih politi?kih snaga koje dovode u pitanje samo postojanje crnogorske nacije i identiteta. Ovakve neprihvatljive ideje koje dolaze iz Beograda dio su hegemonisti?kog koncepta srpskog sveta, a podržavane u velikoj mjeri od strane Rusije.

Stoga je klju?no da se crnogorska vlada odlu?no suprotstavi ideji srpskog sveta, a na nama je da Crnoj Gori ponudimo pomo? i jasnu europsku perspektivu.

  Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsedujo?a, kot zelo pomembno dejstvo si štejem priložnost, da lahko danes tukaj v svojem prvem nagovoru izpostavim predvsem dejstvo, kako pomembna je širitvena politika Evropske unije.

Poro?ilo o napredku ?rne gore je jasno. V njem pozdravljamo predvsem zavezanost države k evropskemu povezovanju, a brez spoštovanja vladavine prava, doslednega izvajanja volilnih in pravosodnih reform ter aktivnega boja proti organiziranemu kriminalu in korupciji ne bo napredovanja sploh.

Želim si, da bi država ?im prej, in sicer da bi ji uspelo zapreti katerega izmed odprtih poglavij, in sicer da ohrani status vodilne države iz te regije, ko govorimo o širitvenem procesu.

Nova – in kot edina v Evropi – vlada, ki jo vodi predstavnik manjšine, me navdaja predvsem z optimizmom. Predvsem zaradi njene evropske perspektive. In ob tem pa potrebujemo tudi mo?no proevropsko držo kot sporo?ilo, osnovno sporo?ilo, ki prihaja iz te regije.

Spoštovani, ne pozabimo kot predstavniki Evropske unije, da mi potrebujemo regijo in regija potrebuje nas. Sedaj je ta moment tu, sedaj je ?as. Torej pozdravljamo napredek ?rne gore.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, iš tikr?j? noriu pad?koti pranešimo autoriui už tok? subalansuot? pranešim? ir ?vertinim?. Mes visi pripaž?stame, kad Juodkalnija yra lyder? Vakar? Balkanuose. Ir tai yra simboliška, kad šiandien daug d?mesio skyr?me Ukrainai, Moldovai, Gruzijai. Ir štai sugr?žtame prie Vakar? Balkan? ir Juodkalnijos. Taip, Juodkalnijoje yra problem? ir jas reikia spr?sti. Turb?t ne Juodkalnija kalta, kad jai daro ?tak? Rusija, Kinija, kad bandoma ?siskverbti ? kibernetin? erdv?, kad daromi ?vair?s hibridiniai išpuoliai. Ta?iau ši vyriausyb? labai aiškiai ?rod?, kad ji remia Europos vertybes. Be t? skyri?, kurios reikia uždaryti ir d?l kuri? diskutuojama, ji aiškiai parod? savo pozicij? Rusijos karo prieš Ukrain? atžvilgiu. Ji par?m? visas sankcijas, kurias paskelb? Europos S?junga. Tod?l aš kvies?iau Europos Komisij? dar aktyviau dirbti, kad gal?tume pasveikinti Juodkalnij? m?s? gretose.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, dear Rapporteur, thank you very much for the very constructive and forward—looking discussion. Today’s debate to us recalls once more that the EU treats the Western Balkans as privileged partners and that we are committed to advancing Montenegro’s EU path. The future of the Western Balkans and Montenegro of course lies in the EU, but we need also Montenegro to speed up the work with which they have been lagging behind, especially when it comes to the fundamentals.

We will continue to be Montenegro’s first political, trade and economic partner, and we think that Montenegro, although it is in a good track, but it needs to do more and faster.

  Tonino Picula, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank all colleagues for tonight’s debate but above all, my colleagues the shadow rapporteurs for their great contribution to this report and for excellent cooperation.

Tonight, the European Parliament once again showed its full support for the European future of Montenegro. I am more than convinced that Montenegro has the capacity to overcome the current problems outlined in the report. It knew how to prove it in the past, and I have no doubt Montenegro will be able to do it again in the future. Continuously high support of citizens for EU membership binds political options, and they should be stimulated to cooperate to achieve that trans-party goal.

In this context, Mr Commissioner, I would like your prediction to be fulfilled that by the end of your term, our term, at least one country in the Western Balkans will conclude negotiations on EU membership. It would be a common endeavour and an important sign that the European Union remains an open project.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2022, statt.

  Helmut Scholz, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich zunächst herzlich bei den Schattenberichterstattern bedanken. Wir hatten eine ausgesprochen gute und vor allen Dingen auch konstruktive Kooperation, und ich bin stolz auf das jetzt vorliegende gemeinsame Ergebnis. Der Inhalt unseres Berichts erwuchs aus einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit mit namhaften afrikanischen Expertinnen und Experten, die mit uns in einer Anhörung und einer Reihe von Workshops ihre Vorstellung der künftigen wirtschaftlichen Kooperation unserer beiden Weltregionen geteilt haben. Mit diesem Bericht geben wir der Europäischen Union, aber auch der Afrikanischen Union und ihren Mitgliedstaaten eine klare Positionierung des Europäischen Parlaments an die Hand. Wir sprechen uns aus für eine Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe und knüpfen damit direkt an die gemeinsame Abschlusserklärung des EU-AU-Gipfels vom Februar dieses Jahres an.

Richten wir also unsere Prioritäten gemeinsam aus. Wir müssen unsere Politiken und insbesondere auch die Handelspolitik der gemeinsamen Aufgabenstellung unterordnen, die UNO-Nachhaltigkeitsziele bis zum Jahr 2030 zu erreichen. Und die Überwindung von Armut, die Prosperität des afrikanischen Kontinents ist ein Eigeninteresse der Europäischen Union. Wir sind daher gefordert, Anstrengungen zu unternehmen, gemeinsam Wertschöpfungsketten innerhalb Afrikas aufzubauen und dabei auch auf moderne und umweltfreundliche Technologien zu setzen, um die Vision der Afrikanischen Union von einer nachhaltigen Industrialisierung des Kontinents zu unterstützen.

Unser Bericht stellt klar, dass es primär um die Förderung des Handels innerhalb Afrikas gehen muss. Dieses Primat ist auch bei unserer Unterstützung für den Ausbau der Infrastruktur zu beachten. Der intraafrikanische Handel benötigt Transportinfrastruktur, benötigt Kühlketten und Lagerhäuser, benötigt Kommunikationsnetze und Datenautobahnen. Und es sei noch einmal unterstrichen: Treibende Kraft der wirtschaftlichen Transformation Afrikas sind die Frauen und die Jugend, die wir gezielt und proaktiv mit neuen Ideen und konkreten Vorschlägen unterstützen sollten. Der intraafrikanische Handel benötigt auch Erleichterungen bei den Zöllen und Zollabfertigungen innerhalb des Kontinents.

Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich das Europäische Parlament mit diesem Bericht zugleich hinter das afrikanische Projekt des kontinentalen Freihandelsgebietes AfCFTA. Dabei haben wir Respekt vor den Ambitionen des Projekts, zu denen uns Generalsekretär Wamkele Mene versicherte, dass sie auf Nachhaltigkeit und das Schaffen von ordentlich bezahlten Arbeitsplätzen zielen, unter anderem die Freizügigkeit für Personen in Afrika einführen und damit weit über ein normales Handelsabkommen hinausgehen wollen.

