text
stringlengths 1.26k
373k
| country
stringclasses 3
values | year
int64 2k
2.02k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|
Madam President, thank you for this short but very interesting debate. I will take this back and I can assure you that the Commission will look at this matter from all the angles that were mentioned today. But I can already give you some preliminary feedback on each of them. I will start with intellectual property rights. The Commission recently commissioned a study on the intellectual property rights implications of the development of industrial three-dimensional printing. The purpose of this study is to analyse the intellectual property implications of the development of industrial 3D printing. The Commission will take account of the study's conclusions and recommendations and will decide on the next steps. Obviously, the fight against counterfeited products, be it through 3D printing or any other production method, is of paramount importance for the Commission. On product liability, this is a matter that is covered by the Product Liability Directive. On this issue, I can tell you that the Commission published its fifth report on the Product Liability Directive and the evaluation of the Directive back in 2018. It also published a staff working document on liability for emerging digital technologies in the same year. In addition, the Commission is working on a guidance document for the implementation of the Directive and this guidance document should be available later this year. Furthermore, the Commission is examining whether it would be useful to amend the Product Liability Directive. Finally, on the illicit arms production angle, the incident that you mentioned in Halle was of course looked at very closely by the German authorities. Among others, the German Bundestag found that no legislative changes are necessary because the current German law explicitly sanctions the unlicensed manufacture of guns and firearms regardless of the method of their production. Nevertheless, the Commission will submit to this Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of the Firearms Directive, including a fitness check of its provisions accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals, notably concerning the impacts of new technologies such as 3D-printing, but also the use of QR code and the use of radio-frequency identification.
| EU | null |
Mr President, Madam Senator Ms Liliana Segre, Honourable Members, dear Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, dear European friends. Of course, it is very difficult to take the floor after you, Liliana Segre. The power and the humanity of your speech, dear Liliana, was profoundly moving, and your memories. And I deeply admire, like all of us here in the room, your endless fight for remembrance. It is an important reminder for all of us of life and, as you've said, of its dignity. You often say that, and I quote: 'understanding is impossible but knowledge is necessary'. And how could we ever understand this completely dehumanised world, this world beyond time, life and reality? These words come from another Auschwitz survivor, Ms Simone Veil we've seen her in the video. The first President of the first directly-elected European Parliament, Simone Veil was a woman who, with heart and conviction, lived through Europe's worst days and also its greatest moments of hope and of unity. Looking at Auschwitz Birkenau and what happened there, she coined the term of 'the absolute evil'. Die systematische Ausrottung von sechs Millionen Juden ist das absolut Böse das absolut Böse, das sich nicht in Worte fassen lässt, die schlimmste Barbarei, die der Mensch dem Menschen zufügen kann, das Verbrechen von Nazideutschland gegen die Menschheit. Und als Deutsche fühle ich schwere Schuld. Und doch spreche ich hier. Die Opfer, vor denen wir uns verneigen, wurden im Namen meiner Nation umgebracht. Die Stätten dieses Mordes wurden über ganz Europa verteilt: Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Babij Jar, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka Namen unvorstellbarer Menschlichkeitsverbrechen und des Verlustes aller Humanität. Wir gedenken heute der Gequälten und Entrechteten der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft. Wir gedenken Millionen ermordeter europäischer Juden, der Roma, der Sinti, der Zwangsarbeiterinnen und Zwangsarbeiter, der Zeugen Jehovas, der Homosexuellen, der Kranken und Behinderten, der politischen Gefangenen und der Kriegsgefangenen und vieler vieler anderer mehr. Wir verneigen uns vor den Toten. Ja, als Deutsche fühle ich die besondere Schuld, aber ich fühle auch die besondere Verantwortung. Denn als Deutsche in Europa weiß ich auch, dass es unsere Nachbarn waren, die uns die Hand gereicht haben und uns wieder aufgenommen haben in den Kreis der demokratischen Völker. Je sais, en tant qu'Européenne, que notre Union s'est bâtie en s'appuyant sur la volonté absolue de protéger la dignité de chaque être humain, car elle est inviolable; que nous avons la responsabilité permanente de combattre avec détermination toute forme d'antisémitisme et de discrimination, et de ne jamais, jamais oublier. Le souvenir est douloureux et effrayant, mais il ne nous paralyse pas. Au contraire, il aiguise notre boussole morale et nous met en garde, parce que la Shoah n'a pas commencé à Auschwitz, mais bien plus tôt, dans les esprits des gens. Elle a commencé avec l'affaiblissement de la capacité de s'indigner face au dénigrement dont d'autres étaient victimes. Elle a commencé avec la brutalité et les discours de haine à l'égard des Juifs. Aux paroles ont succédé les actes, dont les crimes contre l'humanité constituent la concrétisation indicible. On a d'abord vu mourir l'empathie et déferler les invectives, sans que personne n'y mette fin. The former United Nations Secretary, General Kofi Annan, once said: 'all that evil needs to triumph is the silence of the majority'. This fight for remembrance, which you are leading with so much courage and determination, dear Liliana Segre, must be our common fight. It is a duty to remember for all of us and must be passed down from generation to generation. For when the memory fades, where today there are attempts to deny the Holocaust, where people are vilified and treated with contempt because they are Jews or because they are not like the majority, this is where Europe is called into question. For Europe rose with a firm will never again to give any quarter to absolute evil. Europe knows, like no other continent, that this mission means: do not let it take root never, ever again. I thank you from the bottom of my heart, dear Liliana, for your tireless dedication to stop us forgetting, and I thank you for the courage with which you counter the hatred which has been rekindled in Europe and which you experienced first-hand. Your courage gives us strength. And we wish to say to you that Europe will not remain silent when Jews in Europe are again subjected to hatred and harassment. We will fight anti-Semitism at all levels. We will never allow the Holocaust to be denied. We will fight with all our strength against discrimination, racism and exclusion, and we want to see and we will fight for a normal life for Jews in Europe. You can rely on us. Der fünfundsiebzigste Jahrestag der Befreiung des Lagers Auschwitz ist Gedenken. Wir gedenken all derer, deren Zukunft ausgelöscht wurde. Wir gedenken all derer, die nie aus den Lagern zurückgekehrt sind. Anderthalb Millionen jüdische Kinder wurden ermordet. Ich weine um jedes Kind, und es hat seinen Namen in Yad Vashem. Wir gedenken aber auch derer, die überlebt haben und, liebe Liliana Segre, denen die schrecklichen Erinnerungen an diese Hölle auf ewig ins Gedächtnis eingebrannt sind. Aber dieses Gedenken ist auch ein Aufruf zur Wachsamkeit. Heinz Galinski, der langjährige Vorsitzende des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland, hat zu Recht gesagt: „Demokratie kann man keiner Gesellschaft aufzwingen, sie ist auch kein Geschenk, das man ein für allemal in Besitz nehmen kann. Sie muss täglich erkämpft und verteidigt werden.“ Genau darum geht es: Wehret den Anfängen! Seid wachsam! Seien wir aufrichtig gegenüber unserer Geschichte! Verteidigen wir die Unantastbarkeit der Würde eines jeden einzelnen Menschen! Verteidigen wir das Innerste und die Werte unserer Demokratie! Das sind wir den Opfern des Holocaust schuldig, das sind wir der Würde des Menschen schuldig wie genauso auch unserer Demokratie.
| EU | null |
Mr President, colleagues, the first thing that I want to do in this debate is to thank one man a man here in this room because in this fight he has played a crucial role. He has kept the unity of the 27, he has kept the unity between the three institutions, and everybody who works in Europe knows that this is not a small achievement. And for that reason, I want especially for his friendship, for his cooperation to thank Michel Barnier, our chief negotiator. At the beginning of this debate, Mr President, I want also to pay tribute to our British colleagues well, at least the overwhelming majority of them. I have to say to them that they have always brought wit, charm, intelligence . And, let's recognise, sometimes also stubbornness in this House. I think that I can say, in the name of all of us, from all Groups, I can only say we will miss you in the coming time and in the coming years. Mr President, let me be clear from the start of this debate. Today's vote is not a vote in favour of or against Brexit; it's a vote for an orderly Brexit against a wild, a hard Brexit. I will be very honest with you: if we could stop Brexit by voting 'no' today, I would be the first to recommend it. But that's not on our plate today. That's not on our table and not the issue today. It is indeed a sad issue: sad to see a nation leaving, a great nation that has given all of us so much. I mean culturally, I mean economically, I mean politically, even its own blood in two world wars. It's in fact sad to see a country leaving that twice liberated us, has twice given its blood to liberate Europe. And I think, Mr President, in these debates we cannot escape a key question: how could this happen? How is it possible that, more than 40 years after, I think, an enormous overwhelming majority of nearly 70% voted to enter into the European family, how 40 years later they decided, based on their sovereign rights, to leave this European project? I have to tell you that, since the outcome of the referendum , I have heard many opinions about it. Everybody has an opinion about it. Some people are saying: well look, they are simply afraid, the Brits, of losing their sovereignty. That's the issue. But colleagues, what does 'sovereignty' in fact mean today, in a world that is completely dominated by powerhouses like China, like India, like the US; in a world where we have to challenge transnational problems like climate change and the digital supremacy tomorrow, of China, today of the US? Let me say it maybe a little more punchily: what is in fact threatening Britain's sovereignty most the rules of our single market or the fact that tomorrow there will be, maybe, the planting of Chinese 5G masts in the British Isles? The cruel reality that we have to consider today in this debate is that European countries lost their sovereignty already a long time ago, and that Europe is just the way to regain that sovereignty in the coming years. There have been other people who told me and Michel Barnier: look, you don't understand it. It's all about migration that Brexit is happening: migrants working in British hospitals, migrants working in British universities, migrants working on construction sites in London. While in fact, dear colleagues, these migrants are European citizens exactly like British citizens are: paying taxes to Britain and, in fact, contributing to the future of British society. Then, finally, there are other opinions, but I will be short today . There are others who are saying, and pointing the finger at us, and saying: yes, the reason for Brexit is simple. You didn't give enough to Mr Cameron when he came to Brussels and when he requested new exceptions for Britain: exceptions on free movement, exceptions on the question of the political union. Well I have to tell you, Mr President and colleagues today, that, as rapporteur, it's my personal opinion and my firm conviction that the opposite is true. Brexit started not three and a half years ago. Brexit started long ago, and I think, personally, that Brexit started exactly the day we started giving exceptions: with opt-ins, with opt-outs, with rebates. That's, in my opinion, the moment the Union ceased to be in union. And it's also the moment, colleagues, that the discontent about Europe started. All these exceptions, all these vetoes make a union, in my opinion, not capable to act effectively: always acting too little, too late. And it is, in my opinion, this lack of effectiveness that leads to even more discontent. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, with members one leg in the Union and another leg outside the Union only looking for the advantages, not for the obligations. So in my opinion: yes, Brexit is also a failure of the Union. It's also our failure: we have to recognise that in this debate. And yes, there is a lesson to learn from it, and this lesson, dear colleagues, is not to undo the union, as some are arguing here; no, this lesson is and we have to learn this from Brexit to deeply reform the union, to make it a real union in the coming years. That means a union without opt-ins, opt-outs, rebates, exceptions and, above all, without unanimity rules and veto rights. Only then can we act, and only then will we defend our interests, and only then will we defend our values. It is this lack of effectiveness that is the problem that we have seen in Brexit. I have to tell you and that will be my conclusion, Mr President in the last couple of days, I received maybe as you hundreds of mails from British citizens saying they desperately want either to stay or to return. And I have to tell you, for once normally it's easy for me but this time I don't know what to respond, because it's not in our capacity to decide that. But that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to make sure that the Union to which they will return will be another Union, effective and more democratic. So and that's my last sentence as rapporteur, Mr President : this vote is not an adieu; this vote is, in my opinion, only an au revoir.
| EU | null |
Mr President, honourable Members, as President of the European Commission, first of all I want to pay tribute to all those British people who contributed so much to almost half a century of British EU membership. I think of all those who helped to build our institutions: people like Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, who was known as the father of our single market, or Roy Jenkins, President of the European Commission, who did so much to pave the way for our single currency. I think of these thousands of European civil servants of British nationality who devoted their lives and their careers to Europe and have done so much to build our Union. They will always stay part of our family. And I think of all those years so many British MEPs have contributed to making this Parliament and the Union strong. You have our gratitude and our respect, even more so for your resilience in the last 3.5 years. We will miss you, but we will always keep up our friendship with you, and you can count on us, as we know that we can count on you. Honourable Members, in the last plenary session we discussed the issues of citizens' rights. We will also be vigilant on the implementation of the agreement in Northern Ireland. The power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland gives us hope that the spirit of cooperation will continue to mark relations across the border. Yet the Withdrawal Agreement is only a first step. From now on it's about our new partnership with the United Kingdom. The negotiations are about to start. And just to be very clear: I want the European Union and the United Kingdom to stay good friends and good partners. The story is about old friends and new beginnings, and we have a lot in common. We both believe that climate change needs to be fought as a matter of urgency. There's still scope to address these risks, but the window of opportunity is closing. So let's join forces in protecting our planet. We both understand that it takes very little power to break a fragile balance and turn it into a full-blown conflict but that the true power lies in putting the pieces back together. And therefore we both believe in the power of development cooperation, and we know that our security is interlinked. And here too we should join forces. For all these and many other reasons, we want to forge a close partnership, but we also know that we have to sort out how to deal with the United Kingdom as a third country. When it comes to trade, we are considering a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas. This would be unique; no other free trade agreement offers such an access to our single market. But the precondition is that European and British businesses continue to compete on a level playing field. We will certainly not expose our companies to unfair competition. And it's very clear: the trade-off is simple. The more united the United Kingdom does commit to uphold our standards for social protection and workers' rights, our guarantees for the environment and other standards and rules ensuring fair competition, the closer and better the access to the single market. And let me say that, just days ago, some of the largest business associations in Britain particularly in the car and aerospace industry asked their government to retain EU standards and rules. And I think this is in our mutual interest. This is about jobs, it's about common solutions for the world market. And I believe that the United Kingdom and the European Union have a mutual interest in the closest possible partnership. Honourable Members, no new partnership will bring back the benefits of being part of the same Union, but we have a duty to seek the best for the British and for the European people in a post-Brexit world. On our side, we'll seek the best for industries and farmers across our continent who ask for predictability. We will seek our best for young British and young European students who want to study and who want to live across the Channel. And we'll seek the best for all the researchers and scientists who want to explore the unknown and work for common solutions together in the European Union as well as in the United Kingdom. We will devote all our energy, 24/7, to come to results. And to our British friends, and many perhaps not all, but many of our British MEPs here in the room, I want to use the words of the famous British poet George Eliot. She said: only in the agony of parting do we look into the depth of love. We will always love you, and we will never be far. Long live Europe.
| EU | null |
Madam President, for once, I will make an exception. Today is an exceptional moment and I will speak in English because I want to speak to our British friends. To all of you, I will say that we will miss you. The EU will not be the same without you. My deep feeling is that there is no good Brexit. Although I support the Withdrawal Agreement, I'm still convinced that we are better off together than we will be apart from one another. To all our Lib Dem colleagues, I want to express my deep friendship, emotion and admiration. They fought for Europe against all odds. They were a tremendous added value to the work of this Parliament and they remain part of the Renew Europe family. To the British citizens living in the EU, to the European citizens living in the UK, I want to assure you: we won't let you down. This Parliament is the voice of the citizens, and we will make sure that citizens' rights are fully respected. To the Brexiteers, I could say 'no hard feelings'. You have achieved your objective. You enter a new phase the most difficult one and you will have no one to blame for the future of your country, especially not Brussels. You are in charge. But trust me, if some of you think that the next phase is the weakening of the EU, we will prove you dead wrong. We will renew Europe, make it better, make it stronger, learn the lessons from Brexit. Brexit is a sad and exceptional moment and will remain both.
| EU | null |
Madam President, for some, 31 January will be a happy day. For us Greens and European Free Alliance members, it will be a sad day. It's no secret that each and every one of us fought relentlessly to keep the United Kingdom as part of the European Union: not because we think that whatever the European Union does is the right thing, but because we firmly believe that the only way for Europeans to regain sovereignty that is, the ability to shape our future is by sharing it. As Jean-Claude Juncker once said, there are two sorts of European States: the small ones and those who don't yet realise they are small. But more importantly, we see the European Union as an unprecedented, if fragile, attempt at building a transnational democracy. Such an experiment may come in handy at a time when not just Europe but the entire world is facing challenges beyond the might of any single nation. Citizens, we fought the battle and we lost. Last December's election provided a result, but not the one we wished. In two days from now, Brexit will happen and, in order for it to be orderly, we will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. The United Kingdom and the EU remain bound by geography. It is in no-one's interest to have bad relations as neighbours. But more fundamentally, we European decision-makers must realise that, if an increasing number of our fellow citizens have turned their backs against the European project, it's for a reason. It's because many believe that too often, policies adopted at European level have served the interests of the few rather than of the many. And we need to fix this. We need to fix this if we really want to avoid the repetition of Brexit happening. Let us make it our utmost priority that, from now on, our aim will be that all our policies will strive to serve the interests of everyone, starting with the most vulnerable, and do this while respecting the limits that nature imposes on us. The European Green Deal announced by the European Commission is an opportunity to take the right course. Let us seize it. This is the best and the only way to win or regain the hearts and minds of the European citizens. Long live the European Union.
| EU | null |
Madam President, 'how did we get here?' asked Mr Verhofstadt, opening the debate. There was a referendum in 1975, which went in favour of continued membership. There was no continuity leave campaign after that; people accepted the result with good grace. They did not seek to overturn it. Indeed, Euroscepticism was confined to the fringes of the Bennite left. What changed, frankly, was the Maastricht Treaty. Up until that moment, it was still possible to see the EU as a club of nations, as an association of states primarily concerned with trade and economics. But after Maastricht it became clear that EU jurisdiction was being extended into a whole series of completely uneconomic fields: foreign policy, culture, migration, citizens' rights etc., etc., and that the aspiration was to have the EU as a quasi-state with a flag and a parliament and a currency and a president and external embassies and all the other accoutrements. If, at any stage, Britain had been able to have a trade-only association, of course that would have been enough. In fact, even as recently as February 2016, if David Cameron had come back with any repatriation of power, can we doubt that he would have won the ensuing referendum? But, faced with the departure of its second financial contributor, the EU was still not prepared to allow any devolution of power and that, ultimately, is what made a parting of ways inevitable. So I wish you all the best. I want to return to the kind of vision that Churchill set out when he said, let's have a united Europe with Britain looking on as a friend and sponsor. You are losing a bad tenant but gaining a good neighbour. Vous allez perdre un mauvais locataire, mais vous allez gagner un bon voisin.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I must say that the only thing I am absolutely sure I will not miss is listening to Mr Farage. I speak here as EPP representative in the Brexit steering group but also as the former Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee who had all those Brexiteers and nearly 500 meetings with all those potentially affected by Brexit. From the very beginning of the negotiations, the EU side has aimed for an orderly withdrawal based on an agreement. This is the only thing we could do to give legal certainty to the process, and we have achieved this goal. I hope most of us will endorse the consent to the Council Decision on the conclusion of this agreement to avoid a hard Brexit. From the very beginning of this process, we have been also clear that UK withdrawal is not a final destination. Now we should aim at a close comprehensive agreement on the future relationship, preferably in the form of an association agreement embracing both close economic partnership and security cooperation. We know that the UK political choice has been taking back control. So yes, we are aware that, if the UK aims at divergence from European norms and standards, it can put at risk even a bare-bone FTA. That is why a well-tailored agreement on a level playing field will be crucial, Mr Farage. But there is ahead of us, as the European Parliament, also the task to have a watchful eye on the implementation and enforcement of the withdrawal agreement. Of particular importance for us will be the oversight of the implementation of citizens' rights and of the Irish protocol. To conclude, let me call on the Commission to respect the commitment of its former President to involve the European Parliament in the work of the Joint Committee, and let me reach out to Robert Burns and say: For auld lang syne.
| EU | null |
... against this Withdrawal Agreement because it's bad for Britain, it's bad for Europe, and we think it was wrong for Boris Johnson to proceed without putting it back to the British people to a confirmatory referendum. That was like saying to the British public: you had your say three years ago ; now you have to shut up and accept whatever I come up with, no matter how bad it is and no matter how different it is from what he promised. Four years ago, Johnson and his Leave campaign said this would all be easy; it's turned out to be rather difficult. They said it would save lots of money that would all go to the NHS; it's turning out to cost a fortune. They said it would be good for Britain and the economy; the opposite is true. That's why the British public voted 53% in our elections for parties demanding another referendum. Brexit does not have the wholehearted consent of the British people, and that's for very good reasons: it bears no resemblance to what they were promised. Nor will his promise to 'get Brexit done' on 31 January turn out to be anything like true. That's the beginning of the next phase: negotiations to settle issues which will prove very difficult. Britain has to make difficult choices. Will it want to stay close to the European Union, aligned with the rules, or distance itself? If it distances itself, it has huge economic costs. If it aligns itself, it has to follow the rules without having a say on them anymore. Neither is actually good for Britain. And that's why public opinion will continue to move against Brexit. That's why I predict that the catchphrase next year in our media and social media will be 'Brexit isn't working'. That's what people will say, and that's why that, and the fact that it is especially our young people who are strongly against Brexit this may indeed not be an adieu, it may just be an au revoir.
| EU | null |
Madam President, may I first of all say a big thank you to colleagues from other nations who've made such generous remarks this afternoon. But I have to say, Britain always sat somewhat uneasily in the European Union. A common market is indeed what many thought they'd joined, rather than a project for political integration. The advance of the EU juggernaut through Monnet's small steps was sometimes hardly noticed. As national borders were eroded and more policy areas became EU competences, so British disenchantment intensified: not surprisingly, as we hear the answer to every problem is more Europe and we even hear this from colleagues from the left in the British political setup. Friday will mark the beginning of a new relationship between Britain and the European Union. The negotiation this year of a free trade agreement and other arrangements should be seen as an opportunity, not a confrontation. It's in the interests of both the EU and the UK for a good agreement, negotiated with goodwill and flexibility, based on precedent, to be concluded in friendship and before the end of the year. Britain will still be a European power the leading European power in NATO, committed to the security of the democracies of the European continent, sharing many of the standpoints and aspirations of the nations of Europe, an independent sovereign country with friendly relations with the EU: that's our aim. Madam President, may I just say, on a personal note: I spent 30 years as a British Army officer and now 20 years representing Britain in this European Parliament. I've enjoyed my work, and I want to say a big thank you to all colleagues here and to the officials and personal staff that I've worked with over the years. Thank you and farewell.
| EU | null |
, on Friday at 11.00 p.m. this Irish MEP will be kicked out of this Parliament against the democratic wishes of the people of Ireland who voted to remain, and who want to stay in the EU. After forty-seven years of membership, and after fifty years of fighting against gerrymandering in places like Derry, the British Government is once again kicking our voting rights away taking them away from us and, once again, is changing the constitutional position of the people of Ireland without our consent. Today I am voting in favour of this Irish protocol because Sinn Féin will not consent to the hardening of the British border partition in Ireland. We will not consent to custom posts. We will not consent to barbed wire. There is no doubt that the Irish protocol in the withdrawal agreement is an ugly compromise, but it's better than a crash-out Brexit. However, partition and Brexit are ugly impositions that have burdened Ireland for years. Because of partition, Brexit is stripping away our democratic and social rights. But because of Brexit, a dynamic conversation about Irish unity has been invigorated. The EU Council made its contribution to Irish unity when, on the 29th of April 2017, 27 Member States agreed that, if Ireland is reunified, the whole of Ireland is in the EU. The partition of Ireland is not only a problem for us in Ireland. The 300 mile border, with 320 border crossings, is now your problem too. When Britain gets its empire back, showing it cares nothing about your level playing field, and when shady low-standard products with minimum protection make their way into your market, you will not be long in joining the sensible people in supporting Irish unity. There is no doubt that the day will come when Irish MEPs from the north will be back in the European Parliament. Mark my words: tiocfaidh an lá sin.
| EU | null |
Madam President, sadly we will have to vote today on the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and we will do it for one reason and one reason only: this agreement is needed for damage control. Brexit, even many of those who voted to leave know it by now, will always be damaging: damaging for the European Union, even more damaging for the UK, and most of all, damaging for our capacity to tackle together the common challenges we face. But if Brexit is to happen, it is better to have it in an orderly way, providing for a transition period, avoiding by now a catastrophic no-deal scenario, safeguarding citizens' rights and ensuring an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. But we are not here today only to vote on an agreement; we are here to write history. Unfortunately, the page that is going to be written today is regrettable. I wish to thank our British colleagues with great emotion for their valuable contribution to the European project. Looking ahead, I want to assure them that we will do our best to negotiate a fruitful future relationship with the UK for the benefit of both parties while safeguarding the integrity of the single market, our high environmental and social standards, and citizens' rights. Finally, let me say that, despite Brexit and this rising movement of nationalism and populism, the European project will prevail, will prevail ensuring peace, will prevail delivering prosperity and defending our common values.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I want to make two points. First of all, the root cause why the UK is leaving is because the leaders of the parties at Westminster, the two big parties, live in a fantasy world. They work in ancient buildings. The buildings were built for an empire, and they still think they're running an empire and are a superpower. Consequently, they have never told the British people the reality that we are a European country and not a superpower, and even our children in the schools are not taught in the curriculum about Europe. So there has been an abject failure by Westminster. Sadly, in this debate, Farage, who's gone, and Hannan, who I think is still in there, told a complete untruth. This project was never about free trade. It was always about more than free trade and ever-closer Union. Even Mrs Thatcher, in the referendum campaign in 1975, said this is about more than just free trade. So when they talk about free trade only, it's been misleading the British people all the way along. And that's a disgrace. The last thing I want to say is, I've been privileged enough to have been elected here for the first time in 1979 a very long time ago and I still want to see next the construction of a European FBI to fight cross-border crime, because our police forces we have 500 in Europe none of them can cross borders and pursue the criminals. So colleagues, keep building, keep going on, as Liliana Segre said to us, one foot in front of another.
| EU | null |
Madam President, for me, today is a historic day but one of profound regret at the departure of the United Kingdom from its place of influence within the European Union. I will vote against the Withdrawal Agreement today to record the continued opposition of those whom I represent to this insular, isolationist and reckless course of action. But I want to place on record my thanks to Michel Barnier and his team for all they have done to mitigate that recklessness. The people of Northern Ireland rejected Brexit in 2016, and we are certainly not accepting it now. Whilst the UK may withdraw from these institutions, the people of Northern Ireland will never withdraw the hand of friendship, the spirit of cooperation, or the shared determination to secure peace and prosperity for all of our people. As a child of the Northern Ireland conflict, I'm grateful to the European Union, which helped shape our peace and which provides a model for pragmatic win-win politics based not on division but upon diversity. The decisions you make in this place will continue to shape the lives of the people I represent, and I look forward to forging new ways of ensuring that those close and enduring partnerships built between Northern Ireland and this place flourish. Finally, whilst we will no longer be colleagues in these institutions, I remain your steadfast colleague outside of them, as together we continue to champion the values of cooperation, interdependence and mutual respect which the European Union represents, until one day we rejoin you here. Au revoir, auf Wiedersehen, slán go fóill, good-bye for now.
| EU | null |
Honourable Members, I'm very grateful to have this opportunity to inform you about the EU's preparedness and response to the developing situation of the coronavirus, which was first reported in China one month ago. Latest reports from this morning indicate just over 6 000 laboratory-confirmed cases and 132 deaths. All the deaths have occurred in China. The situation is evolving very rapidly and has potentially serious public health implications. We have seen that the World Health Organization is again convening the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee on the situation tomorrow to advise on whether the current outbreak constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. We will follow these discussions very closely. My priority as Commissioner in charge of health is to make sure that we as the Commission provide all the support to Member States. This means that the Commission is monitoring the situation very closely and has taken action to support national measures and coordinate the response of Member States. This takes place via the EU's early warning and response system, where information is exchanged in real time, as well as discussions with Member States in the Health Security Committee, which has met three times. I'm also in regular contact with the Director-General of the World Health Organization and its regional director in Europe to coordinate next steps at a global level. This ensures essential and immediate information exchange and a coordinated Europe-wide response, which is, of course, the Commission's primary responsibility. Ladies and gentlemen, the vast majority of cases have been identified in China, but last week, cases have also been confirmed in other parts of the world, including Europe. At the moment we have four confirmed cases in France, four confirmed cases in Germany, and we also have information that a case has just been confirmed in Finland. I am in continuous contact with the French, Italian, German and Croatian health ministers, and I am assured that the necessary steps to contain the virus have been taken. On Monday the EU's Health Security Committee met to discuss preparedness and needs of Member States and response options on the basis of the updated risk assessment from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. I have been reassured that the vast majority of European countries reported a high level of preparedness to face the coronavirus in Europe, including access to laboratory diagnosis networks; readiness for clinical diagnosis and management of cases; guidance for travellers; capacities and guidance for management of points of entry; and guidance for healthcare professionals and the public on how to deal with suspected cases. An important topic is the repatriation of EU citizens from China: the Hubei region, more precisely, where the epidemic is concentrated. On Tuesday, France activated the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. We hope that as soon as possible, EU citizens will be able to come back to Europe. The details are being coordinated as we speak and the EU emergency response centre is supporting the efforts of Member States. There remain at the moment important uncertainties surrounding the coronavirus such as its origins, its transmission mode and its pathogenicity. So we need to continue to monitor this situation very closely. It's clear that rapid communication, sharing of information and close cooperation are paramount to tackle this outbreak effectively. If the situation deteriorates, we will consider all other tools to strengthen our support to Member States, and this would include emergency funding to support outbreak response and, of course, research, where our supercomputer centres stand ready to sequence and simulate the evolution of the virus, which can help researchers develop a vaccine. For the time being, we will continue to offer all our support. Should the EU Council Presidency decide, we would support a decision to organise an extraordinary Health Council, but I understand this is not imminent. We will update you, of course, as the situation evolves.
