debates of the european parliament

WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZPresident

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 9.05)

2. Delegated acts (Rule 87a): see Minutes

3. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

4. State of the Union (debate)

President. − The next item is the statement by the President of the Commission on theState of the Union (2012/2586(RSP)).

Before we start the debate, it is definitely appropriate to mention that today can and willbe a decisive day for Europe. I am not exaggerating when I say to you that people throughoutthe world are watching the European Union today. This morning they will undoubtedlybe watching Germany, where the German constitutional court is making a decision whichwill be important for all of us. They will also be watching the elections in the Netherlands,where our fellow citizens will be electing a new parliament this morning, with far-reachingeffects on the European Union as a whole, and I believe you share my view of this. Peopleall over the world will be watching this Parliament, where the President of the Commissionwill be giving his State of the Union address.

Before he does that, I would like to make one comment as President of this Chamber.Developments over the last few months have given cause for concern, in particular withregard to the tendency towards deparliamentarisation in Europe. At this point and beforeMr Barroso gives his speech, I would like to make it quite clear that anyone who thinksthat the parliamentary process is too slow, who says that parliaments are an obstacle tothe development of new and necessary structures and who believes that European bodieswith European powers can be established without involving the European Parliament will,I am sure, encounter determined opposition from this Parliament.

(Applause)

In Mr Barroso’s speech this morning, we will hear proposals for the creation of a newinstrument in Europe: the banking union. One thing is absolutely clear. Regardless of whichnew structures are introduced in Europe, the euro is the currency of the Union. This is theParliament of the Union. On the basis of this logic, the European Parliament is the Parliamentof the euro.

(Applause)

Anyone who has different ideas will meet with powerful resistance from this Parliament.I have said powerful resistance, because the European Parliament is a powerful institution.

(Applause)

1Debates of the European ParliamentEN12-09-2012

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the Council,honourable Members, it is an honour to stand before you today to deliver this third Stateof the Union address, although at a time when the European Union continues to be in crisis– a financial and economic crisis, a social crisis, but also a political crisis, a crisis ofconfidence. At its root, the crisis results from irresponsible practices in the financial sector,unsustainable public debt, and also a lack of competitiveness in some Member States. Ontop of that, the euro faces structural problems of its own. Its architecture has not been upto the job. Imbalances have built up.

This is now being corrected but it is a painful and difficult effort. Citizens are frustrated.They are anxious. They feel their way of life is at risk. The sense of fairness and equitybetween Member States is sometimes being eroded. Without equity between MemberStates, how can there be equity between European citizens?

Over the last four years, we have made bold decisions to tackle the systemic crisis. Butdespite all these efforts, our responses have not yet convinced citizens, markets or ourinternational partners. Why? Because, time and again, we have allowed doubts to spread– doubts over whether some countries are really ready to reform and regain competitiveness,doubts over whether other countries are really willing to stand by each other so that theeuro and the European project are irreversible.

On too many occasions, we have seen a vicious spiral. First, very important decisions forour future are taken at European summits. But then, the next day, we see some of thosevery same people who took those decisions undermining them, saying either that they gotoo far or that they do not go far enough. Then we get a problem of credibility and a problemof confidence.

It is not acceptable to present these European meetings as if they were boxing events,claiming a knockout victory over a rival. We cannot belong to the same union and behaveas if we do not. We cannot put at risk nine good decisions with one action or statementthat raises doubts about all we have achieved.

This reveals the essence of Europe’s political crisis of confidence. If Europe’s political actorsdo not abide by the rules and the decisions they have set themselves, how can they possiblyconvince others that they are determined to solve this crisis together?

A crisis of confidence is a political crisis. The good thing is that in a democracy there is nopolitical problem for which we cannot find a political solution. That is why, here today, Iwant to debate with you the fundamental political questions – where we are now and howwe must move forward. I want to focus on the political direction and the vision that willinspire our policy decisions.

Of course I will not list all these individual decisions. You are receiving the letter I addressedto the President of the European Parliament, and that sets out the Commission’s immediatepriorities. We will discuss them with you before adopting the Commission work programmelater in the autumn.

My message to you today is this: Europe needs a new direction. And that direction cannotbe based on old ideas. Europe needs a new way of thinking.

When we speak about the crisis – and we are all speaking about the crisis – have we reallydrawn all the consequences for our action? When we speak about globalisation – and we

12-09-2012Debates of the European ParliamentEN2

all speak a lot about globalisation – have we really considered its impact on the role of eachof our Member States?

The starting point for new thinking for Europe is to really draw all the consequences ofthe challenges that we are facing and that are fundamentally changing our world. Thestarting point is to stop trying to answer the questions of the future with the tools of thepast.

Since the start of the crisis, we have seen time and again that interconnected global marketsare quicker and therefore more powerful than fragmented national political systems. Thisundermines the trust of citizens in political decision-making and it is fuelling populismand extremism in Europe and elsewhere.

The reality is that, in an interconnected world, Europe’s Member States on their own areno longer able to effectively steer the course of events.

(Applause)

But, at the same time, they have not yet equipped their Union – our Union –with theinstruments needed to cope with this new reality. We are now in a transition, in a definingmoment. This moment requires decision and leadership.

Yes, globalisation demands more European unity. More unity demands more integration.More integration demands more democracy – European democracy. In Europe, this means,first and foremost, accepting that we are all in the same boat. It means recognising thecommonality of our European interests. It means embracing the interdependence of ourdestinies and it means demanding a true sense of common responsibility and solidaritybecause, when you are on a boat in the middle of the storm, absolute loyalty is the minimumyou demand from your fellow crew members.

This is the only way we will keep up with the pace of change. It is the only way we will getthe scale and efficiency we need to be a global player. It is the only way to safeguard ourvalues – because it is also a matter of values – in our changing world.

In the 20th century, a country of just 10 or 15 million people could be a global power. In

the 21st century, even the biggest European countries run the risk of irrelevance betweenglobal giants such as the US or China. History is accelerating. It took 155 years for Britainto double its GDP per capita, 50 years for the United States, and just 15 years for China.But, if you look at some of our new Member States, the economic transformation goingon is no less impressive.

Europe has all the assets it takes – in fact much more so than previous generations facedwith similar or even greater challenges. But we need to act accordingly and mobilise allthese resources together. It is time to match ambitions, decisions, and actions. It is time toput a stop to piecemeal responses and muddling through. It is time to learn the lessonsfrom history and write a better future for our Europe.

What I demand, and what I present to you today, is a decisive deal for Europe – a decisivedeal to project our values, our freedom and our prosperity into the future of a globalisedworld; a deal that combines the need to keep our social market economies on the one handand the need to reform them on the other; a deal that will stabilise the EMU, boostsustainable growth, and restore competitiveness; a deal that will establish a contract of


confidence between our countries, between Member States and the European institutions,between the social partners, and between the citizens and the European Union.

The decisive deal for Europe means that we must leave no doubt about the integrity of theUnion or the irreversibility of the euro. The more vulnerable countries must leave no doubtsabout their willingness to reform and about their sense of responsibility. The strongercountries must leave no doubts about their willingness to stick together and about theirsense of solidarity.

(Applause)

We must all leave no doubts that we are determined to reform and to reform together.

The idea that we can grow without reform or that we can prosper alone is simply false. Wemust recognise that we are in this together and we must resolve this together. This decisivedeal requires the completion of a deep and genuine economic union, based on a politicalunion.

Let me start with Europe’s economy. Firstly, we need growth, sustainable growth. Growthis the lifeblood of the European social market model. It creates jobs and supports ourstandard of living. But we can only maintain growth if we are more competitive. At thenational level it means undertaking structural reforms that have been postponed for decades– modernising public administration, reducing wasteful expenditure, tackling vestedinterests and privileges, reforming the labour market to balance security with flexibilityand ensuring the sustainability of social systems.

At the European level, we need to be more decisive about breaking down barriers, whetherphysical, economic or digital. We need to complete the single market. We need to reduceour energy dependence and tap the renewable energy potential. Promoting competitivenessin sectors such as energy, transport or telecoms could open up fresh competition, promoteinnovation and drive down prices for consumers and businesses.

The Commission will shortly present a Single Market Act II. To enable the single marketto prosper, the Commission will continue to be firm and intransigent in the defence of itscompetition and trade rules. Let me tell you frankly that, if this is left to the Member States,they will not resist pressure from big corporations or large external powers.

We need to create a European labour market and make it as easy for people to work inanother country as it is at home. We need to explore green growth and be much moreefficient in the use of resources. We have to be much more ambitious about education,research, innovation and science.

Europe is a world leader in key sectors such as aeronautics, automotives, pharmaceuticalsand engineering, with global market shares above a third. Industrial productivity increasedby 35% over the last decade, despite the economic slowdown. Today some 74 million jobsdepend on manufacturing. Every year start-up firms in the EU create over 4 million jobs.We need to build on this by investing in our new industrial policy and creating a businessenvironment that encourages entrepreneurship and supports small businesses.

This means making the taxation environment simpler for businesses and more attractivefor investors. Better tax coordination would benefit all Member States. We also need apro-active trade policy by opening up new markets. This is the potential of Europe’seconomy. This is the goldmine that is yet to be fully explored. Fully implementing theGrowth Compact agreed at the June European Council can take us a long way.


And we could go further with a realistic yet ambitious European Union budget dedicatedto investment, growth and reform. Let us be clear: the European budget is the instrumentfor investment in Europe and growth in Europe. The Commission and this Parliament,indeed all pro-European forces – because most Member States support our proposal –must now stand together in support of the right multiannual financial framework that willtake us to 2020. It will place little burden on Member States, especially with our proposednew own-resources system but it would give a great boost to their economies, their regions,their researchers, their students, their young people who seek employment, and their SMEs.

It is a budget for growth. It is a budget for economic, social and territorial cohesion betweenMember States and within Member States. It is a budget that will help complete the singlemarket by bridging gaps in our energy, transport and telecoms infrastructure through theConnecting Europe Facility. It is a budget for a modern, growth-oriented agriculture capableof combining food security with sustainable rural development. It is a budget that willpromote a research-intensive and innovative Europe through Horizon 2020 because weneed this European scale for research.

Now we come, as a test of credibility, to many of our Member States. I want to see if thesame Member States that were always speaking about the need for growth and investmentfor growth will now support the budget for growth at European level.

(Applause)

This budget is also the tool to support Europe 2020, our strategy for growth, which weneed now more than ever before. Europe 2020 is indeed the way to modernise and preservethe European social market economy.

Our agenda of structural reform requires a major adjustment effort. It will only work if itis fair and equitable because inequality is not sustainable. In some parts of Europe we areseeing a real social emergency with rising poverty and massive levels of unemployment,especially among our young people. That is why we must strengthen social cohesion. It isa feature that distinguishes European society from alternative models.

Some say that because of the crisis the European social model is dead. I do not agree. Yes,we need to reform our economies and modernise our social protection systems, but aneffective social protection system that helps those in need is not an obstacle to prosperity.It is indeed an indispensable element of it. Indeed, it is precisely those European countrieswith the most effective social protection systems and with the most developed socialpartnerships, that are among the most successful and competitive economies in the world.

Fairness and equity mean giving a chance to our young people. We are already doing a lot.Before the end of the year the Commission will launch a Youth Package that will establisha youth guarantee scheme and equality framework to facilitate vocational training.

Fairness and equity also mean creating better and fairer taxation systems. Stopping taxfraud and tax evasion could put extra billions into the public purse across Europe. This iswhy the Commission will fight for an agreement on the revised Savings Tax Directive andon mandates to negotiate stronger savings tax agreements with third countries. Theircompletion would be a major source of legitimate tax revenues.

The Commission will continue to fight for a fair and ambitious Financial Transaction Taxthat will ensure that taxpayers benefit from the financial sector, not just that the financialsector benefits from taxpayers. Now that it is clear that agreement on this can only happen


through enhanced cooperation, the Commission will do all it can to move this forwardrapidly and effectively with those Member States that are willing. This is about fairness.Fairness is an essential condition for making the necessary economic reforms socially andpolitically acceptable and, above all, because fairness is a question of social justice.

In the face of the crisis, important decisions have been taken. Across the European Union,reform and consolidation measures are being implemented. Joint financial backstops arebeing put in place, and the European institutions have consistently shown that they standby the euro. The Commission is very aware that in the Member States implementing themost intense reforms, there is hardship and there are – sometimes very painful – difficultadjustments, but it is only through these reforms that we can come to a better future. Theywere long overdue. Going back to the status quo ante is simply impossible. The Commissionwill continue to do all it can to support those Member States and to help them boost growthand employment, for instance through the re-programming of structural funds.

Allow me to say a word on Greece. I truly believe that we have a chance this autumn tocome to the turning point. If Greece banishes all doubts about its commitment to reform– but also if all the other countries banish all doubts about their determination to keepGreece in the euro area – we can do it. I believe that if Greece stands by its commitmentsit should stay in the euro area as a member of the European family.

(Applause)

Securing the stability of the euro area is our most urgent challenge. This is the jointresponsibility of the Member States and the Community Institutions. The ECB cannot, andwill not, finance governments. But, when monetary policy channels are not workingproperly, the Commission believes that it is within the mandate of the ECB to take thenecessary actions, for instance in the secondary markets of sovereign debt.

(Applause)

Indeed, the ECB has not only the right but also the duty to restore the integrity of monetarypolicy. It is of course for the ECB, as an independent institution, to determine what actionsto carry out and under what conditions. But all actors – and I really mean all actors – shouldrespect the ECB’s independence.

I have spoken about the economic policy measures that we must implement as a matterof urgency. This is indispensable. But it is not sufficient. We must go further. We mustcomplete the economic and monetary union. We must create a banking union and a fiscalunion and the corresponding institutional and political mechanisms.

Today, the Commission is presenting legislative proposals for a single European supervisorymechanism for the euro zone. This is a stepping stone to banking union. The crisis hasshown that, while banks became transnational, rules and oversight remained national.When things went wrong, it was the taxpayers who had to pick up the bill.

Over the past four years the EU has overhauled the rulebook for banks, leading the worldin implementing the G20 commitments. But mere coordination is no longer adequate –we need to move to common supervisory decisions, namely within the euro area. Thesingle supervisory mechanism proposed today will create a reinforced architecture, witha core role for the European Central Bank, and appropriate articulation with the EuropeanBanking Authority, which will restore confidence in the supervision of the banks in theeuro area.


It will be a supervision for all euro area banks. Supervision must be able to look everywherebecause systemic risks can be anywhere, not just in so-called systemically relevant banks.Of course, this is in a system that fully engages the national supervisors.

The package comprises two legal texts – one on the ECB and the other on the EBA – whichgo together. It is clear that Parliament will have a crucial role to play in the adoption of thenew mechanism, and after that in its democratic oversight.

This is a crucial first step towards the banking union I proposed before this House in June.Getting the European supervisor in place is the top priority for now because it is theprecondition for the better management of banking crises, from banking resolution todeposit insurance.

In parallel the Commission will continue to work on the reform of the banking sector, tomake sure it plays its role in the responsible financing of the real economy. That meansimproving long-term financing for SMEs and other companies. It means rules on referenceindices, so that we do not again see the manipulation of bank interest rates affectingcompanies and mortgage holders alike. It means legislation to ensure that banks give a fairdeal to consumers and another look at the structure of banking activities to eliminateinherent risks.

In all of this, the role of this Parliament is essential. The Commission endeavours to workin close partnership with you.

But there is a second element of a deeper economic union. It is the move towards a fiscalunion. The case for it is clear: the economic decisions of one Member State impact on theothers, so we need stronger economic policy coordination. We need a stronger and morebinding framework for the national decision-making for key economic policies, as theonly way to prevent imbalances. While much has been done here – for instance throughthe six pack and through the country-specific recommendations – further steps are crucialto combine specific conditions with specific incentives and to really make the economicand monetary union sustainable.

To deliver lasting results, we need to develop a fully equipped Community economicgovernance, together with a genuine, credible Community fiscal capacity. We do not needseparate institutions or to create new institutions for that, quite the contrary. For this tobe effective and quick, the best way is to work with and through the existing institutions:the European Commission as the independent European authority, overseen by theEuropean Parliament as the parliamentary representation at European level. It is in such aframework that, over time, steps for genuine mutualisation of debt redemption and debtissuance can take their place.

So economic reform coupled with a genuine economic and monetary union are the enginesto get our boat moving forward.

The Commission will publish a blueprint for deepening the economic and monetary union,already this autumn. This blueprint will be presented to this House because these questionsmust be discussed with and by the representatives of the people. At the same time, it willinform the debate at the December European Council that will be prepared by the reportthat the President of the European Council, I myself and the Presidents of the EuropeanCentral Bank and the Euro Group have been asked to present.


Our blueprint will identify the tools and instruments and present options for legal draftingthat will give effect to them, from policy coordination to fiscal capacity to debt redemption.Where necessary – as in the case of jointly and severally guaranteed public debt – it willidentify the Treaty changes necessary because some of these changes require modificationsin the Treaty. It will present a blueprint for what we need to accomplish, not only in thenext few weeks and months but also in the next years.

Ultimately, the credibility and sustainability of economic and monetary union – thecredibility of our currency, the euro – depends on the institutions and the political constructbehind it. This is why the economic and monetary union raises the question of a politicalunion and the European democracy that must underpin it.

If we want economic and monetary union to succeed, we need to combine ambition andproper sequencing. We need to take concrete steps now, but with a political union as thehorizon. I would like to see the development of a European public space, where Europeanissues are discussed and debated from a European standpoint. We cannot continue tryingto solve European problems just with national solutions.

This debate has to take place in our societies and among our citizens. But today I wouldalso like to make an appeal to European thinkers, to men and women of culture, to jointhis debate on the future of Europe. We need them. I also make this appeal to you. This isthe house of European democracy. We must strengthen the role of the European Parliamentat European level. We need to promote genuine complementarity and cooperation betweenthe European and national parliaments.

This also cannot be done without strengthened European political parties. Indeed, we veryoften have a real disconnect between political parties in the capitals and the Europeanpolitical parties here in Strasbourg. This is why we have to recognise that the politicaldebate is cast all too often as if it were just between national parties. Even in the Europeanelections we do not see the name of the European political parties in the ballot box. Wesee a national discussion between national parties. This is why we need a better statute forEuropean political parties. I am proud to announce that the Commission has adopted aproposal for this today.

An important means to deepen the pan-European political debate would be the presentationby European political parties of their candidate for the post of Commission President atthe European Parliament elections in 2014. This can be done without a Treaty change andwould be a decisive step to make the possibility of a European choice offered by theseelections even clearer. I call on the political parties to commit to this step and thus to furtherEuropeanise the European elections.

(Applause)

A true political European Union means we must concentrate European action on the realissues that matter and must be dealt with at European level. Let us be frank about this. Noteverything can be a priority at the same time. We need to be more selective and here someself-criticism will probably apply.

Proper integration is about taking a fresh look at where the most appropriate level of actionis. Subsidiarity is an essential democratic concept and should be practised. A political unionalso means that we must strengthen the foundations on which our Union is built: respectfor our fundamental values, for the rule of law and democracy.


In recent months we have seen threats to the legal and democratic fabric in some of ourEuropean states. The European Parliament and the Commission were the first to raise thealarm and played the decisive role in seeing these worrying developments brought intocheck. But these situations also revealed the limits of our institutional arrangements. Weneed a better developed set of instruments – not just the alternative between the ‘soft power’of political persuasion and the ‘nuclear option’ of Article 7 of the Treaty.

Our commitment to upholding the rule of law is also behind our intention to establish aEuropean Public Prosecutor’s Office, as foreseen by the treaties. We will make a proposalsoon.

A political union also means doing more to fulfil our global role. Sharing sovereignty inEurope means being more sovereign in a global world. In today’s world, size matters andvalues make the difference. That is why Europe’s message must be one of freedom, ofdemocracy, of the rule of law and of solidarity. In short, our values, the European values.

More than ever our citizens and the new world order need an active and influential Europe,not just for us here in Europe. It is important for the rest of the world that we succeed. AEurope that stands by its values and a Europe that stands up for its belief that human rightsare not a luxury for the developed world but should be seen as universal values.

The appalling situation in Syria reminds us that we cannot afford to be bystanders. A newand democratic Syria must emerge. We have a joint responsibility to make this happenand to work with those in the global order who also need to give their cooperation towardsthat goal.

The world also needs an EU that keeps its leadership of development and humanitarianassistance, that stands by open economies and fights protectionism and that leads the fightagainst climate change. The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying militarymissions to help stabilise the situation in crisis areas. We need to launch a comprehensivereview of European capabilities and begin truly collective defence planning. Yes, we needto enforce our Common Foreign and Security Policy and to have a common approach todefence matters because together we have the power and the scale to shape the world intoa fairer, rules-based and human-rights-abiding place.

A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union with a coherentforeign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve.Let us not be afraid of the word: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states.This is our political horizon. This is what must guide our work in the years to come.

Today, I call for a federation of nation states. Not a superstate. A democratic federation ofnation states that can tackle our common problems, through the sharing of sovereigntyin such a way that each country and its citizens are better equipped to control their owndestiny. This is about union with the Member States, not against the Member States. In theage of globalisation pooled sovereignty means more power, not less.

I said a federation of nation states on purpose because I think that, in these turbulent times,in these times of uncertainty, it would be a real mistake to leave the defence of the nationjust to the nationalists and populists. I believe in a Europe where people are proud of theirnations but also proud to be European and proud of our European values.

Creating this federation of nation states will ultimately require a new Treaty.


I do not say this lightly. We are all aware how difficult Treaty change has become. It hasto be well prepared. Discussions on Treaty change must not distract or delay us from doingwhat can and must already be done today.

A deep and genuine economic and monetary union can be started under the current treaties,but can only be completed with changes in the treaties. So let us start it now but let us havethe horizon for this future present in our decisions of today.

We must not begin with Treaty change. We must identify the policies we need and theinstruments to implement them. Only then can we decide on the tools that we lack andthe ways to remedy this.

Then there must be a broad debate all over Europe. A debate that must take place beforea convention and an IGC are called. A debate of a truly European dimension. The times ofEuropean integration by implicit consent of citizens are over. Europe cannot be technocratic,bureaucratic or even diplomatic. Europe has to be ever more democratic and the role ofthe European Parliament for this is essential.

That is why the European elections in 2014 can be so decisive. Before the next EuropeanParliament elections in 2014, the Commission will present its outline for the shape of thefuture European Union. We will put forward explicit ideas for Treaty change in time for atrue European debate. We will set out the objectives to be pursued, the way in which theinstitutions that can make the European Union more open and democratic, the powersand instruments to make it more effective, and the model to make it a union for the peoplesof Europe. I believe we need a real debate and in democracy the best way to debate is todebate our future and our goals in the elections at European level.

This is not just a debate for the euro area in its present membership. Let me be very clear.In Europe we need no more walls dividing us because the European Union is stronger asa whole in keeping the integrity of its single market, its membership and in its institutions.No one will be forced to come along and no one will be forced to stay out but the speedwill not be dictated by the slowest or the most reluctant.

This is why our proposals will be based on the existing Union and its institutions – on theCommunity method. Let us be clear – there is only one European Union, one EuropeanCommission, one European Parliament. More democracy, more transparency, moreaccountability, is not created by a proliferation of institutions that would render theEuropean Union more complicated, more difficult to read, less coherent and less capableof acting.

This is the magnitude of the decisions that we will need to make over time. That is why Ibelieve we need a serious discussion between the citizens of Europe about the way forward– and also about the possible consequences of fragmentation, because sometimes throughunintended consequences we get fragmentation that we do not want – but also about whatwe could achieve if leaders avoid national provincialism: what we can achieve together.

We must use the 2014 election to mobilise all pro-European forces. We must not allowthe populists and the nationalists to set a negative agenda. I expect all those who callthemselves Europeans to stand up and to take the initiative in this debate. Because evenmore dangerous than the scepticism of the anti-Europeans is the indifference or thepessimism of the pro-Europeans.


To sum up, what we need is a decisive deal to complete the EMU, based on a politicalcommitment to a stronger European Union.

The sequence I put before you is clear. We should start by doing all we can to stabilise theeuro and accelerate growth in the EU as a whole. The Commission will present all thenecessary proposals – we have started today with the single supervisor – to create a bankingunion, in line with current treaty provisions.

Secondly, we will present our blueprint on a deep and genuine economic and monetaryunion, including the political instruments. This will be done this autumn. We will presenthere again all proposals in line with the current treaty provisions.

Thirdly, where we cannot move forward under the existing treaties, we will present explicitproposals for the necessary Treaty changes ahead of the next European parliamentaryelection in 2014, including elements for reinforced democracy and accountability. This isour project, a project that is step by step but with a big ambition for the future, with afederation as the horizon for Europe.

I am sure that many will say that this is too ambitious and that it is not realistic. But I wantto leave you with some questions. Let me ask you – is it realistic to go on as we have beendoing? Is it realistic to see what we are seeing today in many European countries? Is itrealistic to see taxpayers paying banks and afterwards being forced to give banks back thehouses they have paid for because they cannot pay their mortgages? Is it realistic to seemore than 50% of our young people without jobs in some of our Member States? Is itrealistic to go on trying to muddle through, just trying to accommodate mistakes withunconvincing responses? Is it realistic to think that we can win the confidence of marketswhen sometimes we show so little confidence in each other?

To me, it is this reality that is not realistic. This reality cannot go on.

The realistic way forward is the way that makes us stronger and more united. Realism isto put our ambition at the level of our challenges. Realism is to tell our youth that, yes,there is hope if we stick together. If there is a bias in our analysis, let it be a bias for hope.We should be proud to be Europeans, proud of our rich and diverse culture. In spite of ourcurrent problems, our societies are among the most human and free in the world. We donot have to apologise for our democracy or for our social market economy or for ourvalues.

(Applause)

With high levels of social cohesion, respect for human rights and human dignity, equalitybetween men and women, respect for our environment – these European societies, withall their problems, are among the most decent societies in human history. I think we shouldbe proud of them.

In our countries two or three girls do not go to prison because they sing songs criticisingthe leader of their country. In our countries people are free and proud of that freedom andpeople understand what it means to live in freedom. In many of our countries, namely themost recent Member States, there is a recent memory of what was dictatorship andtotalitarianism.

Previous generations have overcome much bigger challenges. Now it is for this generationto show they are up to the task. Now is the moment for all Europeans to leave business asusual behind and to embrace the business of the future. The European Union was built to


guarantee peace but today this means making our Union fit to meet the challenges ofglobalisation.

That is why we need a new thinking for Europe, a decisive deal for Europe. That is why weneed to guide ourselves by the values that are at the heart of the European Union. I believethat Europe has a soul and this soul can give us the strength and the determination to dowhat we must do.

You can count on the European Commission. I count on you, the European Parliament,because together, as Community institutions, we will build a better, stronger and a moreunited Europe, a citizens’ union for the future of Europe and also for the future of the world.

(Applause)

President. − Before I open the debate, I would like to make a remark about thecatch-the-eye procedure, as we have been overwhelmed with requests. The catch-the-eyeprocedure has been given this name because it is supposed to be spontaneous. It is not asubstitute for the list of speakers. We will attempt to include those Members who havemade requests, but only if they are in the Chamber. I would like to make that quite clear.

Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies andgentlemen, first of all I should like to thank José Manuel Barroso for his address, his speech,his analysis and his realism.

We are back after summer break and, as is the case each year, we have two things to do:take stock of the past twelve months and discuss the future of the European Union.

I think we are heading in the right direction now. What I mean is that we need to continuealong the road towards greater European integration We also need more specific reforms.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been talking about the crisis for three years now. We knowthat we were living beyond our means for too long, we know that we need greater disciplineand a return to balanced budgets. Only then will we be able to invest in our futuregenerations.

We know the ways out of the crisis. In economic terms, what we have done over the lastthree years, we have done too slowly, and that has cost us billions. As for the economicgovernance package, the Euro Plus Pact, the European Semester, the Single Market Act,and in some sectors, for example, the banks, the need for European solutions is evident.Banks are no longer national, but transnational. A failing bank can bring down the entirebanking system. This is why my group supports your proposal to establish a singlesupervisory mechanism in the banking sector.

Ladies and gentlemen, we know that our solutions are positive and we have examples toback this up. Although, I have not written it down on my sheet here, you have made merealise that there are also some positive examples. I think that the governments that havemade the most reforms in Europe also belong to our political family. I am thinking aboutour friend Mr Dombrovskis. Although his is a small country deep in crisis, he got it out ofcrisis and there is now meaningful growth. Here too, as I see it, is an example, and he didit without having to rely too much on European solidarity. In his speeches, he stressed thatin this deep crisis the only money he had to invest, was money he received from the EUbudget. I think this needs to be given some thought because, unlike some, we realised howserious the situation was.


We know that our economies are in bad shape and that the only way to get them better isa complete cure. To kick start this, we need a change of habits. We need large-scale ratherthan small-scale reforms. Yes, it is hard, but what choice do we have? For these reforms tosucceed, we must also promote competitiveness and growth. My group supports thosegovernments that are going down this route.

I would also like to make another point. European solidarity should not be confused withcharity. That is why I support the European Central Bank’s proposal to buy bonds becauseany State that benefits from this solidarity must act responsibly. Without a programme ofreforms offering credible proposals, a State cannot receive this aid. This is the right approach.It is a European approach and, by bolstering States in difficulty, it is Europe, as a whole,that we are strengthening.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will say it again, 20 years after it was introduced, we have still notcompleted the single market. Mr Barroso, I am appealing to you again. We must, as a matterof urgency, develop an action plan with precise deadlines to finish the job we started. Therules on the single market should be simple, consistently applied and implemented as asingle package. For example, because of red tape, 23 million European SMEs still have noaccess to all 27 markets. Let me tell you that one job created in each of these 23 millionsmall- and medium-sized enterprises – if you tot it up - is a significant number. That is whymy group has called for a reduction in red tape by 2015. At least 50% less paper: think ofthe trees saved for the environment. By doing this, we are giving European companies thechance to create jobs. The Commission must play a full part and have no hesitation inenforcing the law. Publish lists of States that have still not implemented the directives andforce them to do so. Use your powers! Governments are frequently challenging usEuropeans. Everything is always our fault. Let them, then, take some responsibility too.

I call on you, Mr President, to define new, concrete fields in which the European institutionsshould intervene. I am convinced that there is a very simple remedy for the current crisis:it is more Europe, yet more Europe and more Europe again.

What we need is fiscal and social harmonisation. Our joint actions and policies aresuccessful. Let me give you one example that will surely surprise you: agricultural policy.This truly is a joint policy which has ensured food security – as you mentioned – duringperiods of significant fluctuations. It has also got entire regions out of poverty. This policymust remain European. Above all, we must not do what many are now calling for andrenationalise it. That would be a disaster. This is a European policy that been successfuland must remain European.

To take another example, unemployment, and in particular youth unemployment. Nocountry can solve this problem on its own. Even if this comes under national jurisdiction,again, it is time to find a European solution. Again, I am thinking about this extra job ineach of the 23 million SMEs. It might make you all smile, but not me: twenty-three millionextra jobs with a European policy for youth employment; that should make you think.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you said, Mr President, we are in the throes of an unprecedentedstorm. There are those in Europe and elsewhere, who would be only too pleased to see theeuro collapse. Personally, I do not want to give them that pleasure and nor do you,José Manuel. Besides, why do the credit rating agencies prefer to attack the euro, ratherthan judge the country they know best where their head office is? They are not making thesame analyses. I know why but, all the same, it is not right. We must face this storm, notby plastering up the cracks, but by strengthening our foundations. We must not repeat


past mistakes. Creating an economic union without an accompanying political union isinconceivable. Our credibility is at stake.

Mr President, let us show some European ambition. Europe makes decisions that affect500 million Europeans. These decisions should be taken under democratic control, by theonly institution elected by direct universal suffrage. The place of democratic legitimacy ishere in Parliament, and I thank President Schulz for having refocused matters. We areelected democratically. I therefore think we should be recognised democratically. Theso-called ‘four presidents’’ proposal aiming at real economic and monetary union isambitious but it needs to be more so and Parliament should also be involved in this.Concentrating only on economic reforms is the wrong way to go because the economiccrisis has become a political crisis, a crisis of confidence – as you rightly pointed out at theend. Now, I agree on a Treaty change in the medium and long term, but this is not thesolution we need in the immediate future. Because I am French, all we need is for someRules of Procedure to be applied to fiscal and social policies, and to be included in theTreaty when we have time to think. Now is the time for action.

The latest Eurobarometer struck me. It reveals that a majority of Europeans think thatEurope is indeed a good thing. But in many Member States, more and more of our citizensdo not feel European. It is our duty - as you said - to explain the added value, but it is alsothe duty of all national leaders. For me, a good, responsible politician is like a good doctor.Both have to explain things, both have to tell the truth, both have to convince you, evenif you do not want to hear it. We need to discuss the next steps of our integration with thisreality in mind.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am calling for more Europe, not more power for the sake of havingpower. We must build a Europe that can meet the challenges of the 21st century. This iswhy we want the 2014-2020 EU budget to have a credible, solid and ambitious framework,as it has been prepared by the Commission and Parliament. Here too, the Heads of Stateor Government are being held to political account and it will show our citizens whetheror not we want more Europe. The European budget is not a budget of spending, but abudget of investing. It is a forward-looking budget, a budget for growth.

Let us be serious and ambitious. I call on all those responsible to find a solution before theend of the year.

Ladies and gentlemen, judges will today rule on the democratic legitimacy of EU decisions.Here in Parliament, we champion democratic control at European level. We also need tohave the courage to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourgwhen we think that our rights are not being respected. We must go before the Courtfrequently, as others do, and I am sure that will also strengthen Parliament.

This is also why we need a real political Europe. A Europe where Parliament is the onlydirect representative of the citizens of Europe. If we do not do this, we will fail. Politicalunion is legitimacy, it is more democratic control, more citizen participation.

This is the Europe that I believe in. These are the values that our group supports.

(Applause)

Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, you have given agood speech, Mr Barroso, parts of which could even be described as very good. In someareas I would like to see things being taken further and I will also be explaining where we


in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the EuropeanParliament would go further. You have declared your support for the European socialmodel and rightly so. I would have liked to have seen more support for the social modelfrom those on the right, because it is very much at risk.

You have assured us of your commitment to Europe’s role in the world, which must be astrong role. That is also the right thing to do. Yesterday, Mr Goebbels reported on a meetingin Asia. The Asian representative began his speech with the words: ‘we from the emergingcountries and you Europeans from the submerging countries’. That is the image that Europe,at least in part, is presenting today. We all agree that we want Europe to continue to belongto the emerging countries and regions. However, if we do not change our economic policy,this will not happen. If we see the economic crisis only as a crisis in state spending – youpresented it in more differentiated terms, but many others on the right see it in this way –and, therefore, if we believe that it is simply about cutting services, then we will not emergefrom the crisis. In fact, we will end up in an even deeper recession. The Portuguese PrimeMinister made this quite clear. If you start with an extreme austerity policy, you end uphaving to reach even deeper into people’s pockets. We do not want that. We do not wantthe poorest people in Europe to become even poorer. That is not a policy that we in theS&D Group can support.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, I have said to you on many occasions that the troika is unfortunatelycontributing to this recessionary policy. The troika should instead be focusing onfundamental reforms of decrepit structures, which is what we need. However, if the troikabelieves that we can get out of this mess simply by making cuts, I would like to know whereall its successes have been. Every forecast based on measures recommended by the troikahas had to be corrected.

(Applause)

In Spain – and the foreign minister and the minister for Europe are sitting here, our formercolleagues, even if they are chatting to one another – unemployment has risen from 11%to 24%, a world record for comparable countries, and sovereign debt has increased from40% to 81%. Is that supposed to be a success? The troika is unsuccessful, because it hasthe wrong solutions, because it is not investing in growth and because it is not familiarwith the concept of ‘demand’ as a stimulus for growth.

Mr Daul, you mentioned Mr Dombrovskis. Has Mr Dombrovskis told you how manywell-trained people have left Latvia, the other Baltic states and the countries in the southbecause they cannot find jobs? This is what is called success, when unemployment levelsare high and those who are affected are exported. Where are the people of Europe supposedto emigrate to if we all end up in a recession? Mozambique, Angola, Brazil and othercountries will not be big enough.

(Applause)

Let us be honest. The policy has failed. The only institution that has stepped into the breachat the moment is the European Central Bank (ECB). Not that I am happy with all its measures.However, if we did not have the ECB, we would be in a much deeper mess. If we did nothave a man like Mr Draghi at its head, but instead had a man like Mr Weidmann, thecatastrophe in Europe would be much more serious.


(Applause)

We politicians are facing a challenge. There is an alternative which, most importantly,must lead to investment. Mr Barroso, in the US public investment is increasing. In Chinapublic investment is increasing. In Japan public investment is increasing. What is happeningin Europe? How can we go on talking about competitiveness, if we are no longer investing?You are on our side when it comes to the question of tax increases and tax evasion. If weonly received a quarter of the tax revenue which we lose every year in Europe through taxevasion, by means of transfers to Switzerland and other tax havens, we could increasepublic investment in Europe by 40%. That is our problem.

(Applause)

Therefore, we agree with you. To ensure that the financial markets do not react asdramatically as they have done, we need stronger regulation which is targeted in particularat high-frequency trading. We definitely need measures to combat tax avoidance and taxevasion. I am calling once again on Austria and Luxembourg finally to give the Commissiona mandate for negotiations with Switzerland. We also need the financial transaction tax.A motion has still not been submitted to the Commission. I agree with you about thebanking union and the supervision of the banks. We must not prop them up again usingtaxpayers’ money. We need a budget that stimulates growth. We are on your side. I wantto be very clear about one thing. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists andDemocrats in the European Parliament will not vote in favour of a European budget thatmakes no contribution to growth. We are strongly opposed to attempts to cut the budgeteven further for populist reasons. It is already small enough and many regions need thisbudget.

(Applause)

However, what we are particularly concerned about is the disregard for the social question.This does not just affect the poor countries. If we look at youth unemployment and howfast it is growing, it is clearly not only a problem for the countries on the periphery. Dothe ladies and gentlemen in this House know that one in every five workers in Germany,good old wealthy Germany, is a low-paid worker? Are the ladies and gentlemen on theright who do not belong to the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) aware thatMs von der Leyen, their minister, wanted to take extensive measures to combat old-agepoverty, but was prevented from doing so by her own party and has now had to go to theSocial Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and ask for help? That is the reality: poverty,old-age poverty and youth unemployment are all things which are extremely seriousproblems in the peripheral countries in the south, but which are gradually also reachingthe wealthy countries like Germany. Germany is also sliding into recession. One third ofGermans are worried about social exclusion. That is today’s Europe. If we want to defendEurope, it should not be a Europe like this.

It is a scandal that the paper produced by Mr Van Rompuy contains nothing about thesocial issues. You will probably agree with this, Mr Barroso, but I am calling on you to takeaction. The questions which concern most people in Europe today, in other words,unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, are not even mentioned in Mr Van Rompuy’spaper. Therefore, I am calling for a chapter in the paper on social issues. On behalf of mygroup, I am also calling for a social pact, because the ladies and gentlemen on the right ofthis House are very keen on having a fiscal compact. I agree. With great difficulty and onlyas a result of pressure from the new French Government, we have a growth pact, a weak


one, but a growth pact all the same. However, a social pact is apparently not important toyou at all. We need a social pact to combat the decline in solidarity in Europe, youthunemployment and old-age poverty and to promote the integration of our foreign andimmigrant fellow citizens. There are many social questions in Europe and, therefore, mygroup would like to have a social pact at last, not only a weak growth pact and not only astringent fiscal pact.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, the President of Parliament has also touched on the issue of democracy whichhas been put at risk by the mismanagement of the many financial markets. Sovereignty isin jeopardy, but national sovereignty is not threatened by Europe. However, democracyis definitely also at risk, because we are seeing antidemocratic tendencies developing. Asthe Council takes on more and more responsibility, in particular for budget issues, I wouldlike to know who the Council is accountable to for its actions. At a national level it is theindividual Heads of State or Government. Mr Van Rompuy is notable for his absence fromthis House. We rarely see him and generally only after the event, when he explains whathas happened or more often what has not happened. This is an unacceptable trend. Wewant the Council to be fully accountable, particularly to this House, because parliamentarydemocracy at a European level is part of democracy as a whole. It is an essential componentof democracy. The Council should not take upon itself responsibilities and powers whichit is not entitled to. That is a violation of democracy.

(Applause)

Some journalists in the German and Austrian media rightly regard the Council as a bastionof nationalism. I understand your concept of a federation of nation states. However,Mr Barroso, it must be clear that we are fighting together to ensure that the individualcountries hand over to Europe the powers needed to allow us to defend our sovereigntyjointly in today’s and tomorrow’s world.

Finally, I would like to say that we also need a new treaty. However, if we tell the peoplewho are currently unemployed that we have no jobs for them and, at the same time, begindiscussing a new EU treaty, at best, they will fail to understand us and, at worst, they willresort to violence. Therefore, we need to proceed with caution. First of all, we must havea European debate. We discussed this yesterday with some of the foreign ministers, whoare working on a paper. We need a European debate on the goals of the future Europe. Wehave a great deal in common in this area. Then after the next elections we can organise aconvention. When we know where we want to go, this convention can also, and I wouldlike to make this quite clear, decide on a new constitution and not on an amendment tothe treaty. We finally need a European constitution, but only after we have solved ourcurrent problems. That is vital.

In conclusion, Mr Barroso, I would like to offer you the opportunity to work closely togetherwith us. If we fight side-by-side to achieve a Europe of employment, of social cohesion andof democracy, then we will be on the right track. We do not have a lot of time until thenext elections. We need to make changes in Europe. We must join together to combat thedecline in solidarity and to fight against nationalism, which represents a threat to us. Wecan all be proud of our national flags, but if the European flag does not fly next to the Britishflag, then it is wrong to fly the British flag. If the European flag is there, then the British onecan be as well, because it is the concept of a shared Europe that links us together.


(Applause)

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thankPresident Barroso very much for his message, because he has recognised – and this was achange from the debates last month and last year – that we are still in the middle of a deepcrisis and we have to recognise that when we discuss the State of the Union today.

But what we are seeing today is more of a deep political crisis. Everybody is talking aboutpublic finances, about interest rates, about economics. In my opinion it is not about Greece,it is not about the public finances, it is not even about economics as being the fallout ofthe crisis. The real nature of this crisis is a political one and that is the political incapacitytoday to make the jump forward to a federal union and, more precisely, the incapacity ofthe national elites of Europe to make this jump to a more federal union in Europe. That isthe real crisis we are going through today.

I am saying that, Mr Barroso, because you have made a whole speech, but at the end of thespeech you come up with a concept and that concept we cannot accept: a federation ofnation states. No, no federation of nation states, that is more of the same, we have thatalready – that is the European Council, which is a federation of nation states where theHeads of Government and the Heads of State were trying to solve and are incapable ofsolving this crisis. We do not want more of the same – we do not need a nationalistic or anational future for Europe. We need a post-national future for Europe. That is what weneed. What we need for Europe is not a federation of nation states: it is a federal union ofEuropean citizens. It is about citizens and it is not about nation states in the future.

President. − This may be of particular importance for your speech. The German FederalConstitutional Court has dismissed the motions. The European Stability Mechanism doesnot breach the German constitution.

(Applause)

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, that is the first bit ofgood news we have had today. Maybe Mr Barroso is going to tell us that he is in fact goingto turn the federation of nation states into a federal union. Then we will certainly haveunanimity in the Chamber today.

Mr President, even after the decision of the Constitutional Court – I am always a little bitcritical when we talk about the Constitutional Court, as if there were no constitutionalcourts in other EU countries for the moment, but maybe in the future we can give themas much attention as we have given to Karlsruhe – there are still three remarks to be made.

First, it is not the European Central Bank that will solve the crisis. The European CentralBank can help; the European Bank has done the unavoidable in that for the third timealready – after Trichet with SMP, after the LTRO – Draghi has bought us time again. Butthis is a stop-gap solution; this is not a structural solution to this crisis and it is a mistaketo think in this House that, if the ECB comes in, then our problems are over. No, ourproblems are only over if we have the courage to create the federal union that is sodesperately needed. Do not think that this new measure of Draghi can work for more thanfive or six months. The crisis will come back if we do not assume responsibility – that ismy second remark today, dear colleagues.