Der Handel in und mit Afrika ist heute viel zu fragmentiert. Aus meiner Sicht trägt die Europäische Union zu diesem Problem durchaus mit bei, solange wir nicht zumindest die Ursprungsregeln für den gesamten Kontinent harmonisieren. Die Regeln, auf die sich die AfCFTA-Mitgliedstaaten gerade untereinander geeinigt haben, sollten uns dabei als Richtschnur dienen.

In diesem Zusammenhang fordern wir als Parlament die Kommission auf, die bestehenden Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen – EPAs – einer tiefen Analyse zu unterziehen, ob sie dem afrikanischen Integrationsprozess helfen oder im Wege stehen. Aus meiner Sicht sollten wir nicht krampfhaft an dem 20 Jahre alten EPA-Konzept und seiner Logik festhalten, sondern besser diese neue Dynamik der afrikanischen Freihandelszone aufgreifen. Wir müssen vielleicht auch besser zuhören und das Gespräch suchen. Wir empfehlen daher der Kommission, regelmäßige strukturierte Treffen mit der Kommission der Afrikanischen Union durchzuführen, um gemeinsam die nächsten konkreten Schritte der Kooperation zu besprechen.

So weit zur Einführung. Ich bin jetzt gespannt auf die Beiträge der Schattenberichterstatter und der Diskussionsteilnehmer.

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis let me give you our preliminary remarks.

Today’s debate on the future of EU-Africa trade relations is crucial as it comes at a time of unprecedented geopolitical tensions created by the aggression of Russia against Ukraine and, as underlined in your draft report, the Commission will closely monitor the impact of the war, especially on food supplies to the poorest countries in Africa.

The relationship with Africa is a priority for the EU. We remain its first development assistance donor and trading partner, accounting for 26% of Africa’s total trade in 2021. We are by far its largest export market ahead of China, India and the US, and the main provider of foreign direct investment.

Africa is a dynamic continent in demographic and economic terms and rich in natural resources. In 2021, the African Development Bank noted that Africa’s economy was quick to rebound following the pandemic, and its real GDP growth was near to 7%. At a time of mounting insecurity and threats, wars, terrorism, uncontrolled migration and environmental degradation, trade policy can contribute to fostering stability, common values and essential human and social rights by building strategic interdependencies between the EU and African countries.

Our strengthened partnership with Africa will help to foster economic diversification and inclusive growth. The recent EU—African Union summit recognised that our trade agreements contributed to the deepening of trade between the two continents and that we should continue to work towards the progressive and mutually—beneficial integration of our markets. That is the long—term goal of a two—continent free trade agreement based on successful implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area, which builds on Africa’s regional economic communities and the Economic Partnership Agreements, many of which have been signed with the EU.

Support for economic integration is one of the key objectives of these agreements, and the EU, together with Member States, is strongly committed to accompany our African partners under the Team Europe Initiative on economic integration ‘Support to the African Continental Free Trade Area’ which covers, among other areas, quality infrastructure and market access, trade facilitation across strategic corridors, trade in services, competition, digital trade and intellectual property rights.

Your draft report rightly insists on sustainable development. The Commission shares this priority and is promoting sustainable development through its dialogues under Economic Partnership Agreements, the Sustainable Cocoa Initiative and the recently—started negotiations on Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreements. The funding under the EU Africa Global Gateway Investment Package of EUR 150 billion will also help to meet sustainability objectives, while using a Team Europe approach.

As a follow up to the summit, the Commission is now working on setting up a high—level dialogue on trade and economic integration. It will be an important channel of communication, especially in the light of current challenges. The Commission is also working on the possibility of harmonising rules of origin. This would complement the support that the Commission is also providing to African partners, in cooperation with the World Customs Organisation, for the effective implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area rules of origin and support to the development and strengthening of value chains in Africa.

Finally, your draft report also puts emphasis on modernising the Economic Partnership Agreements. These agreements have enabled us to build a predictable trade relationship with African countries, which is highly appreciated by businesses both in the EU and in Africa. These agreements must help to improve, increase and even further intra-African trade and support the African Continental Free Trade Area process.

The Commission will continue to work effectively to implement the economic partnership agreements and to widen them geographically and deepen their content with African partners that are willing to do so. This will allow us to reap the full benefits of our trade and investment relations while promoting international environment standards in line with the EU Green Deal and the universal values of human rights, including labour rights, which the EU strongly promotes globally with all its partners.

I am looking forward to hear your views.

  Luke Ming Flanagan, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – Madam President, I very much welcome this draft report on the future of EU—Africa trade relations. The relationships of the past, unfortunately, have been based on brutality and exploitation, and we need to do so, so much better. And I want to say gut gemacht to Helmut for a draft report that I think is excellent. I am pleased to see so much of the AGRI opinion included.

The report comes at a crucial time with the war in Ukraine. Agri—food exports to Africa are valued at EUR 17.6 billion, and imports from Africa are valued at EUR 16.5 billion. That was in 2020. The report supports trade based on agricultural products which show respect for biodiversity, and fighting against overexploitation. It also promotes resilient and sustainable agriculture, recognises the strategic importance of African rangelands and also their massive importance to carbon sequestration. It also looks for a reduction in pesticides and very importantly highlights the inconsistencies of exporting products banned in the EU. This must stop. It also supports stronger policy coherence at EU level in agri—food trade.

All of these words are very good, but we’ve actually got to do it: we can’t just be talking about it. This is important. We’ve got to put words into action.

  Gabriel Mato, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en primer lugar, quisiera felicitar al ponente por su trabajo.

África tiene que ser un continente prioritario para la Unión Europea. Todos somos conscientes del enorme potencial de sus mercados y también de su compleja realidad y diversidad.

África crece económica y demográficamente y dispone de recursos naturales, promueve cada vez más su integración comercial y tiene una hoja de ruta para acometer reformas en aras de marcos institucionales más estables y mayor seguridad. Pero, sobre todo, debe hacer un esfuerzo para sentar las bases políticas necesarias para el desarrollo.

Por su parte, las empresas europeas, y en concreto las pymes, no pueden quedar al margen de estas oportunidades de negocio. Debemos impulsar partenariados público-privados de carácter trilateral y, sin duda alguna, hay que abordar la ordenación de los flujos migratorios.

Observar lo que sucede hoy a nuestro alrededor, como la invasión de Ucrania por Rusia o el posicionamiento de China en la zona, nos debe reafirmar en el convencimiento de que no podemos olvidar nuestro compromiso con este continente. Por ellos y por nosotros.

  Joachim Schuster, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die COVID-Pandemie, der Krieg in der Ukraine wie auch die offensichtlich gewordenen geopolitischen Veränderungen stellen die Beziehungen zwischen Afrika und der EU vor neue Herausforderungen. Unsere Handels-und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen müssen auf eine neue Grundlage gestellt werden. Die Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen bieten keine hinreichenden Perspektiven mehr. Notwendig ist eine neue Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe, die das neue Selbstbewusstsein der afrikanischen Staaten ernst nimmt.

Zentraler Bezugspunkt sollte die von der Afrikanischen Union beschlossene kontinentale Freihandelszone sein. Dabei geht es nicht um Freihandel im herkömmlichen Sinne. Die kontinentale Freihandelszone ist das Bestreben, innerafrikanischen Handel zu stärken, innerregionale Wertschöpfungsketten zwischen verschiedenen afrikanischen Staaten auf- bzw. auszubauen und damit die Wirtschaft auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent umfassend zu unterstützen.