| EU | null |
It's an interesting debate. I will try to touch on as many questions as possible. I hope, in the way that I spoke at the beginning, I did not appear to stir up panic. This was not the intention, and as Veronique Trillet-Lenoir has said, we should not create panic. But we need to balance that with being vigilant and carefully monitoring a changing situation, which is what we have at the moment. There are many uncertainties many of you have mentioned this. The WHO has issued guidelines, together with ECDC, for travel, and I would also like to add here that we really don't have any indications, as has been said by some colleagues and by Madam Montserrat, that China is not giving all the necessary information. In fact, the WHO General Director was there two days ago and has already briefed us on what the situation is. It's obvious that we need to have global cooperation and we need to have constant updates. We do need to be very careful that we are speaking with one clear voice, and this is exactly what we are trying to do in our coordinating role as a Commission, to ensure that ECDC info and WHO information reaches the Member States. In terms of vaccinations, the Commission is launching a call to develop a vaccine as we speak, and the European Medicines Authority can authorise a fast-track procedure if this is found. There is concern among European citizens, and WHO and ECDC have given clear guidelines on travel precautions and laboratory testing and isolation, and our information from Member States is that, once EU citizens are repatriated, quarantine measures will be taken. We have joined forces with as many other entities and bodies as possible, and Member States have assured us through the CDC that their laboratories are ready. Finally, I wanted to say that, under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, further emergency assistance can be provided if requested, including emergency medical corps, which can be deployed both inside and outside the European Union. So I will stop here. I just want to be absolutely emphatic that we are going to continue to monitor this very closely. We are monitoring it on a daily basis responsibly, without creating panic, but also being aware that we have a complex evolving situation that we need to be aware of, and I will be available to inform the Parliament at any point in time of any developments.
| EU | null |
Mr President, honourable members, the EU policies on support to indigenous peoples goes back three decades and were last reconfirmed in the May 2017 Council Conclusions on Indigenous Peoples, reaffirming our support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Despite some important gains in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in many countries of the world, in recent years we have also seen a number of setbacks. Most troubling are the high numbers of indigenous leaders and activists killed every year in the defence of their ancestral lands and the environment at least 40 persons every year. Such tragic crimes underline the high relevance of our policies on support to indigenous peoples and human rights defenders working on land, environment, biodiversity and climate. Specifically on human rights defenders, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights funds the EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism, which provided support to more than 30 000 HRDs from 2015 to 2019 and their families through a combination of short-, medium- and long-term initiatives. The EU's support to land governance and secure access and tenure of land is equally important. While we continue to foster dialogue and promote respect for responsible land governance, the EU is supporting land governance in about 40 countries, with a total budget of 240 million euros. As an example, I mention the EU support to land governance in Colombia, which enabled the collective titling of 280 000 hectares, benefiting some 8 000 indigenous and Afro-Colombian families. Indigenous peoples also feature highly in our enhanced attention to the human rights and environment and climate nexus. During the European Development Days held in June of 2019, the EEAS organised an event dedicated to the strengthening of international solidarity and support to indigenous peoples and environmental human rights defenders. Another event at the EDDS on non-discrimination and the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation brought testimonies from indigenous experts, along with other experts on other frequently-discriminated groups. Furthermore, the 21st Annual EU NGO Human Rights Forum meeting in December 2019 under the theme of building a fair environmental future had a specific session dedicated to indigenous peoples. Indigenous experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, along with indigenous youth, had prominent speaking roles, allowing them together with the invited indigenous participants to bring forward concerns as possible contributions of indigenous peoples in building a fair environmental future. The afore-mentioned Council Conclusions underscore the crucial importance of further enhancing opportunities for dialogue and consultation with indigenous peoples at all levels of EU cooperation. This includes EU-funded programmes and projects under all aid modalities to secure the full participation of indigenous people; their free, prior, and informed consent in a meaningful and systematic way; and also to inform and underpin EU External Action policy and its implementation worldwide. In follow-up to the Council Conclusions, on 24 and 25 February in Brussels we will host a round table with indigenous peoples' representatives as well as experts from the four indigenous socio-cultural regions of the world. The specific objectives of the round table will be the identification of the most prevalent and emerging threats to indigenous people's rights, and to generate recommendations on how to best address indigenous people's rights through EU policy and action. Mr President, please allow me now to mention briefly some examples of support that we provide in the context of indigenous peoples' languages. In Namibia, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights contributed to the revitalisation of endangered indigenous languages. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, we have also helped develop a multilingual mother-tongue education programme in seven different tribal languages as part of the 500 million the EU invests annually in education programmes in around 60 countries across the world. Such programmes and projects can be seen as the EU's contribution to the success of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages 2020-2029, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in December of last year. Let me assure you and the honourable Members of the EU's strong commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples as part of our human rights policies. As such, we remain firmly committed to their promotion and respect through all aspects of EU external policies, cooperation and trade, as well as through political dialogues with third countries in regional and multilateral lateral fora and by giving financial support. Honourable Members, Mr President, thank you for your attention, and I look forward to our discussion tonight.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their interventions and their suggestions. Of course, we can always do more and we can always do better. And let me reiterate the high importance that the EU attaches to reversing the negative trends that we are currently seeing as regards the enjoyment of human rights by indigenous people. So support for indigenous people's rights will remain high on our agenda. With regard to the issue raised by Ms Santos, business, yes, may indeed have impacts on the rights of indigenous people, and the Commission is ready to consider the issue in the ongoing reflections on the policy related to responsible business conduct. So thank you for your comments. I will make some remarks now on the EU approach on human rights in Brazil within the future EU-Mercosur Agreement. The EU follows closely the situation of human rights in Brazil, particularly human rights defenders, indigenous peoples and all those working to protect land, environment, biodiversity and climate. Indigenous peoples feature prominently also in our comprehensive and sustained contact and cooperation with Brazil, for instance by regular visits by the EU delegation in Brasília, to different regions and indigenous communities, regular visits by the EU Special Representative for Human Rights as well. The last edition of the EU-Brazil dialogue on human rights was on 9 October 2019, and it included a focus on indigenous peoples, human rights defenders, labour standards, businesses and human rights, and children's and women's rights, which already also were mentioned here tonight. And in particular we voiced our concern on the situation of indigenous peoples and human rights defenders. Our offer of cooperation was positively appreciated by the Brazilians, and as a positive follow-up to this dialogue, Brazil invited the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, Mr Gilmore, to visit the country during 2020 as a mid-term review of the joint work carried out in these areas between annual dialogues. The EU-Mercosur Association Agreement would serve as a valuable tool to further promote the protection of human rights and to address environmental issues in Brazil and the region. It includes provisions on human rights, indigenous peoples and cooperation on sustainable development. It will provide for upgraded mechanisms for enhanced political dialogue and cooperation between the two sides of these issues. These include specific mechanisms for EU-Mercosur dialogue and exchanges between parties, including at the level of parliaments and civil societies of both regions. In the trade part, a trade and sustainable development chapter provides for binding commitment to the effective implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements including the Paris Agreement ratified by each of the parties. These will bring reinforced commitments and tools for regular dialogue with our partners.
| EU | null |
Madam President and honourable Members of this Parliament, the European Union and India enjoy a strong bond rooted in the 2004 strategic partnership. It is based on shared values of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, commitment to the rules-based global order, effective multilateralism and sustainable development. The President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission will host the Prime Minister of India for the 15th EU-India summit on 13 March here in Brussels. We have a rich, frank and open dialogue with India on all issues of common interest, as well as on issues where we might have different perspectives. The High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission was in India on 16 and 17 January, where he discussed the preparation for the summit. On this occasion, the Minister for External Affairs and Prime Minister Modi reaffirmed their strong interest for a deepened strategic partnership with the European Union. The issue that you are debating today was also part of the discussions, and the HR/VP enquired about the risk of discrimination among refugees and migrants on religious grounds under the revised legislation. He also drew the attention of his interlocutors to the need to ensure compliance of national legislation with international law. Beyond this point, we believe that it is the role of the Supreme Court of India to assess compliance of the law with the Constitution and we are confident that the ongoing judicial process will contribute to appeasing the tensions and violence witnessed over the past weeks in the country. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your remarks.
| EU | null |
Madam President, India takes in persecuted refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and they're the bad guys? No, they're the good guys. They've taken in the refugees. This motion does not censure any of those three Muslim countries for having created this refugee crisis. The UN Minorities Declaration of 1992 states that minorities can be classified as national, ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural. This act, the CAA, is just focused on persecuted religious minorities seeking refuge in India. Thus, Muslims coming from those three Muslim countries cannot be considered minorities. Muslims do have a right to become Indian citizens by the 1955 act, of course. The CAA allows Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis and Sikhs to become citizens after six years of living in India. These are persecuted religious minorities. There are many things wrong with our motion today, but I'll just give you four: Rohingyas, Tamils, police violence and the National Register of Citizens. Rohingyas are a religious Muslim minority leaving Myanmar for Bangladesh. When they come from Bangladesh to India they become economic migrants because they're coming from a majority Muslim state. Violence and brutality of the police: let me inform you that 57 policemen had bullet wounds in a demonstration in Lucknow. Tamils are an ethnic minority, not a religious minority. The National Register of Citizens is not even mentioned in the CAA. Are we saying that India, or any other country for that matter, is not allowed to document the people living inside its boundaries? The CAA is in front of the Supreme Court and thus should be considered sub judice. The real reason for this motion has come before us: the India-EU summit. Should we not be talking to the Indians rather than criticising them and playing neo-colonial politics. We must have a debate but we must also have a summit.
| EU | null |
Madam President, honourable Members, as we are standing here, sitting here, speaking, waiting for our turn, more than 40 000 migrants are stuck in so-called hot spots on the Greek islands. Most of them are living under conditions that are totally unacceptable. Many of them are children. I can only imagine being a mother in these hot spots, with children, being responsible for children, and living in a tent when it's cold, there's not enough food, with terrible conditions in many aspects, and being responsible for your own children and not being able to actually take responsibility as a mother. Or being a mother in a totally other country knowing that your teenager, your teenage boy, is alone there as unaccompanied minor. These conditions are not acceptable, this we can't stand having in the European Union in 2020. I am probably not the only one who keeps awake at night thinking about these people and the conditions they are living under. But, of course, nobody will be helped by me being awake at night. I'm the Commissioner and I am of course responsible for doing things, and you who are here tonight will probably ask me, quite rightly, what is the Commission doing and what more can we do? The Commission is supporting the Greek authorities with finding shelter for unaccompanied minors on the mainland. We will continue to support Greece and relocate people from the islands to new centres new centres that will meet the minimum European standards for humanitarian intervention. We support the Greek authorities with our European funds. To mention just a few: EUR 50 million from the asylum migration and integration fund that supports up to 2 000 places in shelter for unaccompanied minors on the mainland; EUR 4.2 million for the IOM to create additional safe zones for unaccompanied minors on all the Greek islands; funds for a specific facility for vulnerable applicants called Kara Tepe on Lesbos; specific facilities also exist on Kos and Leros. We will continue to support Greece with our funds. I welcome the appointment that the Greek Government has done to appoint a national coordinator for unaccompanied minors. I think that the Greek Government shows the right emphasis on this very difficult situation, and I welcome that the Greek Government are committed to improve the living conditions for migrants, bringing them to new centres, reforming the asylum system and also starting returning those that are not eligible for international protection. We also think that additional incentives for the employment of doctors in the reception centres and identification centres is important. It is of great urgency to release unaccompanied minors from protective custody and transfer them to safe zones zones that are suitable for long-term accommodation. Is this enough? Apparently not. We need to do more. Yesterday I met with the newly-appointed Greek Migration Minister, Notis Mitarakis. We discussed measures as to how we can help Greece more and what also the Greek Government and the Greek authorities are planning. Yesterday also, the European Asylum Support Office signed an agreement with Greece to double the staff in Greece from EASO. The Commission will continue to show solidarity with Greece. This includes financial support of over EUR 2.2 billion. But the Commission alone cannot do everything. We also need the support from the Member States. We are lacking a common European asylum and migration system. In lack of that, we need voluntary support from other Member States. Greece has asked for the relocation of unaccompanied minors and I strongly support this. I support all solidarity efforts between Member States, especially when it comes to children. I call on Member States to continue to help Greece, to continue voluntary relocations and we, the Commission, will do the financial support. We will continue to work closely with the Greek authorities to help facilitate all voluntary solidarity efforts by other Member States. I call on Member States to speed up the necessary procedures to reunify children with their families as soon as possible. Honourable Members, we talk about migration policy and the migration situation in Europe. It's clear that even though we can see an increase of migrants arriving in Greece and especially at the Greek islands the overall situation is not a crisis. We have seen fewer irregular arrivals in the European Union than for many years. We are not in crisis; we do not have a migration crisis in Europe. But there are at least 40 000 individuals on the Greek islands and they are in crisis. We need to support them and the most effective thing that we must do is to find a common solution that can unite Member States and Parliament in a new pact for migration and asylum. Every week, every month that we are not able to find this new common policy means these people paying too high a price.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I've been listening very carefully, and I understand from your genuine and committed interventions with a lot of feelings that I'm not the only one that sleeps badly at nights while we have a situation with over 40 000 people living under these unacceptable conditions, many of them children and many of them unaccompanied minors, mostly teenagers. We can't continue like this, and I understand that we all agree on this. But as I said earlier, lying awake at night will not help anything. We are politicians, we need to act, and I, as the new Commissioner, have a special responsibility to act, of course. So the Commission will, of course, continue to help and support Greece. We have in the last one and a half years spent EUR 35 million to help unaccompanied minors with hotels, with guardians, and we are doing a lot of things, as I also said in my first intervention. But, as many of you have mentioned, we have been in this situation for many years. And at the same time we have, for many years, been in a politically-stuck situation, unable to take the necessary political decisions for a decent way to manage European migration in an orderly way and to have a decent way for solidarity that shows that we all know that we have different geographical realities. Those Member States that are under pressure for example, these people living on the islands we need to show solidarity towards the migrants but also, of course, to the Greek people, who are now paying also a very high price. Therefore, of course, first continue to support the migrants and especially the Greek Government and the Greek authorities to change these conditions. But I also think it's very urgent to find a political solution so that we can actually come together and find this necessary common migration and asylum policy for the European Union. We can't continue being in a stuck situation. Those who pay the price for this are the people that live under these terrible circumstances on the islands. So there is high pressure on me personally but also on Member States, and I count on your support from Parliament to find these political solutions. Thank you very much for this good debate tonight, and hopefully we can come back to another debate, having more solutions on a decent European way of meeting people that is true to our values, both between Member States and also towards those that are searching for shelter in the European Union.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I am very happy to be back with you again today and to give you a first insight into our reflections on the future of transport and mobility. I would also like to welcome your choice to put sustainability at the centre of this debate, as it perfectly mirrors our common ambitions. As we look to the future, and in line with President von der Leyen's political guidelines, our policy actions will, on the one hand, be guided by the ambition of the European Green Deal to ensure that transport makes its important contribution to climate neutrality by 2050 and, on the other, by a Europe that is fit for the digital age when it comes to harnessing digital technologies to make mobility smart as well as sustainable. The strategy on sustainable and smart mobility will have these two objectives at its heart and will guide us towards a transport sector that is fit for a clean, digital and modern economy. The Commission will adopt the strategy later this year, once we have completed our preparatory work, including the public consultation, and received feedback from the stakeholders. What is certain is that the strategy must include ambitious measures aimed at significantly reducing CO2 and pollutant emissions across all modes. It will exploit digitalisation and automation, enhancing connectivity to the next level, and last but not least it will ensure safety and accessibility. Our comprehensive strategy for sustainable and smart mobility will have to be unprecedented in ambition to achieve a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050. I want to share what I see as the four principles that will guide transport's contribution to the European Green Deal. First: making the transport system as a whole more sustainable, making sustainable alternative solutions available to all citizens and businesses, respecting the polluters-pay principle in all transport mode and, not in the last, fostering connectivity and access to transport for all. Therefore, in the upcoming transport strategy, I am planning to put forward measures in the following four areas of action. First, to boost the uptake of clean vehicles and alternative fuels for road, maritime and aviation. In this regard, we are already looking into specific initiatives to ensure the availability of marine alternative fuels and sustainable aviation fuels, Second, increase the share of more sustainable transport modes, such as rail and inland waterways, and improving efficiency across the whole transport system. Thirdly, incentivising the right consumer choices and low-emissions practices. Fourth, investing in low-and zero-emissions solutions, including infrastructure. On the road to a climate-neutral Europe by 2050, it is essential that sustainable and smart go hand-in-hand. Digitalisation is not simply a means to an end. We must take full advantage of the opportunities presented to us by digitalisation and automation, for instance, by increasing traffic efficiency through artificial intelligence or reducing traffic hazards to a minimum, to name only a few. They are the key to cleaner, simpler, smart and safe mobility across all transport modes. Digitalisation also opens the door to mobility as a service and the seamless combination of transport modes for a single journey, encouraging more people out of private cars and onto shared and more efficient forms of transport. We will, of course, be vigilant and watch out for any impact on jobs and skills. To make this happen, we need accessibility, affordability, connectivity. I am 100% committed to leaving nobody behind as we embark on this green and digital transformation. The Just Transition Mechanism will be key here: it will mobilise EUR 100 billion to address the social and economic effects of the green transition, focusing on the region's industries and workers who will face the greatest challenges. The connectivity provided by transport is fundamental to freedom of movement in the European Union. Safety and security: it should go without saying that, while we must embark on a significant reduction of emissions from transport and harness digital opportunities for the sector, safety and security will continue to come first. Our strategy will incorporate measures for maintaining the highest safety and security standards in the world of transport. When you talk about global leadership, a real market for the green digital solution is emerging, and I want the EU to be a global leader in these areas: from block chain and digital mapping and tracking, to connected and automated vehicles, trains, planes and vessels. To secure our position at global level, we need to take investment in research and innovation very seriously, and we need to work closely with the industry. This are some of my initial remarks on your questions, and of course I am looking forward to your questions and comments.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I say to the House: thank you for this interesting debate and the pertinent comments. I have carefully noted them and am very much encouraged by your interest in the subject. I do recognise what you are saying on all the ideas. We are working on them in the Commission in order to put forward this strategy by the end of the year. All the points are valid. And, as I said at the beginning, for this strategy to be successful we need to have everyone on board. So it needs to be just, and it needs to how create new jobs, it has to be accepted. And this will be part of our thinking. Listening to you all, it also becomes very clear that there are baskets of measures for each mode. There is not merely one solution for everything, and we have to carefully blend and balance several measures in order to achieve smoothly the best possible outcome in the short term. Because people are expecting to see results rather quickly from our work on the sustainability of transport. Many of you stressed the importance of the TEN-T infrastructure. And I can only say that I share this view, where it is needed, because it is incomplete, be it for various modes of cross-border interconnection. We know that we need to do more there in order to help create the missing links, which are not necessarily economically sustainable. And this would be the role of the European Union to add and support the missing links. And why not eliminate the barriers, which are cross-border, in order to make flows easier? The Commission announced or at least I'm telling you that we're are going to revise the TEM-T infrastructure in 2021. Many Members mentioned alternative fuels infrastructure and alternative fuels as such. I think this is also very much in connection with aviation, which was intensely mentioned. We have to keep in mind that both aviation and maritime transport are global businesses. Once more, we need to understand there are baskets of measures, there are technological advances and there are alternative fuels. We need to very carefully look into them and into the market and the volume of this kind of fuels on the market, so that they could have an important uptake. But these are all things we are looking at. A lot of you talked about implementation. Of course it is all for nothing if we adopt legislation which is not implemented in the end. So many countries are very late in implementing important things in regulation. We could mention railway signalling as just one example. Many Members mentioned the fact that there are files which are blocked by the Council. I hope I can assure you that, for example, the single European sky is something I'm trying to lobby for and promote in each meeting I have with any representative of the Member States. We have it on the table and we'd like very much to see it moved forward by the Croatian presidency. This is something I'm insisting on, and I really hope we will have movement here. The same is true with the Eurovignette, we haven't withdrawn the Eurovignette, we are trying to lobby for it in order to benefit from all the good work done. We have to push forward so that the Council will have a general approach hopefully by June. Because the Eurovignette or the single European sky are the kind of things which will make a difference in road transport or improving the efficiency of air traffic. And this will have a concrete impact on sustainability and on the reduction of emissions or on internalising the externalities in road transport. Road safety was mentioned. Of course, road safety has to be at the core of our activity. And what we are going to propose, or work on, is a safe system, which is an integrated approach towards safety in transport. Because, as was mentioned by several people here, there are so many elements which together constitute the environment for safety in transport. All this needs to be taken into account. All the ideas I heard are very good. And the last word would be on the fact that all the industries in connection with transport as such are the backbone of our economy. We need to make it more sustainable and smart, but keep in mind that it is competitive and it has to remain as such. And for this industry as it was mentioned we need measures which are predictable so people will know, investors will know, what it coming so they can plan in advance for 10 or 20 years. I also had some particular questions from Mr Schulze on low-emission zones or the harmonising of vignette systems. This is something we are working on. Because the idea of having low-emission zones is good. Yes it is, but it is true that for people moving around not knowing the system is a deterrent or an obstacle. So what we are looking at is to propose a harmonisation of these systems for urban areas. For the Eurovignette, we have already said that we would like to support the Eurovignette. The question on inland waterways raised by Mr Băsescu: inland waterways need to become the new big thing because I think they are underused. You are absolutely right, because inland waterways together with transport with rail are the most sustainable modes we have. And new progress on inland waterways is needed in terms of sustainability of the ports and the vessels and new intelligent traffic systems. All these are there, we are looking into them. And you are right that the Danube Commission, which is 70 years old or something similar, you know would know better has a different regulation. But I promise you, we are going to look into harmonisation. I think because they are non-EU members it is not easy but it is absolutely needed. So thank you very much for the suggestion. So this would be, honourable Members, in a nutshell, my reaction to your comments. I trust that you will get involved in the work on such a sustainable transport system for the future. And, Madam President, consider this my invitation to you to contribute to this work. So thank you very much and I hope will have new occasions to go more in depth on each of the subjects touched upon this evening.
| EU | null |
Madam President, it's a real pleasure for me to be here today to discuss with you the first Commission work programme under the mandate of President Ursula von der Leyen, which we adopted yesterday. This 2020 Work Programme is important for two reasons. First, because it will not just be the basis of our work for the first year of the mandate but also because it sets the vision, direction and pace for the next five years and beyond. Let's take, for example, the biggest challenge of our generation: the twin ecological and digital transition, which will affect every part of our society and every one of us. Secondly, because it has set in motion the special partnership with the European Parliament. If you allow me, I will start with the second point, which is important both institutionally and politically and very dear to me. The adoption of the 2020 Work Programme was a joint exercise. The contribution of the European Parliament, your contributions at every stage were being taken into consideration. They were already instrumental in defining the political guidelines and now it is in these guidelines that we programme into action. During this period, I have had the chance to discuss many different priority policies with you in different formats. A key institutional step in the process was the meeting between the Conference of Committee Chairs of this House and the Vice-President of the European Commission, which offered very good opportunity for in-depth discussion of our priorities and expectations, and I particularly appreciate the cordial and constructive atmosphere of these debates. The discussion of the Conference of Presidents with President von der Leyen contributed to the fine-tuning of our Commission work programme just on Tuesday before we adopted it yesterday. So I would say that this special partnership clearly demonstrated how important it is, and it will continue all the way and will have to cover the entire policy cycle with this new approach and quality of relationship. If you allow me now, I will turn to the first point, the content of our 2020 Work Programme. This year, we have programmed 43 policy objectives or packages. In these packages, 28 initiatives will be legislative, allowing sufficient time for their adoption and implementation. We have also examined all proposals that are currently awaiting decision by the Parliament and the Council, and after taking the suggestions from your house into account. In this case, we are proposing to withdraw 32 of them. Some of them do not mention the new Commission's political ambitions; for others we will reflect on more efficient ways to fulfil the objectives, in consultations with this House and the Council. Finally, under the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme REFIT, we identified 44 significant pieces of legislation proposed for re-evaluation or revision. We have already presented to you the European Green Deal communication, our new growth strategy and the European Green Deal Investment Plan as well as the Just Transition mechanism to support territories most affected by energy transition. The next big step is the Climate Law, which will propose a binding climate-neutrality target for the EU in 2050. We will conduct an impact assessment until summer. The aim is to be ready for the Glasgow Conference of the Parties 26, scheduled for the end of October. We will soon propose the 2030 biodiversity strategy to preserve and protect the natural environment and set out our ambition for the negotiations at the coming conference as well as the 'farm to fork' strategy, the new EU forest strategy and a comprehensive strategy for sustainable and smart mobility. The European Climate Bank will help bring together all these efforts, involving regions, local communities, civil societies, schools, industry and individuals. We adopted yesterday our 5G communication, and will soon present a new European data strategy and a White Paper on artificial intelligence. We need to protect fundamental rights, but we want our industry to work with artificial intelligence and innovate. Soon, the digital services act will reinforce the single market for digital services and help provide smaller businesses with legal clarity and a level playing field by updating the legal framework, including by updating the corporate tax system. On this, the Commission will push for a global solution, but if this won't be possible, we will aim for a European one. In parallel, we will present a new skills strategy. As regards our economy, we prioritise social fairness at the heart of the twin transitions, the green and digital ones, and as a part of this, we will refocus all our policies, including the European Semester, by incorporating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In consultation with social partners and all the relevant stakeholders, we are working on an initiative to guarantee fair minimum wages for workers in the EU while respecting the specific situations of each Member State. The Commission will also review that economic governance framework and provide an overview on how fiscal rules have worked in recent years. The review will launch a broad consultation with Member States and other stakeholders to explore ways to improve the economic governance framework of the European Union. We will soon adopt an action plan to deepen the capital markets union, focusing on tackling regulatory barriers in existing legislation and structural barriers, and making sure that SMEs have access to finance, and this would become part of our wider SME strategy. The completion of the Banking Union, a strong and credible framework for preventing and fighting money laundering, the Unemployment Reinsurance Scheme and the European Youth Guarantee remain our priorities as well. To make the geopolitical Commission a reality, we will invest in alliances and coalitions to advance our values, promote and protect Europe's interests through open and fair trade. We will step up our engagement with the Western Balkans and we will also design a new eastern partnership strategy. As you know, we will soon launch a comprehensive strategy with Africa as a basis for our mutual partnership. The EU's external policy should effectively address issues related to democracy and good governance, climate change, migration and human rights. In this perspective, it is equally essential to reinforce the rules-based multilateral order and as a part of this, the Commission will put forward proposals to update and reform the WTO. We will present in spring our new impact on migration and asylum, which will be a comprehensive approach covering all aspects of migration, also addressing border security and ensuring more coherence between our internal and external policy. Under the same headline ambition of promoting our European way of life, we will present an action plan on integration and inclusion. We will also present a new security union strategy addressing both the digital and physical aspect of security as these are two sides of the same coin. Another of our flagship initiatives will be Europe's beating cancer plan to support Member States in their efforts to improve cancer prevention and care. I will also refer to the joint exercise of the three institutions and in close cooperation with national parliaments and our partners to organise a conference on the future of Europe. We are in the process of building the scope and the structure. By the end of 2020, we will present the European democracy action plan to address disinformation, political campaigning, free and independent media, and freedom of speech. With regard to fundamental rights, technology needs to serve the people, not the other way around. Therefore, the Commission will update the Charter of Fundamental Rights to address emerging issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. Last but not least, on the rule of law, the Commission will intensify its preventive work, for example, with its first rule of law report, which will assess the situation in all Member States. This report will have a sound methodology and form the basis for future work on the rule of law. We are also already working on embedding strategic foresight across all Commission policies by using all data at our disposal as regards the long-term trends and major shifts on the horizon to be able to design future-proof policies. To this end, I have already established a strategic foresight network within the European Commission and I am fine-tuning together with EU Member States and partners our coordination on this. I count a lot on cooperation with you. The European Parliament, as I already found out, has a wealth of data and intelligence in all its committees. This was a very quick overview of the initiatives included in our 2020 Work Programme. It took me a little bit more than 10 minutes, but I wanted to demonstrate to you that we are really delivering on what we promised to you: an ambitious yet realistic agenda of our shared priorities for the first year of this Commission. The future partnership with the UK will, of course, be one of our main challenges for the next months and years, and I was here yesterday with you on the emotional farewell to our British colleagues, but this was the case during the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement. We want to reassure you that we have committed to the maximum level of transparency as regards the negotiation process towards the European Parliament. Together with my colleagues in the Commission, we are looking forward to working together on our special partnership of trust and turning our agenda into concrete actions. We first have to join forces to ensure an appropriate, modern long-term budget that rises to our common challenges and from now on, we will all have to intensify the work on legislative decision-making with a view to delivering our priorities. The joint declaration on legislative priorities that will follow will serve as a concrete roadmap for our joint work, truly engaging all three institutions, and this will be followed by our first ever multi-annual programming that should capture our Common Strategic Agenda for Europe. Thank you very much, Madam President, and I'm looking forward to the intervention of the honourable Members of this House.
