Wherever javier talan versus yuya

Presidente. - L’ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,

- la relazione di Guy Verhofstadt, a nome della commissione per gli affari costituzionali, sulla possibile evoluzione e l'adeguamento dell'attuale struttura istituzionale dell'Unione europea (2014/2248 (INI) - (A8-0390 / 2016),

- la relazione degli onn. Mercedes Bresso e Elmar Brok, a nome della commissione per gli affari costituzionali, sul miglioramento del funzionamento dell'Unione europea sfruttando le potentialità del trattato di Lisbona "(2014/2249 (INI) - (A8-0386 / 2016), e

- la relazione degli onn. Reimer Böge e Pervenche Berès, a nome della commissione per i bilanci, sulla capacità di bilancio della zona euro (2015/2344 (INI) - (A8-0038 / 2017).

Guy Verhofstadt, rapporteur. - Mr President, in a few weeks ’time we will all be going to Italy for the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, often described as a big success and a big leap forward. In fact it was the outcome, dear colleagues, of nearly 10 years of negotiations and debates between the leaders of most of the Western European states, leaders who at that time, as we all know, wanted to build up a united Europe after the atrocities of the Second World War, and it started, as we know, with the historic speech by Winston Churchill at the University of Zurich in 1946. A year later, in 1947, at the Albert Hall in London, Churchill, the British bulldog, made it very clear what he wanted. He said, and I quote him: ‘I present the idea of ​​a united Europe in which our country, Britain, will play a decisive part as a member of the European family’. Moreover, Churchill - and it's good to remember this - unlike the Prime Minister at that time, Clement Attlee, even wanted Britain to participate in the European Steel and Coal Community, but he lost the vote in the British Parliament by 309 votes to 296, a small difference, I would say.

Indeed, dear colleagues, it is good to remember that at that time the Tories were openly pro-European. And now, more than 60 years later, we think that with these reports the European Union needs profound reform again: let's face it, our Union is in crisis. Our European Union does not have a lot of friends at home, and certainly not abroad; the Union does not deliver any more. It is always too little, too late, and that, in my opinion, is the reason why many people and many citizens are angry in Europe. They are not against Europe. They are against a Union that does not deliver the right results, that is not capable, for example, of finding the right answers to the refugee crisis, responding to migration, or breaking down the economic stagnation after the financial crisis of 2008.

People are not against Europe. They want more Europe to face these challenges, but they are critical, it is true, of the way that the European Union works today. And that is the reason for these three reports. Brexit, Trump, Putin - I think that there are reasons enough to reform our European Union and to do it in a very profound way. That is the reason for these three reports, which you have to see together as one package. We want to do three things. First of all, we want to create a more efficient Union, for example by slimming down the Commission, ending Europe à la carte, and creating a single seat for the European Parliament. We also want to make the Union more democratic by reforming the European elections, expanding the process centering on lead candidates, and reforming and turning the European Council into what we call a council of states, alongside the European Parliament, in which we serve as the representatives of the citizens. And furthermore we want a stronger Union, better protection for civil liberties in the Union, a Union including a euro zone with a government, a fiscal capacity, a finance minister, own resources, a convergence court, and conditionality. I think that these reports give a good blueprint of what is necessary for the future and that is not a battle between the European Union on the one hand and the nation-states on the other. No, Europe needs both. In this report we are also proposing a green card, for example, for the national parliaments, along with a right of initiative for this European Parliament and for the European Council.

Once these reports are adopted, on Thursday, I hope, what is the way forward? I think that there is one way forward and that is to propose to the Commission, Mr Vice-President, and also to the European Council, that we start an interinstitutional reflection exercise, which is something that we can do better together. We have good experience with the Monti report on own resources. Why not do the same again? And that is not a luxury, dear colleagues: this report is an absolute necessity.

Elmar Brok, rapporteur. - Mr President, Mr Vice-President, colleagues! Citizens expect solutions from Europe and are angry with Europe because these solutions are not presented. And at the same time, Member States, which intensify this in the debate, refuse this Europe the instruments to solve the problems - knowing full well that a large number of the problems can only be solved collectively. The statements by Trump and others that one want to divide Europe in order to discuss with the individual parts is wrong. Europe is more than the sum of its member states when it comes to our influence in the world. And for this reason we have to make it clear for the challenges that we have, from migration to the consequences of globalization to internal and external security, terror and such questions, that Europe has to deliver here.