Eine Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe darf sich nicht auf den Handel beschränken. Wir brauchen mehr. Wir brauchen eine viel engere Kooperation in der Landwirtschaft, um Ernährungssicherheit in Afrika dauerhaft gewährleisten zu können. Und dabei dürfen nicht die Absatzinteressen der europäischen Landwirtschaft im Mittelpunkt stehen. Die Stärkung der kleinbäuerlichen Landwirtschaft in Afrika wird dabei übrigens zentral sein.

Weiterhin brauchen wir Klimapartnerschaften. Viele afrikanische Staaten leiden unter den dramatischen Auswirkungen des Klimawandels, der aber maßgeblich von den industrialisierten Staaten des Nordens verursacht wurde. Deswegen ist es auch unsere Pflicht, die afrikanischen Staaten bei der Bekämpfung des und der Anpassung an den Klimawandel zu unterstützen.

Beides erfordert eine deutliche Steigerung der europäischen Investitionen in den afrikanischen Staaten. Dabei wird es besonders bedeutsam sein, dass Investitionen gemeinsam mit afrikanischen Partnern getätigt werden, um die Wertschöpfung und die Beschäftigung in den afrikanischen Staaten zu steigern. In den nächsten Jahren wird es nun darauf ankommen, diese neue Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe nicht nur immer wieder rhetorisch auf Gipfeltreffen und in Reden zu beschwören, sondern sie in konkreten Projekten auch umzusetzen.

  Samira Rafaela, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, as I have said multiple times, we must base our relations on an equal partnership and the report we discuss today finally confirms our renewed approach to trade relations with Africa. And by engaging with Africa on this basis, we can ensure the sustainable development of our continent. This means we must invest in Africa, both financially and in human capital; investing in promising new economic initiatives such as digital and green initiatives, investing in young change-makers, in women and in the African diaspora in the EU.

The current uncertain situation regarding food security underlines another important element of our relationship. As the war in Ukraine demonstrates, food security on the continent is a very urgent question we must answer. And together with our African partners, we must invest in the agricultural sector on the continent to ensure food security. There are a lot of opportunities – a lot of opportunities – to work on an equal partnership, so let’s do so.

  Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, la relation entre l’Union européenne et l’Afrique doit devenir un authentique partenariat entre égaux. Nous sommes prêts, nous, au niveau du Parlement européen, vu le rapport qui est sur notre table et qui doit être voté. Mais sommes-nous prêts, dans l’ensemble européen, à un tel partenariat?

À l’OMC, l’Union européenne a continué de s’opposer à la levée des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur l’ensemble des dispositifs de lutte contre la pandémie, dont les vaccins, mais aussi les tests et les médicaments, une mesure demandée par les pays en développement, alors que le taux de vaccination n’est toujours que de 18 % en Afrique.

La propagande russe anti-occidentale actuelle sème le trouble entre nous en faisant croire que les sanctions européennes menacent la sécurité alimentaire du continent africain et la vie de millions de personnes. Le Togo et le Gabon ont récemment, en tant que deux pays francophones, demandé à rejoindre le Commonwealth et ils ne semblent plus attendre grand-chose de l’Europe.

Ces relations doivent fondamentalement changer et partir sur de nouvelles bases. Un réel partenariat, d’égal à égal, demande d’entendre les préoccupations de nos partenaires, de généraliser et d’amplifier le processus décolonial tel qu’engagé en Belgique, de mettre fin aussi aux pratiques coloniales des entreprises européennes qui continuent à exploiter les ressources de ces pays et à faire souffrir les populations locales. Enfin, les accords commerciaux et de partenariat économique doivent tenir compte de l’évolution de l’économie locale, de l’intégration régionale, de la diversification économique et, surtout, des objectifs de développement durable.

  Markus Buchheit, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Guten Abend, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Nun, zielgruppenbasiert wurde der vorliegende Vorschlag ja auch verkauft als mögliches Instrument gegen die zunehmende Aktivität unserer globalen Konkurrenten aus Russland, der Türkei und natürlich auch aus China, und das wohlgemerkt – das haben wir gerade schon gehört – unter Ausschluss irgendwelcher neokolonialen oder gar kolonialen Anklänge.

Nun, die Frage ist doch: Dort, wo früher grimmig dreinschauende Kolonialherren ihre Knute geschwungen haben, da schwingen eben heute Greta Thunberg und Carola Rackete ihre Knuten – das eben in entsprechenden Worthülsen, wie wir sie heute zur Genüge gehört haben.

Und es droht gar noch mehr: Es droht ein Bumerang für uns zu werden, und es droht natürlich auch ein Draufzahlgeschäft für die Europäische Union selbst zu werden, wenn wir uns anschauen, dass Massenmigration hier eben Tür und Tor geöffnet werden wird und dass auch der Text in keinem Wort davon spricht, straffällig gewordene Migranten wieder zurückzuführen.

In diesem Sinne – es bleibt wie so häufig: Das Gegenteil von gut gemacht ist gut gemeint.

  Vincenzo Sofo, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la crisi ucraina ha fatto finalmente scoprire all’Unione europea quanto sia importante il rapporto con l’Africa, continente che ospita il 24 per cento della superficie agricola mondiale utilizzabile, enormi giacimenti di risorse naturali ed energetiche, nonché una popolazione che a breve supererà i due miliardi, un quarto di quella mondiale.

Peccato che mentre l’UE dormiva, potenze come la Cina ci abbiano sottratto il ruolo di partner privilegiato, impossessandosi delle terre africane e dotandole di infrastrutture, coprendone i debiti e, in cambio, prendendo il controllo di ricchezze naturali, asset strategici e persino imponendo lo studio del cinese nelle scuole.

La nostra risposta a questa colonizzazione dovrebbe essere un piano di aiuto allo sviluppo capace di restituire agli africani il diritto di vivere nella propria terra, in cambio di una cooperazione geopolitica che renda Europa e Africa i soli protagonisti della stabilità e della prosperità del Mediterraneo.

Invece ciò che proponete loro sono accordi di partenariato vincolati al raggiungimento di obiettivi di transizione ecologica e digitale o di parità di genere, che poco hanno a che vedere con le reali urgenze di un continente sottosviluppato e affamato, dimostrando ancora una volta quanto la strategia dell’Unione europea sia offuscata dall’ideologia e distaccata dalla realtà.

  Ern? Schaller-Baross (NI). – Tisztelt Biztos Úr! Sehr geehrte Frau Vorsitzende! Tisztelt Képvisel?társaim! Az Európai Unió és Afrika fontos és régóta fennálló politikai, gazdasági és kulturális kapcsolatban állnak. Vitán felül áll, hogy olyan gazdasági szemléletre van szükség, amely Afrikát nem pusztán segélyek, humanitárius adományok kedvezményezettjeként, hanem az EU gazdasági partnereként kezeli. Ugyanilyen fontos azonban, hogy az Európai Unió támogassa Afrikát az életkörülmények javításában annak érdekében, hogy az emberek ne akarják tömegesen elhagyni kontinensüket. Az eddigi intézkedések egyik legkedvez?tlenebb hatása, hogy folyamatosan er?södtek az elmúlt években az Európát ér? migrációs hullámok.