| EU | null |
Madam President, this week is indeed a traumatic one for the European Union. It's a dramatic event that a Member State would leave, and it's an immensely sad one as well. But I refuse to accept this historic mistake as the end. It will neither it put an end to the friendship between the people of Great Britain and on the European continent, nor will we give up hope that the UK will return home at some point here where it belongs, to the European family. But while this week is a very sad moment, it's not a moment at all that brings us closer to any end of the EU, for example, as some who brought about Brexit might have wanted it to: quite the opposite. If we didn't have the EU already, it would now be the perfect moment to invent it, and the Europeans have come together because there are problems that you can only solve together and because together they are stronger in whatever challenge appears in the world. And there are plenty of challenges today, and we need to address them together. And that's why it's so important this week also to discuss the work programme. This work programme will be the chance to prove what we are worth. Commissioner, you mentioned in your speech the climate crisis, which is indeed a huge challenge that every state and every continent is affected by, and it's high time for urgent action. We're very happy that this Commission puts an emphasis on initiatives tackling the climate crisis as well as the dramatic loss of biodiversity on our planet. It is, of course, way too early to say if they're going to be sufficient; that will depend on the details of your proposals. But also it will depend on whether a majority of this House will support ambitious climate legislation, not to mention the Member States as well, which we need to have on board. Therefore, it will depend on all of us how much climate action the EU will undertake and how much the EU will contribute to the global efforts to save the planet after having contributed actually, a lot to its destruction in the past. The Commission is also the guardian of the Treaties, and you mentioned some action in that regard to make sure that Member States don't deviate from the rule of law, and it is time to put our common commitment into action. This year will show which way the Commission is heading, and we need courageous steps forward into a new European Union.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I am so honoured to be able to speak to you this morning on behalf of the people of Scotland. I thank you for the warmth of your welcome over the last four weeks and I am so pleased to have settled status for four days as an MEP. I wish with all my heart that we could continue to have the conversations we have started with you about the Green Deal, sustainable food and farming, a just transition, pesticide, reforming the common agricultural policy , but for now, we can't. But I know you will do these discussions justice. My plea today is for you to remember Scotland in your work programme. Just imagine how difficult it is for a country like Scotland, which has pledged its allegiance to the European Union on no less than three occasions, to be taken out against our will and without our consent. We do not live in a United Kingdom; we live in a disunited Kingdom, and Brexit is not the settled will of the Scottish people, but we are resilient and we have long memories. We have shared a long history with you in Europe, both before our current union with England and hopefully in the future. Tomorrow, the Scottish Government will publish the strategic priorities for Scotland in the EU. We know our best future is with you, and when the people of Scotland have to choose between two unions, they are deciding to choose the European Union.
| EU | null |
Madam President, after the historic vote yesterday, colleague Terry Reintke asked this Parliament to sing Auld Lang Syne. The people of Europe are our friends: they always have been and they always will be. We have no quarrel with the people of this incredible continent, but merely the political structures and the institutions to which we say good-bye tomorrow. We don't forget old acquaintances, but we sing Auld Lang Syne on New Year's Eve for a different reason. We remember the old year but we also look forward to the new. We don't lose our old friends but we forge new relationships and make new resolutions for the future. In the coming months there will be intense negotiations, and they will dominate the Commission's work programme to a great extent. This will be, unfortunately, the last time I speak in this place, and I bid you all a fond farewell. However much we may have disagreed on issues, I bear no malice towards any of you. There's so much I could say but so little time in which to say it. So I'll mention only one thing that's so close to my heart. I ask, in the spirit of cooperation, one simple thing of the Commission and the British Government, which is of vital importance to me: please do not use the fishermen of the UK and of the European Union as a bargaining chip, or the vast number of people employed in processing once those fish have been landed. Please do not sell out our fishermen. They have endured so much for all the last 40 years. Please do not put them through any more suffering. So we say farewell to political union but hello to a new Britain, which will always be close allies to our new European neighbours. May our new relationship be everything it should be. Let us now work together to build that new harmonious relationship.
| EU | null |
Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, thank you very much for this very rich debate, for all your interventions and I'm glad that I can say that also this discussion has reconfirmed that our work programme reflects our common priorities. I really would like to thank you for all the words of encouragement, for pointing out certain details upon which we have to work even more and also on some of the things that you believe that are missing in the programme and upon which we will do our utmost to work together. I think that the motive with which our President presented her new Commission is that this would be the geopolitical Commission, which would strive for more, and I believe that with your help, with your support, we can really achieve that. I would like to echo the words of Ms Niebler and Mr Marques, who said that to have an ambitious programme is a very good thing, but what would be even more important now is its proper implementation. I found an echo of this call in many of your interventions and I really would like to tell you that we take it very seriously and we hope that with the close cooperation with co-legislators, with you and the Council, we can deliver on this programme. Ms Keller made a very emotional reference to yesterday's discussion and we've all been here and I think that the emotions and the farewell bids to our British friends is still with us. Therefore, I think that her question on how to respond to the challenge of yesterday is clearly that we have to build an even better Europe, which would be more efficient, more competitive, greener, closer to the citizens. I believe that starting the constructive work on this joint ambitious programme would be the right first step forward to meet these ambitions. To my compatriots, Ms Ďuriš Nicholsonová, who was highlighting the challenges around minimum wage setting, I would like to underline once again that what we are going to propose is to set a framework for minimum wage setting and that we are going to consult widely with the social partners, with our Member States, and we would respect, one hundred percent, the national tradition and collective bargaining, but we believe that everyone in the European Union deserves a fair wage and that we have to be socially just if it comes to this very basic human right, which is so important for Europeans on our continent. On the infringement case against Austria, it's ongoing. We are currently studying the response of Austria to our reasoned opinion and we will inform this Parliament accordingly once this study is completed. Ms Aubry made reference to the carbon adjustment mechanism. I would like to reassure her that it's already in our Commission's Work Programme for 2021. As I'm sure many of you know, this is a rather complex task. It would require a lot of preparation, a proper mechanism and we have to be ready for quite intense international debate on this issue. We would like to see countries like China and many others who have an emissions-trading system as ambitious as we have, but if this would not be the case, we simply would have to consider a mechanism like carbon adjustment to make sure that we have a level playing field and that we would motivate also other big economies to make sure that they would work on lowering their carbon footprint for their economy and for their products. Many of you insisted on the importance of the rule of law and I cannot agree with you more. I think that it's quite clear that this Commission is really committed to ensuring respect for the rule of law equally in all Member States. Ms de Sutter, I also would like to assure you on one very important fact that the Commission will also ensure full respect and I would like to underline both words of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in addressing emerging issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. In the context of the statement of Mr Azmani, thank you very much for your intervention. Among other and different constructive observations, you also referred to anti-Semitism, which again, we were debating yesterday and witnessing very emotional testimony of Holocaust survivors, and I am sure that I do not need to say how much I agree with you and how important this would be for the work of the European Commission. Mr Garicano was referring to the Work Programme and to the fact that, with the UK leaving, a lot of the universities which have been part of the European Union educational area are going as well. But I also would like to assure him that we are looking for ways to maintain good contacts with our British friends within the framework of Erasmus, within the framework of research programmes. But on top of that, we want to make sure that the European education area becomes a reality by 2025, and we will work with equal intensity on our skills agenda, where we are going to present our programme and proposal already this year. To Ms Hayer, I would like to reassure you that, for us, the impact assessment is a very important one. I'm responsible for that and there will be no important legislative proposals without a proper impact assessment being done because we know that the impact assessment offers very often the best answers to the proper argumentation and the debates we would have, especially with those who are opposing our proposals. To make sure that we will respect full transparency, we are going to establish the interinstitutional evidence register by the end of this year just to make sure that we will share this information with all of you. When it comes to the issue of poverty, which was raised by several colleagues, we are going to address it through the social roadmap, through the framework for minimum wage setting, as I said, and we are going to work on the children guarantee, which several of you referred to as a very important measure. I hope that with your help and with proper funding, we will restart a renovation wave across the European Union. This would not only help us to tackle greenhouse gas emissions but increase the quality of life, especially for all those who are living in social housing, and that through this measure, thanks to energy efficiency, we would reduce the bills they have to pay electricity at the end of every month for heating, cooling or simply using. To Mr Belka, I would like to say that we are very serious about tax evasion and we will be working very closely with our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners and, if there will be a deal within the OECD, we will do all necessary and take all necessary steps to implement it. However, I also would like to assure you that in the absence of such agreement on the global level by 2020, the EU shall act alone. We just simply will not have more patience to wait for the continuation of avoiding paying proper taxes on the European territories. I know, Mr President, that time is limited, but to Ms Fritzon I would like to say that we will consult very thoroughly with the social partners and respect all prerogatives of this social dialogue because this is how we know we will get the best results. On enlargement, I think that we have been very clear on making sure that we will come with a new methodology. We will have a very important summit in Zagreb, organised thanks to the Croatian Presidency, where we want to bring a new impetus, new energy into this process and our commitment to Northern Macedonia and Albania is very clear, and that's a priority for this European Commission. On the transition fund and the multiannual financial framework , to conclude, Mr President, that was the point made by Ms Bonafè, by Mr Hajšel and many others, I want to assure you that when you are talking about EUR 7.5 billion for the Just Transition Fund, we are talking about fresh money. This is how the European Commission presented its proposal. It's on top of the MFF proposals which you already tabled and with which you are so familiar and for which the Commission is ready to battle with the Council to make sure that we have proper financing for all the ambitious items which we have in our programme. Of course, it would be on all of us to make sure that we would use the Just Transition money where it's most needed, for the people who need to be retrained, where we need to find new jobs for coal miners, for the people working in energy-intensive industries, to make sure that this transition is fair and that nobody is left behind, whether a person or a city, or a region. I cannot agree more with all of you who've been highlighting the importance of an ambitious multiannual financial perspective. Mr Olbrycht, Ms Dalli, Mr López Aguilar, Ms Niebler, all of you have been referring to the importance to have a proper multiannual financial perspective. As you know, we will have an extraordinary summit where this would be the item on the agenda, so let's hope and let's make strong arguments towards our heads of state and government that we need an agreement, we need it very soon because every month that we are late with the MFF, we are already putting our programmes in serious danger. Once again, Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for all your points. I'm sure that now in the way of structured dialogues with your committees, you will have even more chance to debate all the programmes and all the items in greater detail, and we are very much looking forward to it.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I also think that the topic we are going to discuss now is just clear testimony to the fact that climate change is real, and its impacts are sometimes too real, too dramatic and too devastating. Extreme weather events are happening more and more frequently and with greater intensity. Drought and forest fires are no longer confined to the Mediterranean, tropical hurricanes travel up to the coast of Ireland and heavy rain and flash floods occur across the whole of Europe. The recent flooding disaster in Spain caused by Storm Gloria is yet another example. Our thoughts are with the people of Spain suffering from this new disaster. In particular, our deepest condolences go to all those who lost loved ones. Europe stands with the people of Spain. We have a tool to provide assistance once serious natural disasters have occurred. The EU Solidarity Fund intervenes to assist the population with the recovery of essential infrastructure, with cleaning-up operations and with the safeguarding of the cultural heritage. However, the Solidarity Fund is no emergency instrument and it takes some time to mobilise it. Most importantly, the European Parliament and the Council must approve the activation of the Fund and the budget resources once the Commission has assessed the application from the Member State. Once immediate assistance to the population in response to the disaster is under control, the Spanish authorities should assess the damage caused to see whether it succeeds the relevant threshold of 1.5 percentage points of the regional GDP. This is the essential condition for a successful Solidarity Fund application. The Spanish authorities are well familiar with the conditions and procedures of the fund, but of course, the Commission services stand ready to provide further guidance and assistance as required. We are currently in the process of assessing an earlier Spanish application received in November, which includes the autonomous region of Valencia, Murcia, Castilla-La Mancha and Andalusia for the severe weather last September. Spain provided an important information update on this disaster only this week, and an advance payment of EUR 5.7 million is on its way, but in the future, we know that we must be prepared to do more. What happened in Spain is, unfortunately, a foretaste of what is to come as a climate change continues. The EU Solidarity Fund brings welcome support after disasters have happened, but we must be more proactive. This is why in recent years, the Commissioner has been putting an increasing focus on prevention, climate adaptation and the risk management policies. For cohesion policy, disaster risk management is vital because local and regional authorities are the first to face the impacts of disasters because it is a cost-effective investment in preventing future losses and also because it contributes to sustainable development. In this period, 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy is investing almost EUR 8 billion in climate change adaptation and risk prevention. This includes a broad array of support. Floods are the main risk addressed, followed by coastal erosions, forest fires, earthquakes and droughts. Prevention is the main focus of our investment. Actions to improve the modelling of risk, early-warning systems, preparation of strategies and guidelines, awareness raising, grey or green infrastructure for flood protection, sustainable land and forest management, et cetera. In this period, we have also seen a large focus on green infrastructure to manage risk, like flood plains and green urban spaces. The Commission also provides guidelines and it encourages Member States to compile national risk assessments, which are an essential and necessary tool to fight the impact of floods. Besides prevention, we also focus on preparedness with support for equipment, infrastructure and training for civil protection units. European money also supports the development and improvement of the EU early-warning and information systems. Fed by a network of sensors and satellites, they provide reliable information about the development of extreme meteorological events, improving the prediction of the impact of events such as floods. These systems also enable the emergency-response community to monitor and share reliable information, to prepare to respond and to better coordinate response efforts. Finally, we offer flexibility in our cohesion programmes. Programme amendments can be proposed and then swiftly agreed to shift resources towards areas that are most at need, so if changes need to be made, we can still do this within this funding period. The Commission's proposals for cohesion policy after 2020 include disaster risk management and climate adaptation as specific objectives. Prevention and preparedness measures include infrastructure, equipment shelters, development of early-warning systems and training for civil protection units. Where appropriate, these measures cross borders.
| EU | null |
Mr President, it's a pleasure to respond to the very emotional interventions of our honourable Members especially from Spain on the disaster caused by Storm Gloria in front of a full House because I think that this disaster clearly gives us another example that climate change can no longer be ignored because it has become a real climate emergency. Therefore, I absolutely agree with Ms Montserrat, who said that we must act quickly, with flexibility and the necessary speed. I would like to assure you, Mr President and honourable Members, that the new Commission has geared its political objective and the Work Programme to meet this challenge head-on in the years to come. I would also like to underline that I very well understand the point made by Ms Maestre Martín De Almagro that, if it comes to the size and the scope of such a disaster imposed on the local economy, we fully understand the dramatic consequences. I would like to thank Mr González Pons for making a very plastic picture how not one, not two, but a series of financial disasters can really devastate the whole region. At this point, I would like to reassure all of you that the Commission is committed to helping Spain and other Member States if they are affected by natural disasters in every way possible. The only thing I would like to make clear here, as well, is that we all have to act much more swiftly because you know that the rules which have been approved by you require that first the application comes as quickly as possible so we can act very quickly in the Commission and mobilise the necessary funds. I want to reassure you that we would not delay it by one day: once we get the application, we act very quickly but, unfortunately, the mobilisation takes time because it needs approval of the European Parliament and also the Council. Therefore, we just mobilised the advance payments for the DANA disaster and we are waiting for the application which will be presented by Spanish authorities for the Gloria disaster. At the same time, I would also like to highlight the fact that the Solidarity Fund is not the instrument that we have at our disposal. The CAP and Structural Funds could be used to alleviate the pressures caused by such a natural disaster. Maybe in the future, it would be one topic to debate: what can we do together to make sure that the Solidarity Fund could be mobilised much faster? And what other instruments can we use to help the people in such distress caused by the disasters, which unfortunately, we'll probably see more often because of the climate emergency?
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to thank you and the Members for the opportunity to present here the communication that we adopted exactly five days ago. In this way, the European Parliament will trigger the debate on our six- and two-pack reforms and, in general, our economic governance rules. I think that the targets of this debate are very clear. We have, on the one side, to preserve our stability and nobody should discuss this. On the other side, we have to relaunch our growth and nobody should ignore this. The Commission's Communication gives a clear and honest assessment on the functioning of these rules in the last ten years. The rules were created as a response to a deep economic and financial crisis and, after ten years, I think we can give a clear picture of how these rules have been functioning. I think we had good results, first of all, in better coordination of fiscal policies, both on timing and on their content, among Member States, through the Semester and the whole surveillance process. Second, we were able to reduce our deficit-to-GDP ratio. I remember that in 2011, only three countries were respecting the rules on deficit-to-GDP. In the last assessment, not a single country was not respecting these rules. Third, I should say that all Member States that received financial assistance were able to return to the market, with enormous difficulties from a social point of view, but they have, at least, returned to the market. After good results, we have also had mixed results in our ten years' functioning. First of all, I would say, on the reduction of debt, yes, debt was reduced from an average of 90% to an average of 80%, and this could be a satisfactory level if we consider other global economic players. The United States has 115% debt and Japan has 240% debt. But we know that, in this average reduction, we were not able to reduce high debt in several countries, so the discussion is still open. There were also mixed results because of the complexity of these rules. Complexity could also be an intelligent way to deal with problems but, if complexity is too complicated, in the end, it reduces ownership and confidence from Member States and stakeholders towards our rules. Finally, we had clear shortcomings, first of all, because we were reducing our public investments. Our public investments are not yet at the level they were 20 years ago. Second, because we were not able to reduce surpluses in countries with a high level of surpluses, and, third, because, in general, we had pro-cyclical fiscal policies during this period and monetary policy is now at its lower bound. If we are not able to have anti-cyclical policies, this creates constraints in our general economic situation. So, good results, mixed results and shortcomings. What next? I think we live in a very different economic world from the one from ten years ago. We were able to overcome the deep crisis and we had several years of stable growth in all Member States. We have now been in a period of slower growth for a couple of years. The picture for the next months, and perhaps a few years, is characterised by uncertainty, uncertainty for internal reasons I think we all saw the bad results in the last quarter of last year in some important European economies and uncertainty due to external factors: trade relations that are not solved, Brexit, which is an open debate, and the consequences of the coronavirus. It is obviously too early to assess them, but for sure they contribute to this uncertainty. In these uncertain times, I think we need a framework capable of avoiding what economists call a 'low for long' situation: a long situation of low growth, low inflation, low interest rate. This could be inconsistent with the strategy that we have in the green transition and in the digital transition. For this reason, the debate we are opening is very important, and we will define the scope and the conclusions of this debate during the next months in this process. In conclusion, I would particularly underline two key words. One is 'investments'. We have to find ways to facilitate investments, especially those connected to the strategy of the Green Deal, which President von der Leyen rightly calls our new growth strategy. Second is 'simplification'. To promote simplification of these rules is also to promote their ownership. I think that to facilitate investment and make our rules simpler is something that should not divide our discussion into different camps, but is something on which we should work together to find a solution.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to thank you all the members of the Parliament very much for their interventions. I think this is just the beginning of a debate that will have in the next five or six months. If I want to find common views in this discussion, I understand that at least on three general things there is agreement. First, that this rule should be reviewed. Second, that we should change the fact that they are too procyclical. And third, that we should try to make them less complex. This is a limited base, but it is a base of bridging differences. We have to avoid the idea of the fact that we have two different ideological positions pro-stability against pro-growth paralysing all the chance that we have to review our rules in the right direction. I think that the Parliament can give a strong contribution to bridge these ideological differences. There are strong differences that I perfectly understand, but if we are working on reducing complexity, fighting against procyclicality and changing these rules, I think we will work in the right direction. My last point is this: is all this exercise connected to the main defining objective that the new Commission with the Parliament decided, which is the green transition? My answer is definitely 'yes', because it's very difficult to understand how we will be able to lead this transition without having a strong commitment from the point of view of public investment. This is the reason why I think there is a connection between our targets on the green transition and the review of our economic governance. So thank you again, and I think this is a first step in a discussion that we will continue with the Parliament, with the committees in the next weeks and months.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I thank the European Parliament for adding this very important issue to the agenda of the plenary immediately after the adoption of the Commission proposal on the revised enlargement methodology. This is a good opportunity here to present our idea, how to enhance the accession process and how to give a credible EU perspective for the Western Balkans. Let me emphasise that for our geopolitical Commission, the full engagement with our neighbours is a top priority. Europe needs to have a strong united voice in the world and it needs to play its geopolitical role to the fore, especially when it comes to its neighbourhood. This is especially valid where we must engage strongly in pursuit of peace, stability and prosperity. This is in our own interest. It is also a question of credibility. The priority of this Commission is to accelerate progress in the Western Balkans, keeping a credible perspective for future accession. Therefore, we are working on three tracks. The first of these is the communication on the revised enlargement methodology, which I will outline for you in more detail shortly. The second track is opening discussion negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania, before the Western Balkans summit in Zagreb. Ahead of the Zagreb Summit, we will complete the picture with the third track by presenting a major economic and investment development plan for the region. The objective will be to speed up the building of a solid and resilient economy and bring these countries faster and closer to our own standards. When it comes to the first track, the revised enlargement methodology is based on four main principles, four principles that should work both for the accession countries and also for our own Member States. First, the process has to be more credible. Countries need to deliver on the reforms they promised, and the EU needs to deliver when they do so. To help credibility, you will see an ever-stronger focus on the fundamental freedoms and reforms, as this is the core for real transformation. This means the rule of law, but also functioning of democratic institutions, public administration reform and economic criteria. The second principle is about putting the political nature of the process front and centre. We intend to ensure top-level engagement with the candidate countries through regular EU-Western Balkans summits and ministerial meetings. We want to involve Member States more strongly and give them better opportunities to monitor and review the process, to support and keep track of the fundamental reforms needed. The third principle addresses the need to make the whole process more dynamic, with a stronger focus on core sectors. Clustering chapters by policy fields will allow for more thorough political discussions on thematic areas. It will also allow us to identify opportunities for early alignment and involvement in EU policies, such as our digital agenda or our trans-European networks in transport and energy. I also want to highlight that when important reforms have been implemented already before the opening, then the timeframe between opening the cluster and closing individual chapters should be limited, preferably within a year, fully dependent on the progress of the reforms. This is an important political offer from our side to the whole region. If they deliver, we will also be ready to deliver. The cluster on fundamentals, rule of law, economic criteria and public administration reform will of course take a central role. It will be the first chapter to be opened and it will be the last to be closed. And sufficient progress will be needed in these areas before other clusters can be closed. The fourth principle is about making the process more predictable for both sides. This will mean ensuring that candidate countries have greater clarity on the conditions they need to meet and what is the positive impact when there is progress, and what are the negative consequences in case of non-delivery. We need clear and tangible incentives to encourage reforms. If countries move on agreed reform priorities sufficiently, citizens should see the benefits of accelerated integration and phasing into EU policies, markets and programmes, combined with increased funding and investments. At the same time, Member States need to be confident that there is reversibility and corrective measures will be taken where reforms go off track. This will be done through more decisive measures, sanctioning and serious or prolonged stagnation or backsliding. Finally, I have to reiterate that while we are strengthening and improving the process, the goal remains the same: accession and full EU membership. In parallel to this, as the second strand, the Commission stands by the recommendations to open accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania, and we hope that these can be opened before the Western Balkans summit in Zagreb. Both countries have delivered on what they were asked. During my recent visit to Skopje and Tirana I underlined the importance of reforms and called for their implementation to continue. Both countries have engaged in further reform efforts. At the same time, to be a credible partner, the EU needs to deliver on its promises as well. The Commission will give detailed information on the progress made by these two countries still in February, in order to prepare the ground for the Council for the decision. We are convinced that any further postponement would entail a strong risk, undermining the stability of the entire region. We would also risk further manipulation by third country actors and others offering false alternative narratives. Finally, on the third track, these substantially transformative reforms that the Western Balkan countries need to carry out can be best supported by solid and accelerated economic growth and developing functioning market economies. Therefore, as input to the Zagreb Summit, the Commission would propose a new economic-based policy approach as the cornerstone of a forward-looking agenda for the region. Our objective is to intensify our presence in the Western Balkans, to increase investment and to help to close the economic development gap between us. We have to look at what concrete measures we can take to bring forward investments in the Western Balkans, to enhance access to the EU single market, create jobs and entrepreneur opportunities, improve the business and the investment climate and stop the brain drain from the region. As you can see, this is an ambitious agenda for the region. We will need the very strong political support of this House to deliver it. We collectively have to regain trust and credibility. This means we have to treat our Western Balkans partners more and more as future Member States, which is our commonly agreed destiny. This is for the benefit of the European Union as a whole.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Várhelyi on the document presented and the efforts invested. The new methodologies were set only three months after the European Council meeting at which two Western Balkans countries were denied the possibility of starting negotiations. This demonstrates how European Union institutions can still respond at times of crisis. It goes without saying that the primacy of democracy and the rule of law should be placed at the very centre of the enlargement process by opening first and closing last chapters related to the judiciary, corruption and organised crime, as well as respect for human rights and media freedom. I agree that the new approach introduces some better elements. Above all, it allows negotiating countries to use European Union programmes before accession, such as the Trans-European Transport Network or the European Green Deal. In essence, the new approach does not differ much in substance from the existing negotiation framework, which became more complex with every new enlargement. It's also welcome that negotiating countries can already decide for themselves whether they want to negotiate according to the new methodology or not. For example, Montenegro has been negotiating for eight years, and only one chapter remains to be opened. Member States are invited to participate more systematically in the accession process then has previously been the case. That's why I hope this document will convince more sceptical Members to open negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania, hopefully at the March Council meeting. It's clear that the decision to postpone the opening of negotiations directly called into question reform processes in these countries, which have been required for years. That was directly denying support for those who implemented them. The new methodology offers a sustainable model, in that it is now up to Member States to deliver on their promises and thus to restore credibility to the enlargement process as such.
| EU | null |
Madam President, this time I want to start from the end of my speech, Mr Commissioner, from the failure of last October's Council. In my opinion, we cannot afford another failure in March. I am in agreement with you when you say that we have to learn our lesson and not promise something that we cannot deliver. But today, we have to see how we can go forward together and deliver on the European aspirations of the people of the Western Balkans, and I hope this time we will not see any last-minute surprises. It is too early to come to a general conclusion on how the new methodology will work, but in order to enhance the effectiveness of the accession process, it should provide dynamism rather than complicating the enlargement process and this must mean a stronger focus on fundamental reforms, the organisation of the chapters in thematic clusters and clear conditionality. I am very much in favour of this new process, but I do not want to see this new idea turn into a new condition that will again leave the region in the backyard of the EU for a long time. This is what we have tried to propose in our political group. We recently adopted the Renew Europe policy paper on the Western Balkans, which is based on our values and understanding of enlargement. We want the citizens and the societies of the candidate countries to be more closely associated with and benefit from the accession process. We want to integrate our partners there at an earlier stage in key policies, like the Green Deal, digital policies and connectivity, and to give them the chance to reform and benefit long before actual accession. The European perspective is a strong driving force for the reforms of the region. Realising that our group has always pursued a clear and consistent enlargement policy, we believe that reforms related to the EU should go hand in hand with the enlargement process. We need to reform the European Union not because of the Western Balkan countries, but because of the European Union itself.