We all know what the solution is. We all know – besides a number of individuals on theother side of the plenary – that we need an economic union, we need a political union, we


need a fiscal union. We all know that is the solution. I find it unthinkable that we are stillwaiting to come forward with proposals and what are we doing, in fact? Waiting for theoutcome of the German elections or something like that, because that is the political realityfor the moment.

I stress that I think it is very good, Mr Barroso, that today you have introduced a proposalfor a single financial supervisor, which is one of the three building blocks for a bankingunion. But what I do not understand is why the Commission is not also taking the initiativeon the other building blocks that are needed to solve this crisis.

We desperately need a resolution mechanism for the banks. The establishment of aneconomic government and a treasury in Europe: we need it desperately, if we want to solvethe crisis. The mutualisation of debt by the establishment of redemption funds: even thechief of the German Sparkasse last week said – and he is the former Minister of Finance inBavaria, a good member of the CSU – that it is absolutely necessary that we have aredemption fund if we want to solve this crisis. Furthermore he, the chief of the wholeSparkasse in Germany, has asked the European Commission to take the initiative in thatregard.

So my question to you, Mr Barroso, is why these two standards? If the European Councilin June was asking you to come forward with a proposal for a banking union within twomonths – and that is a good thing – why is Mr Barnier not putting forward a proposal fora banking union? If this Parliament has already asked the Commission four times, in theTwo-Pack and in the resolutions, to come forward with a redemption fund, which is a realstructural solution to this crisis, why do we receive nothing at all? Why is the EuropeanCouncil more important than the European Parliament when you come forward with yourown initiatives? Why?

(Applause)

I believe that we are in a balanced Union. You have the Council and you have Parliament.If Parliament requests that you come forward with a package of legislative proposals toend this crisis, it is your obligation and duty to do that. We are still waiting. We are stillwaiting for, I do not know what, perhaps the green light from Berlin or from of Paris beforeyou take action in that regard.

That brings me finally to my third point, the proposal that we have on the table today,which is the creation, the establishment of a single financial supervisory authority by givingmore powers to the European Central Bank. I have to tell you, Mr Barroso, I think it is agood idea that we have that, because we need a single supervisor. But I have some questionmarks on the model that we are choosing today because, let us be honest, what we aredoing is mainly copying the Banque de France. In most of our countries – in Britain it is thecase, in Belgium, in the Netherlands and in Germany too – you have a split between amonetary authority on the one hand and financial supervision of banks on the other. Icannot understand why we cannot merge the three institutions that we have today intowhat we call a financial supervisory agency or authority, so that we do not mix a financialsupervision task with a monetary authority.

I see a number of possible conflicts today: euro zone banks versus non-euro zone banks;banks versus other financial institutions. I see a problem between the ECB and the EBA.The EBA is creating the roadmap and the ECB is applying the roadmap.


I also see a problem on democratic accountability, because democratic accountability isnot compatible with the independence of the Bank. So my proposal to you, Mr Barroso,is to look further into that question and also to change the legal basis. My proposal andsuggestion to you and Mr Barnier is not only to use Article 127 as a legal base, but alsoArticle 114, so that we have full codecision with Parliament on such an important matterin the future.

So I conclude, Mr President, but I have a little more time as you interrupted me in thebeginning of my speech – with good news, so there is no criticism from my side. I think itis absolutely necessary now, Mr Barroso, that not only do we hear a good speech from youbut that you put forward a whole package of legislative proposals in the way Parliamentwants. Because do not forget that your legitimacy comes from this House, from thisParliament, and it is also this House that can take it back.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – (FR) Mr Verhofstadt, we are alwayshearing in our capital cities how everything is Europe’s fault. Yet when I have been listeningto you here, in Parliament, over the last three years, all I have heard is the same old thing:how everything is the fault of the Member States. It is all so simple. Maybe it is because youwere Prime Minister of a Member State for ten years that you know all about theunscrupulous behaviour of national governments, but do you really think - and I havebeen a federalist for as long as you have - that there will be a federation in Europe againstMember States which, may I remind you, have governments that have been democraticallyelected? I think that simply saying ‘It is the fault of the Member States’ in response to thosewho say ‘It’s Europe’s fault’ will get us nowhere

Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), blue-card answer. – (FR) I am not saying that we need to denythe existence of Member States. It is they that have to implement the policies. The realityis quite different, however. The reality in Europe today is that it is the Council that makesthe decisions. Yet we are now seeing that the Council is incapable of doing so: MemberStates are incapable of making a decision about pooling the debt, they are incapable ofcreating economic governance, and they are incapable of doing so because they aremotivated by their own national interest. It is we who represent the European interest andnot the nation states.

(Applause)

We will only solve the crisis by giving sovereignty at European level. Of course, tomorrow,Belgium will still exist, as will all the other Member States of the European Union. However,it will be a true federal union. That does not mean with a budget of 1%. It has nothing todo with a federal budget.

(Applause)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, Ishould like to make one comment first of all. Mr Barroso, when you talk of crisis, do notforget the ecological crisis, the environmental constraints, which you failed to mention inyour description of the crisis today. We are facing a poly-crisis, a number of crises, and theecological crisis is one of the most important crises, along with the financial and economiccrisis and the democratic crisis. If you were to rework this speech, be sure to add this in.


Secondly, Mr Barroso, you said: ‘Europe needs a new way of thinking, it needs a newdirection’. Yes, but if we want to take a new direction, we will need a compass. In whatdirection do we want to go? This is where the debate between Mr Lamberts andMr Verhofstadt is interesting, because we do need to be honest. I agree with Mr Verhofstadtwhen he says that the Council and governments have been unable to come up withresponses to the crisis. They have been hedging their bets. We are going to help Greece, alittle, a lot, passionately, madly, not all … We never knew what the true position ofgovernments was. Even today, we do not know. It is true, then, that the Council is incapable.Yet, Mr Verhofstadt, Parliament is also incapable, the European institutions are alsoincapable. When Parliament was not capable of voting for the development of transnationallists for the next elections, it clearly showed us that it is not up to the debate that we need.

Back to the compass, then. I am absolutely convinced that Europe now needs to befederalised. I do not agree with what you have picked up from Jacques Delors, a federationof nation-States. Yes, we need a post-national Europe which is not just a federation ofstates. That is what we need in Europe. Obviously, in a Senate, a second chamber, the Stateswill play an important role in European legislation, but what is unacceptable today is thatwe have a Council that acts as executive and legislator at the same time. That is no longerpossible. Montesquieu would be turning in his grave. A legislator cannot be an executiveand an executive cannot be a legislator. We must denounce this for the sake of progress.

You spoke about the budget, Mr Barroso. You are right, but, come on, be honest. We mustuse our compass to stay on the course towards federalisation. I would like to give those ofyou, here, that do not know it, some information. When the US federal budget was set upby Roosevelt, in 1932, it was 1% of US GDP. In 1945, it was 7% of GDP. In 2012, it is 23%of GDP. As long as the EU budget represents only 1% of European GDP, well, we cannothave meaningful European social policy. It will definitely not work.

This means that in the next five years, the EU budget should rise from 1% to 5% of theEuropean gross domestic product. That is the real debate that needs to be had with thenation States. This increase must be achieved using our own resources. It is not throughnational contributions, the very embodiment of national self-interests, that we will manageto build Europe.

Let me put this simply. Mr Barroso, you spoke of flexicurity. Having a flexible labour marketwith secure working conditions is obviously right. Take a country like Greece, whereunemployment has reached astounding levels. Do you believe that, if we were to noworganise a flexible labour market, like the one you want, this country can pay for thesecurity? If we now want flexicurity for some poor countries, whether that is Greece, SpainItaly or any other country with a serious unemployment crisis, they will need support forthat security, and that will have to come from the EU budget. Otherwise, we will not succeedand nor will they. If you want there to be a genuine social pact, for Europe to have themeans to help those States who are not able to provide security, like the United States cando with their budget, well, we will not achieve this with 1%, and not even with the amountproposed by the Commission.

If we grab the compass today and steer Europe into the right direction of federalisation,we can give Greece the social redemption fund immediately. We need to ultimately tellGreece the truth. The truth is that you can still have an adjustment policy, but that is it. Weneed to be honest and open. Greece obviously needs more time; we will obviously needto give money to Greece. A woman working part-time in a supermarket in Greece earnsEUR 150. This cannot be the case anymore. Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen:


the Greek right-wing are now going door-to-door giving families EUR 20, EUR 30 Whenyou earn EUR 150, 20 or 30 is a lot. The extreme right in Greece is doing what the Islamistsare doing in other countries. Is European Union therefore not able, in this crisis situation,to provide a social redemption fund to help crisis-hit countries like Greece so that Greekcitizens turn back to Europe and not to the extreme right? You can see fascism spreadingin Greek society.

I have said what I want to say. The notion of a compass is very straightforward: moreopportunities for the European Union to intervene, a meaningful European budget, a socialredemption fund for crisis-hit countries in Europe With this and the proposals made byMr Verhofstadt and Mr Daul, we can bring back the majority of European citizens towardsEurope.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149 (8)).

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr Cohn-Bendit, whycannot you understand that federalism, European regulations and the wasteful, wastedEuropean budgets are no cure for the European disease? They are the cause of the Europeandisease.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Lord Dartmouth, why cannot youunderstand that the time of the earls is over? They are not the solution for democracy;cannot you understand this? In 30 years’ time none of the European nation states, neitherGreat Britain nor Germany, will be part of the G8. Can you not understand that this timeis over?

You can write poems about it, I am sad about it, I understand that the Earl is sad about it,but it is the cruel reality of the modern world. Cannot you not understand the modernworld?

(Loud applause)

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, I would just point out to MrCohn-Bendit that I have the privilege and honour of being elected to this Chamber, just ashe and the other Members have.

My lineage and background are totally irrelevant, as is most of his speech.

President. − That was not a point of order, but since the aristocracy has been given sucha hard time lately, we should be generous.

Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, two weeks ago I wasprivileged to be with Mr Daul and others from this House in Tampa, where Mitt Romneytold the Republican National Convention: ‘I wish President Obama had succeeded becauseI want America to succeed, but his promises gave way to disappointment and division’.

I wish to say to President Barroso: my group supported you for a second term. We wantedyou to succeed in shaping a positive agenda for reform of the EU. In some areas, such asinternational trade or the single market, your Commission has made some progress whichwe welcome, and we welcome your further announcements today of progress on the singlemarket. But overall I have to say we are very disappointed. Rather than seeing Europeanrenewal, as you yet again promised last year, all we have seen is the same old tired approach:more Europe rather than better Europe.


Exactly two years ago the main initiative to emerge from your State of the Union speechwas project bonds. Two years on, nothing has happened, they are merely at a pilot phase.Last year your big idea was an EU-wide financial transactions tax, and today thankfullythat idea is dead in the water. This year we have a banking union, we have more Treatychange – the knee-jerk reflex of the European elite to every crisis. You told us today thatwe have the power to shape the world. Mr Barroso, can I suggest that first of all youconcentrate on solving the problems of Europe before you worry about shaping the restof the world?

And so far, the response to the euro zone crisis has been characterised by seeking short-term,sticking-plaster solutions and long-term institutional navel-gazing. Listening to you todayit looks as though that is going to continue. Bail-outs – ECB Ponzi schemes – have enabledyou to kick the infamous can even further down the road, and last week’s ECB decision tobuy up bonds may be, as some Members have said, a useful stop-gap, but it is in no sensea solution. Risks have simply been transferred from one balance sheet to another.

The essential nonsense of this current approach was for me brilliantly illustrated over thesummer. If you remember, Greece had to repay a EUR 5 billion loan to the ECB, so to dothis they issued new short-term bonds. All of these bonds were bought by Greek banks.Those Greek banks are, of course, all technically bust. So where did they get the moneyfrom? They borrowed it from the ECB to pay the Greek state who then gave it back to theECB again.

Mr President, this is exactly the kind of financial chicanery which caused the economiccrisis in the first place, and now you want us to have another long drawn-out academicdebate about more Treaty change, about a banking union. We will scrutinise your proposalsvery carefully to make sure that they respect the rights of those Member States thatthankfully chose not to join the euro. We wish to maintain the integrity of the single marketand ensure that your proposals do not damage that market.

The euro was, of course, a political project from the start. I well remember the many debatesin this House we had about it, where the political symbolism was much more importantthan the economic reality. I bet many of you are regretting that now. Well, President, weare now in an economic crisis and it will be solved with economic solutions, by confrontingsome fairly stark economic truths.

It is a reality – and Members have referred to this, Mr Barroso referred to this – that someeuro zone countries are less competitive than others. For them, the euro is acting like astraitjacket, preventing the currency devaluation that would give them time to put in placelonger-term reforms. And to illustrate how urgent the problem is, I agree with Mr Swoboda,a new report from the ILO shows that Spain now has the highest documentedunemployment rate in the world. Greece unfortunately comes second. This is misery onan epic scale in those countries, and we really should do something about it. So let us behonest about it. Let us be honest with ourselves.

The only way that the euro can be made to work with 17 members is if the people ofGermany, the people of the Netherlands, the people of Finland, are prepared to transfercash – not loans, cash – from their taxpayers’ pockets in order to bridge the competitivenessgap. Now I do not think that is ever going to happen and the people of those countriesdeserve our understanding of why that is not possible.


So surely the only other alternative is for some countries to leave the euro, to devalue theircurrencies and for us to support them as they find the right policies that will return themto sustainable public spending and growth in the long-term. The euro area needs to berestructured, and I do not say that with delight, Mr Barroso. I say it because I think it is theonly realistic course of action that will deliver for people who are desperate for a solution.

The EU faces a crisis of leadership. Mr Barroso told us so himself last year in the State ofthe Union address, and I agree with him in that particular case. The EU does face a crisisof leadership. It needs a leadership that faces the economic reality of the euro crisis anddoes not keep avoiding the problem. We need new leadership that respects our nationstates as building blocks of democracy which should be supported and not undermined.

We take away people’s right to control their destiny through the ballot box at our peril.Already frustrated, angry and fearful people are toying with extremist forces and the alarmbells should be ringing. On that point, and on that point alone, I agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit.

We need a new leadership which will tackle Europe’s fundamental competitiveness crisisin the wider global economy and which will pursue a new direction to relaunch growthalong the lines outlined by 12 EU prime ministers in their letter in February.

In America, Governor Romney has set out a plan for how he would renew America byreturning it to a land of personal ambition, enterprise and freedom. In the EU we comefrom the same traditions and we are at our best when government is small, when marketsare free and when the people exercise control over their government.

Mr Barroso, I still hope that, as you prepare your work programme for next year, it is nottoo late for you to shake off the policies of the past and to champion genuine reform ofthe EU so that it can become relevant to today’s reality and help us to succeed in facing thedifficult years ahead.


Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr Callanan, you talked abouteconomic growth. Would you agree with me that, if we are to create the conditions forgrowth in Europe, we must first roll back intrusive EU employment legislation? Wouldyou also agree therefore that the EU must not press ahead with its plans for mandatoryquotas for women in company board rooms?

Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – I agree with you that, of course, we needmore flexible labour markets. We need to give people the opportunity to work in manycountries where that is denied them. I fear that what we see here is yet more intrusive EUlegislation trying to interfere in areas where it has no place.

Of course I want to see more women on company boards, but I want to see them there onmerit. We have many excellent women in this House who are here on merit –

(Interjection from Mr Cohn-Bendit)

We know you are not here on merit, Mr Cohn-Bendit, but many people are! – and we wantto see them here on merit, not because of impossible and undeserved quotas.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I begin today on a happy noteremembering that it is 20 years ago this very week since the United Kingdom, having beensigned up by the Conservative Government to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, broke out


of the ERM. It was a great liberation for us and, of course, once having been bitten we didnot join the euro project, thank goodness. Sadly, the same is not true for much of the restof Europe.

I thought, through the last 18 months or so, that the economic logic of why Britain leftthe ERM would apply, particularly to those Mediterranean countries, and I foresaw thatactually those countries would leave the euro zone, probably with Greece leaving this year.But I now have to accept that I have been wrong about that, because I had totallyunderestimated the complete fanaticism of you, Mr Barroso, your college of Commissioners,and the European Central Bank. You have come out fighting on all fronts. Today youannounced that there is going to be a banking union, yet more centralised control, yetmore regulation.

You make it clear that whilst you think the nation state should continue to exist, it mustnot have any democratic powers. All democracy is to be vested here under what you callthe ‘Community method’ which of course means that your unelected Commission has thesole right to present that legislation, so I do not believe you when you say that and I findthe tone of much of what has been said and done over the last few days really very worrying.

Mario Draghi, now known by some that believe in the euro as Super Mario, showed us hisbig bazooka the other day. He upped the stakes and he told us – and to me it is an oddconcept – that he had unlimited money. Now, I do not think money grows on trees and Ithink that money is limited to what the German, Dutch and Finnish taxpayers are preparedto put in, but he has made clear his intention: he will fight to the last German taxpayer tokeep the Mediterranean countries that should never have joined the euro in there. Andnow you have of course the Prime Minister of Italy – perhaps we ought to call himMonstrous Mario – who made it clear last week that he feared that nation state democracycould bring down the European Union and therefore we have to by-pass nation statedemocracy and pass all the powers here.

Your henchman Olli Rehn, who is here today, dares to tell countries when they should andshould not have general elections. He is urging Spain to accept a full bailout so that theytoo are trapped in the euro prison. I have to accept that you now have the whip hand overthe citizens of Europe and I now think that this euro crisis will go on for a whole miserabledecade.

In the end, you will have to face the reality that even France and Germany cannot survivetogether in the same economic and monetary union and certainly with President Hollandereducing retirement ages, upping minimum wages and bringing in a hate tax for thesuccessful, which will see all the entrepreneurs leave France, I am afraid that gap will getbigger. I wonder where the hope comes for those who believe in nation state democracy.

We have heard that the German court this morning has decided that the ESM is OK. Maybethe Finns will say they have had enough. Maybe the Germans as a country will say they areno longer going to go on feeling ashamed and guilty for what their grandparents’ generationdid and will start to stand up for their own economic interest.

I do not know, but I suspect that the best hope we have actually comes from the UnitedKingdom, where the demand for a referendum is stronger than it has ever been, where ourConservative Prime Minister is in very deep trouble. I think today, Mr Barroso, the Britishpeople hearing you calling for the European Union to become a global power, making itabsolutely clear that Member States must obey what you tell them, whether they are in the


relatively wealthy north or the poorer south, I think those comments, this emerging,creeping, Euro-dictatorship is something that will repulse millions of British people. Theonly good news I take from today is that you have helped to bring that referendum just alittle bit closer.


Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Farage, when I wasa new Member of this House, which is some time ago now, it was at least entertaining tolisten to what you had to say occasionally, but now it is simply boring. For a decade youhave been saying that everything is so dreadful here, that it will all collapse tomorrow andthat we will be overcome by catastrophes. What is happening? I am not afraid of whattomorrow will bring. Some of the older gentlemen behind you may still believe what yousay, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Therefore, I would like to ask you, Mr Farage,when will you come up with something new? Or when will you finally go somewhere elseto talk the rubbish that you are constantly talking here?

Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – I think the point about listening is a very goodone – a very good one. You should have listened when the French people voted ‘No’ to theEuropean constitution, but you chose to ignore them. You should have listened when theDutch by a massive majority of two to one said ‘No’ to the constitution, but you did not.You rebranded it as the Lisbon Treaty without conceding a single power; you bulldozed itthrough, and here this morning we hear talk of a new treaty and a new constitution. Whenlittle Ireland not once but twice dared to vote ‘No’ in a referendum on European integration,you did not listen, you bullied them to make them vote again. You are the one, Sir, who isnot listening.

(Applause)

Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso,ladies and gentlemen, it is time we returned to the real debate. I would like to say to you,Mr Barroso, that you have explained your idea of the route which the European Union willtake towards becoming a banking union and a political union and you have highlightedthe model of a democratic federation of nation states. There is obviously a lot to say aboutthis. However, I believe that the decisive point, which forms the basis of all the discussionsabout developing the European Union’s future and working together to shape it, is: Whatis the people’s opinion of this, how will they become involved and whose interest does afuture model of this kind ultimately serve? If we can answer this question, it will probablybe easier for us to discuss the sort of Europe that we need in the future. Many others haverecently been talking in the same way as you about fundamental changes of course thatnow need to be made.

However, I would like to explain to you that, in my view, at least three premises have notbeen met which are needed to prevent us from ending up in a blind alley. This also appliesto what you have said today, at least in the case of the first two. It is clear from your answerthat you are afraid, along with other representatives of the European institutions and thegovernments, of the threat of losing economic and political influence in the world, of theshrinking proportion of the population and the dwindling share of resources, to put itbriefly, of sacrificing economic power and strength.

Secondly, you are willing to combat the crisis in the EU, but not its causes. The focus ismoving away from the interests of the people, who urgently need a functioning, social and


green Union based on the principle of solidarity. We need to hold the discussion now andnot to paint a picture which may apply at some point in the future, but is not relevant totheir interests and their current difficulties. You are putting the emphasis on greaterregulation by the institutions, because this is what the financial elite needs. This is howyou intend to bring an end to the functional deficits in the EU economy and, in particular,in the euro area.

My third point, and here I will leave you out to a certain extent, is that you, in other words,the institutions and, most importantly, those in government, are assuming that this routewill be accompanied by a serious threat to Europe’s democratic fabric. I am very gratefulto you for one thing, which is that you have made it clear that the European Parliament isneeded, because without Parliament and its elected Members the discussion on reshapingEurope is not possible.

I would have welcomed many of the Commission proposals, including a banking unionand Eurobonds, if they had not focused primarily on making profits in a competitive globalenvironment. I want to be quite clear about this. I am in favour of more regulation of themarkets and the banks, the removal of functional deficits in the economic and monetaryunion and even the banking union and Eurobonds. However, I am opposed to theseobjectives, to the way in which they will be achieved, to the conditions that have been putin place and to undermining democracy.

We must focus on the people in the European Union, in particular in the hard-hit crisiscountries, and, most importantly, young people, old people, the unemployed and women.An earlier speaker mentioned, for example, the question of the Commission withdrawingits proposal for quotas for women and I would like to know why this is being done. In thelight of the fact that most of the proposals for bringing an end to the crisis and developingthe future European Union have been made by men, and in this context the presence ofMs Merkel by no means constitutes equality, and that women have been hardest hit by thecrisis, I find it incomprehensible that we are prepared to sacrifice a fundamental value anda part of the European Parliament’s and the EU’s concept of themselves and, without makingany protests, withdraw a call for women’s equality now and allow it to be taken away fromus. I cannot accept that and my group will also not support it.

The so-called reforms which have been adopted in the memorandum with regard to theEuropean Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), theEuro Plus Pact, the fiscal compact and so on, represent an attack on people’s fundamentalsocial rights. Mr Barroso, you cannot explain here how important the people and theirsocial situation in the European Union are to you, while at the same time the Commission,which is part of the troika, is largely responsible for imposing conditions on Greece whichwill have an impact on the social situation of the very weakest members of society. As amember of the troika, the Commission simply cannot allow calls for working hours to beextended from five to six days, for the minimum wage to be drastically reduced and forstrikes to be banned. That is totally unacceptable. It is your job to protect precisely theseEuropean Union values in times of crisis. The Commission is the guardian of the EuropeanUnion’s values and standards.

In my group’s view, one example of what we are currently experiencing is the fiscal compact.We are still questioning whether it complies with EU law. In the meantime, we have hadthe treaty evaluated by an expert and it is correct that the compact lies outside the EU’slegal framework. It falls back on EU institutions for its implementation, but excludes the


European Parliament. In the near future my group will be evaluating how we can takepolitical action against this and what rights we have in this area.

On the path that the European Union is taking, and previous speakers have already discussedthis, those in power are increasingly having recourse to the German model. However, theGerman model is not suitable for use as a model for the future European Union. We cannotaccept it in this form.

Once again I would like to ask you specifically to reformulate your ideas, and you havealready been called on to do this, about how we can emerge from the crisis and where theEuropean Union should go. You should focus on the social progress clause and the socialpact. You should stop all attempts to privatise social goods, social services, social securitysystems and pensions and put an end to any pressure on the Member States to do so. Theseare the reasons why many people have lost their faith in the European Union. We need torestore that faith and we can only do this by finally taking on the task of creating a social,green and democratic Europe based on the principle of solidarity, a democratic Unionwhich also fulfils its obligation as a global player to show solidarity with others. I wouldlike to distance myself totally from what has just been said by those on the right.

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLAVice-President

Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, as a critical but fervent pro-European, Iam, of course, just as concerned as almost everyone else here. We know that the decisionmade in Karlsruhe today will in reality only buy us a little more time. We know that all themeasures that have been taken so far, whether these are liquidity injections from theEuropean Central Bank (ECB), aid for Greece or the latest decision to buy bonds, are just aroundabout way of financing the banks. It is no coincidence that bank shares rosedramatically last Thursday. This is, of course, bitterly ironic, because the City of Londonhas benefited from these bank redistributions out of the euro area and involving the euro.There is a group in this Parliament which spends its time defending the City of London –you could also call them the most effective lobbyists – and those are the members of theUK Independence Party (UKIP), who are constantly saying the same thing, which is verydangerous for Europe.

Mr Barroso, you have been speaking about the irresponsible actions of the banks whichtriggered the crisis. However, we are also aware that we politicians have failed, because wehave not kept the banks under control. You asked whether it was realistic for us to expectto regain the confidence of the markets, but that is not really the right question. The questionis: Why are you not finally tackling the issue of bank regulation, as your mentor Ms Merkelhas already done? Every player, every financial institution and every market place must becontrolled. Why do we no longer talk about the fact that possibly the most importantfinancial act of the 20th century, the US Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, could be a suitablemodel for Europe? If we were to implement it, we would finally be rid of the problem ofbanks that are too big to fail. It is clear that many banks are not only too big to fail, butalso much too big to be managed effectively. We do not even need to mention the wordLIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate). I would like to know why you are not bold enoughto take the necessary effective action. The Glass-Steagall Act has only 37 pages. Our previousconfused attempts to bring the financial world under control amount to thousands ofpages. This results in a lack of understanding and reinforces the crisis of confidence whichyou rightly referred to.


If you were already in the process of tackling the banking system, then you would, ofcourse, also need to look at the shadow banks, which worldwide have a volume of almostEUR 46 billion, amounting to a quarter of the entire financial market. The members of theCommission do not even know how much money is being used where and in what way.We do not know how many naked credit default swaps there are on government bonds.That is one of the main reasons why all the measures now being taken are being taken inthis way. We can intervene here and we can introduce regulations. This also applies to therating agencies, which politicians and legislators have elevated to their current position,and to the lobby groups. How can it be that there are 700 financial lobbyists with a budgetof EUR 350 million in Brussels and the members of the Committee on Economic andMonetary Affairs almost have to beg to get hold of the information they need? The situationis totally unbalanced.

You referred to the crisis of confidence and that is, of course, entirely appropriate. However,if you do not succeed in getting the monster that is the financial markets under control,you will not have a majority anywhere in Europe for what is presumably a sensible objective,in other words, a strong Europe in a globalised world. You are well aware that you will notbe able to avoid holding referendums, at least in Germany and in my home country ofAustria, on a new project. However, if there are to be referendums, then the necessary stepsmust be taken first.

Much of what has already been said on this subject is, of course, true. However, I wouldlike to repeat that you should be concentrating solely on regulating the financial markets.It is clear from conversations with people all over Europe that this is a very important issue.A new conspiracy theory is now going the rounds which claims that Europe is reallygoverned by Goldman Sachs, because Mr Draghi, Mr Monti and many of the events inGreece have direct links with Goldman Sachs. These are dangerous trends. However, if youmanage to get the financial sector under control, then you will no longer have to beconcerned about sovereign power. I am convinced that we can win the referendums, butthe key word is, of course, not ‘banking union’, but ‘citizens union’ or to put it briefly‘citizens not banks’.

President. – Thank you, Mr Martin. President Barroso has the floor.

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I did not ask for thefloor. I prefer to respond at the end of the debate, after listening to all the Members ofParliament who want to take the floor.

President. – Now I would like to ask the group chairs if they intend … In that case wecan go straight to the catch-the-eye procedure. I recommend we limit speeches to oneminute each; in that way I can give a lot of Members the floor. I apologise; I am giving theCouncil the floor.

Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, first of all letme thank you for the opportunity, on behalf of the Council, to thank President Barrosofor his inspired and inspiring speech, in which he offered us a clear analysis of the state ofthe European Union today and also signalled various initiatives that will help weaveAriadne’s thread which will guide us further on the slow, but I believe certain, road out ofthe crisis.


I am very proud to mention that the Council is not only represented here today by thePresidency but also by some distinguished colleagues, members of the Council on behalfof their countries, and this is in itself a very strong signal.

I would also like to welcome the opportunity to hear the reactions from the differentpolitical groups within this House. It is a privilege for all of us to be able to debate theseissues and discuss the challenges which we face in Europe today. I have heard a range ofviews from different speakers, but I sense that – whatever their different views – the vastmajority in this House are committed to making sure that from the current crisis we builda better and more solid Europe.

From the outset the founders of the European Union aspired to create an ever closer Union,a Europe which is ‘solidly united and constructed around a strong framework’. Schuman’swords remain particularly relevant to us today.

More than ever Europe needs to be united. We need to safeguard the strong institutionalframework within which we work. And we must continue to ensure smooth and efficientcooperation between us. The Cyprus Presidency is committed to ensuring this, andcommitted in particular to working constructively, both within the Council and in osmosiswith the European Council and President Van Rompuy, but also – importantly – with boththe Commission and Parliament.

Ultimately all our decisions have to be about making Europe a better place for its citizens.That means defending values of equality, pluralism, freedom and justice which lie at theheart of our unique Union. That means social cohesion and solidarity. President Barrosomentioned also fairness and equity, indeed fundamental values that must be the basis forall our decisions in order to deliver a better future.

We have to use the opportunities presented by the current difficulties to realise the truepotential of the EU. We must in particular seize the opportunity to take the steps whichare essential if we are to build a better Europe. What does that mean in practice? I willmention just a few key examples.

We must firstly secure an agreement on the MFF, our main investment tool – not anyagreement, but an agreement which shows that the Union’s resources are being investedfor the benefit of its citizens and in particular for its younger generation. It must focus oninnovation and competitiveness, so providing the momentum for increased growth andthe creation of jobs. A prompt agreement will send a strong signal that the EU is seriousabout growth and that it is ready to take decisive steps to invest in its future.

President Barroso referred this morning to the report on the development of the EMU. Thiswill be another vital step in strengthening the Union. We must seize the initiative presentedby this report and take the opportunity to create a stronger and more mature economicand monetary union, making institutional changes if needed and at the appropriate moment,in order to be better able to withstand the challenges from both within and outside.

We must also establish the Common European Asylum System which will contribute tothe building of a common area of protection, on the basis of solidarity and fairburden-sharing – a safe area for all citizens of the EU and fully in line with universal values.

Through warranted reforms and decisions as underlined by President Barroso, we shouldrestore credibility and confidence. The wise words of John Kennedy more than fifty years


ago are just as relevant to the EU today: ‘in a crisis, be aware of the danger – but recognisethe opportunity’.

We owe it to our younger generations in particular to create a prosperous Europe, in whichthey can dream and aspire to fulfil those dreams. Europe has never simply been abouteconomic growth and indicators. We must also create a place where everyone in societyis included, where our environment is allowed to flourish without the threat of pollutionand climate change, where agriculture is the friend of the land and where human activity,in all its expressions, is allowed to flourish. Our Union is above all a place of respect, dignityand tolerance, of values and ideals. That is something which we should be proud of andprotect.

Allow me to close by thanking again President Barroso for his inspirational presentationof the State of the Union, and for his leadership and vision. He can count firmly on thesupport of the Council in this Herculean task lying ahead.

(Applause)

Catch-the-eye procedure

Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a minute is hardly enoughto make a comment, but it may be enough to give a mark, and today I would like to givethe President of the Commission top marks for the realism and vision he has shown.

I say realism because not everyone acknowledges the mistakes that were made inconstructing the euro, and doing so may help to rebuild confidence. I say vision becausethe path to a federal route, albeit one of nation states, is not the end of federalism but thebeginning.

I would now like to make a remark to Mr Farage about his fierce attack first on Mario Draghiand then on Mario Monti. Since my name is Mario too, it makes me wonder whetherperhaps someone called Mario stole Mr Farage’s girlfriend from him when he was young.

Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Mr President, I should like to thank the President of the Commissionfor addressing this very professional speech to us today, in this desolate time for theEuropean Union and the European project.

Mr Barroso, I would like to use this occasion to draw your attention to the proposal for adirective on improving gender balance in corporate boardrooms that has recently beenpresented by Vice-President Reding to the College. Its objective of increasing women’srepresentation in corporate governance to 40% by 2020 has been supported by Parliamentthrough different resolutions.

I firmly believe that such a proposal would be a clear signal that the European Union stillconsiders gender equality as a priority of its agenda. This would require binding legislationas well as additional supporting measures to accompany the quota system. However, inthe past weeks we have heard reports of growing attempts to block such a proposal bysome Member States and also the European Commission.

Ensuring gender-balanced representation in the public as well as in the private sector isnot only a matter of fairness and democracy but also of economic effectiveness. ThereforeI would strongly encourage you to openly reaffirm your support and, through it, the supportof the Commission as a whole for such a proposal. We are very eager to discuss it withinthe European Parliament.


Marianne Thyssen (PPE). - (NL) Mr President, President of the Commission, today yousent out a clear message, convincing us of your commitment to ensure that the currentterm of office does what is possible within the constraints of the Treaty to remove flawsfrom the Economic and Monetary Union that we have known about for a long time sothat we can prepare for a globalised information society.

Obviously, Europe is more than economics and money but the euro is also more than justa coin or just a symbol. That is why we have to do everything in our power in theforthcoming period to balance responsibility and solidarity and to ensure that we providea solid financial, fiscal and socio-economic base for the euro so that democracy can againplay its part.

It is good that the Commission has put its money where its mouth is today by launchingthe legislative proposals for European banking supervision because it is only concreteresults that can convince citizens to again place their confidence in us.

Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I would say to President Barroso that wewelcome his advocacy of a European political space and the news that the Commissionwill put forward a proposal on European political parties. But for parties to be trulysupranational, elections must be supranational. Mr Barroso, do you propose the directelection by universal suffrage of your successor? And if not, why not?

In the United States the world is watching a truly federal election. The only message fromtheir politicians to us is: get your act together. Mr Barroso, you have been in office for eightyears. You lament the absence of a debate between citizens on the consequences offragmentation, but what proposals have you brought forward in those eight years to providefor such a debate?

You challenge artists and intellectuals to make their voice heard. You may be aware that50 poets came together and published the European constitution in verse just three yearsago. It depicts European citizens full of ideals but let down by their leaders. It is not just afederation of nation states that is needed, it is a federation of citizens, and we need leaderswho understand that.

John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, this debate is titled ‘State of the Union’ and what astate the Union is in. Unemployment continues to soar. In Greece 55% of 16-24 year oldsare now jobless. In Spain protests have involved people going into supermarkets and fillingup trolleys without paying to redistribute food to the poor people. Demonstrations arecommonplace throughout the country, with people objecting to the tough austerity andjob cuts, leading the police to use rubber bullets to restore order. In 21st-century Europethis is a disgrace.

At the centre of it all is the European Union, whose draconian and tyrannical austeritymeasures, reckless obsession with a dangerously flawed single currency and power-crazedfederal dreams are ruining people’s lives. Yet, Mr Barroso, not once have you apologised;not once have you accepted your hand in the making of this disaster. Mr Barroso, youshould be ashamed.

Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Barroso, there was often moreconsideration of today’s problems in your speech than proposals to resolve them, but thereare two points I must acknowledge and want to emphasise.


The first point refers to the acknowledgement of the internal imbalances between MemberStates and between citizens of the Union. Parliament adopted a resolution on theCommission’s work programme yesterday, declaring itself in favour of tackling themacroeconomic imbalances within the Union in an even-handed manner. I believe theCommission should encourage countries that currently need to adopt measures, so thateven those countries with problems can adopt balanced measures based on solidarity.

Finally, I believe that an effort must be made to conserve the food distribution programmewithin a Union in which poverty, as you acknowledged yourself, continues to rise.

Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). - Mr President, I should like to ask President Barroso aquestion about the banking union. There is clearly a short-term dimension to it. Breakingthe banking sovereign loop requires both urgency and pragmatism and reaching out forvisible solutions now.

But we also need to take into account the long-term perspective on the banking union,and we must do it now. So yes, the banking union certainly must be designed in such away that it works towards deepening the integration of the single market, because the euroarea cannot be sustainable if the disintegration of the single market continues.

But there is a second long-term perspective here and an even more considerable risk for asustainable euro area, and here I am thinking of the way the opt-in mechanism for non-euroMember States is designed. We risk putting them on a path towards separation; we risk apath towards disintegration. So my question is, as this must not be allowed: how do youwant to protect us from this risk of fragmentation?

Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, President Barroso did not tackle the issue of taxdumping within the EU, which enables some Member States to get richer at the expenseof others by functioning as tax havens, stacking in other capitals business profits that aresiphoned off from other Member States, in order to avoid paying tax at home and thereforeescaping from contributing their fair share to national incomes.

They serve the same purposes for which Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islandsare used as tax havens: to protect profits of tax evasion, other criminality and corruption.That may be legal, but it is also immoral and compromises the integrity of the Economicand Monetary Union. Can we complete the EMU and the Single Market and move towardsfiscal and banking union? Can we restore confidence and credibility in the EU, if it restsupon the crime-abetting foundation of the prevailing Wild West of tax dumping?

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in yourspeech on the state of the Union, Mr Barroso, I was surprised that you gave no statistics,no numbers, no figures about businesses closing down, workers being made redundantor competitiveness being lost.

You did offer a solution: the United States of Europe. Unfortunately, history demonstratesthe opposite: when countries had greater sovereignty, Europe was more prosperous.Perhaps the solution is not the one you offered, but less Europe and more prosperity.

Anni Podimata (S&D). (EL) Mr President, Mr President of the European Commission,thank you for your inspired speech. I should like to urge you to direct it to the Council ofHeads of State and Government at the next summit, because I believe that it is they whomyou need to persuade. The European Parliament will be standing by you, insofar as youproceed in the direction which you have described to us.


I should like to focus on one point. You quite rightly said that change and reform are neededin Europe and that the European social model should be reviewed, not abandoned. Whatexactly do we mean when we speak of reform? Are we setting as our top priority reformsthat serve our vision, in other words reforms that promote social justice, growth and thefunctioning of the single market, such as the reform of tax systems, combating tax evasionand the liberalisation of the markets, or are we setting as our priority reforms that undermineour vision, such as full deregulation of the labour market, the abolition of collectivebargaining and the role of the social partners? We must decide what sort of reforms wewant to support.

Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Mr President, I naturally greatly welcome the commitment toa federal Europe. I do not think we ought to get tied up in semantic arguments aboutprecisely what that means.

We need to make progress, and I would request that we work to extract from the EuropeanCouncil meeting in December a clear and solid commitment to call a convention in thespring of 2015 that will be prepared carefully so as to discard simplistic solutions anddefine the mandate that will ensure success.

Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President of the Commission, it was very interestingto witness the speech of the man who is at present the second most powerful man in theEU after Mr Draghi, and I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. It is sad to see the destinyof the EU in the hands of a non-elected institution. I believe that the President has madesome remarks that go in the right direction for constructing European democracy.Regardless of what form this may take, we must create a European democracy today,without changing the treaties, and for that reason I would like to make a very simpleproposal: a democratic pact for the EU which does not merely ask the European parties toput forward their candidates, but above all establishes – and the Commission may alreadyput money aside for this – a system of discussions between the 27 EU Member States. Thefirst discussion should take place in a specific place – in Athens. Anyone who succeeds incarrying out that discussion in Athens and then in the 27 capital cities can be his successor.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to express my regret at theabsence of the Heads of State or Government. That is nothing against you, Minister forEuropean Affairs, but there is no Head of State here, not even their representative,President Van Rompuy. Where is Baroness Ashton, attending the European Councilmeeting?

Yes, we need a federation of nation States in the long term, Mr Barroso, and we supportyou on this matter. However, we must not forget a Europe of results. Above all else, weneed a Europe of results. We need to keep an eye on our banks, our major infrastructure,on budget cuts, diplomacy and defence.

I should like to draw your attention to social convergence. Look at the former communistcountries. It is not eight days that they have been members of the European Union, buteight years. The minimum wage is EUR 200. We should be ashamed. We have the necessarylegal bases – Articles 154 and 155 of the Treaty – and therefore wage increases should beachievable through social negotiation.

Yes, we need to move towards a federation of nation states. However, we need less hasteand more speed. If we were to hold 27 referendums, 25 or 26 of them would say ‘no’. Do


not rush us; we will not move towards a political Europe without democracy. And we mustconsider the suffering of the people.

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I am one of those whounderstand the efforts being made by the Commission to smooth out developments in theEuropean Union and I commend you on them. We must praise as well as criticise. Allowme to develop my train of thought: I came across a statistic that said that the currentEuropean Union accounts for 4% of the world’s population and 30% of global GDP. Doesthat perhaps mean that we have become rich through wastage? That method also exists:richness through wastage, through consumption. However, under the budgetary disciplinenow being imposed, GDP has fallen, we are becoming poorer and unemployment is rising,exacerbated by technological progress. The parity of the Swiss franc should also worry us,because it is a sign of massive tax evasion. Are there any immediate plans to addressunemployment and tax evasion?

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, youcame here to tell us that the problem is democracy. I could not agree more, but the Europeaninstitutions were the first to say to the public that democracy could be dispensed with, thateven elections could be dispensed with, and that solutions would be more technocraticthan political. You also came here to tell us that the problem is political. I could not agreemore because the fact is that the crisis did not happen due to some supernatural power,nor because some bankers’ eyes were bigger than their stomachs, but because of a policy,and the fact that those who decided that policy said that those bankers and speculatorswere free to have bigger eyes than their stomachs, so that nothing was done about it.

You also came here to say that what was at issue here was a matter of European solutions.I could not agree more. However, this is contradictory. Stop telling the Greeks and thePortuguese that it is their fault, and that they have lived beyond their means. There hasbeen enough austerity. Solidarity does not work with austerity, just as growth does notwork with these policies, which run completely counter to European integration. After all,there can be no democracy, no politics and no Europeanism without citizens, and onlywith markets instead.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the State of the Union includes25 million unemployed, conflicting public opinions and rising inequality.

The Commission over which you preside is more likely than any other in the EU’s historyto leave behind a legacy of having allowed the Community method to regress, and nationalretrenchment and the intergovernmental method to increase.

The Treaty of Lisbon made this Parliament the most powerful ever, not only to reformbanking surveillance, but also to remember the problems posed by citizens’ rights, the freecirculation of people, social integration and territorial cohesion in the European Union,as well as the decline in mutual trust between Member States.

For that reason, I believe Parliament has the obligation to convey people’s displeasure inview of the flawed diagnosis of how to manage the crisis, a failed strategy and a formulathat has led to catastrophic social damage. A different Europe should be proposed, therefore,with an increase in the European budget and a fiscal compact that combats fraud, taxhavens, and inequality inside and between Member States, to conserve and not destroy thesocial model.


Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I do not agree that we can onlyresolve our current problems and regain confidence in Europe by introducing new structuresand new institutions: every day a new idea. We will gain confidence by showing that whatwe have done has had an impact, that people can have a sense of well-being in Europe andthat there is real opportunity to create new jobs and a brighter future. Therefore, Irecommend that we look a little more carefully at whether what we are doing really iseffective. We should monitor the implementation of directives and ensure that structuralreforms are put into effect in the Member States.

Mr Swoboda has just made some very negative remarks about Germany and expressed hiscriticism of structural reforms. I would like to give him a small hint. The most effectivestructural reform in Germany was definitely the one which took place under a SocialDemocratic government and which led to today’s economic growth. What can we dospecifically to promote competitiveness? Some time ago, Mr Tajani made a clever proposalthat we should consider all the legislation that we enact here in the light of its effect oncompetitiveness. We do not always need a constant stream of new ideas, we just needconcrete action.

Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I think the State of theUnion, for us members, is the State of Europeans.