Itt az ideje a változásnak, annak, hogy az Európai Unió a helyben maradáshoz szükséges körülmények megteremtésére összpontosítson. Biztosítanunk kell, hogy az afrikai emberek méltó körülmények között, a hazájukban maradhassanak, és saját fejl?désük érdekében, a kölcsönös el?nyök szem el?tt tartásával válhassanak az európai termékek, szolgáltatások, valamint a tudásalapú gazdaság piacává.

  Fulvio Martusciello (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non ci potrà mai essere una vera e propria partnership commerciale con l’Africa se non si elimineranno delle sanzioni che sono molto spesso antistoriche nei confronti di alcuni paesi e se non si decide in maniera chiara di combattere il fenomeno dell’insurrezione jihadista.

L’insurrezione jihadista, aggravatasi a Cabo Delgado dal 2017, si sta riversando nei paesi vicini, e gli attacchi in Tanzania di sabato scorso lo dimostrano, nonostante l’invio di truppe destinate a fronteggiare il fenomeno jihadista. L’Unione europea non agisce in maniera chiara nei confronti di questo fenomeno, nonostante ci siano alcuni paesi, come ad esempio lo Zimbabwe, che hanno deciso di fare della lotta al jihadismo la loro bandiera. E il presidente Macron questo l’ha capito, tant’è vero che ha incontrato il presidente dello Zimbabwe, e il nostro collega Elmar Brok si recherà in quel paese per esaminare la situazione alla luce delle elezioni presidenziali del 2023, e anche lo European Investment Fund ha destinato oltre 12 milioni e mezzo di euro per gli imprenditori locali.

Questo è positivo, ma è giunto il momento di discutere della legittimità del fatto di tenere ancora in piedi sanzioni che bloccano l’economia di questo paese che, ripeto, è l’unico paese che sta facendo davvero una grande lotta nei confronti del jihadismo. Non possiamo aspettare che la situazione degeneri.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o relatório de iniciativa, hoje em debate, sobre o futuro das relações comerciais entre Europa e a África era uma enorme oportunidade. A União Europeia, a África e os seus povos têm muito a beneficiar de uma parceria entre iguais que afirme uma estratégia multilateral de cooperação, em que a dimensão comercial seja um dos pilares essenciais. A União Europeia e a União Africana afirmaram por diversas vezes o seu compromisso com uma visão conjunta, uma visão baseada numa estratégia que se constitua numa parceria para o desenvolvimento sustentável e inclusivo. As relações comerciais entre a União Europeia e a África têm que ter em conta o novo contexto geopolítico, em que a autonomia estratégica é a base necessária para tornar possível uma saudável cooperação económica e política e desenvolver os laços comerciais, como tem sido a vontade manifestada por ambas as partes. A entrada em vigor da Zona de Comércio Livre Continental Africana reforça o potencial de cooperação entre a União e a África, num momento em que programas como o Global Europe e o Global Gateway estão também na sua fase de lançamento. Por isso, as exaustivas recomendações deste relatório neste contexto são um contributo para mitigar os impactos negativos que a guerra em curso na Ucrânia está já a provocar no desenvolvimento sustentável, na criação de riqueza e no bem-estar dos povos.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, I agree with the comments earlier of Ms Bricmont and Ms Rafaela that we are embarked on a new era of partnership between the EU and Africa, and it is truly welcome. However, I just want to address my comments very briefly on the trade aspects of the immediate food security issue.

We’ve heard, I think all of us, from the World Food Programme and FAO who have outlined many times proposals about how to avert famine and whether that can happen. The European Council in its conclusions last month addressed for the first time this question and reiterated, and I quote, ‘its commitment to keep global trade in food commodities free of unjustified trade barriers’. And Minister Beaune, earlier in his comments here in the Hemicycle, mentioned the urgent need to maximise the export of food commodities. Now there is a debate going on here in the European Parliament, in the institutions more generally, whether the EU should require reciprocity of production standards in agri—food imports from third countries. And my plea is that we must be mindful of the possible impacts of such measures on developing countries, and in particular the message it could send.

????????: ??? ?????
????????????

  Helmut Scholz, Berichterstatter. – Danke, Frau Präsidentin, danke, Herr Kommissar, danke an die Kolleginnen und Kollegen für die doch sehr unterschiedlich gewichtete Diskussion. Mit vielem bin ich einverstanden, mit einigem gar nicht. Aber unser Bericht – und das möchte ich noch mal ausdrücklich betonen – ist nicht blind gegenüber Hunger und Not großer Teile der Bevölkerung Afrikas. Der russische Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine hat die Situation zwar noch einmal dramatisch verschärft, aber die Ursachen für Hunger und Armut gerade auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent sind vielfältiger und schon viel länger manifest.

Auch Spekulation treibt die Nahrungsmittelpreise in dieser Krise hoch, sodass die Hilfswerke für ihre Budgets nicht mehr ausreichend Hilfsgüter erwerben können. Über 80 Millionen Menschen in Ostafrika allein droht eine Hungersnot. Klimawandel könnte man hinzufügen, Umweltzerstörung. Der Krieg in Westafrika verhindert in großen Teilen Malis den Bauern die Möglichkeit, ihre Felder zu bestellen.

Es gilt also jetzt, komplex die Fragen in Angriff zu nehmen, zu handeln, kurzfristig sicherlich durch Bereitstellung von Nahrung, mittelfristig aber – auch das empfiehlt unser Bericht – durch die Ermöglichung eines würdevollen Lebens für Afrikas Landbevölkerung und landwirtschaftliche Betriebe.

Wir empfehlen, agroökologischen Reformen Raum zu geben. Eine rentable Preisbildung darf nicht durch Dumping von Milchpulver oder Geflügelteilen aus Europa verhindert werden. Letztlich, aber notwendigerweise sicherlich ab sofort durch die Verhinderung des Klimawandels und den Erhalt der Artenvielfalt und gemeinsame intensivste Anstrengungen, dies auf den Weg zu bringen.

Denn was und wie wird die next generation auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent über unsere Politik und unsere wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen und konkrete Zusammenarbeit sagen, wenn dort in 20 bis 25 Jahren 2,5 Milliarden Menschen leben werden? Klimapartnerschaften, das ist angeklungen, Investitionstätigkeiten der EU – Sie haben den Global Gateway noch mal genannt – erfordern gerade die gleichberechtigte Einbeziehung der Entscheidungsträger auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent, und zwar auf allen Ebenen, auf der nationalen Ebene, auf der Ebene der Afrikanischen Union, aber auch vor Ort, regional und durch die Stakeholder.

Afrika ist ein Kontinent der Hoffnung, meine ich. Afrika ist der Kontinent der Jugend, und unser europäischer Kontinent altert leider. Für uns beide liegt also die Notwendigkeit und die Chance in einer Zusammenarbeit, in die wir weit mehr investieren sollten als bislang vorgesehen, das heißt die Kohärenz der Politiken, die wir gemeinsam auf den Weg bringen wollen, und vielleicht auch gemeinsam an der Reform der Welthandelsorganisation arbeiten sollten. In dem Sinne, hoffe ich, ist unser Bericht ein wichtiger Wegweiser für diese Arbeit.

  President. – Thank you so much for your work, Mr Scholz, on the future of EU-Africa trade relations.

The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.