| EU | null |
Madam President, first of all, I thank this House for the debate. I also thank this House for the renewed commitment to the Western Balkans. This is a very important sign that we need to send to the region. It is also clear from the debate that you all want a credible perspective for the Western Balkans to become EU Member States. This is also a very important political message that we are able to deliver today already. I received several questions on the new methodology itself, but also on how it is linked to the possible opening of accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. First of all, of course, new methodologies are proposed to make way to opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. Therefore, this is as I have said part of a bigger strategy in which the second element is actually to deliver opening the accession negotiations. When we were designing the whole structure of the new methodology, we were very clear that there are no new conditions. This is a question that I received from many of you. We're still working with the Copenhagen criteria and those are unchanged. They are unchanged, but they are going to be enforced better, more inclusively and more effectively through the better participation not only of our Member States, but also of our public. This continues to be a merit-based process. This is what I have been describing to you, meaning that if there is delivery, there is going to have to be a delivery on our side. However, it also means that if there is backsliding, we would have to take steps in terms of going back to the whole process. The idea of the whole methodology is to tackle the substance much better, much more effectively, and in a more transparent manner. I also received a question on how it is possible to start accession negotiations the Member is no longer here with countries that have high unemployment. Well, this is exactly why we have the third element of the strategy, which is the Zagreb package the economic development package. We would want to create growth and jobs locally so that people can get jobs and create strong resilient economies for the whole region.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection formulated a couple of questions regarding automated decision-making processes in anticipation of the European Commission's initiatives on artificial intelligence , which will be presented in Parliament next week. For our committee, it is of utmost importance that in any future initiative on the matter, we do guarantee not only the free movement of AI-enabled goods and services, but also the trust of the consumer in these new goods and services because the applications are numerous and encompass virtually all sectors of the internal market. We are witnessing rapid development of AI technology. Consumers are being confronted on a daily basis with systems that use automated decision making, such as virtual assistance and chat-bots on websites, and as is the case with all technological advancements, this provides us with opportunities as well as challenges. AI and automated decision making offers great potential in terms of innovative and higher quality products and services, but at the same time, various challenges need to be addressed in order to realise this potential. First and foremost, services and goods using AI and automated decision making create the risk of consumers being misled or discriminated against, for example, in relation to differentiated pricing. Will consumers be aware of the fact that the price displayed on their screen was adapted to their estimated purchasing power? The same goes for professional services. If important decisions are automated and thus carried out without sufficient human oversight by highly skilled professionals, are consumers aware that decisions affecting their professional, financial or personal lives are in fact not made by humans, and if they feel wronged, will they be able to demand a human review? Will a human, ultimately, be responsible for final decisions or will they be able to reverse them? So my first question to you is: how is the Commission planning to ensure that consumers are protected from unfair or discriminatory commercial practices or from potential risks entailed by AI-driven professional services? Secondly, we risk that the existing EU product safety and liability frameworks do not adequately cover new AI-enabled products and services. Do concepts such as defective products and the legal provisions built around these adequately cover situations in which harm is caused by products operating under automated decision making? As is the case with other products and services, we should ensure that businesses and consumers are protected from harm and receive compensation if it occurs. This is important in order to ensure secured free movement throughout the single market. Therefore, our second question is: what initiatives may we expect from the Commission side to ensure that the EU safety and liability frameworks are fit for purpose? In that respect, we should ensure that market-surveillance authorities and other competent authorities possess adequate means and powers to act. This is especially important when competent authorities, businesses and consumers do not have access to clear information on how the decision was taken. How will the Commission ensure greater transparency in this respect? Lastly, talking about biased or unlawfully obtained data sets, the IMCO Committee stresses the importance of respecting regulations such as GDPR when it comes to the collection of data, but also looking at non-personal data use, barriers and requirements. This is something we can and should address at this stage of the design. We should build in these safeguards privacy by design. So I want to ask: how is the Commission planning to ensure that only high quality and unbiased data set are used in automated decision-making processes? Dear Commissioner, as I said at the beginning, AI offers great potential in many aspects of our daily lives and many fields of the internal market, yet it confronts us with many new and unknown risks. We should address these risks in an adequate and timely manner because the trust of the consumer will be crucial for the acceptance of these new technologies in our society and economy. I thank you in advance for your answers on these very topical and societally important questions and I, and with me the whole IMCO Committee, look forward to the presentation of your plans next week.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Breton for presenting the views of the Commission. SMEs are really the backbone of our economy. They represent 99% of all businesses in the European Union, so their role is crucial when we speak about jobs and growth or innovations or competitiveness of Europe. I'm very happy that the new Commission has now many excellent goals to improve the position of SMEs in Europe. EU regulation needs to better help our SMEs to scale up, drive and expand. I would like to stress three points here. First of all, better regulation, which is the main topic of today's discussion. I would like to put a very specific question to the Commission: how will the Commission measure implementation costs of European Union legislation ex ante and ex post so that the compliance costs for SMEs are reduced, while at the same time safeguarding environmental, labour and social standards? And because I know that Vice-President Šefčovič is responsible for this better regulation, I would like to ask if it's possible to receive a written answer to this specific question. But then two other points related to your portfolio, Commissioner Breton. First of all, I am very happy at the introduction of an SME envoy, which has been Parliament's request for a long time, and it would also be good to hear where the Commission is planning to locate the announced SME envoy in order to oversee all relevant DGs and services. The third point is more for the preparation of the SME strategy, and it's about late payments, because this is something that we are now hearing very much from the SMEs and stakeholders: that they have bigger and bigger problems with late payments, and that often the big companies big customers do not respect the timelines. I hope that the Commission will address the problem of late payments when preparing the SME strategy, because better enforcement of the Late Payments Directive is needed so that SMEs too can benefit from the Directive.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure lays down rules for the timely development and interoperability of TEN-E networks, identifying the trans-European energy infrastructure priorities which need to be implemented in order to meet the Union's energy and climate policy objectives. It also identifies projects of common interest needed to implement those priorities. The TEN-E regulation sets priority corridors and thematic areas of trans-European energy infrastructure and provides guidelines for the selection of Projects of Common Interest . The first list of PCIs was established by a delegated act in 2013. Now we are on the fourth PCI list, which was adopted by the Commission on 31 October 2019 with 151 PCIs. As reflected in Parliament's first reading position of 17 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation on the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2021-2027, the co-legislators provisionally agreed that the Commission should evaluate the effectiveness and policy coherence of the TEN-E regulation. For that evaluation, I would like to remind you that the Commission should consider inter alia the Union energy and climate targets for 2030, the EU long-term decarbonisation commitment and energy efficiency as a first principle. I'd also like to stress that the TEN-E regulation was adopted before the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Energy plays a central role in the transition to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy, and therefore efforts to continue decarbonising the energy systems are necessary to enable the Union to reach its ambitious target and be world leader, while at the same time ensuring a coherent and inclusive transition of other sectors, maintaining the security of energy supply in the Union and coping with an increased demand for electricity. With the aim of achieving its climate and energy goals and enhancing innovation, sustainability and growth, it is at the same time very important to remain competitive worldwide. The Union needs an up-to-date, high-performance energy infrastructure that is future-proof, cost-efficient and can provide a security of energy supply, including diversification of root sources and suppliers. Priority corridor scenarios, as well as eligibility criteria, should follow the evolution of the energy system and continue to be consistent with Union policy priorities, in particular in the context of long-term decarbonisation pathways. Adequate infrastructure, deployment and energy efficiency projects and policies should be used in a complementary way to help reach the Union's objectives and targets. Building on the success of the Energy Union, we need to strengthen our efforts to improve energy efficiency, speed up deployment of clean energy and technologies, increase interconnectivity, and also of course further integrate our energy single market. In its resolution of January on the European Green Deal, Parliament called on the Commission to revise the TEN-E guidelines before the adoption of the next PCI list. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy welcomes the announcement in the European Green Deal Communication that the revision of the TEN-E guidelines will take place in 2020 and asks for a clear timetable. As regards the fourth PCI list, new gas infrastructure under the fourth PCI list is designed to last at least 40 to 50 years, and in some cases even longer. May I remind you that the very same infrastructure will be able to be used in not so many years from now to transport biogas and hydrogen, and also during the transition phase gas pipelines and interconnections, which play an important role in ensuring the energy security supply, affordability and sustainability. We need a balanced and realistic approach to achieve our common goal of carbon neutrality, and I would like to remind you that we still have 41 coal regions to support and sustain in a just and inclusive transition.
| EU | null |
Mr President, two months ago I presented my views on the future of the Trans-European Networks Energy Regulation before the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy . This evening I have the opportunity to address this important issue before this plenary. In the Green Deal Resolution adopted in January, Parliament stressed the importance of modern, clean, secure and smart new energy infrastructure for delivering the European Green Deal. I share the same vision. Turning this vision into reality requires making the TEN-E Regulation adopted in 2013 fit for Europe's future energy system and fully aligned with the European Green Deal. If we want to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, we have no time to lose. As you know, the Commission was due to carry out an evaluation on TEN-E this year. I have decided to accelerate this evaluation and in parallel to start work on a revision of the TEN-E Regulation in order to present a legislative proposal in December 2020. The overarching objective is to design a future-proof framework that will allow us to fund the infrastructure we need for the European Green Deal. The focus will clearly shift to deploying clean energy across the whole economy in the most efficient way. By 2050, the share of electricity in the total energy consumption is expected to be more than double. We need electricity infrastructures and innovative technologies such as smart grids, offshore wind and hydrogen that works. Also carbon capture, storage and utilisation and energy storage. The new framework should in particular look at promoting sector integration, and I will consult widely stakeholders in the preparation of the proposal. And of course I will involve Parliament early on. I commit to speed up work as much as possible, but we cannot risk cutting corners. That's why December is our targeted date for adoption. I hope Council and Parliament will be able to process this proposal quickly, as they have done for other priority proposals in the past. But it is possible that the new regulation will not be in force in time for the adoption of the 5th projects of common interest list in fall 2021. In this case, I intend to already ensure that the process for the selection of the 5th list of projects of common interest will already reflect the European Green Deal priorities. That means, firstly, that the sustainability criteria for all candidate projects will be strengthened to take better into account for each project its CO2 and methane emissions. Secondly, I will strive to integrate more energy transition projects in the 5th PCI process, in particular smart clean CO2 infrastructure projects. I commit to work closely with the Member States and project promoters to help bring forward these projects. And, thirdly, I will strengthen the involvement of Parliament during key steps in the selection process, including the regional groups. I intend to establish a continuous political dialogue with you and the ITRE Committee. I will be guided by the objective to include more innovative projects enabling the transmission of renewable and decarbonised gases and projects enabling the smart integration of electricity and gas networks. Finally, the oral question asks how we will approach the funding from the Connecting Europe Facility of the projects in the 4th PCI list. The PCI label is a precondition for CEF funding, but not a guarantee. While respecting the current rules and procedures, the Commission will ensure that the European Green deal will provide the background against which the selection process for PCI funding will be assessed. I note that already the CEF Regulation governing the financing of PCIs gives priority to electricity projects over gas. Honourable Members, I have set out my views for the future of TEN-E. In this light, I hope that Parliament will vote in favour of the 4th PCI list. The list includes key infrastructure projects that sustain the increasing share of renewables, address the remaining energy security challenges and underpin the modernisation of an integrated infrastructure. Electricity projects make up three quarters of the 4th PCI list. An objection to the 4th PCI list would mean that the 3rd PCI list remains in force, a list with 40% more gas projects than the new list. As a consequence, key electricity interconnectors and energy transition projects such as the North Sea wind-power hub, new smart green projects and new CO2 network projects would not be eligible for funding under the Connecting Europe Facility. I have set out how I intend to work on an energy infrastructure policy fit for the future. I will work closely together with Parliament. I count on your input and support for making the TEN-E policy a driving force for Europe's climate neutrality transition.
| EU | null |
Mr President, we are discussing today concrete projects that should be in line with what we were discussing just a few weeks ago in this same Chamber: the European Green Deal. In our quest to move towards carbon neutrality by 2050, we need to make sure that we invest in the proper infrastructure today. We can do this with the full understanding that different parts of the EU have different realities, but at the same time also understanding that investments need to be made in cleaner sources and not locking countries' reliance on fossil fuels. In the full list of energy projects that we are discussing, there are still fossil fuel projects, including oil-supply projects. I understand that interconnection projects are necessary to ensure security of supply and solidarity among Member States, which until today are still disconnected; however, this 4th list goes further and opens the door to heavy investments in completely new fossil fuel pipelines and infrastructures. Things have changed drastically since the fourth Projects of Common Interest list was drafted, including in the formation of Member States that makes the European Union as a whole, and this has to be taken into account, something which is clearly lacking in the formulation of this list. Now, going back to the 3rd PCI list is not what we need, but money should be invested in projects that can really help us move forward in the right direction. It is for these reasons that the European Commission needs to carry out all the sustainability assessments required to ensure that money is invested in projects that can really make the European Union carbon neutral by 2050. It is only if we do this that we are really making sure that we have projects that are in line with what we want to achieve with the European Green Deal.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I say to the House: Members, I have listened very carefully, and what I can say is: I heard different views on the project list. But there was one common thing, a common call for more climate action and increased ambition, and the Commission shares your call. We are committed to make Europe the first carbon-neutral continent by 2050. And I'm glad that most of you expressed support for the Commission's plan to revise the TEN-E Regulation by December 2020. Because a modern, secure and smart energy infrastructure will sustain this energy transition and help us roll out the large-scale deployment of energy from renewable sources. With a future revision, we intend to bring the TEN-E framework fully in-line with, and fully supportive of, Europe's climate objective. We will be supporting investments that help to bring about more renewable energy solutions and new technological innovation. On the 4th PCI list, I hope you can see this list as another step forward, a cleaner energy infrastructure system. It supports key new electricity projects that help us step into more renewables and the digital potential of our grid. We will have, clearly, the European Green Deal in mind when addressing the funding of projects from this list and other self-regulation. This list is not a guarantee. However, it is clear to me that the 5th PCI list will be a very different list. Two years after the launch of the Green Deal, sustainability criteria will be thoroughly applied for any projects, including gas candidate projects. The sustainability tests to pass to be eligible for funds will be stronger, and this Parliament will have a greater say in project selection than its predecessor. I look forward to our cooperation and future dialogue to make our common vision for tomorrow's energy infrastructure a reality. And a more modern TEN-E Regulation will help us fund the right projects to deliver a cleaner, more secure and more competitive energy system for Europe.
| EU | null |
Mr President, it's just two weeks ago that we bid farewell to our British friends by singing 'Auld Lang Syne', and I think it was a most emotional, a very powerful moment in this Parliament: a moment to celebrate the good old times, and I thank you very much for the grace and the kindness of this gesture. This was extraordinary. Since then, we've set our sights on the future of our relations with the United Kingdom, and we will enter these negotiations with the highest ambition. Because good old friends like the UK and us shouldn't settle for less than this. Prime Minister Johnson said in Greenwich earlier this month that the United Kingdom will, I quote, 'be a global champion of free trade'. Frankly, this is music to our ears, because at a moment when the rules-based trade system is so challenged, we need our partners to join us in making the system fairer and stronger. And this is what we Europeans have always fought for over the years: a trade system that is open on one side and that is fair on the other side. Because what do free trade agreements do? Free trade agreements must replace uncertainty with a sound set of rules. They create new markets for small and medium enterprises. Free trade agreements must benefit the people. And this is just the rationale that is behind our trade agreements, for instance with Canada and Japan. They are not just increasing our bilateral exchanges of goods, services, people and ideas. They do that too, but not only. They also raise standards on a broad range of issues, from labour rights to environmental. And this is what makes us proud of them: ask our Japanese friends or ask our Canadian friends. They are glad that we have joined forces to put fairness into our globalised economic system. They are glad that they could join forces with the European Union, because frankly, in today's world, size does matter and we have a Single Market of 440 million people. What I just described this is the ambition we have for our free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. And when we agreed the Political Declaration with the United Kingdom, we ambitioned zero tariffs and a zero-quota trade relation for all goods: something we have never ever before offered to anybody else. A new model of trade, a unique ambition in terms of access to the Single Market. But of course, this would require corresponding guarantees on fair competition and the protection of social, environmental and consumer standards. In short: this is plain and simply the level playing field. We are ready to discuss all different models of trade agreement. But all these models, whatever you choose, have one thing in common: they all come not only with rights, but also with obligations for both sides. For example, if we take the Canada model and this is a model Prime Minister Johnson referred to of course, our deal with Canada eliminates tariffs on a wide set of goods, but not on all. And of course, our deal with Canada eliminates most quotas, but certainly not all. For instance, there are still quotas on beef and sweetcorn. And of course, we still have our standards that have to be respected. And honestly, I was a little bit surprised to hear the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speak about the Australian model. Australia, without any doubt, is a strong and like-minded partner. But the European Union does not have a trade agreement with Australia. We are currently trading on WTO terms. And if this is the British choice, well, we are fine with that, without any question. But in fact, we are just in the moment where we are agreeing with Australia that we must end this situation, and we work on a trade deal with them. Of course, the UK can decide to settle for less, but I personally believe that we should be way more ambitious. And the Prime Minister's speech in Greenwich is an encouraging starting point. He recalled everything the United Kingdom has achieved in terms of social protection, climate action, competition rules, and I commend the UK for all of that. Indeed, it is not the time to lower social protection or to be lukewarm on climate action. It is not the time to decrease in terms of competition rules. I have heard ambition in Boris Johnson's speech: ambition on the minimum wage, ambition on parental payments, and he has an ally in me where that is concerned. I have heard ambition on cutting carbon emissions. Ambition on guaranteeing that our firms are competing in full fairness. This is what we also want. Let us formally agree on these objectives. We can trigger an upward dynamic competition that would benefit both the United Kingdom and the European Union. To our British friends I say: it's in our mutual interest. And most importantly, it would be consistent with the values we share values of openness, values of fairness, values of social justice and free enterprise. These are not only values for the good old times. These are values to stay. Thank you very much for your attention. I just wanted to inform you that the Task Force is ready to start the negotiations. We're all set.
| EU | null |
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution on the draft mandate, which we are debating this morning, is the first proof of work of the newly created UK Coordination Group. As the Chair, I would like to thank all members of our group, as well as the involved Committees and the political groups, for their contributions in an extremely short period of time. In my opinion, the result is a very good and balanced resolution only nine days after Michel Barnier presented the Commission's draft mandate. Our resolution contains Parliament's views on the content and on the architecture of a future EU-UK relationship. Let me highlight three main principles of particular importance. Firstly, the integrity and the correct functioning of our internal market, the customs union and the Four Freedoms must be maintained. Secondly, a third country cannot have the same rights and benefits as a Member State of the EU. And thirdly, a level playing field is an overall priority and precondition for any future agreement. We should not, and we will not, enter a race to the bottom. As Ursula von der Leyen has pointed out, together with our British friends, we should aim for a partnership that goes well beyond trade and is unprecedented in scope: everything from climate action to data protection, fisheries to energy, transport to space, financial services to security. We are indeed ready to design a new partnership with zero tariffs, zero quotas and zero dumping. However a free trade agreement with the UK will not be equivalent to frictionless trade. Ladies and gentlemen, besides the negotiations on the future relations, the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement is of particular importance. This concerns especially citizens' rights, financial duties on the protocol on Ireland-Northern Ireland. Our chief negotiator Michel Barnier, whose work is highly appreciated across party lines in the institutions, has already assured us in the UK coordination group's first meeting to keep Parliament fully informed at all stages of the procedure.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the EU and Britain have entered a tense year. Time is limited and pressure is mounting to agree on an FTA this year. Formally, the negotiation is aimed at agreeing to a legal set of rules, but there is more to it. There is a mindset that varies on both sides of the Channel. Every bureaucracy tends to cling to its own rules, awarding them holy status. In that respect the EU bureaucracy is not much different from the mandarins that once ruled the Chinese empire. It regards itself as the centre of the world, and of all wisdom. The British mindset is different. Having been an empire itself, Britain derives cultural self-confidence from the idea that it is still is an empire. The old empire does not want to be run by a possibly new one, so it left. What are the lessons, Mr President? The EU should not be bitter. Brexit is done and we have to put our citizens first. The EU has to be pragmatic and purpose-driven rather than rules-obsessed; focussed on tangible mutual interests, not on bad feelings. The current British government is the most stable in Western Europe a big majority for five years. Who else can say that? But it should not overestimate the margins of divide and rule that worked for centuries but not anymore. Results will only be attainable through political will: the will to succeed. This though wordy resolution is the starting point to negotiate. Mr Barnier, you are an experienced negotiator. I hope you will be able to bridge both mindsets divided by 30 kilometres of water, but still two worlds apart.
| EU | null |
Madam President, we are here to discuss a very important resolution on the political guidelines for the negotiations between the European Union and the UK 21 pages, 103 paragraphs, but perhaps the most important is the front page, the signatures of the leaders of a number of major political groups in this Parliament, showing that there is a vast majority supporting this resolution and how united we are in defending our common vision and our common interests. We call on the Member States to do the same, to refuse any bilateral negotiations at this stage, and to act as a bloc, with the Commission and Mr Barnier being the sole negotiators on our part. We are clear about what we want to achieve a sound and ambitious strategic, political and economic relationship but we also say, loud and clear, that we will ensure open, but also fair, competition, a proper level playing field and no regression on the high European standards of environmental, social and labour protection, and also consumer rights and food safety. We've heard some messages of refusal of this by the UK Government, but this will have proportional consequences in terms of the access of the UK to the European market, undermining the ambition of our trade agreement. Let me conclude by recalling that the first pillar of the future economic relationship with the UK was already agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement. It has to do with Northern Ireland, the alignment of Northern Ireland and border controls in the Irish Sea. So we will work for a new agreement for the future, but we will also ensure full implementation of the commitments in the existing Withdrawal Agreement.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to talk about financial services, which I believe are crucial for future relations with the UK. We know that an FTA can have only a very small chapter on financial services, addressing only the right of establishment and prudential carve-out mechanism, and EU financial services are about the single market, and it is clear now that it will be an equivalence mechanism that will provide the main framework for the relationship. The Commission has just a few months to prepare all those unilateral equivalence decisions around forty, I understand and the financial industry should be fully aware of how little time they have to adjust to the future situation. Efforts have been made recently, also in this House, to enhance the equivalence framework as the main regulatory tool for financial services in the future relationship with the UK. As equivalence is a unilateral discretionary policy tool, in order to make it deliver, we will need constructive cooperation with UK regulators and supervisors to protect the financial stability and integrity of our financial markets, protect investors and consumers, as well as ensuring LPF. But all of us here in this House must also be aware that for an ambitious, beneficial and successful future relationship with the UK in the area of financial services, it is our duty also to complete as soon as possible the Banking Union and build a genuine capital market union. The EU will preserve regulatory and supervisory autonomy, but so will the UK, and we just heard from the former governor of the Bank of England that the UK will not be a rule-taker. So let me emphasise that, while we should maintain close and ambitions relations with the UK in financial services, we should also spare no effort to reduce potential systemic risk.
| EU | null |
Madam President, tomorrow we will vote on the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement and the Investment Protection Agreement. These are the first state-of-the art trade and investment agreements on which this newly-elected Parliament is asked to give its consent. It's a unique opportunity for this Parliament to underline the ambition of the EU to become a geopolitical actor and player: not as an empire that imposes rules, but as a global power that defends multilateralism, resists protectionism and reaches out to partners such as Vietnam. It is up to the European Union to promote rules-based trade and show by example that trade delivers, brings peoples together and raises standards worldwide on safety, labour, environment and human rights. It's also a question of credibility. We need to show Vietnam and future trading partners that the EU is a credible partner that sticks to its commitment and that we are still able to negotiate, sign and conclude trade agreements. Eight years after starting the negotiations with Vietnam, this Parliament has been given the opportunity to debate the most comprehensive trade deal between the EU and a middle-income country in its history. As such, this deal with Vietnam sets a new benchmark for Europe's engagement with emerging economies. If we look at this trade agreement, it is of the utmost importance to stress, first of all, the economic value that will give a boost to the prosperity of both the EU and Vietnam. It represents a great opportunity for European exporters and investors. It will eliminate 99% of tariffs within seven years, and this will result in additional exports in both directions. This will clearly result in many tens of thousands of new and, on average, better-paid jobs through increased use of international standards. This deal will also cut non-trade barriers and reduce costs for our companies. We will gain better access to each other's public markets, including for SMEs. Vietnam has a vibrant economy of more than 90 million consumers, a growing middle class and a young, dynamic workforce. The country is open to the world and embraces modern standards. Vietnam was the first in the world, even before Canada, to accept the principle of a modern investment court system , a modern ICS proposal that has mostly been drafted by this very Parliament with independent judges, a code of conduct, protection of the right to regulate and facilitated access to the court for SMEs. This agreement thus brings new opportunities for companies, both big corporations and SMEs. Vietnam is also the gateway to the entire Asian region. This agreement brings the long-term goal of an EU-Asian trade agreement from region to region a step closer, and this should be our objective. These agreements are also instruments to promote and protect European standards and values. Vietnam respects clear commitments to the ratification of two additional core International Labour Organization Conventions: its revised Labour Code, its improved labour and human rights situation and the implementation of the Paris climate agreement. For all these reasons and the creation of prosperity by free and fair trade and the fact that the EU is taking responsibility to set the standards worldwide and taking the lead on rules-based trade in times of rising trade tensions, protectionism and unilateralism, I therefore ask for the consent of this House so that the peoples of the European Union and the people of Vietnam can further strengthen their ties in the future and so that we can allow free and fair trade to bring people closer together.
| EU | null |
Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, the Free Trade Agreement and the Investment Protection Agreement with Vietnam are the most ambitious ever concluded with a developing country. The agreements will further reinforce our already-strong trade and investment ties, and they will also provide an additional opportunity to strengthen the cooperation established under other EU instruments, for example on illegal logging or IUU fishing. The agreements will strengthen our presence in Asia, following the 'new generation agreements' in force, such as those with Korea, Japan and Singapore. They will constitute an additional stepping-stone towards our engagement with the ASEAN region. The benefits of the agreements are many: preferential access to a vibrant economy of almost 100 million people; removal of non-tariff barriers for our exporters, which they currently face, for example, on cars, on wines, and spirits; harmonised sanitary and phytosanitary rules allowing for more predictable procedures; and removing access barriers for EU products. EU companies will have access for the first time to the Vietnamese public procurement market, and there will be protection of the European geographical indications such as Parmigiano-Reggiano, Champagne and Rioja wines. We will also have improved access to the Vietnamese market in services, such as finance, distribution, logistics or environmental services. The Investment Protection Agreement, similar to agreements with Singapore and Canada, includes the modern and reformed investment protection framework with an investment court system for the resolution of investment disputes. However, our agreements will be on trade and investment, and I'm aware that the European Parliament has put a strong emphasis on the trade and sustainable development chapter of the Vietnam Agreement. And I fully agree with this approach. It is encouraging to see the level of engagement by Vietnam in order to prepare for the implementation of their commitments, with important progress made even before the agreements are in force at all. The pressure that has been exerted by the European Union is bearing fruit, and I welcome this development. On labour issues, Vietnam adopted a new labour code last November, which recognises the principle of freedom of association at enterprise level. The revised code also includes new provisions on collective bargaining in line with the ILO Fundamental Convention, which was recently ratified by Vietnam. Vietnam has now ratified 6 out of the 8 ILO conventions, and it has a clear plan to ratify the outstanding conventions by 2021 and 2023. Work is also ongoing in Vietnam to eradicate child labour, with encouraging preliminary results unveiled recently by the ILO, which is a significant reduction of more than 40% since the last survey of 2012. So these developments are remarkable. But nevertheless, the Commission will scrutinise implementation to ensure that Vietnam effectively pursues this ambitious labour reform agenda. Vietnam has also started preparing the ground for the institutional structure that is foreseen under the Free Trade Agreement, including the involvement of independent civil society organisations, such as domestic advisory groups. The human rights situation is certainly an area of concern in our relationship with Vietnam, but I remain convinced that constructive channels of communication, including the Annual Human Rights Dialogue, is the way to voice our concerns and address these shortcomings. So Madam President, I firmly believe that these agreements will create the best platform for further engagement and constructive dialogue with Vietnam in all fields. On the other hand, our failure to ratify the deal would leave the European Union with fewer options to pursue a reform agenda in Vietnam and would undermine the credibility of the European Union as a reliable partner.