The Lisbon Treaty provides a multitude of opportunities that are far from being exploited. In other words, the Member States do not have an alibi that it will not be done, but must allow the Lisbon Treaty to be exploited at last. That has to be clear. And this requires, for example, greater use of majority decision-making. It is unbearable that the Councils of Ministers agree not to use the treaty. I think it is contrary to the Treaty to agree on unanimity when a majority decision in the Council is provided and that if no consensus can be found, something is sent to the European Council, which can only decide unanimously. This is behavior in the Council and the Council of Ministers that is in breach of the Treaty and we should see it clearly. And we must also make it clear that the Community method, with qualified majority voting as the rule, is the method of efficiency, transparency and citizen participation.

I think the question of transparency is also important. We therefore want it to become clear just by changing the statutes of the Council, the Council of Ministers, when it comes to legislation: There is only one Council of Ministers, as the treaty says, which must meet in public so that every government must justify how it voted in a legislative project, so that she can no longer explain at home that she was not there. And the Councils of Ministers are then the committees, as is the case with a sensible second chamber. That can only happen by changing the statutes of the council. We don't need a treaty change for that.

Nor should we allow the European Union to be divided. I am in favor of different speeds, but within the framework of the treaty - increased cooperation, permanent structured cooperation in foreign, security and defense policy. But please do not set up new institutions! We want the uniform community institutions that are responsible for everything, and not create new administrations in the Eurogroup. I am against a division between euro countries and non-euro countries, or better said: not-yet-euro countries. I believe that we should maintain that oneness despite all the differences that exist.

On migration - in terms of trade policy, it is now becoming clear: in the case of migration, we can finally enforce the issues of border controls that we have long been calling for. We want to have a common right of asylum in order to clarify this sensibly. We want to finally try to ensure that the intelligence services of our Member States work together properly in the fight against terrorism, and this through European institutions, so that the citizens are finally protected from terrorism and that there are no problems of competence in these issues preventing us from doing so.

We want Economic and Monetary Union to be completed under the principles of solidarity, growth, competitiveness and conditionality. We want to move forward on foreign and security policy. We must see that we are wasting money and are weak, given the EUR 200 billion that our Member States are spending on defense with no result.

And I am also of the opinion - Mr Verhofstadt has already expressed it: We are patriots and stand for our nations. Nations will long play a major role as carriers of identity and culture. But we don't have a nation or Europe, we have a nation and Europe. That is the difference. The right-wing extremists here in this House will not take away from us Europeans our belief in our own nations. We will not let the right-wing extremists take the nation away from us. This is politics of the past.

Jo Leinen, rapporteur. - Mr President, Mr Vice-President! The world we live in today is in disarray and full of uncertainties.

For the first time in the US we have a President with Donald Trump, who is marked by nationalism and protectionism and who is proposing to the countries of the EU to leave this Union. In Moscow sits Vladimir Putin, who is endangering the peace order of the continent, who is putting the neighboring peoples under pressure and who supports the opponents of Europe in our member countries on all channels.

The situation for the European Union is extremely dangerous. The great peace and freedom project of European integration is being put under pressure from outside like never before. Then there is the terrible populism and nationalism inside the European Union. The Wilders, the Le Pens, the Farages, they run the game of Putin and Trump. These new modern populists, who pretend to represent the people, divide the peoples of Europe and endanger a good future for this continent and its people. That must be clear: they endanger our future, they are not the future. We have to tell them this clearly.

Nobody should believe that the member states of the EU - not even the big ones - are strong enough on their own to assert themselves against the great powers like China, the USA or Russia. In this world of the 21st century, Europe can only defend and assert its values ​​and interests together. The overly simple slogans of the opponents of Europe are a lie, they are a deception of the people, and we have to oppose that.

A clear message must therefore be sent to the citizens on the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Together we can cope with the big problems, alone and in disagreement we are weak and have nothing to report. It is precisely this message that is the basis of the reports that we are debating today and voting on Thursday.

We, the Chamber of Citizens in the European Union, are for a better Europe. We are for a Europe that is capable of acting. A Europe that works with the greatest transparency and democratic participation. Europe must not be the plaything of the great powers, but must shape globalization itself and confidently represent the interests of its citizens.

No question about it, the European Union has not given a good picture in recent years. Whether in the financial or economic crisis or with the migration flows, the EU acted too slowly and also too inadequately and that has caused annoyance in the public and in the population. There has been no lack of proposals from the Commission and Parliament. It was the egoism of individual member states that repeatedly prevented a solution based on solidarity. We must finally put an end to enjoying the advantages of the EU but not wanting to share the burden among everyone. This needs to end now.

We need a new basic consensus on what the EU has to achieve over the next few years, what resources and instruments we are giving it. The EU has added value in all major issues where the nation state can no longer act. These questions then have to be voted on with a majority and the veto must not slow everything down again and again. We need our own funding from the EU so that the net payer debate finally comes to an end. We need an instrument to defend our core values ​​when freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary or the fight against corruption are at risk.