  Anna Cavazzini, rapporteur. – Madam President, the Netherlands are being sued by a foreign investor in front of an international tribunal just because they are exiting dirty coal. The EU itself is being sued by Nord Stream 2, of all companies, just because we regulated our gas market. It becomes clear that we have a problem. The international community has created in the last years a system that has got out of hand. Via investment protection treaties, international companies have got the right to challenge all kinds of democratic decisions in front of private international tribunals, and faced with those threats, Member States have basically two options: they can back away from public policy choices like getting out of fossil fuel, or they risk paying billions of euros in compensation.

We saw thousands of citizens protesting in the streets against this perverse system. We saw scholars and judges speaking out for reform. We saw engaged debates in this Parliament. And because of this pressure, the EU’s approach to investment protection and dispute settlement has evolved in the last years. And this is good. The current EU model is better than it used to be and better than that of the Member States. But let me be clear; the Green Deal and the Paris Agreement demand more. They demand we continue to reform, to minimise risks for democracy and to transform our economy towards decarbonisation without a giant price tag.

And this is exactly what we are doing in this report. We, as parliamentarians, are proposing today a new reformed model for the EU’s investment policy. First, we suggest in the report to end the protection of investments in fossil fuels or any other activities that pose significant harm to the environment and human rights – and cases against climate policies keep on piling up, delaying action, and costing millions to taxpayers. Investment must be channelled towards sustainable activities and away from those which are cooking our planet.

Second, we want to stop giving a blank cheque to international investors to just sue states whenever they like. International investors should first need to go through national courts before using arbitration. We must cap the damage that can be awarded so that taxpayers do not risk having to pay billions to corporations. We demand narrower protection standards to limit abusive cases. In short, we must protect our ability to make laws and regulations.

Third, the report takes a clear position on the Energy Charter Treaty. That is such a big problem for our climate policies and today we say, crystal clear, an empty deal cannot satisfy this Parliament, we need to exit this dirty treaty.

I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation on this report. We reached, I think, an outcome that is balanced but bold, forward-looking, and shows also how relevant the European Parliament is on this topic, where we as parliamentarians unfortunately do not sit at the table during the negotiations on investment agreements. I call on the Commission and the Member States to take the demands of this report very seriously and adopt this as the new EU approach. Our report clearly asks Member States to terminate or modernise their old bilateral investment treaties.

So, investment policy can be a very powerful tool. Let us use it for the benefit of all of us.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D). – Señora presidenta, en primer lugar, quiero felicitar a la ponente del informe, por, efectivamente, el trabajo en equipo, y a todos los ponentes alternativos que hemos participado en su elaboración. Y quiero destacar que las prioridades de mi Grupo político, el Grupo S&D, han quedado perfectamente recogidas en el texto del informe y en los compromisos que hemos asumido.

Para nosotros es muy importante defender la competencia de la Unión Europea en política de inversiones y la modernización de esta política, en la que este Parlamento y mi Grupo político hemos tenido un papel destacado, tanto en favor de la transparencia como en favor de terminar con el sistema de resolución de conflictos entre inversores y Estados basado en el arbitraje, que no es aceptable, y cambiarlo por el nuevo sistema del tribunal multilateral de inversiones, que ha de ser el futuro para resolver los litigios.

Defendemos una reforma en profundidad del Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía para que, efectivamente, obedezca a los principios del desarrollo sostenible, del Pacto Verde Europeo, de la defensa de los derechos humanos, y permita acabar con la transición de las energías combustibles fósiles. Esperamos que mañana una gran mayoría apoye este informe, como así ha sucedido en la Comisión de Comercio Internacional.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, sincer, eu regret c? acest proiect important se dezbate foarte scurt, f?r? timp alocat ?i la o or? a?a târzie. Eu cred c? trebuie s? fim interesa?i de viitorul privind investi?iile interna?ionale, de politica pe care noi o facem privind investi?iile interna?ionale, pentru c? da, ?i în ?ara mea am întâlnit exact ce spunea aici raportoarea: se pl?tesc bani grei câteodat? din bugetele na?ionale pentru ni?te investi?ii care nu au respectat condi?iile de etic? ?i echitate în ?ara respectiv?, în condi?ii egale cu investitorii autohtoni ?i nu pot s? aib? câ?tig de cauz? statele membre, pentru c?, da, se merge la arbitraj înainte de a trece pe la tribunalele na?ionale.

De aceea consider c?, în primul rând Comisia – noi nu avem dreptul de legiferare -, Consiliul, trebuie s? ajung? la … s? avem un act legislativ ?i o nou? politic? privind investi?iile interna?ionale. Da, avem nevoie de ele în Uniunea European?, dar în condi?ii de echitate ?i etic?.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis, let me give you our statement.

Today’s debate comes at a moment where investments more than ever are crucial for the EU’s recovery. Foreign direct investment also plays a key role in achieving our open strategic autonomy and our access to essential inputs such as energy. The EU remains the first outward investor in the world and a major destination for foreign direct investments. The EU offers a very attractive and open market to foreign investments, and through our investment facilitation, liberalisation and protection agreements we ensure that EU companies also operate on a level playing field in third countries. EU investors, more than any other foreign investors, decisively contribute to the sustainable development of the host countries, notably in the EU neighbourhood and Africa.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Anna Cavazzini, and the shadow rapporteurs for this draft resolution. As you acknowledged, the EU investment policy has significantly adapted and expanded to address concerns faced by EU investors and to take into account EU policy priorities. Our investment policy is also adapting to new political realities and challenges, but the draft resolution is mainly forward—looking. In particular, the draft resolution encourages the Commission to continue negotiating investment liberalisation commitments to ensure the best possible market access conditions for prospective and existing EU investors. The draft resolution also supports the negotiations on investment facilitation for development in the World Trade Organisation so as to help developing countries attract and retain investment. The Commission is playing a proactive role in those negotiations.

On investment protection, the EU fundamentally reformed its approach to ensure the highest standards of legitimacy, transparency and balance in its treaty practice. That reform covered both the investment protection standards and the dispute settlement mechanisms. The draft resolution welcomes the EU’s reformed approach on investment protection, but also calls for further adjustments to address new challenges, in particular climate change. This includes considerations on the sectoral coverage of our agreements, on the role of stakeholders beyond investors, or on how to calculate compensations for the EU.

Investment policy is constantly evolving to match the EU’s policy priorities. The Commission considers that EU—level investment agreements are fully compatible with the Green Deal and the green transition. Notably, our investment agreements include commitments on sustainable development taken by both parties, for instance on matters such as responsible business conduct and the respect of environmental, human rights and labour standards. They are also explicit about the right of governments to pursue legitimate public policy objectives, including the fight against climate change.

Finally, the draft resolution also points to the existence of unreformed bilateral investment treaties by Member States. Those agreements contain certain incompatibilities with EU law and inconsistencies with the EU investment policy. The Commission supports the renegotiation efforts by these Member States. As long as those treaties are not renegotiated or replaced by EU—level agreements, they will remain in place. In that respect, Parliament has done its part in terms of ratification of the CETA and Singapore and Vietnam Investment Protection Agreements, but we also need parliaments of the Member States to do their part of the work.

Again, it is important to highlight that the EU’s reformed approach on investment protection is largely the outcome of a strong call from the European Parliament. This is what led the Commission to propose the more balanced and transparent investment court system, but also to calibrate the standards of investment protection so as to avoid the unwanted impact of the interpretation of EU Agreements. The Commission takes note of the recommendations for further actions and will carefully examine each of them.