| EU | null |
Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the House for their contributions, but it is an opportunity as well to thank some people that have been involved in the EU-Vietnam negotiations. Can I thank Mr Lange, the Chair of the Committee on International Trade , Mr Bourgeois, the rapporteur, and all the shadows who have been involved in the scrutiny of this particular deal? To note that the four committee Chairs that are indirectly involved in this scrutiny have given their support for the deal. Can I thank former Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, and the DG TRADE officials for their tremendous work over many years in relation to this deal? As many speakers have said, these are the first trade and investment agreements to be voted on by this Parliament. And I hope that they will receive your approval so that our companies, particularly our SMEs that have been mentioned by many of you, can start tapping into the potential and generate growth and employment. In such uncertain times for global trade, a positive vote of course will send a strong signal in relation to the EU's commitment to an open and fair trade based on rules and values. I can assure you that we will monitor implementation very closely, because I agree with many of you that there are issues that have to be resolved and will constantly require us to ensure the Vietnam lives up to its commitments. I'm fully aware of these particular sentiments. But, in relation to some of the specifics that we mentioned, horse trade is usually associated with market access, and this has been a very good deal in terms of EU-Vietnamese reciprocity in so many products. Mr Juncker has mentioned issues in relation to food and can I confirm that the Free Trade Agreement liberalises all EU export offensive interests, like beef, pork, poultry, wines, spirits and beer, but it also has safeguards for some of our sensitive issues, like rice, sugar, sweetcorn and canned tuna. These safeguards are a new dimension in relation to our free trade agreements in recent years, which includes for the first time a free trade agreement that we are ratifying where safeguards are given in respect of tariff rate quotas . We have also got recognition by Vietnam in this deal for the European Union to be treated as a single entity for sanitary and phytosanitary terms, which will reduce a lot of the non-tariff barriers that we have. Equally, our 169 geographical indications right around the European Union have been protected. On the trade and sustainable development chapter, improving the implementation and enforcement of all our agreements is very important, and this is a key priority for the Commission. Vietnam is a good example of where they are making considerable efforts even before the deal has been implemented in relation to TSD matters, with important progress being made. So the pressure that you've applied is certainly bearing fruit. But we have also established an institutional structure through the domestic advisory groups, which will include all stakeholders, including NGOs, civil society, businesses and all the services that will have an input in relation to the implementation of this agreement. The implementation is very important. That's why we're establishing as well in the Commission a chief trade enforcement officer during the course of the next few months. The new labour code, which was adopted in November 2019, recognises the principle of freedom of association possibly to set up independent trade unions at enterprise level, as I mentioned earlier, which is outside the scope of the dominant Vietnam general confederation of labour. So Vietnam has started the implementation. It has a master plan that's going to be implemented by January 2021 and one of the aspects is to check its consistency with all other legal documents, including the penal code and the criminal code. The ILO Conventions has said that six out of eight are implemented. We're at the same stage as we were in terms of the implementation of this agreement with Japan. So I think this is good progress by Vietnam. Vietnam has started preparations to set up these independent civil society organisations, and last week they gave me an action plan and a timescale in relation to their implementation. I mentioned child labour. There has been a 40% reduction since 2012 and of course they are committed to a new action plan to eradicate poverty over the 2021-2025 period. Some Members have mentioned human rights, and rightly so. It does remain an area of concern in our relationship with Vietnam, but we must take into account where the country has come from and see clear evidence of progress in the last 25 years, notably in the socioeconomic domain. Human rights improvements are central to our engagement, and there's a binding and enforceable link between the FTA, investment protection agreement and the partnership and cooperation agreement that allows for total or partial suspension of the agreement in case of systemic or severe breaches on human rights. We also have an annual human rights dialogue and there's a meeting next week in Hanoi so these are all, I think, positives. There are divergences between us and I'm not saying anything otherwise, but we are convinced that the agreements provide an initial platform to engage with Vietnamese society and governments on these issues. This is the view of several Vietnamese NGOs who say that the implementation of this agreement would open more space for civil society. Now clearly Ms Daly and Mr Wallace have not heard those particular voices in relation to that part of the deal. The EU is of course also closely concerned about political prisoners and persons of concern. We have a list of persons of concern that we have been regularly raising in our exchanges at the highest level. And we are striving to make sure that the EU delegation are not only consistently ensuring that these people are released, but also attending trials, meeting family members and providing the best possible facilities for the families of these political prisoners. The FTA and the IPA will create another important and conducive environment to ensure that these issues are not put under the table, but are consistently high on the agenda. The lack of ratification of the agreement would leave the European Union with no instrument at all to support a reform agenda for Vietnam, and we will push Vietnam closer to other partners that do not necessarily share the same values if we don't have this agreement. The institutional set up again, as I mentioned in the context of various fora to speak about these issues, is very important. Environment was mentioned: of course Vietnam is one of the countries that are most affected by climate change. So surely they are interested in implementing the Paris Agreement, which they have signed up to. And, under the trade and sustainable development chapter, this is explicitly mentioned. So their national determined contributions are going to ensure, like other partners around the world where we do deals, that are going to have to implement this in a legally binding way, as they have signed up to in relation to the Paris Agreement. So this is another win and another example of where we are providing the framework where we can implement, through this free trade agreement, the necessary leverage to ensure that these commitments are met. Vietnam has also concluded with the EU a forest law enforcement, governance and trade voluntary partnership agreement , which has been enforced since 1 June 2019. And this particular partnership agreement aims to ensure that all timber products imported into the European Union from Vietnam are legal. This is very significant as Vietnam is a major processing hub, importing timber from over 80 countries, including from a number of high-risk countries in the region such as Cambodia. Under the VPA, Vietnam has to introduce mandatory due diligence obligations for its importers. Vietnam is currently working on the implementation of this particular scheme through the various licences that will have to ensure traceability. So our one major success in this field has been the open and constructive participation of all the relevant stakeholders in Vietnam during the negotiation phase. These are the issues that have come to the fore and we have got a response. We have to continue ultimately of course to reach our final destination and our objectives. Finally, on this issue in relation to concern about the investment court system, following the European Parliament's demands, the investment protection agreement with Vietnam includes the most modern and reformed investment protection framework in any agreement with an investment court system for the resolution of investment disputes, replacing the traditional investor-state dispute settlement arbitration mechanism, and this has been confirmed as the proper way to go by the European Court of Justice decision that was recently made. So all of the elements of the ISDS under CETA are included in the IPA with Vietnam, which is an additional stepping stone towards the establishment of a multilateral investment court. Finally, in conclusion, could I say that, by voting in favour of this free trade agreement, you are voting in favour of a deal that will give us the political and institutional influence and the proper structures to make improvements on issues like human rights, like labour rights, like climate change and like environment policies. By voting 'no' you are consigning our influence to resolutions and letters that may or may not be taken into account and will most probably be ignored. This agreement puts the EU and Vietnam together in a political structure and enforcement mechanisms that will deliver common objectives, in particular in the policy areas that have been mentioned in this House. I know that many of these issues have been of concern for many years. Now we have a structured way in which we can deal with these issues. So it is time to be positive, to acknowledge that the EU stands together with the people of Vietnam, and vote positively for this deal.
| EU | null |
Mr President, at the end of the debate, first I want to thank my colleagues in the Committee on International Trade , the shadow rapporteurs, and especially our Chair, Mr Lange. I want to thank my predecessor, the former rapporteur Jan Zahradil, and I would also like to thank Commissioner Hogan for our good cooperation and for rightfully underlining the importance of this trade and investment agreement with Vietnam. I totally agree with your conclusion, Mr Hogan, and I take note of your clear commitment to oversee all aspects relevant for the implementation of the agreement and the continuous assistance of the Commission in order to help Vietnam pursue its reform process and to lend the country the financial and technical aid necessary to achieve its goals. I would like to thank colleagues for all their valuable contributions. Most of the points of concern raised during this debate were also my concerns. However, I think we have sufficiently addressed most of the concerns during our preparatory work. I believe these agreements will serve as an effective instrument to promote fundamental values and create a more level playing field. Vietnam has committed to a series of important measures, and I agree with you, Mr Lange: thanks to the clear political messages of this Parliament, I'm happy to say that during the negotiation process ahead of this debate and during my own interactions, the Vietnamese Government has demonstrated a trustworthy and clear political will to deliver on important issues. The role of the European Parliament was, and is, essential in this respect. We will continue to closely follow up on the proceedings of the independent organisations taking part in the domestic advisory groups. After ratification, we are also looking forward to strengthening political dialogue with our Vietnamese colleagues through the establishment of a joint parliamentary cooperation framework. We will also look into the proposal of associating our colleagues on the Subcommittee on Human Rights to the already existing annual human rights dialogue. Vietnam is a country in transformation. I believe these agreements will further contribute to the improvement of its prosperity, labour, human rights and living standards. The EU needs to support this aim fully in order to bring forward this positive agenda for change in Vietnam, and therefore I passionately call upon all my colleagues in this House to vote tomorrow in favour of the consent for both agreements, so that the EU can take up its role as a geopolitical actor in the region and show Vietnam that we are a genuine and reliable partner today and for the future.
| EU | null |
Mr President, this report reflects the well-established relationship between the European Parliament and the ECB. In fact, such a report is the main instrument for expressing our views towards ECB policies for maintaining price stability and strengthening the eurozone economies, thereby leading to a higher degree of real economic convergence. The timing is important. This report is the first of the new legislative term and following the election of the new ECB President. And, of course, like the President has said, we are very glad to have you here today with us, Ms Lagarde. The report focuses on the review of the current ECB policies, future monetary policy, actions against climate change, and a stronger global role for the euro. Regarding the monetary policy actions of the ECB in 2018 and their impact on the euro area economy, we welcome the ECB's role in safeguarding euro stability. The non-standard monetary policy measures put in place by the ECB contributed to economic recovery, to an improvement in financing conditions and to compressing yields across a wide range of asset classes. We also stress that the very low or negative interest rates offer opportunities to consumers, companies , workers and borrowers who can benefit from stronger economic momentum, lower unemployment and lower borrowing costs. At the same time, we ask the ECB to keep monitoring potential risks to its balance sheets, asset price inflation, disadvantages to savers and the potential impact on pension and insurance schemes. However, we are concerned that after a short economic recovery, euro area growth momentum has slowed to 1.1% of GDP in the euro area, and therefore we note the need to maintain both the liquidity conditions and a degree of monetary accommodation. Recognising the sustainable growth cannot be achieved by monetary policy alone. We underline that supportive fiscal policy is also necessary. We also agree with ECB President Christine Lagarde's statement that a review of the ECB's monetary policy framework is timely and warranted, and we stress that this should be done by organising a public consultation and involving Parliament. An important point also raised in this report is the finding of the European System of Central Banks Expert Group on low wage growth, stating the disconnect between wage growth and labour market recovery ceteris paribus. Accordingly, the unemployment rate in August 2019 stood at 6.2% in the EU and 7.4% in the euro area, the lowest since July 2008. But this drop in unemployment has not been reflected in wage growth. Two words strengthening the role of the euro area. It requires the right structural conditions, including the deepening of the European Monetary Union, the completion of the Banking Union with the European Deposit Insurance Scheme and the completion of the Capital Market Union. Special emphasis is given to the fight against climate change and the implementation of the Paris Agreement. We stress that the ECB is bound by the Paris Agreement on climate change and this should be reflected by implementing the environmental, social and governance principle into its policies. We underline other aspects interrelated with ECB policies regarding Brexit, the Capital Markets Union, crypto-assets, the need to increase monitoring and to have a comprehensive regulatory framework, the importance of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in the EU and their access to credit, more efforts to ensure the financing of the real economy and much more. On accountability, we welcome the increasing accountability under the Presidency of Mario Draghi and we express our will for even greater accountability, dialogue and openness with the current President. A final point. It is essential to formulate our monetary policy but also to communicate it to our citizens, as they need to understand the importance and the impact of those policies on their lives. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive and fruitful collaboration during the negotiations, and I do believe that the European Parliament and the ECB have a common objective. This was my primary objective when I drafted this report to improve the lives of our citizens by achieving real economic convergence and to strengthen the role of the EU as it is our common home.
| EU | null |
Mr President, Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis, rapporteur Mavrides, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I am delighted to participate for the first time in a plenary session and to discuss your draft resolution on the ECB's Annual Report for 2018. Independence and accountability are two sides of the same coin for the ECB, and one will not exist without the other. This is why the ECB's relationship with the European Parliament is so important. The ECB's Annual Report is a central element of this relationship, and Parliament's resolution and the subsequent feedback we publish are evidence of the good dialogue between our two institutions. Having only joined the ECB almost to the day 100 days ago, I read the draft resolution with particular interest. What struck me in particular was our shared assessment of many of the challenges facing the ECB and the euro area. I felt exactly the same as I was listening to you, Mr Mavrides. Indeed, the universal nature of these challenges underscores the need for our continued dialogue. Today, I would like to focus on two of the overarching concerns that stand out from the draft resolution. Number one, the role of monetary policy in the current economic environment and, number two, the structural challenges facing the euro area economy. Euro area growth momentum has been slowing down since the start of 2018, largely on account of global uncertainties and weaker international trade. Moderating growth has also weakened pressure on prices, and inflation remains some distance below our medium-term aim. Against this background, the ECB's Governing Council has acted in a determined fashion to achieve price stability, which is the mandate that we have under the ECB Treaty. The ECB's monetary policy since 2014 relies on four elements: a negative policy rate, asset purchases, forward guidance, and targeted lending operations. These measures have helped to preserve favourable lending conditions, support the resilience of the domestic economy and most importantly in the recent period shield the euro area economy from global headwinds. Our policy stimulus has supported economic growth, resulting in more jobs and higher wages for euro area citizens. As you just mentioned, Mr Mavrides, euro area unemployment, at 7.4%, is at its lowest level since May 2008. Wages, as you have mentioned as well, increased at an average rate of 2.5% in the first three quarters of 2019, significantly above their long-term average. 2.5%. But monetary policy cannot, and should not, be the only game in town. The longer our accommodative measures remain in place, the greater the risk that side effects will become more pronounced. We are fully aware that the low interest rate environment has a bearing on savings income, asset valuation, risk-taking and house prices. We are closely monitoring possible negative side effects to ensure that they do not outweigh the positive impact of our measures on credit conditions, job creation and wage income. Such reflections played a role, for example, when the Governing Council decided to introduce a new regime for remunerating the excess reserves held by banks with the Eurosystem, the famous clearing system that we introduced. Other policy areas notably fiscal measures and structural polices also have to play their part. These policies can boost productivity growth and lift growth potential, thereby underpinning the effectiveness of our measures. Indeed, when interest rates are low, fiscal policy can be highly effective: it can support euro area growth momentum, which in turn intensifies price pressures and eventually leads to higher interest rates. The European Green Deal and national initiatives to finance the ecological transition could add to these dynamics by contributing to stronger and more sustainable growth. The European Parliament's draft resolution on the ECB's Annual Report highlights three structural developments affecting the ECB's operating environment: digitalisation, climate change and the institutional architecture of Economic and Monetary Union. I would like to use the remaining time that I have to discuss very briefly these three challenges. Digitalisation and climate change were not made in Europe. They are global phenomena. They will not wait for us to gear up and get ready; they will affect us whether we are ready or not. So we need to prepare as best we can. In this spirit, the ECB is assessing the potential and implications of technological developments for payment services and financial stability, and it is also making an active contribution to such innovations. To this end, we set up a Eurosystem task force in January to investigate the opportunities and challenges associated with different potential designs for a central bank digital currency and to test how they would work in practice. In particular, we want to assess whether a central bank digital currency could serve a clear purpose for the public and support the ECB's objectives. Together with five other central banks and the Bank for International Settlements, we will share experiences in this area and assess the potential cross-border use of such digital currencies. We also have to gear up on climate change and not only because we care as citizens of this world. Like digitalisation, climate change affects the context in which central banks operate. So we increasingly need to take these effects into account in central banks' policies and operations. The ECB has already moved in this direction. First, we are working to extend our knowledge about the economic impact of climate change and ensure that its effects are better reflected in our economic analyses, in our models and in our forecasting methods. Second, through its financial stability tasks, the ECB is monitoring systemic risks stemming from climate change and the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. This work will ultimately enable us to test how well the euro area banking sector is able to withstand climate-related risks. Finally, the ECB has taken steps to align its own investment decisions with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. This is so in our staff pension fund, for instance, where we decided to switch to a low-carbon index, and we are investigating what else we can do in our market operations. The strategy review launched by the ECB's Governing Council last month will also take stock of how rapid digitalisation and the threat to environmental sustainability together with globalisation and evolving financial structures have further transformed the environment in which monetary policy operates. The strategy review will consider all aspects of the ECB's policy framework. We need to reflect on how we can best deliver on the ECB price stability mandate for the benefit of all European citizens. As part of this process, we will consult with the public and listen to their views, expectations and concerns with an open mind. We will indeed also work very closely with those in your Parliament who are directly interested and concerned about those particular matters and we have begun that journey. While I have thus far focused on the ECB, it is important to recognise that digitalisation and climate change are universal developments that affect all of us in Europe and worldwide. But Europe is uniquely positioned to master these challenges. Building on common safeguards and competitive incentives, the Single Market offers enormous potential for economic modernisation. Europe can harness this potential in its quest to design effective and affordable responses to the challenges at hand. But an important pillar of Europe's response to an increasingly globalised world Economic and Monetary Union should not be forgotten in the process. And the role of the European Parliament, as co-legislator, in getting our response right cannot be understated. Over recent years, the euro area's architecture has evolved substantially. But as you know, some essential elements are still missing or are incomplete, hampering its ability to deliver its full potential for euro area citizens. This is why the ECB has been advocating and will continue to make the case for a more complete EMU: Economic and Monetary Union. Very quickly, I will remind you of what I mean by that. It is a full banking union underpinned by a common deposit insurance scheme; it's a true capital markets union that channels investment to innovative and productive uses; and it is a central stabilisation function as a common line of defence in case and when we have shocks. A more resilient Economic and Monetary Union with these elements would not just help to protect our living standards from adverse domestic and global developments. It would also support Europe's influence in the world, including by making the euro more attractive worldwide. Let me close by highlighting the joint nature of the challenges. What I have discussed will require all parties to do their bit to enable Europe to perform at its best for all of its citizens. This includes the ECB, which within its mandate is ready to play its part. As I said at the beginning, the universal nature of these challenges also underscores the need for continued dialogue between the ECB and the European Parliament. In this spirit, I am very much looking forward to the exchange that we will have during the rest of this afternoon.
| EU | null |
Mr President, it's a pleasure to be here today to discuss with you and with Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank , the very timely report on the ECB annual report. By a coincidence of the calendar, the European Central Bank launched a review of its monetary policy strategy on 23 January, the day of adoption of the report at committee level. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Costas Mavrides, and the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their work. The Commission largely shares the general lines of the report. We concur with the view that the ECB's statutory independence in the conduct of monetary policy is crucial to the objective of safeguarding price stability. Today's debate reinforces this independence in that it bridges political independence and democratic accountability. Like the report, the Commission considers that monetary policy alone, which is an ECB competence, is not sufficient to achieve sustainable growth and price stability. The euro area economy should also be supported by a mix of growth-friendly structural reforms and by appropriately-differentiated fiscal policy. This is all the more important as the European economy, while continuing to expand, has entered a period of more subdued growth. This is linked to the less-supportive external environment, ongoing structural shifts and high uncertainty, for instance regarding trade policies. Let me make specific reference to a couple of points in the report that are relevant to the Commission's political agenda. First, the Commission has made the transition to a climate-neutral economy a priority with the European Green Deal. The European Green Deal will make consistent use of several policy levers: regulation and standardisation, investment and innovation, national reforms, dialogue with social partners and international cooperation. In the context of the European Green Deal, we agree with the ECB's conclusion that climate-change-related financial stability risks hold the potential to become systemic for the euro area, in particular if markets are not pricing these risks correctly. We will soon launch a consultation on the next steps on the sustainable finance agenda. Our aim is to develop a renewed sustainable finance strategy by early autumn which, among other things, will aim to improve the way climate and environmental risks are managed and integrated into the financial system. We will also establish the EU Green Bond standard and explore how it can increase public and private finance for sustainable investments. The review of our own economic governance framework will, just like the ECB strategic review, look into the effectiveness of our rules in delivering on its key objectives. Debt sustainability remains important, as financial stability is a pre-condition for growth and job creation. But we will also encourage broad debate on the framework in order to make it more efficient. Second, we welcome the call for swift completion of the Capital Markets Union and the Banking Union, including setting up a European deposit insurance scheme. A strong monetary union is key to fostering the international role of the euro. In this respect, we welcome Parliament's encouragement to work with the ECB and all relevant stakeholders on those projects. The Commission has started technical work on crisis management and insolvency law. This is an important avenue to be further considered to complete our crisis management framework and help make progress towards a steady-state Banking Union. Third, I would like to underline the importance of our work on payments and crypto-assets. I would like to thank the ECB for their crucial work on payment infrastructure. This is essential to make instant payments in Europe a reality. I also welcome that the ECB and other central banks are looking at the potential of central bank digital currency and are engaging with European payment actors to bring about faster, more efficient and cheaper payments. I have no doubt that today's debate will be very fruitful, and I trust that you will confirm the constructive engagement that has developed between the European Parliament and the ECB over the past years.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Dombrovskis and to welcome Madame Lagarde. It is really great to have her here. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Costas Mavrides for his excellent work on the report. As you see in the report, Madame Lagarde, we are worried about the incompleteness of our banking union. I'm glad to hear Mr Dombrovskis say that the Commission's work programme is going to push in this direction. We share very much the views that you expressed about what the priorities are, Madame Lagarde. We think that the 'doom loop' is alive and well. We think that it is still the case that, if we have a big bank fail, there will only really be states behind that bank and that our construction will not be sufficient. Because we have done a banking union that was supposed to consist of three pillars. The first pillar, which is supervision, is in place. The second pillar, which is resolution, is kind of in place, but not really in office 'in office but not in power' I guess is a better way to put it. It is not really acting to resolve most situations and most banks which are failing. The third pillar, as Madame Lagarde has pointed out, the deposit insurance, is not yet there. We believe that we need a banking union that cuts this knot between the banks and the states. We think that we need this principle of bail-in, rather than bail-out, to be enforced. And that means that the Commission has a lot of work to do. We will support that work and will really encourage you. We realise that it is politically difficult. I think the Parliament is ready to come behind a solution and I ask Madame Lagarde for your support. And Mr Dombrovskis for your work on this, thank you very much.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to welcome Madame Lagarde. Last week in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs , you said that more attention should be given to the cost of housing and home ownership when it comes to the European Central Bank inflation measure. I want to welcome those comments. We just had an election in Ireland where the cost of housing was one of the main issues that dominated voters' intentions. Serious advances have been made to address the problems but in Dublin, for example, rental prices have doubled since 2010 and property prices have gone up 85% since 2013. I think one should be putting more focus on the fact that house prices and rent rises are increasing rapidly across Europe and I think that we need to have more diverse financial instruments to deal with this. It goes back to a very important remark that you made yourself before you were appointed President of the ECB. You said the ECB needs to understand and explain to people not only the markets. I think if we are to rebuild trust with citizens, I think your consultation project in the Member States is very important. I see that as really democracy building, very important, but I think the housing issue is crucial because if we want to keep in touch with our citizens, we need to understand properly and account for the serious issues that they face in society. I think that we really need to look at this. It's an emerging serious social and economic issue across many, many Member States and I think it's one where you and the ECB could have a very crucial role to play in terms of leadership and understanding and looking at alternative solutions.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I didn't know that you had to be standing to address this Assembly, so I offer my apologies for not having done so in the first place and therefore I will align with the rule that you seem to have amongst you. I would like to first of all thank you very much for this dialogue that we had. It's very much part of what we at the European Central Bank, and more broadly within the euro system, want to actually have with public opinions, with civil society representatives, but more importantly, with those who represent the citizens of Europe: that is you, Members of Parliament, who have been elected by them. This is very much part of the accountability that we have towards you and, through you, to the citizens of Europe. We have conducted a few changes in the last few months, but certainly one of those that I very much look forward to implementing as we go into the strategy review that has been approved last month, is the constant dialogue that we need to have, and what we have called the outreach with you and, through you, with the citizens of Europe. So thank you for that. I thought I would just touch on some items of our strategy review to address some of the points that you have made. First of all, some of you have touched on the monetary policy and the current components of the instruments that we use in order to implement our policy and have been doing so since 2014. To those who argue that this monetary policy, and particularly its unconventional tools, have been counterproductive, I would very strongly encourage them to look at the impact that those unconventional tools have had on the economy in which way it has actually increased growth and helped our economies around Europe and the euro area in particular to fare better than it would have had it not been for those instruments that were used as part of the unconventional policy. It's obviously very difficult to quantify carefully and precisely by how much growth has been lifted in the euro area, but our models actually indicate that that growth has been probably higher by a margin of about 2.5% to 3% ever since those policies were put in place. In the same vein, it has contributed to inflation which, as you know, ever since the euro was put in place and ever since the strategy was revisited in 2003, is measured with reference to inflation, and clearly those unconventional tools that have been used since 2014 have helped inflation go up a bit. Well, certainly we would have liked it a lot more than that, and maybe this would have been the case if other tools had been used in conjunction with our monetary policy. But be it as it was, certainly inflation has increased by a factor of about half a percentage point probably, which is certainly not bad, given the level where we are. To those who were mentioning, by the way, that inflation was hovering around 1%, I would simply remind you that in January inflation was at about 1.3%, which is certainly not the goal that we have, but certainly a bit more than the 1% that was mentioned. Those unconventional tools that were used and the instruments that were deployed helped our economies and continue to help our economies. When you look at the volume and the number of new financing that are put in place for the real economy, whether it's the corporate or whether it's the households, we are seeing clearly financing that is very low in terms of cost, and I take the point that you made, sir, about the Irish banks and how much they charge and what interest rates they include, and we'll look into that for sure. But the cost of financing has been low and lower for the real economy. And number two, the volume of financing of the economy has increased and has continued to increase. You will have seen some comments recently about the fact that this continuum is slowing down. Yes, it is a little bit for the corporate, not for the households but it is continuing to grow nonetheless. So I would contend that, in the main, it has had a very positive effect on our economies, and as part of our strategy review, we'll look at how much and how effective it has been. But we will also look, as some of you have mentioned, to the potential side effects and to the accumulated side effects that it could have on citizens and on the economies as well. So that will be very much part and parcel of our review. The second point that I would like to emphasise briefly, and I've focused on the monetary policy tools and how we will look at them and measure them and measure the benefits as well as the negative effect, is climate change. Nobody can ask the European Central Bank to substitute what governments should do and what policies should be in general. As former managing director of the IMF, I think I'd be remiss not to remind all of us that one of the key tools in relation to climate change is clearly the proper pricing of carbon, and this is not something that a European Central Bank or any central bank in the world can actually decide. So as we go through our strategy review, we will determine where and how the issue of climate change and the fight against climate change can actually have an impact on our policies, whether it's in relation to our price stability primary objective and how it impacts this primary objective, or whether it's in relation to the management of risk that we are accountable to our European citizens and to you when we look at the composition of our portfolios and the one that we manage, and whether or not risks are actually properly priced and whether the climate change risks associated with some of the collateral that we have in our portfolios, for instance, are measured or not. So in that respect, climate change will be one of the items that we will take into account, together with the more traditional aspects that we will be measuring, and it's in the context of that strategy review, Mr Vice-President, that we will continue this dialogue, not only with you, but also with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs . The president of ECON was here and many members of the Committee are present in this room. We will continue to engage: we will have that dialogue, and we want that very much to be a two-way street. Now, I offer our apologies to those who had very specific questions on particular countries, but I propose to take that up bilaterally with those who are interested in specific countries or banks going forward.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the current subject of debate concerns an alleged breach of European Union sanctions currently in force vis-à-vis Venezuela. These were put in place in 2017 as part of the European Union's efforts to foster a credible and meaningful process that can lead to a peaceful, negotiated solution for the reinstatement of democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. These measures include a travel ban and asset freeze regarding 25 individuals, among them the Vice-President of Venezuela, Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez, included on this list having been designated by the European Union on 25 June 2018. A travel ban requires the European Union Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories by the listed persons. As you know, there is a division of competences in the area of sanctions within the European Union. First of all, Member States are responsible in all cases for the implementation and verification of sanctions adopted by the European Union in their own jurisdictions. Member States, I repeat, are responsible in all cases for the implementation and verification of sanctions adopted by the European Union. Therefore, when the issue of a possible violation of sanctions arises, for example an assets freeze or, as here, a travel ban, it is for the Member States concerned to investigate and determine whether this has in fact been the case. With regard to the wider oversight of the implementation of sanctions, the Commission has an overall monitoring role concerning the uniform application of such measures in an area with these competences. For example, this is the case for asset freeze and sectoral measures, but it is not the case for travel bans or arms embargoes. We can discuss the political appropriateness for Member States to give this competence to the European Union, although this would require a treaty change. But the situation, for the time being, is clear. The Commission cannot initiate any infringement procedure regarding a possible travel ban violation. Travel bans are, in practice, only contained in Council decisions and they do not therefore fall under Union law. Consequently, the Commission does not play a role in monitoring the implementation and cannot initiate an infringement procedure. As High Representative, talking here from the side of the Council, I am also responsible for ensuring the consistent application of the common foreign and security policy, including sanctions adopted by Member States in Council. In this context, the European External Action Service, in consultation with the European Union, where competent, would be directly in touch with the European Union Member States regarding alleged violations in order to ensure that these sanctions are being applied in a homogenous way in all Member States.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I am really grateful for having this opportunity to address you today on the Middle East peace process. This issue is of fundamental strategic importance to the European Union. For too long, we have been witnessing a conflict that has caused endless suffering for generations of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The increasingly dire situation on the ground, including violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion illegal, by the way and the consequences of the ongoing occupation, has destroyed hope on both sides and reduced the viability of a two-state solution. At an international level for a number of years there has been little or no substantive engagement in efforts to resolve the conflict. Indeed, as one observer pointed out to me recently, there is neither peace nor a process. In recent years, we on the European Union side are perhaps the only actor who has stayed the course. We have been vocal in our support for a negotiated two-state solution based on the internationally agreed parameters and in accordance with international law. This means a two-state solution based on the parameters set in the Council Conclusions our Council of July 2014, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues in order to end the conflict. Our vision, our European vision, is a principled one and a pragmatic one. It reflects our broader attachment as Europeans to the rules-based international order. We are also active on the ground. No other international actor has been as engaged as we have been in practical efforts to build a future Palestinian state. In 2019 alone, the European Union and its Member States had an open portfolio of some 600 million in assistance to the Palestinians. I said during my hearing: it means 600 million is almost EUR 1.5 million a day. Where are we today? It remains my firm view that there is still a way forward if both parties are willing to resume credible and meaningful negotiations. International support for any such efforts would clearly be crucial to their success. In this regard, the tabling of concrete proposals, such as the United States one, could be helpful, both as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the way forward and as a potential opportunity to quick-start a political process which has been at a standstill for too long. However, as I have said, the proposal tabled two weeks ago clearly challenges the internationally-agreed parameters, and it is difficult to see how this initiative can bring both parties back to the table. 25 out of 27 Member States in the Foreign Affairs Council supported this consideration. Two were against, so it was not a unanimous decision of the Council and I could not present it like this, but as a statement of the High Representative, which I am repeating here again. Last week I was in Washington; they were very busy days, talking with all foreign affairs external policy higher authorities of the US Government. I put this point to my interlocutors. We need to ask ourselves whether this plan provides a basis for progress or not. We need to know whether the proposals themselves are really open for negotiation. Is it the starting point, or the end point? For the European Union's part, our position is clear. We are ready to work with the international community to revive a political process in line with international law, which ensures equal rights and which is acceptable to both parties. Thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to an important discussion, which I'm sure will follow.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to thank all of you. We know this is a very divisive issue. It is in the Council and it is in the Parliament. But I would like to remind you that I'm not expressing my personal opinion. My job is to be the High Representative of the Council and I have to represent what I think is the opinion of the Council. Mr Zver, I haven't said that this statement was the position of the European Union. I precisely said and you should have listened to me that since it was not unanimous and it is in the records I could not present an agreement of the Council. It was a statement of the High Representative, representing whom? Representing the 25 Member States who agreed with the statement. I said very clearly you didn't notice so I will repeat it. It was not a statement of the European Union. It was a statement of the High Representative and was not unanimous. Mr Zver, why did I go to Iran? Because I have a mandate a unanimous mandate from the Member States of the Council asking me to go and talk with everyone in the broader region of the far Middle East to try to see if there is any possibility for us, the European Union, to contribute to increasing stability and peace in the region. I have a mandate to go and talk to everybody. Everybody means everybody, and I have been talking with the Foreign Affairs Minister of Saudi Arabia, I went to Jordan, I have been talking with the Emirates, I went to Tehran and I will go to Iraq in order to have a look at what we Europeans can do in order to contribute, if we can, to the peace and stability of this region. I am sorry, Mr Zver. I was confused. It was not you who spoke about what was or was not in the statement of the European Union. I think it was our colleague, Mr Ruissen. Sorry, I made a mistake. So my answer was directed to Mr Ruissen. My answer to you was relating to what I did in Iran. For sure we talked with the Iranians about everything that worries them and that worries us, but the main purpose was to ask what we can do in order to save the nuclear deal and what we can do in order to stabilise the region. We didn't spend much time talking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue because the Iranians are very much aware that they have nothing to say on that problem. Another Member I think it was Ms Kempa asked with whom I have been talking in the USA. Well, with the most prominent people, with Secretary of State Pompeo, with the National Security Advisor, Mr O'Brien, with Mr Kushner, the author of the plan, and with Ms Nancy Pelosi. And for sure the first three were very much in favour of their plan, while Ms Nancy Pelosi, who as you know is a Democrat, was very critical of it. As I say, I am not expressing my opinion. In fact my opinion is of no interest here. I am expressing the majority of the Council, and the majority of the Council has supported the statement in which we sent a message saying that, first, everybody has to refrain from any unilateral actions contrary to international law which could exacerbate tensions further. We are asking that no one annexes the Jordan Valley. Yet this may happen. If it happens, you can be sure that it is not going to be peaceful. Maybe for some it doesn't matter, but for us it matters a lot because we cannot provoke a wave of violence another wave of violence in Palestine. We are asking Palestinians to keep calm and not go to violent demonstrations. We asked for the proposal to be considered as a starting point and I said clearly that maybe it could break the stalemate and create the dynamics in which we can go and talk again about what we can do in order to look for a solution to this very old, damaging and painful problem. I am not denying the possibility of this being a starting point. What I am denying is not this possibility, but the fact that it is being considered as an end point because, if I tell you 'come and negotiate, but I'll tell you one thing. If we don't agree, I will implement my proposal anyway.' this is not a big incentive to negotiate. 'Come and negotiate but be aware that, if you don't agree with me, I will implement the proposal anyway.' Do you call that a negotiation? That's what we refuse. And that is what we have been saying. And believe me, we invited Secretary of State Pompeo to come to the Foreign Affairs Council to explain directly to all Member States their proposal. I know that there are some who are closer to this position and others who are very far away from it. I know that there is not going to be a unanimous position on this. It's too divisive. But we have to discuss and we have to look, if not for unanimity, for the majority whatever it is and, believe me, I don't think the majority of the Member States of the European Union are considering this proposal as a good starting point. But we'll do our best and talk with everyone in order to try to break this stalemate and push for negotiations. Some very optimistic people asked me why we don't try to do something like we did many years ago in Madrid the Oslo process and the Madrid process. I think we have the commitment to do something. We cannot just refuse. We cannot say that's not good enough. We have to look for something that works and this is going to be part of the discussions that we are going to have next Monday in the Foreign Affairs Council.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the war in Syria is now in its ninth year. It is the most severe humanitarian catastrophe and security crisis; it is unfolding right now in the north-west of the country, and in other parts of Syria we continue to see instability and dramatic human suffering. Last Thursday, we heard the United Nations Special Envoy Geir Pedersen and the Head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Mark Lowcock briefing the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Idlib. They described how regime forces led by Russia and Iran are launching heavy military offensives with no regard for the civilian population or civilian infrastructure. 'We appear to have lost sight of the principle of proportionality', the United Nations Special Envoy said. The intensification of military operations in Idlib has resulted in the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of civilians. Attacks continue on civilian targets in densely populated areas, on medical facilities and settlements for internationally displaced people. These are blatant and serious violations of international humanitarian law. There has to be accountability for those responsible. Since military operations began in Idlib in February 2019, one year ago, more than one million people have been displaced towards Turkey we are talking about one million displaced people in one year and every day more Syrians are fleeing the fighting and another wave of refugees is quite possibly in the making. We also see clashes between the Syrian regime and Turkish forces, plus the risk of Turkish and Russian militaries confronting each other. These tensions could in turn trigger a wider regional conflict. The ceasefire agreed between Ankara and Moscow must be implemented. This is the situation. Now, let me say this. After almost a decade of violence, the suffering of the Syrian people at the hands of the regime and its backers must cease. Too many people have died and those that are alive face a bleak future. The EU has major stakes in Syria, and in the surrounding region. We cannot afford more regional instability and another migrant crisis. We must avoid a resurgence of Daesh and other terrorist organisations on Europe's doorstep. The EU has a duty to preserve the rules-based international order, including the legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council. Yes, I know, we say that again and again, and we have to continue saying that. Recent military gains by the Syrian regime are not translating into stability. On the contrary, the Syrian regime will not bring peace and stability to Syria if it continues to pursue on military logic and the repression of its people. The economic situation is deteriorating rapidly, exacerbated by the banking crashes in Lebanon. The regime must change its behaviour. We have stated from the very beginning that only a comprehensive and inclusive political solution, in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, will allow sustainable peace and stability in Syria and the region. The EU will continue to support the efforts of United Nations Special Envoy Pedersen in relaunching the Constitutional Committee in Geneva. We also need to focus on other parts of this resolution, such as a nationwide ceasefire, the release of detainees, and making progress on the file of missing persons. Let's recall that the European Union is, and remains, the largest humanitarian donor to Syria and its people, both inside, and to Syrian refugees and host communities in neighbourhood countries. We are supporting the resilience of ordinary civilians and civil society to maintain the social fabric of Syrian society. We are convinced that our support is a fundamental investment it is not an expenditure, it is an investment in the future of Syria and the region, which is part of our future, and as a partner of the global coalition to defeat Daesh the EU is conducting stabilisation projects in the north-east of Syria. We are always prepared to do more on all these lines of action, within the limits of our common red lines. These are: no normalisation with the regime, no risking of our funding being diverted to the regime or to the terrorists, and no reconstruction before a political process is firmly under way. We will continue to apply European Union sanctions targeting individuals and entities associated with the regime and responsible for its repressive and inhuman policies and not the Syrian people. As I said before, the conflict in Syria is a geopolitical struggle. The European Union has a responsibility to lead for the sake of the Syrian people and to protect our own interests. While difficult, we must redouble our efforts to identify common interests with our other international stakeholders Russia, the US, Turkey and others and maybe I will have occasion to update on our discussions with Washington about this issue.