The existing treaty offers many opportunities, but we also need new elements to meet these challenges. We want a big debate about the future and, at the end of the day, a convention so that the new basic rules can be adopted. This debate has to start right now, after Brexit and before the European elections. I hope that this Chamber will approve these two reports on Thursday - for a strong, for a self-confident Europe.


Reimer Böge, rapporteur. - Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Mrs Berès and I are presenting you today with a report on budgetary capacity for the euro area, a roadmap for successfully stabilizing the euro and deepening the European Union.

This is not about creating a gap between euro countries and non-euro countries, but also about stabilizing the euro by regaining confidence within the euro zone to ensure that we become more credible, that we are stabilizing the euro and that we are also international as we move forward, we gain more credibility than we have gained in recent years.

But fundamentally, of course, this debate is also about our European Parliament sending signals to the outside world that we are aware that today it is all about the question of the viability and self-assertion of the European Union, the citizens and the states. Many in the Member States say: Ogottogott, time is so difficult and complicated, we cannot achieve much together. I am asking the other question: How much time does what challenges us internationally allow us to finally be able to act and to strengthen the European Union?

Because in fact, as my colleagues have mentioned, we are sometimes surrounded by failed states where democracy, human dignity and economic development are not being advanced but are in decline. We live in a global village, and some in the Union believe that building walls can help. No, it only blocks your own point of view and your own thinking. We are surrounded by autocrats and autocratic regimes and in this respect, democracy, the rule of law and humanism are being dismantled in many places.

But let's not kid ourselves: in order to regain credibility, all of these appeals that have just been made are right and necessary. But here too, Mr Vice-President, I say to the Commission: we must finally put an end to the madness of detail, which only burdens us, both in the Commission services and - I am now consciously using this term - in the national bureaucracies. That is not always the framework legislation of the European Union. These are the delegated acts and the implementing acts that cause the difficulties on the ground because the member states with their national ministries write in a lot of nonsense that makes it difficult for us to be credible.

Now to the report on the fiscal capacity for the euro zone: I know there are different ideas in this House and with this report we are asking our colleagues to do something. But the vote yesterday - in the joint meeting of the ECON and budget committees - showed that we will hopefully get a stable majority for this approach on Thursday too. It's about making an offer. It's about getting away from a patchwork that we have seen again and again in the past when a crisis swept over us. After the crisis is before the crisis. Hence the idea of ​​developing a supplementary fiscal capacity for the euro zone, but just as open to non-euro countries, with clear guidelines on terms and conditions, the conditionality.With clear agreements on financing, also with regard to the question of how one can help countries that are in need due to shock situations so that they can get out of this vortex again as quickly as possible.

I think that is a fair and sensible approach that can sensibly complement the tools we have today. Of course, this also means that the ESM should be further developed in the direction of a European monetary fund. The rapporteurs of the various reports also agree on how the governance structure there should look in the future.

At this point I also expressly say that this will not be possible without the support of the national parliaments. They will have to have their role there too, so that together we can counteract the deparliamentarization in this area of ​​economic, budgetary and financial policy at both levels. At this point, I would like to say thank you once again to my co-rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs of the political groups who carry this report. It was an exciting, a difficult debate. But in the end we will reap a good harvest on Thursday and be able to send a good positive signal for the citizens


Pervenche Berès, rapporteurs. - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-président, chers collègues, parfois l’histoire se répète, parfois l’histoire bégaie.

Dans ce Parlement, en décembre 1998, Alman Metten, l’un de nos collègues, rédigeait un rapport pour demander la mise en place d’un mécanisme d’ajustement aux chocs asymétriques au sein de la zone euro. À l’époque, nous ne l’avions pas écouté, nous étions passés à autre chose. Aujourd’hui, le rendez-vous est là. Ce ne sera sans doute pas le premier report qui évoque ce besoin d’un budget de la zone euro mais le point de rendez-vous est là.

Monsieur Timmermans, vous devez dire au président Juncker que cette question d’un budget de la zone euro doit être au cœur du livre blanc. At the moment ici et là des voix nous dire: “Parler de la zone euro au moment du Brexit, c’est un sujet de division”. Je crois tout au contraire que, au moment du Brexit, la donne change.

Pendant très longtemps, nous n’avons pas pu achever l’Union économique et monetaire parce que nous attendions les Britanniques. Maintenant, les Britanniques veulent nous quitter et c'est donc le moment de consolider cette zone euro, d'en faire le socle fort d'une Union européenne à vingt-sept, à laquelle j'aspire, une zone euro à laquelle puissent se joindre l'ensemble des pays de l'Union européenne, ceux qui n'en sont pas encore membre. Corn je ne veux pas qu’ils adhèrent à une zone euro incomplète. C’est the moment de le faire.