Honourable Members, it remains necessary to negotiate and implement disciplines on international investments. EU investors face difficulties when investing abroad, and investment is necessary to reach the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as for the EU’s open strategic autonomy. EU investment agreements do not confer more rights to foreign investors than what is granted under domestic law. The scope of protection in EU agreements corresponds to the minimum treatment afforded to any company in the EU under the rule of law.

Finally, the Commission thanks you for your support to our reformed approach and to the evolution of the EU investment policy. It is clear that the EU’s investment policy is not static and needs to take into account citizens concerns and priorities.

  President. – Thank you Mr Commissioner, and thanks to the rapporteur for introducing such an interesting topic, and the colleagues that are here, for the future of EU international investments.

That concludes the item. The vote will be held tomorrow.

  Karlo Ressler, Rapporteur. – Poštovana predsjedavaju?a, povjereni?e, kolegice i kolege, razaraju?e ruske rakete, tenkovi i zvuci sirena ozna?ili su 24. velja?e po?etak krvave agresije ruskog režima na Ukrajinu, ali isto tako i po?etak nove ere europske povijesti.

Preko 13 milijuna Ukrajinaca, ?iji su domovi pod udarom granata sravnjeni sa zemljom ili im nedostaje vode, hrane, struje, moralo je napustiti svoje domove u ?etiri mjeseca ratnih razaranja. Gotovo šest milijuna, pretežito žena i djece, potražilo je sigurno uto?ište u zemljama Europske unije. Ljudski smo se i civilizacijski jasno opredijelili da im pomognemo i to je i glavni cilj izmjena prora?una i izvješ?a koje vam predstavljam danas.

Izmjenama osiguravamo glavni dio od 400 milijuna eura za pomo? u prijemu i registraciji ukrajinskih izbjeglica. Konkretna solidarnost, financijska, logisti?ka, humanitarna pomo?, kao i svaki drugi oblik potpore ukrajinskom narodu koji se u ovim trenucima bori za svoju slobodu, za svoju opstojnost ljudska je i moralna obveza ?itave Europe.

Brutalna ruska agresija koja ne može imati nikakva opravdanja ostavit ?e dugogodišnje posljedice ne samo na Ukrajinu, nego i na Europu pa i na naše europske financije. Toga smo svjesni i stoga moramo na vrijeme poduzeti sve mjere kako bi ublažili te posljedice, bilo da se radi o zbrinjavanju izbjeglica, osiguravanju energetskih zaliha ili zaštiti opskrbe hranom.

Glavna mjera koju smo ovdje u Europskom parlamentu ve? naglašavali jest da se moraju osigurati nova i adekvatna financijska sredstva. To svakako uklju?uje i dubinsku analizu trenutnog višegodišnjeg financijskog okvira i njegovu, nadamo se skoru reviziju, imaju?i u vidu dugoro?ne posljedice rata u Ukrajini, ali i jednostavno dugoro?nu neodrživost trenutnog na?ina financiranja i trenutne prenapregnutosti mnogih europskih programa koji su jednostavno potrebni i bez kojih ne možemo.

Nalazimo se pred pravim civilizacijskim testom za koji je nužan zajedni?ki i jedinstven odgovor cijele Europe, ali i jedan test prave spremnosti da konkretno, opipljivo i s dovoljnim financijskim sredstvima odgovorimo na sve aktualne humanitarne izazove, ali i na sve ono što je pred nama, a mislim da nije pretjerana tajna i da je poprili?no o?ito da ?e mjeseci koji su pred nama biti poprili?no teški i da ?e se to svakako odraziti i na ovaj financijski aspekt.

Ukrajini je u ovom trenutku potrebno puno više. I od ovih 400 milijuna eura koji su velika stvar, koji ?e svakako pomo?i u zbrinjavanju ukrajinskih izbjeglica ovdje u Europi, ali potrebna im je, i zbog toga to apsolutno podržavam, nedvosmislena potpora europskoj aspiraciji ukrajinskog naroda koju o?ekujemo sutra na sastanku Vije?a.

Hvala puno, drage kolegice i kolege, poštovani povjereni?e. Mislim da s ovim korakom radimo dobru stvar, dobru stvar za ukrajinske izbjeglice i da ?e ovih 400 milijuna eura osigurati jednu prvu pomo? u pravom prijemu, ali isto tako i u registraciji ukrajinskih izbjeglica.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  ???????? ??????????? (PPE). – ????? ???????, ????? ????????, ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ??? ??????? ?????????, Karlo Ressler, ??? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ?????: ??? ????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????. ? ????????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ????? ???? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????????????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????, ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ??? 48 ??????. ?????????????? ?????? ?? ????????, ??? ????, ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ?????????? ????, ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??????, ?? 1974, ??????????? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ???, ?? ??????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??? ???????.

? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??????????? ???????. ? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????????? ????? ??? ? ????????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????????. ??????????, ???? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????????, ??? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????????. ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ??????????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????????????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ????.

  Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, dincolo de argumentele prezentate de raportorul Ressler, cred c? este esen?ial s? în?elegem contextul. Am fost de trei ori în Ucraina, am dus peste 30 de tone de ajutoare pentru cei afecta?i de r?zboi în diferite zone ale Ucrainei. În familia mea am ?inut peste 10 refugia?i timp de dou? luni de zile în propria cas?.

Cunosc foarte bine realit??ile de acolo. Tocmai de aceea am vrut s? intervin, pentru c? cred c? fiecare efort pe care îl facem merit?, în aceast? perioad?, toat? implicarea noastr?, în condi?iile în care, s? nu uit?m o chestiune esen?ial?: în Ucraina, ast?zi se moare pentru visul european ?i r?spunsul nostru trebuie s? fie pe m?sura a?tept?rilor.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, într-adev?r, Uniunea European? nu trebuie s? lase statele membre ?i refugia?ii ucrainieni singuri în fa?a acestei situa?ii nemaiîntâlnite. De aceea am modificat, iat?, bugetul european pe anul 2022 pentru a ne asigura c? exist? suficien?i bani pentru a face fa?? acestor provoc?ri legate de r?zboiul din Ucraina.

Fondurile vor acoperi o parte din cheltuielile ?i eforturile f?cute de statele membre ?i vor ajuta, sper?m noi, la îmbun?t??irea r?spunsului european. O aten?ie sporit? va fi oferit? ?i statelor aflate la frontiera cu Ucraina, printre care ?i România, pentru a finan?a, spre exemplu, hub-ul umanitar. Nu în ultimul rând, autorit??ile locale ?i jude?ene vor putea beneficia de resurse financiare suplimentare. Cu toate acestea, ne trebuie un plan concret cu privire la viitoarele nevoi de finan?are ?i un sprijin financiar pentru efectele indirecte ale r?zboiului din Ucraina, în mod special asupra statelor din regiune.

Circa 40 % dintre europeni cred c? r?zboiul le-a afectat nivelul de trai ?i î?i doresc ca Uniunea European? s? intervin? pentru a men?ine pre?urile la energie ?i la alimente la un nivel acceptabil. Pentru aceste lucruri este nevoie de noi resurse europene ?i de m?suri urgente.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, again, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ressler, for supporting the proposal.

Now the proposal for the draft amending budget No 3/2022 comes at a time when the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine creates an unprecedented human tragedy. Ukraine is now on everyone’s mind. Russia’s war is a blatant disregard of international law and has global repercussions on food security, energy and the economy.