| EU | null |
Madam President, the comprehensive EU-Africa strategy is a window of opportunity for a much needed fresh start for EU-Africa relations, and let us promise each other here today that we will now try to move forward beyond words and good intentions to concrete actions. Let us be strategically action-oriented and not waste any more time. A new strategy must recognise the strength and potential in the African economy, pursue the long-term strategic and mutual interests of the EU and our African partners, and support the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals . For the EU-Africa strategy to be successful, I believe that three things are necessary. Firstly, a clear vision of the end game, and a concrete plan to use a comprehensive approach with all available tools. Secondly, an awareness of what can be gained if we succeed in strengthening our partnership and what is at stake if we don't. Thirdly, defining how we can better use aid-effectiveness tools at our disposal and that the Commission take a lead in coordinating all EU institutions and Member States. There are plenty of mutually beneficial opportunities economic growth, employment and trade. There are also immediate challenges climate change, poverty, conflict and irregular migration. The high population growth that we see in Africa also means that poverty levels will continue to increase. In 2030, global poverty is expected to be almost exclusively centred in Africa. Conflicts tend to brew in countries facing poverty and with high levels of unemployment. On behalf of the Committee on Development, I have tabled a series of questions to the Commission and hopefully today we can get some clear answers. Firstly, how does the strategy effectively contribute to the implementation of the SDGs and the fundamental objectives of poverty eradication? What measures and what mechanisms will be put in place? Secondly, how will the new strategy contribute to the strategic interests and common priorities of both partners with a view to good governance, human rights, the fight against inequalities, climate change, etc.? Thirdly, how will the Commission ensure the involvement of numerous stakeholders, like national parliaments, governments, local authorities, the private sector, civil society, in the design of the strategy? And fourthly, let me also express some concern regarding the potential for overlaps. What I'm talking about is the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument , in which Africa is of course a priority, as well as the negotiations on the future of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement. To be concrete, how will the Commission ensure consistency and avoid the risk of developing overlapping strategic frameworks? Finally, development policy coherence is something that is in our Treaty obligations and it's high time that we tried to deliver on that commitment. Therefore, I would like to know: how will you make sure to incorporate development policy coherence in the strategy design. To conclude, from the colleagues in the Committee on Development: we do look forward to working together with the Commission. We have a huge task in front of us but also great opportunities. Let's get the work started together.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I would like to start by thanking you for inviting me to discuss such a milestone in Europe-Africa relations as the new EU strategy for Africa. As I committed during my hearing to do my utmost to strengthen and deepen the cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament, I am glad to exchange with you here today. How more appropriate for my first address to this Chamber than discussing our relationship with the African continent? I value your experience, knowledge and views and believe them to be important for a topic such as this one. On our first trip outside Europe, President von der Leyen and I went to Hear Africa. We experienced a continent of youth, brimming with confidence, full of potential and attractive for the global players. We met a partner that deserves a more positive engagement from us. We have already paved the way for change with the Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Investment and Jobs, supported by the External Investment Plan for sustainable investments, and have achieved, in such a short amount of time, tangible progress. Now we can capitalise on those achievements and go further. It is time for a new chapter that brings a step change in our relationship. For that to happen, we need a new, comprehensive strategy, a strategy that supports Africa's potential political economic governance efforts and moves to bolster peace and resilience, a strategy with Africa that ensures partners' ownership and commitment, and a strategy that better positions the EU in the new global context, reflecting the aims of this geopolitical Commission and the ambitions of the European Green Deal. The Abidjan priorities we set back in 2017 remain valid today. Our approach is not to change direction, but to step up a gear for better results. The strategy's comprehensive character will be ensured by its inbuilt links with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the EU Global Strategy, the European Consensus on Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. We will continue to work on economic continental integration, human development, mobility and migration. Thematically, apart from addressing the climate and environmental challenges, we will focus on digitalisation and gender equality, which are major enablers for development. There cannot be development without solid governance, respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Therefore, we will pursue our efforts in these areas, along with the fight for peace and security, and against extremism. Finally, yet importantly, we would like to work closer with our African partners on the multilateral rule-based system that is being called into question more and more. A key priority through my mandate, I will ensure that the implementation of this strategy supports the power that youth represents. Young people, including young women, must also own this strategy. Work on the new ambitious framework is already ongoing, both at political and technical level. In the meantime, we continue listening and trying to ensure broad ownership of the strategy, both by yourselves and our Member States, as well as by our African partners and civil society, including young people. We will hold an EU-AU 'college to college' meeting on 27 February in Ethiopia and a ministerial meeting in May. Both events will provide key opportunities for dialogue with our African partners. I intend to travel to Africa in February and March to consult as broadly as possible. The proposal for the new strategy will be on our college agenda for adoption in early March. That will mark the beginning of more concrete work with our key stakeholders. I look forward to our debate and hearing your views on what you see as priority areas for a renewed Africa-EU partnership.
| EU | null |
Madam President, honourable Members, let me thank you for this constructive exchange. I have to say that I'm confident in our ability to build a new strategic and fruitful partnership with Africa which is focused on sustainable development. Your contribution to the strategy is key in the process of shaping its basis. The Commission, together with the European External Action Service, are still drafting the strategy in order to make it as comprehensive as possible. Dear Members of Parliament, please be assured your comments here today have been noted. I am especially happy that so many of you mentioned youth and young people. The strategy will constitute a significant change in strengthening our partnership with Africa. The strategy will work towards fighting global challenges that both our continents simply cannot, and must not, ignore. 2020 will be a pivotal year for the Africa-Europe partnership. We agreed with the ACP chief negotiator, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Togo, Professor Robert Dussey, that we will aim at closing the post-Cotonou negotiations by the end of March, and we will hold in the run up to the African Union-European Union summit a number of side events, with the main stakeholders all providing opportunities to design our partnership together. We will also strive to ensure that we will dispose of the right means to implement our policies by facilitating the agreement of the MMF in good time. We need to join forces as institutions to deliver on these important milestones. Only together only together we can create sustainable safe and peaceful communities in which our planet can recover and all of us can learn, work, grow and build fulfilling lives. I am really looking forward to continuing our fruitful exchange.
| EU | null |
Mr President, two weeks ago we commemorated in Brussels the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Holocaust survivor Liliana Segre shared with us her moving story about the evils of humanity she confronted as a young girl. She reminded us that hatred, racism and anti-Semitism is still today haunting European societies and endangering our diverse societies and the minorities in our midst. It is the duty of the EU to prevent history from repeating itself and to uphold the values upon which the Union is based. The Holocaust has shown us where anti-Semitism and racism can lead and its memory is at the very core of the European project of a Europe that protects its Jewish communities and all other minorities. We have seen that fear and hatred against 'the other' has become normalised in recent years. It flourishes in mainstream media, in political debate and in the online world. It is a major challenge to our whole society and not only to the affected communities. The anti-Semitic attack against the synagogue in Halle is only the most recent example but, on a daily basis, minorities become victims of hatred online and offline. It has been a key priority for the EU to ensure first and foremost the correct transposition and implementation of the relevant EU legislation, including the Racial Equality Directive, the Employment Equality Directive and the Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia. The Commission has been working closely together with Member State authorities and civil society in the EU High-Level Group on combating racism and xenophobia to ensure the effective application of the rules against hate speech and hate crime by the whole enforcement chain. The developed tools will assist Member States in strengthening a practical response to implement. Dedicated formats of the high-level group will ensure in the future that the tools are implemented by Member States to make tangible progress in recording and responding to hate crime and hate speech. In particular, as regards hate speech, the Commission has pushed for stronger action; it initiated the code of conduct on combating illegal hate speech online whereby major IT companies have committed to review flagged hate speech within 24 hours and remove content when necessary. Fast progress has been achieved. In 2016, only 28% of the content was removed. Now it is above 70%, and 89% of the notices are assessed within the committed period. We regularly monitor the progress. Next month we will present the results of the fifth monitoring exercise carried out together with civil society organisations. We managed to bring together all actors from civil society, IT companies and state authorities to strengthen our response to hate speech online. Our two coordinators on combating anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred have been proactively reaching out to Jewish and Muslim communities, and strengthening the collaboration with international organisations, Member States' authorities and non-governmental organisations. We also intensively work on implementing the EU-Roma strategy containing measures against anti-Gypsyism. The adoption of the Council Declaration on combating anti-Semitism was a milestone. All Member States unanimously agreed on actions and were invited to develop national strategies. The Commission created a dedicated working group to ensure concrete follow-up to the Council declaration and support Member States and Jewish communities to work together on developing these strategies. We are glad that the incoming German Presidency has announced already their intention to place the fight against anti-Semitism high on the agenda. Distorting our common history has been one of the trademarks of fanning the flames of hatred and division, be it by third countries or within our own societies. Where today there are attempts to deny or distort the memory of the Holocaust, where people are vilified because they are Jews, this is where Europe is called into question. Attempts to distort our history are threatening our foundations. Disinformation and fake news attack our past but also, and first of all, our present. Our democracies must be harnessed to respond to this challenge and they must themselves adapt. Online platforms have been misused to disseminate and amplify manipulative messages to distort the democratic debate and interfere in the political process. For four out of five Europeans, disinformation is a problem for democracy. We must ensure that democracy remains well protected in Europe. To better harness our democracy, the Commission will put forward a European democracy action plan. It will help counter disinformation and support free and independent media and will also aim to ensure greater transparency of paid political advertising and provide clearer rules on the financing of EU political parties. Transparency and accountability is essential, as well as not allowing external interventions in our democratic systems by those who wish to divide and destabilise our Union. This is a common priority for the Commission, European institutions and the Member States. As we see minorities under pressure again today, we must raise our voices and redouble our efforts to ensure that Europeans can go about their lives free from the threat of anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobic hatred. The Commission is looking forward to working with the European Parliament and in particular the Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup and the Working Group on Anti-Semitism.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I have listened to many speeches, but one that will stay with me for a long time to come was given by Marian Turski last month, 75 years after he, weighing all of 32 kilos, walked out of Auschwitz. He called for an end to indifference. 'Auschwitz did not fall from the sky,' he said. It happened slowly, because too many people turned a blind eye to justice, too many people found comfort in scapegoats, and too many people accepted prejudiced laws. That is why we fight anti-Semitism, racism and any hatred everywhere today, because in Europe we know only too well the depths of horror that man has sunk to and can sink to. If we teach people not only about what happened, but about how it happened, slowly through gradually increasing measures, then maybe we can truly learn the lessons of history, even when the voices of the survivors can be heard no more. Now, today, we still witness attacks on Jews and synagogues in Europe, we still see the scapegoating going on, and we are still seeing states move slowly away from the values this Union was founded upon. We see our fundamental rights under threat in too many places. So we cannot be silent when Europeans live with a packed suitcase by their door, just in case. We cannot be silent in the face of injustice anywhere. Let no one fighting for justice ever look to Europe and be met as they have been met with shrugs of shoulders or excuses that favour political expediency. Our European history has too often been built on the backs of the broken. When we say 'never again', we must mean it, and that means taking action. And in conclusion, Roman Kent coined the eleventh commandment: 'Thou shalt not be indifferent'. May it become our guiding principle.
| EU | null |
Mr President, honourable Members, I am very grateful for the dedication and support of the European Parliament for this issue. I say to the House: I would like to react on several comments. Indeed, you quoted here the survey of Fundamental Rights Agency and Eurobarometer, which really show alarming and shocking figures. When you ask the Jewish citizen in the EU what is his or her main concern, the answer is security. When you ask the European people who are not of Jewish origin, they will say 'we have concerns about our health, our jobs, our family'. And this is really very alarming that the Jewish people have such an elementary fear and that they plan to leave Europe. Jewish people leaving Europe has never been a good sign, and this is not a Europe we want. And I think it was Ms Ries, who left already, she asked whether we are doing enough. I regret to say 'no, we are not doing enough yet', and we have all of us the obligation to do much more. The Commission worked hard to deliver or achieve some tangible results in the fight against anti-Semitism. We decided to promote the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which now is used also by the majority of the Member States. We are openly speaking and addressing the sources of anti-Semitism and it was also mentioned here: it is far-right, far-left, it is Islamist radicalism and also old conspiracy theories. That's why we urged the Member States, the ministers of home affairs, to adopt the decision to create the strategies on a Member States level. The anti-Semitism strategies, which will bring very concrete plans especially into areas, in the security area and in education. The strategies are now in the in the process of creation and under the German Presidency, we will look at these strategies and will decide on how to continue further. We want to see concrete measures accompanied with money. On security, I think it is absolutely intolerable that the Jewish communities have to finance their own security and the protection of Jewish premises, such as schools and synagogues. We have to do much more on education. It should also be reflected in the national strategies and accompanied by money, and here comes also European money because we have in the values programme a dedicated amount for education in this field. I was also in Auschwitz two weeks ago, commemorating the 75 years after liberation of the camp and I was listening to authentic testimonies of the survivors. We will not be able to hear these testimonies from authentic people very soon. We have to find a way how to explain to the younger generation what the Holocaust was, and to change the narrative, because we keep discussing about the results of the Holocaust, the horrifying statistical figures. But we have to start speaking seriously about the sources of the Holocaust. How it started, because this is exactly what Marian Turski spoke about in Auschwitz-Birkenau, at that commemoration event. He didn't speak about the past, he spoke about the present. How it can happen again. That it will be innocent at the beginning, slow and it will be driven by our passivity and our being indifferent. He warned very strongly against being indifferent. The last comment on your contributions on online hate speech. We have an agreement with the big players in the tech industry to remove hate speech, but it cannot be enough. There must be a 'crime and punishment' principle also online. That's why I urged very strongly the law enforcement authorities in all the Member States to go after these cases and to show that it is not possible just to rely on the fact that, or the impression that, online has no law. We have to do much more. Law enforcement authorities have started to be more active. But what they keep telling me is that in Europe, in the 21st century, crime has no boarders, the digital area has no more borders and that law enforcement authorities are trapped by the national borders. And they cannot reach for the evidence of crime in another Member State. That's why I wanted to ask you to look at again at the regulation on evidence which the Commission developed because if this is adopted, it will help a lot to go after crime wherever it happens in the EU.
| EU | null |
Mr President, honourable Members, you will remember that on 15 January Commissioner Reynders and I updated you on the state of play of the rule of law in Poland. Since then, the Commission has been in contact with the Polish authorities. Commissioner Reynders met a representative of the Polish Ministry of Justice on 24 January, and I visited Warsaw on 28 January. At that occasion, I made the speakers of the Sejm and the Senate, the Minister of Justice, the First President of the Supreme Court of Poland, the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, and the Ombudsman. I carefully listened to the arguments of the Polish Government and explained to them the Commission's stance. The Commission is committed and available to have an open and fair dialogue to resolve the issues at hand. At the same time, the Commission will always fulfil its responsibility as the guardian of the Treaties. To that end, it will make use of infringement procedures whenever there are issues of compatibility with Union law. Likewise, the Article 7 process continues as long as the situation points to serious systemic threats to the rule of law. At our last debate in this House, we informed you in particular about the draft new law governing the functioning of the judiciary. I explained that the draft legislation touches upon matters such as the independence of the judiciary, further raising the Commission's concerns in this area. For this reason, I sent a letter to the Polish authorities on 19 December 2019. The letter recalled that the Commission wants to work with the Polish authorities to strengthen the rule of law by preventing problems and by working towards resolving them when they arise. I also invited all state organs not to take forward the proceedings on the new draft legislation before carrying out all the necessary consultations. On 16 January, the Venice Commission issued an urgent opinion on this new law raising serious concerns and recommending not to adopt it. On 24 January the new law on the judiciary was adopted by the Sejm, and on 4 February the President of the republic signed the law. This law raises a number of concerns as regards the rule of law. As noted by the Venice Commission, there is concern that this new law may further undermine judicial independence in Poland. It also raises concerns of compatibility with EU law and the Commission is now assessing these issues in detail. I can assure you that the Commission is committed to ensure the full respect of EU law and will take all necessary measures in that regard. In addition to the adoption of the new law, a number of other developments took place. On 15 January, the Supreme Court issued two judgments implementing the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice regarding the independence of the disciplinary chamber. The Supreme Court confirmed the position taken in its ruling of 5 December 2019 and stated that the disciplinary chamber is not an independent court within the meaning of EU and national law. Furthermore, in a resolution of 23 January the Supreme Court decided that the judges appointed at the request of the new national council for the judiciary, are not permitted to adjudicate cases. The resolution also invalidated all the rulings handed down by members of the disciplinary chamber. Another important development is the fact that the Constitutional Tribunal has been seized on the constitutionality of the approach on judicial independence that had been developed by the Supreme Court following the Court of Justice preliminary ruling on 19 November 2019. On 28 January 2020, the Constitutional Tribunal took an interim decision aimed at suspending the applicability of the Supreme Court's resolution. As regards the disciplinary regime, you will remember that on 14 January the Commission decided to make a request for interim measures, asking the Court of Justice to order Poland to suspend the functioning of the disciplinary chamber. Meanwhile, I can only observe that the disciplinary chamber continues to operate. To conclude, I regret to say that these recent developments show that the situation is very serious. This is also reflected in the recent decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to open a monitoring procedure over the functioning of Poland's democratic institutions and the rule of law. At the same time, I want to reiterate that the Commission remains ready to continue a dialogue with the Polish authorities to solve the issues at hand. During my visit to Poland, the authorities expressed openness for having such dialogue both at political and technical level. I trust that we can embark on an open discussion with Poland. Respect for the rule of law is a matter for both EU institutions and Member States, and it is an essential element for the functioning of the internal market based on mutual trust and recognition.
| EU | null |
Mr President, it is telling of the urgency of the situation that we are back here discussing Poland today. We are here because Polish citizens are Europeans too, and they are no less deserving of the same protection and the same rights as anyone in Sweden, Italy or Germany. Where every avenue for justice available to them on a national level has been blocked, neutered or taken over, then we will not shy away from playing our role. We are having this discussion now as a measure of last resort, as an appeal to the Polish Government to choose dialogue over confrontation, to choose justice over prejudice, and to choose European values over the failed populism of the past. I take no satisfaction in pointing out the irony of the fact that the last time the judicial system in Poland was under such pressure from the government was before 1989. What this Polish Government has done is move to the past. They have used the same tired tactics of regression and oppression that fly in the face of everything Europeans have fought against and everything that Europe stands for today. But, if that is what the Government symbolises, then the brave judges stand for exactly the opposite and we look to those judges with respect and honour. Their bravery to their oath is a true symbol of the Polish courage that the world admires. There are consequences to being an EU Member State. There are rules of this club that states agreed to follow. So now the Commission must use all the possible tools to immediately apply interim measures to prevent further repression, to protect the European way and to protect the Polish people. The disciplinary chamber, the 'Muzzle Law', the continued anti-European path of the Government means that Poland is drifting away and we are here extending a hand. Do not turn your backs on Europe.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I remember when we had this debate last time, four weeks ago. I remember saying that the situation in Poland is unprecedented and that in fact never in the history of the EU has any Member State government exerted so much control over the judiciary. Now here we are, four weeks later, and the situation is even worse. Poland is now the first Member State where applying EU law can actually get judges fired. Worst of all, the Constitutional Court, which is supposed to be the ultimate guardian of checks and balances, is actually doing the Government's bidding in its war on independent judges. Time is indeed running out because, if the Supreme Court is fully captured, which seems to be where we are headed, then it could spell the end of the separation of powers in one of our Member States. This is why the EU must indeed act. As has been said, this is not to punish Poland or the Polish Government. This is for one simple reason: we must act to protect the civil and democratic rights of EU citizens, in this case Polish citizens. I often hear and we'll hear it here as well that there's a Western bias in our approach to Poland and that people in western Europe can't understand the legal tradition and what it means to inherit the communist judiciary and try to reform it. So let me say, as a Slovak politician and as someone whose parents and family were actually persecuted by the communist judiciary, that judicial independence and rule of law is not a matter of legal tradition, but is a core constitutional principle of the European Union.
| EU | null |
Madam President, one thing is true. There is not only one way to build a democratic system; not all legal traditions in Europe are the same. But for all democratic systems there is a pre-condition, and that is that winning a majority does not mean that you can undermine rule of law and fundamental rights. I mentioned both of them, because actually both of these are currently under attack in Poland. The independence of the judiciary and thus the separation of powers, which is the cornerstone of rule of law instead of the law of the ruler, but also fundamental rights, especially of those from whom they are most easy to be taken away. I believe that in our reply in the future on the discussion under the Article 7 procedure and the mechanism on the rule of law and also in the future debate, we should take both of these dimensions into consideration. Poland is a country in the heart of Europe. Without Poland, this Union could never be complete. Polish citizens are indeed European citizens. So instead of blaming Brussels or the European Court of Justice or whoever they want for what is going on, the Polish Government should actually engage in an open and constructive dialogue to solve these very urgent and important problems. And I urge you, colleagues, to also bring this message to Poland. Colleagues, no matter where you stand in this debate, what we have seen in smear campaigns, in hate campaigns, also against Members of this Parliament in Poland in the past month and years, is absolutely unacceptable. We can only engage in a democratic debate if we uphold the rights of, and respect towards, the other.