On ne peut pas à la fois critiquer la politique monétaire de la Banque centrale en disant qu’elle outrepasse ses pouvoirs et laisser les gouvernements sans moyens d’intervenir. On ne peut pas déplorer le bas niveau d'investissement, y compris dans des pays qui ne sont pas dits "de la périphérie", qui sont au cœur de la zone euro et penser que le plan Juncker peut suffire.

La question de l’investissement n’est pas suffisamment traitée au cœur de notre Union économique et monétaire. Alors, après beaucoup d’autres travaux, ce Parlement, pour la première fois, va se prononcer clairement pour un budget de la zone euro, autour de trois fonctions majeures. D’abord, le retour de la convergence. A-t-on assez en tête cette réalité que, au sein de la zone euro, les divergences depuis le déclenchement de la crise ont été plus importantes qu’en dehors de la zone euro? Ne serait-ce que parce que les mécanismes du pacte de stabilité ont miné les stabilisateurs automatiques au sein des pays de la zone euro. Sait-on qu'on a mis en place un mécanisme intergouvernemental - à améliorer - pour faire face aux chocs asymétriques, avec le mécanisme européen de stabilité qui est aujourd'hui totalement sous-employé et qui représente potentiellement un budget de 5% du PIB des pays membres de la zone euro? Sait-on que nous ne disposons d’aucun outil au sein de la zone euro pour faire face à un choc asymétrique, une brutale du prix du pétrole, une chute brutale du niveau d’investissement?

Nous sommes le seul espace monetaire intégré qui ne dispose pas d’outils. At the moment ici ou là beaucoup nous dire: "Mais il y a le pacte, et le pacte devrait être l’alpha et l’oméga de la governance économique".

Mes chers collègues, soyons honnêtes entre nous. Cela fait 20 ans que le pacte de stabilité est là et cela fait 20 ans que nous voyons bien ses limites.

Ce que nous proposons avec ce budget de la zone euro, c'est simplement d'équiper les pays membres de la zone pour faire de leur monnaie ce qui leur a été promis au premier jour en permettant une convergence entre ces économies, en permettant de remettre en place des mécanismes d'ajustement aux chocs asymétriques.

Nous ne le disons pas dans le rapport mais nous savons bien qu'il ya des travaux d'experts qui sont tout à fait prêts si la Commission veut s'en saisir, que ce soit à travers une indemnité chômage minimum ou ce que le FMI appeals to the “rainy day fund”; il faut aussi, au sein de la zone euro, avoir un pilotage de l’économie de la zone au-delà de la règle.

Voilà ce que, avec Reimer Böge, nous vous proposons. Encore une fois, je crois que le message principal pour nous, c'est que dans le livre blanc que Jean-Claude Juncker mettra sur la table avant le 60e anniversaire du traité de Rome, cette question de la zone euro ne soit pas passée au deuxième plan, au motif que cela serait un sujet de division d'une Europe à 27 car je crois, tout au contraire, que c'est le socle le plus fort sur lequel on peut construire cette Europe de demain.

Paulo Rangel, relator de parecer da Comissão dos Assuntos Constitucionais. - Senhor Presidente, Presidente da Comissão, Vice-Presidente Timmermans, em primeiro lugar queria dizer, em nome da Comissão de Assuntos Constitucionais, de que nicht há dúvidas de que é possível hoje, com os atuais tratados, ter uma capacidade orçamental e que é possível expandi-la no futuro ainda com uma revisão dos quartados.

Mas, mais do que isso, que é possível ter hoje, com os atuais tratados, como mostra o relatório Brok-Branson, ter uma política europeia comum na defesa, ter uma política europeia para a segurança, ter uma política europeia para as migrações, ter uma reforma institucional do Conselho que possa fazer dele uma verdadeira câmara parlamentar e aumentar a democracia e que tudo isto pode ser potenciado no futuro, a médio e longo prazo, com uma revisão dos Tratados.

Aquilo que vai sair da discussão destes três relatórios, aquilo que vai sair da aprovação que faremos na quinta-feira é apenas isto: nós acreditamos na Europa, nós somos capazes, perante aquilo que se está a passar no Reino Unido, perante está a passar nos Estados Unidos, de apresentar um projeto para os cidadãos europeus, em que podemos estar mais unidos, em que podemos fazer uma conciliação entre finanças públicas sãs e seguras, crescimento, investimento, inovação e, porendo, inovação e, porendo isto e apenas isto: nós hoje damos um sinal, aqui e agora, para todos os cidadãos europeus, para a Comissão Europeia, para o Conselho Europeu, para o Conselho de Ministros, que nós, deputados europeus dos vários partidos, acreditamos na Europa.