Since the fateful 24 February, the EU has significantly stepped up its support to Ukraine’s overall economic, social and financial resilience. The EU has provided macro-financial assistance, budget support, emergency assistance, crisis response and humanitarian aid, as well as military assistance measures under the European Peace Facility. The current proposal for draft amending budget No 3 is a part of the EUR 1 billion pledge made by President von der Leyen at the global pledging event ‘Stand Up for Ukraine’ in Warsaw on 9 April this year.

To be more precise, EUR 600 million of that pledge were dedicated to Ukraine, with a large majority directly supporting the Ukrainian authorities to continue providing basic services to the population. The remaining EUR 400 million of the pledge was foreseen for the Member States most directly impacted by the consequences of the war, to provide immediate support to people arriving in the Union.

The Commission proposed that the EU budget provides EUR 400 million for the first reception and registration costs under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI), of which EUR 100 million will become available after the adoption of the draft amending budget.

The other parts of the package have already been approved. So this is the final piece. The support to the first reception and registration systems of the most affected Member States under the AMIF aims to ensure that people fleeing Ukraine can benefit from adequate first reception, food, shelter, sanitation, clothing, medicine, family tracing, legal and translation assistance, psychosocial and other specialised services leading to their registration in one of the Member States.

Measures proposed under the BMVI will provide funding to the Member States bordering Ukraine to allow for the smooth application of procedures at or near the external borders, such as identification, fingerprinting, registration, security checks, medical and vulnerability screening of third country nationals, as well as for immediate reception needs throughout these procedures.

We ask Parliament to support this proposal. It would make the necessary funds available to address some of the immediate needs and consequences of Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine.

This is, however, not the end. The situation keeps evolving day by day, and the future is still unclear. The Commission will keep this House fully informed about the possible further proposals as soon as they are finalised.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The item is closed and the vote will be held tomorrow.

  ???????? ??????????? (PPE). – ????? ???????, ????? ????????, ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????????????, ?? ????????? ??????, ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???????. ? ???????, ?? ??????????? ?????, ????????????? ?? ????????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?????, ??? ?????????? ?????????, ??? ?????????? ????????????, ???????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ??????????, ?????????? ???? ????????. ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????????. ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????, ? ??????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????, ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????. ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????. ????????? ?? ???????????? ???????? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????????, ??? ?? ???????????? ??????? ?????.

? ??????? ????????????? ?? ?????????????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ? ????????? ????? ???????, ??? ?? ??? ????????????? ???????? ???????????, ?? ???????? ???? ?????, ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??????. ??? ?????? ? ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ????????. ??? ?????? ? ????????? ?????, ???? ? ??????? ?????????????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ?????, ???? ?????????????? ? ????? ???????? ???? ????????, ?? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????????????. ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????. ??????? ??? ???? ? ??? ? ????????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????, ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????.

  Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, trebuie s? fim bine ancora?i în realitate. Vorbim de facturi care au crescut enorm, de infla?ie f?r? precedent, de oameni la limita s?r?ciei, de r?zboi lâng? noi. Vine o iarn? grea, pentru care trebuie s? fim preg?ti?i. Putin va t?ia gazul c?tre Europa ?i nu avem multe solu?ii. Nu este cazul ast?zi s? mim?m optimismul. Trebuie s? fim reali?ti, s? ac?ion?m. Suntem în al doisprezecelea ceas.

România trebuie s? fac? pa?i ra?ionali pentru a-?i asigura independen?a energetic? pentru iarna urm?toare. Avem nevoie de m?rirea stocurilor de gaze, de continuarea exploat?rii c?rbunelui ?i de repornirea centralelor termice pe baz? de c?rbune. E nevoie de alocarea de subven?ii pentru a-i sprijini pe cet??enii vulnerabili care se înc?lzesc cu lemne de foc. Vorbim de o situa?ie temporar?, de for??. Înainte s? renun??m la sursele de energie care func?ioneaz?, trebuie s? avem o alternativ? cu adev?rat viabil?.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, stima?i colegi, în aceast? sear? voi vrea s? vorbesc despre drepturile transportatorilor, transportatorilor de marf?, în cadrul pie?ei Uniunii Europene. Am primit multe peti?ii ?i recent am fost într-o vizit? din partea Comisiei TRAN în Fran?a, pentru a vedea dac? pachetul pe mobilitate pe care l-am votat aici aduce sau nu aduce efecte negative. ?i da, am constatat c?, a?a cum am spus ?i în dezbaterile pe pachetul pe mobilitate, avem parc?ri nesecurizate.

Reamintesc c? acum un an, un ?ofer de tir român a fost omorât într-o parcare. Nu s-a întâmplat mare lucru de atunci, nu s-a terminat cercetarea. ?oferii de tir reclam?, de asemenea, controale nejustificate ?i dezechilibrate. Am cerut ?i cer, domnule comisar, am scris Comisiei recent, s? existe o statistic? în toate statele membre cu frecven?a controalelor ma?inilor, tirurilor, în func?ie de ?ara de provenien??.

Am peti?ii concrete c? în Fran?a, de exemplu, se controleaz? în mod frecvent tirurile din Bulgaria, din România, din ??rile din Est. Eu cred c? trebuie s? existe o asemenea statistic?. Eu nu cred c? trebuie s? fie discriminare ?i cred, de asemenea, c? trebuie s? asigur?m condi?ii egale de transport. Li se cer ?oferilor s? citeasc? documentele în francez?, englez?, german?. Am vorbit atunci c? trebuie s? existe documente în limba ??rii respective, pentru c? nu putem obliga un ?ofer s? ?tie 24 de limbi.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, Republica Moldova merit? s? primeasc? statutul de ?ar? candidat? la Uniunea European?, un statut clar ?i bine definit, iar în contextul amenin??rii reprezentate de Federa?ia Rus?, trebuie spus c? nu ne permitem ambiguit??i sau condi?ionalit??i.

Eforturile Republicii Moldova, în contextul r?zboiului din Ucraina, sprijinul popula?iei pentru parcursul european ?i solidaritatea de care au dat dovad? cet??enii din Moldova confirm? ata?amentul lor fa?? de valorile europene ?i viziunea noastr? despre lume. De aceea, eurodeputa?ii, în toate grupurile politice ?i în mod special, trebuie s? spun, cei din România, au spus foarte clar c? Republica Moldova merit? acest statut al?turi de Ucraina ?i sper?m noi, chiar ?i de Georgia.

Dar parcursul spre aderarea la Uniunea European? nu va fi u?or. Vor fi necesare reforme, dar ?i resurse financiare europene. Efectele economice ?i sociale ale r?zboiului din Ucraina au afectat stabilitatea ??rii ?i au condus la o presiune foarte mare asupra popula?iei. De aceea, angajamentele financiare ale Uniunii Europene ?i ale comunit??ii interna?ionale trebuie s? devin? rapid realitate. Printr-o decizie favorabil? a Consiliului European, vom face un pas istoric, atât pentru Republica Moldova, cât ?i pentru Uniunea European?.

  Vlad-Marius Boto? (Renew). – Doamna pre?edint?, domnule comisar, în mandatul acesta am asistat la multe crize, îns?, din p?cate, în ultimii ani vedem cum câteva regiuni din Uniunea European? se depopuleaz?, cet??enii tineri preferând s? emigreze în state ?i regiuni mai bogate.