| EU | null |
Madam President, allow me to come back to certain issues raised during this debate. First, as regards the new law , I would like to assure you that the Commission is always open to a fair dialogue with Member States to solve problems but will not hesitate to use all the tools at its disposal to ensure the respect of EU law. The new law raises concerns of compatibility with EU law, including the principle of the primacy of EU law, the requirements of judicial independence under EU law, and the right to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. The Commission is analysing the law in detail, and in reply to comments from some Members, let me reiterate that the European Court of Justice ruled that until the organisation of justice in the Member States falls within their competence, the fact remains that when exercising that competence, the Member States are required to comply with their obligations under EU law. EU law requires respect for the rule of law, in particular judicial independence. This is crucial, because Polish courts are European courts and they have to ensure that Polish citizens can fully enjoy their rights under EU law. This is why I'm seriously concerned by the new law, and I can assure you, as Commissioner for Justice, that the Commission will take its responsibility as the Guardian of the Treaty and take all necessary measures to ensure the respect of EU law. I also note that the Disciplinary Chamber continues to operate, despite the rulings of the Supreme Court. In those rulings, following the Court of Justice judgment of 19 November, the Supreme Court concluded that the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court within the meaning of EU and national law. I would like to stress that preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are biding and need to be fully respected. National courts must apply national law in line with the interpretation of the Court of Justice. Notably, on 4 February 2020, the Disciplinary Chamber decided to suspend in office the first judge seeking to apply the ruling of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019. He has also been subject to a 40% reduction of his salary. The Supreme Court also ruled that the National Council for the Judiciary is not an independent and impartial body. However, the Council continues to operate. As an example, on 31 January it selected six candidates to the Disciplinary Chamber, two of which being current members of the National Judicial Council. In the light of today's debate, let me say a few words on the situation of the Constitutional Tribunal. I want to recall that in its reasoned proposal of December 2017 triggering the Article 7 procedure, the Commission concluded that the independence and legitimacy of the Constitutional Tribunal are seriously undermined and consequently, the constitutionality of Polish laws can no longer be effectively guaranteed. I can only note in this respect that, following the rulings of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice judgment, the tribunal has been seized by a number of authorities. Your debate reminds me of statements warning that the current situation leads to legal chaos. I will simply reply that the remedy to such a situation is that rulings rendered by independent courts must be fully respected by all authorities. To conclude, let me add that the Commission is working on a comprehensive European rule of law mechanism. It will be a preventive tool covering all Member States and will provide a synthesis of significant developments related to the different components of the rule of law. It will be based on a variety of sources of information in order to reflect the reality on the ground. This will allow us to identify and prevent early on rule-of-law-related issues. This new mechanism will cover all Member States in the same way. The first annual Rule of Law Report is one of the key initiatives of the Commission Work Programme for 2020. The preparation of this report is already in an operational phase. We have established a network of contact persons of Member States which will help with its preparation. The report will also be part of the new rule-of-law cycle, with strong involvement of the European Parliament and the Council. However, let me be clear that this preventive mechanism does not replace response mechanisms like infringement procedures and the Article 7 procedure where they prove necessary. We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to promote and protect the rule of law in all the Member States, including Poland.
| EU | null |
Madam President, this is an issue that I personally feel strongly about and it's something that we, like Parliament, are committed to controlling and stopping. But in order to guide our discussion correctly, we need to start from the fact that the welfare of companion animals in the EU is mainly regulated at the national level. Member States have sole competence for cat and dog welfare, and they also have the sole responsibility for the identification, registration and conditions for keeping and moving these animals within their natural territory. EU rules cover cross-border trade in cats and dogs. Clear rules apply to both commercial and non-commercial movements and cover both animals moved within the EU and also those entering from the outside. These rules are mainly designed to protect animal health and prevent the spread of animal diseases, especially rabies. They also ensure any dogs and cats entering the EU or moved between countries are properly identified and vaccinated. Where illegal trade in cats and dogs is identified, it is therefore not due to a lack of legislation but because the legislation that is in place is not properly enforced by the Member States, and this is where we need to invest a lot more energy. In recent years we have tried to strengthen the legal framework to help Member States tackle illegal trade. The new Animal Health Law, which comes into force in April 2021, has made important changes. Firstly, it requires compulsory registration of all establishments breeding dogs and cats, and all transporters who take dogs and cats between Member States. Secondly, it obliges Member States to improve all shelters and assembly centres from which dogs and cats are moved to other Member States. These new measures will help to control trade of companion animals in a better way, and we consider that they are sufficient for tackling illegal trade. But again, it is crucial that these rules are properly applied and enforced, and for this we have taken several actions in Member States. The first of these is the EU coordinated control plan on the online sale of dogs and cats, this in order to give Member States insight into fraudulent practices and encourage them to control the online market more effectively. And the second is the voluntary initiative launched in the framework of the EU Animal Welfare Platform: the sub-group on health and welfare of pets, and this involves all relevant stakeholders and provides guidelines to ensure better animal health and welfare for companion animals. Thirdly, and finally: training provided for national authorities via the Better Training for Safer Food initiative, which encourages best practices to control imports and trade of dogs and cats. One element the new rules do not cover is the development of interconnected databases, and I believe that this is a question of proportionality. We consider that this would be disproportionate to the animal health risk without a clear indication of EU added value. We will, however and I want to be clear on this monitor the situation closely, continue working with Member States and stakeholders to ensure the illegal trade in cats and dogs in the EU is brought to an end.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I'd like to thank you all for this important debate. I have heard your interventions very carefully. What you don't need to do is to try and convince me that we need to do more. I am a very proud owner of a companion animal. I have myself been following what has been going on for the last few years online, and really I must admit that I share with you that a lot of what we are seeing is, to say the least, extremely sad and even shocking. So you don't need to convince me that more needs to be done. Now I'm going to restate that the Commission, and myself personally, are committed to look at finding ways to end the illegal trade of cats and dogs. I do believe that the new Animal Health Law will address many of these issues. It does have compulsory registration, finally, of establishments breeding cats and dogs, and we do now have, if not all the necessary measures, a great deal more necessary measures to help Member States prevent and detect this unacceptable practice. But it is also important that we enforce the rules, and I think we all need to understand that these are not being enforced. All the stakeholders have an important role to play in this by developing guidelines, and I was very interested and I agree that we need to also have more public awareness campaigns of this problem. The new Official Controls Regulation provides far stronger penalties and more tools to address online sales, and I believe that by working together we can stop the illegal trade of companion animals. It is a threat to the internal market and public and animal health, as well as animal welfare, and what I can commit to, as a Commissioner, is that I will be looking at this even more closely and seeing how the Animal Health Law is implemented and, if necessary, what else we can do.
| EU | null |
Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren Abgeordneten! In der Tat, wir werden nächste Woche den außerordentlichen Europäischen Rat haben, und das ist ein wichtiger Moment für Europa. Die Ausgangsposition ist im Prinzip gut, denn alle drei Institutionen das Parlament, der Rat und die Kommission sind sich einig über die strategische Agenda. Wir wissen alle, was auf dem Spiel steht. Wir haben sehr klare gemeinsame politische Ziele: Europa soll 2050 der erste klimaneutrale Kontinent sein, und zwar nicht nur, weil es um die Gesundheit des Planeten geht das ist das Hauptziel , aber auch, weil wir wissen, dass dahinter, wenn wir eine saubere und umweltfreundliche Wirtschaft entwickeln, neue Jobs stehen, die nachhaltig sind und die damit auch Zukunft bedeuten. Wir wollen vom digitalen Wandel in der Welt profitieren, und zwar nicht nur passiv, sondern wir wollen auch aktiv Akteure sein. Und wir wollen die Menschen in Europa stärken, indem wir einerseits den Übergang, der durch die ökologische und digitale Transformation ausgelöst wird, abfedern und andererseits genau das machen, was richtig ist, nämlich investieren in die Bildung und Ausbildung, gerade mit Kompetenzen auf dem ökologischen und digitalen Feld. Doch uns läuft die Zeit davon, und lassen Sie es mich noch einmal ganz deutlich formulieren: Wenn der Haushalt nicht bald beschlossen wird, dann werden wir im nächsten Jahr nicht in der Lage sein, mit dem neuen Haushalt die neuen Prioritäten tatsächlich auch so zu finanzieren, wie wir uns das alle vorstellen. And, therefore, after nearly two years of deliberations it is high time now. All of us must be ready to find common ground. And what is important: we have to find the right balance between old priorities and new priorities. Because if you look at the negotiations, while there are many, many Member States that strongly defend cohesion policies, and rightly so. And there are many Member States that strongly defend the common agricultural policies, and rightly so. But I also expect to see the same dedication when it comes to defending our new priorities. Because the day the budget will be signed, the day we have agreed on a budget and I know that everybody will turn around towards the Parliament and towards the Commission and will ask for: Horizon Europe, will ask for Erasmus, ask for migration funds, for defence, for digitalisation, for infrastructure, you name it. And, therefore, we really have to make sure that these new priorities get the attention they deserve. We have to deliver on a European budget that is able to invest in digital start-up, to explore the potential of artificial intelligence, to anchor Europe's position as the world's leading research region, to offer young people a better future and all parts of Europe, to address the root causes of migration, to allow us to demonstrate solidarity in cases of humanitarian or natural catastrophes, to allow to build the European Union of security and defence. But, most of all, we need a budget so that citizens and companies see that we are able to act on climate change. For citizens this is the top priority. For us, it's a challenge, but it's our duty to turn this challenge into an opportunity. Le succès de ces négociations budgétaires dépendra des moyens que nous nous donnerons de financer notre pacte vert pour l'Europe. Moi, je n'accepterai aucun résultat qui ne garantisse pas qu'au moins 25 % du budget soit consacré à la lutte contre le changement climatique. J'attends un budget qui alloue les nouvelles ressources nécessaires au mécanisme pour une transition juste. La raison en est simple: si nous ne nous donnons pas les moyens nécessaires pour soutenir les régions et les travailleurs les plus exposés aux conséquences économiques et sociales des politiques relatives au changement climatique, nous ne réussirons tout simplement pas à atteindre la neutralité climatique. Le pacte vert pour l'Europe se fera avec les citoyens européens, avec les chercheurs européens, avec les entreprises européennes, ou il ne se fera pas du tout. Je pense, tout comme vous, que de nouvelles ressources propres pour l'Union constitueraient une avancée importante. Pour cela, j'ai instamment prié les États membres de tenir pleinement compte de la position du Parlement européen à cet égard. Je suis convaincue que cela donnera un coup d'accélérateur à notre programme commun et allégera la pression exercée sur les budgets nationaux, rendant ainsi possible l'allocation des fonds supplémentaires nécessaires. Ainsi, c'est véritablement une solution gagnant-gagnant que nous recherchons. Honourable Members, we all know the negotiations will not be easy. As a Union of 27, as you said, we have fewer resources. It's about EUR 75 billion less for the whole 7-years period, but more common challenges that no Member State can solve on its own. And at the same time, expectations towards the next long-term budget of the Union could not be more diverse. As Members of Parliament, you are well aware of the discussions in your home countries, while you also see the different positions in the Member States of your colleagues. Arriving at an agreement will therefore be a serious challenge. We all know this. But we also know that citizens will not understand it if decision-makers fail to make the funding available for policies needed. It's our common responsibility in the European Council, and in the European Parliament to deliver for Europe.
| EU | null |
Madam President, the person preparing the budget of the European Union for the next seven years is the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. He has to be in Parliament. If he has no mandate, if he has nothing to tell us, at least he should come and listen. Why? Because the last word on the EU budget for the next seven years lies with the European Parliament. We will only give our approval to the EU budget if our priorities are in. And what are our priorities? Firstly, cohesion and agriculture: finance them properly, they continue to be important all over Europe. Secondly, finance the new priorities of the Union, in line with the political ambition. The Commission asks for support in financing future-oriented priorities. Let me tell you what happened to the budget for research this year. The Council says research is important. What does it do? It cuts it by EUR 500 million. Parliament says research is important, but we increased it by EUR 700 million. We need to put our money where our statements are, and we should not play farmers against Erasmus students. We should not play researchers against the security of the European Union. And let's be honest: the position of the European Parliament is the only position which enables us to finance properly what we have agreed to do. It's the only position which enables the von der Leyen Commission to implement its programme. Dear colleagues, the Parliament can be included in the negotiations before the European Council on 20 February. Or we can reject the agreement of the Council and we should be included afterwards, but we prefer it to be included before. And let me say very clearly, if we are to choose between a delay of two months and a poor budget for the Union for the next seven years, we will choose to reject a bad Council compromise and have a delay of two months. But we are ready to negotiate since November 2018. Council, stop dragging your feet.
| EU | null |
Madam President, thank you for this very fruitful exchange of views. Discussions on the next MFF, over many months, have underlined how passionate we are about the positive impact of policies on our citizens. We don't agree on all the details, but we see a lot of consensus on our shared priorities. The budget is the policy cast in numbers and it needs to be big enough to meet our ambitions. Yet compromise is needed and, as President Ursula von der Leyen has made clear, time has run out. Next week it is crucial that an agreement is reached. We all want to see an ambitious budget, but we cannot ignore the reality that filling the gap of now being a Union of 27 comes with its challenges. This is why I would urge you to aim for a budget that can deliver as of day one. This is why it is important to continue working on the sectoral proposals. Moreover, we should also work together towards a better outcome for a budget that is able to deliver on our common Strategic Agenda for Europe by focusing on, first, equipping ourselves with the means to deliver the Green Deal for climate neutrality, and, second, ensuring new own resources are created, for example plastics and ETS to help finance European public goods. We also look forward to a constructive and productive discussion at the European Council on 20 February and an outcome that's good for Europe. The Union cannot deliver on its ambitions when cuts are in areas where European citizens expect us to do more. Many of you have mentioned examples climate, borders, digital, Erasmus, defence, you name it and therefore the Finnish negobox is not yet the finish. Why the urgency? We are already very late, as several speakers have said, even later than 2013, where that delay led to a lost year for many programmes. I am talking about 2014. Our focus must be on making sure that all the new programmes are up and running by 1 January 2021. Let's avoid delays, let's be positive and let's stay united. We owe this to ourselves and to our institutions, but, most importantly, to our citizens, who expect results. The Commission remains committed to a continuous dialogue and to engage fully to support the forthcoming negotiations. By the way, regarding the negotiations, I have been asked in the past couple of days and even today by many people if I believe that it is possible or likely to strike a deal next week, meaning that, according to tradition, it is unlikely that only one meeting will be sufficient to get the deal. But I think it's time to break with this tradition and to work for a deal struck in one meeting. I have been travelling to many Member States, participating in many meetings and conferences during the past couple of weeks, and I believe there can be a consensus amongst Member States, even already next week, provided there is some goodwill and energy and may I say and this is very important that, in particular, bigger, leading Member States become more active and work for a deal. In that respect, I urge all of you to use your contacts and your networks to put some pressure on the European leaders, your party leaders and your party friends in order to work for a deal which, finally, is in the interest of all of us and enables us to enter into negotiations with the European Parliament. The Commission, and I myself, we will do everything to support all these negotiations.
| EU | null |
Madam President, two weeks ago, I had the pleasure to organise a debate in my hometown of Arad, Romania, regarding this issue, with animal lovers. I am glad to see that pets, our best friends, have come to the attention of the European Union and that today we are voting on a motion on this. It is time that we stopped the illegal pet trade. Trade in cats and dogs must have at the centre the welfare of the animals and the joy they bring to their new owners, not just financial gain. They become part of our families. They are not just objects to buy. Because of that because of the role they play in our lives I think it is time to do much more for them. We cannot stop at regulating the trade. We need to consider the lives of the pets too. There are many dogs and cats that are abandoned when humans do not want them anymore. It is a sad reality and any NGO dealing with abandoned pets can give you many sad details about this ugly side of being a pet. This must be regulated, too. What do we do with the litters of the dogs that the owners do not want? What do we do with the kittens found in sealed bags, discarded at the side of the road? They are not in the trade market. We have to think of European legislation to protect them, too. These unwanted puppies and kittens also deserve our attention. We should be doing something for them. 01.log 02.log align.cfg out scr settings.bash wrk wrk.bak
| EU | null |
Madam President, first of all, thank you for this opportunity. I guess that digital technologies provide us with a big opportunity of possibilities at our fingertips and never before have people had so many opportunities to learn, to communicate, to participate or to create. Unfortunately, a lot of Europeans still lack the necessary digital understanding and skills in order to fully embrace the opportunities of the digital revolution. Yesterday, we celebrated the Safer Internet Day, but one day a year might not be enough to stress the importance of media competence and safety. European education systems, therefore, must be modernised across Europe to prevent a digital divide in society. I would like to thank, in particular, the Finnish Presidency at that time for providing European citizens with free access to online courses on artificial intelligence . AI can have enormous benefits for people and society, but we have to put humans and this is important for us in first place. Employment and social policies must keep pace with the digitalisation of our labour markets. We need a social contract for the new world including minimum wages, strengthening collective bargaining and, in particular, the right to disconnect. We need, also, to create fair working conditions for workers, no matter whether offline or online. And we have to tackle the tech giants, their abusive market-dominant power and create a level playing field and taxes should be paid where profits are generated. The European Union to needs to have a new legal framework on artificial intelligence and robotics, including a guarantee for upholding fundamental rights. The EU Commission will present the White Paper on AI next week. It should tackle this ethical aspect of AI, legal safeguards and liability. The algorithms must be free of bias. AI must not discriminate on the grounds of gender or ethnicity, and we say, 'no AI without ethics'. Therefore, we urge the European Commission to come forward with a regulatory framework for this. Large sets of data are key for AI applications. They will fuel them. Cambridge Analytica and Clearview these companies are the most prominent examples for the invasive use and abuse of their personal data. Voter manipulation and deepfakes, for example, are serious threats to our democracies. The digital revolution is nothing new, and it has been going on for years, but we constantly need to find new answers to the new technologies. Just a reminder, the General Data Protection Regulation , for example, took almost six years from the start until adoption and this shows us that artificial intelligence, surveillance and facial recognition are already rolled out across the European Union and we need to hurry up in structuring them. It is our duty as the European Parliament and representatives of the people of the European Union to make sure that nobody is left behind. The European digital agenda must be based on our European values and should offer opportunities for everyone.
| EU | null |
Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, la transformation numérique va avoir, est déjà en train d'avoir, des répercussions sans précédent sur nos économies, nos sociétés, notre façon de travailler, de communiquer, de consommer. La question de l'emploi est sûrement au centre des interrogations. Combien d'emplois vont disparaître, remplacés par des robots? Ce qui est d'ores et déjà certain, c'est que la majorité des emplois vont être transformés. De nouveaux emplois vont apparaître quand d'autres disparaîtront ou connaîtront de profonds bouleversements. Il est prévu que l'intelligence artificielle et la robotique créeront à elles seules près de 60 millions d'emplois dans le monde au cours des cinq prochaines années et déjà aujourd'hui, cela a été mentionné, près d'un million d'emplois TIC sont vacants, faute de candidats ayant les bonnes qualifications. C'est d'ailleurs le principal souci de nombreuses entreprises, surtout de PME, qui ne trouvent pas de personnel qualifié. C'est aussi un défi majeur pour nos politiques de l'emploi et de qualification. We have acted on the green transition by launching the Just Transition Fund for regions and people most affected by these changes. Likewise, we need to strengthen much more our employment and social policies to anticipate and manage the disruptive changes expected from digitalisation. There are and it has been already mentioned a lot of very good opportunities, but there are also risks of widening inequalities and more precariousness. Over 90% of jobs now require some level of digital skills, as does participation in society at large, yet 43% of the EU population have an insufficient level of digital skills and 17% have none at all. Next month we will propose a new skills agenda to address the skills challenges through concrete instruments and this challenge is huge because, according to a lot of forecasts, about half of the European workforce, meaning more than 120 million people have to be re-skilled or upskilled. So, we have three major aims. The first one is engaging employers to upscale their training provision, and for that purpose, we want to launch a skills pact committing companies, committing the business community to invest in their workforce. Second, we have to step up public and private investment in training according to this need I just mentioned. And third, we have to empower people to invest in their own skills and qualifications. Many of our initiatives post 2020 will address these challenges linked to digitalisation. The European Social Fund Plus will support projects, such as the creation of e-schools with digitally trained teachers or training unemployed people for ICT jobs. And I'm working on a reinforced Youth Guarantee to provide a much stronger coverage of digital skills. Non-standard forms of work are on the rise, and come with flexible but also very often with inadequate working conditions, insufficient access to social protection, decreased coverage by social dialogue and absence of a right to collective representation. This challenges our labour laws and social protection systems and calls for a rethink of existing models to match the needs of old and new work arrangements and ensure decent working conditions, inclusion and high level of social protection. The digitalisation is changing notions of work of employer-employee relationships and of workplaces and it is absolutely indispensable that we create some clarity in this new world of work. New technologies also blur the lines between work and private life. This creates new physical and mental health risks and, therefore, the right to disconnect has to be dealt with. The use of data in employment has led to new algorithm-based management and an increased profiling in social protection provision. These can improve productivity but also increase control on individuals and surveillance of workers' performance. It raises questions of protection of personal data; we should pay attention to this in the context of the regulation of artificial intelligence. We need accessible and interoperable digital technologies in order to exploit the potential of digitalisation to increase the autonomy of persons with disabilities and to boost their participation in society and the economy. The digital transformation must also be an opportunity in the context of the demographic challenges we face in particular in relation to our aging population and the existing rural and remote areas. We also should devote special attention to the gender gap that exists in the digital world. Europe has to be a competitive and innovative player in the digital economy. New initiatives on the Digital Services Act and artificial intelligence will play a key role, while also addressing risks of bias and discrimination. On 22 September I'm organising together with Executive Vice-President Vestager, a summit on platform work where we discuss how to improve working and social conditions on online platforms. Beyond this, we have launched the process leading to an action plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights, because the principles of the pillar should also apply fully to the new digital world of work. The pillar frames our social strategy to make sure that the transition towards a digital and climate-neutral society is socially fair and sustainable.
| EU | null |
Madam President, we Europeans believe in democratic values and a citizen-oriented democracy means an inclusive society in which citizens have access to and benefit from the opportunities offered by the EU. We owe this to our citizens. The European Union is well known as a champion of legislation, regulation, directives that have brought positive changes alright, but this time law is not enough. It must be accompanied by concrete action for a bold objective to transform the EU into a champion of innovation in digital. Alas, we are lagging behind. We cannot do this when almost one out of five EU citizens had no digital skills in 2017 and the situation is no different now. Digital literacy and skills are key pillars of adapting European citizens to a labour market that is constantly transforming and changing our work arrangements. This is the priority, the key priority of today and tomorrow. We need to answer the daily concerns of European citizens by providing them ways of adapting to the new challenges and opportunities to develop new skills and access to the labour market. The question is how, and the best way we can do this is by literally investing in people this time. We need investments that can bring together expertise and capital from the public, private and non-profit sectors together in order to ensure the digital transformation that we want to put forward is paving the way for all citizens to achieve a high level of well-being and overcome inequalities of technological use at EU level. What if we established an EU public-private fund that will invest immediately and massively in digital literacy and skills, based on the principle of social impact investment? We have investEU. We have the private sector recognise the importance of digital education. What do we wait for? The impact is also easy to monitor the measure. I launch hereby, a call for action to invest in digital education for a more competitive and social Europe and thus expanding opportunities provided by digital technology so that the children of today successfully shape the renewed digital Europe of tomorrow.
| EU | null |
Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for putting the Gender Equality Strategy on today's agenda. The first months since the start of the Commission mandate I have had the opportunity to meet many of you already. All the exchanges we have had have confirmed that all of us, together, have so much work to do in this area of policy. I am grateful for the support you have shown me and this Commission on many occasions. The European Union and its citizens need your full support in making Europe an equal place for women and men in all their diversity. Gender equality is a founding principle of the European Union. Europe is a good place to live for many, but it would be an understatement to say that we are still not there yet when it comes to gender equality. Women are still being underpaid compared to men. One in three women in the EU have experienced physical or sexual violence, or both since the age of 15 and that's millions of women. We cannot accept these appalling inequalities. President von der Leyen, Vice-President Jourová, and the whole College support me and this fight for equality. Gender equality is a key theme in the mandate of this Commission and the first key milestone will be the launch of the Gender Equality Strategy. The adoption is foreseen for the week of International Women's Day in early March. The strategy will underpin the political commitment to gender equality and support strategic and systematic work for gender equality in the Union and beyond. We are aiming at an ambitious strategy. In the context of a visible and organised movement opposing progress in women's rights and gender equality which has emerged in recent years in Europe and internationally, it is more important now than ever to restate in the strongest of terms the Commission's continuing commitment to gender equality. There has been a wide consultation on the strategy, including a public consultation that gathered more than 1 300 responses. As gender equality is a cross-cutting issue, the strategy will strengthen the Commission's dual approach of gender mainstreaming combined with targeted actions on specific topics. We aim to introduce a more systematic approach at an early stage of policy design to include a gender perspective in all EU policy areas. As regards content, we intend to present a positive future-oriented vision for a gender equal Europe a Europe where women and men, girls and boys, in all their diversity, are free from gender-based violence and gender stereotypes, where they have the opportunity to thrive in the labour market, lead our businesses, politics and participate equally in all sectors. Important horizontal considerations that will be emphasised in the strategy are challenging gender stereotypes and intersectionality. In terms of topics, the strategy will address the priorities highlighted in the President's political guidelines increasing women's economic-empowerment by closing the gender pay gap, including by introducing binding pay-transparency measures, getting better gender balance on company boards and improving parents' and carers' work-life balance. We also continue our efforts to combat violence against women. EU accession to the Istanbul Convention therefore remains a priority. If EU accession remains blocked in the Council, despite our joint efforts, we will table legislative proposals to strengthen the Victims' Rights Directive and include or add specific forms of gender-based violence to the list of EU crimes. We shall also address other important and emerging aspects of gender equality, such as online violence against women or the gender perspective in digitalisation, including an artificial intelligence to avoid bias. Together with the adoption of the strategy, we will launch a wide-ranging and inclusive consultation process on binding pay transparency measures which we aim to table by the end of the year. I am aware that introducing binding pay-transparency measures can be challenging, and I want to find the right balance for such EU intervention, taking into account the interests of employers, employees and national administrations. I look forward to hearing your views and discussing with you. I sincerely hope to get your support so we, as the EU, can make the so much needed leap towards a gender equal Europe in a more gender equal world.
| EU | null |
Madam President, thank you all for your valid contributions and yes, it's 2020 and we are still discussing the rights of more than half the world's population. We're discussing rights which men take for granted. I really thank you all for the call also for more men to take part in debates regarding gender equality. We all have mothers, some of us have daughters and we are speaking about more than half the population. One of the men here said feminism is not just for women, but for the whole of society. So yes, as has rightly been pointed out, yes, when we are discussing war and armaments, which will kill people like you and me, then many men contribute there. I don't wish for more women to contribute there but less men. I want to all of us to discuss peace but this is the reality, so it's important that we point this out and that we look at gender equality as something for all of us, for all of our societies, for all of Europe, for all the world. The new Gender Equality Strategy will address the many topics which you have highlighted and what was highlighted in the President's political guidelines. I will set out an ambitious agenda for combating and preventing all forms of violence against women, including online violence. I will present a legislative proposal to ensure better transparency on pay levels in in European businesses and organisations and take other non-legislative measures to close the gender pay gap. I want to finally get to EU rules adopted to ensure progress on gender balance on company boards, because we know that targets work. I want to make sure that the Work-life Balance Directive is implemented in the Member States to help women and men reconcile work and caring responsibilities. Also, I want all major EU policy initiatives to be assessed from a gender lens. I will ensure that the Commission's work on gender mainstreaming is more comprehensive and systematic than has been previously been the case. We must pay attention to the gender and equality perspective when addressing some of our society's main challenges, such as digitalisation and transition to a greener economy, as was mentioned also here. And yes, we are targeting the feminisation of poverty. The gender gap in poverty is, after all, the result of the many inequalities women and girls face in all spheres of life. I reiterate that I count on the strong support of Parliament because equality for all its citizens is one of the founding values of the EU, and we need to make this a reality, all of us together, for all of our citizens.
| EU | null |
Madam President, honourable Members. Thank you for including the preparation of the UN's 64th session of the Commission on the Status of Women in today's agenda. This is very good timing. The negotiations on the political declaration and the preparation of the EU statements are ongoing, and the aim is that the CSW will start with a strong and action-oriented political declaration focused on the implementation of the existing commitments. At the same time, we are preparing our side events, which will be melting-pots for good practices and new ideas on how to take the Beijing Agenda forward. This is the strength of the CSW a place to meet and discuss gender-equality which many actors in the field. The session will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. We also celebrate the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and the 5th anniversary of the Sustainable Development Goals. Gender-equality and the empowerment of women and girls is not only a question of justice. It also makes economic sense to ensure that women and men, girls and boys, reach their full potential. I have read with great interest the report of the UN Secretary-General on the state of play with regard to the situation of women and girls in the world. It is a good, nuanced report based on 167 national reviews and regional review meetings, which took place in various regions across the globe. While we have seen some progress, we have not advanced as much as we wanted to. Female labour market participation was increasing, but has stagnated over the last five years. Women still carry out a disproportionate share of household work and care. Women's and girls' voices and participation are far from being on an equal footing to those of boys and men. Women are 25% more likely to live in poverty. Gender stereotypes still determine the paths of women and girls. Gender-based violence is a recurrent issue. Next to this, new issues are emerging like climate-change and digital technologies. We must turn these changes into opportunities. Digitalisation can open doors for women and girls, but can also be misused to silence them. As the UN Secretary-General highlighted, gender-equality and empowerment of women and girls is crucial to an economically uncertain world with increasing polarisation, environmental threats and conflict. The unequal distribution of power, resources and opportunities perpetuates gender-inequalities. I welcome very much the input of the European Parliament, including your forthcoming resolution on this topic, and the Parliament's presence during this CSW. Gender-equality is a priority for the European Commission, both in our internal and external relations and actions. The Commission will present a new gender-equality strategy in March, and still in 2020, launch the third action plan on gender-equality and women's empowerment in external relations. A stronger, ambitious and holistic approach will address the issues identified globally and for the EU. Our approach will be based on gender-mainstreaming in all policy areas. The task force on equality, with members drawn from all the Commission's services and the European External Action Service, will be fundamental for this. Next to this, targeted actions on specific gender-equality issues will continue. We will continue to tackle the gender pay-gap and introduce pay transparency measures. We will continue to develop measures to end gender-based violence. We will continue to push for gender-balanced company boards. I am looking forward to hearing your views and discussing these ideas. Thank you again for putting the CSW on today's agenda.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I want to welcome the three speeches that we have just heard from Evelyn Regner earlier. These are actually a very clear outline of the priorities that we should be presenting at the UN Conference. The language is right, the words are right, and we can do our best to bring forward what you've heard here today. The priorities that people across this Parliament have outlined: these are the priorities, clearly, that we have to bring to the UN. What's very clear is that progress has been made, but there are the most extraordinarily serious issues still affecting women around the world. We also have to note that, after the Nairobi Conference on Population and Development, the USA did not sign the statement or the priorities at the end of that conference, and that is very serious. This is, as you said, the 25th anniversary of Hillary Clinton's famous line: 'women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights'. Hard to believe that it actually needed to be said, but it did, and it accelerated change. There is much more to do. It is a very important year. It's about acceleration; it's about implementation; it's about targets, and it's also about monitoring. It's also about budgets, and that has to be a particularly important element of the debates in the UN this year. Also, of course, we do have to watch out for attitudes that are still far too prevalent, where we see everyday sexism. That's very important to address as well, in terms of the perception of women, the reporting on women, and so on. That is critical. Just a final word on quotas: we've heard some criticism of them here today. What does the UN say about quotas? They say they are a temporary, necessary measure. Let's face it, quotas have been operating on the side of men for quite a long time.