We stand for Europe.

Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, honorable Members, it is a particular honor for me to be in this House this morning to debate a topic that is very much in the hearts and minds of everyone these days: the future of our Union.

The Commission welcomes the initiatives of the European Parliament to boldly look forward. This is something that our President, Jean-Claude Juncker, has been promoting since the beginning of our mandate. We have closely followed the reports drawn up by Ms Bresso, Mr Brok and Mr Verhofstadt, and also the related reports on the eurozone budgetary capacity by Mr Böge and Ms Berès. My colleague, Valdis Dombrovskis, may also comment further on the latter report in response to this debate. All reports cover a vast range of topics, each of which could be the topic of a separate debate. I will therefore not attempt to comment on the details. My President is currently preparing a White Paper on the future of Europe in the run-up to the Rome Summit in March. We therefore appreciate very much the many interesting viewpoints and proposals set out in these proposals, which provide useful information and also inspiration.

The Bresso-Brok report rightly points to the significant, untapped potential within the existing framework, such as further reform to the institutional structure of economic and monetary union. The Verhofstadt report has a farther horizon and most of its proposals would require Treaty change. Whilst it is refreshing to see such vision, we have to acknowledge that Treaty change is not on the top of the political agenda now, in our Member States in particular. The Commission is convinced that it is our first duty to focus on issues, challenges, solutions and policies that unite us, because in these times of turmoil we will absolutely need unity to stay strong. Moreover, there is ample room in the current Treaties to improve our functioning, as the Bresso-Brok report points out, and as was also explained by the Members this morning. With regard to the Böge-Berès report, it was only adopted last night in committee, but let me say this: our common goal is a more resilient and prosperous economic and monetary union. The enhanced capacity to deal with unusually large economic shocks will have to go together with enhanced convergence among Member States' economies and we need to break the vicious cycle between banking and sovereign debt. At the end of the day, all of this is about people: too many people in our Union have been left behind, and so the social dimension, with a European Pillar of Social Rights, must become more and more important in strengthening the economic and monetary union. Again, let me reiterate: we appreciate many of the proposals in the report and will assess them carefully for our own reflections on the future.

The European Union is a historic achievement of peace, prosperity and security on the European continent. We are bound together by history, situated together by geography, united by our common interests and befriended by choice. This, then, is the basis upon which we will develop our cooperation.

The outcome of the UK referendum creates a new situation for all of us - the EU and the United Kingdom. We will stand united and uphold the EU’s core values ​​of promoting peace, democracy and the well-being of its people. The Bratislava Roadmap sets out the main objectives for the Union to deliver on now: migration and external borders, internal and external security, economic and social development and youth. Let me be clear: the Commission can only do so much. We can identify, analyze, recommend, warn and propose, but at the end of the day it is the responsibility of all of us, here in Strasbourg and in all of the EU capitals, to deliver. This is not, and cannot be, a pick-and-choose Union. That is why we welcome the joint declaration by the three institutions setting out a shared commitment to deliver on common priorities for this year.

Finally, it is good to look back and commemorate the achievements of those men and women who had the vision and the courage to forge the beginnings of what turned into the European Union. But after looking back, it is essential that we look forward and start working on the challenges we face, using all the tools we have, mustering all the political solidarity we can, in order to deliver the results we must. Thank you very much.


José Manuel Fernandes, relator de parecer da Comissão dos Orçamentos. - Senhor Presidente, Caras e Caros Colegas, a União Europeia tem de se fortalecer com base na solidariedade e na responsabilidade. Juntos, podemos enfrentar com confiança os desafios e as ameaças. Se estivermos unidos, se atuarmos de forma coordenada, venceremos e derrotaremos o terrorismo, ganharemos e conseguiremos mitigar as alterações climáticas, ganharemos o combate à fraude, à evasão fiscal, conseguiremos melhorar nosso, conseguiremos melhorar nosso Estado social e, nunca , a liberdade, o Estado de Direito.

Cada Estado por si not tem força para resolver os problemas globais. «Orgulhosamente sós» not funciona, os nacionalismos not resultam, a União Europeia é a solução.

Temos de restabelecer a confiança, uma zona euro faz forte a União Europeia, uma zona euro fraca enfraquece a União Europeia. Juntos, podemos construir soluções para os choques que enfrentamos, temos de privilegiar o método comunitário, reforçar a transparência, a legitimidade democrática, promover a participação dos cidadãos.

É isso que propõem estes três relatórios e, por isso, peço a sua aprovação e dou os parabéns à relatora e aos relatores.