Europeans are troubled by three things: financial matters, health and employment. I wouldhave liked to have talked about protecting people’s savings. I would have liked moreambition on the issue of re-equipping our industries through energy, the environment anddigital technology. I would also have liked you to show a little more insight. If we areactually going to get out of this crisis, we need a timetable that is appropriate for the effortsof Member States and citizens. I would add, in this respect, that there is no democraticprogress without social rights and, on a social level, as some have said, it is still not goodenough.

We need guarantees in terms of employment, in terms of not attacking the European socialmodel as well as guarantees in terms of the financial and fiscal effort of all those who electus and who want to regain confidence in the European Union.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, Mr Barroso, we keep hearing these terrifying,biblical predictions of what would happen in the event of a euro break-up.

We have heard the same thing over and over again. We heard it 20 years ago in my homecountry over the ERM. We were told that it would be inflationary and that unemploymentwould rise. In fact, our recovery began the day we left and carried on for 15 years beforeGordon Brown came along to mess it up, but that is another story.

We had the same thing in Denmark. We were told that if they voted not to join the euro,inflation would go up, interest rates would go up. In fact, precisely the opposite happened.The Copenhagen stock exchange enjoyed its greatest 24-hour rise in history. Inflation andinterest rates fell. The same thing in Sweden.

I suspect that even you in your bones know that the best option now for the peripheralcountries is to default, devalue, decouple. To price their way into the markets, to startexporting their way back to growth. It would not solve everything, but it would be analternative to this downward spiral of deflation, poverty and emigration and that is reallywhat you are afraid of. Their economies would recover; the credibility of the Eurocratswould not.


Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you often tell us thatyou have no support from the Greens … I just want to say that the level of ambition thatyou have displayed today is encouraging.

Of course, there are differences of opinion as to the nature of the crisis we are experiencing.It is true to say, there has not been enough talk of the ecological crisis, because we arereaching and even exceeding the physical limits of the planet.

I would just like to encourage you on one thing. You demonstrate an ambitious federalismwhen it comes to the banking union. We would encourage you on this matter and are onyour side. We would like to see the same enthusiasm and the same boldness when it comesto fiscal federalism. You know that in English, the term ‘fiscal’ often exclusively implieslooking at expenditure. We want to see the same thing in terms of fiscal convergence orharmonisation.

You have taken the initiative on the issue of tax on financial transactions, which is verygood. Multinationals from all sectors, including, of course, the financial sector, must startpaying the taxes they owe. For this to happen, we need harmonisation of corporate tax inEurope.

We are waiting for you to do something here too. We will be with you.

Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, people who are not familiar withan objective cannot take the right measures to achieve it. Therefore, I am very grateful toyou for calling very clearly today for the unification of the states of Europe. Our goal is thecreation of the United States of Europe and how we organise it is our concern.

The second point which was very important to me is that when we achieve this objective,we must see the citizens of Europe as our target group and make them into our allies. Onlywhen we are working towards the goal of getting the citizens on our side with regard tothe short-, medium- and long-term measures can we make domestic policy genuinelyEuropean and obtain the necessary majorities to enable us to reach our destination.

Thirdly, this is why it is so important to me that you did not talk about the financial crisis,but about the crisis of confidence and credibility. You also explained that this is a politicalcrisis. Because it is a political crisis, we are in a position to solve it, if we can bring thecitizens on board. Let us start talking to them.

Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Mr President, Mr Barroso said he wants radically new Europeanpolitics. If so, he should start confronting the realities of real people. I would like to invitehim to Hungary, my country, where he could confront the realities of the Third World inthe middle of the European Union.

He could listen to farmers talking about the massive land grabbing which is going on. Hecould listen to labourers who work on assembly lines without any legal protection, infactories owned by foreigners, for EUR 250 a month. He could listen to teachers and actorswho make EUR 400 a month and who migrate to the West, just as they do from the thirdworld. Or he could listen to the parents of the two little children who were killed by theextremely reckless driving of an Irish citizen who was sentenced to three years imprisonmentin Hungary, but the Irish refuse both to extradite him to Hungary and to enforce hissentence.

Congratulations to European integration and its successes.


IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZPresident

Glenis Willmott (S&D). - Mr President, Mr Barroso said that we were at a crucial pointin our history with crucial decisions to make. We have to decide what sort of Europe wewant. Do we want a Europe of austerity, pursuing policies which clearly are not working,or do we want a Europe that gives hope to our young people?

If we do, then we must have a credible and detailed plan to create the jobs and growth thatwe are so desperate for. We need clear priorities, and we need to focus our resources onthose priorities. It is only by getting people back to work and paying their taxes, and thusregenerating our economies, that we will start to see economic recovery across Europe.

The decisions made affect us all, so it is vital for Europe and for our own national interests.I would say to our Conservative colleagues that we should all be at the table and notflouncing out of discussions, as has happened in the past, because the decisions that aremade will shape the future for generations to come.

Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, Mr Barroso, congratulations on yourambitious speech. It is critically important that Europe wins the psychological battle ‘for’and ‘against’ further European integration by demonstrating the clear added value theEuropean Union gives to the citizens of Europe.

Allow me to say a few words: We need a EU multiannual financial framework and budgetthat are not based on the crisis’ negative psychological impact but ensure the achievementof our goals for 2020, resulting in growth, jobs and, of course, the convergence of livingstandards and conditions across all regions of the European Union.

We do not need another failure like the one that happened in 2010 with the Lisbon Strategy.The cohesion policy must not be reduced – the Member States and their leaders mustunderstand this and get the same message across in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg,when they return to their capitals in the Member States.

Secondly, regarding the banking union and the bank supervision mechanism proposed inthat connection. It will monitor banks both in the euro area and outside it, which is whyI believe countries outside the euro area should also have their say in this mechanism.Thank you and good luck.

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, the plans that you havepresented today are genuinely in favour of commitment, action and focusing in the rightdirection. However, instead of answering questions, we must devote our attention to thepresent in the light of recent dramatic developments, so that we can resolve these problemson behalf of our citizens. For example, huge numbers of well-educated young people inSpain and Greece are unemployed. There are also many unemployed older people. This iswhere direct aid is required in the form of targeted investment in education, health, theenvironment and jobs. We also need the European values. You have my full support inthis respect.

You also mentioned the banks. People do not understand the processes. The most recentdecision made by the European Central Bank (ECB) is like the situation of a person who isfighting for air and who is given oxygen. Very quick decisions are also needed here. Pleasemake sure that your words are followed by actions very soon.


Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Members of theCouncil, yesterday, 2 million people demonstrated in Barcelona, in Catalonia. These citizenshad just one demand: yes, more Europe, a better Europe, a different Europe, but a Europein which they can participate directly as a State and as a people.

These citizens have a legitimate, clear and democratic message. It is up to us, the Europeaninstitutions, to respond, in an equally democratic and courageous way. I call on you to beup to this enormous challenge. Are you up to it? Because listening to people is also one ofthe European pillars and it is by doing this that we make the European project credible.The Catalans have always been pro-European. They want to remain so, but the currentsituation has led great mistrust and a sharp rise in Euro scepticism.

I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that we can approach this debate with the responsibility andmaturity that the situation warrants.

Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, firstly I want to say by way of introduction that therelationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom is now better than ever and willhopefully continue to be so. But I must respond to Mr Farage’s rather patronising referenceto little Ireland being bullied into voting twice on the Lisbon Treaty. We were not bullied.It was the decision of the Irish Parliament to hold a referendum and of the Irish people toaccept it. Secondly, there was a fundamental difference between Lisbon I and Lisbon II. InLisbon II each Member State got a Commissioner. Different entirely to Lisbon I.

Now in reference to today, I would like to compliment President Barroso for his eloquentspeech. He referred to the need for Treaty change to put an end to the piecemeal solutionswe have as of now, but because Treaty change would take such a long time, how are wegoing to put an end to, or at least prevent, piecemeal solutions at this particular time?

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, President Barroso, the speech yougave was very profound, but I am afraid that, as the traditional Hungarian saying goes, itwill be worth as much as horseshoes on a dead horse, as it will not reach the Europeancitizens. Your message will not reach the European citizens, because as long as theHungarian Prime Minister can declare before the Hungarian Parliament this week that theEuropean Union is the problem rather than the solution, these profound speeches will notreach the European citizens. It is an enormous problem that we are unable to explain tothe people why the things the European Union, the Commission and Parliament do forthem are good. Common bank supervision is good for preventing irresponsible governmentspending. This is good for the people!

The reason why there should be democratic supervision, and I would also like to bring thisto Ms Reding’s attention, is to prevent violations of the rule of law and of the fundamentalvalues of democracy. Neither a right-wing Orbán Government, nor a Romanian socialdemocrat and liberal Ponta Government should be permitted such violations. There shouldbe a single European monitoring system for democracy.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, we have democratic legitimacy as therepresentatives of the European people and are tasked with defending their right here –rights which are not often defended in the Member States, as we saw yesterday in the streetsof Barcelona. Mr Barroso, I am a Member from Galicia, and the state of my region, as inmany other areas of Europe, is one of profound crisis. This crisis is the consequence ofausterity policies, social cuts and antisocial measures. Examples include shipbuilding,agriculture, fisheries, robbery by the banks, and the immoral rate of youth unemployment.


In order for the European people to continue to believe in Europe, Europe must be on theside of the people, not against them. Mr President, let us return to a Europe of the peopleand a social Europe.

Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating you onthe speech that you have made before us here today, for the realism with which you havelooked at the situation and for the courage with which you have set out paths for the future.In particular, I recall you saying that the current crisis requires a political solution. That isprecisely what the public, some of whom are protesting while others are not, are askingof us, and that is precisely why we should stress that more Europe means more Europe forcitizens and resolving their problems. The Commission has presented many initiatives,which Parliament has adopted over the last year.

Better representation of all citizens is needed, and it is also vital that this idea of a Europefor the future cannot continue to be blighted by Member States fighting with MemberStates. That is precisely our view. We need to make everyone understand that a Europeansolution is needed, and that such a solution is not against the Member States, because theMember States are part of Europe. That is what I wanted to highlight here, and I wouldalso say that Parliament is here to support you.

Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you have talked about thegrowth that is needed. I think we all agree on that, but I would like to add something else.Growth will not work without justice. As long as the large fortunes of wealthy people inthe European Union continue getting bigger and bigger and as long as the people whohave to do the hard work are paid less and less, there will be no justice and, of course, nogrowth, because there will be no mass purchasing power. Therefore, we need to makesome changes to our systems. We need a fairer tax system, in which large companies startto pay tax again. We need fairer wages, which allow working people to benefit from theimmense wealth that they create. Most importantly, we need a fair market economy, whichdoes not involve the shareholders being paid and, at the same time, the workers beingmade redundant. If those changes are made, we will have a Europe for the people. Otherwise,nothing will happen.

I have one more comment. Mr Farage, you have accused me of not listening. I have sat herethrough the whole debate and listened carefully, unlike you, Mr Farage.

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, President Barroso, I would like to believethat everything is as you said in your speech. However, unlike you, I am filled with concernand doubt. Your plans are, as always, indeed very nice and promising, but I am afraid thatthey are unrealistic. You are assuming that you have been managing the crisis correctlyfor three years. Unfortunately the situation is much, much more subtle than that. We arealready far behind schedule. We are trying to struggle through an economic crisis, adoptingausterity packages, and drafts and sanctions incompatible with the Treaty.

It appears that the future existence and economic prosperity of the EU will be founded ona banking union. In truth, this banking union excludes ten countries from any meaningfulwork from the outset. These countries may of course join, but joining will give them nobenefit whatsoever. Whereas if they stay outside, they will of course enjoy all thedisadvantages. In your speech you spoke of an interconnected world in which there shouldbe no building of walls. I have to ask, President Barroso, what is this if not a wall? What isthis if not a wall, if we are not talking about uniform rules, and the EU is not functioningaccording to uniform rules? In my opinion, this should be changed, and I agree with you


that we should be talking about a single EU and uniform rules in the interest of Europeancitizens.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, Article 4 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion states that the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties.President Barroso, you have mentioned in your address that without equality betweenMember States there can be no equality between European citizens. President Barroso, Ihave appreciated the numerous positions you have taken up, acknowledging that Romaniameets all the technical criteria for joining the Schengen area and expressing your supportfor my country’s accession to the Schengen area. This is why, President Barroso, I ask youto distance yourself from the recent statements of Vice-President Reding, who mentioneda possible postponement and the possible introduction of new criteria for Romania’saccession to the Schengen area.

President Barroso, on behalf of the Romanian citizens, I call on the Commission’s supportfor the accession of both Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area, which would be asignificant step towards the contract of confidence between the European institutions andthe European citizens.

Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - (ET) Mr Barroso, you stated in your speech that Europeneeds a new direction, but then you started talking about the social market economy. Willall due respect, I believe that the socialist approach to the market economy is clearly a thingof the past, and it is partly due to this approach that Europe is in crisis today.

Europe today needs a realistic market economy in which public sector expenditures arevery clearly balanced with state revenues. Secondly, Europe clearly needs reforms, whichmeans that enterprise and entrepreneurs should be given a clear opportunity to increasegrowth and create jobs, because neither we in the European Parliament nor you in theCommission create jobs. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs, who must be grantedopportunities by lowering taxes and reducing bureaucracy.

I cannot understand why companies’ reinvested profits could not now be exempted fromincome tax throughout Europe. And lastly – Europe needs e-government. This significantlyreduces public sector expenditures and reduces the number of public sector employees,which means less bureaucracy and also less corruption.

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in youraddress, Mr Barroso, you very appropriately spoke of the need to reshape the Europeaninstitutions, since you are well aware that many European citizens have become frustratedand disillusioned in recent months.

I would argue, however, that making a Europe in which the Member States transfersovereignty to our institutions may be important, but it is not enough to instil confidenceand hope into millions of people who are today out of work or losing their jobs or seeingtheir lives becoming desperately harder.

By ignoring poverty and the measures to tackle it or not giving serious consideration tothe fact that we will soon need counter-cyclical policies for employment, you are liable toinvalidate the laudable efforts that you intend to make on the institutional front.

Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr Gonzi, recentlystated that economic and financial crises are the sons and daughters of our loss of values.


In fact, the crisis is first and foremost within us – in our national selfishness and the lackof will to really cooperate and reform.

There will be no solution without profound changes in our attitudes, which means thatthe pace can no longer be set by the slowest. Structural reforms are the key to progress.Here lie the most dramatic disparities between the Member States. Some have conductedstructural reforms, while some are lagging behind or just starting. There is often more lipservice to reform than real change. May I suggest to the Commission that it starts tocoordinate and monitor progress on structural reforms in the same way that it is nowengaged in coordinating and monitoring national budgets?

Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, you made a good speech, but European citizensdo not want mere words; they want action. I would therefore like to know what theCommission is actually going to do to promote economic growth and job creation. As forfiscal standardisation, what will it do to prevent wealthy French people from moving toBelgium, or Portuguese entrepreneurs from moving to the Netherlands? Moreover, whatdoes it think of the social pact proposed here by Ms Swoboda? Many questions remain tobe answered.

As you know, we need more solidarity among the Member States, and more solidarity andfairness among citizens. However, words alone are not enough. Measures – concretemeasures – are needed. It has also been said here that a new direction is needed. This isundoubtedly the case. More political intervention is needed too. However, how can thisbe implemented, Mr President? That is what citizens are expecting. The fact is that we needmore leadership, more confidence, more Europe, more hope and more democracy, andthe role of Parliament must therefore be strengthened.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

President. – I regret that we cannot accommodate all the Members who wanted to takethe floor as part of the catch-the-eye procedure.

I would like to make the following suggestion. Mr Barroso, contrary to what was agreed,you did not take the floor after the speeches by the group chairs, which has slightly changedthe structure of the whole debate. I was very surprised, because we have had to introducea different structure. I propose to give you the floor now, so that you can respond both tothe group chairs and to the catch-the-eye speakers. After that, the group chairs, as agreed,can take the floor again to make brief speeches. If you want to speak again after these briefspeeches, I will definitely give you the floor again at the end.

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I wanted first of all tolisten to all the Members of this Parliament before having the possibility to respond – andI will also be more than happy to hold more specific discussions afterwards with the Groupleaders – but I think it was important to hear the contributions from all the Members ofParliament who wanted to take the floor at this stage.

Let me first underline that I saw, of course, different positions in this debate – somecriticisms, some comments – but I think I can see, at least from the most relevantpro-European forces, strong support for the agenda I have put forward: an agenda whichcombines ambition with realism.

Ambition is very important but so is the way we deliver on that ambition. Ambitionswithout results are simply good intentions, and sometimes I have the impression that in


Europe we are full of good intentions but with not enough results. This is why we need tohave this vision, the vision of a medium-term, longer-term, European Union that is a federalpath – and I hope that we will not engage now in semantic discussions about how exactlyto qualify it. It is a federal path and it is ambitious, but at the same time we need to respondto issues which are extremely serious and urgent now, even before we get the – in somecases necessary – revision of the current treaties.

So this is our way and this is the way the Commission will pursue with determination. Thisis the only realistic way to achieve progress in Europe, and those people who pretend thatthe status quo is enough or those people who pretend that everything will change tomorroware not in fact serious about what has to be done for Europe.

I cannot resist recalling something that a predecessor of mine, Jacques Delors, once saidin French – it was good advice :

(FR) ‘Beware of the over-excited!’

‘Beware of the over-excited’. We need to have ambition but at the same time every stepmust be taken with our feet firmly on the ground – and not forgetting one thing: that weare accountable to the European citizens of Europe and we have to have them with us.

That is why one of the most important messages that I believe I brought you today was:How can we complete European democracy? What can we do? Not against our countries,because our countries are still the most important political reference for most of ourcitizens, but what can we do with our countries to show that they will only count in theworld if they accept a much stronger Union; that on their own they will not have theleverage or the capacity to talk on an equal footing with the Americans or the Chinese orother powers; but that yes, together in Europe, we can do this and we can make a difference.That, precisely, is the message I brought you today.

A message where we work with our countries, not for the sake of nationalism, but in factto win the battle against the nationalists or the extreme populists, to have a democraticfederation of countries, a federation of citizens naturally, a union for the citizens of Europe.This is the message I brought you today and this is the only way to go forward if we wantto achieve results.

If you read my speech last year, at that time some of the ideas were not given muchconsideration, but one year later we have seen that the governments – and I believe mostpolitical forces – have finally agreed. I proposed the redirection of central funds. I proposedthe refinancing of the EIB, I proposed the creation of project funds – there was no consensusfor all these ideas at that time, now they are agreed on.

It was also the Commission that proposed some time ago the creation of a strong backstop.At that time we proposed EUR 440 billion. It was rejected by some. It was not consideredrealistic; now we have it and today – it was about time – we have had the decision of theConstitutional Court of Germany. This shows that what is not agreed to today will becomea consensus tomorrow, and our duty here as European institutions is precisely to build onthis consensus, to show ambition but at the same time to do so with realism. This is theway to achieve those steps.

I was asked some specific questions, particularly on the banking union, which I think arevery important. One was about doing this or not with the Central Bank. Fourteen out ofthe 17 national supervisors in the euro area today are already the central banks, and the


UK is now in fact moving to place these tasks with the Bank of England, so there is not onesingle model in the European Union and the euro area. What matters is the quality andcredibility of the supervision.

But let us be frank. Do we want to delay or do we want a solution? We have agreed, and itwas a Commission proposal, to do this around the European Central Bank because this isa well-established European institution, a federal institution in the euro area. Of course wewill do this ensuring a separation between the monetary functions and the futuresupervisory function. Our model offers all the guarantees that one could ask for – theindependence of monetary policy – but what we need is a credible supervisor that canbreak free from the national capture of national supervisors and do so quickly. That is whythe ECB is by far the best placed for this. Once again, if we now start to change this, therewill be delay. Delaying the solutions is probably in the interests of some people, but it iscertainly not in the interest of the European Commission. We want to have a singlesupervisor for the euro area as soon as possible.

This is why we have put forward a proposal that, in fact, also addresses other matters likethe relationship between euro and non-euro area members. The single supervisorymechanism will strengthen the single market. The proposal is designed so as not to createany walls in the single market. The ECB will apply the single rule book, the substantiverules on bank capital requirements and so on which are agreed by all 27 Member States.More effective and consistent application is good for the stability and safety of all.

The non-euro area Member States should be able to take part. The proposal is as open aspossible. Those outside the euro area can take part through a close cooperation arrangement.We have gone as far as possible within, of course, the current Treaty legal limits and thereare lots of other safeguards. The decisions on supervision of cross-border banks willcontinue to be made in colleges of supervisors in which host Member States will still havetheir full say even where the ECB is the home supervisor, and the European BankingAuthority will keep all its powers to solve disputes and uphold single market rules includingvis-à-vis the ECB.

This is all to show you that no-one is more committed than the Commission to the ideaof a Union, to the integrity of the European Union, and yes, to the principle ofnon-discrimination between Member States, Article 4. When Prime Minister I was one ofthose fighting for the principle of equality between all our Member States to be recognised.Of course there are different economic dimensions, different demographic dimensions,but as regards the law all the Member States have exactly the same dignity and we shouldstrive for a unity based on these principles.

Some of the points made concerned growth and social matters. First of all, growth. Wehave to be very honest about this. The biggest problem we have with growth in Europe isthe lack of competitiveness that has been accumulated in some of our Member States andwe need to bring in reforms for that competitiveness. There are difficult, more urgent,problems, such as the lack of financing for the economy. Some of our countries in fact aremaking impressive – impressive – efforts of adjustment.

What Greece has achieved is sometimes not sufficiently recognised – or Ireland or Portugal.An impressive adjustment, but what is their problem? They also have a problem in financingthe economy precisely because the sovereign debt problems contaminated the banks’problems. So we should not forget what lay at the origin of this crisis and the origin of thiscrisis, I have to say to the Eurosceptics: No, it was not the euro. Britain has put in more


taxpayers’ money to save the banks than any country in Europe. Iceland is not a memberof the euro or the European Union, so it was not the euro which created the problem; itwas the irresponsible behaviour of the financial sectors in many areas of the world, includingthe United States.

(Applause)

This was the crux of the problem, and let me tell you that sadly we can see that some peoplein the financial sector have learnt nothing. After what happened we continued to receivereports of rigging with Libor, manipulating the interest rates. We have seen banks in theUnited States that are financing Iran contrary to all the legislation of the United States. Wehave seen banks from Britain financing drug smuggling in Mexico. We continue to seesome intolerable practices in the financial sector. This was part of the problem and that iswhy we need to regulate and to have credible supervision in the financial sector as well.

But this was not the whole cause of the problem. There was also unsustainable debt createdby our governments; this is the reality. I am sorry, some people prefer to hear just somepart of the reality, but we have to look at the reality in full. That is why we need to see howwe came here. We came to this situation because the financial markets did not behaveproperly and that was the responsibility not of the European Union but of the nationalsupervisors. The European Union at that time had no responsibility at all in terms of nationalsupervision. We are now creating, we are now establishing, the first elements of thisEuropean supervision.

The problems of the debt were also created because some Member States did not respectthe Stability and Growth Pact which they themselves had signed. When there is no respectfor the rules, naturally there are problems of credibility. So I think it is fair to say thatEurope’s current problems were not created by the European Union for the Member States,they were much more created by the Member States for the European Union and this isthe reality of what we have today.

(Applause)

But now of course we have to see how to get out of this situation, and to get out of thissituation requires proper financial supervision and regulation. Addressing the problemsof deficit is also required, and so Member States which are under this pressure shouldcontinue with consultation measures and also with stricter reforms because there is anunderlying problem of lack of comparison in some of our Member States.

It is not easy; there will not be a magic solution; it will require time, determination,persistence, coherence. I know that populists manipulate feelings and anger; they can offera very simple solution. The solution is ‘No’. Saying ‘No’ is easy; saying ‘No’ to Europe iseasy. What is difficult, and that requires leadership, is to say ‘Yes’ but while saying ‘Howcan we move forward?’ And that is why I am asking you to bring about the conditions fora true European debate with a true European democracy. And I am giving the signal forthe next European elections because I believe in democracy.

I was elected to my Parliament in Portugal when I was just twenty-nine years old. Mr Farage,do not look at me like that because in fact I really have a great admiration for the wisdomof the British people. Every time you have tried to be elected in Britain you were rejected;that is why you came here. It shows that the British people know that it is much better tokeep you away from your own system.


(Applause)

Every time I ran for election in my country I was elected. I was leader of the opposition, Iwas Prime Minister and to be President of the Commission I received the support of thisEuropean Parliament. But I think we have to go forward. I think we need to go for the nextelections with all the relevant political parties – not you, frankly – but with all the relevantpolitical parties to present a candidate for the Commission President and to have a trulypolitical debate.

Today we adopted formally a new regulation for European political parties and I am callingnot only on citizens, not only on you, but also on the best forces in Europe to engage inthis debate on what we can do. Then I want to appeal to my pro-European, includingfederalist, friends. Frankly, sometimes I believe we waste too much time and energycriticising secondary issues. I think we have to unite the pro-European forces with regardto the future of Europe. A future that, yes, is to keep the social market economy. The socialmarket economy is in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is not an invention. But at the same time toprepare the European consensus to reform those economies that will become morecompetitive. That is why European democracy is important.

There are some people who say democracy cannot be transnational and can only be nationalbecause it is based on national parliaments. I am sorry, but those who say that have not

understood that we are already in the 21st century. In the 21st century we have transnationalphenomena like the financial markets, and if we do not have transnational mechanismsto deal with them, the peoples, the citizens, will not have the leverage to regulate them andto have their say. That is why we also need at European level a European democracy, anda European democracy that is not built against our national democracies but to complementthem, to coordinate, and that basis for European democracy is precisely this Parliament.

That is what I am telling you. I am telling you that the Commission is ready to engage inthis Parliament and that we are going to put proposals forward before the next Europeanelections so that we can have a real European debate, one where the political forces thatare for Europe can say why they are for Europe and those who are against should also saywhy they are against Europe.

What annoys me today, to be very honest with you, and which we have to recognise, isthat in many of our countries those who are taking the lead in the European debate are theanti-Europeans, the Eurosceptics, the populists, the extreme nationalists. That is why wehave to provoke the pro-European forces, if necessary by making a positive, constructiveclean break with them, to ask them to come and say what the consequences of not havingthis Europe will be. Because many of the young people around Europe do not rememberwhen a great part of Europe was under totalitarian Communism or when there was nodemocracy in the south of Europe. They do not remember the times of non-freedom ofmovement – so we need to make the case for Europe, and to do that we need thepro-European forces from the Left, the Right and the Centre to come and fight for thatideal: to explain it, to take the initiative and not be always on the defensive.

I think this is what we can do for the next European elections and that is why the EuropeanCommission will come with proposals which will enable us to leave our comfort zone andsometimes see some of the governments of Europe giving up to those extremist forcesbecause they believe that in that way they will keep some of the votes.


That is a very important point I want to make to you because some of us, instead of tryingto attack each other, would be making a much better use of our time if we could try toconvince not only the parties here in Strasbourg, but also the parties back home in thecapitals, to say the same thing they say here in Strasbourg. The reality is that very often wehear the parties saying one thing here and we know very well that when the same partiesare in the governments back home, they say a very different, if not a completelycontradictory, thing. This is why we need to build a true public space in Europe with a trueEuropean democracy, with true European parties and true European institutions, notworking against our Member States but working for a Union that goes beyond the MemberStates and that gives each Member State and our citizens the capacity to defend our interestsand our values in the global world.

Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I shall be very brief. Thankyou for this European speech. President Barroso, if you make the same speech to the Councilnext time, I will back you all the way.

President. − Mr Daul, I must say something to you that I have already said, because I havethe pleasure of being part of this institution, at least temporarily. Mr Barroso is at least ascombative in the Council as he is here. I want to make that entirely clear. He does not onlybehave like this here. He also fights his corner there. Since I have been helping him, he hasbecome even bolder.

Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, if Mr Barroso had asmuch support in the Council as he does in Parliament, Europe would be a different place.

Firstly, I would like to make it very clear that I believe that the judgment of the GermanFederal Constitutional Court is a good one. For the second time in just a few days, thealmost hysterical opponents of Europe have been defeated, firstly by the decision of theEuropean Central Bank and now by the decision of the German Federal ConstitutionalCourt. This shows that given courage and clear decision-making, it is possible to strengthenEurope, even though certain limits have been set.

Secondly, I would like to strongly support what was said by Ms Gurmai and other speakerson the question of women. I spoke yesterday with Ms Reding. It is important, particularlyin the world of business and also with regard to appointments made by Europeaninstitutions, that the many excellent women candidates receive support. Just like the men,they must have the opportunity to take up certain positions.

Thirdly, I would like to thank the Commission for its draft document on political parties.It is very good that we now have a new draft which will allow us to move forwards. I supportthe principles relating to the political parties. I visit all the Member States and I have saidthere exactly what you, Mr Barroso, have said here.

Fourthly, just so that everything is not quite so harmonious, Mr Barroso, you have declaredyour support for the European social model. This is a good thing and I am in favour of it.However, given the situation in Greece, I have made it quite clear, including when I visitedGreece, that stringent and often painful structural forms are needed. Not everyone in Greecewanted to hear that, even my friends there, but that is what is needed. If the troika, includingthe Commission, now calls for the reintroduction of the six-day week and the 13-hour dayand removes other social rights, we will be seeing the destruction of the social state.Mr Barroso, we cannot support the social state and the social model in Parliament whileat the same time allowing the Commission officials in the troikas to dismantle and destroy


the social state. We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democratsin the European Parliament cannot accept that. It is not a basis for consensus. I would verymuch like to come to a consensus with you and the Commission about the social modeland the social state, but then the Commission officials in the troikas must ensure that thesocial state is not dismantled and that at least its core structures remain in place. That isthe principle that we in the S&D Group stand for.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, firstly, while to start withMr Barroso was initially Mr Farage’s punching ball, is Mr Farage now becoming Mr Barroso’spunching ball? I would see that as a positive development in this Plenary.

I shall now come back to the main discussion we had an hour ago. I think – and my groupthinks – that the Commission should make more use of its right of initiative on a numberof topics and on a number of issues. I would advise the Commission not to wait for thegreen light – or red light – from Paris, Berlin or other capitals. The red light is always therebut not the green light. It needs to do what is necessary and put its legislative proposals onthe table. The effect on the market would be so positive that it would be far more difficultfor these countries to react negatively.

My third point concerns banking union. Mr Barroso has said that he does not want a delay.I do not want a delay either. But that does not mean that, if he does not agree with a proposalthat has the support of the Council – and mainly of Germany in this instance – that wecannot discuss it. Just because Germany considers that the ECB should do a given job wedo not have to agree with it. I am sorry, but that is not codecision, is it? Codecision meansthat for a short period – and you can be sure that our coordinators will respect that andwill examine the proposal – you can suggest other, better possibilities, rather than creatingdouble standards.

Finally, in Germany they need to be serious. They cannot at the same time give tasks otherthan monetary functions to the ECB and criticise Mr Draghi for the interventions he iscurrently making in the markets. It is one or the other: either it is independent – in whichcase we have no financial supervision – or it is not, in which case they can continue tocriticise Mr Draghi, as they have been doing in recent weeks.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I wouldlike to make two statements. On the subject of the model of the European social state, Iwould like to make it clear that there is no social state in Greece. It does not currently exist.If we want to have a model of a social state, then the European Union must set up a socialfund to relaunch the social state in Greece. That is simply how it is. We cannot alwayscontinue making progress. If someone living in Greece today does not have a job, then hehas absolutely no means of support. Does that make sense? The model of the Europeansocial state can only be developed further if we help it to be reborn in the countries whereit no longer exists. People must finally understand that.

Secondly, Ms Reding, we support your initiative, as I hope the Commission and all themen there do, to bring about a gender balance in companies. If you would write a letter toMr Juncker and to the board of the European Central Bank explaining the initiative, thatwould be a really good message to send out.

Finally, I would like to say that this is not a dispute about the future prospects for Europe.In the case of decisions on the European Stability Mechanism and the problems that itwould bring, I sometimes hope that Europe will not look to Karlsruhe but to the Court of


Justice of the European Union, which is where the decision should be made. Also, someonehas said, Mr Daul I think, that we should have more courage in appealing to the court. Istrongly disagree. Politics is a matter for parliaments. If we take cases before the court moreoften, it will become a matter for technocrats. That, of course, is not a good thing. Thejudicialisation of politics will also be the swan song of politics.

Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso, I understandthat some of the Brussels press corps in the Twitter sphere were less than enraptured byyour speech. In fact, many of them were playing Barroso buzzword bingo during its delivery.I wonder if anybody can guess what the winning line was. What did he say the most? Yousaid ‘let us be frank’ five or six times during your speech. That was the winning line.

Well, let us be frank with you. You really offered us nothing new today, did you? Youoffered us the same old tired solutions, that the answer to all of our problems is moreEurope. Not better Europe, not more efficient Europe, just more Europe.

And I say that I welcome the debate. Table your proposals. Let us have the debate aboutwhether we want more Europe or whether we want less Europe, whether we want morepower to the centre or more back to Member States. And I will tell you something evenmore radical. Let us have that debate, let us reach the conclusions and then let us ask thepeople in our Member States, in referenda, what they think of the solutions offered.

(Applause)

And then let us do something even more radical and let us take notice this time of whatthey say if, in fact, they reject your solutions.

Let me give you another quote from a dear Member of the EPP Group, from Mr Daul’sparty, from José María Aznar, who said over the weekend that the drive for full fiscal andpolitical union is ‘deeply misguided’. He said that ‘a United States of Europe is an impossibleidea. It is a very serious mistake to try to destroy nation states. You cannot go against thecultural beliefs of the people and the forces of history’, and I think he was right in what hesaid there.

Many people in this Chamber, many of the leaders that have spoken, are stuck in the 1950s,in the old mantra of what should be done – all except Mr Cohn-Bendit, of course. He is stillstuck on the barricades in 1968. But they offer the tired solutions of the past. We need to

reform the EU, we need to look forward to what the EU should offer us in the 21st century,and that should be less Europe and more competitive Europe and more competitiveeconomies.


Gay Mitchell (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleaguefor giving way. Would Mr Callanan agree with me that the real problem is just what hesaid? He is more interested in what the press corps say and what the markets say, than whatthe people need. Are we to be prisoners of the commentariat or are we going to giveleadership to bring Europe out of the darkness that people are in?

Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I am sorry to say it but I amdisappointed that Mr Callanan was following Mr Farage’s line of argument about holdingthe referendum. Let us hold the referendum! Do not take the responsibility from yourshoulders! Are you really ready to take responsibility for keeping your country, the United


Kingdom, outside the new, transformed, more united Europe? Are you ready for that? You,Mr Callanan and your Conservative Party in Great Britain?

Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr President, two questions for the price ofone. I am sorry if I offended Mr Mitchell. I am half Irish, if that counts, and I know that theIrish appreciate a joke. Obviously in Mr Mitchell’s case, they sadly did not, but it was notmeant to be a serious comment. On the subject of democracy, perhaps Mr Mitchell couldlearn from Mr Protasiewicz. The people of Ireland, of course, have been asked numeroustimes whether they want more Europe and more times than they have said ‘more’, theyhave said they wanted less Europe.

When we have this debate and when we have the results of it, we can do no more. If wereally do believe in democracy, let us put the results of any constitutional convention, ofproposals for more Europe, to the people of Europe in referenda and see if they agree. Ifthey say yes, I will happily accept that result. But the reason that you will not put it to areferendum is that you know what the result will be and I know what the result will be.The people will say that they do not want any more Europe.

[Applause]

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso claims to be a gooddemocrat. It is a very twisted form of democracy when he says that all of those politicalparties that get votes with which you do not agree are not relevant. It is a pretty obscenedefinition of democracy to decry those of us that believe in national democracy andEuropean cooperation. Mr Barroso calls us populists, extremists, xenophobic andnationalistic.

Surely Mr Barroso, the point about democracy is that you engage in debate. You listen towhat the other person has to say, you put it to the public and you accept the result. Thatis what real, genuine parliamentary democracy is about, and you seem to actually despisethat and everything that those of us that stand for national democracy believe in. And totell me that you are in this position because this Parliament voted for you! We were onlygiven the chance to vote for one candidate! Is that your new model of European democracy?

(Applause)

Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Ihave already made it clear in the first round of speeches what I would like the focus of ourattention to be. My group expects the Commission to fulfil its responsibilities in the relevantbodies such as the troika, in order to make it entirely clear that the Commission as aEuropean institution wants to ensure that people are no longer pushed into poverty, thatworking hours are not increased and that environmental and social standards are notignored. That is your job. If we succeed in making that clear, then we will be sending outa signal to the people who in recent days have gone out onto the streets in their thousandsand hundreds of thousands to protest. Our group is in solidarity with these people, whetherthey are in Thessaloniki or Barcelona.

I heard this morning on the news that cancer patients are protesting in Greece. How badhas the situation become when people who are in the midst of a serious social and personalcrisis are not receiving any more help and support, because the health system has collapsed?We finally need to take action in this area.


Many people in positions of responsibility believe that people in Greece and in other stateshave been living beyond their means. They must now be punished for this and havesanctions imposed on them. This is not an appropriate way of strengthening the Europeancommunity, which is based on solidarity. I am not implying that you are one of thesepeople, Mr Barroso, but this is a theme which is being constantly repeated in the media inmany countries and, unfortunately, also in mine.

Elmar Brok (PPE), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Farage.Are there votes in the House of Commons to elect the Prime Minister of the United Kingdomor is the only person who stands for office the one who has kissed the Queen’s ring?

Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – I think I had better be slightly careful how I answerthe last part of that question.

Mr Brok, the British Prime Minister is taken from the floor of the House of Commons andin fact nearly the entire British Government are elected Members of that House of Commons.That is the Government of the United Kingdom.

The fundamental difference between that and the European Union is that this College ofCommissioners that you see over here – the people who have the sole right to proposelegislation with the European system – not one of them has been voted for by anybody inEurope and therefore they cannot be removed. That is why the European system is not justundemocratic, it is anti-democratic.

President. − I believe we need to explain once and for all about this House. The Europeanexecutive acquires its democratic legitimacy from the votes in this House. The ministersin national governments are not subjected to interrogations as intensive as those of theindividual Commissioners in the hearings here.

(Applause)

There is no information more transparent than that provided by the Commission here inParliament. We are aware that the Council gives us information which lacks transparency.However, the Council is precisely the institution that you, Mr Farage, constantly want tostrengthen. This House is a democratic institution. If you believe it is so undemocratic,why are you still sitting here?

(Applause)

Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it is amazing how much attention is paidto Mr Farage.

Mr Barroso, I said to you “citizens not banks” and you then spent a long time discussingthe financial markets and the plans for regulation. However, once again you failed tomention the very serious problem of the banks that are too big to fail. Many citizens inEurope are firmly convinced, and I include myself among them, that if this problem is notresolved, if we do not bring the banks back down to a reasonable size and separate theinvestment banks from the commercial banks along the lines of the US model, then wewill find that the European Union is by no means too big to fail. I am calling on you onceagain to deal with the problem of the banks that are too big to fail. By downsizing thebanks, you can upgrade Europe.

Nigel Farage (EFD). - Mr President, under the Rules of Procedure of this Parliament, ifyou, as the President, wish to enter into a debate, that is fine. You are allowed to do so but


you first have to leave the Chair. I would suggest what you just did was to enter into thatdebate from the Chair, and that is not the way this, or any other Chamber, should beconducted.

President. − You are wrong, Mr Farage, I did not intervene in the debate. I dismissed yourcontinued questioning of the democratic legitimacy of this House. That is my duty aspresident.

(Applause)

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I will give very concreteanswers to very concrete questions.

First of all, to Mr Martin – because he was accusing me of giving too much attention toother Members of the Parliament – we are currently discussing in the Commission whatwe can do in terms of this issue of the risks inherent in different kinds of activities betweenbanks.

As you know, Commissioner Barnier has asked Mr Liikanen to put forward a report. Basedon that report we will take decisions about what we can do to prevent risks associated withbig banks, namely the possibility of addressing the issue of different activities they maypursue.

Regarding other concrete issues, such as Romania and Bulgaria, we have already said thatwe believe that Romania and Bulgaria meet the necessary conditions to become membersof the Schengen area. I want to reiterate that here today. That, of course, does not meanthat we do not have the right to act when we believe decisions taken by any of our MemberStates may call into question some of the principles of the rule of law that all Member Statesaccepted.

Some of you insisted on the issue of social cohesion. Indeed it is a very important matter.The reality is that we are doing what we can at European level, but there are differenceshere between the instruments available at national and European level. As you may beaware, one of the concerns we now have in terms of the discussion for the next MFF is theopposition that some of our governments are signalling, not only about the reinforcementof the Social Fund, but also the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is so important forworkers who may feel the impact and be considered redundant because of some structuraltransformations in Europe, and even the Solidarity Fund, because there are somegovernments that are simply proposing the elimination of this fund.

I would also like to thank those of you who have referred to the European programme ofaid for deprived persons. I would like to confirm that the Commission will put forward aproposal for a new programme to help poor people in Europe because there is now risingpoverty in Europe.

So that is why we have to be absolutely sincere and frank. Yes, I say those words once again.You cannot withdraw from the European institutions the instruments for showing solidarityand afterwards criticise Europe because Europe does not have enough solidarity.

We also need to act at European level in the social area. This is critically important, notonly because it is just, but because we need a social dimension at European level so thatwe can keep support for our social market economy and for our European project. Whenwe speak about more Europe, it is not just more Europe for the sake of Europe or for theEuropean institutions. The crisis in the euro area has shown that the credibility of the euro


as a single currency is also dependent on the coherence and integration of the decisionstaken for the euro area.

When people ask me why we need more Europe, we need more Europe if we want to keepand sustain a common currency. We need more integration of the institutions, but alsomore harmonisation of norms to avoid behaviours that are against the common normsand also we need more coherence of policies. This is indispensable for a common currency.Of course, we want to make those proposals not just for the euro area but for the EuropeanUnion because we want this to be united and open for all. If some Members do not wantto join us, of course they have that right, but they should not have the right to preventthose who want to have a stronger Union from building that stronger Union, not only forthe currency but also for our common goals of a united Europe.

Finally, let me thank you for this debate. I believe in democracy. I believe in national

democracy, but also in European democracy. I want to reiterate that today, in the 21st

century, with national democracy alone our citizens will not be able to control their futureand their countries will become irrelevant. We are living in fundamentally new times. Thatis why we need to complete our national democracies with a strong European democracy.This Parliament is the basis for that future stronger European democracy.

[Applause]

President. – The debate is closed.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) As the financial, economic and socialcrisis in the European Union continues, it is necessary to find the political will to takedecisions that are unpopular and difficult but essential for the survival of the EU. Theestablishment of a European banking union was mentioned today, which in future willallow this sector to be monitored more effectively. I welcome this decision but it isregrettable that there has hitherto been a lack of resolve to take action, which, if it had beentaken in time, would have enabled the Union and its Member states to combat the crisismore successfully. I am talking about the establishment of a European credit rating agency,which would have enabled us to evaluate the Member States’ economies more fairly andobjectively. I would also like to remind you about the call for a gas purchasing group tobe established at EU level which would ensure fair and competitive gas prices for all MemberStates which in turn would increase the competitiveness of our industry and reduceconsumers’ bills. For a long time we have been convinced that the crisis is coming to anend and that in order to exit it as soon as possible we need to take the toughest austeritymeasures. Now we can see that such austerity measures have reduced consumption andbudget revenue collection, have significantly increased unemployment and have haltedeconomic growth in the Member States in the long term. The majority of economistsrecognise that tough austerity measures have not provided the anticipated benefits butsimply further hampered the EU’s economic and social recovery.

Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) We are still going through a difficult time, inwhich the economic crisis and the sovereign debt crisis persist and the main objectiveremains that of economic recovery. The agreed measures for boosting the economy andreducing unemployment must be implemented as soon and as efficiently as possible. Inthis regard, I think we must continue to focus on encouraging entrepreneurs and creatingjobs in the EU. Topics such as fiscal and budgetary discipline and economic growth shouldcontinue to be on the agenda.


I support the view that the EU must be strengthened; however, the decisions adopted sofar require time in order for them to have visible effects. At the same time, reforms shouldbe based on the principle of equality and on a better coordination. We have been witnessinglately an ever-growing need to deepen integration. President Barroso reiterated a veryimportant topic, that of the federalisation of the European Union. Romania has been aconstant supporter of this idea, including the importance of progressing towards a politicalunion. The specific needs of each Member State must be taken into account in order tonarrow the gaps in competitiveness and productivity. Only this way will we be able toachieve a coherent economic policy and an internationally relevant external policy.

Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I personally welcome the idea of a bankingunion, which has provoked considerable displeasure at government level in the CzechRepublic. Its existence should restore confidence in banks and in the single currency of theeuro. It would also be part of the long-term plan for the economic and fiscal integrationof the EU. The main elements of banking union include banking rules that are applicablethroughout the EU – including the common but flexible requirements for the level of capitalthat banks must maintain, and unified EU banking supervision with direct monitoring ofbanks operating in many countries and of large banking houses, which would allowenforcement of the rules and greater oversight concerning the control of risks. It alsoincludes common rules to prevent bank failures and allow greater intervention when abank gets into difficulties – so that it will not be necessary to rescue the bank with taxpayers'money - and a unified system of deposit insurance providing protection to savers, regardlessof which EU state they put their money in or invest in. The aim is to strengthen confidencein the banking system as a whole.

Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The European Union’s current problem isthat it is trying to tackle the crisis by drastically reducing public spending in order to reducebudget deficits. In this way, by forcing savings, although we can of course improve thegeneral state of public finances temporarily, we are also restricting opportunities for growth,thus threatening the continent with a deepening crisis and large-scale recession.

Some Member States are also pushing for an ideology of reduced public spending at thelevel of the EU budget in the period up to 2020. It is difficult to understand such a policyin the current economic situation since we know that EU funds play a major part instimulating the economy, and not only on the demand side, but also through themechanisms for their acquisition, such as co-financing and the need for job creation, thatis to say by an emphasis on new ventures.

Unfortunately, instead of a genuine strategy for growth and jobs, we still only have proposalsfor deepening integration and depriving Member States of further areas of sovereignty. Itherefore look unfavourably upon the idea of creating a single supervisory mechanismover banks or a banking union. In this context, the idea of a new European treaty, underwhich the EU institutions would take full control of national budgets, finally deprivingMember States of the tools to manage their own economies, is annoying and quiteunrealistic.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The President of the Commission has comebefore Parliament to enact yet another monumental farce. In the face of the deepening ofthe crisis within the EU and the euro area, and the widespread discrediting of the EU andits institutions, Mr Barroso has proposed a new federalist, neoliberal and militarist plungeinto the process of economic and political integration. The announced measures do not


solve any of the problems that the workers and people of Europe are facing. The deep crisisin which the EU is mired is the result of the policies and directions that have been pursuedfor years. These policies have promoted divergence and growing inequality among MemberStates, as well as the transfer of wealth from the workers to big economic and financialbusiness. There will be no end to the crisis as long as these policies continue. Instead ofthinking again and opting for a change in direction and policies, Mr Barroso is nowproposing amendments to the institutional architecture of the EU. These amendments areaimed primarily at creating new and more favourable conditions for pursuing those samepolicies that have brought about disaster and social regression, and which have been brutallyimposed on workers and people, with well-known consequences. New institutional shiftsare being announced, giving new and greater expression to the growing confrontationbetween the EU and democracy.

Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At present, the EU is in a difficultsituation. The persisting economic crisis and its consequences have hit us hard. A highlevel of unemployment, failing businesses, and nonsensical cuts in the public sector, suchas in education, healthcare and the social system, which most affect the most vulnerablecitizens of the EU. It is a difficult economic and social situation for the citizens. Decliningeconomies, persistent recession. People living in the EU are experiencing the currentproblems personally. It is no wonder that they are losing faith in the European project.Lengthy debates are going on in Brussels on how to get out of the crisis. However, thepopulations of the various Member States do not feel any real results of our efforts. Thatis to say, our debates are not leading anywhere! The anti-crisis measures are not effectiveenough, and we just wasting precious time! Summits bring no solutions. At long last, wemust wake up and start to act. We need to take concrete steps to boost growth andemployment. We should adopt the measures needed to reverse the impending collapse ofthe EU’s global competitiveness. We should take action to revive our single market. Wemust strengthen fiscal, economic and political integration. We need a specific plan forcreating a banking union. We need a greater degree of mutual solidarity. Either we joinforces, because the European project is worth fighting for, after all, or else we simply sinkseparately. In order to adopt the necessary measures, we will have to overcome politicalshort-sightedness and set out an ambitious plan.

Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – (BG) The crisis exposed serious flaws in the supervisionof the banking sector in the EU Member States. The problems of the banking systems ofsome countries in the euro area caused serious problems to their public finances. However,now the cost is being paid by the European taxpayer.

We are now seeing that it is not enough for the ECB to monitor only the systematicallyimportant banks in order to ensure the system’s stability. Many financial institutions operateacross borders within the Union, which is why measures at European level are needed toeffectively and efficiently monitor and control this sector. The European Commission’slegislative proposals on a European supervision mechanism aiming to create a bankingunion within the EU will further strengthen the European Central Bank’s role.

However, assurances are needed that the ten Member States outside the euro area will notbe put on the back burner and that their voices will continue to be heard. This is the onlyway to ensure equality when making decisions on our common European future.

Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE) , in writing. – (PL) A couple of weeks ago, Angela Merkel calledfor work to begin on a new constitutional treaty, which would improve the Union and


bring it closer to the citizens. However, the possibilities afforded by the current treatiesshould be used before starting to draft new ones. The second wave of crisis stems from alack of credibility on the part of the Union and its Member States, and a few months ofdisputes over institutional solutions will not help to restore that credibility. We need toact now, and make decisions now.

We are now in the fifth year of the crisis, and we can safely say that the remedial actiontaken in Europe has not worked. The measures taken by Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italyare not working, and in addition the associated social costs are enormous. Theannouncement made last week by the President of the ECB regarding indirect support ofthese countries might have been reason for optimism. However, unless the credibility ofthe Union and its Member States is recovered, the crisis will not be overcome. I would liketo ask President Barroso two questions. Firstly, what measures is the Commission planningin support of the European Central Bank’s actions? Secondly, how does he view Berlin’sproposals, in particular the proposal regarding a departure from the increased 95% shareof EU funds in realised projects?

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE) , in writing. – (PL) The European Union should place all of itscitizens at the centre of its deliberations over its future. Further EU integration is possibleand desirable, provided, however, that we are able to assure citizens that the foundationsunderpinning the integration process will be protected. I refer to peace and security, theprotection of important values and increased prosperity. It is worth remembering that themost important and inalienable EU values stem from Christianity. The EU stands for dignity,freedom and solidarity. The proposal to develop the EU as a federation of nation states hasbeen criticised amongst others by radical federalists. ‘Real’ federalists do not want afederation of nation states. What they want, as they have indeed explicitly stated, apost-national EU. In this context, President Barroso’s proposal is moderate, and, for manyMEPs, even conservative.

In my opinion, there are a number of reasons why a post-national federation is impossibleat present. Many European nations simply do not want and cannot imagine a post-nationalEurope. Additionally, the economic situation of the EU Member States means it is impossibleto introduce the harmonisation that would be required in many areas across the federation,such as the minimum wage, minimum pension, minimum income entitlement to socialsupport, the retirement age or the medical services basket. Regardless of the ideologypreferred, the harmonisation of standards required to form a federation seems unachievablein the foreseeable future.

Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I support many of the ideas expressed duringthe State of the European Union debate. It is particularly important to carry out the planof establishing a European banking union and the single supervisory mechanism. The factthat banks operate transnationally but are guided by national laws has caused seriouseconomic difficulties for us. I hope the implementation of this plan will not get stuck inthe Council once again in verbose Member State discussions, and that the necessarydecisions will be taken in the nearest future, allowing for swift establishment of an efficientbanking supervisory mechanism. The activity in the financial markets over the past 24hours shows that the euro has regained trust, and that gives us the time necessary to restoreeconomic growth.

Both the European Union institutions and the governments of the Member States mustunderstand that decisive action is required. At the same time, I am doubtful whether all of


the political forces elected into this august house understand the seriousness of the situation.Member States must take difficult and unpopular decisions that will lead to economicgrowth in the long term.

Sustainable growth cannot be achieved without reforming the labour market and improvingproductivity in the Member States. These issues must be discussed and resolutely addressed;ignoring the problems only makes the situation worse. The reforms implemented by theLatvian government under the leadership of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis set a greatexample for the other European countries. Mr Dombrovskis took the helm of thegovernment at the deepest point of the crisis, implemented reforms, and today Latvia isexperiencing the fastest economic growth in Europe.

Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) Despite the artifice of a ‘State of the Union Address’,we are not yet the United States of Europe of which you dream. In view of the results, youwill need to come up with much more convincing arguments and projects to try andestablish any democratic legitimacy. Your only message, despite being put to the test, boilsdown to the ultra-liberal and globalist approach of ‘still more Europe', while continuingto subject us to an increasingly speculative and reckless international financial caste.Furthermore we have destroyed the social progress that our people fought so hard for overthe centuries, the euro and federalism form a sacrificial religion that stifles farmers, artisans,small and medium-sized enterprises and industries, who are the movers and shakers inour society, in other words, the real and living economic force. Instead, together we shouldbe introducing a mechanism, as soon as possible, enabling an effective exit from the eurorather than suffering the catastrophic consequences of its impending collapse. For thisreason, I call for the introduction of referenda in France and in Europe on these crucialissues. Lastly, I call for early European elections to be held given the rapid decline of ourrespective countries, which are being dragged down precisely because of the ‘state of theEuropean Union’.

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE) , in writing – (PL). The future of the EuropeanUnion is above all the future of her children and young people. How can we expect youngpeople to want to build a community which does not respond to their basic needs? Morethan one third of persons aged between 15 and 24 are not in education or employment.One quarter of the population under 25 are unemployed, and in Greece and Spain almosthalf of this age group are unemployed. Over 25% of unemployed young persons have beenunable to find a job for a year or more. National labour markets mainly offer them poorlypaid temporary work which does not match their education or skills. They could look forwork abroad, but are often afraid to take advantage of this opportunity. Their fear couldbe alleviated if they travelled abroad during their studies, but for most of them this meansusing their own financial resources. It is mainly only the residents of large urban centreswho are in a position to do so. How, then, can all young people believe in our commonEuropean project? How can they trust us when we call for further sacrifices while talkingabout equality and democracy?

Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), in writing. – (BG) Let me express my strong approvalof the speech by Mr Barroso who showed us a brave vision of a united Europe. I am oneof the people who would take this path without any hesitation. Such messages sharplyoutline the divisions in Parliament, and this is particularly useful because, as our conservativecolleagues have shown, trying to reach a consensus on this vision is pointless. No one canplease everyone.


I understand that the Union’s agenda is full of emergency and pressing measures, and yetI would like to draw attention to a process that will prove to be extremely harmful in thelong term. We are seeing an isolation of the euro area countries from the rest. Do not leaveour citizens feeling that, in order to start going in the right direction, Europe will have tomove at two or three speeds for a while. Mechanisms must be found at any cost so thatthe countries outside the euro area can participate even more fully in the critical debatesto come.

Today, in this Chamber, there is equality – however, if it is lacking at the other debate anddecision-making levels, how are we to convince our citizens to follow us on the path tothe brave reforms to come?

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Disregard the OSCE recommendations to abolishany restrictions to entitlement of citizenship for children of non-citizens of the LatvianRepublic who were born after 21 August 1999 – the Speaker of the Latvian Parliament,Solvita Aboltina, stated that the OSCE recommendations are just of an advisory nature.Taking into account the fact that the Latvian Parliament and ruling coalition contain thepro-Nazi political forces of Latvia, there is nothing new in the statement of Parliament’sSpeaker. But for the first time in the history of modern Latvia it is precisely the Speaker ofthe Saeima who so cynically neglects the opinion of European Union. Last year already,when Knut Vollebæk, the OSCE High Commissioner, mistakenly praised the LatvianGovernment for ‘successes’ in the integration, the Speaker of the Parliament, Mrs Aboltina,and the Prime Minister of Latvia, Mr Dombrovskis, admired him. Today, when Vollebæk‘has had his eyes opened’ on the situation in Latvia, his recommendations are not needed.All that gives the right to assert that the Latvian Republic lives by double standards,supporting legislation where features of nationalism and racism are openly displayed! Itis necessary to evaluate the statements and actions of members of the ruling coalitions andthe Prime Minister of the Latvian Republic, which are leading to national conflict. The ‘ColdWar’ against Russian-speaking children started in Latvia. This War can lead to bad results.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) When the President of the European CentralBank (ECB), Mr Draghi, says that the euro is irreversible, this is nothing more than anadmission that we have been taking the wrong path, which is intended to lead to the creationof a transfer and debt union. When the ECB buys government bonds from ailing states, itis bending if not breaking the law. Countries which for years have lived above their meansare to be rewarded and those which have applied budgetary discipline are to be punished.Furthermore, Slovenia is a demonstration of what happens after the praise for an allegedstar pupil has died down. A few years ago, Ljubljana was a model candidate and the threatof insolvency was ignored. However, instead of facing up to reality, they are obviouslycheating and making the situation seem better than it is. The question also arises as to whoshould pay for the whole euro disaster. We cannot continue asking the economicallysuccessful euro countries, such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, to come up withthe cash. This simply will not work. They have already reached the limits of their ability topay and if Spain requires more money than is currently expected and if Italy also turns outto need the euro rescue package, they will be the last dominos to fall. Therefore, we needto put in place rules as quickly as possible for excluding bankrupt states from the eurozone.

Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The crisis has lasted for four and a half years.We are now at a point where we can no longer blunder around in the fog. Our actions todate have not led to the desired results. Economists are sounding the alarm as the risk that


the crisis will expand and intensify is increasing. Fortunately, Europeans have not lost faithin the EU project. The Eurobarometer results of last week show that 40% of respondentshave a positive opinion of the EU. Most respondents thought the European Parliament wasa recognisable and trustworthy institution of the EU. As in previous polls, citizens expectthe European Parliament to fight poverty, social exclusion and unemployment effectively.This is why Parliament must be fully involved in the implementation and monitoring ofthe Compact for Growth and Jobs. In particular, we must deal with the issue of increasingemployment as soon as possible. I therefore urge the Council to carry out an efficientanalysis of the Commission’s employment package, so that new jobs can be created. Iwelcome the adoption at the last Council meeting of the EU Strategic Framework andAction Plan on Human Rights and Democracy. This should provide guidance to the SpecialRepresentative for Human Rights, and will allow the EU to speak with one voice in thefield of human rights.

Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The countries of Europe are in an extremely diresituation, but what I would primarily like to talk about right now is not the current economicand financial crisis but the moral and confidence crises that impact our societies at leastas much as the debt crisis. With the project of building a common Europe, the nations ofEurope set out on an unprecedented endeavour after World War II; yet unfortunately wecan all see that trust is to this day incomplete, and not just between Member States and theEU but between states and their citizens as well. Some countries are spending considerableamounts of resources on reaching goals that are long obsolete. There are, for example,Member States that do not view the national minorities living in their territories as an asset,but instead impede their legitimate efforts and continue to seek their assimilation. Theyspend more on their outdated centralised administration, secret service and armed forcesthan on education, infrastructure or social affairs. I believe that especially under the presentconditions, these practices are not helping us to overcome the dual moral and confidencecrisis that is leaving its mark on our everyday lives.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over the years there has been a wide range ofopinions and positions on the different European political leaders, which has ultimatelyled to delays in defining public policy in the different sectoral areas. I completely agreewith the creation of a ‘federation of nation states’, as announced today by the President ofthe Commission himself, along with the strengthening of economic and monetary unionand a single supervisory mechanism aimed at ensuring greater banking stability in the euroarea. I also believe that it is vital that the austerity measures adopted by the Member Statesbe reconciled with new measures to promote growth and employment. Concrete actionsaimed at stimulating economic recovery and job creation should be set out, along with anew industrial policy, the strengthening of research and innovation, and incentives forentrepreneurship. At a time of great economic and social difficulty, I believe that the EUshould take particular care of the most vulnerable, strengthening the prevailing sense ofsolidarity among its peoples. Finally, I would draw the attention of the Commission andthe respective Member States to the fact that it is crucial to strengthen the EU budget for2014-2020, adapting it to the development needs of the various economies and regions.

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) President Barroso’s speech today called forfurther integration, unified economic and financial management, a new European treatyand a federation of nation states. Although he used the term federation of nation states’,what he has in mind is to further strengthen the EU institutions and deprive nation statesof their powers. The theory of optimum currency areas explains very well when a single


currency creates economic benefit. However, the introduction of the euro was not basedon rational assumptions, but rather on political hopes – the hope that a single currencywould pave the way for a single European state. We can see now that the euro project doesnot work and – like a condemned man – it is waiting for the execution of its sentence. Aslong as there are distinctive nations, cultures, languages and societies in Europe, it cannotsucceed. The euro crisis is therefore not only an economic crisis. It symbolises the crisis ofthe entire concept of a federal Europe. So, is further integration the right way forward? No.We should take a step back. If we are already thinking about a new treaty, then we shouldgo back to the Treaty of Nice. We should restrict the powers of the EU and delegateresponsibility to national governments. We need cooperation between states in Europe,and not one state managed from Brussels. Further federalisation of Europe will strengthenthe strong centres and marginalise the weak, creating a two-speed Europe, a continent oflosers and winners. If we consider the shape of the crisis, we can easily identify the losers.

5. Statement by the President

President. − I would like to make a brief statement on a subject which several Membershave already mentioned to me during the sitting. There has been a serious attack on theUS embassy in Benghazi in which the US ambassador and several embassy employees werekilled. I would like to condemn very strongly this blatant act of terrorism and to expressour condolences to the US authorities.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOSVice-President

Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, I should just like to second what our President hassaid about our deep condolences to the American people because of this attack on theConsulate in Benghazi, where the American Ambassador has been killed, and to say thatthese condolences should also be extended to the brave people of Libya who do not deservethe terrible image given by this attack by a few fundamentalists.

6. Announcement by the President

President. − Ladies and gentlemen, the following were announced to plenary on Monday,10 September 2012:

- a recommendation by the Committee on Transport and Tourism to raise no objectionsto draft implementing provisions falling within the regulatory procedure with scrutiny:‘Recommendation for a decision to raise no objections to the draft Commission decisionauthorising the French Republic to derogate from Commission Regulation (EU) No1332/2011 with respect to the use of a new software version of the airborne collisionavoidance system (ACAS II) on certain newly-built aircraft (B7-0423/2012)’; and

- a recommendation by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to raise noobjections to a delegated act: ‘Recommendation for a decision to raise no objections to theCommission Delegated Regulation of 28 June 2012 supplementing Council Regulation(EC) No 1234/2007 as regards transnational cooperation and contractual negotiations ofproducer organisations in the milk and milk products sector (B7-0424/2012)’.


No objections were raised to these recommendations by the 24-hour deadline, as requiredunder Rule 87a of the Rules of Procedure. These recommendations are therefore deemedto have been approved with effect from 11 September 2012 and the decisions will bepublished in the Texts Adopted on 12 September 2012.

Christian Ehler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, as the chair of the delegation of the EuropeanParliament for relations with the United States and, in particular, in the presence of the USambassador to the European Union and a high-level delegation from the US administration,I would like once again to express our solidarity. An attack on any democratic institutionand, in particular, on a legitimate diplomatic representation must be condemned in thestrongest possible terms. Our solidarity is with the victims and we call on the LibyanGovernment to guarantee the safety of diplomatic representations.

(Applause)

7. Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

7.1. Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime(A7-0244/2012 - Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) (vote)

7.2. Administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, andfor pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues(A7-0212/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

- Before the vote:

Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is only to draw your attention to the factthat we are going to vote only on the amended version of the proposal as adopted in theCommittee on International Trade (INTA). If this Chamber adopts our proposal, I willrequest that the vote on the legislative resolution be postponed in order to allow fornegotiations for a late first-reading agreement with the Council.

- After the vote:

Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, I request postponement of the vote on thelegislative resolution.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

7.3. Imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey as regards thedelegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission(A7-0209/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

- Before the vote:

Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is the same remark as in the previous file,noting that we are voting only on the amended proposal and that, if afterwards we approvethis proposal, then I request that the votes on the legislative resolution be postponed.


- After the vote:

Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, this is to formalise the request for thepostponement of the vote on the legislative resolution.


7.4. EC-Australia agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformityassessment, certificates and markings (A7-0211/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

7.5. EC-New Zealand agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformityassessment (A7-0210/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

7.6. Measures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for thepurpose of the conservation of fish stocks (A7-0146/2012 - Pat the Cope Gallagher)(vote)

7.7. Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products(A7-0217/2012 - Struan Stevenson) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 164:

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, with regard to Amendment 164, a requestwould have been made for this to be put to a roll call vote during the established time, butfor a lapse. I would therefore ask now that a roll call vote might be considered forAmendment 164.

7.8. Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the CommonForeign and Security Policy (A7-0252/2012 - Elmar Brok) (vote)

President. – I have received a request for a roll call. We shall vote by roll call onAmendment 164. Please start voting.

- Before the vote on paragraph 15:

Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we have a few oral amendments, because thegroups needed more time to come an agreement as a result of the debate being broughtforward. Therefore, we would like to ask you to allow us to table these amendments. Wewould like to add the following wording:

‘takes into account the important historical relationship between European and Iranianpeoples’.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, here we would like to add that Turkey should beencouraged to exercise its foreign policy ‘in a framework of good neighbourly relations’.




Elmar Brok (PPE). - This is the proposed oral amendment: ‘calls for all sides to work fora peaceful resolution and urges Iran to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UnitedNations resolution and to cooperate fully with the IAEA’.



Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we have come to a compromise on the lastsentence, which is as follows:

‘considers that the opening of an EU delegation in Tehran could take place at an appropriatemoment in the development of EU-Iranian relations’.



Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we have come to a compromise on the followingconflicts. The text now reads as follows:

‘in particular breaking the deadlock on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and on theNagorno-Karabakh conflict’.


Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, at the request of one single group, we would liketo add the word ‘Canada’.



Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the first sentence should read:

‘Notes that the joint Africa-EU strategy and its eight sectors have initially focused...’.

In the middle we want to add:

‘the coherence and differences on this strategy have been reduced by the existence ofoverlapping agreements with multiple partners and the lack of a specific budget for itsimplementation; in addition ...’.


Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I promise that this is the last time.

‘is of the opinion that NATO’s decision to develop a civilian crisis management capacityshould not duplicate EU capabilities’.


- Before the final vote:

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL) . – (EL) Mr President, I should like to request aroll call on the motion as a whole.



7.9. Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources (A7-0225/2012- Carl Haglund) (vote)


Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to ask for a roll-call vote onparagraph 4, because it refers to the request for the Commission to assess the possibilityof establishing fish stock recovery areas.


7.10. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (A7-0253/2012 - Nikolaos Salavrakos)(vote)


Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, there is a roll-call on the original text. It was ourintention that this should be on the amendments which concern the rebuilding of fishstocks and to ask the House to agree to a roll-call vote on the amendment.


8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio report (A7-0244/2012)

Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, with freedom of movement and naturally alsothe development of technology, crime has become increasingly cross-border in nature.There are no longer any borders for criminals, so of course there should not be any bordersfor our police, prosecuting authorities and the protection of our citizens, either. If youbecome the victim of a crime, then naturally you should have a range of fundamentalrights, regardless of where in Europe you happen to be. As a victim you must always havethe right to information, interpretation, legal assistance and, not least, protection fromcriminals. As from today, the EU’s citizens have these rights. However, this is only one stepalong the way to a safer society for our citizens, and therefore we will be continuing thefight for even stronger police cooperation.

Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, victims of crimes in the European Union all toooften do not report them because they are afraid to or they lack confidence in the authorities.

The report that has been adopted today aims to strengthen the rights of crime victims andprovide them with the same level of protection, assistance and access to justice anywherein the EU. It pays particular attention to those victims who are most at risk of sufferingfurther harm or intimidation during criminal proceedings.

It is particularly important to grant the status of victim not only to persons harmed by anoffence, but also to family members and persons who die following an offence.

Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very much in favourof this report, not least because when I was a regional councillor in Piedmont a few years


ago I was personally involved in drafting a regional law providing for a number of benefits,recognitions and services for victims of crime.

In my view, the European Union and the Member States are right to recognise victims ofcrime as people to be protected and helped through their immediate psychological recoveryprocess, in particular, and also through any criminal proceedings, until their lives are fullyback to normal.

All victims should have the same rights, be treated with respect and dignity, safe from arepetition of the crime, and have access to support services, justice and compensation.Special attention is required in cases involving children, victims of sexual abuse, andparticularly heinous crimes.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I am particularly happy that we haveadopted the Directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and I verymuch support the EPP rapporteur, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio.

From now on, women suffering domestic violence, children trapped in trafficking, innocentvictims of terrorism and victims of all crimes will be able to have the same rights, regardlessof the Member State where the crime has been committed and their nationality. We haveset up clear common standards to ensure that each victim is treated with respect, dignityand without discrimination across the European Union. I welcome in particular the attentiongiven to children and to people with special needs and that there will be an individualassessment of their vulnerability so as not to create first or second-class victims.

In the Stockholm Programme we promised to have a Europe that is a community of rightsfor all citizens. This is a significant step in that direction and I look forward to continuingto work with colleagues to make it a reality.

Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, the free movement of people is a fundamentalright, which is safeguarded for all citizens of the European Union. The enjoyment of rightsand freedoms means that ordinary people can also travel in the EU, seeking work, educationor a better standard of living.

Free movement is one of the EU’s greatest achievements and its basic purpose is to offerequal opportunities and equal treatment to all EU citizens. Equality also means that all EUcitizens are entitled to the same rights, support and protection if they become victims ofcrime in the European Union. This is not just about establishing common minimumstandards, but also about the same level of protection for victims of crime in the EU. It isalso about boosting the confidence that EU citizens have in national judicial systems.Overall, the directive will encourage greater confidence in judicial systems in all MemberStates. That is why I am happy to support the Commission’s proposal for minimumstandards on the rights and protection of victims of crime, and support for them.

Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, in the current political situation, manypeople have a deep scepticism about the ability of the European Union to resolve problems.The directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection ofvictims of crime is proof of the fact that opinions of this kind do not always reflect reality.On the contrary, it shows how much problem-solving ability we have. Firstly, this groupof people is being given the same access to the law and the same level of support throughoutthe entire European Union. This represents a major step forward for Europe and, mostimportantly, for those affected. It provides important support for the victims of crime.These are generally people who have got into a difficult situation through no fault of their


own. By providing professional help which does not stop at national boundaries we aresending out an important signal to these people that they are not being abandoned bysociety. Overall, this is a very good day for Europe.

Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, being the victim of a crime can be a very horrendousexperience, but for many reporting a crime and dealing with the authorities after theexperience can be equally, and often more, traumatic. This is magnified even further if thecrime happens abroad.

So I very much welcome this directive, which will put in place minimum standards andprotect the rights of victims of crime across the EU. Victims will be entitled to linguisticassistance and, importantly, access to easily accessible and confidential support servicesfree of charge. The particular circumstances need to be taken into consideration. Theirgender, race or sexual orientation need to be considered too.

The directive will help victims of crime feel safer, not just in their own country butthroughout the EU. Importantly, this directive will help citizens of the EU gain trust inpolicing systems and judicial systems across the European Union.

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this report will ensure that citizens whobecome victims of crime when travelling in another EU country are given the help therethat is needed. It gives victims of crime access to information as well as practical andemotional support. In the past, foreign victims have faced obstacles in obtaining faircompensation or they have been left without proper help and protection.

These minimum standards will make it easier for victims to receive help and, moreimportantly, access to justice. Basic procedural minimums are a more effective way ofsecuring victims’ rights than a set of rigid regulations. This is a well-balanced approach todealing with a problem which affects so many people in all Member States.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I fully support establishing minimum EUstandards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. An example would bethe right to receive a copy of your police report at a police station in your native language.The definition of a victim will also be broadened to encompass the family of a person whois murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack.

In the event of a court case, the directive also encourages Member States to allow familiesfor the first time to speak in court, even if they are not a witness, if their statement doesnot interfere directly with the proceedings.

I am particularly drawn to the directive’s proposal for a children’s rights package. This willestablish a set of minimum standards for child victims, an example of which is the rightto be interviewed by a video link and not in the court room. The recent terrible unsolvedFrench Alps murders, leaving two orphaned British children, provide an example of potentialbeneficiaries of these measures.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I believe that victims should be able to benefit fromminimum levels of rights without discrimination across the EU. The Stockholm Programmestates that a more integrated and coordinated approach to victims is needed. This directiveis part of a package of measures which will help improve legislation in this area, ensuringthat victims of crime have effective rights in practice.


I am particularly pleased to have had the opportunity to support the children’s rightspackage initiated by my colleague Timothy Kirkhope. There are lots of very importantrights for victims enshrined in this directive. But I feel rather disappointed, particularlyhaving listened this morning to many people here extolling the virtues of Europe, that weare in the position where we have to impose pan-European direction on this.

Surely, as Member States, we are in a position where these basic rights will be afforded ourcitizens without that sort of compulsion.

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal becauseit will strengthen and give more substance to the rights of the victims in the EuropeanUnion and will improve their protection throughout the Union. We have finally setminimum standards for handling the victims of crimes, irrespective of their nationality orthe place where the crime was perpetrated.

This directive provides for the first time a unified definition of a victim to be used in all EUcountries. This definition was broadened to include people such as the victims’ close family.This directive will increase the confidence of EU citizens in the area of justice and they willfeel they are equally protected in all Member States.

I call on the Member States to develop greater cooperation and coordination to protectand provide support for the victims of crime.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, can I very briefly say that I welcome the adoptionof this directive on the rights of victims. I believe this a very important piece of work andI would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work. As you may be aware, where I comefrom in Northern Ireland, we suffered decades of violence from terrorists and it has had avery deep effect on the families of victims.

We all hope that thankfully that is well now behind us, but it should never be forgotten,and nor should the impact of what occurred and its effect on many people. I am pleasedtherefore too that this report specifically refers to the victims of terrorism and cruciallyrecognises that their families are victims and as such are entitled to rights and support.

I note that national governments have three years to transpose this directive in nationallaw and I would urge the UK to do this as swiftly as possible, particularly since – in myopinion – Europe has for once understood the definition of a victim an awful lot betterthan my own people in Northern Ireland have done.

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, generally speaking, the role andneeds of victims in criminal proceedings are not yet taken into account sufficiently in thelegal systems of the Member States. The current situation shows that in many cases victimsare not treated with respect and dignity, they are not sufficiently protected or supported,and do not have effective access to justice, compensation and redress for the harm suffered.

It is unacceptable for the level of support granted to a victim to vary depending on theMember State in which that person suffered the harm. Mutual recognition can workeffectively only in a climate of trust, in which the judicial authorities, as well as all partiesinvolved in the criminal proceedings can trust the appropriateness of rules in each MemberState and be certain they are applied correctly. This is why I support this report and I firmlybelieve that, once this Directive is adopted, the situation of victims will greatly improvethroughout the European Union, and that victims of crime will benefit from the samerights and basic services in all Member States.


Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, a single thief acting alone is an outlaw but a gangof thieves who manage to control the institutions of the state find that they can compelthe law to their service. A counterfeiter is sent to prison; a central banker who debauchesthe currency is rewarded with a knighthood. A blackmailer who extorts is convicted; ataxman who does the same thing is supported by the taxpayers whom he is fleecing. Akidnapper who holds us to ransom expects a long prison sentence; a government ministerwho holds us in oppression expects to retire with a healthy pension.

The story of democracy, the story of human progress, is holding to account those whogovern us and preventing that systemic looting, but now at European level our lootershave escaped the bounds of public opinion and so, particularly in the peripheral states, wesee generational poverty being inflicted without any recourse from the victims. On the

20th anniversary of my own country’s escape from the ERM let me assure the peoples ofEuropean that there is an alternative, there is a way out: running your own affairs in yourown interest and growing your own way back to growth.

Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, I think the issue of the rights of victims of crime isone that probably united most of the House. We can all feel sympathy for the victims ofcrime, particularly when the measures that are being proposed seek to afford victims in aMember State the rights of the citizens of that Member State. I think it is important thatwe look at these issues, but actually I also think there should be a word of caution.

Of course it is all too easy to harmonise when it comes to something that we all agree on.It is all too easy to say that it is harmonised because we all care about victims of crime. Weall care about children, particularly those children who are the victims of crime, but at thesame time we have to be careful that this is not the beginning of the slippery slope to moreand more harmonisation of rights. At the beginning we all believe and support these moves,but actually as we go down that slippery slope, at what point does it become an impositionon the rights of Member States?

Pat the Cope Gallagher report (A7-0146/2012)

Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the four reports that have been adoptedtoday clearly demonstrate Parliament’s desire to make a decisive contribution to supportingthe fisheries sector, which is currently beset by major difficulties.

I voted in favour because I feel there is a vital need for coordinated action, just as I alsobelieve that an approach involving regionalisation is absolutely essential in order to tailorthis action to the needs of individual areas. We need to trim down the industry, expandmarket opportunities, enable fleets to modernise and ensure that there is real modernisationand growth in the sector, in which environmental sustainability must go hand in handwith economic profitability.

We await the framework regulation and finally the implementing dossier on the fundingfor the further acceleration that we think is needed.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I give my full support for measures againstcountries that fish unsustainably and threaten marine resources. This is in keeping withmy party’s environmental policy to encourage sustainable food production and enhancethe resilience of the whole food chain, namely the fish industry, in so doing.

The political impetus behind these proposals can be attributed in part to the latestinternational disputes over fisheries such as the unsustainable fishing of mackerel stocks.


This proposal also sees ‘associated stocks’ being redefined for the first time as a new umbrellaterm to encompass any fish belonging to the same ecosystem that prey upon that stockor that are preyed upon by the common stock in question.

With regard to the imposing of these restrictions or actions, I also agree strongly with theobligation to consider and evaluate the environmental, trade, economic and social effectsof the measures in order to ensure that they are reasonable, just and proportionate andthat they are fully compatible with the EU’s WTO international trade obligations.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, at a time when we are reforming the common fisheriespolicy and requiring our own fishermen to ensure that their activities are sustainable, it isfair to ensure where possible a level playing field for fisheries imports.

I supported this proposal enthusiastically because it enables the European Union to takeaction against those countries that fish unsustainably. I very much support measures inthe text whereby we will be able to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish intothe Union from third countries.

But I want to make a particular point. One of the reasons why I was so enthusiastic tosupport this is that it is time that we called on the Commission to take note of Parliament’swill. This was a strong vote in favour of the report. They must take note of Parliament’swill on this issue and they must make sure that they find a way of making sure that we arecompatible with our international obligations, not finding lots of reasons to tell us whywe will not be. The rapporteur and the work he has done on this issue deserve that kindof respect.

Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour and strongly support this report. Weneed to ensure cooperation between EU states in order to establish truly sustainable fishingpractices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use. We need to be able toimpose sanctions on non-EU states which are responsible for measures and practices thatlead to over-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreedmanagement measures.

We, as a Parliament – and this has been repeatedly said – need to send a strong politicalmessage to the Commission. That message is that we will no longer accept or do businesswith countries which continue to allow unsustainable fisheries. Otherwise only ourfishermen will lose out. All imports of fish and fishery products of all species originatingfrom countries allowing non-sustainable fishing practices should be banned and bannedimmediately.

Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, at first glance, it does, of course, seem very logicaland sensible only to remove those fish from the world’s oceans which have been replacedevery year. However, we know that people are not always sensible, in particular in caseswhere they can delegate or hand over responsibility. Therefore, it is extremely importantfor us to come to an agreement on catch quotas and on protecting fish stocks all over theworld.

In order for this to function effectively, we also need to deal with those countries which,for whatever reason, are not prepared to comply with the requirements and the limits.Therefore, I am hugely grateful to the rapporteur for this report and have, of course, votedin favour of it. It is now up to the Commission to put in place suitable measures to allowus to negotiate with these countries and to make it clear to them that sustainable fishing


is extremely important. It is not only about us or about the fish, but about the generationsthat follow us.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because theEuropean Union’s efforts to achieve sustainable fishing activities are not sufficient as longas they are isolated. The EU must make third countries follow its example and carry outsustainable fishing activities. The overexploitation of fish stocks, such as mackerel, mayhave global impact. This impact is felt beyond the borders of the State exploiting the fishstocks and has long-term consequences on marine biodiversity.

Imposing trade barriers on countries carrying out non-sustainable exploitation practicescould be the EU’s answer in order to ensure a responsible behaviour on their part. Theadoption of such measures should be preceded by the evaluation of their environmental,trade, economic and social effects.

Struan Stevenson report (A7-0217/2012)

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted with my group in favour of the reportwhich reforms the Common Fisheries Policy with regard to the organisation of the markets.

The first positive change is that discards will be reduced by stipulating that producerorganisations should actively promote discard avoidance. Another merit is the modifiedobjectives of producer organisations, which now include promoting the creation of jobsin coastal and rural areas, as well as providing vocational training to motivate young peopleto enter the sector. Crucially, another amended objective of producer organisations is theassurance that a fair standard of living will be implemented for those in the fisheries sector.

Finally the amended report also ensures that clearer information should be given to theconsumer on the origin of the fisheries products. It also, notably, calls for the developmentof an EU-wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products.

Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I voted against this report. The CMOwas established in the 1970s with the supposed objective of ensuring stability and a fairincome for fishermen. These goals were never reached. Instead, fishermen saw onlydecreasing returns and an industry being strangled.

I also voted against the Haglund Report which supports Individual Transferable Quotas.This is a neo-liberal project which would result in the privatisation of a natural resource.From now on, small and medium-sized fishing enterprises will decline further, with largefleets coming to the fore and coastal communities being destroyed.

The Socialist Party demands that small fishermen, workers in the industry and coastalcommunities be centrally positioned in the management of the fishing industry. Withplanning and democratic management of quotas, people working in the industry couldbe assured of a fair income, and sustainable use of this vital resource could be ensured aswell.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report is the first of the three legislative proposalsto reform the common fisheries policy. It aims to provide market incentives to supportmore sustainable practices, and to enhance the market potential of EU products. It is vital,of course, to promote a more sustainable fisheries sector but we must at the same timesupport fishermen.


The role of producer organisations (POs) cannot be underestimated in this equation, andI welcome the introduction of clear objectives for them to ensure that they promoteprofitable fishing and reject profligate fishing. I was very pleased to see the requirementsthat POs promote the avoidance of by-catch and the handling of remaining unwantedcatch in a responsible way, not distorting the market.

Lastly, I was also pleased to support the amendment tabled by my colleague StruanStevenson requesting that the Commission introduce an EU-wide eco-label for sustainablefisheries practice. I very much support all of these aims and I hope we will be able to makesure that our new common fisheries policy does the job we want it to do.

Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to commend the rapporteur, StruanStevenson, on producing an excellent report, after a lot of dialogue and a lot of amendments,but finally we have an agreement.

I am particularly happy with the role given to the producer organisations in Articles 6 to31. I also welcome the common marketing standards in Articles 32 and 34, which willlead to greater efficiencies in terms of marketing.

As regards the stabilisation of the markets, the Commission is finally recognising the hugeprice volatility in the sector. We now at last have a list of fish which can be stored byfreezing, salting, drying or pasteurisation in order to be withheld and released onto themarket at a later date.

The minimum standards of consumer information to enable consumers to make aninformed choice in Article 42 and 46 are also extremely welcome. Information is the keyfor consumers to make a choice.

Finally I welcome the market intelligence provisions of Article 49. This is needed in orderto better understand the supply chain and understand market trends.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because the Commission’sproposal should provide a high degree of predictability for producer organisations. Thecommon organisation of the market in fisheries products is a basic component of thecommon fisheries policy. Making fully informed product choices is of great importancefor the European consumer. The use of an eco-label for fisheries products offers thepossibility of providing clear information on the ecological sustainability of these products.

In this respect, a full consistency between the common fisheries policy and the commontrade policy is required. Imported products entering the EU market should comply withthe same requirements and marketing standards that the European Union producers haveto meet.

Elmar Brok report (A7-0252/2012)

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ECR accepts the reality of the CFSP and theneed to engage with it. However, the CFSP must always remain subject to unanimity in theCouncil as my group, the ECR, does not want to see the EU undermining nationalsovereignty in this key area or totally usurping the role of national foreign ministries. Thatexplains why my group abstained and could not support all aspects of the Brok report.

We have as a group engaged constructively with the External Action Service, though notuncritically, particularly over their unreasonable demand for a budget increase in thisclimate of austerity. I have to say that in spite of the huge crisis in the Union over the euro,


the EEAS is actually up and running and that has to be recognised. The EEAS must, however,in this climate of austerity prove its value added, both in savings to the Member States,particularly the smaller ones with lower bilateral representations, and show that Statessuch as my own, the United Kingdom, which are major international players, can see theirnational interests both protected and better projected through using the new EEAS service.One good example of this is the new European Compound in Juba, South Sudan, whereall EU Member States are signing up to using this as a joined-up operation.

The ECR was also pleased to note a positive reference to Taiwan in the report and inparticular Taiwan’s commitment to peace and security in the East Asia region. Thiscommitment has been further reinforced by President Ma’s East China Sea Peace Initiative,a courageous and commendable effort to resolve the long-standing territorial disputebetween Taiwan, China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands. Recentlytensions have suddenly escalated with China, I think it was yesterday, sending patrol boatsin response to the purchase of the islands by the Japanese Government. President Ma’simaginative and visionary plan, analogous to what happens over the Antarctic Treaty,deserves in the view of my Group, the EU’s full support.

Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, which isan annual report, a position paper and, above all, a document that should reflect a vision.Of course, it follows the European Union’s typical line of approach, without bringing agreat number of new elements to it, but to me it was important that as part of the securitycomponent of the European policy, the rapporteur addressed certain topics of significancefor both the future of a common policy, a sensitive topic in this area, and the visibility andstrength of the European Union beyond its borders. I am referring to the fact that thestrengthening of the European External Action Service’s capacity to act with regard toconflict prevention has been welcomed. I think it is very important to assign a substantialamount of money in the future budget for this purpose.

Secondly, an issue I would like to point out is that of the arms trade. A common positionfor the negotiations of the future treaty is the key to success in this area.

Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this report and I would like brieflyto explain why. Firstly, I share the minority view expressed by Mr Meyer and Ms Lösing inthe related report. This is actually all about militarising the Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP). The goal is to find an intervention strategy and the separation from NATO,which for me as an Austrian is not acceptable, is no longer really recognisable.

However, I also believe that the strategy on Turkey is the wrong one, including the call toopen further chapters in the membership negotiations. The fact that the policy on Libyahas failed has been made clear today following the dreadful attack in Benghazi. The policyon Libya has failed completely, but the report describes a very different situation. Finally,the policy on Syria is also wrong. It focuses on intervention and on putting pressure onRussia and China, which are supposed to be our partners. All of this is because certaininterests in Syria need to be taken into consideration. There has been a complete failure torecognise that the rebels are speaking Saudi Arabian dialects. Not a single word has beensaid about Saudi Arabia. The report is one-sided and, therefore, I have voted against it.

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for Mr Brok’s report,although I am well aware of the serious difficulties and obvious limitations of the EU’sforeign policy.


I would like to highlight two aspects that cause me particular concern. The first is the armstrade. We set ourselves the aim of non-proliferation and disarmament, but at the sametime our legislation to control arms exports is totally inadequate. What we say we want todo, therefore, is then denied and contradicted by our behaviour.

The second area in which our limitations are all too evident is conflict prevention, whichought to make it possible to consolidate peace. The events in the Mediterranean – whichhave been inappropriately termed the Arab Spring – show that we were not quick enoughto grasp what was happening in those countries, and the Union’s foreign policy was unableto prevent situations from developing that were really terrible for millions of people.

I hope our foreign policy will be more effective in future than it has been in recent months.

Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, following the adoption of theLisbon Treaty, the importance of our common foreign and security policy was supposedto increase. In my opinion progress in this field is very poor and slow. There are manyintentions and differing approaches. Unfortunately, there are very few hard facts. Anextreme manifestation of this weakness is the activity of the battle groups in Europe. Manyyears have gone by but so far, these groups have not been used. One might say that thebattle groups look very nice, but only on paper. We are making a mistake in Europe indevoting so little effort to military cooperation. There should be significantly broadercooperation in joint planning and in conducting joint military missions and operations.Military action should be connected, and cooperation in the areas of military research andindustry should be much broader. I strongly encourage the European Commission to takemore action in this field.

Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, I abstained from voting. The report contains arange of important arguments, regarding issues such as better use of the budget for thecommon foreign and security policy and diversification of energy sources. The criticalposition of Brussels in its relationship with Moscow is undisputed, as is the strategicsignificance of the Eastern Partnership. We also managed to draft a compromise provisionregarding Taiwan, recognising its commitment to the process of maintaining stability inthe region. Fundamentally, however, the report proposes that the role of the EuropeanExternal Action Service should be expanded and identifies common defence as one of theobjectives. I should like to point out that there is still a disproportionately small numberof Polish nationals employed in the European foreign service. In addition, this documentcalls on Member States to demand a permanent seat for the EU in a reformed UN SecurityCouncil. I cannot agree with these proposals.

Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I voted for the adoption of this report, sinceit is, in my opinion, a strategic and ambitious document. In my view, recognising thedevelopment of the Neighbourhood Policy as a key objective of the common foreign andsecurity policy is legitimate and appropriate. I welcome the emphasis on the importanceof cooperation with the countries of the Eastern Partnership.

I also hope that, despite the worrying developments in the countries of the SouthernNeighbourhood, an appropriate balance will be maintained, and that the EasternNeighbourhood will still be treated as seriously as it deserves. Finally, I would like toemphasise that the appeal to the High Representative to ensure sufficient funding is availableto support additional missions to monitor the elections in Ukraine is very necessary andexceptionally important.


Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, like many of my colleagues who participatedin this part of our debate, I supported Elmar Brok’s report on the common foreign andsecurity policy. The new position of foreign and security policy in the Treaty of Lisbongrants us new prerogatives. At the same time, however, I would like to note that manyevents connected inter alia with the numerous crises, including the economic crisis, haveweakened interest in our neighbourhood partners, be they inside or outside Europe.

Specifically, the Arab Spring countries, such as Egypt, are drawing up new constitutions.We are not showing sufficient interest in what shape this will take. As to the EasternPartnership, we face elections in Ukraine and in Georgia, and conflicts which have reacheda deadlock such as the Transnistrian conflict or that in Nagorno-Karabakh are awaitingresolution, as are the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I am sensing what I might termfatigue, even in relation to matters relating to Ukraine, because we have been unable toresolve everything. In my opinion, Parliament should not reduce or alter its concern inrelation to neighbourhood issues. Neighbourhood issues are very important to us.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – Mr President, I too have supported Mr Brok’s report, as tacklingglobal challenges can only be achieved by means of joined-up approaches. The LisbonTreaty has provided the EU with a set of tools enabling it to speak with a single voice.However, a series of shortcomings persist as regards the common foreign and securitypolicy. The strengthening of relations between the European External Action Service, theCommission and Member States plays an essential role. This is the only way we can achievea synergy in the efficient implementation of the external action.

As regards the future of the CFSP, I believe the European Neighbourhood Policy calls forspecial attention, with a focus on its eastern dimension. The Eastern Partnership shouldact as an essential means of promoting the values of the EU in Eastern Europe and offeringstates such as the Republic of Moldova a genuine European perspective.

Carl Haglund report (A7-0225/2012)

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, since 2002 the Commission has been obliged,under a Council regulation, to report on the conservation and sustainable exportation ofmarine, i.e. fishery, resources and on fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile zone bythe end of 2011. The most recent report states that Member States’ efforts to enhanceconservation and to rebuild fish stocks are insufficient and that little progress has beenmade on the reduction of fleet capacity.

I am in favour of this report as it states that, in order to improve the system of fishingrestrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters, a concrete definition of over-capacity must beestablished at EU level, regional definitions must be accommodated and, finally, efficientdata collection mechanisms with long-term management plans for all EU fisheries mustbe enforced rigorously.

If this, which is part of a three-pronged new legislative package, still fails, then in my viewthe whole of the CFP must be questioned and perhaps should be abandoned and repatriatedto the Member States. So this is the last chance to get this thing right for our fishermen inthe European Union.

Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I also voted for this report even though I am alwaysvery wary when I hear the word ‘conservation’, as we have a tendency to think of theenvironment without the needs of the fishing community. This report is different, however.It is clear that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks


have been insufficient and that there is equally little progress on the reduction of fleetcapacity.

The system of fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters was working well and Ithink it could potentially be extended to a regime of 10 to 20 miles to more effectivelyachieve the objectives. Our fishermen need to be better informed as to why certainrestrictions might be put in place, as very often self-policing is the only realistic option;overfishing will not be addressed in a proper manner otherwise. We need to interact withRACs and other relevant stakeholders for effective conservation. Furthermore, a mechanismat EU level to compensate fishermen affected by economic or social repercussions as wellas by ecosystem protection measures could be established. This is something I wouldstrongly support.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report, as the existing fishingquota system has brought to the spotlight the short-term concerns of the Member States,showing that the sustainability of the fisheries sector has become of secondary importance.Regionalising the common fisheries policy should be considered a solution for addressingthe current shortcomings. The Commission must initiate long-term plans which shouldtake into account, on the one hand, the needs of the Member States, and on the other hand,the need to preserve fish stocks.

Around 60% of the European fish stocks are being exploited beyond the maximumsustainability limit. This overexploitation is detrimental to other species as well, such asthe dolphins in the Black Sea. Very often, they accidentally get caught in the fishing nets.In this regard, I have initiated a written declaration on the need to set up measures for theprotection of the dolphins in the Black Sea.

Nikolaos Salavrakos report (A7-0253/2012)

Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, reforming the common fisheries policy isa necessary decision that cannot be put off any longer. We fish too much in Europe, andwe often fish badly.

If we want to safeguard marine biological resources, conserve the marine ecosystem andensure the survival of the fisheries sector, we have to give overexploited fish stocks timeto recover. However, the view that prevailed in this Chamber today by only a few voteswas the blinkered view of those who want to maintain the status quo and continue tocondemn our seas and the whole fisheries sector to certain death.

That is why I voted against the report on the reform of the common fisheries policy. Weneed a well-thought-out reform that allows for the sustainable exploitation of marineresources and not a watered-down text that offers no future prospects. We need multiannualmanagement plans and a precise timetable, as well as a network of protected areas.

I welcome sanctions against those Member States that do not abide by the rules, carry outinadequate controls, exceed their quotas and do not provide reliable data. Greater protectionfor the fish in our seas means more jobs for European fishermen, but there are some peoplein this Chamber who have not yet understood that.

Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, common fisheries policy reform, as a package,will now hopefully mean the Commission will be encouraged, in a non-binding way, tostrengthen measures for the conservation of marine biological resources. This is very muchin line with my party’s ambitious 10-year biodiversity strategy.


Hopefully this will also ensure socio-economic sustainability – which is in keeping withour commitment to build a more responsible economic model and to improve job prospectsin the fisheries and aquaculture industries – and strengthen regionalisation. This is inharmony with our national aim in the United Kingdom to create a fairer and more balancedeconomy, where new businesses and economic opportunities are more evenly sharedbetween regions and industries.

The common fisheries policy now either needs to be urgently and radically reformed andmodernised or, frankly, abandoned altogether as an EU competence.

Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I am pleased that this motion for a resolution wasadopted by the House. It is important that we have a coherent and clear strategy goingforward so that fishermen can plan with better certainty for the investment that they putin.

The EU’s aquaculture sector, if properly managed on the basis of global sustainability,could, as the motion says, make a greater contribution to the needs of European societyin terms of food security and quality, employment, environmental protection and themaintenance of dynamic and varied fishing and coastal communities.

Finally, as regards Ireland, I am particularly pleased that the resolution calls on theCommission to investigate the reduction in fish stocks owing to natural predators such assea lions, seals and cormorants, and to draw up and implement management plans toregulate these populations in cooperation with the affected and relevant Member States.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I also voted for this report, because theEuropean fisheries reform must take into consideration the actual situation in each MemberState. Therefore, the Commission should carry out a series of studies on the fish stocksavailable throughout the EU. Estimates as to the sustainable exploitation of these stocksare required. These estimates should offer a timetable for reducing exploitation, therebyhelping restore the stocks in a relatively short time.

It is particularly important that these studies be adapted to each Member State and takeinto account their actual fishing capacities. However, the possibility of regionalising thecommon fisheries policy must be looked into more closely. This would ensure a muchmore efficient use of the funds allocated to fishing activities.

Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, we have heard concern about the fishing industryfrom the PPE Members, from the Irish, from the Spanish and the Italians and others. I donot think they know what they have been doing today. We know we are overfishing, weknow our fish stocks are depleted and yet they voted today for an amendment which sayswe shall not rebuild our fish stocks. Let me repeat that: this House voted by a majority ofjust five for a PPE amendment, signed by Jim Higgins and others, which says we shall notattempt to rebuild our fish stocks.

I am sure they did that for the best possible reasons – give the fishing industry anotheryear, do not make it too difficult by cutting the quotas – but only when you rebuild fishstocks, give a bit of room for the fish to breathe and to grow and to multiply, that is theonly way in which the fishing industry is going to have a secure future. I do not know whatour citizens out there will think. They will think the people over there are utterly mad tohave done that. Of course we need the fish stocks rebuilding. It is utterly mad. They havetwo months in which to rethink before we have to consider the legislation and vote for itfinally.


Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report provides an overview of Parliament’sresponse to the Commission’s suggestions for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Isupport the general thrust of the measures for conservation in marine biology.

But this own-initiative report has given us just a little peek into how the arguments aregoing to be played out in the coming months. We have just seen a little bit of it now. Therewill be arguments and compromises over words. We have seen it here in the amendmentattempting to change wording from levels above maximum sustainable yield (MSY) toclose to MSY.

There will be the liberal use of euphemisms, such as ‘renewal’, when what we are reallytalking about is giving public money to replace boats, making them bigger with highercapacity and not necessarily doing anything for the conservation of fish stocks.

I am committed to working on common fisheries policy reform towards sustainability,but unfortunately, due to the amendments, I was not able to support this report.

Written explanations of vote

Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio report (A7-0244/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report because it aims tostrengthen the rights of victims in the European Union. I consider the proposal to createa common set of rules in relation to victims of crime throughout the Member States to beof the utmost importance and usefulness, as rights such as the right to be heard, the rightto information, and the right to understand and to be understood are essential, as is accessto aid for the victim, the easier identification of vulnerable victims and protection forvictims during questioning processes or criminal prosecution. Such a set of rules shouldbe capable of increasing confidence in the criminal justice system for all of the MemberStates, while also ensuring greater judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual understandingand the promotion of fundamental European values. For all of these reasons, I support thisproposal in favour of the victims of crime, who deserve more aid, assistance and informationfrom the competent authorities.

Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to Eurostat data, 30 million crimesare committed against persons or property in the European Union every year, and manyof them are not reported. In fact, as the report states, ‘all too often victims do not report acrime, due to fear, uncertainty, a lack of trust or information’. Moreover, the Commissionestimates that the overall cost of crime amounts to EUR 233 billion, and that is due notonly to the damage caused by the crimes themselves but also to the lack of appropriatesupport services to help victims recover and cope with legal proceedings. I strongly supportthe work done by the Commission and my fellow Members, because winning every citizen’strust in European justice will require a comprehensive and efficient European legalframework. An initial major step forward was taken on 13 December last year when thedirective on the European protection order was adopted.

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The Greek Communist PartyMEPs abstained on the report and the Commission proposal, because they promote theharmonisation and homogenisation of basic provisions of national criminal law at EUlevel, thereby restricting the sovereign rights of the Member States. This forms part of theEU strategy on a ‘single area of freedom, security and justice’, the aim of which is toeffectively protect the exploitative system, by beefing up repressive mechanisms andrestricting grassroots freedoms and democratic rights. Criminal prosecution and the terms


on which penal justice is dispensed come within the sovereign competence of each MemberStates and, under a series of euro-unifying acts, are gradually and methodically being cededto the euro-unifying institutions. For that reason, issues are being selected that touch a sorespot with the workers, such as child protection and protection of victims of crime, in orderto establish the apparent need for common Union criminal law in the minds of the people.Furthermore, the provisions of the directive that allow victims to testify without beingphysically present in court are dangerous. Provisions such as this promote the‘anti-terrorism’ legislation of the EU and its Member States, by eliminating some of thedefendant’s fundamental rights of defence, such as the facility for the defence to test thereliability of the testimony in live proceedings.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report for a directiveon the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. This directive is aimed at defendingthe rights of victims as effectively as possible, providing victims and their family memberswith support and protection, and ensuring the protection of victims’ rights in criminalproceedings by providing them with clear information about the status of proceedingsand decisions taken in a language they understand. Harmonising these minimum standardswould boost EU citizens’ trust in their own judicial system and those of other MemberStates. I welcome the proposal to adopt a comprehensive European legal frameworkgranting victims, irrespective of their nationality or the place where the crime took place,rights to information, to interpretation and translation, to access victim support services,to avoid contact between victim and offender, the right to protection during questioningin a criminal investigation, and so on. I agree that a unified definition of victim should beprovided, which would grant the status of victim not only to the persons harmed by theoffence, but also to close family members.

Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Today the European Parliament voted with anoverwhelming majority for the Community directive concerning the protection of victims,which establishes minimum standards for Member States regarding the protection andsupport of victims. With this law, the Community justice system will be supplemented bya practical instrument that will have tangible effects for EU citizens as well, and as a resultvictims, and also their family members, can finally receive sufficient attention and support.I therefore voted in favour of the report.

Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which was presented onthe symbolic date of 11 September, and which allows us to remember and pay homage toall of the victims of crime, along with their families. Europe needs a common andtransparent justice system, and should ensure that the rights and protection of victims ofcrime are strengthened. This Directive constitutes an important step in the constructionof a European area of freedom, security and justice. All victims of crime, regardless of thedegree of damage suffered, are covered by this directive and should be offered support andprotection within their country, as well as in the other Member States. Closerinterinstitutional cross-border cooperation is essential, including the effective sharing ofinformation and best practice.

Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Winning people’s trust in the justice system is oneof the European Union’s top priorities.

I welcome the Commission’s overall concept of establishing minimum standards on therights, support and protection of victims of crime, provided that there is a greater focus


on support services for victims who are at a particularly high risk of suffering further harmor intimidation during criminal proceedings.

Recent estimates put the annual cost of crime to victims, employers, the state and societyas a whole in the EU at EUR 233 billion. These costs result not just from the crimesthemselves but from the lack of appropriate support for victims. I therefore welcome anyeffort to strengthen victim’s rights and to provide adequate support services, as these shouldbe seen as cost-effective measures that will positively contribute to facilitating the reportingof crimes, and to maintaining the sustainability of national justice and health systems.

I also consider it crucial that the directive provides a unified definition of ‘victim’ that grantsthe status of victim not only to the persons harmed by the offence, but also to close familymembers.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report becausesince the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 and the guidelines envisaged bythe Stockholm Programme, protection of victims of crime in the EU has been at the topof the EU’s agenda. Closer cooperation among Member States and better coordination ofactions in respect of victims would help to reduce the negative impact of crimes and therisk of secondary and repeated victimisation and stigmatisation. All victims, regardless oftheir origin or the harm suffered, should receive free support, and should be treated withrespect in a language they understand. According to the concept of victim, support shouldalso be offered to victims’ children and family members. Both during and after criminalproceedings, it is very important for all possible measures to be taken to protect victims’private and family life. In particular, attention should be drawn to the media, which oftenencourages victims to feel vulnerable and disoriented, and we therefore need to ensurethat the media pursue self-regulatory measures. In order to avoid unintended discrimination,persons with disabilities, women or children who have suffered a sexual assault, victimsof terrorism and organised crime, should not be defined as ‘vulnerable victims’, but as‘victims with specific needs’ and they should be guaranteed specific protection measures,such as provision of shelter, medical support, legal and psychological counselling.

Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report, which shows greatsensitivity in identifying possible ambiguities and gaps in the otherwise valid structure ofthe directive issued by the Commission.

In order to exercise their rights effectively, the victims of crime may need more specificmeasures and practical and operational tools, especially in certain areas and in the case ofvulnerable groups in society.

In this respect, I would highlight the comments included in the 2011 Europol report onhuman trafficking, which clearly points to economic weakness and cultural conditioningas decisive factors in facilitating the operations of criminal organisations. The victims ofthese operations are often children or women from countries marked by poverty and severepolitical instability, who are exploited in a wide range of activities from construction totextiles or even begging and prostitution.

We should not forget that long-term situations of cultural and social fragility in certainareas of our countries still foster problems such as domestic violence and crimes againstthe person, which are very rarely reported or pursued in court. Further measures providingphysical and personal protection, immediate support, and legal representation in criminal


and civil court cases and in relations with the police are therefore essential for the directiveto be properly implemented and for victims to be able to exercise their rights.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday 11 September 2012, I voted infavour of the report on the minimum standards on the rights, support and protection ofvictims of crime. The facts are alarming: Seventy-five million people are victims of crimeeach year in the European Union. There was therefore an urgent need to take action toimprove the support and assistance offered to victims of crime committed in anothercountry, who often face serious problems because of differences in culture, language andlegislation. I therefore support this directive, which provides, among other things, individualassessments, counselling and interpretation and translation services.

Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Strengthening the rights ofvictims of crime is inextricably linked with improving the situation of victims across theEU, regardless of their nationality or the place where the offence took place. Polish interestsin this matter coincide with those represented by other Member States of the EuropeanUnion. The costs of such a decision are certainly high for Europe, but human life isincomparably more valuable, which is why the actions taken byTeresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio met with my approval.

The work on the resulting document was challenging, not least because of differencesbetween the legal systems of the Member States, specifically in relation to the definitionof victims of crime. However, I welcome the final version of the document, which wasproduced as a result of compromises. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her effortsin preparing this report.

John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), inwriting. − UKIP voted against this report as it is yet more EU legislation over criminal law.The EU has no democratic right to legislate in this area and law-making should be left toelected politicians, accountable to the public, not unelected foreign Commissioners inBrussels. Of course, victims of crime should have the strongest rights and legal protection,but that is already afforded in UK law and “minimum standards” at EU level may well createa race to the bottom which makes our criminal justice system weaker. Withdrawal fromthe EU, European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice would be amajor step forward for victims of crime seeking swift and proportional justice.

Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − I entirely support this directive with thechanges proposed in this report, because it will strengthen the rights of victims all overEurope. I also voted in favour of this report because of the attention given to vulnerablecategories in society, like children and people with special needs. In the past, citizens ofthe EU residing or travelling in another EU Member State faced serious difficulties in gettingthe same level of protection as the nationals of that Member State. This directive will createa set of minimum common standards across the EU for victims of crime, creating a shorterand easier process for victims to receive the support they need. Ultimately, this will ensurethat each victim is treated with respect and dignity without any sort of discriminationanywhere in the EU.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I completely support the establishmentof minimum standards on the rights, support and protection for victims of crime, regardlessof their nationality or the place where the crime occurred. I believe that it is of the utmostimportance to strengthen the rights of victims in general, and in particular the rights ofvictims with specific needs and those who have suffered a particularly horrible experience,


as well as ensuring that the victim’s privacy is protected, regardless of the nature of thedamage suffered. I voted for this report for those reasons.

Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Confidence in justice is a priority for allcitizens, especially for victims whose rights are ignored or not respected. We urgently needa common and transparent justice system applicable in all EU Member States. This directiveis not limited to protecting victims’ rights and offering them support and protection, butwill also help European citizens gain trust in their national judicial system and that of theirEU neighbours by harmonising the minimum standards.

In order to assess in detail the circumstances and victims’ characteristics, we need to define‘gender-based violence’ and ‘violence in close relationships’. Gender-based violence refersto violence that is directed against a person because of his or her gender. Violence in closerelationships includes violence perpetrated by partners or ex-partners or other familymembers, leading to discrimination and violation of the fundamental freedoms of thevictims.

The particular situation of victims with specific needs must be taken into account whendesigning appropriate support services or training practitioners who are in immediatecontact with the victims. To this end, the directive includes a number of rights whichvictims should be assured of and thus fills a significant gap in human rights protection forvictims of crime.

Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This directive is part of a package of legislativemeasures aimed at strengthening the rights, support and protection of victims of crime inthe EU. The EU therefore needs an integrated and coordinated approach in this area inorder to ensure that the rights and needs of victims of crime are respected and enforced inevery aspect.

Minimum standards are therefore being established for cases in which crimes have beencommitted in the EU and for criminal cases arising in the EU, thus strengthening confidencein the criminal justice systems in all of the Member States, which should contribute tomore effective judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual confidence, and should alsopromote a culture of fundamental rights in the EU. I therefore support this initiative, whichshould allow existing instruments to be strengthened and complemented. The fact that anagreement has been reached at first reading is also positive. I now hope that the MemberStates can do their part and proceed to a timely transposition over the next three years.

Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the report on strengthening the rightsof the victims of crime across the EU. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in2009 and the guidelines towards a European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, theprotection of victims of any crime has been at the top of the EU’s agenda, as envisaged bythe Stockholm Programme.

A common and transparent justice system applicable in all EU Member States should relyon the victims’ need for support, including victims with specific needs or the so-calledvulnerable victims, such as the victims of gender-based violence, children and persons withdisabilities. In Europe more than one-fifth of all women have experienced physical violenceat least once during their adult lives and more than one-tenth have suffered sexual violenceinvolving the use of force. In this context, I believe it is crucial to criminalise all forms ofgender-based violence and provide their victims with special measures for prevention,protection and redress.


Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which aimsto strengthen the rights of our fellow citizens wherever they are in the Union. One of themeasures provided here is better cooperation between the competent authorities, whichmeans that the victims will no longer make poor exchanges of information which sometimesdelays their care. The European Union must above all serve our people and this report onceagain highlights the need to take their expectations into account.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report as it establishes minimumstandards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. I consider the proposalsrelating to support services for victims to be very important, as they run a particularly highrisk of suffering further harm, intimidation or repeated victimisation during criminalproceedings.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that it is only fair that, in a space that to allintents and purposes is a single area, there are common standards of protection for victimsthroughout the EU. This protection, as the Commission rightly advocates, should be appliedregardless of the nationality of the victim or the place where the crime was committed.Last December in this Parliament we adopted measures aimed at ensuring that all defendantshave certain basic rights during criminal cases. It is now time to give the same protectionto the victims of crimes, who often feel helpless for that very reason when faced with aprocess with which they are not familiar and do not understand, in particular when thatprocess takes place in a foreign country. Ensuring appropriate monitoring and protectionfor victims of crime is a matter of basic justice, and the Commission is on the right track.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose behind the creation of theEU was that all citizens should feel united in a project based around well-being and security.The free movement of people and goods can only be fully enjoyed if we feel that our rightsare safeguarded in any Member State in which we find ourselves. It is vital that we knowthat, no matter where we are, there is always someone looking after us. When a terroristattack occurs, identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to trial is a major concern.Everything revolves around the criminal. International organisations often sponsor thedefence of terrorists and defend the rights of prisoners. However, most of the victims andtheir families are forgotten. Apart from being unjust, this is also inhumane. I welcome thepresentation of this proposal, which clarifies the rights of citizens as victims of crimesincluding gender violence, trafficking, rape and terrorism in any EU Member State. I wouldcongratulate the rapporteurs on the excellent work that they have carried out on behalf ofthe European public, in particular those who, for whatever reason – and it could happento any one of us – may be victims. This is how a Europe of citizens should be constructed:as a Europe that does not abandon us when we are vulnerable.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes the adoption of measuresto support and protect the victims of various kinds of violence against people. Domesticviolence, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, human trafficking,exploitation through prostitution, sexual and psychological harassment, female genitalmutilation, and many others, are some of the forms of violence that are addressed here. Italso refers to the need for expert professionals to be involved in these processes of supportand protection. We appreciate these proposals, although we do not support the proposalsfor the transfer of more power to the EU through new legislation. That is why we abstained.We have a few other considerations. We also believe that it is necessary to safeguard theright to a hearing of minors, and we consider the possibility of the victim being able torequest the review of decisions made by the competent authorities to be fair.


Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this dossier as it is my beliefthat more should be done to safeguard the needs of victims in all Member States throughoutthe Union. Victims should be able to receive free support from the moment they havesuffered harm in order for their recovery from the trauma to be facilitated as much aspossible. This directive would establish minimum standards on the rights, support andprotection of victims, which would also ensure that quality support would be given. Furtherto this, I agree that victims’ rights not only need to be standardised throughout the wholeof the EU but victims must also be made aware of their rights within the framework. Forthis reason, information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and educationprogrammes and cooperation with civil society agencies should be established by meansof well orchestrated campaigns throughout EU Member States.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Antonyia Parvanova andTeresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio was adopted by a large majority (611 votes in favour) andI am pleased about that. This report seeks to strengthen the rights of victims in the EuropeanUnion. The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing anarea of freedom, security and justice, the cornerstone of which is the principle of mutualrecognition of judgements and other decisions made by the judicial authorities in civil andcriminal matters in the EU. The report stresses the need to improve support services tovictims who are exposed to intimidation or other harm during criminal proceedings.

Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) There are many different types of crime.However, they all have one thing in common – they expose people to violence. The proposalfor a directive defines the term victims of crime, and this is what we should focus ourattention on. It is very important that these persons should have confidence in theadministration of justice. For this reason, the European Union should introduce atransparent and uniform legal act which guarantees victims of crime, regardless of theirnationality or the country in which the offence took place, minimum protection of theirrights.

I agree with the rapporteur, that in order to take all possible steps to achieve greaterprotection of the rights of victims of crime, we should establish a European network forobservation and aid to victims with a view to setting up a database of statistics includingthe number, age, gender and nationality of the victims. This information could certainlybe used for further legislative work. It is also necessary for officers who deal with victimsof crime to be able to provide specialist support and assistance. I therefore agree that theyshould undergo training, in cooperation with non-governmental organisations, to helpthem deal with victims of crime in an appropriate way, having regard to the nature of thecrime.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − This proposed directive seeks to establishminimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. I welcomethe fact that it will create EU-wide basic standards as to what will happen if an EU citizenis the victim of crime anywhere in the EU. This means, for example, that EU citizens willhave the right to receive a copy of their crime statement at a police station in their ownlanguage, information on where to go if they need medical help or emotional support, etc.Also, for the first time, the definition of a victim has been broadened to include the familyof a person who is murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack. I also welcome the fact thatthe proposals include a ‘children’s rights package’, which will establish a set of minimumstandards for child victims.


Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The Commission’s proposal to draw up a newdirective will allow a comprehensive legal framework to be adopted that will offer all crimevictims, regardless of their legal status or recognition, the broadest possible protection onEU territory. The Commission extended the rights of all victims of any crime to theminimum standards across the EU, and gives all victims, irrespective of their nationalityor the place where the crime took place, the right to information, the right to understandand be understood, the right to interpreting and translation, and other rights, includingacknowledgement of the definition of victim for immediate family members. The newdirective should defend the rights of victims, but also create confidence among EU citizensin national and neighbouring judicial systems with regard to their harmonisation, and Ipersonally fully support these steps.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Around 15% of the EU population,namely approximately 75 million citizens are directly affected by the approximately30 million crimes (excluding minor crimes) committed annually (2007 Eurostat statistics).

Previous regulations for the protection of victims of crime, as well as their implementation,have so far been deficient. At the same time, the current legislations of Member States showgreat differences, while social dynamics create new regulatory requirements.

Given the above, I support this report because the proposed measures will: - ensure thatvictims and the persons accompanying them receive full and accurate information on theirrights and are treated with respect;

- provide legal, financial, psychological and practical support services to the victims;

- ensure communication in a language understood by the victims;

- ensure effective access to compensation and redress for the harm suffered.

I also believe that when establishing support measures, it would be useful to take intoaccount factors such as the age and the intellectual capabilities of victims, their personalcharacteristics, or the type of crime, which would render vulnerable the persons fallingoutside the categories established as generally vulnerable.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. With this report victims willhave the right to have access, through a dedicated office that will be created in each MemberState, to compensation and practical resources like medical support, legal advice,interpretation and translation. The legislation ensures that all measures are taken tominimise the difficulties faced by UK citizens who become victims of crime.

Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Human rights, and especially respect for therights of women and children, constitute fundamental values which must be respected. Ialso welcome this report in view of the vulnerability of children’s minds, and the furthervictimisation of victims, who would be badly affected by public judicial procedures, whichmight ultimately present a considerable barrier to the development of social relationshipswith the world around them. Crimes linked to child pornography extend beyond theboundaries of individual Member States in many cases, and therefore require the unified,cohesive regulation of this issue.

Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Ms Parvanova’s report on theminimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime because itdraws necessary attention to an issue that needs to be addressed by the EU. First and


foremost, the provisions will establish uniformity throughout the EU for victims’ rightsand protection, ensuring all victims of crime will be treated in the same way regardless ofthe Member State in which they are located. Notably, the report encourages the individualassessment of a victim’s needs, particularly those with specific needs, when determiningthe methodology of protection. It recognises the unique nature of gender-baseddiscrimination and urges particular protection for those who are repeat victims of crime.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the text on minimumstandards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime so that these standardsbenefit all victims in the EU and strengthen their protection. These include, in particular,providing support and protection for victims and their families through a confidentialsupport service set up by Member States to protect them against any retaliation. Access tosupport services such as counselling and practical support should be determined on thebasis of an individual assessment of their specific needs.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report. A common and transparentjustice system applicable in all EU Member States is an urgent need if the EU wants to fulfilthe Stockholm Programme. I am sure that this directive will not just defend victims’ rights,but also will help European citizens gain trust in their national judicial system and that oftheir EU neighbours by harmonising these minimum standards.

Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted firmly in favour of the report byMs Parvanova and Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, whereby Parliament formalised itscommitment to protecting the victims of crime. The initiative comes within – and roundsoff – the framework of the 2009 Stockholm Programme, which in 2011 was enhancedwith some important new legislative instruments: the directive on the European ProtectionOrder, the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children andchild pornography, and the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in humanbeings. The directive follows the framework decision of 2001, which introduced specificrequirements favouring victims. I welcome the extension of the definition to include therelatives of victims in a direct line as well. Lastly, I congratulate the rapporteurs on havingsucceeded in drafting a cross-cutting text that deals with all kinds of victim, while devotingspecial attention to ‘particularly vulnerable victims’.

Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. − This report is a step towards the creation of acommon EU framework for the minimum standards on the rights, support and protectionof victims of crime. There are 30 million criminal offences recorded annually in the EUeach year and all too often victims and their families are denied critical information andsupport in their time of need. We urgently need a fast and simple EU system for victims,which explains their rights to them, gives them information in their own language andprovides essential support to families and victims. This law is a tribute to campaigners likeGary Dunne’s parents and Maggie Hughes, who have turned personal tragedy into acommitment that others will not face the challenges they did. I hope this new law willensure that vulnerable young women are not subjected to additional trauma in order toget justice. I hope the British Government will maintain its opt-in to this law and not givein to the Eurosceptics, denying British victims of crime vital protection. Labour Euro MPsare committed to strengthening the rights of victims and therefore voted in favour of thisreport. We will continue our work to ensure that this new law lives up to campaigners’calls.


Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report turns proposals forminimum standards guaranteeing the rights of victims of crime into minimalist standards.The victim is no longer guaranteed the right to appeal a decision not to prosecute, exceptin cases of serious crime and where there has been no settlement. The option to start publicproceedings by instituting a civil action or by summoning the alleged offender to appearbefore a criminal court is not even considered. The victim is no longer guaranteed the rightto a written translation of all the documents relating to their case. As for reimbursementof legal fees, this is now random. I voted against.

Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Setting minimum standards in the area ofthe rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which the submitted proposal covers,will help protect crime victims throughout the European Union by creating generalstandards for guarantees of victims’ rights regardless of which Member State the victim isin. In my opinion, the basis of the victim protection system as a whole is the simplificationof the reporting of crimes, in which care must be taken to eliminate ‘repeat victimisation’.Many criminological and psychological studies point out the fact that many victims donot report the crimes committed against them due to concerns about an insensitive andoften impersonal, routine approach taken by law enforcement agencies. We cannottherefore merely state, with regret, that it is mainly victims of human trafficking, sexualabuse against children, sexual exploitation and pornography who are involved: we mustmove towards the adoption of concrete legal measures that have an EU-wide reach. Forthese reasons, I support the proposed directive that has been submitted.

Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my full support forthis report, the aim of which is to provide greater protection and assurances for victims ofcrime.

A person who has been the victim of theft, assault, harassment or more serious crimessuch as rape or events associated with organised crime or terrorism should be able to feelappropriately protected and respected, so as not to fall victim a second time to the sameviolence as before or to problems that may arise subsequently.

I must stress in this respect that particular attention and specific measures should be devotedto women, children and people with disabilities, on whom a crime may have very seriouseffects that are difficult to recover from over time. I also welcome measures that are uniformacross Europe, to ensure adequate standards in all countries and also to protect victims ofcriminal acts perpetrated in a Member State other than their usual country of residence.

Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The establishment of a singlearea of justice requires that the rights of participants in judicial or administrative proceedingsbe guaranteed equally throughout the EU. It is therefore really important that today weadopted a directive harmonising the rights throughout the EU of those who are often theweakest participants in proceedings – victims. This directive will be particularly importantin the case of crimes with a cross-border dimension. I also encourage the Council to approvethe text approved by Parliament as a matter of urgency.

Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Istat, the Italian National Institute of Statistics,reports that the number of women aged between 16 and 70 who say they have been victimsof physical or sexual violence at least once in their lives is 6 743 000, or 31.9%. For rapealone, the percentage is 4.8% – more than a million women. Moreover, 14.3% of womensay they have been the victims of violence by their partners: 12% physical violence and6.1% sexual violence. Of the remaining 24.7%, 9.8% have been the target of physical


violence and 20.4% of sexual violence. As many as 2.4% of women say they have beenraped by their partners, and 2.9% by strangers. Of the women who claim to have sufferedviolence from their partners, 93% say they did not report it to the authorities; the proportionrises to 96% when the attacker was not the partner. These figures are appalling and raisea fundamental question that may perhaps find an answer in the resolution we have adoptedtoday. Why is this kind of violence not being reported? It is because the victims do not feelprotected. Victim protection programmes are therefore heading in the right direction ofproviding support for women, as well as for the elderly and children.

Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported the adoption of the directive establishingminimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, as I believethat it is important to guarantee all victims of crime the necessary protection and recognitionthrough the entire European Union, regardless of their legal status. It is important toguarantee to victims of crime the right to free legal assistance, the right to victim supportservices, the right to give clarifications, the right to avoid contact between victim andperpetrator, the right to obtain protection during interrogation, and so on. I also believethat it is very important that the directive provides for a single definition of victims ofcrime, which also grants the status of ‘victim of crime’ to the close family members ofvictims. I also welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to criminalise all forms of genderdiscrimination and to make special preventive and protective measures and legal remediesavailable to victims. In order to ensure that victims of crime know their rights in theEuropean Union, their awareness should be raised through awareness campaigns andeducational programmes undertaken in cooperation with various non-profit organisations.

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. To date,the EU has not had an integrated European legislative framework that grants all victims ofcrime recognition and the broadest possible protection within EU territory, regardless oftheir legal status. This initiative helps to broaden these rights, such as the right toinformation, the right to interpretation and translation, the right to be heard, the right tocompensation and the right to avoid contact between the perpetrator and the victim.However, it notes that there is no definition of ‘victim’ in Community legislation and thatthis needs to be clarified in future legislative acts. At the same time, notwithstanding thelist of rights provided for in the Commission communication on victims of crime, certainpoints are missing, such as psychological support for victims, additional protection forvictims with special needs and safeguarding of the privacy of victims. These points arecovered in the European Parliament report.

Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the proposal for a directive ofthe European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights,support and protection of victims of crime. The new directive proposes to establishminimum standards on the rights, support, recognition and the widest protection withinthe territory of the EU of victims of crime, regardless of their legal status, whether in termsof content or implementation. Since confidence in justice is a priority for all citizens,especially for victims who feel their rights are unheard and out of reach, I think this proposalfor a directive is an appropriate means of closing the many gaps and overcoming the manyobstacles that currently exist in the single market and in the European area of freedom,security and justice.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of thisreport on the Commission's proposal for a directive on the rights, support and protectionof victims of crime, which is part of a package of legislative measures aimed at strengthening


the rights of victims in the EU and which also includes a proposal for a regulation on mutualrecognition of protection measures in civil matters and a communication on strengtheningvictims’ rights in the EU.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbonin 2009 and the guidelines for a European area of freedom, security and justice, as theStockholm Programme envisages, protection of victims of any crime in the EU has beenat the top of the EU's agenda. On the basis of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHAon the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, there is a need to adopt a comprehensiveEuropean legal framework offering all victims of crime, regardless of their legal status,recognition and the widest protection within the territory of the Union, and to provide aunified definition of ‘victim’ that grants the status of victim not only to the persons harmedby the offence, but also to close family members. We voted for this proposal in order tostrengthen victims’ rights and ensure greater protection for their private lives.

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrioon her work.

With the adoption of this report, and having regard to the Commission proposal toParliament and the Council (COM(2011)0275) and the opinion of the European Economicand Social Committee of 7 December 2011, Parliament can ensure that any victim of crimewill enjoy the same rights and an assessment of his or her specific needs anywhere in theEU.

The most positive aspect of the report, however, is that from now on victims of crimessuch as robbery, theft, assault, rape, harassment, hate crime, terrorist attacks or peopletrafficking will no longer encounter any problems caused by cultural, language or legaldifferences, and above all will be assisted and supported by free and confidential supportservices (such as counselling) from the time they are affected by the crime, regardless ofwhere the crime occurs.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Gender-based violence aswell as violence in close relationships is defined for the first time in EU legislation (recital8f) which is regarded as a huge success due to the fact that Commissioner Reding's proposalwas gender blind; in fact the seriousness of gender-based violence was denied, as was therequest for a separate directive on gender-based violence. The Greens also managed tohighlight and include reference to victims of race, hate or other bias crimes. Another successwas our proposals regarding access to victim rights, support and protection withoutdiscrimination of any kind, including residence status, and regardless of victim’ participationin criminal proceedings, which were adopted by the rapporteurs and the Commission, andwere thus accepted by Council as well. This means that irregular migrants who are victimsof crime will have access to the rights, support and protection afforded by the directive,regardless of whether the victim makes a formal complaint of a criminal offence. Theagreed wording also adopts the language of the Charter of Fundamental Rights regardingthe prohibited grounds of discrimination, which is broader than the five grounds ofdiscrimination protected by the EU equality directives.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this directive which aimsto provide basic rights to victims of robbery, assault, rape, harassment, terrorist attack orhuman trafficking throughout the European Union. Each year, nearly one in six Europeansis the victim of a serious crime. However, the treatment and protection of victims tended


to vary greatly from one country to another. It was time to fill this gap in human rightsand rectify this legal loophole.

Specifically: whether someone is a victim of a road accident in the south of France, a robberyon the streets of Milan, London or Berlin, or is assaulted (robbery, burglary, rape,harassment, hate crime, terrorist attack or human trafficking), each victim will be affordedthe same level of protection. We have also included a guarantee to provide assistance wheninformation regarding the release of the offender is presented to the victim; the painfullegal developments in Belgium this September further highlight the crucial need for supportfor victims at this time …

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The strengthening of this Directive is of the utmostimportance in order to increase the rights of victims in the EU, and the support andprotection that they are given following any crime within the EU. I consider this report tobe an important measure that expands the rights of victims of any type of crime throughthe application of minimum standards across the EU. I would like to emphasise a numberof points made in the report, in particular the protection of victims with specific needs,adopting methods and giving support, taking into account the type of harm suffered,individual assessment and the training of the competent bodies, understanding of thegender dynamics of the rights of victims and greater cooperation and coordination in orderto ensure the protection of victims across the Member States. This protection should beextended to the victim’s family, support should be provided throughout the legal process,and the victims should be informed in a clear and comprehensible way. An area of freedom,security and justice should have the citizen at its core.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Resolution on the proposalfor a directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection ofvictims of crime.

Victims of crime should be recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive and professionalmanner without discrimination of any kind based on any ground such as race, colour,ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any otheropinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, gender, genderexpression, gender identity, sexual orientation, residence status or state of health.

Information and advice provided by competent authorities, victim support services andrestorative justice services should as far as possible be given through a range of media ina manner which can be understood by the victim. The victim should have the right tochallenge a decision finding that there is no need for translation or interpretation, inaccordance with procedures in national law. Victims should also receive information onany right to appeal of a decision to release the offender, if such a right exists in nationallaw.

Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of this report. This is thefirst attempt that we have made here to lay down common foundations for the protectionof victims. This is an extremely important issue, as there is a clear need to improve theprotection available for victims almost everywhere. The Commission must now act quicklyand indicate how this can be put into practice.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which has my full support, will helpminimise the difficulties faced by EU citizens when they become victims of crime in an EUcountry other than their own. As a result of this legislation, each Member State will provide


specialist support services for foreign crime victims, including free translation andinterpretation services and access to information on any medical help that may be requiredin the aftermath of the incident. This report will be instrumental in ensuring that the 15%of EU citizens who are estimated to become victims of crime each year while travelling orworking within the EU receive the support they should rightly be entitled to.

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The creation of minimum standardsfor the protection of victims of crime forms the basis for providing the best possible supportand protection for victims throughout the European Union and for strengthening theconfidence of citizens in the legal system. The aim is to reduce victims’ fear of reportingcrimes. Minimum standards such as the right to information, the right to understand andbe understood, the right to an interpreter, support for victims, the right to be heard andrestorative justice are a step in this direction. The friends and relatives of victims are alsoaffected by crime and should be included in the support for victims.

Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This law will provide vital protection to UK citizenswho are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime in another EU country. Being thevictim of a crime is always a traumatic experience, but it is even more so when the crimetakes place in a different country, away from the support of family and friends and wherevictims may not speak the language.

The proposals will cover victims of human trafficking, sexual abuse and sexual exploitationof children, violence against women, terrorism, hate crimes and organised crime. However,anyone who is a victim of any sort of crime in one of the EU’s 27 Member States can nowexpect to receive the same minimum level of treatment and care wherever the crime takesplace. The law will ensure that victims have access to medical and legal support,compensation and, crucially, interpretation and translation services, so that they are notleft confused and distressed and feeling unable to access justice due to a failure to understandanother country’s legal system.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The directive laying down minimum standardson the rights, support and protection of victims of crime has my full support. Firstly, thedirective will strengthen the rights of victims of crime, providing them with additionalsupport and protection. Secondly, it will enable European citizens to trust the justice system.Additionally, it will deepen cooperation and increase coordination between Member Statesby creating formal and informal structures for cooperation. Such a coordinated approachto victims of crime will help to minimise the negative impact of crime.

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Unfortunately, experience still shows that inmany cases victims of crime have fewer rights than the offender. Less time is devoted tovictims of crime, and their rights are forgotten. I therefore welcome today’s decision bythe European Parliament to change this state of affairs. My main objective as Minister forJustice was to give priority to the rights of victims, the rights of ordinary people over therights of thugs and criminals. I hope this decision will be implemented as soon as possible,and that Member States will finally guarantee full protection of victims of crime.

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We support this report as it calls forattention to be paid to integrated protection from various kinds of violence against people:domestic violence, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, human trafficking,exploitation through prostitution, sexual and psychological harassment, female genitalmutilation, and many others. However, we do not agree with a greater transfer of powerin this area to the EU, as this is an issue of principle and sovereignty in judicial matters.


Portugal already has appropriate legislation in many of the areas mentioned, in particularin relation to the protection of victims of domestic violence, the right of minors to receivea hearing and the protection of minors. The reality that Portugal is facing is, rather, a lackof public investment in the implementation of practical measures to support the victim.

Vital Moreira report (A7-0212/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, given that thisproposal by the Commission seeks to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on theopening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for certainmeat and cereal products to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of theEuropean Union, which confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessaryimplementing measures and amend the Regulation, should the volumes and otherconditions of quota arrangements be adjusted, in particular by decisions to concludeagreements with third countries. As a Member of Parliament, I support the rapporteur’sposition that those powers should be aligned with the post-Lisbon regime of delegatedand implementing acts, by conferring relevant implementing powers on the Commission,which should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council, so that Parliament is properly involved. We cannotforget that Parliament is an institution that represents the people of Europe, so it shouldhave powers to limit the activities of the Commission.

Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believeamending this regulation is welcome and, at the same time, necessary for the administrationof certain Community tariff quotas for certain types of meat and cereal products. Currentlegislation and the powers granted to the Commission for adapting the measures aimedat implementing and amending this regulation must be aligned with the provisions of theTreaty of Lisbon as soon as possible. These powers must take into account both delegatedand implementing acts. I also believe Parliament should become more involved in thepreparation and implementation of delegated acts. At the same time, removing referencesconcerning the Committee procedure is highly important in terms of mirroringmodifications to the application of the procedure.