Trebuie s? ne aplec?m serios asupra acestui fenomen, mai ales c? cei r?ma?i în urm? au atât de mult? nevoie de ajutor. Nu este destul s? constat?m fenomenul. Este nevoie mai ales de strategii clare pentru dezvoltarea acestor zone, pentru a construi o infrastructur? de baz? care poate oferi condi?ii decente de trai ?i poate spori atractivitatea acestor zone pentru investitori.

Fondurile europene îns? nu sunt suficiente pentru a opri exodul popula?iei tinere, ci este nevoie s? transmitem cuno?tin?ele necesare autorit??ilor locale pentru ca aceste fonduri s? fie absorbite cât mai rapid ?i cât mai eficient. ?i în aceste regiuni s?race tr?iesc europeni, iar ei au nevoie de noi, de sprijinul ?i de aten?ia noastr?.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, in 2012 trad het kabinet-Rutte II aan in Nederland. Verbazing was er in het buitenland, want hoe kon een premier die de verkiezingsbelofte maakte om de Europese begrotingsnormen te respecteren, worden herkozen? 16 miljard werd er bezuinigd en aan lastenverzwaringen ingevoerd. De AOW-leeftijd werd versneld verhoogd, de hypotheekrenteaftrek beperkt. De accijnzen op brandstof zorgden voor de hoogste prijzen in de EU. De arbeidsmarkt, de zorg, het onderwijs, iedere sector werd geraakt, maar tegen de Nederlanders werd gezegd “na het zuur komt het zoet, want het moet van Europa”.

En wat zagen we vorige week, toen de ECB aangaf de rente met amper 25 basispunten te verhogen? Lidstaten in financiële problemen. Kan iemand dit aan de Nederlanders uitleggen? Hoe kan het dat de schulden in Zuid-Europa juist verder zijn gestegen? Hoe is dit te rechtvaardigen tegenover de Nederlanders?

Er broeit iets in Nederland, een gevoel van onrechtvaardigheid. Als u niet oppast, verandert de zelfverklaarde koploper van Europa in een koppensneller.

  Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, desde 2009, questionámos sete vezes a Comissão Europeia sobre a formação dos preços dos combustíveis, mais especificamente, sobre a fiabilidade e razoabilidade de um processo de fixação dos preços dos combustíveis, que atribui a uma empresa privada o poder de determinar esses preços no mercado.

Alegando a dado momento investigações em curso sobre cartelização, quisemos saber as conclusões das mesmas e em que medida foram os consumidores afetados. A ausência das respostas concretas da Comissão Europeia perante evidências de conluio e cartelização na formação do preço dos combustíveis levanta outras perguntas: para que serve a Direção-Geral de Concorrência e a comissária que a tutela? Para fiscalizar os contratos e políticas dos Estados é enérgica, quando estão em causa interesses das multinacionais é preguiçosa e, na atual conjuntura, perante a evidência da exploração oportunista e especulativa das margens de refinação pelas grandes petrolíferas mundiais na fixação das cotações internacionais dos combustíveis fósseis, é passiva.

Continuaremos a insistir e a exigir respostas, porque não pode ser o povo a pagar este esquema do mercado.

  Fulvio Martusciello (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da former president della delegazione di Israele non posso che plaudere agli accordi di Abramo che hanno proiettato la possibilità di una nuova pace nella regione mediorientale e soprattutto hanno fatto conoscere all’Unione europea gli Emirati Arabi, la loro capacità di crescere nuove generazioni che predicano la tolleranza, il rispetto delle religioni, la capacità di proporre programmi scolastici che facciano crescere appunto nuove generazioni concentrate sui valori della pace e della tolleranza.

I programmi di studio, infatti, prevedono la lotta al jihadismo, prevedono un profondo rispetto religioso e questi programmi di studio sono all’avanguardia e sono le basi sostanzialmente perché si sia poi arrivati a questi storici accordi di Abramo.

L’Unione europea deve valorizzare questi accordi, guardare alla possibilità di trovare una nuova pace in Medio Oriente, partendo appunto dagli accordi di Abramo.

  Adriana Maldonado López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, durante los últimos cuatro o cinco días, la Comunidad Foral de Navarra ha sufrido unos incendios históricos, con más de 10 000 hectáreas afectadas. También ha sucedido y, en mayor escala todavía, en la provincia de Zamora.

Esto no es algo que solamente esté pasando en España. En toda Europa vemos estos efectos a consecuencia del cambio climático, cada vez más repetitivos y con unas consecuencias mucho mayores.

Por lo tanto, las comunidades autónomas, los Estados nación, los propios Gobiernos nacionales y también la Unión Europea tienen el reto de dar una respuesta. El Gobierno de Navarra y el Gobierno central han afirmado hoy mismo que van a dar ayudas tanto forales como estatales para paliar los daños, pero también tiene que ser así desde las instituciones europeas.

Por lo tanto, quiero pedir aquí que la Unión Europea actualice el Fondo de Solidaridad, que baje sus umbrales para que situaciones como estas también puedan recibir financiación y ayuda en nuestras comunidades autónomas, en nuestras regiones, en Europa, para este tipo de situaciones que cada vez se están repitiendo más.

No es por nada, pero los agricultores han estado al pie del cañón, se han jugado la vida para parar este fuego; también las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado, los bomberos y, sobre todo, los vecinos y las vecinas de todos los pueblos de Navarra.

Por lo tanto, la Unión Europea tiene que estar a la altura y tiene que ayudar también con financiación a las regiones cuando sufren este tipo de incendios.

  Francisco Guerreiro (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, a União Europeia já vai no sexto pacote de sanções contra a Rússia devido à invasão da Ucrânia. Porém, no setor das pescas, creio que podemos ir mais além. De modo global, importamos cerca de 2,5% do pescado e de produtos piscícolas da Rússia, num valor anual de 605 milhões de EUR. É certo que, atualmente, já existe a proibição da importação de caviar, mas esta proibição é meramente simbólica, pois as exportações para o mercado europeu são reduzidas.

A União Europeia deixa de parte o boicote a produtos como o bacalhau e o escamudo—do—Alasca, garantindo assim um balão de oxigénio à indústria pesqueira russa e ao próprio regime de Moscovo.

É certo que o bloqueio total das importações de pescado vindo da Rússia não terminará a invasão, mas todos os esforços são necessários para isolar a Federação Russa e para garantir o fim do financiamento europeu à guerra criminosa de Putin.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, acho lamentável que o comissário tenha saído e que não tenha acompanhado a discussão até ao final, como deveria.

Há dias, à TAP, transportadora aérea de bandeira portuguesa, foram retiradas 18 faixas horárias da operação aeroportuária, as quais foram atribuídas à EasyJet, uma multinacional de transporte aéreo de baixo custo. Trata-se de mais uma obstrução à operação da TAP, comprometendo o seu futuro, o interesse e a soberania nacionais, que resulta de uma inaceitável imposição da Comissão Europeia para aprovar um plano de reestruturação lesivo para os interesses da TAP e do país.

Uma imposição contrária às necessidades da empresa, num momento que possibilita a recuperação da operação associado ao aumento da procura. Demonstra-se, mais uma vez, o papel da União Europeia na salvaguarda dos interesses das multinacionais. A defesa do interesse e da soberania do país exige outro caminho que rejeite as imposições da UE.

O que é necessário é dar mais oportunidades para o crescimento da TAP, que garantam a sua visibilidade e o contributo estratégico que pode e deve dar ao desenvolvimento e coesão territorial de Portugal.