Petri Sarvamaa, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. - Mr President, I will say only a couple of words on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control and those are that the discharge process should be solidified and strengthened. It is at the heart of the credibility of the whole Union. All the EU institutions should unfailingly cooperate and follow up the observations made by this Parliament.

My other point is about the European Court of Auditors. Its role needs to be further strengthened.

But I want to use this opportunity also because I see my dear friend Mr Farage here today. Nigel, I think what you are hearing today are only the first chords and first notes of a big, big symphony that is going to be heard all over Europe this year and next year. It is not only Beethoven, it is not only Bizet, it is Sibelius and it is others like them. So let us not forget this week. These are really important first steps that we are taking.

Jean Arthuis, rapporteur pour avis de la commission des budget. - Monsieur le Président, nous nous apprêtons à célébrer le soixantième anniversaire du traité de Rome, ce traité qui posait les bases de l’Europe communautaire fondée sur la libre circulation des marchandises et des services.

Entre-temps, l’Europe a avancé, elle s’est étendue, elle s’est dotée d’une monnaie unique et, pourtant, elle n’a jamais été also fragile. Cette fragilité tient au fait que ses institutions sont restées dans les mains des chefs d'État ou de gouvernement qui tentent de prolonger l'illusion qu'ils exerceraient encore pleinement, sur le plan national, leur prérogative de souveraineté, mais qui donnent en réalité trop souvent le spectacle de leur impuissance.

Les regards se tournent vers l'Europe, une Europe restée privée de compétences et de moyens, une Europe impotente face aux défis de la mondialisation, du terrorisme, du changement climatique, des migration, des paradis fiscaux, de la croissance et de l ' emploi. Les citoyens européens attendent de l’Europe qu’elle les sécurise et les protège.

Les trois rapports qui nous sont proposés constituent un appel au ressaisissement à destination des citoyens européens pour contourner l’autisme de leurs chefs d’État ou de gouvernement. Je remercie et félicite nos rapporteurs. Osons impliquer les Européens dans ce débat et faire œuvre de pédagogie, puisque seule l’Europe nous permet de reprendre en main notre destin.

Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης, Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Απασχόλησης και Κοινωενικών Υποέσωνωννθν. - Κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, δεν μπορούμε να παραβλέψουμε το ότι τα κοινωνικά προβλήματα στην ευρωζώνη διευρύνονται και διαιωνίζονται, προβλήματα όπως είναι, για παράδειγμα, η συνεχής διάλυση του κοινωνικού κράτους και η συνεχιζόμενη ιστορικά υψηλή ανεργία των νέων. Δεν είναι πια κρυφό ότι ζούμε σε μια Ευρώπη πολλών ταχυτήτων στην οποία διαλύεται ο κοινωνικός ιτης. Η δημοσιονομική και η οικονομική πολιτική της Ένωσης είναι μονοδιάστατη.Δεν μπορεί πλέον να δίνει απόλυτο βάρος στα οικονομικά μεγέθη και να παραγνωρίζει εντελώς την κοινωνική μιζέρια που έχουν ως αποτέλεσμα οι πολιτικές λιτότητας, οι οποίες εξασθενούν τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, αυξάνοντας κατακόρυφα την ανεργία και τους αριθμούς των συμπολιτών μας που βρίσκονται στα όρια της φτώχειας. Το θέμα της δημοσιονομικής ικανότητας της Ένωσης είναι ιδιαίτερα πολύπλοκο και αυτό φάνηκε από την έλλειψη συναίνεσης τόσο στην Επιτροπή Απασχόλησης όσο και στις Επιτροπές Προϋπολογισμού και Οικονομικής Πολιτικής. Αυτό συμβαίνει γιατί η δομή και η διακυβέρνηση του προϋπολογισμού της ευρωζώνης παραμένει στα υπάρχοντα νεοφιλελεύθερα πλαίσια του Συμφώνου Σταθερότητας, στα νεοφιλελεύθερα πλαίσια της λιτότητας και των μνημονίων, ενώ αυτό που απαιτείται είναι πολιτικές επαναβιομηχανοποίησης και δημοσίων επενδύσεων, ούτως ώστε να στηριχθεί η πραγματική οικονομία και να δημιουργηθούν νέες αξιοπρεπείς, σταθερές και ασφαλείς θέσεις εργασίας.

Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, we are holding this morning a fundamental debate about the future of the European Union. An essential component in this debate is the strengthening of the economic and monetary union. The first step that we have to take in this process is respect existing rules: respect the stability and growth pact, respect the two-pack, and respect the six-pack. These are rules which we have decided on together in this House and now is the time to defend these rules, to implement them and not to question them. President Juncker rightly outlined at the beginning of his term in office the flexibility existing in the Stability and Growth Pact. It is on this basis that we have to apply it.