| EU | null |
Madam President, Commissioner, women's rights are human rights, and I would love to live in a world where I would not need to stress that women's rights are human rights. Men and women, the previous and the current generation, have worked hard to reach a point where we can advance on these issues. We should not take these rights for granted, and we should not take our democratic European society for granted. Women's rights continue to be heavily challenged, and there are recent trends of an organised backlash against women. We must not yield, but evermore show our commitment and use our voices to create a more social Europe an inclusive Europe where all have the same equal opportunities, including women. This motion for a resolution is our commitment to the visionary worldwide agenda of the United Nations for the empowerment of women. As representatives of our European citizens, we know that it is important to put into action our commitment for Agenda 2030. Women need to be on board for everything, gender equality is necessary for sustainable development, and 2020 is the year for the rapid realisation of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. I welcome the Gender-Equality Strategy by Commissioner Dalli, which is due this March. On 8 March, the world celebrates the advancement of women's rights, but also we review all that still needs to be done. For example, improving the conditions for women in the labour market. The persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women cannot continue, and I urge Members and the Commission to take every single step to make sure women can reach their full potential and have equal access to the labour market and the economic opportunities our European society provides. Let us continue to use our voices and acknowledge the voice of all women everywhere. Our commitment to participate at the 64th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women shows that we take this seriously.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this debate. Our citizens consider security one of their top concerns and expect the EU to deliver. Security and freedom go hand in hand, so we need to create a safe space for all Europeans. Being safe is indispensable to live, enjoy rights, work, study and it is also indispensable for the economy. Every person present in Europe has the individual right to be safe. The 2019 Eurobarometer on attitudes towards cybersecurity published recently shows, however, that two thirds of respondents are concerned about falling victim to identity theft. Moreover, a well-functioning Schengen area of free movement requires a common policy on the EU external borders. We need to effectively monitor and control persons crossing the external borders for the benefit of all of us. The need to strengthen our internal security and our EU external borders has led to the adoption of a variety of recent legislative acts, for example, the European travel and information and authorisation system, the entry-exit system, the regulation of inter-operability between EU information systems and the new European border and Coast Guard regulation. Today, we have another example, which is the new false and authentic documents online system: a European image database supporting Member States in the recognition of authentic and false documents. I thank both the European Parliament and the Council for your constructive work on this final compromise that ensures real added value. The new false and authentic documents online system is very useful for border guards when performing border checks. It provides information to Member States' authorities on new forgery methods and new genuine documents in circulation. It contains thousands of descriptions of authentic documents, hundreds of descriptions of false documents, covering more than 30 participating countries, and more than 180 third countries' international organisations. It helps to detect attempts at identity theft for purposes of irregular migration. The final political agreement will further improve the functioning of the false and authentic documents online system by transferring its management to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Security is a top concern for citizens. They expect the EU to deliver in this area as every citizen has the right to feel and be protected. The rise of threats posed by organised crime, terrorism and the drug market are poison to our societies. This is why the Commission has announced a new security union strategy for the second quarter of this year. As part of the strategy, on internal security, there will be a focus on three priority areas: organised crime, which would include drugs, firearms, corruption, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and radicalisation, and fighting crimes in a digital age. Strong borders to support the area of free movement, which is emblematic for our Union, will also be a key element of the new pact on migration, as announced in the political guidelines of President von der Leyen. In this respect, the timely implementation of all EU information systems will be a key objective of our comprehensive approach to migration, focusing on both external borders and security, but equally on strong and resilient internal procedures, stepping up the legal pathways and fostering integration into our societies. I thank you again for your support and look forward to this debate.
| EU | null |
Mr President, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Ms Metsola, for her work. As a new Member of this House working on my first legislative file, I very much appreciated her lead. Now on substance. Verifying the authenticity of travel documents has been turning for quite some time into a pressure point in the work of border guards, because of time constraints, the tremendous increase in the number of travellers in Europe, and the diversity of travel documents that are being used. Furthermore, the sophistication of forgery techniques has been a constant challenge for our law enforcement officials. The new FADO system has already been in use for some time, serving these needs. What we are now doing, and this is very important, is to bring it from the intergovernmental into the Community method by adding it to the list of instruments entrusted to the EBCGA as part of the enlarged mandates that we decided to give last year. This means increased accountability towards, and scrutiny by, this House, and higher safeguards in the regime applicable to the data contained therein and the measurement of access rights. The protection of personal data was one of the main issues that we had to deal with during the negotiations of this file, and we made sure that the processing of personal data is limited to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of detecting or investigating document fraud. We also introduced clear rules on accessing the database, with Member States now having an express obligation to determine which authorities competent in the area of document fraud are to have access to the FADO system and their level of access, and then to notify the Commission and the Agency. The Commission, upon request, will now have to transmit this information to this House. The negotiated text complements the reform of the EBCGA and will ensure better protection of the Union's external borders and more efficient law enforcement. I therefore encourage my fellow MEPs to support this text.
| EU | null |
Mr President, the Commission recognises the importance of this debate and welcomes the opportunity to clarify its approach to matters such as those revealed to be at the heart of the Luanda Leaks. We have consistently stressed that better enforcement of anti-money laundering rules across Europe and stronger supervision are essential to increase the resilience of our financial system. Beyond stability, we need to ensure the integrity of our financial system. It is not a problem of one country. The European Union should have zero tolerance for dirty money. We are willing to apply all of the tools at our disposal and to the fullest capacity. Moreover, we are ready to strengthen them. We will not hesitate to propose changes to the legislative and institutional architecture that supports our fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, as well as tax evasion and avoidance. Following up on the European Parliament's resolution and the Ecofin conclusions of December, the Commission will adopt a new action plan on anti-money laundering that will seek to improve the enforcement of the rules. Much has been done in recent years. The fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which should have been transposed by Member States by 10 January, allows greater scrutiny of information around beneficial ownership by civil society, including by the press or civil society organisations and contributing to preserving trust in the integrity of business transactions and of the financial system. The legal framework currently in force seeks to ensure a proper balance between the need to ensure protection of privacy and of personal data and the need for more transparency in financial and economic activities. By establishing accessible registers of beneficial ownership information, the Union has achieved the gold standard worldwide in this respect. Regrettably, not all the Member States have transposed the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Today, the Commission has started infringement procedures against eight Member States which are signalling a complete lack of transposition. However, our real problem is not a lack of rules; it is that the enforcement of rules is done at national level and is uneven from country to country. Recent legislative changes to the mandate of the European supervisory authorities granted new powers to the European Banking Authority to lead, coordinate and monitor the EU Supervisor's fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. This covers the entire financial sector. The Commission, however, acknowledges that more must be done. There is a need to address structural weaknesses linked to regulatory fragmentation among Member States. This is where European added value lies. The Commission intends to work towards the establishment of a unified, comprehensive anti-money laundering policy, building on existing rules and introducing all necessary improvements. There is scope for harmonising the existing rules. There is need for more information sharing between law enforcement authorities to detect and prosecute criminals and to recover assets. In addition to a more detailed and harmonised set of rules based on regulations rather than on directives, a greater role for the EU in overseeing their implementation is justified. This applies as regards both supervision and coordination of the Financial Intelligence Units. An EU supervisory body for AML is a must-have, but creating a structure should not be our aim in itself. The body, be it a new one or building on the existing one, has to have a clearly-defined scope, powers and, very importantly, efficient governance. We know that we can count on the support of the European Parliament to bring about a revamped and more efficient supervisory and enforcement architecture. This is our ambition.
| EU | null |
Mr President, thank you Minister and honourable Members for this important debate. The humanitarian situation of refugees at our external borders is of great importance and of concern to us all. The EU promotes the respect of the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, both in the EU and outside of our borders in our neighbourhood. Any form of violence against refugees and migrants is, needless to say, unacceptable. Respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law must be ensured without exception. Member States must fully comply with these principles when implementing the EU acquis on border management, asylum and return. Pushbacks are not acceptable. Access to asylum procedures and respect for the principle of non-refoulement, in line with the EU Charter, must always be guaranteed. Member States must have in place the mechanisms needed to prevent pushbacks in the first place. Equally, they need to ensure that they have appropriate mechanisms to guarantee a prompt reply and investigate any alleged pushbacks. But challenges at external borders are many, and the Commission is in constant contact with Member States and provides them with support, including financial support for training the national border guards to act in conformity with fundamental rights requirements. The Commission is also closely monitoring the situation at external borders and is in contact with Member States regarding allegations of non-compliance with EU law at the external borders. As Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission will take the necessary action where necessary. Moreover, we now have in place a new European Border and Coast Guard Agency with a significantly reinforced mandate and an increased focus on the imperious need to respect fundamental rights. It is for this reason that a specific Fundamental Rights Strategy has been drawn up by the new European Border and Coast Guard Agency. A fundamental rights officer was appointed to contribute to the Agency's fundamental rights strategy and monitor compliance with fundamental rights. Fundamental rights monitors will also constantly assess the fundamental rights compliance of Frontex operational activities. They will be deployed as part of the joint operations and they will be the eyes and ears of the fundamental rights officer. The Agency must recruit 40 monitors by 5 December of this year. The new Agency has also set up a complaints mechanism. This mechanism allows any person who is directly affected by the actions of staff involved in the activities of the Agency and who considers himself or herself to have been the subject of a breach of his or her fundamental rights due to those actions, or to any party representing such a person, to submit a complaint in writing to the Agency. What happens at our external borders affects Europe. This is why the EU has always supported and also always stood at the side of our partners at the external borders as well as at the side of refugees and migrants in those countries. The EU is globally a key actor in providing assistance to refugees worldwide, especially in neighbouring countries, and in supporting third countries in developing their asylum system and their capacities to fight against smuggling. For instance, the EU supports Turkey in its efforts to host more than 4 million refugees. The EUR 6 billion facility for refugees in Turkey has been fully mobilised and clearly produces tangible effects. Over 1.7 million vulnerable refugees benefit from the emergency social safety net, the largest EU humanitarian project ever. The EU is also supporting more than 500 000 refugees' children to regularly attend school. Our Western Balkan partners have proven to be reliable and strong partners of the EU in managing migration and countering security challenges. However, reception capacities, in particular in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, are stretched to the maximum, and migrants are often living in extremely difficult conditions. Further capacity assistance is needed to help these countries to pursue their efforts to manage migration, addressing the issue of secondary movements in the region and treating migrants in a humane manner. To support all these actions, the EU provides financial and technical support to the Western Balkans through the regional programmes funded under the Instrument for Pre-Accession so that they increase their capacity to build their national migration management system. In addition, the EU has recently provided EUR 135 million in additional assistance to Serbia, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Instrument for Pre-Accession and EUR 32.6 million through the EU humanitarian aid. In all these actions inside and outside the EU, the protection of the most vulnerable, especially of children and unaccompanied minors, remains a priority for the Commission. The Commission is doing all it can to help Member States to address the situation at our external borders. The dignity and safety of all affected persons needs to be ensured and protected. A lot has been achieved, but more remains to be done. We need to find a common understanding on how we collectively shape and manage the realities of migration. We must unite around our common values and humanitarian responsibilities and seek to make our society more cohesive and integrated. I count on your continued support and that of the Council as well.
| EU | null |
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and the Council representatives for being here this evening. I think it's high time to get out of the migration deadlock. We owe it to our own citizens to get back into the driver's seat. In order also to preserve free movement within the Schengen area, we need strong external borders. Awaiting the Commission's New Pact on Asylum and Migration, Renew Europe proposed its own comprehensive approach a few weeks ago: a Renew pack on asylum and migration. To relieve the pressure on EU external borders we need new international partnerships with third countries on migration. That's the only way. Meanwhile, we need a common approach for those asylum seekers still arriving irregularly at EU external borders. We want 'direct registration upon arrival' amended to read: security checks; humane reception conditions; a first assessment at a European reception centre between potentially failed asylum applications and those that are not; shared responsibility for those people in need of international protection; shared responsibility and effort to quickly return rejected asylum seekers to safe third countries. I have high expectations for this new pact on migration and asylum and hope that Renew Europe's concrete proposals will also be taken on board. But I have still two questions: does the Commissioner agree with Renew Europe that the EU must be able to step in when the Member States at external borders cannot or will not deliver? Because that's what we saw in the past. And how will the Commission address unwanted secondary movement of asylum seekers within the EU?
| EU | null |
Mr President, if we talk about common external borders we also talk about common responsibility, not only for controlling who is coming in, but also how we treat people if they get access to an asylum procedure, if they are treated with dignity and if the procedures are followed. However, we know that at many borders the rules are not always complied with. Push-backs are widespread in Europe. We know that from reports and judgments, and even tomorrow the Strasbourg Court will come up with a decision on Spain. Push-backs can also go hand in hand with brutal violence and causing traumas to people, and this is especially the case at the Croatian borders, according to numerous reports and testimonies. During our working visit last weekend, we were shocked by the fact that all actors involved acknowledged this widespread violence and push-backs, but that the Government of Croatia still denies this, and this discrepancy exactly shows that the violence will not stop if the EU continues to shy away and react indifferently. We can only stick to our rules and values if we care about violations at the borders and if we take steps to ensure compliance. I would therefore urge the Commission to investigate thoroughly the allegations and complaints, and that investigation also needs to be part of the Schengen evaluation. The Commission informed us that it had financed the monitoring mechanism in Croatia and that this would lead to improvement, but we learned that this money is not spent on monitoring but on border control, and that no monitoring body enters the green area where the push-backs take place. So how seriously does the Commission take these allegations on push-backs? Is it only interested in a smooth Schengen accession or also in banning human rights violations at the border? So I would like to hear from the Commissioner what steps he's going to take instead of monitoring but also ensuring...
| EU | null |
Mr President, I'm surprised that there weren't any blue cards after our colleague there from the ECR. The challenges we face in keeping our borders secure are immense and growing. We've seen an explosion in the numbers of people seeking a better life in the European Union away from violence and poverty and away from climate disasters. The appalling conditions in any of the EU refugee camps, be it in any of the countries we're talking about tonight, are under severe pressure from the people that are most vulnerable and from the people in the European Union who are forgetting to support our brothers and sisters. The conditions are intolerable, and lip service is not supporting or aiding those we need to support. It cannot just be a small number of countries accommodating everybody. It needs Europe's help. The European project, dare I say, is a victim of its own success. We need to be compassionate to those who are risking their lives to come here, and we also need to find solidarity: the compassion in supporting our Member States who are most seeing the influx of people coming through. I notice my time is up, and I will say we need a strategic and compassionate solution right now, Commissioner, from the top down. And dare I say, one instant solution we could make is perhaps having this conversation, this much needed dialogue, in the Hemicycle at a time when there's a little bit more than 40 or 50 MEPs discussing it.
| EU | null |
Madam President, thank you all for your interventions. I take from this debate that the respect for the fundamental rights, including the principle of non-refoulement of all people, is a priority, independently of their status and whether they are inside or outside the EU. I agree with you that there should be no physical violence against migrants and refugees I guess this is an understatement here and we should ensure that adequate measures are in place to address the needs of the most vulnerable, notably the children, at all steps of the migratory routes. Border guards and police should carry out their duties in full respect of fundamental rights that goes without saying. We have revised our legislation to ensure that safeguards are in place in case of alleged violation of fundamental rights. It is important that these mechanisms play their role. On our side, the Commission will continue to monitor the compliance of the situation at the borders with EU law. We will continue engaging with our partners and neighbouring countries, notably in the Western Balkans, to provide assistance to migrants in third countries to avoid them falling into the hands of unscrupulous smuggling networks. Regarding the question posed by you, Mr Azmani, the Commission also considers that the core challenges at our external border are inherently linked with those of the situations Member States have inside the EU. So therefore, these challenges should be addressed jointly. Many of the issues you raised tonight, such as secondary movement, border controls and cooperation with third countries and, of course, also the humanitarian situation at our border are key issues that will be addressed in the new pact on migration. Migration is among the most significant challenges the European Union has faced in recent years. We cannot stay idle to the suffering of the migrants at our borders. We need to find a common understanding on how we collectively shape and manage the realities of migration. We need to work together to address this phenomenon that is here to stay, in full respect of the dignity of the persons involved. We count on your support.
| EU | null |
Madam President, our debate today cannot be more topical, as yesterday we celebrated the Safer Internet Day across Europe and the world for the 17th time since its launch in 2004. We want to ensure children and young people grow up to become confident adults, skilled and respected both online and offline. Making the internet safe for children remains a priority. Children are one third of internet users and an estimated 800 million of them use social media. Let me also recall that one of this Commission's top six political priorities is to build a Europe fit for the digital age, allowing everyone in Europe, including children, to benefit from technology within safe and ethical boundaries. The Commission has been very active on this issue over the years, with actions ranging from funding and coordination with Member States to hard law. The European strategy for a better internet for children the big strategy is our framework for making the internet a trusted place for children and young people. It has been in place since 2012 and has successfully brought together the European Commission, Member States, the ICT industry and civil society to deliver solutions for a better internet for children through coordination, self-regulation and funding. Our policy is rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which all EU Member States are party. A strong concern with child safety online cuts across EU legislation. The e-Commerce Directive, the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the general Data Protection Regulation all contain provisions to protect minors online. As to future plans, the Commission will first of all be working on a comprehensive new strategy on the rights of the child, including their rights online. The strategy should include actions to protect vulnerable children, protect their rights online, foster child-friendly justice and prevent and fight violence. We will also strengthen and modernise rules applicable to digital services in the whole EU through the Digital Services Act. We will start with a broad consultation to make sure we get the balance right and propose measures. We will also work with Member States for the full transposition of the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which includes a new obligation on Member States to ensure that video-sharing platforms put in place specific measures to protect minors from harmful content online. These include mechanisms allowing users to report, flag or rate harmful content, age verification or parental control systems and transparent easy-to-use and effective complaint-handling procedures. The revised Directive also ensures that children's data collected by audiovisual media providers are not process for commercial use, including for profiling and behaviourally-targeted advertising. Furthermore, we will present a revised digital education action plan to equip children with the skills and competences needed to thrive in this digital age. Through the current Digital Education Action Plan, the Commission is supporting outreach to schools in order to improve online safety, media literacy and digital skills. For example, the Safer Internet for EU campaign reached 30 million Europeans in 2018, and in 2019 the EU Code Week involved 4.2 million people, with 92% of the 72 000 activities taking place in schools. The Commission plans to update the plan, focusing on digital literacy and aiming at equipping young people and adults with the skills they need for life and work in the digital age. As regards the European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children, the Commission has informally consulted the main stakeholders to assess its relevance and role. These stakeholders include the Safer Internet centres, industry and civil society and Member States. The preliminary feedback is positive. The strategy's four pillars and its holistic approach are still relevant, despite emerging risks such as disinformation, cyberbullying, online hate speech, live streaming of illegal content, and new ways for children to use technology. Any possible update of the strategy will have to be flexible enough to be future-proof as the digital ecosystem continues to evolve, with children and young people among the most ardent and avant-garde users of technology. Any Commission decision on next steps will take into account the results of the latest big policy map, a study on how the strategy is implemented in Member States, the results of a new European Parliament pilot project supporting cooperation between industry hotlines and Member States' authorities for the swift removal of child sexual abuse material online, and, of course, the work on the new strategy on the rights of the child. What we can already anticipate is that work in this area will continue to keep a fair balance between protection and empowerment measures for children and young people in formal and informal education. I thank you and I look forward to your comments on this.
| EU | null |
Madam President, when this debate was announced, I immediately expressed my interest in taking part in it. During the previous legislation, I was the rapporteur on education in the digital era and also shadow on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive . So I went to do my homework. I was disappointed when I found out that the last time the Commission addressed the issue was in 2011, and since then we have just forgotten the approach which was agreed. Let me give you an example. Ten years ago, we were against the fragmentation of the market, but, two years ago, we adopted the AVMS with the famous moral development of children to be defined by Member States. The good news is that, in 2019, the Commission announced the creation of a new Expert Group on Safer Internet for Children. So we took only eight years to take the first coordinated steps. Since then, the group has had three meetings, but we're still far from a solution. Why? I believe we have to take into account at least two important things. First, children grow fast and we have to act accordingly. Ten years for a political decision means one generation at school. Second, we cannot solve systematic problems by projects, but this is exactly what we are doing. We have of course adopted some good directives, which we have already mentioned: combating sexual abuse, xenophobia, hate speech, GDPR, and so on, but this is not enough. What we need is a comprehensive European approach to the digital education of children, not on a project basis but in each and every school, compulsory, with good teachers, a clear curriculum, an agreed set of criteria and assessment system. But what do we have in practice? Some Member States where 60% of schools do not have an internet connection. What digital education can we speak about? I strongly believe that we have to act, but act quickly and invest proper funds, not just in the meetings or working groups, but in the schools. Otherwise eight years later, it will be the same.
| EU | null |
Madam President, it is more apparent than ever that our greatest challenges, from the rise of antimicrobial resistance and the spread of communicable disease to the climate crisis, are collective ones. The coronavirus outbreak is clear evidence of this, and it highlights the urgent need for close collaboration and coordination across the EU and beyond. The European Parliament is a crucial partner in these efforts, and I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the EU's response with you this evening. The Commission has mobilised its services and agencies, notably the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control , and is working on all fronts to support efforts to tackle the outbreak. This includes ongoing coordination with Member States to share information, funding vaccine research and offering support through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. I will share some more specific examples of our efforts and some ideas for an improved response, but first I think it is important to salute the commitment of all frontline medical personnel, who are operating in very difficult circumstances. Last week we expressed special condolences for the death of Dr Li Wenliang, who was among the first to warn us about the coronavirus. A few words on the importance of cross-sectoral coordination at EU and Member State level would be in order here. On 28 January, President von der Leyen triggered the Commission's crisis coordination mechanism. My colleague Commissioner Lenarčič, in his role as the European Emergency Response Coordinator, has convened meetings of the Crisis Coordination Committee with the participation of all relevant services, from health, civil protection, through research to transport, but also development cooperation and communication, to name just a few. He repeatedly emphasised that this challenge requires a joined-up collective effort and using all the tools that we have at our disposal. Relevant Commission services and the European External Action Service are constantly assessing the situation and deciding on the actions needed for a swift and coordinated response. Consular coordination and cooperation between EU Member States is ongoing in order to address repatriation and other consular needs. Thanks to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and on the initiative of some Member States, such as France and Germany, hundreds of EU citizens have been repatriated from Hubei province. Commissioner Kyriakides has been in regular contact with the Ministers of the Member States where cases have been confirmed. Under the cross-border health threat decision, the Commission coordinates with Member States through three key mechanisms: the Early Warning and Response System, the Health Security Committee, and the Communicators' Network. Effective cooperation is key to their success, and I assure you that these mechanisms are active, sharing information and building preparedness and mitigation strategies. At the same time, the Commission has provided EUR 10 million for research on the virus, and the EU-funded PREPARE project has been activated. This will launch clinical trials across a network of 3 000 hospitals and 900 laboratories in 42 countries. Currently, Member States are implementing a variety of measures at points of entry to the EU. However, we should work with Member States to develop a common position on external borders in line with international recommendations, whilst protecting freedom of movement and the health security of all EU citizens. We also need to coordinate with key partners like the World Health Organization . The Commission is planning to mobilise funding to support the WHO's Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan in order to tackle the outbreak, to contain its spread and to foster research and investigation. Capacity reinforcement is especially important in countries with already fragile health systems. Access to personal protective equipment is a critical part of the wider response. The Commission is looking at the needs of Member States in this regard. In parallel, the Commission is reviewing country capacity for quarantine and isolation. Understandably, there are varying levels of capacity across Member States, including around personal protective equipment. Should EU transmission of the virus greatly expand, this may require cross-border solidarity and cooperation. It is important to contain the outbreak to reduce the risk of it spreading further. In addition to ensuring preparedness in the EU, we need to focus on assisting China. This helps the Chinese, but it also decreases the risk for the rest of the world. The Commission is working closely with China, both at technical and political levels. The EU has already provided 12 tonnes of protective equipment to China. This is a clear sign of our solidarity. We have been in contact with Member States and private companies to identify stocks of protective personal equipment that go beyond EU needs and could be shared with China. Yes, we need to make sure that stocks at national level are sufficient, but we also need to focus on where our support could have the greatest impact by tackling the outbreak at source. We are also looking into setting up a joint working group between EU and Chinese experts on public health aspects of the virus, which regards the potential for indirect consequences of the outbreak. One issue of particular concern is the potential for xenophobia, both online and offline. Discrimination against Asians or persons perceived as Asians or any other race or ethnicity is contrary to EU law. The Commission will not tolerate any racial discrimination in whatever form it takes. The Commission is in contact with the European Medicines Agency and networks of Member State authorities to assess the situation of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients and of finished medicinal products available for the European pharma industry and the European market. So far, the outbreak is not affecting the availability of medicines in Europe, but obviously we will remain vigilant. However, the outbreak highlights the need to examine the domestic production of APIs and finished medicinal products. This is something that we are currently reflecting on, and it will form part of the pharmaceutical strategy to be launched later this year. The Commission has mobilised all the assets at its disposal in order to meet this challenge inside and outside the European Union. Our success depends on rapid communication, information sharing, political will and close coordination. All of these efforts are underpinned by European solidarity with all EU citizens and with others who are vulnerable to this virus. I look forward to hearing your views.
| EU | null |
Madam President, on the eve of the meeting of the ministers of health tomorrow, I think it's only fitting and thank the Commissioner that we are discussing this subject tonight. And let's be clear, there's no need for panic in Europe, but people are quite rightly looking towards their national authorities but also towards the EU for answers. I want to, first of all, compliment the European Commission for their coordination efforts. I've seen previous outbreaks that were less coordinated but here, for example, the initiative taken for the coordinated approach about the repatriation of people deserves our compliments. But I also want to express a warning. Ministers of health tomorrow will be very inclined to underline that health is a national competence, and they will be right, but people at the moment don't want to talk about the Lisbon Treaty, they want to see solutions. And, therefore, for the EPP, we expect a number of things: first of all a capacity check as to the preparedness of all Member States and I honestly get a bit worried when I hear the Commission say we might have to organise solidarity for the protective equipment in Member States where they have less access. No, we need to do that, actually, now. We need this capacity check. We need a common approach on people entering from the region into the EU, a clear communication strategy that avoids conflicting advice, which we've seen between Member States in the past, cooperate the vaccine you've said enough about that but also, that's my last point, up-to-date data. How come, officially, we have data saying Africa has zero cases? That either means they have zero cases, which I find highly unlikely given their contact with China, or they just don't check and that would be a worrying thing for a neighbouring continent like the EU. Therefore, we are, as the EU, as strong as our weakest link, and what the ministers need to do tomorrow is to make sure that there are no weak links at all.
| EU | null |
Madam President, I thank you and the honourable Members for an informed and valuable discussion. I have taken note of all of your comments. But, regarding Taiwan vis-à-vis the WHO, we promote practical solutions without formal involvement regarding Taiwan's participation in international frameworks when this is consistent with the One-China policy. With regards to Chinese services, we are in daily contact and we have no reason to doubt the information which they give us. I also want to put your minds at rest that we are in contact with the African authorities, and that the EU has a cooperation agreement with the Chinese Centre for Disease Control. We are making sure that we are prepared, and therefore no panic, but vigilance. I appreciate the fact that we share a common objective on this issue to ensure an effective, coherent EU-level response to the coronavirus outbreak. We are working closely with Member States and doing all that we can to ensure that we succeed. However, success also depends on coordination with, and active participation from, all key stakeholders, including the European Parliament. It also depends on political will, which has been demonstrated here today. The EU Council Presidency, as we have already said, has organised an Extraordinary Health Council, which will be taking place tomorrow. This will provide another important opportunity to enhance our coordination. Success also requires alignment of preparedness and response measures, including at the EU's external borders. This would support China's efforts to contain the virus and mitigate any further transmission within and into the EU, as well as assisting third countries with weak health systems. In fact, this should be our ultimate goal: to support China and the international response whilst protecting European citizens, and it is possible. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely and take the necessary actions, and we will keep the European Parliament abreast of all the developments.
| EU | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.