The second step which we have to take to strengthen the euro is use the limited financial resources which we have available to strengthen our economies, not just manage a crisis once it has occurred but help the countries to reform, to strengthen their economies, to become more competitive even before a crisis occurs. We should of course do this without increasing the burden on the taxpayer in the European Union, not by a single cent. This is why we need a fiscal capacity which is precise in scope and very effective in its implementation. If, as the report put forward by my colleagues Ms Berès and Mr Böge proposes, a finance minister is created, then the first and primary task of this finance minister will be to apply rules in a transparent, automatic and predictable way in regard to all Member States.

The report also proposes in the long term the creation of a European monetary fund which is a worthwhile endeavor and in this process, of course, conditionality is important and also the political independence of this European monetary fund. If a fiscal capacity is to be created, it should also give states from outside of the European Union the possibility to join it in terms of benefits, in terms of contributions and in terms of governance.

And to conclude, some of the steps which are put forward in these reports can be implemented in the short term, some require Treaty change and, as Vice-President Timmermans indicated, this is a longer term process. Today we are, of course, at the beginning of this longer term process of stabilizing and strengthening the euro, developing it in the right direction.

Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, the European Union must define an ambitious roadmap for the future. The European Parliament wants this to happen at the Rome Summit and, indeed, in the White Paper that is to be presented by the Commission. We should not wait for upcoming national elections. The European Union is being challenged right now by the combined effect of Putin, Trump and internal nationalistic voices, and we believe that this is the time for the European Union to assert itself as what it is already: a powerful democratic political and economic entity.

We need to translate this into a roadmap with better European solutions: better European solutions for growth with an investment strategy, a strong social pillar and completing economic and monetary union with a proper fiscal capacity; better European solutions to our security problems, certainly by advancing European defense and internal security, and also by ensuring a proper European asylum system and the proper management of migration, in cooperation with the European neighborhood. But the European Union should also send a message to the world, saying that we, the European Union, are in favor of openness and cooperation based on a properly regulated global economy. The world is waiting for this positive message from the European Union.

Then we need to translate all this into new means of taking action. That has implications for the community budget. We need a community budget that is turned to the future. We believe that this offers the best way for citizens to take control of their lives, and that the best way to assure national sovereignty is to strengthen European sovereignty.

Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski, w imieniu grupy ECR. - Panie Przewodniczący! Pięć tez w sprawie reformy ustrojowej Unii Europejskiej. Po pierwsze never ma potrzeby i konieczności zmiany traktatów. Taka potrzeba by istniała, gdyby panowało powszechne przekonanie, że naprawa instytucji jest warunkiem dobrej polityki. Tymczasem Traktat z Lizbony jest traktatem relatywnie nowym, wewnętrznie elastycznym, pozwalającym na zastosowanie rozmaitych wariantów, i warto z tego skorzystać.

Po drugie kryzys Unii Europejskiej nie ma characteru instytucjonalnego, ma character kryzysu elit. To jest kryzys wieloraki. Dużo krytycznych słów powiedziano pod adresem eurosceptycyzmu, tendencji, która chce zdezintegrować Unię. Ale jest też druga strona medalu: to jest centralizm i protekcjonizm, który szkodzi Europie. I prawdę powiedziawszy, protekcjonizm płynie także ze strony rządów państw umiarkowanych, które zamykają rynki kosztem konkurencyjności.

Czego Unia potrzebuje? Unia potrzebuje wzajemnego zaufania instytucji europejskich i państw członkowskich. Z jednej strony instytucje europejskie powinny szanować kompetencje państw członkowskich, z drugiej strony państwa mieć większą zdolność do ponoszenia wspólnej odpowiedzialności za Europę. Potrzebna nam jest synergia państw i instytucji europejskich. I z tego punktu widzenia obydwa sprawozdania, sprawozdanie pana Verhofstadta i sprawozdanie pana Broka i pani Bresso, nie odpowiadają wyzwaniom europejskim. Szczególnie sprawozdanie posła Verhofstadta zacieśnia integrację wokół strefy euro, never ufa państwom członkowskim, wprowadza głosowanie większościowe. Właściwie nie kryje tego, że te państwa, które nie zaakceptują ciasnej integracji znajdą się poza Europą. Bardzo szkoda, że ​​nie wykorzystano szansy na pragmatyczne podejście, na rzeczywiste reformowanie Unii Europejskiej w ramach traktatów.

Charles Goerens, au nom du groupe ALDE. - Monsieur le President, penser l’avenir de l’Europe peut paraître moins utopique qu’on ne le pense. Altiero Spinelli l’a fait en pleine guerre et plus tard au début des années 80, en pleine crise économique et institutionalnelle. Beaucoup de ses propositions ont été reprises entre-temps. Soyons donc plus confiants ou, pour le dire avec les mots de Churchill, "le pessimiste est celui qui voit des difficultés dans chaque opportunité, et l’optimiste est celui qui voit des opportunités dans chaque difficulté".

Nous voulons garder l’euro, alors mettons en œuvre des politiques indispensables à sa consolidation. Le rapport des cinq présidents - Brok, Bresso, Verhofstadt, Böge et Berès - fournit des éléments indispensables à cette réflexion.

Nous nous lamentons sur le déficit démocratique dans la zone euro, mais cela ne sert à rien si nous continuons à nous opposer à un véritable contrôle du Parlement européen. Cela requiert un changement de traité.

Nous voulons que la politique extérieure de l’Union ait un visage, alors acceptons l’autorité de Mme Mogherini plutôt que de prévoir, pour chaque négociation, un format différent dans lequel elle n’a pas la place qui lui revient. C’est la haute représentante qui devrait thunder le la dans toutes ces initiatives. Cela, on peut déjà le faire, sans changer le traité.

Nous constatons avec inquiétude la fragilité de certains États membres qui sont sur le point de tomber entre les mains des populistes. Alors, mettons le citoyen européen au center de la construction européenne.

A propos de la citoyenneté européenne, c’est l’acquis le plus précieux de la construction européenne. Si vous voulez vraiment apprécier la valeur de la citoyenneté européenne, je vous suggère d’en parler aux citoyens britanniques qui risquent d’en être déchus. C’est dans leur témoignage que vous allez découvrir un attachement à nos valeurs, une ardeur qui ne vous laissera pas indifférents. J’ai pu le constater en proposant le concept de “citoyenneté européenne associée” pour les ressortissants des anciens membres. La fatalité serait mauvaise conseillère en la matière.

Barbara Spinelli, a name del gruppo GUE / NGL. - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se avete letto le due relazioni dell’on. Verhofstadt e degli onn. Bresso e Brok, vedrete che mancano le chiavi per risolvere la crisi. Not c'è nemmeno il tentativo di capirla, dato che nessun errore sostanziale è riconosciuto come tale. La soluzione è meramente tecnico-istituzionale perché le crisi sono viste come eventi esterni o alieni, non come fallimenti dell'Unione. Parlo delle politiche migratorie semper più fondate sul refoulement, del devastante dibattito sul Grexit, del Brexit, figlio del Grexit. Parlo del disastro sociale che spinge tanti cittadini a disperare dell'Unione.

La relazione degli onn. Bresso e Brock si limita a promuovere l'idea, giusto l'idea, di un salario minimo, quando oggi urge un reddito di cittadinanza. La relazione dell’on. Verhofstadt tace sulla questione sociale. I relatori assicurano di ispirarsi ai padri fondatori. Non credo l'abbiano fatto, perché i fondatori non avevano in mente una determinata linea politica. Contestavano la sovranità assoluta degli Stati per metter fine alle guerre, dunque alla povertà che aveva distrutto l'Europa negli anni Trenta. Avevano in mente una Costituzione che permettesse l'alternarsi di politiche diverse, senza pronunciarsi su di esse. Le due relazioni propongono tecniche più efficienti e rapide istituzionalmente per perpetuare le stesse politiche che ci hanno portato alla crisi. The destino del Fiscal Compact is a copy. Una politica rovinosa che divide i cittadini e gli estranea viene iscritta nel marmo dei trattati, al riparo dal suffragio universale, confermando spettacolarmente che l'Unione è un mercato al servizio dei più forti, non ha nulla di federioe di federale ed è realtà.

Pascal Durand, au nom du groupe Verts / ALE. - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Timmermans, vous avez tout à l’heure utilisé le terme “rafraîchissant” en ce qui concerne les propositions que M. Verhofstadt expose dans son rapport. Je comprends le terme, mais je trouve, en revanche, qu’il n’est pas à la hauteur de la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons.

L’Europe is in danger. L’Europe is un nain politique. L'Europe, qui est la zone la plus riche du monde, se trouve confrontée à une crise comme elle en a rarement connue: des dizaines de millions de pauvres - cela vient d'être dit -, des difficultés mondiales, des dictatures à nos portes. Nous sommes dans une situation où, finalement, nous allons avancer tranquillement, nous allons discuter ... Non, nous sommes en train, dans un monde qui bouge, de faire partir l’Europe sur une ligne de départ avec une jambe blessée. Elle ne marche pas sur ses deux jambes, cette Europe.