Adam Bielan (ECR) , in writing. – (PL) Polish farmers constitute a large group of foodproducers in the European Union. The predominance of agriculture is very clear in myregion. Any action intended to ensure favourable regulations concerning trade in agriculturalproducts, including appropriate levels of tariff quotas, is therefore of exceptional importanceto me. I think that increased involvement of the European Parliament by including ourinstitution in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts in this area is a desirableapproach. I am also in favour of the extension by four months of the deadline for submittingobjections to these drafts provisions. Together with my political group, I accept the technicalamendments proposed by the Commission and the rapporteur’s position, granting widepowers to the parliamentary Committee on International Trade in this field. I support thisreport.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Moreira’s report on aligning CouncilRegulation (EC) No 774/94 with the regime of delegated acts, as established in Articles 290and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. No changes are beingmade to the content or substance of the regulation, as this is merely a technical update.


Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because itis necessary to align a share of legislation regulating EU trade policy with the provisionsof Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Theamendments should cover due involvement of the European Parliament in the preparationand implementation of delegated acts, the prolongation of the period for possible objectionto a draft delegated act, limitation of delegation of powers and modified application ofwritten procedure. Committee procedure references concerning the Single CMO Regulationshould also be removed and included in this regulation because this would mirror allmodifications to the application of written procedure. It would thus also ensure that theright of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quotaarrangements remains within the remit of the European Parliament’s Committee onInternational Trade.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I votedin favour of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending theCouncil Regulation opening and providing for the administration of certain Communitytariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin, andbrans, sharps and other residues. I particularly support the idea of the due involvement ofthe European Parliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as it allows forthe simplification of procedures, while safeguarding their rigorousness and transparency.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is aimed at aligningRegulation (EC) No 774/94 with the new system of delegated acts and implementing acts,namely with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.This regulation is aimed at opening and providing for the administration of certainCommunity tariff quotas of certain meats and cereal-based products. It also confers powerson the Commission to adopt the necessary measures for implementing and amending theregulation.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the openingand providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-qualitybeef, and for pig meat, poultry meat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues,is now subject to amendments with the same objective. It is necessary to align EU legislationwith the treaties that underlie it in terms of both systematisation and legal security andintelligibility.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Moreira,addresses the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Councilamending Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for theadministration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pig meat,poultry meat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues. The proposedamendments, among other measures, require the greater involvement of Parliament in thepreparation and implementation of delegated acts, limit the delegation of powers to tacitlyextendable five-year periods, prolong the period of objection to draft delegated acts fromtwo to four months and make the written procedure mandatory. I am voting for this report,given that it concerns legal matters aimed at adapting the powers conferred on theCommission in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 to the post-Lisbon regime of delegatedand implementing acts, powers which should now be exercised in accordance withRegulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of this report is to bringthe aforementioned Council Regulation into line with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treatyon the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The rapporteur has introduced someamendments which limit the powers of the Commission in relation to the delegation ofpowers, and advocate Parliament’s greater involvement in the preparation andimplementation of delegated acts. We welcome the provision which ensures that Parliamenthas a longer period of time to object to a delegated act.

However, this report must still be examined for its deeper meaning, taking into accountpositions of principle in terms of the TFEU and its provisions on trade policy. Indeed, theTreaty of Lisbon stipulates that trade policy is the exclusive remit of the EU. In other words,the Member States have been denied an essential economic policy instrument. Tradeinterests are obviously different from country to country, as their respective economies,weaknesses and strengths are different. The overlap between the interests of the strongestand the weakest, in this and other areas, is extremely detrimental to weaker economies,such as that of Portugal. The effects of policies of free trade can be seen in the disruptionof major national sectors of production.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because theCommission is thus granted the powers to review the quotas mentioned which will leadto better administration of these quotas.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Moreira report is highly technical. The purposeof this report is to adapt this regulation to the changes brought about by the Treaty ofLisbon, in particular in terms of committee procedure. I supported this report during thevote in plenary on 12 September.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I stronglybelieve that the European Parliament must be involved in the preparation andimplementation of delegated acts and support the prolongation of the period for possibleobjections to draft delegated acts from two to four months. I understand Mr Moreira’sposition concerning the removal of references concerning the committee procedure tothe future aligned Single CMO Regulation and the insertion of such provisions directlyinto this amending regulation because this will ensure that the right of scrutiny ofimplementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements mentionedin this regulation remains within the remit of the Committee on International Trade.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I support the rapporteur who urges the removal ofreferences concerning the committee procedure to the future aligned Single CMO Regulationand insertion of such provisions directly into this amending regulation. This will mirrormodifications to application of written procedure laid down in Trade Omnibuses.Furthermore, it will ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary forthe administration of the quota arrangements referred to in this regulation remains withinthe remit of the Committee on International Trade.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes giving theCommission the power to change the volume of agricultural quotas, for meat and cereals,in particular, imported into Europe. Given the Commission’s track record of giving in toUS blackmail, as in the case of beef quotas, a few months ago, we have reason to doubt itsneutrality in the matter. I am voting against, out of distrust.


Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The vote on the legislative proposalhas been postponed. The proposal refers to this report, concerning Council Regulation(EC) No 774/94, which confers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessaryimplementing measures and amend the regulation, should the volumes and other conditionsof quota arrangements be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements withthird countries. This report advocates that those powers should be aligned with thepost-Lisbon regime of delegated and implementing acts, so there is nothing in it to oppose.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Regulation (EC) No 774/94 conferred powerson the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures and amend theregulation should the volumes and other conditions of tariff quota arrangements for certainmeat and cereal products be adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreementswith third countries. These powers now need to be aligned with the post-Lisbon regimeof delegated and implementing acts by conferring relevant implementing powers on theCommission and aligning said regulation with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on theFunctioning of the European Union. Furthermore, I would stress that the right of scrutinyof the implementing acts needed for the administration of the quota arrangements referredto in this regulation should remain within the remit of the Committee on InternationalTrade. I voted for the proposal.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal seeks to adapt CouncilRegulation (EC) No 774/94 on the opening and providing for the administration of certainCommunity tariff quotas for certain meat and cereal products to Articles 290 and 291 ofthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The aforementioned regulationconfers powers on the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing measures andamend the regulation, should the volumes and other conditions of quota arrangementsbe adjusted, in particular by decisions to conclude agreements with third countries. Thosepowers should be aligned with the regime, instituted by the Treaty of Lisbon, of delegatedand implementing acts. The rapporteur is therefore proposing the greater involvement ofParliament, the limitation of delegation of powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods,the prolongation of the period for possible objection from two to four months and themodification of the application of written procedure. Moreover, he also advocates that thetext of the regulation be brought into line with the so-called ‘Trade Omnibus’ regulations.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 dealswith the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain meat and grain products.The regulation delegates powers to the European Commission in this area. These powersneed to be aligned with the regime of delegated and implementing acts established by theTreaty of Lisbon. Accordingly, I am in favour of the regulation.

Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this proposal, through which theCommission seeks to adjust the regulation to the new rules of the Treaty on the Functioningof the European Union regarding Parliament’s powers in the administration of Communitytariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin.

Parliament will therefore be jointly involved in the preparation and implementation ofdelegated acts, the limitation of delegated powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods,the prolongation of the period for possible objections to a draft delegated act from two tofour months, and the modified application of the written procedure.


Vital Moreira report (A7-0209/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it seeksconsistency in the legislation on trade. The rapporteur proposes two amendments to theCommission’s proposal which reflect the changes brought about by the two ‘TradeOmnibuses’, in particular in relation to the addition of two new recitals concerning theimplementing or delegated acts in the basic legal acts and the participation of Parliament.Moreover, for the three regulations, the Commission’s proposal refers to the Committeeprocedure providing for the aligned regulation establishing a common organisation ofagricultural markets. The rapporteur proposes deleting that reference and inserting a newprovision on Committee procedure into each of the amended regulations. This way, themodified application of the written procedure, brought about by the ‘Trade Omnibuses’,can be assured. For all of these reasons, I would once again point out that a moreinterventionist role on the part of Parliament is always better for the European public andthe harmonious development of the EU as a whole.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this proposal aimed at aligningthree Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural productsfrom Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts(Articles 290 and 291 TFEU).

Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I agree with thealignment of Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agriculturalproducts from Turkey with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts. I toosupport the amendments of the rapporteur on the insertion of new recitals on implementingacts and delegated acts and on a greater involvement of the European Parliament duringthe preparation of delegated acts. I also believe it is relevant to extend the possibleprolongation of the period for objection to a delegated act and the period of scrutiny.Moreover, the limitation of the conferral of delegated powers on the Commission is apositive step. I believe the amendments concerned will allow legislation in the field of thecommon trade policy to be correctly implemented and followed-up.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report,which proposes to amend the three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oiland other agricultural products from Turkey as regards the delegated and implementingpowers to be conferred on the Commission under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because itaims to ensure the consistency of the trade legislation. In order to achieve this changeswere brought about by two Trade Omnibuses, i.e. insertion of new recitals on implementingacts/delegated acts into the basic legal acts, involvement of the European Parliament duringthe preparation of delegated acts, limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers onthe Commission, extension of possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draftdelegated act along with the period of scrutiny, as well as changes to the modalities of theapplication of the written procedure. In order to ensure effective application of the writtenprocedure a provision on Committee procedure must be inserted into each of the amendedregulations. Under the new regulation the Committee on International Trade in theEuropean Parliament will have the right of scrutiny of such implementing acts, thus ensuringthe correct way of following-up the implementation of legislation in the field of the commoncommercial policy (under Article 207 TFEU).


Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of amending the Councilregulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkeyas regards the delegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission. Itwas important in the first place for these amendments to be in line with the Trade Omnibus,and also to ensure the due involvement of Parliament in the preparation and implementationof delegated acts to facilitate the scrutiny of these acts.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I considerharmonisation and strengthening the consistency of EU regulations to be important.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is aimed at aligningthe three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agriculturalproducts from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegatedacts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EuropeanUnion.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of the scope and definition of delegatingand implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission has repeatedly led to anumber of different interpretations by Parliament and the Commission. The tension betweenthese bodies is natural, and it is normal for Parliament to require that the Commission’sactions in this area be monitored. Turkey is an important partner of the EU and theamendments to be made to the regulations should not lead to any type of change in thedevelopment of this privileged relationship, but should rather put in place legal instrumentsregulating the import of certain products in accordance with the provisions of the Treatyof Lisbon.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Moreira,concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Councilamending Council Regulations (EC) No 2008/97, (EC) No 779/98 and (EC) No 1506/98in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey as regardsthe delegated and implementing powers to be conferred on the Commission, in accordancewith the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts, pursuant toArticles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Theproposed amendments, among other measures, require the greater involvement ofParliament in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts, limit the delegationof powers to tacitly extendable five-year periods, prolong the period of objection to draftdelegated acts from two to four months and make the written procedure mandatory. I amvoting for this report, given that it concerns legal matters aimed at aligning theaforementioned regulations with the TFEU in relation to delegated and implementing acts,powers which should now be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report, like others on internationaltrade, is primarily aimed at aligning legislation in this area with the changes made by theTreaty of Lisbon, which have an impact in this area. The rapporteur has introduced someamendments which limit the powers of the Commission in relation to the delegation ofpowers, and advocate Parliament’s greater involvement in the preparation andimplementation of delegated acts. We welcome the provision which ensures that Parliamenthas a longer period of time to object to a delegated act. However, we must review thisreport to determine its deeper meaning, taking into account positions of principle in termsof the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and its provisions on trade


policy. Indeed, the Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that trade policy is the exclusive remit of theEU. Trade interests are obviously different from country to country, as their respectiveeconomies, weaknesses and strengths are different. The overlap between the interests ofthe strongest and the weakest, in this and other areas, is extremely detrimental to weakereconomies, as in the case of Portugal, which is in the hands of the trade interests of the bigbusiness of the EU’s major powers, in particular Germany, which is often opposed to theinterests of national production.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the proposal because the mainobjective of the Commission proposal consisted in aligning three Council regulations inthe field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with thepost-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts. Moreover, the three amendedregulations and not the Single CMO Regulation will become basic acts for futureimplementing acts. Consequently the right of scrutiny concerning such implementing actswill stay with the Committee on International Trade and not the Committee on Agriculture.This will help ensure the consistency of the trade legislation.

Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) There are many institutions in the EuropeanUnion, each of them with its defined competence. The division of power among themhelps improve the operation and functioning of the EU. When the three pillar structureceased to exist, it became necessary to reform secondary EU law. The Treaty of Lisbonachieved this, by making a distinction between legislative acts and non-legislative acts. Iwant to refer to delegated acts and implementing acts, which are classified by the Treatyon the Functioning of the European Union as non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290and Article 291 of the TFEU. Each of these was established for a specific purpose. Delegatedacts serve to complement non-essential elements of legislative acts. They are issued by theEuropean Commission under the powers delegated to it pursuant to a legislative act. Suchlegislative acts should describe the powers granted to the Commission in detail.

I also mentioned implementing acts, which are designed to provide uniform conditionsfor the implementation of legally binding EU acts. Primary responsibility for the effectiveimplementation of EU law lies with the Member States. However, if uniform conditionsfor implementation of legally binding EU acts are necessary, those acts shall conferimplementing powers on the European Commission or the European Council.

I agree with the proposal, which aims to align three Council regulations on the import ofolive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey to the TFEU.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s reportand the proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal. These reflect the changesbrought about by the two Trade Omnibuses: insertion of new recitals on implementingacts/delegated acts into the basic legal acts; limitation of the conferral of the delegatedpowers on the Commission to the period of five years, tacitly extendable by a period ofidentical duration; and the extension of possible prolongation of the period for objectionto a draft delegated act from two to four months, thereby extending the period of scrutinyfrom four months (2+2) to six months (2+4). I support the involvement of the EuropeanParliament during the preparation of delegated acts.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this technical report. The objective of theCommission proposal consists in aligning three Council regulations in the field of importsof olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime ofimplementing acts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU).


Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The vote on this legislative proposalhas been postponed. In any case, I would stress that I voted against this report, which alignsCouncil Regulations (EC) No 2008/97, (EC) No 779/98 and (EC) No 1506/98, on importsof olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime ofimplementing acts and delegated acts.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Having regard to Council Regulations (EC)Nos 2008/97, 779/98 and 1506/98 on imports of olive oil and other agricultural productsfrom Turkey, and in view of the fact that the bulk of the legislation in the field of thecommon commercial policy is currently being aligned to Articles 290 and 291 of theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by means of two trade ‘omnibuses’,it is now necessary to align these regulations with the post-Lisbon regime of implementingacts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU). I voted for the proposal in the hopethat the right of scrutiny concerning such implementing acts will stay with the Committeeon International Trade and not be passed on to the Committee on Agriculture.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal is aimed at thealignment of the three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and otheragricultural products from Turkey, with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts anddelegated acts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of theEuropean Union. For the sake of consistency of the trade legislation, the rapporteur proposesamendments to the Commission proposal which reflect the changes brought about bytwo ‘Trade Omnibuses’, with the greater involvement of Parliament during the preparationof delegated acts, the limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers on the Commissionto a period of five years, tacitly extendable by a period of identical duration, the extensionof possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draft delegated act from two tofour months, and changing the modalities of the application of the written procedure. Forthe aforementioned reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Three regulations governing the import ofolive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey, should be aligned to the system ofdelegated and implementing acts introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. For this purpose,provisions regarding committee procedures should be added to each of these regulations.This will allow the Committee on International Trade to control the implementing actsbased on these regulations. I therefore voted for the regulation.

Vital Moreira recommendation (A7-0211/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as the proposedparallel agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia isimportant as these are agreements on mutual recognition in relation to the conformityassessment of regulated products. In this way, the proposal of this report is for the MRAsto seek to lift technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety andenvironmental objectives of each party. The MRA provides, in its main body, for generalrules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rulesapplicable to the various sectors covered.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on theimprovement and simplification of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Agreement(MRA) with Australia. This agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to trade whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. To this end the


agreement gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against theregulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. I agreewith the agreement’s proposed improvements, including the deletion of the restrictionconcerning the rules of origin of industrial products so that the MRA applies to all productscovered by it, irrespective of their origin. I agree that in order to simplify the operation ofthe MRA, it is essential to simplify the procedure for the recognition, and suspension ofconformity assessment bodies.

Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I believe theamendment of the Mutual Recognition Agreement with Australia is intended to simplifyand improve its functioning. This type of agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to tradewhile safeguarding health, safety and the environment. This is why I believe mutualrecognition agreements are of paramount importance and their amendment should aimat clarifying and facilitating their operation. They should allow greater flexibility and, atthe same time, remove unnecessary restrictions on international trade, facilitating itsoperation under the best conditions. I welcome the fact that the agreement will apply toall products covered by it, irrespective of their nature or origin. I also support theinstitutional and procedural amendments.

Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) enablethe conformity assessment of regulated products, giving each of their parties the authorityto test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in itsown territory and prior to export. Their objective is to lift technical barriers to trade, whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. This agreement,which amends the MRA with Australia, has been negotiated by the Commission with theobjective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered intoforce on 1 January 1999. Its amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in thestructure of the sectoral annexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on tradebetween the parties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of theMRA, and to facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. For these reasons, I voted forthis recommendation calling on Parliament to approve this agreement.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this reportto amend the Mutual Recognition Agreement with Australia, which was negotiated toimprove and simplify its functioning.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Moreira’s report on amending theMutual Recognition Agreement in relation to conformity assessment, certificates andmarkings between the European Community and Australia. The agreement was first signedin 1999 and is now being amended and improved by removing certain trade restrictionsthat have proved unnecessary and reducing the administrative burden related tomanagement of the agreement itself.

Under the agreement, Australia undertakes to test products intended for the EU againstthe legislation in force in the Union, and in return the EU undertakes to do the same. Thepurpose of this is to lift technical barriers to trade between our countries, while safeguardingthe fundamental principles of health, safety and environmental protection.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because itis an opportunity to improve the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia,which entered into force on 1 January 1999. The amendments will allow greater flexibilityin the structure of sectoral annexes, remove restrictions on trade between the parties,


reduce the administrative burden related to the MRA and clarify the MRA. The restrictionconcerning the rules of origin of industrial products should be deleted because only thenwill the MRA apply to all products covered by it. As the Joint Committee is co-chaired bythe parties, all references to the Chair of the Joint Committee must be deleted. It is importantto stress that the Joint Committee is empowered to amend the sectoral annexes when thesetake account of technical progress and other factors. In order to simplify operation of theMRA, it is necessary to simplify the procedure for the recognition, withdrawal of recognitionand suspension of conformity assessment bodies.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I votedin favour of amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformityassessment between the European Community and Australia. Firstly, this amendmentsimplifies the functioning of the MRA and, secondly, it removes unnecessary restrictionson trade. I therefore support the decision to delete the provision restricting the applicationof the MRA to industrial products that originate in the parties according to non-preferentialrules of origin.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe thatit allows greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoral annexes of the Mutual RecognitionAgreement (MRA) with Australia, removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between theparties, reduces the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, andfacilitates and clarifies the operation of the MRA.

Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − UKIP supports free trade and especiallywelcomes reductions in barriers to trade with our commonwealth friends. These reportsremove technical barriers to trade and thus make it easier to trade with our commonwealthkith and kin, and thus we can support it.

Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that the amendment to the MutualRecognition Agreement (MRA) between the European Union and Australia will enhancetrade relations between these two major continents, and will also remove barriers to greatermovement of products. On the basis of the same set of arguments that I invoked in myexplanation of vote on the MRA with New Zealand, I voted for this recommendation – seemy explanation of vote on report A7-0211/2012.

Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this reportwhich will facilitate trade between the European Union and Australia. This offers a reallygood opportunity to our companies who see in it new business opportunities. Facilitatingreciprocal access to our respective markets is a real opportunity for our SMEs. It is up tous to seize this opportunity.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘agreement on mutualrecognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between theEuropean Community and Australia’, as I believe that these measures will improve andsimplify the functioning of the Mutual Recognition Agreement, allowing greater flexibilityand removing unnecessary restrictions. The functioning of the agreement will be facilitatedand clarified as a result.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Australia is a natural partner of the EU due to itshistorical and civilisational affinities with Europe, its geostrategic position and its economicpotential. Given that Australia is governed by principles and standards that are similar tothose of Europe in terms of health, security and the environment, and that trade between


both parties should be encouraged and freed of useless restrictions, the entry into force ofa mutual recognition agreement in several areas is to be welcomed. I consider that theamendment aimed at greater simplification of trade respects the objective of the conclusionof the agreement, and will open up new opportunities for European products in Australia.I hope that the amendments introduced will meet the purpose for which they are intended.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This document, drafted by Mr Moreira,concerns a draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU andAustralia, amending the mutual recognition agreement (MRA) in relation to conformityassessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia.The agreement that has now been negotiated by the Commission is aimed at simplifyingthe MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999, the objective of which is for theparties to assess the conformity of regulated products. The amendments that have beenmade will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes and removeunnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. Moreover, it will allow the deletionof the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products, which are consideredunnecessary, as well as updates to the text in terms of institutional and proceduralamendments, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies,and so on, without neglecting matters relating to health, security and the environment. Ivoted for this recommendation because, besides not having financial implications, it makesa considerable number of improvements to the applicability of the MRA in force.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of theagreement amending the agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformityassessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia.These are agreements on the mutual recognition of the conformity assessment of regulatedproducts. A Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) gives each of its parties the authorityto test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in itsown territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA withAustralia provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformityassessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendationbecause I am confident that the agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement(MRA) will lift technical barriers to trade between the EU and Australia while safeguardingour health, safety and environmental objectives. In 2010, EU exports equalled EUR 26.7billion while EU imports from Australia were worth EUR 9.8 billion. Trade between oureconomies had been growing steadily until 2009 when this trend was reversed due to theglobal economic crisis. For this reason, we need to do everything in our power to removeunnecessary restrictions on trade. It would also be beneficial for both sides if we couldreduce the administrative burden related to management of the Agreement.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The agreement amendingthe Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia has been negotiated by theCommission with the stated objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of theMRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. MRAs are agreements on the mutualrecognition of conformity assessment of regulated products. An MRA gives each of itsparties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of theother party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technicalbarriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each


party. The MRA with Australia provides, in its main body, for general rules governing thesetting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the varioussectors covered (in sectoral annexes).

Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of these amendments is tosimplify the functioning of the agreement and remove unnecessary restrictions on tradebetween the parties. The amended Mutual Recognition Agreement will apply to all productsfalling within its scope, regardless of their origin.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. The amendments made to themain body of the mutual recognition agreement will allow for greater flexibility in thestructure of sectoral annexes. Unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties willbe removed. Furthermore, the administrative burden related to management of theagreement will be reduced.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would like to congratulate therapporteur. I voted for this report which seeks to simplify the functioning of the mutualrecognition agreement (MRA) with Australia, which entered into force on 1 January 1999.A parallel agreement amending the MRA with New Zealand, which is identical, has alsobeen proposed, and also merits my vote in favour.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Considering that MRAs – agreements on mutualrecognition in relation to conformity assessment of regulated products – give each of theirparties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of theother party, in its own territory and prior to export, and considering that the MRA withAustralia entered into force on 1 January 1999, there is now a need to improve and simplifythe functioning of that agreement. In order to allow greater flexibility in the structure ofsectoral annexes, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to reducethe administrative burden related to management of the MRA and to facilitate and clarifythe operation of the MRA, my vote is in favour of the proposal.

Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this technical amendment to theMutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between theEuropean Community and New Zealand because it will remove unnecessary restrictionson trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to management ofthe MRA and facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. This kind of obstacle of amore technical nature is what we now need to try and remove to facilitate trade rather thanthose related to tarfiffs.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement amending the mutual recognitionagreement (MRA) with Australia has been negotiated with the objective of improving andsimplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Itsmain amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoralannexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, toreduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitateand clarify the operation of the MRA. I voted in favour of the document for theaforementioned reasons.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on amending theagreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates andmarkings between the European Community and Australia. Mutual recognition agreementsseek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental


objectives of each party. Mutual recognition agreements with Australia provide for generalrules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rulesapplicable to the various sectors covered.

I welcome the simplification of the Mutual Recognition Agreement’s operation, resultingin a simpler mutual recognition procedure for conformity assessment. I welcome theremoval of rules of origin of industrial products. I also welcome the revision of the SectoralAnnex on Medicinal Products and the Sectoral Annex on Medical Devices in order to takeaccount of developments in technical and administrative practice.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour, because the purpose of thechanges is to improve and simplify the implementation of the agreement with Australia.The changes introduced will increase the flexibility of the agreement and abolish unnecessaryrestrictions on trade between the parties. The changes will reduce the administrative burdenassociated with the implementation of the agreement and also facilitate and clarify itsimplementation. No financial implications are foreseen as a result of the changes.

Vital Moreira recommendation (A7-0210/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it concernsimportant agreements that improve mutual recognition in relation to the conformityassessment of regulated products. It is vital to lift technical barriers to trade, whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of both parties. I support thereport because it provides for general rules governing the setting up of conformityassessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on theimprovement and simplification of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Agreement(MRA) with New Zealand. This Agreement seeks to lift technical barriers to trade whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. To this end theAgreement gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against theregulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. I agreewith the agreement’s proposed improvements, including the deletion of the restrictionconcerning the rules of origin of industrial products so that the MRA applies to all productscovered by it, irrespective of their origin.

Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I supportthe improvement and simplification of the functioning of the mutual recognitionagreements. In my opinion, all unnecessary barriers to international trade should beremoved as soon as possible. At the same time, I believe health, the environment and safetyare of particular importance in this context and need to be taken into account andsafeguarded as effectively as possible. The amendment of the agreements will allow greaterflexibility and reduce the administrative burden related to their management. At the sametime, this adjustment seeks to facilitate and clarify the operation of the agreement. I wouldalso like to point out that technical progress and the updates or changes to legislation needto be taken into account throughout this process.

Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) enablethe conformity assessment of regulated products, giving each of its parties the authorityto test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in itsown territory and prior to export. Their objective is to lift technical barriers to trade, whilesafeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. This agreement,


which amends the MRA with New Zealand, has been negotiated by the Commission withthe objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which enteredinto force on 1 January 1999. Its amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility inthe structure of sectoral annexes, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between theparties, to reduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, andto facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. For these reasons, I voted for thisrecommendation calling on Parliament to approve this agreement.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this report,which, as in the case of Australia, amends the agreement on mutual recognition in relationto conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Moreira’s report on mutualrecognition in relation to conformity assessment between the EU and New Zealand. It aimsto give both parties the authority to test products intended for export according to reciprocalrules. Without a doubt, trade and market competitiveness both in the Member States andin New Zealand will benefit from it.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because itis an opportunity to improve the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand,which entered into force on 1 January 1999. The amendments will allow greater flexibilityin the structure of sectoral annexes, remove restrictions on trade between the parties,reduce the administrative burden related to the MRA and simplify and clarify the MRA. Inorder to apply the MRA to all products covered by it, irrespective of their origin, theunnecessary restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products should bedeleted. It is worth mentioning that as the Joint Committee is co-chaired by the parties, allreferences to the Chair of the Joint Committee must be deleted. It is important to stressthat the Joint Committee is empowered to amend the sectoral annexes when these takeaccount of technical progress and other factors. It is also necessary to simplify the procedurefor the recognition, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessmentbodies because only then with the operation of the MRA be simplified.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday 12 September 2012, I votedin favour of amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformityassessment between the European Community and New Zealand. The purpose of thisamendment is to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, to simplifythe functioning of the MRA, but also to reduce the administrative burden related tomanagement of the MRA.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I considerthat it simplifies the functioning of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with NewZealand, lifts technical barriers to trade, while safeguarding the health, safety andenvironmental objectives of both parties, allows greater flexibility in the structure of sectoralannexes of the MRA, removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reducesthe administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and facilitates andclarifies the operation of the MRA.

Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The European Union must be open not onlyto regions which are geographically close, but also to countries from the more remotecorners of the globe. For this reason, a number of bilateral agreements have been signedbetween the EU and third countries. The agreement with New Zealand provides an exampleof effective cooperation. The abolition of trade barriers is a good solution and opens up


new opportunities for EU trade. Furthermore, the new agreement does not entail anyadditional financial costs for the EU. This is a positive solution which opens up manyopportunities to EU Member States.

Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) areagreements on mutual recognition in relation to the conformity assessment of regulatedproducts. These agreements give each of the signatory parties the authority to test andcertify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territoryand prior to export. These MRAs are of considerable importance for the framework andstability of trade relations between the EU and New Zealand, as they seek to remove technicalbarriers to trade, while safeguarding the public health, safety and environmental objectivesof both parties. This revision of the MRA with New Zealand allows greater flexibility inthe implementation of the agreements by both parties, reduces the administrative burdenrelated to management of the agreements, and facilitates and clarifies the operation of theMRA. I voted for this recommendation, as I know that this revision of the agreement willcontribute towards strengthening good trade relations with a country that, although onthe other side of the world, is historically and culturally linked to our continent.

Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this reportwhich will facilitate trade between the European Union and New Zealand. This providesa really good opportunity for our companies which see in it new business opportunities.Facilitating reciprocal access to our respective markets is a real opportunity for our SMEs.It is up to us to seize this opportunity.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘agreement on mutualrecognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between theEuropean Community and New Zealand’, as it seeks to improve and simplify the functioningof the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), allowing greater flexibility, removingunnecessary restrictions and facilitating the operation of the MRA.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As in the case of Australia, the amendment to theMutual Recognition Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand seeks toenhance trade relations between these two parties and to remove unnecessary barriers tothe movement of products. I hope that these amendments will allow this objective to beachieved and that, despite the distance, the closeness of the European Union and NewZealand in terms of their civilisation and their common interests will bring them increasinglycloser together. All of us will benefit from this greater closeness.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This document, drafted by Mr Moreira,concerns a draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU andNew Zealand, amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation toconformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community andNew Zealand. The agreement that has now been negotiated by the Commission is aimedat simplifying the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999, the objective of whichis for the parties to assess the conformity of regulated products. The amendments thathave been made will allow greater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes and removeunnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties. Moreover, it will allow the deletionof the restriction concerning the rules of origin of industrial products, which are consideredunnecessary, as well as updates to the text in terms of institutional and proceduralamendments, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformity assessment bodies,and so on, without neglecting matters relating to health, security and the environment. I


voted for this recommendation because, besides not having financial implications, it makesa considerable number of improvements to the applicability of the MRA in force.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the agreement on mutualrecognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community andNew Zealand. Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are agreements on the mutualrecognition of the conformity assessment of regulated products. An MRA gives each of itsparties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of theother party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technicalbarriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of eachparty.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendation.The EU remains an important trading partner for New Zealand. Our exports are mainlycars, medicaments, machinery, telecommunication equipment, transport material, andchemicals and in 2010 EU goods exports to New Zealand amounted to EUR 2.7 billon.Goods imports from New Zealand equalled EUR 2.8 billion. Because of the global recession,we must place particular emphasis on improving existing agreements in order to fosterour trade. I voted in favour of this recommendation because I am confident that theagreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) will lift technical barriersto trade between the EU and New Zealand while safeguarding our objectives in terms ofhealth, environment, and safety.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this agreement with New Zealand. Aparallel agreement amending the MRA with Australia, which is identical, has also beenproposed.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of these amendments is tosimply the functioning of the agreement and to allow greater flexibility in the sectoralannexes. It also removes unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties as well asthe administrative burden.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the favourable report bythe Committee on International Trade, I voted for this legislative resolution by Parliamenton the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and NewZealand, amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement in relation to conformity assessmentbetween the European Community and New Zealand.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Alongside the proposal to amend the agreementon mutual recognition (MRA) with Australia, there has been a proposal to change the MRAwith New Zealand, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. Considering that MRAsare agreements on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment of regulatedproducts, giving each party the authority to test and certify products against the regulatoryrequirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export, and hoping forgreater flexibility in the structure of sectoral annexes, removing unnecessary restrictionson trade between the parties, and reducing the administrative burden related to themanagement of the agreement, I express my vote in favour of the proposal.

Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this technical amendment to theMutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) in relation to conformity assessment between theEuropean Community and New Zealand because it will remove unnecessary restrictionson trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burden related to management of


the MRA and facilitate and clarify the operation of the MRA. This kind of obstacle of amore technical nature is what we now need to try and remove to facilitate trade rather thanthose related to tariffs.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this Agreement. It is thenext logical step to the first Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) entered into withNew Zealand. It aims to simplify the functioning of the MRA, which came into force on1 January 1999. For example, this text removes the technical barriers to trade whilespecifying the objectives of each party in the areas of health, safety and the environment.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement amending the Mutual RecognitionAgreement (MRA) with New Zealand has been negotiated with the objective of improvingand simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999.Its main amendments are intended to allow greater flexibility in the structure of the sectoralannexes of the MRA, to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, toreduce the administrative burden related to the management of the MRA, and to facilitateand clarify the operation of the MRA. I voted in favour of the document for theaforementioned reasons.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the draft Council decision onthe conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand amendingthe agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between theEuropean Community and New Zealand. The draft agreement amending the MutualRecognition Agreement (MRA) with New Zealand has been negotiated by the Commissionwith the stated objective to improve and simplify the functioning of the MRA.

MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety andenvironmental objectives of each party. The MRA with New Zealand provides, in its mainbody, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies.Amendments to the MRA are intended to allow greater structure flexibility, removeunnecessary restrictions on trade between the parties, reduce the administrative burdenand facilitate and clarify the operation of the agreement. It is necessary to establish a simplerprocedure for the recognition, withdrawal of recognition and suspension of conformityassessment bodies.

Pat the Cope Gallagher report (A7-0146/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, primarily for thesake of justice, as I do not consider it to be fair that while there are regions like mine, whichpractise sustainable fishing, there are at the same time other Member States that do notmeet the same requirements and may even put the stocks of other European marine regionsat risk. Any flagrant lack of willingness to comply with the agreed measures must becountered by strong action. As the EU is a lucrative market of destination for fisheriesproducts, it has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respectof obligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks.It is therefore necessary to provide the EU with the effective means to take action againstany State unwilling to assume such a responsibility, or not cooperating in the adoptionand implementation of agreed management measures, in order to disincentiviseunsustainable fishing As a result, I unreservedly support the Commission’s proposal touse trade and other types of measures in situations like the ones described, and also callfor an unmistakeable political message, including a clearer-cut approach and strong,effective measures, to be sent out.


Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on certainmeasures in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. Due to repeatedinfringements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish StocksAgreement, as well as action taken in violation of requirements for states to cooperate inthe management of migratory fish stocks, it is essential to adopt a legal instrument accordingto which the EU could take action against states that are unwilling to cooperate. In orderto mitigate the negative impact on fish stocks Member States need to impose appropriatesanctions and I therefore welcome the proposals set out on imposing quantitativerestrictions on imports into the EU of fishery products on states allowing non-sustainablefishing. The export of fishing vessels or fishing equipment to such countries should alsobe prohibited, as should the conclusion of private trade agreements by citizens of suchcountries with other countries.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour because thisregulation will help to achieve the aim of cooperation between states in order to establishsustainable fishing practices, and will provide the tools to impose sanctions on those thatoverexploit stocks and do not help conserve them.

I agree, therefore, on the need to monitor Iceland and the Faroe Islands, because of theirmackerel fishing activities. Through this amendment, they will not be allowed use EU portsto offload their catches, and the same amendment will also mean imports are prohibited.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I have voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s reportbecause I agree with imposing stricter intervention measures against third countries thatrepeatedly violate the agreements on non-sustainable fishing practices, which consequentlycause great damage to transnational fish stocks, namely the stocks ‘of common interest’.I therefore agree with the restrictions suggested in this report on the quantity of allowedimportations, the use of European ports and the prohibition of joint fishing venturesbetween vessels flying the flag of countries authorising non-sustainable fishing and vesselsof the Member States.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because itis essential to adopt a legal instrument according to which the EU could take effectiveaction against states unwilling to cooperate to dissuade unsustainable fishing in the adoptionand implementation of agreed management measures, and which repeatedly infringe theUN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and also takeunilateral actions in disregard of established requirements. Any case of infringement mustbe met with firm action, as it will otherwise adversely affect EU fisheries and lead to aconsiderable depletion of fish stocks. An unmistakeable political message, including a clearapproach and effective measures, is therefore essential.

Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to the 2010 Food and AgricultureOrganisation report, the average per capita fish consumption has doubled since the 1960s.Fish is the primary raw material for the food industry in terms of trade volume, worth anestimated USD 102 billion in 2008.

It is therefore not surprising that a portion of fish stocks is under constant threat ofimpoverishment and that the issue of environmental and food balance demands the greatestsense of responsibility and concrete measures to combat illegal fishing, According to someenvironmental organizations, in fact, its turnover exceeds 25% of the value of the globalmarket.


As the primary stakeholder in this market, the EU has a duty (as a matter of self-protectionand fairness) to leverage markets in order to encourage less sensitive countries to meet thestock management requirements established in the conventions. I therefore support thereport.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) When the European Commission wants toimpose sanctions on a country for unsustainable fishing practises, it must take into accountthat country’s level of development. This is because, according to the principle of policycoherence with development goals, it is crucial, in my opinion, that the measures adoptedfor fisheries do not undermine the development plans and strategies implemented by theEuropean Union in these countries. I supported this report because it takes up this importantidea for our Committee on Development specifying that the measures should not beunjustified, or even discriminatory.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe thatthe EU has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect ofobligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks.

Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. − (IT) The management of highly migratory fishstocks calls for the constant cooperation and direct consultation among the countrieswhose fleets exploit such stocks, avoiding the risk of unilateral action that could bepotentially harmful to long-term resource sustainability. Moreover, the EU has theresponsibility to ensure that this cooperation requirement is respected and that MemberStates do not take unilateral action in disregard of the general interest in the conservationof the marine ecosystem. However, beside effective measures, in order to fulfil this task itis necessary to endow the EU with appropriate monitoring tools. As with other sectors,unbridled competition among the Member States may have adverse consequences. I havethus chosen to support the measures in the directive, in particular those designed to imposequantitative restrictions on EU fish imports, in cases where the fish is caught from stocksof common interest under the supervision of a third country. Similarly, I welcome theintroduction of tools that can ensure that such measures are effective, proportionate andcompatible with international legislation, as well as meeting environmental, commercial,economic and social standards.

Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − I voted for this report in the hope that the sanctions thatthis report will enable will help to bring an end to the disgraceful situation that is ongoingbetween the EU, Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the issue of the mackerel catch. The EUhas in its reform of the CFP spent the past three years talking about sustainable fishing andthe rebuilding of fish stocks. Mackerel is a very sustainable stock, in fact it was so wellmanaged that it was awarded accreditation for sustainable management. Following theunilateral hike in the mackerel catch by Iceland and the Faroe Islands the stock has beenoverfished and has had its accreditation suspended and we are now in danger of destroyingthe fishery and the industry around it. All reasonable attempts at mediation over the pasttwo years have simply failed. We need to be able to employ reasonable sanctions againstthose who ignore negotiations. I hope this report will strengthen the Commission’s handand I will be monitoring the Commission’s actions closely following today’s vote.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘measures in relation tocountries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fishstocks’, as I believe that it is necessary to provide the EU with effective means to take action


against any State that does not adopt the agreed management measures, in order todisincentivise the continuation of such unsustainable fishing.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The organisation and functioning of markets offisheries and aquaculture products has implications both for the sustainability of fisheriesresources and marine ecosystems, in terms of public health and food security for the public.The new provisions seek to strengthen the role of the organisations of producers and relaxmarketing standards for fresh produce. The current consumer information requirementsfor fresh produce – comprising the trade name, the scientific name, an indication of theplace of capture or production, an indication as to whether it was caught or farmed, anda mention of thawing, if necessary – are considered complete if they indicate the date ofcapture or production, or the words ‘fresh’ or ‘frozen’.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are all aware that the planet’sresources are not inexhaustible. This is all the more pertinent when we are discussingresources that are directly linked to food. The increase in the global population requiresever greater resources, and we cannot allow ecosystems to be squandered. This report,drafted by Pat the Cope Gallagher, addresses the proposal for a regulation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on the application of certain measures in relation to countriesthat practise or allow non-sustainable fishing, thus jeopardising the conservation of fishstocks. At issue is the lack of a sustainable fisheries policy, in particular in relation to thefishing of mackerel. What has happened in Iceland, and not only there, is unacceptable –its catches have been unilaterally increased. There needs to be an agreement among theMember States as each State cannot simply do what it likes. I voted for the rapporteur’sproposals as I agree that fishing should be sustainable, both inside and outside the EU.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The UN Convention on the Law of the Seaand the UN Fish Stocks Agreement require that coastal states and states whose fleets carryout fishing of stocks in adjacent high sea areas cooperate with the responsible managementof straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and the stocks found in adjacent exclusiveeconomic zones, in order to ensure their long-term sustainability, whether through directmutual consultation or through the regional fisheries management organisations. As theEU is a lucrative market of destination for fisheries products, it has a particular responsibilityin ensuring that this obligation to cooperate is respected. This proposal aims to establisha rapid and effective mechanism that allows the measures related to trade and other typesof measures to be used for those states that fail to meet their obligations. We support therapporteur’s proposals. The trade measures to be implemented should not be confined toimports of ‘stocks of common interest’ and ‘associated species’, but should apply to allimports of fish and fisheries products of all species originating from countries that haveagreed to avoid non-sustainable fishing activities.

Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − The EU’s controversial policy of allowing dead fishcaught over-quota to be thrown back in the sea, so-called fish discards, is finally beingbrought to an end through a number of reforms to its common fisheries policy. However,unsustainable fishing practices are likely to continue outside the EU. This report thereforecalls for the EU to use sanctions against countries who fish unsustainably on fish stocksthat are of importance to the EU. This would allow it to prohibit imports of fish that havebeen caught unsustainably. Given the recent actions taken by Iceland and the Faroe Islands,where they have set themselves mackerel quotas that are way above their historical levels,I can add my support to this proposal.


Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of a regulation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on certain measures in relation to countries allowingnon-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks. The documentis aimed at imposing restrictions on the use of Union ports by fishing vessels flying theflag of a country allowing non-sustainable fishing, but such restrictions shall not apply incases of force majeure or distress for services strictly necessary to remedy those situations.This new regulation will therefore help to encourage and establish sustainable andresponsible fishing internationally and it is also closely linked to the regulation onpreventing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement require coastal States and States whose fleetsfish on adjacent high seas to cooperate in managing responsibly all stocks in order to ensuretheir long-term sustainability. Mr Gallagher’s report was adopted in plenary on12 September and I welcome this. It is in response to massive overfishing of mackerel inIceland and the Faroe Islands. In view of repeated violations, the EU decided to develop anew range of measures to discourage the continuation of unsustainable fishing.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report becauseI believe that the European Union should have the means to take appropriate measuresagainst those countries that fish unsustainably. This should even include the ability toimpose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish into the EU from these countries. Whenimposing these restrictions, the Commission should evaluate environmental, trade,economic and social effects of the measures to ensure that they are proportionate andcompatible with international trade. Parliament should be informed of this evaluation.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. The aim of which is for aCommission regulation is to promote cooperation between States in order to establishtruly sustainable fishing practices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use.To achieve this, the European Union needs to have suitable and effective tools so it canimpose sanctions on States which are responsible for measures and practices that lead toover-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreedmanagement measures.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on measuresin relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. In response to the overfishing ofstocks, in particular mackerel, in the North East Atlantic, this report aims to adopt tradesanctions against States that do not engage in responsible management of stocks, thusjeopardising their long-term sustainability.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Repeated violations of the UN Convention on theLaw of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement call for a proper legal tool allowing theEU to react to uncooperative behaviour by the States concerned. I fully agree with therapporteur on this point and, therefore, voted in favour of this report.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes taking drasticmeasures to enforce the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN FishStocks Agreement. It points out that these measures should not be taken in a discriminatoryor arbitrary way. Although I do not trust that the Commission is neutral in this matter, Ihave voted for this text, in support of its core idea.


Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, but I thinkParliament should have been more persistent in calling for firm action. The EU has a greatresponsibility not only in terms of ensuring sustainable fishing, but also in terms ofprotecting European fishermen who are subject to strict and costly rules. Europeanfishermen are seriously disadvantaged by the unfair competition from fishermen in countriesthat systematically refuse to comply with any rule.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The responsible management andsustainable use of fisheries resources should be mandatory for the EU and all of its MemberStates. The protection and conservation of fish stocks play a vital role in this context. TheEU has a particular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect ofobligations deriving from the common management of straddling and migratory fishstocks. It is therefore necessary to provide the EU with the effective means to take actionagainst any Member States that are not cooperating in the adoption and implementationof the agreed management measures, in order to disincentivise irresponsible andunsustainable fishing activities. I voted for this report on the adoption of measures inrelation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing, as I agree with it for theaforementioned reasons.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Repeated infringements of the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as unilateral actions indisregard of cooperation requirements imposed by Regional Fisheries ManagementOrganizations (RFMOs) upon coastal states for the responsible management of straddlingand highly migratory fish stocks, call for a proper legal tool allowing the EU to react touncooperative behaviour by the States concerned. I stress the EU's responsibility in ensuringsustainable fishing and respect for the obligations arising from the joint management ofstraddling and migratory fish stocks and, therefore, the importance of providing the EUwith effective means to take action against any state unwilling to assume such aresponsibility, and I vote in favour of the proposal.

Maurice Ponga (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committeeon Development on Mr Gallagher’s report, I thought it was important to point out thatwhen the European Commission wants to impose sanctions on a country for unsustainablefishing practices, it should take into account that country’s level of development. This isbecause, according to the principle of policy coherence with development goals, it is crucial,in my opinion, that the measures adopted for fisheries do not undermine the developmentplans and strategies implemented by the European Union in these countries. Mr Gallagher’sdraft report takes up this important idea for our Committee on Development specifyingthat the measures should not be unjustified, or even discriminatory. I therefore call on theEuropean Commission, when it adopts such measures, to respect this principle of policycoherence with development objectives and to duly consider the level of development andthe vulnerability of countries.

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today, during the sitting in Strasbourg, wevoted on Mr Gallagher’s report.

The regulation adopted allows for the use of trade sanctions against third countries allowingnon-sustainable fishing and against fishery products deriving from stocks of commoninterest. These measures should discourage over-exploitation of certain fish species in theNorth Atlantic.


Although the regulation may be used against third countries, the situation in the NorthAtlantic is also in our interest. Iceland has unilaterally increased its mackerel catch from363 tonnes in 2005 to 147 000 tonnes in 2012. The Faroe Islands’ mackerel quotasincreased from 27 830 tonnes in 2009 to 149 000 tonnes in 2012.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The EU, on the onehand, and Iceland and the Faroes, on the other, have been waging a (mostly) diplomaticwar over quotas for mackerel in the North Atlantic.

Following changes in the migration route of mackerel, first Iceland and then the Faroeshave asserted that the stock comes into their waters and so are claiming a quota. The EU,the largest fisher of the stock, is willing in principle to agree to this, but negotiations havestalled for several years over the actual amount. As a result, mackerel is being severelyover-fished because the EU and Norway maintain their historical quotas and Iceland andthe Faroes have declared large unilateral quotas. Total catches thus far exceed the scientificadvice.

The EU’s room for manoeuvre is limited, especially since most of the Commission and theCSL do not consider fish important enough to derail the accession negotiations with Iceland.Virtually all it can do is to prohibit landings of mackerel by Iceland-flagged vessels in EUports, but that amounts to almost nothing, as alternative ways into the EU are easilyavailable.

Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I have voted in favour of this document becauseI believe in the need for greater powers to the Commission in order to ban the import intothe EU of fish from over-exploited stocks.

Through the new regulation it will be possible to discourage the over-exploitation of fishsuch as mackerel, to the detriment particularly of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. It will benow necessary to carry out a comprehensive reform of our fishing policy in order to makeit more environmentally sustainable.

Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report is at long last a response to those thirdcountries bordering the Mediterranean and other seas that continue to violate fish stocksagreements and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It is out of the question to continue to harass European fishermen with rules and restrictionsthat both reduce their incomes and force Member States to support the fleets that areharmed when neighbouring countries of ours do not obey the rules and fish unsustainably.

Hence, banning imports of fish from third countries that behave badly will protect ourfishermen and deter the ones who break the rules.

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s report,because it proposes measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the EU in applying agreedfishery management measures in order to create incentives for sustainable fisheries.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted totally in favour of this text. It is importantthat the EU has an appropriate legal instrument enabling it to react to the lack of cooperationof States that insist on violating the rules on quotas, for example, thereby jeopardising ourfuture. Highly dissuasive sanctions should also be provided against such offenders.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU should have an appropriate legalinstrument that allows it to react to the behaviour of Member States that are not cooperating


with the standards set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN FishStocks Agreement, as well as the requirements imposed by the regional fisheriesmanagement organisations for the responsible management of fish stocks. The EU has aparticular responsibility in ensuring sustainable fishing and the respect of obligationsderiving from the common management of straddling and migratory stocks. It shouldtherefore be provided with effective means to take action. Such measures should apply toall imports of fish and fisheries products of all species originating from countries that haveagreed to avoid non-sustainable fishing activities.

Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on measurestaken for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowingnon-sustainable fishing. The content of this report is crucial, as it seeks to ensure faircompetition between European fishermen and third countries. Faced with an ambitiousEuropean legislation to protect fish stocks, we must be given a guarantee that our fishingactivity is not relocatable at lower environmental costs. This report mentions the optionto restrict imports of fishery products originating from countries allowing non-sustainablefishing, to restrict the provision of port services to vessels flying the flag of those countriesor to prevent Union fishing vessels from fishing the stock of common interest under theresponsibility of the country allowing non-sustainable fishing. However, I note with regretthat the report is entirely conditional, so I hope the European Commission will be quickto make a legally binding proposal on this matter.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on certain measuresin relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservationof fish stocks. This regulation lays down a framework for the adoption of certain measuresregarding the fisheries-related activities and policies of third countries with the aim ofensuring the long-term conservation of fish stocks of common interest between theEuropean Union and those third countries. The measures applicable to countries allowingnon-sustainable fishing should be proportionate to the objectives pursued and compatiblewith the obligations imposed by international agreements to which the Union is a partyand any other relevant norms of international law.

I think it is necessary to impose quantitative restrictions to importations of fish of anyassociated species and fishery products made of or containing such fish, when caught whileconducting fishing activities on the stock of common interest under the control of countriesallowing non-sustainable fishing. To ensure that measures are sustainable andenvironmentally sound, effective, proportionate and compatible with international rules,the Commission must evaluate the environmental, trade, economic and social effects ofthose measures in the short and long terms and the administrative burden associated withtheir implementation.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this important resolution,which will allow the Commission to take action against countries who fail to cooperatewith the EU in its pursuit of preserving sustainable fish stocks. This is a particular necessityin light of the current dispute over the overfishing of mackerel in the North East Atlantic,and will empower the EU to ban imports of fish originating from stocks it considers tohave been fished in an unsustainable manner. At a time when many species are underthreat, it is imperative that we take this opportunity to work towards the common goal ofpreserving fish stocks for the future.


Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − In the past repeated infringements of theUN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement took place. TheEuropean Union is responsible for ensuring sustainable fishing, and therefore an appropriatelegal rule is needed to give the EU the ability to react to uncooperative behaviour by States.

Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This is an important piece of legislation as it willallow the EU to impose sanctions on countries that fish unsustainably on fish stocks thatare important to the EU. The EU will now be able to prohibit imports of fish that it considersto have been fished unsustainably by the exporting country. Certain states have so far beenunwilling to enact internationally agreed measures to preserve fish stocks but, as a majormarket for fish products, the EU is well placed to challenge them. This legislation willenable us to do that.

Struan Stevenson report (A7-0217/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe thatthe reformed common fisheries policy should strengthen producer organisations so thatthey can play a more significant role in the current management of fisheries under a moreregionalised system. The creation of transnational producer organisations should beencouraged, with the aim of establishing fair conditions for all stakeholders in the fisheriessector. The future Common Market Organisation must also make a positive contributiontowards the dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector in order to better respondto the increase in demand for fish in the context of the reduction in wild fish stocks. Theuse of modern technology to improve market intelligence should be promoted within theframework of the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and maritime affairs policy.The proposed mechanism for intervening in the EU market is limited to a single storagesystem. However, any system that interferes with the free market should be treated withgreat care and should be applied on a cooperative basis, involving all of the producerorganisations and allowing as much flexibility as possible, while protecting the interestsof marine and island regions that are heavily dependent on fisheries, in particular theoutermost regions.

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Whilst there are certainly some positiveaspects to this report, I have abstained on the final vote. The CFP must have small fishingindustries at its heart and not become a tool of big business. Whilst addressing someimportant concerns, such as that of discards, I believe that there should be more of anemphasis on small communities and ensuring the future of the sector and coastalcommunities.

Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this proposal and legislativeresolution because I believe the common fisheries policy cannot be reformed, least of allby its authors (the Commission). It has caused such damage to the industry and to fish thatit is irreformable. I believe that power on this policy, as on others, should be returned tothe Member States.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on thecommon organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. Given theobjectives of the reform of the common fisheries policy and in order to promote sustainableproductive activities, organisations’ powers should be reviewed. I welcome the proposalsto increase the involvement of producer organisations in fisheries management, tostrengthen their economic viability and promote the setting up of transnational producer


organisations. The labelling of fishery products is another key issue in this report. It is veryimportant to ensure and increase consumer awareness of fishery products. Consumersmust receive comprehensive information on the fishery product they buy and the date oflanding should therefore be indicated and sustainable fishing practices should be rewardedwith an EU eco-label.

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The common organisation of themarket in fisheries and aquaculture products also implies fixing a guide price before everyfishing season, based on the average prices on wholesale markets and in relevant portsduring the last three seasons and adjusted to match the production and demand trends, aswell as the requirements for ensuring market stability, supporting the income of producersand protecting consumer interests.

A second Community price, that of withdrawal from the market of products that cannotbe sold at a higher or at least the same price, is set according to the quality of the fish, butit should be the equivalent of 70 to 90% of the guide price. Within this range, producerorganisations themselves can set withdrawal price levels below which they will not sell theproducts provided by their members, in which case the overstocks will be withdrawn fromthe market and the producers will be paid an indemnity from the intervention fund set upby producer organisations, consisting of producers’ contributions established accordingto the quantities offered by each producer for sale.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted infavour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council onthe common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. This proposalbodes well: it is important to strengthen the role of producer organisations in managingthe production and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products and to involve them asmuch as possible in the economic regulation of their industry. In addition, I support thedesire to have more comprehensive labelling for the consumer: the date of catch orproduction will now be mentioned.

John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), inwriting. − UKIP abstained on the final vote of this report. Although there are elements toCFP reform which will give a small bit of relief to the fishing industry – and any changesto the current disastrous CFP rules is a step forward for the industry which the EU itselfhas destroyed – the only way we can save our stocks and fishing industry is to scrap theCFP altogether and repatriate it back to national governments accountable by the ballotbox. The EU has no democratic mandate to create law in the UK and we cannot legitimisethe process. UKIP did support amendments which decentralised power back to MemberStates and those which would cut red tape and costs to our fishing industry.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe thatit is vital to strengthen producer organisations and make them international, so that theycan counteract the power of retailers and effectively ensure realistic prices for catcheslanded by their members.

Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The report is one of the cornerstones of thereform of the common fisheries policy in that it increases the sector’s competitiveness,particularly for producers. It also includes aspects of prime importance for the health andconfidence of consumers in the sector. In this respect, safeguarding the interests ofconsumers and satisfying their demands for clarity and transparency should be the goalof our common policies, because they can become a way of encouraging people to spend.


This is all the more important during a slump in sales, when all the indicators show thatpeople tend to purchase goods in a more conscious and informed way, which means theylook for quality. That is why we are firmly convinced that the product packaging shouldshow not the date when the fish were landed but the date on which they were actuallycaught. The landing date, however, which is supported by the moderates and conservatives,is not only misleading for the consumer but also unduly favours large fleets that are ableto stay at sea for several days over smaller vessels that can only stay at sea for a few hours.Once again, we would have expected a more rational attitude from the moderates, whoseem to have given in to the interests of the larger groups.

Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the first place, I would like to point out theimportance of this own-initiative report, as it reflects Parliament’s opinion on the reviewof the common fisheries policy, which is currently under way. Indeed, it is expected thata vote on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reform ofthe common fisheries policy will only be held next November in the Commission. However,the method of presenting ‘preliminary reports’, although it is more complex and potentiallylonger, seems to me to be sufficiently effective in a post-Lisbon Europe, where the searchfor consensus within and among institutions has become crucial in order for legislativedocuments to actually see the light of day within a reasonable timeframe. Having said that,I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that he has carried out,and I wish my colleague Ms Rodust, the rapporteur for the joint regulation, the best of luckwith the complex piece of work that she has in her hands. As a personal note on this reform,although it does not form part of the Committee on Fisheries, I would simply like tohighlight the absolute importance of pursuing the objective of achieving balance betweenthe three dimensions of the common fisheries policy, namely its social, environmentaland economic aspects, as well as the maintenance of support for fleet renewal and thepursuit of a more regionalised model for the management of the common fisheries policy.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘common organisationof the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’, as I believe that it is important thatthe future Common Market Organisation (CMO) make a positive contribution to thedynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, under the common fisheries policy.This will result in a better response on the part of the CMO to the increasing demand forfish in a context of declining wild fish stocks. Finally, it is vital to ensure that fair conditionsare maintained between fisheries products from the EU and products imported fromcountries outside the EU.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) For the European Union, and especially for a countrylike Portugal that has a calling to the sea and to fishing, as well as large-scale fishing andcanning industries, it is essential to maintain fishing as a viable and sustainable economicactivity. Portugal needs fishing and, therefore, needs the sea to remain able to provide uswith fish and for species to remain able to reproduce. It therefore seems clear to me thatthere should be an appropriate legal instrument to avoid behaviour that will result in aconsiderable depletion of fish stocks, with notable losses to fisheries activity within theEU.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As a result of their environmentalawareness, European citizens are discerning consumers who know their rights. For thisreason, it is essential that the EU adopt measures that meet their marketing standards inthis sector. This report, by Mr Stevenson, concerns the proposal for a regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets


in fishery and aquaculture products. In the first place, particular attention should be givento the information provided to the consumer, through clear and simple yet informativelabelling. The consumer should know the origin of the product, the date on which it wascaught, thawing information, chains of supply and whether its capture complied withsustainable fishing practices. Secondly, producer organisations should be supported andsustainable fishing practices should be commended. Moreover, it is necessary to promotesustainable management of fisheries resources, avoiding the capture of young species andtheir subsequent return to the marine environment. Last but by no means least, fishermenshould be assured a fair income, which should be supported by the stabilisation of stockswith a higher degree of reliability.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The current common organisation of themarkets (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products is far from guaranteeing the stabilityof these markets and a fair income for producers. In this context, a profound and ambitiousreform of the CMO is required, which strengthens public intervention and market regulationinstruments, to guarantee incomes in the sector, ensure market stability, improve themarketing of fishery products and increase their added value, by increasing the first-saleprice of fish. This report points towards a weakening of the current CMO by dismantlingsome of the (few) remaining regulatory instruments. The objective is growing liberalisationand market orientation. Given the current state of the sector, this path will prove disastrousfor countless fleet segments, particularly for small-scale fishing fleets. We regret that manyof the proposals we tabled were rejected, such as: adoption of measures to increase thefirst-sale price of fish, inter alia by implementing maximum intermediation margins alongthe sector’s value chain; and establishment of a ‘management option’ which enables MemberStates to continue making key decisions (now entrusted to producer organisations) atnational government level. Obviously, we voted against this report.

Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − This report forms part of the EU’s legislative proposalsto reform its common fisheries policy. By encouraging greater decentralisation of fisheriespolicy, through its regionalisation proposals, this report shall bring an end to Brussels’flawed micromanagement of our fish stocks. This report specifically looks at the role ofproducer organisations and their ability to counteract the power of big retailers, whosemonopoly has helped to contribute to the over-fishing of our stocks. By empoweringproducer organisations, we will encourage sustainable practices. Producer organisationswill also be encouraged to promote an end to fish discards through using selective gear,and any financial reward for landing fish caught over-quota will be kept at a level thatdisincentivises a new market for by-catch. Furthermore, new labelling measures will helpconsumers to be better informed, allowing them to vote with their feet when it comes tosustainable fishing. This report is therefore to be strongly welcomed.

Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday, 12 September 2012, Parliamentwas asked to vote on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquacultureproducts, which is currently being reformed. The European fisheries policy is an importantissue for France as it is sensitive to the vagaries that affect French fishermen. In Parliament,members of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) have had to fight with MEPs ofother nationalities, sometimes even with members of their own political group, whosevision of fishing differs greatly from their own. However, the position adopted by Parliamentdoes meet our expectations. Parliament calls for the introduction of a single and publicEuropean eco-label for fishery and aquaculture products by 2015, which will enableconsumers to be better informed about what they are eating. Consumers must be provided


with information about the catch area, the trade name of the product, the date of landing,the term ‘defrosted’ if the product is placed on sale as fresh goods. In addition, Parliamentrecommends strengthening the role of producer organisations so that they contribute tomarket stability and price regulation.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document on thecommon organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. The futurecommon organisation of the market (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products must alsocontribute positively to a dynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, in order tobetter meet the growing European demand for fish against a background of declining wildfish stocks. Aquaculture producer organisations should also be given access to a range ofmeasures to help promotion and communication actions at national and internationallevels and to give added value to their members.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Struan Stevenson’s report was adopted by a largemajority: 620 votes for, 27 against and 27 abstentions. The CMO (Common MarketOrganisation) is the first component of the common fisheries policy. The provisions ofthis report include, in particular, strengthening the role of producer organisations andrelaxing the rules for the marketing of fresh products.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report since,among other things, it helps clarify the necessary information that must be given to theconsumer on fisheries products, introduces the requirement for the Commission to developan EU wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products and creates a new regional advisorycouncil for the outermost regions. I support efforts to reward sustainable fishing practiceswith an EU eco-label. For this reason, the Commission should establish minimum rulesfor eco-labelling and possibly introduce its own eco-label, to make it more recognisableand acceptable to the sector and to the public. It is important for consumers to be able tomake an informed choice and they should be clear about which fisheries products havebeen frozen and defrosted, particularly with regard to ‘fresh fish’ products.

Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Stevenson’s report becauseI am firmly convinced that greater market-oriented efficiency of the common organisationand of producer organisations in the fisheries and aquaculture sector will result in acompetitive advantage. The aims of the common fisheries policy (CFP) seek to protect theenvironment better by means of effective regulation in that area. As the report points out,however, it is also crucial to take account of the operators in the sector and the effects ontheir livelihoods, so as not to allow the new regulations to stifle entrepreneurship and theoperators’ ability to compete in the market. I also agree with the initiative to secure greaterconsultation between transnational producer organisations that share the same commercialcharacteristics and the same needs. These are the lines along which we should be working,not least when drafting the CFP, although we must also bear in mind the specific featuresof individual fishing areas.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In devising the future commonorganisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products, I think producerorganisations should play the main role, as they are the key actors responsible for theappropriate application of the common fisheries policy and the common marketorganisation. Therefore, my recommendation to the Commission is to take action to ensurethat these organisations have well-defined objectives and carry out only sustainable fishingand aquaculture activities.


Moreover, we must make sure that producer organisations will take into account therequirements imposed by the EU in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, with particularfocus on small-scale fisheries. In this way, we will make a positive contribution to thedynamic development of the EU’s aquaculture sector and will be able to cope with thegrowing market demand for fish against the global background of declining fish stocks.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which among other thingsstates that sustainable fishing practices should be rewarded with an EU eco-label.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Fishing plays a particularly important role in theeconomies of the Union’s coastal regions, including the outermost regions. Given that itprovides fishermen in those regions with a livelihood, steps should be taken to fostermarket stability and a better correspondence between supply and demand. I am voting infavour.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I agree with the majority of thisreport. European citizens must be given clearer information about the fish they consumeso that they can be guided towards products from sustainable and, if possible, local fisheries.We need to reduce our ecological debt by consuming less imported fish, and we need toimprove the quality of fishery products on the market and encourage employment inEurope’s fishing sector. However, I deplore the ambiguity of the text as to whether or notit supports the system of transferable fishing concessions (TFCs). I therefore abstained, outof mistrust.

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The common organisation of themarkets is the first component of the common fisheries policy, but also one of the mostimportant ones. I welcome the adoption of this report, which is the first element of a largerreform package targeting European fisheries. Throughout the EU, citizens that make aliving from fishing and fish processing expect this reform to bring substantial changes,which, in turn, should increase their quality of life and the quality of the products endingup on European consumers’ tables.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The common organisation of themarket (CMO) is a key component of the common fisheries policy (CFP). In this report, aspecial focus was set on the future role and objectives of producer organisations, whichshould play a more meaningful role in the management of fisheries and therefore requirethe correct tools to enable them to regulate the activity of their members more effectively.Labelling is another key issue in this report, which argues that consumers have a right tohave better and understandable information on the fishery product they buy, particularlyon the date of catch and the date of landing. I voted for this report, but I disagreed with theinclusion of the date of catch of fishery products. Indeed, I believe that properly preservingfish and maintaining its quality, both on board and after landing, is more important thanthe date of catch.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The common organisation of the market (CMO)has been the first component of the common fisheries policy (CFP) since 1970. In theframework of a truly reformed CFP, producer organisations should play a more meaningfulrole in the day-to-day management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The useof modern technology to improve market intelligence should be promoted in the frameworkof the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. It is also important to guaranteeconsumers the right to better, understandable information on the fishery products theybuy through appropriate labelling. In view of these aims and particularly the importance


of rewarding sustainable fishing practices with an EU eco-label, I voted in favour of theproposal.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This is the first of threelegislative reports on the reform of the CFP, dealing with the market in fisheries andaquaculture products. The other two are the basic regulations governing the CFP and theEMFF (subsidies). A Common Market Organisation (CMO) for fisheries and aquacultureproducts has been in place since 1970. It is one of the pillars of the CFP. Its legal basis isRegulation 104/2000, adopted in 1999, which will be replaced by the current proposal.In its preparation, the COM has concluded that the market has not sufficiently contributedto sustainable production; many EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way andthere are few market mechanisms to discourage unsustainable practices and to providemarket premiums for sustainable ones. Similarly, it has proved difficult or impossible toanticipate or manage market fluctuations. A very limited consumer label was introducedin 2000 and has been much expanded in the report (now to include better explanation ofwhere the fish comes from - which body of water, the flag of the vessel, inside or outsidethe EU, etc. )- though we failed to get included the gear type used to catch the fish and anindication of whether the stock is overexploited or not.

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of the measuresagainst countries that authorise unsustainable fishing, and also the initial reports on thereform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), which include the new common organisationof the markets (CMO) regulation in fishery and aquaculture products.

This is the first time Parliament has been involved in the establishment of the new CFP asa colegislator. I agree with the aims of the CMO reform: to provide market incentives tosupport more sustainable production practices, to improve the market positioning of EUproduction, to help producers adapt to structural market changes and fluctuations, toenhance the market potential of EU products, and to improve governance.

The final report on the CMO contains the majority of my amendments and progress towardsthe sustainability of resources, competitiveness within the sector and improvement inconsumer information. I regret there is no support for the inshore fishing industry, whichoperates on 24-hour trips, to promote its high-quality products by indicating the date ofcapture. The unique nature and special management of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture,including shellfish, have been taken into account, as well as the development of productquality policies.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. As the Memberresponsible for consumer protection, I thought it important to emphasise the issue oflabelling. Consumers have a right to have better and understandable information on thefishery product they buy, so as to make an informed choice. However, the frozen productsreferred to should be exempted from this rule, as they already bear the date of freezing (ordate of first freezing), which - along with ‘best-by’ dates - would produce an overkill ofdates, most likely confusing for the consumer. Labels should also carry information abouteasily identifiable fishing zones to which consumers can relate, unlike the currently usedlabelling for zones. Fish species should also be identified using locally familiar names onall labels. Consumers should be clear about which fisheries products have been frozen anddefrosted, particularly with regard to ‘fresh fish’ products.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As part of the reform of the common organisationof the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, a special focus was set on the future


role and objectives of producer organisations (POs). POs should play a more meaningfulrole in the day-to-day management of fisheries under a more regionalised system. Theinternationalisation of POs or the creation of transnational associations should be promoted.The future common organisation of the markets must also contribute positively to adynamic development of the EU aquaculture sector, in order to better meet Europeangrowing demand for fish against a background of declining wild fish stocks. The use ofmodern technology should be promoted in the framework of the future European Maritimeand Fisheries Fund. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the commonorganisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, although it would havebeen a better idea to put it to the vote after the adoption of the basic Regulation on thereform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The progress achieved by the vote is patchy.On the negative side: this report provides for a market of landed by-catch, and yet thislanding has not yet been agreed in the basic regulation. It is, however, necessary to haveat our disposal a legal framework, without pre-empting any means which will beimplemented to limit, or even eliminate, by-catches. I was, on the other hand, very muchin favour of Parliament recognising the need to put European funding for the storagemechanism on a sustainable basis and agreeing to create an eco-label. Producer organisationshave also been given greater power and recognition, and can, in particular, becometransnational. Finally, the report supports the development of aquaculture, a developmentthat I support providing that we bear in mind that this activity is complementary to fishingand must be set within a framework of strict environmental standards, without promotingthe creation of a fish meal market.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposalfor a regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquacultureproducts. The regulation seeks to ensure that the common organisation of the marketsshall contribute to the achievement of the objectives laid down in the regulation on thecommon fisheries policy and, in particular, provide market incentives to support moresustainable production practices, improve the market position of EU products, deviseproduction strategies with a view to adapting the policy to structural market changes andshort-term fluctuations, and enhance the market potential of EU products.

The common market organisation shall be guided by the principles of good governancewhich it shall achieve by means of a clear definition of responsibilities at EU, national,regional and local levels, a long-term perspective, the broad involvement of operators, theresponsibility of the flag State, and consistency with integrated maritime, trade and otherEU policies.

Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (EL) The group of the Greek CommunistParty in the European Parliament voted against the report on a proposal for a regulation,because it comes within the framework of the reform of the anti-grassroots commonfisheries policy. The aim of the reform is further capitalist restructuring of the fisheriessector, by destroying small-scale fisheries, which the current CFP has already achieved toa large degree, and boosting large-scale fishing fleets and aquaculture monopolies. Theproposal to restructure the common market in fishery and aquaculture products is designedto further strengthen monopoly groups in the sector. The producer organisations, forwhich different financing instruments are provided by the EU, will enlarge the monopolygroups and mark the final destruction of poor and average fishermen. It introducestransferable fishing concessions administered by producer organisations, which will enlarge


monopoly groups and mark the final destruction of poor and average fishermen, as themonopolies in the area will obtain a large number of licences. The proposed ban on discardswill be conducive to a concentration of monopolies in the sector, as only the monopolieshave the material and technical processing infrastructure required and poor and averagefishermen who cannot meet requirements will disappear.

Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, whichreconciles the challenges facing the sector: product quality for consumers, sustainabilityand economic viability of fishing activities. In this respect, the role of producer organisationsmust be strengthened, as a counter-balance to the power of retailers, prices must be setthat are reasonable for the consumer and fair for the fishermen, and fishing quotas mustbe managed. The sector must of course remain competitive, but not at any price: nobodywants to witness the disappearance of our artisanal fishing, threatened by intensive practices,climate change and market tensions. Fishing is deeply rooted in our culture and our heritage,and I refused to compromise on the protection of our model of fishing and aquaculture.With this vote, Parliament has established an optimal framework to protect our fishermenand manage stocks sustainably, by means of a balanced approach adapted to the specificitiesof different fishing areas. Furthermore, I supported this report’s major innovation: thecreation of a European eco-label, which will guarantee the conservation of fish stocks andensure the traceability of fishery products from the boat to the plate.

Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the proposal fora regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common organisationof the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. In doing so, I continue my efforts tofocus on the future role and objectives of producer organisations (POs). Introduced as acounter-balance to the power of retailers, POs have been effective in ensuring realisticprices for the catches landed by their members; however I firmly believe they must be giventhe correct tools to enable themselves to regulate the activity of their members moreeffectively. Therefore POs should play a more meaningful role in the day-to-daymanagement of fisheries under a more regionalised system. The strengthening and economicviability of existing POs is equally important. Moreover, criteria must be clearly definedon the minimum number of members and criteria for the formal recognition of POs needto be increased to encourage them to be big enough to be relevant on the market.

Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This legislation is part of the reform of the commonfisheries policy and will help boost the competitiveness of the industry, reduce the level ofdiscards and introduce ‘eco-labelling’, so that consumers have more information on thesustainability of their fish. I also voted in favour of an amendment that would have givenconsumers more information on the fish they are buying, including the date it was caught,rather than just when it was landed. Under current rules, fish can be kept on ice on a fishingboat for several days before being landed, but be labelled with the same date as those caughtand landed the same day. Research shows this is something that UK consumers want, andwould have allowed them to tell how fresh their fish really is, as well as support smaller-scalefishing boats.

Elmar Brok report (A7-0252/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I approve the proposal presented in this report,given that it is important to recognise the specificity in the development and implementationof the different components of the Union’s external action, including the common foreignand security policy (CFSP) (and its common security and defence policy), but also the


neighbourhood policy, development policy, and international trade. This comprehensiveapproach is essential to constructing a strategic and coherent approach for pursuing theUnion’s foreign policy. The 2010 Report of the Council includes important steps in thedirection of mapping out the Union’s foreign policy priorities in a forward-looking andstrategic framework. However, it falls short of the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty inimportant ways, including inter alia by not giving a sense of priorities or strategic guidelinesfor the CFSP. I believe that, whilst this report is intended to be ambitious and politicallystrategic, it should also be realistic and pragmatic. Indeed, this report should be acontribution to framing EU foreign policy and to setting benchmarks for monitoring andevaluating progress made over the coming years.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolutionon the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). It is an important document provisionsof which I fully support. I am pleased that there was room in it to mention EU-Taiwanrelations. I feel that this is very important, particularly in today’s context where theprotracted dispute between Japan and China over a chain of islands has recently begun toescalate into open confrontation. It should be highlighted that the existence of Taiwan andits peaceful, non-confrontational policies are important for maintaining stability in theregion of the East China Sea, and that Taiwan in general also acts as a stabilising factor.The EU welcomes good relations with Taiwan, which must be developed further. In thiscontext I welcome the resolution’s provision that we must urge the Commission and theCouncil to take concrete steps to further enhance EU-Taiwan economic relations, and tofacilitate the negotiation of an EU-Taiwan economic cooperation agreement. Furthermore,the EU must firmly support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in relevant internationalorganisations and activities, including the World Health Organisation. I am pleased thatthe EU visa waiver programme for Taiwanese citizens, which entered into force inJanuary 2011, has proven to be mutually beneficial.

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Partyvoted against the report, because it promotes an even more aggressive foreign policy anddefence policy and calls for an increase in military and non-military EU operations. Thenew position of ‘EU special representative for human rights’ is designed to provide coverfor EU interventions, such as the European Democracy Foundation, that will use secretfunds to finance ‘dissenters’ and parties. The report calls for an even more aggressive rolefor the EU in the Western Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa andSub-Saharan Africa. It supports the need to strengthen the European Defence Agency,pooling and sharing programmes, full militarisation of the EU Horizon 2020 researchprogramme and common defence measures. It provides full support for the imperialistintervention in Syria, by calling for additional measures in the name of the ‘right of civiliansto protection from slaughter by the regime’, as it did in the war in Libya. It tries to pass thisnew pretext for imperialist interventions off as a UN ‘principle’. The report calls for the EUto come fully into line with NATO in Afghanistan and elsewhere and with the decisionsby the Chicago Summit in 2012 and fully covers NATO plans for the so-called anti-missiledefence shield and nuclear weapons in Europe.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the EU’scommon foreign and security policy (CFSP). Above all, EU foreign and security policy mustensure the protection and defence of the EU’s values and interests worldwide, as well ascontribute to peace, human security, solidarity, conflict prevention, the rule of law andthe promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,


the eradication of poverty and the defence of other values in the international arena. Underthe Treaty of Lisbon, the EU acquired a new European external action dimension and EUexternal policy must therefore be coherent, consistent, effective and based on long-termstrategies. I welcome the criticisms expressed in the resolution that the Council’s AnnualReport on the CFSP does not establish clear medium and long-term priorities or mechanismsfor ensuring their coherence. I believe that the EU’s external policy must be based on clearlydefined and measurable criteria and guidelines, which would help monitor the progressmade and ensure consistent EU policies in this area.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms McAvan’s report on aproposal for a directive, since I agree with the need to strengthen pharmacovigilance in anattempt to counter the practices of pharmaceutical companies that continue to marketproducts that have been declared harmful to European consumers’ health and thereforebanned from the market.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because thedevelopment of a new strategic approach is a major contribution to the European Union’sforeign policy. The Council’s 2010 Annual Report falls short of the ambitions of the LisbonTreaty in several important aspects. I could for example mention the lack of a sense ofpriorities or strategic guidelines for the CFSP, and the avoidance of questions ensuring thatthe Union’s resources are aligned with its foreign affairs priorities. Furthermore, the EU isencouraged to achieve greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate and supportedby the European External Action Service.

Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I hope Mr Brok will accept my congratulationson the courage and rigour with which he has addressed certain problems that have beendragging on unresolved for some time and which could weaken not only the commonforeign and security policy but also the Union’s political position and credibility in general.

In view of the financial crisis, now may actually be the right time to solve these problems,as I think the rapporteur has intended to do by starting from certain fixed, methodologicalpoints to outline a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Union approach to foreignpolicy, based on a realistic assessment of scenarios, options, resources and results.

Parliament today has a central role in defining the EU’s foreign policy and the parametersfor its evaluation, since it is the repository of political legitimacy invested in it by Europe’scitizens, to whom it is accountable.

Recent developments in the crisis have quickened people’s full awareness of their shareddestiny in governing the currency, the economy and the very institutions. Foreign policycannot be anything other than a key part of this feeling of being Europe. That is why I votedin favour of the report.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted infavour of the report on the Council’s Annual Report to Parliament on common foreignand security policy. This report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, far from simplybeing a revision of Council’s report, shows the importance of a contribution from Parliamentto the definition of a new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’sforeign policy. In this regard, several priorities are announced that I support: the ambitionof greater coordination with partners in the area of civilian and military crisis management,the need to set benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating progress over the coming years


and the desire to make up for the absence of leadership of the Union by entrustingBaroness Ashton with an important lead role in all areas of European external action.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report because I supportthe new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s foreign policyproposed therein.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted ‘against’ the Brok report, becauseI consider that it urges the European Parliament and the other Union institutions to subscribeto the militarisation of foreign policy, via the CFSP, to the detriment of a peaceful policybased on cooperation between all EU Member States and third countries, far from dangerousethnic infighting and political/military intervention. As a member of the Confederal Groupof the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I express my unwavering opinion, inopposition to this report, that the Union should be strictly separated from the NATO warmachine, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which has no democratic or ethicalcredentials, should be dissolved, that Europe should disarm, that immediate and drasticcuts should be made to arms programmes and military spending and that internationallaw and the UN Charter should be respected. The continuing trend by the prevailing forcesin the European Union to equate foreign policy with military power and the NATO militarymachine with the Union’s prospects are both contrary to its declared values and, at thesame time, prevent any effort to bring about a Europe and a world of peace, cooperationand solidarity between states and nations.

Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common foreign and security policyis still having trouble finding its way. If it spoke with one voice, the European Union wouldbe able to make itself heard more clearly on the international stage. The Commission andthe Member States must coordinate their diplomatic resources better, and, if necessary,their military resources. European foreign policy can have an important role to play if the27 manage to harmonise their national foreign policies. In Syria, for example, the EuropeanUnion holds all the cards to be able to propose, along with other actors such as Turkeyand the Arab League, a way out of the crisis.

Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) Lurking behind barbaric acronyms (EEAS,VP/HR, CFSP, ESDP) lies the Union’s desire to get its hands on international relations andforeign affairs The annual report on foreign policy puts forward a series of utopian proposalsboth in terms of content and of form.

In this sensitive area, as indeed in others, the race towards European integration will leadto disaster.

While there must be cooperation in certain areas between European States, we cannotaccept competences being transferred to the bureaucracy in Brussels or hand over nationalrepresentations to Baroness Ashton, giving her, while we are at it, a great deal of moneyand credibility.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the Annual Report from the Councilto the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy as it contributesto framing a new strategic and forward-looking approach to the European Union’s ForeignPolicy. I believe that this approach represents an important strategic level of ambition andan essential framework for developing a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Unionapproach to foreign policy.


Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and ÅsaWestlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats do not support thecall for the Member States to increase European cooperation in the area of defence and todevelop Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of security and defence that mightlead to a common defence policy. We believe that the report fails to deal with thereservations expressed about this. We also think that the wording should have includedthe perspective of the Member States on this question and should have taken intoconsideration the different traditions and positions of the Member States with regard toforeign, security and defence policy. We believe it is important to safeguard Sweden’s policyof non-alignment.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The demands contained in the minority opinion onMr Brok’s report, tabled by MEPs from the Confederal Group of the European United Left– Nordic Green Left, are an excellent list of steps that the EU must not take at risk ofbecoming not only irrelevant but above all vulnerable: secede from NATO, abandon themilitary component and cut defence spending, close all military bases in Europe, disarmfully and abstain from interventionist policies whenever the main instruments ofinternational law and the most relevant international bodies so recommend. Fortunatelythe majority of this Parliament thinks differently, does not abstain from seeking to protectits citizens and recognises that the transatlantic partnership that saved us from Sovietismis the best guarantee of common security. The EU cannot therefore exempt itself fromseeking to assume a more leading, consistent and coherent role at this level. This requirespragmatism and rigour but also ambition.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Global security is a matter that concernsall well-informed citizens, especially when images of the Holocaust and the attacks of11 September 2001, to name but two examples, are very clear in our individual andcollective memories. Even when we least expect it, the threat of another conflict betweennations suddenly looms: the island dispute between China and Japan. Such a scenario leadsus to assign a key role to foreign policy and to the security of Europeans. I voted for thereport by Elmar Brok on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliamenton the common foreign and security policy, which highlights the need for the EuropeanUnion to speak with a single voice on this matter, fosters collaboration between the EUand countries involved in the Arab Spring, promotes respect for human rights in exchangefor financial support, highlights cooperation with Eastern European countries and seeksto ensure military and economic cooperation, drawing attention to the fact that nowadayswars are not won with tanks but through financial measures.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There is a lot to say about this report andthere are many reasons why we voted against it. Using the Treaty of Lisbon as a point ofdeparture, the report proposes strengthening the EU’s strategic partnership with NATO,confirming the EU as the European pillar of this organisation and advocating the ‘poolingand sharing’ of military resources, primarily through the European Defence Agency. Whileremoving hard-won rights from workers and ordinary people, it takes further steps towardsthe militarisation of the EU, which will be ‘funded adequately’ in line with its ambitions.After defending the military attack on Libya, the majority of Parliament now wishes to gobeyond the ongoing financial and military support of terrorist groups in Syria and takemilitary action in the country. They insist on the old EU ambition of securing a permanentseat in a reformed UN Security Council; not to defend peace but to operationalise ‘the


responsibility to protect principle’, that is, the implementation of so-called ‘preventivewars’.

Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Council Report for 2010 mapsout the EU’s foreign policy priorities, but it does not pay attention to the priorities orstrategic guidelines for the CFSP. Moreover, the report does not clarify the policymechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components offoreign policy, including those under the responsibility of the Commission. The EU urgentlyneeds greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate of Catherine Ashton as EUHigh Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of theCommission, and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, which is supported by the EEAS.In the area of the CFSP, we need to take high-quality, courageous, decisive and timelyaction. At the same time, however, we must remain realistic when setting goals and, withregard to the resources at our disposal, we must consider our priorities carefully.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Brok report on the commonforeign and security policy (CFSP). We want to turn the European Union into, at one andthe same time, a humanitarian organisation, a docile supporter of NATO and a body whichnegotiates free-trade agreements with the whole world. The CFSP is Baroness Ashton livingin La La Land: any problem can be solved providing that we give a lot of money, that weopen our borders to everyone and everything and that we give lessons in dubious moralityto the rest of the world and, in particular, that our American Big Brother effectivelycontinues to guarantee our security in the face of real threats. The problem is that the Unionhas never thought of itself, Treaty of Lisbon or otherwise, as a major world power. It isconstantly pursuing an international political role that it can never attain, because it willnot rest until it has destroyed the diplomatic and military capabilities of its members. Thisis done in the name of a cosy ideology, unadulterated commercialism and a Malthusianbudgetary rationale. Europe is neither synergy nor synthesis. It is simply the sum of itsweaknesses. It deadens and dissolves all it touches. Each Member State must recover itsfull sovereignty for its own security and its links with other States.

Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) While this report represents progress in thefield of foreign and security policy, it also shows a clear and unmistakable picture of ourfailure to speak with one voice. The structural weaknesses of Europe are, of course, beingintensified by the efforts of some Member States to retain their sovereignty. The fact thatthis does not strengthen any individual country but weakens Europe is clear in many policyareas, for example, when we talk about reinforcing the right of citizens in many countriesto participate in the democratic process or when we call for social and environmentalstandards to be applied. An additional consequence of this failure is that we are imposingrules on ourselves in important policy areas, but we are exposing ourselves to unfaircompetition from countries and continents which do not respect these rules.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because Ibelieve that the EU should develop its foreign policy objectives further and advance itsvalues and interests worldwide with the overall aim of contributing to peace, humansecurity, solidarity, conflict prevention, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy,the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, gender equality, respect forinternational law, support for international institutions, effective multilateralism andmutual respect among nations, sustainable development, transparent and accountablegovernance, free and fair trade and the eradication of poverty. In order to achieve thesegoals the EU should be able to create synergies and develop strategic partnerships with


those countries that share the same values and are willing to adopt common policies andengage in mutually agreed actions. The EU‘s ability to influence the international orderdepends not only on coherence among its policies, actors and institutions, but also on areal strategic concept of EU foreign policy, which must unite and coordinate all MemberStates behind the same set of priorities and goals so that they speak with a strong singlevoice and show solidarity in the international arena. The EU’s foreign policy must beprovided with the necessary means to enable the Union to act effectively and consistentlyon the world stage.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Brok in plenary.This own-initiative report contributes to the definition of a new strategic, forward-lookingapproach to EU foreign policy. Taking the ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon as its pointof departure (particularly Article 24(1) of the Treaty on European Union), Parliament invitesBaroness Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to exerciseleadership through courageous and decisive action. We must unfortunately note the absenceof any leadership. The common and foreign and security policy urgently needs a coherentstrategic approach.

Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report becauseit underlines several issues of tremendous importance for the EU’s foreign policy. Iwholeheartedly agree when we underline that the US is the most important strategic partnerfor the EU. I believe that we must ardently foster this relationship with our American ally.In our report, we explicitly state that the Eastern Neighbourhood is of strategic importanceand highlight that all decisions concerning the Eastern Partnership should be accompaniedby the allocation of adequate financial resources. We also note the growing discontentexpressed by many Russian citizens and underline our willingness to contribute to thePartnership for Modernisation and to any successor to the current Partnership andCooperation Agreement which should be linked to Russia’s progress regarding humanrights, rule of law and pluralist democracy. In terms of the Association Agreement withCentral America, which will be signed shortly, I welcome that we indicate our intentionto closely monitor the implementation of the agreement and its impact on the situationfor human rights and the rule of law. I emphasise this because we need to do everythingin our power to monitor and promote human rights in Cuba.

Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The Council report for 2010 contains importantsteps towards mapping out the EU’s foreign policy priorities in a forward-looking andstrategic framework. However, the report falls short of the ambitions of the Treaty ofLisbon in important ways, which include not addressing the priorities or strategic guidelinesfor the common foreign and security policy. The report does not clarify the policymechanisms for ensuring coherence and consistency among the different components offoreign policy. It avoids the issues of harmonisation of EU resources with our priorities inforeign affairs. Parliament therefore calls on the Vice-President of the Commission to takethe lead in adopting high-quality and courageous measures, and also to lay emphasis onEuropean neighbourhood policy in the situation at hand. I have supported the EP’s position.

Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of Elmar Brok’s report. Itcomprehensively addresses crucial issues connected with the common foreign and securitypolicy. In particular, I welcome the provisions regarding better utilisation of capacity andfinancial resources and improved cooperation between the EU and NATO in order to avoidduplication. Similarly, I welcome the emphasis on the importance of the Eastern Partnership


to the EU. The recognition of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain peace and stability in theAsia-Pacific region is also noteworthy.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution which welcomes the decisionfor the appointment of an EU special representative for human rights who should have asubstantial mandate to mainstream human rights across the CFSP, the CSDP and other EUpolicies and to provide visibility and coherence to the EU’s action in this field.

Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Terrorism, organised crime, the proliferation ofregional conflicts, the security of energy supply or climate change are all security threats.These threats are increasingly present at global level and, implicitly, in Europe. In order toface these risks, the European Union needs an integrated approach requiring the joint andunited effort of all Member States. Partnerships with important international actors alsoplay an essential role in tackling these scourges.

The European Union should offer greater support to the efforts made by partner countriesin enforcing the obligations related to human rights, the strengthening democracy, therule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Coherence and consistency between thedifferent components of the foreign policy must be ensured. For this reason, special attentionmust be given to strengthening the relations between the European Union’s HighRepresentative, the European External Action Service and the Member States. As regardsthe future of the common foreign and security policy, an aspect of particular importanceis the strengthening of financial instruments promoting peacebuilding, security, democracyand the rule of law.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. We need a strategic outlook. Wemust replace fear with courage. Courage will spur us into action that in time will breedhope, and the real hope for the whole world is for Europe, in its international relations, tohave the strength to back the convictions that have ensured the exceptional conditions ofthe last 60 years.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report affirms respect for thecentral role of the United Nations and a determination to work on reforming it. However,therein lies its only positive point. All else is merely imperialist arrogance. The text aimsto introduce huge free-trade areas for each area in the world, and even goes so far as toconfuse free trade and rule of law. It calls for the strengthening of the institutions of theemerging great transatlantic market and its security dimension. It says that it is the mainstayof Latin American regional integration when this region, with the Union of South AmericanNations (UNASUR) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean(CELAC), has clearly shown that it has no need of the EU to integrate. It mocks Argentina’sattempts to decolonise in the Falkland Islands and denounces its ‘nationalisation’ of YPF.It ignores the need to respect the 1967 borders in the Middle East. It calls for thestrengthening of NATO, the military arm of EU and US imperialism. I vote against thisarrogant text and denounce it as an imperialist manifesto.

Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. It aimsto review the Council report on the CFSP for 2010 and to set out an approach for the futureof the EU strategy in foreign policy. The Treaty of Lisbon also states that the ‘Union’scompetence in matters of common foreign and security policy covers all areas of foreignpolicy’, thereby paving the way for a more cohesive and unanimous strategy. Of course,the new initiatives must strike the right balance and must rest on realistic bases that takeaccount of the different economic, political and geostrategic interests of each Member


State. This particular report, which I supported, succeeds in addressing these two pointsand, instead of simply calling for a new European strategy on security, helps to define EUforeign policy and lay down reference points for monitoring and evaluating the progressthat needs to be made in coming years.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which marksa new point of departure for the Annual Report on the common foreign and security policyand is intended as Parliament’s contribution to framing a new strategic and forward-lookingapproach to the European Union’s foreign policy. I share the rapporteur’s call for leadershipthrough quality, courage and decisive and timely action coupled with a leadership approachthat prioritises the European neighbourhood policy as a strategic principle for the EU.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon, whereby‘the Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover allareas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including theprogressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence’(Article 24(1) of the Treaty on European Union), are the point of departure for creating anessential framework for developing a comprehensive, coherent and consistent Unionapproach to foreign policy. To this end, Parliament needs to make a further contribution,and one that is more pragmatic than the 2010 Council report on the common foreign andsecurity policy, which did not measure up to the ambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon. In thehope that it will provide a new European security strategy and contribute to the framingof EU foreign policy, I voted in favour of the proposal.

Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I voted in favour of the Brok report because it isstrategically and, at the same time, pragmatically conceived and because it is based on theEuropean Union’s values, with an emphasis on peace, human rights and security.

Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the report on theannual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign andsecurity policy, although I opposed one point relating to the free trade agreement betweenthe European Union and Colombia and Peru. This agreement has one further threshold tocross: the approval of the European Parliament. I have reservations because of the humanrights situation and the rights of trade unions in Colombia. I will not be able to vote infavour of a free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru in future, unless an obligationto respect human rights is made into a condition of the agreement. Furthermore, effectivemonitoring of compliance with human rights obligations is needed, not only by the AndeanCommunity itself, but also by the European Union.

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With this vote we are making the pointthat, although the Treaty of Lisbon is creating a new momentum in EU foreign policy byproviding institutional and operational tools, its effectiveness and sustainability are beingundermined by the ongoing financial crisis.

In order to bring its weight to bear internationally, the EU must not only ensure that itspolicies, actors and institutions are consistent, but it must also develop a real strategicconcept of its foreign policy and provide the necessary personnel, as well as the financialand diplomatic resources needed.

Today we have sent Baroness Ashton a clear message. In times of growing challenges andlimited resources, the European Union’s foreign policy must be strategic and forwardlooking. The new strategic framework for the EU’s external action must also be


democratically legitimate. As Members of this House we have a vital role to play if EUpolicy is to gain the understanding and support of the people of Europe.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The proposal had veryweak points. For instance: most of the parts dealing with security and defence capabilitiesand the paragraphs on the European Defence Agency. The chapter on NATO welcomesthe New Strategic Concept avoiding any criticism of, for example, the development of acivilian crisis management capability that sounds like a duplication of EU's one and thedevelopment of a Ballistic Missile Defence capability. And the part of Latin Americawelcoming all the free agreements finalised or under negotiation.

Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe a newcomprehensive and strategic concept of European foreign policy is needed to ensure thatthe EU’s external action is consistent and effective in achieving its aims.

While the Treaty of Lisbon is already imparting new momentum to the EU’s foreign policy,its effectiveness will be sorely tested if its minimum resource levels are not maintained. Toassert itself on the international stage, the EU must not only make sure that its policies,actors and institutions are consistent, but it must also develop a new strategic foreign policymodel in order to be fully successful.

Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has proved that it is fullycapable of playing its role in the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Indeed, thereport in favour of which I voted in plenary contains an ambitious strategic andforward-looking analysis, in line with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon in this regard.In this text, Parliament recommends that the Council introduce policy mechanisms forensuring the coherence of our external action and benchmarks enabling it to be evaluated,to provide the European External Action Service (EEAS) with the means it needs to fulfilits mission and to provide strategic guidelines and realistic priorities for the CFSP. At thesetimes of economic austerity, we must prioritise actions with high added value. The newEuropean neighbourhood policy, in particular, has been prioritised. Furthermore, on thecrucial question of geographical differentiation, it has been noted that the choice of strategicpartners deserves careful reflection in the light of the values and objectives of the EuropeanUnion.

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Brok’s report,because it gives the right impression of the EU’s priorities and strategic approaches. Iconsider that it includes important steps towards setting out the Union’s foreign policypriorities within a long-term, strategic framework.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report.The voters of whom I am one hope that this report will call on the European Union toachieve greater synergies based upon the triple-hatted mandate of Baroness Ashton, EUHigh Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of theCommission and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, and supported by the EuropeanExternal Action Service (EEAS).

It should be noted that the transition towards a new approach to the common foreign andsecurity policy (CFSP) has given rise to difficulties. It is essential for the High Representative/ Vice-President of the Commission and the EEAS to play their leadership role. The absenceof leadership and of a strategic approach necessitates the prioritisation of the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy as a strategic principle, including in the development of CFSP.


Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this report, the rapporteur aims to presentParliament’s recommendations and opinions and not only provide a thorough analysis ofthe 2010 report of the Council. He therefore wishes to put forward a constructive criticismthat points out errors and problems and that, simultaneously, takes account of the MemberStates’ current financial constraints. The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) wasgiven an enhanced role following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The HighRepresentative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’s role is to make EUforeign policy coherent and effective and to avoid confusion between the different MemberStates. However, there are still shortcomings in terms of cooperation and the instrumentsto use. We must afford the High Representative the necessary powers for the EU to respondwith a single voice, to set realistic and pragmatic priorities and to reflect on the financialand diplomatic resources required for the European External Action Service. We cannothave a global Europe without coherence, without effectiveness and without a precisestrategy with similarly precise objectives.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European ParliamentResolution on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on thecommon foreign and security policy. The EU should develop its foreign policy objectivesfurther and advance its values and interests worldwide with the overall aim of contributingto peace, human security, solidarity, the rule of law, conflict prevention and the promotionof democracy, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, sustainabledevelopment, transparent and accountable governance, free and fair trade and theeradication of poverty.

Pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has all the means necessary to adopt acomprehensive approach, whereby all the Union’s diplomatic and financial resources areused to back common strategic policy guidelines in order to have the greatest possibleleverage in promoting the security and economic prosperity of European citizens and theirneighbours, as well as fundamental rights. We call for the further development of anappropriate mechanism within the European External Action Service (EEAS), with theparticipation of the relevant Commission services, where geographic and thematic expertiseare integrated and drive a comprehensive approach to the common foreign and securitypolicy planning, formulation and implementation.

Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This annual report marks a new departurefor diplomacy as, since Lisbon, our Parliament no longer has a simple right to information,but a genuine freedom of action in all areas of foreign policy. I supported the principalambition of this report, which means that, if we want visible and effective Europeandiplomacy, we must rationalise resources and means, and align them with our objectives.We can no longer dispense with this common sense approach, for which I have been callingfor a long time. At the same time, we must strengthen cooperation with NATO and nationalarmed forces. In a globalised world, where inter-state relationships between allied countriesare based on solidarity, I think that it is pointless to develop our defence capabilities withina strictly national framework, without considering bringing together, or even sharing,means and resources. Further dithering would be extremely dangerous, at a time whenthere are ever-increasing numbers of flashpoints, human rights violations and threats.With this in mind, I make this appeal to Baroness Ashton: assert yourself as the EuropeanUnion’s true patroness of Foreign Affairs. You have the means and the legitimacy to do so,all you need is the determination.


Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − The idea of a new extensive approach,including all areas of the common foreign and security policy as well as determined prioritiesand a balanced mix in financing is reasonable. The report's particular suggestions for EUpolicy on how to deal with different third countries and the multilateral partners are carriedout well. The priorities of the common foreign and security policy are embracing andcomprehensible.

Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This annual report marks the beginning of a genuinely‘new strategic approach’ by Parliament to the European Union’s foreign policy, taking theambitions set out in the Treaty of Lisbon as our point of departure.

The aim is to develop a comprehensive Union approach, which will be essential to pursuinga common foreign policy. The strategic and forward-looking framework of the Council’s2010 report is fundamentally important, even though it falls somewhat short of certainambitions of the Treaty of Lisbon. I voted for the report, since it makes a valid contributionto framing the EU’s foreign policy.

Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the midst of the deepening crisisof capitalism, this is another demonstration of how militarism, interference and disrespectfor national sovereignty are used to win markets and control of essential natural and energyresources for the major EU powers. The report suggests strengthening the EU’s strategicpartnership with NATO, confirming the EU as the European pillar of this organisation andadvocating the ‘pooling and sharing’ of military resources, primarily through the EuropeanDefence Agency. While removing the most basic rights of workers and ordinary people,it calls for EU militarisation to be ‘funded adequately’ in line with its ambitions. Afterdefending the military attack on Libya, the majority of Parliament now wishes to go beyondthe ongoing financial and military support of terrorist groups in Syria and take militaryaction against the country. It again refers to the old EU ambition of securing a permanentseat in a reformed UN Security Council; not to defend peace but to operationalise ‘theresponsibility to protect principle’, that is, the implementation of so-called preventive wars.

Carl Haglund report (A7-0225/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. Long-term managementplans (LTMPs) should be established for all EU fisheries and/or geographical fishing regions,whereby particularities of the various European seas should be taken into account andsmall-scale coastal fisheries should be treated in a separate regime. The current system ofmanaging fish stocks has not led to healthier stocks and is thus hampering the overall aimof finding an appropriate balance between the ecological and economic aspects. Assumingthe LTMPs are successful, the Council must pursue the objectives and in particular theharvest control rules set by the co-legislators within the LTMPs, deploying the best availablescientific advice and applying the precautionary principle. A reformed common fisheriespolicy (CFP) should take account of this.

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I remain wholly opposed to the idea ofTransferable Fishing Concessions, and instead want to see a CFP that focuses on promotinga prospering industry which enhances rural communities and ensures them for futuregenerations. I feel that this report does not focus on this, and places a dangerous emphasison TFCs, that is why I have voted against it.

Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) According to the most recentCommission report, the current common fisheries policy has fallen short of its goals as


regards conservation and sustainable exploitation of EU fisheries. Moreover, the fishingcapacity has not been adjusted to the available fisheries resources, which has been revealedby alarming data: more than 60% of the fish stocks in European waters are fished beyondthe maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the Commission toestablish long-term management plans for commercial fisheries.

Regionalising the common fisheries policy should also be a priority, whereby the specificitiesof the different European seas should be taken into account, as well as the situation ofsmall-scale fisheries in the different areas of the EU. Moreover, establishing a network ofclosed areas in which all fishing activities are prohibited in order to achieve efficient resultsin terms of the conservation of living aquatic resources and the marine ecosystem is alsoimportant.

For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on theconservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. It provides for a moveaway from excessively intensive fishing and over-fishing while ensuring a livelihood forEU fishermen. I welcome the proposals on developing long-term management plans forall EU fisheries regions, taking into account the particularities of the seas, and those ontreating small-scale coastal fisheries in a separate regime. Long-term management plansshould have a clear objective and be based on an ecosystem approach in order to managemixed fisheries. I agree that we need to establish a mechanism to provide compensationfor fishermen affected by financial difficulties. We need to develop an effective no-discardspolicy, a sanctioning mechanism for Member States which do not comply with the rulesand grant the Community Fisheries Control Agency greater powers to ensure thefunctioning of the sanction system.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour of this reportgiven there is a need to adapt the capacity to the available fishery resources, an issue thathad not been tackled by the measures of the previous reform.

We need to adopt technical measures, therefore, to create long-term management plansfor all fisheries within a decentralised management regime. Prior to applying the measures,we need to define overcapacity and fishing capacity, and to understand the true extent ofthe fishing effort.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Haglund’s report because I agreewith the proposal to introduce a system of individually transferable fishing concessions,which, however, is subject to strict safeguards. I am also in favour of the establishment ofa special regime for small-scale and coastal fisheries in order to protect them fromcompetition from industrial fisheries, and a further regime for environmentally friendlyfishing vessels. The aim of these measures is to reduce overcapacity in the fisheries currentlyoperating in European waters.

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report becauseMember States’ efforts to enhance conservation, by rebuilding fish stocks and reducingfleet capacity, have been insufficient. Recovery plans must be established for all EU andgeographical fisheries regions whereby particularities of the various seas would be takeninto account and small-scale coastal fisheries would be treated in a separate regime. Thecurrent situation is one where short-term national concerns prevail over long-termmanagement and this prevents the overall aim from being achieved. It is very important


to set up a framework for decision-making in data-poor situations regarding managementplans and total allowable catches (TACs) as well as quota decisions because there is a clearlack of reliable and available data. As the existing provisions of the common fisheries policy(CFP) were not sufficient to address the issue of over-fishing, we need to reform the CFP,set clear deadlines for fleet reductions and pace targets as well as a sanctioning mechanismfor Member States which do not comply with the rules. Financial support also needs to beguaranteed for fishermen who face the consequences of identified over-fishing. Theadjustment of fleet capacity is another key aspect, which could ensure that sustainablefishing is rewarded. Moreover, preferential access to fishing rights should be granted toecologically-friendly fishing vessels.

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In order to preserve and adequatelymanage fishery resources, technical conservation measures applicable inter alia to meshsizes, authorised sizes for fish available for fishing, as well as to restrictions on by-catchesin certain areas, in certain periods of time or with certain types of watercrafts have beenadopted.

I think the optimal exploitation of resources also calls for a permanent control of fishingactivities, carried out by means of surveillance boats. In this case, under the principle ofsubsidiarity, the EU relies on the coercive measures taken by the Member States. Therefore,the authorities of the Member States are compelled to carry out inspections on the fishingboats in compliance with a common procedure. Their crews are also bound to keep a seajournal indicating the quantity of non-discarded by-catches from every species and submitto the local authorities at the docking point an unloading report, at the end of each voyage.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted infavour of reporting obligations under the regulation on the conservation and sustainableexploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy. I believe that it isnecessary to maintain the principle of relative stability, which is crucial to the distributionof fishing quotas and guarantees the socio-economic stability of the sector.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe it isessential to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks in EU waters, to reduce fleetcapacity and to extend the system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters toa regime of 10-20 miles, to more effectively achieve the objectives in this area.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the conservation andsustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy as itadvocates developing an effective no-discards policy at EU level whereby the EuropeanFisheries Control Agency (EFCA) has greater powers to ensure a fair system of rules andsanctions.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report that the Commission is obliged to submitto Parliament and to the Council on the conservation and sustainable exploitation offisheries resources and the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment of fishingcapacity before the end of 2012 indicates that the Member States’ efforts to enhanceconservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient. The system of fishingrestrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters has been working well. It is naturally importantthat the Commission provide for the establishment of long-term management plans forall commercial EU fisheries. It is therefore advisable to consider the possibility of groupingfisheries according to geographical fishing region by regionalising the common fisheriespolicy, whereby the specificities of the different European seas should be taken into account


as well as the situation of small-scale fisheries in the different areas, in order to alignmanagement measures as closely as possible to the actual situations facing the differentfleets.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report by Carl Haglund focuses onthe report that the Commission is obliged to submit to Parliament and to the Council onthe conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the commonfisheries policy (CFP) and the Member States’ performance regarding the adjustment offishing capacity before the end of 2012, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC)No 2371/2002. Although the existing data are insufficient to develop long-termmanagement plans, and it is essential to further these studies, they often enable us toconclude that there is overfishing, with discards and by-catches harming the sector’ssustainability. Moreover, the EU should not establish cooperation agreements with countriesthat do not comply with sustainable fishing practices. I would like to highlight the needto afford special treatment to the outermost regions, to safeguard their small fleets as wellas small-scale coastal fishing. I hope that the management plans are implemented as quicklyas possible to give us a system of sustainable fisheries.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to address Member States’efforts to enhance the conservation of fisheries resources and to rebuild fish stocks, andalso the system of fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical miles waters. The report as a wholeis negative. It calls on the Commission to establish a system whereby Member States thatdo not fulfil their respective obligations regarding data collection and transmission aresanctioned, in a context where EU accountability (namely funding) for these obligationsis clearly inadequate. It proposes sanctions, such as the freezing of funds from the EuropeanMaritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), for Member States that fail to meet reduction targetsfor a sustainable level of capacity predefined for every fishery. It supports the introductionof transferable fishing concessions. In the Committee on Fisheries we tabled dozens ofamendments that were overwhelmingly rejected. We therefore voted against this report.

Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − In the Commission’s recent report on efforts concerningthe conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in Member States, andcurrent fishing capacity, it was concluded that Member States’ actions were insufficient intheir attempts to re-build fish stocks and reduce fleet capacity. This subsequent Parliamentreport responds by calling for a definition of overcapacity at EU level, and the need toestablish long-term management plans for all EU fisheries. It is of significant public interestto reform the common fisheries policy so that we see an end to fish discards and a moreregionalised decision-making process. I therefore add my support to this report’s effortsto return sustainable fishing practices to our waters.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the proposal because it calls forfish productivity to be increased and living aquatic resources and the marine ecosystemto be conserved in order to preserve living resources and ensure long-term environmentalsustainability. The Commission report again confirms that the current common fisheriespolicy (CFP) has fallen short of its goals as regards conservation and sustainable exploitationof EU fisheries and adjusting the available fishing capacity to the available fisheries resources.More than 60% of the fish stocks in European waters are fished beyond maximumsustainable yield. The total allowable catch (TAC) and quota system has, in itself, provedto be inefficient in managing certain fish stocks sustainably over the last decade. A verysignificant number of jobs have been lost in the European fishing industry because of thepoor state of fish stocks, increased production costs and falling prices.


Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Haglund’s report was adopted by a largemajority (399 votes to 228, with 31 abstentions in the case of the vote on paragraph 4,for example). Above all, it concerns the amendment of the measures relating to themultiannual plans for rebuilding and managing fish stocks in order to reconcileenvironmental requirements and social and economic considerations.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the Commission hasestablished multiannual recovery plans, only a limited number of fish stocks in EU watershave so far been covered, which means that overfishing has not been diminished enough.In addition, given the diversity of European seas, I believe that long-term managementplans should be established, taking into account the needs of all geographical fishing regionsin the EU.

The European Commission must provide for the establishment of such plans within ahighly decentralised regime which fully involves all stakeholders. Thus, by regionalisingthe common fisheries policy, we will be able to align the management measures to theactual situations facing the different fleets, thereby reducing overfishing.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because I could notsupport its call for the destruction of seals and seabirds.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. It is right to stress the need for abalance between the ecological and the economic and social situation in each fishery, whileacknowledging that without plentiful fish stocks there will be no profitable fishing industry.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The general situation of Europeanfish stocks is worrying, despite the fact that the common fisheries policy has managed toprovide conclusive results in relation to some iconic species. Efforts must therefore bemaintained and stepped up. This report proposes eliminating the general rule of a share-outof quotas between States said to be ‘in relative stability’. This is madness. It supports theprivatisation of the resource by adopting individual transferable quotas. I am totally opposedto it. These quotas will give rise to a concentration of companies and job losses. They giveno guarantee of restoring the stocks to good ecological status. I voted against this text.

Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this resolution because the fish stockswhose very survival is threatened cannot be kept waiting by the Member States’ bureaucraticdelays any longer. The long-term management plans must be clearly defined and based onan ecosystem approach, whereby solutions need to be found for managing mixed fisheries.So long as certain Member States continue to delay informing the Commission of theseplans, however, it will remain difficult to identify the areas for intervention with anyprecision. This will jeopardise the aim of protecting certain threatened species, such asbluefin tuna in our Mediterranean waters. This negligence also adversely affects the releaseof funding needed for very specific areas of relevant scientific research, and on severaloccasions Parliament has had to call for defaulting Member States to fulfil their obligations.The real problem is not one of applying the sanctions that are provided for, but how tospeed up the prompt collection of data so as to protect the marine ecosystem.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report on reporting obligationson the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources highlights importantissues such as the adjustment of the EU fleet’s fishing capacity and the conservation andsustainability of fisheries resources. The report focused on very relevant aspects such asthe need to find a balance between the ecological and economic aspects, the need to adopt


an ecosystem approach to find appropriate solutions to manage mixed fisheries, the needto promote a gradual reduction in unwanted by-catches and discards, and the need toimprove the quality and reliability of the data necessary for sound scientific advice. Dueto the importance of these issues, and given that the report is well balanced, I voted forthis report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission is obliged by Council Regulation(EC) No 2371/2002 to report to both the European Parliament and the Council on theconservation and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources and on the Member States’performance regarding the adjustment of fishing capacity, before the end of 2012. Thefindings are certainly negative: Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and torebuild fish stocks have been insufficient. That has made it necessary to reform the commonfisheries policy so as to find a suitable balance between the ecological and the economicaspects and to provide a general definition of overcapacity at EU level and a specificdefinition at regional level, while taking regional weighting factors into account. I votedfor the proposal with those aims in mind.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The report is generallypretty good. Some of the decisions that are decisive for the reform – on the objectives ofmanagement, for example, as well as the adoption or not of rules requiring privatisationof the right to fish, and the discard ban – have been dealt with rather generally, in thedirection of our policy but without the controversial dates of application. So that is positive.

Equally positive is language about the need to punish Member States which fail in theirobligations to enforce the rules of the common fisheries policy, as well as mention of ourenvironmental and social criteria for the right to fish. Nonetheless, some negative thingshave crept in, including language reflecting the silly and irrational belief by fishermen thatkilling seals will bring back the fish stocks. Neither of the Commission’s documentsmentioned this at all, but it is a favourite issue for a few MEPs and so both reports supportthe killing of seals (and cormorants!). We tried to remove these references, but failed.

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Haglund’s report,because I consider that the proposals contained in it strengthen the sustainability andrecovery of fisheries resources and enhance the role and importance of multiannual plansto the recovery of fisheries resources.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, in the hope thatthe ideas contained therein are followed by strong action. Everybody agrees that multiannualmanagement and stock rebuilding plans are important, whilst several countries in theUnion continue to practise overfishing in a totally thoughtless and irresponsible fashion.Furthermore, I also note that only 17 stocks have been covered in EU waters.

Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report focuses on the report that theCommission is obliged to submit to Parliament and to the Council on the conservationand sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and the Member States’ performanceregarding the adjustment of fishing capacity before the end of 2012. Moreover, theCommission had the obligation to report on fishing restrictions in the 12 nautical mileszones by 31 December 2011. The Commission states that Member States’ efforts to enhanceconservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient and that there has beenequally little progress in the reduction of fleet capacity. The system of fishing restrictionsin the 12 nautical miles waters is working well and could potentially be extended to aregime of 10-20 miles. Parliament’s position is that, although the establishment of


multiannual and recovery plans is widely accepted, overfishing has not been diminishedenough. It believes a definition of overcapacity at EU level and a specific definition atregional level are required. It also recognises that the principle of relative stability hasencouraged Member States to focus on their own national share rather than on the collectivelong-term benefit.

Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on theconservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. This own-initiative reportis satisfactory because it has allowed us to move the debate on the common fisheries policy(CFP) forward, particularly by highlighting the consensus in Parliament on the need toimprove data collection, an essential prerequisite if we are to arrive at a sound definitionof the CFP’s objectives at a time when the status of some fish stocks is still unknown.However, it is only one vote in the process. This report also points out the need to go inthe direction of greater decentralisation, at a time, in particular, when the Commission hasstated that there are too many ships in the European fleet compared with available fishstocks. Yet it does not study the realities of each coastline and the different fish stocks foundthere. The report also notes that one of the prime priorities of the CFP should be jobs,because without fish, there is no fishing, and without fishermen, neither is there any fishing.Finally, Parliament has noted that transferable fishing concessions should be an optionalmanagement measure, and recognised that the obligation to land by-catch should beadjusted to the realities of each fishery.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on reportingobligations under Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainableexploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy.

Over the past decade, a very significant number of jobs have been lost in the Europeanfishing industry because of the poor state of fish stocks, increased production costs, fallingprices as a result of cheaper imports, and technological advances. We call on theCommission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for allcommercial EU fisheries within a highly decentralised management regime which fullyinvolves all relevant stakeholders. The scientific fisheries research is an essential fisheriesmanagement tool that is indispensable for identifying factors that influence the developmentof fishery resources, with a view to carrying out a quantitative assessment and arriving atmodels that make it possible to forecast the development of those resources, but also forimproving fishing gear, vessels and working and safety conditions for fishermen, inconjunction with their knowledge and experience.

We call on the Commission to measure, before the end of 2013, the capacity of Europeanfleets in order to establish where there is overcapacity in relation to the resources availableand what reductions/conversions are required.

Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which I have supported, calls for anumber of measures to promote sustainable fishing in EU waters. Stock conservation is amain concern: the report establishes that there is a direct link between discards andoverfishing and thus suggests that a discard ban should be introduced on a fishery-by-fisherybasis. Furthermore, fishing paraphernalia should be optimised to eliminate by-catches ofjuveniles and non-targeted species as much as possible. The suggestions outlined in thisreport represent an important contribution to the debates surrounding the conservationof fish stocks in the EU.


Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) It is difficult to overestimate the significanceof introducing and overseeing the conservation of fish stocks and sustainable fishing wherethe whole market related to fisheries is concerned. Many factors are involved, includingsome beyond our control, such as the climate. It is therefore important that the measureswe voted for in Parliament, and my vote was in favour, should come into force as soon aspossible in order for the long-term management plan for all EU industrial fisheries tobecome effective. We should remember that the stability of the future fishing industry willallow new generations of fishermen access to it. Any form of job creation in Europe willalways have my support.

Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The results of the Member States’ efforts to conserveand improve fish stocks to help them recover are few and far between; their failure to fulfiltheir obligations, especially with regard to reporting, the setting of appropriate reductiontargets, and data collection and transmission, is discouraging.

I therefore support Parliament’s position and stress that it is unacceptable for MemberStates not to present the data needed for valid scientific consultation. On the positive side,however, the system of fishing restrictions within 12-nautical-mile waters has proved tobe an efficient way to achieve the objectives of the common fisheries policy.

Nikolaos Salavrakos report (A7-0253/2012)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, although I would pointout the importance of the multifunctionality of fisheries for coastal regions. There is a clearneed for specific measures for certain regions, such as the island regions and outermostregions. Furthermore and above all, the common fisheries policy should be a holistic,cross-disciplinary and inclusive policy, which is not the case, as some European territoriesdo not share the same sea basins as the European continent. The outermost regions shouldtherefore be grouped together and represented on an advisory committee created specificallyfor this purpose. Restrictive measures under the common fisheries policy need to be adaptedto the actual state of fish stocks. For these reasons, a financial instrument to support thesector must remain in place and continue to be based on the principle of intensifying aidfor cofinanced measures in the outermost regions. I also emphasise that transferable fishingconcessions could lead to fishing rights being concentrated in the hands of a small numberof operators and thus result in the disappearance of numerous small-scale fishingenterprises.

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Whilst including many good elements,such as the importance of encouraging new generations to take up fishing, I believe thatthis report, as an overarching communication does not go far enough to address issuessuch as discards, overfishing, preserving the rural way of life and sustainability. I think anyoverarching communication regarding the future of the CFP needs to be clear on theseissues and because of this I have abstained.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The EP resolution on the reform ofthe common fisheries policy (CFP) is important for both Lithuanian fishermen and thefishing industry as a whole. I supported two amendments to this document, the first ofwhich proposed allocating subsidies from the EU budget to renovate fishing vessels (thesesubsidies were suspended in 2002, i.e. before Lithuania joined the EU). The secondamendment proposed increasing fish quotas. During the vote in plenary the first amendmentwas rejected while the second was adopted. The reform of fisheries policy, which wasapproved in 2002 and which is still being implemented, did not provide the fishing fleets


in any of the new EU Member States with subsidies for fleet renewal, putting them in avery difficult position. The majority of vessels that needed to be repaired were broken up.With this reform the old EU Member States eliminated potential competitors from themarket, forgetting that fishing is not just a source of jobs and income for people in the newEU Member States, but a tradition and way of life. Lithuanian fishermen suffered damagesincluding financial losses. Unfortunately, the majority of MEPs did not approve theamendment on subsidies for the renewal of fishing vessels in EU Member States. I thereforevoted against this document, expressing my opposition to the proposed reform of the EU’sCFP.

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on therestructuring of the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP). The goal of restructuring is tomove away from excessively intensive fishing and over-fishing while ensuring a livelihoodfor EU fishermen. It is essential to ensure that by 2015 stocks of all types of fish are notfished beyond a sustainable level and that long-term management plans are established.In order to ensure that the measures chosen better meet regional and local needs, theMember States themselves should choose the most appropriate safeguards. I agree that weneed to prohibit the discarding of unwanted fish and ensure that consumers are given allthe necessary information about the quality and sustainability of the products they buy.Financial support should be given to environmentally friendly initiatives and a strict controlsystem should be established in order to ensure that illegal activities do not receive funding.Finally, it is important for the EU to encourage compliance with the same principles ofgood governance throughout the world.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I have voted in favour because itis clear the previous fisheries policy did not fulfil its objectives, given that many speciesare still being overexploited.

There are profitability issues within the fishing fleet. Appropriate measures should beadopted. We need, therefore, to determine the true fishing effort and capacity in Europe,and the fishing communities should stay close to the levels that can produce the maximumsustainable yield. This would need to be applied on a regional level, and with the necessaryfunding from the European Fisheries Fund for the renewal and modernisation of the fleetsas part of the restructuring through the implementation of the measures adopted in thecommon fisheries policy.

Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report byMr Salavrakos because I would like to see the three objectives of this reform fulfilled. Firstof all, I believe the measures for the conservation of marine resources should bestrengthened, for example by creating a voluntary ‘organic quality’ mark, increasing thepermitted cofinancing rate, and constantly collecting data to monitor the state ofbiodiversity in the various European sea basins. I also believe that oil price instability meansthat the fisheries sector requires strict monitoring and certification of all products placedon the EU market, especially those imported from third countries. Lastly, I am in favourof regionalising the fisheries sector so as to ensure the widespread monitoring and efficientmanagement of every European marine basin.

Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 11 September 2012, I voted infavour of the report on the overarching communication on the reform of the commonfisheries policy. I support in particular the objective of renewing the European fleet with


less polluting and safer ships, while reducing their engine power. Otherwise, I oppose anyincrease in fleet capacity.

John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), inwriting. − This is an own initiative report, which is non-legislative and not binding on theEU Commission. UKIP voted against this although we do agree with ideas such as the useof selective fishing gear, the move towards discards and we share concerns over the proposedsystem of ‘transferable fishing concessions’ – we cannot support calls for more powers forEU fishing agencies, the creation of EU rules as to how scientists should collect data or EUpropaganda campaigns aimed at schoolchildren. The CFP has been an economic andenvironmental disaster and we supported amendments which will help our fishing industry,but until the CFP is scrapped and fishing regulation is given back to elected governments,our fish stocks and industry will continue to suffer. Fishing regulation should be createdby politicians accountable to the people by the ballot box, not the unelected Commissionof the EU.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because itconsiders that the CFP (extractive fisheries and aquaculture sector) needs thorough andambitious reform if the EU is to ensure long-term environmental sustainability, which isa prerequisite for securing the economic and social viability of the EU fishing andaquaculture sector.

Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Our votes have shown that the majority ofMembers did not favour transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) aimed at liberalising thefishing industry. The adopted text still, unfortunately, makes reference to TFCs, but theyare now optional. A more watered-down position has also been adopted on the compulsorylanding of discards; what is currently under consideration is a gradual implementation ona case-by-case basis, taking account of the different characteristics and realities of thefisheries. While the landing of all incidental catches and by-catches was to be approved inthe basic regulation, we have also achieved the guarantee of financial compensation forfishing professionals in the text on the common market organisation. Finally, a compromisewas reached in relation to maximum sustainable yield, so that this rate could be appliedat the latest in 2020, and not in 2015.

Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) This report contains a number of positiveelements, such as the wording in section 10 regarding Maximum Sustainable Yields (MSY):‘believes that the objective of achieving MSY … should be implemented immediately’.Unfortunately, there was a rather narrow majority for the following wording in section 9:‘levels close to those capable of producing maximum sustainable yield’, where, forsustainability reasons – in order to create a better future for the industry and in order tosecure fish for consumers – we would have liked wording that says that the stocks are tobe re-established to ‘a level higher than that capable of producing maximum sustainableyield’. We will be working towards this in the forthcoming negotiations on the basicregulation.

Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I wholeheartedly supported Mr Salavrakos’report on the common fisheries policy. The proposed solution will make it easier to controlfishing and to combat illegal fishing. Considering the system of legal sanctions adopted,we can expect greater cooperation between Member States in this regard.

Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common fisheries policy (CFP), whichhas been in place for 20 years, has not enabled us to conserve fish stocks or a balanced


ecosystem, no more than it has been able to prevent the economic and social deteriorationof an entire industry. There should be a new CFP. In future, the European Union will set ageneral framework for a policy of the sea and fishing activity, in partnership with theMember States and major coastal areas and, with the assistance of the actors on the ground,solutions will be adjusted locally. The EU and the Member States must provide the producerorganisations with the means they need to play a more important role, introducingproduction and marketing plans, to give them greater influence over distributors.Consumers must also be better protected. That is why producers will be required to putthe date of unloading on labels along with other information such as the status of the fishstocks, the catching sector and the fishing methods used. Finally, fishing and aquaculturedo not lend themselves to a purely free-trade approach. In international negotiations,fishery products should be considered ‘sensitive products’ in the same way as certainagricultural products.

Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the reform of the commonfisheries policy as it includes measures to ensure the supply of fish to the public and thedevelopment of coastal communities, promoting employment and better workingconditions for fishing professionals while seeking to establish resources on a sustainablefooting, which makes for proper conservation. I believe that any and every fisheries policyshould take account of a multitude of dimensions — social, environmental and economic— that require an integrated and balanced approach. This is incompatible with a visionthat creates a hierarchy among them according to an a priori definition of priorities.

Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The world’s oceans and fisheries provide food securityand a livelihood for over 500 million people worldwide. It would therefore be useful forthe Commission to establish from the outset a definition of overcapacity at EU level whichaccommodates regional definitions, taking into account local specificities. The reformedcommon fisheries policy must not be removed from the socio-economic and environmentalcontext in which it exists and it should help to enhance the standard of living of thosecommunities that depend on fisheries, and grant better working conditions for fishermen.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Existing deregulation in the fisheriessector means that an urgent reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) is needed. Thiscannot be delayed any longer. We must preserve our fisheries resources by protectingstocks. However, this reform cannot be implemented without involving the industry orby working against it. We must promote the sustainability of resources while ensuringjobs and the survival of small fishing communities, which are often responsible formaintaining the planet’s biodiversity. To promote a sustainable fisheries regime, the nextCFP should consider: medium- and long-term management plans; a ban on catching youngfish and their consequent return to the aquatic environment; a reflagging ban on countriespermitting non-sustainable fishing; international cooperation, especially as regardsenforcement; the involvement of fishermen’s organisations; and scientific studies on stocks.I voted for this report because we need a CFP that preserves fish stocks but also promotessocial sustainability, especially in the midst of a crisis in which job creation is scarce.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report included and still includespositive aspects, which we value. Some of these result from proposals made by our groupin the Committee on Fisheries, such as: rejecting the privatisation of fisheries resources;greater consideration of the objectives of a fisheries policy, including social and economicaspects; and increased EU cofinancing for data collection on the status of stocks.Unfortunately, other proposals were weakened or even withdrawn in this vote in plenary.


One such example is support for the renovation and modernisation of fishing fleets. Thereport rejects mandatory transferable fishing concessions, as proposed by the Commission.The report falls far short of what is needed in its review of our centralised common fisheriespolicy, which has prevailed in the last two decades, and in promoting proximitymanagement, which goes beyond the (inconsequential) ‘regionalisation’ proposals tabledby the Commission and the greater involvement of regional advisory councils.Unfortunately, our proposals in this area were not accepted, inter alia expanding the areareserved for the exclusive access of Member States’ fleets. These shortcomings andcontradictions justify our abstention.

Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − The current common fisheries policy has been muchcriticised for its impact on EU fish stocks, creating an economically fragile industry. Thisoverarching report encompasses a number of areas, urging the Commission to strengthenits measures concerning marine biological resources, the collection of data, job prospects,socio-economic sustainability and the aquaculture industry. In particular I commend itsproposals regarding regionalisation. This will see a move away from micromanagementat EU level and allow regions the necessary flexibility to adapt the proposals to their specificneeds. It should also allow greater involvement of industry and stakeholders. Reform tothe EU’s common fisheries policy is long overdue. As such, I welcome this report.

Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The matter at issue here is the future ofthe seas. The Salavrakos report deserves to be supported for its long-term perspective onthe sustainable development of fishing in the EU, but we cannot allow it to be watereddown in this way. I shall explain what I mean by this: Amendment 2, which was adoptedwith the help of the regionalists who swung the vote, has destroyed the call to allow fishstocks to increase to levels above those capable of producing a maximum sustainable yield(MSY). This means that the EU has failed to meet even the requirements of internationallaw. I therefore ended up voting against this text, for, although it does take account of someimportant aspects (ceilings for the renewal of fleet, areas for repopulating fish), it does nottake sufficient account of numerous points including overfishing and the objectives set bythe common fisheries policy.

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliamentresolution on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) because the fishing industryis of strategic importance in terms of the public supply of fish and the food balance invarious Member States and in the European Union itself, and because it makes a considerablecontribution to socio-economic well-being in coastal communities, local development,employment, the preservation and creation of economic activities upstream anddownstream and the preservation of local cultural traditions. It is vital that the CFP pursuesan approach to the fisheries sector that takes into account the biological, ecological, andeconomic and social dimensions (the three pillars of the CFP reform), so that a compromiseis always struck between the state of existing resources in the various maritime areas andprotection of the socio-economic fabric of coastal communities that depend on inshorefishing to guarantee jobs and prosperity. It is important to remember that the primeobjective of any fisheries policy is to ensure the supply of fish to the public and thedevelopment of coastal communities, promoting employment and better workingconditions for fishing professionals while seeking to establish resources on a sustainablefooting to create the conditions for proper conservation.

Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Salavrakos.This is an own-initiative report which aims to support the European Commission’s


objectives in reforming the common fisheries policy (CFP). The proposed measures aimto increase eco-friendly sustainable fishing, to guarantee the supply of healthy andhigh-quality fishery products for Europeans, to guarantee the prosperity of coastalcommunities and the profitability of the fish production and processing industries andfinally to improve job attractiveness and security.

David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I support the opening sentiment in this resolutionthat the European Parliament ‘considers the prime objective of any fisheries policy to beto ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development of coastal communities,promoting employment and better working conditions for fishing professionals whileseeking to establish resources on a sustainable footing which makes for properconservation’.

Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report. I agree that the fisheries sectorcan only remain sustainable if a balance between socio-economic and environmentalaspects is found, and if there are sufficient adequately trained and skilled workers. In orderto achieve this, careers in fishing need to become attractive.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text proposes relevant measureswith a view to introducing genuinely sustainable fishing. The involvement at all levels,national and local, of fishermen in producer organisations, financial support for theimprovement of scientific data on fish stocks and the compilation of statistical data forfishing, financial support for an eco-label, the fight against the elimination of by-catch,financial support to improve the fuel efficiency of the ships, import controls, training offishermen and the improvement of living conditions on board, the promotion of fishtourism are all measures that I support with the Confederal Group of the European UnitedLeft –Nordic Green Left. However this text is not opposed to the adoption of the systemof transferable fishing concessions (TFCs), which is particularly harmful to artisanal fisheries.I therefore abstained.

Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The fisheries debate has taken centre stage inthis part-session, starting with this report on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

First it highlights the failure of the measures adopted so far at European level, in that thesector seems not to have responded as required, first by raising employment levels andsecondly by depending less on third countries.

Unfortunately neither of these two goals has been achieved, and today the system is facinga really difficult situation. The prospective solutions include a new measure to favour theconservation and improvement of marine biological resources, more rational managementof the socio-economic and employment sustainability of the sector, and the call to imposestrict rules on non-EU countries that do not comply with certain marine environmentalsafeguards.

Alongside these measures, regionalisation is proposed as a key principle of fisheries reform.It should result in having greater freedom with regard to various requirements, while fullyrespecting the principle of subsidiarity. All these reasons have led me to vote for all thereports on fisheries, a sector that still can and must offer a great deal in terms of theenvironment, food, the economy and employment.

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, which touchesupon a series of significant issues related to the fisheries sector in the European Union.Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that the report mentions the need for a new Regional


Fisheries Management Organisation for the Black Sea, given that the current competentbody, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, is not an adequateframework. Moreover, we need to intensify the dialogue with the Black Sea countries,particularly with regard to the exploitation and conservation of fish stocks.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This overarching communicationon the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) was structured around various topicsrelated to the objectives of the reform, namely environmental sustainability (measures forthe conservation of marine biological resources, monitoring and collecting quality data),socio-economic sustainability (a future for jobs in the fisheries and aquaculture industry)and regionalisation. I voted unsuccessfully to adopt two amendments to this report that Iconsider to be important: the possibility of fleet renewal (under certain specific conditions,to adapt vessels to the available resources, ensuring the sustainability of their operations),and the possibility of cofinancing up to 75% to support scientific data collection andprocessing (which could significantly contribute to strengthened and more efficient fisheriesmanagement). Overall, I voted for this overarching communication on the reform of thecommon fisheries policy.

Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The common fisheries policy (CFP) needsthorough and ambitious reform if the EU is to ensure the long-term environmentalsustainability of the Union’s fisheries and aquaculture sector, which is a prerequisite forsecuring its economic and social viability as well. To conserve marine biological resources,the CFP must apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management and ensure thatthe sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources restores and maintains thestocks of all harvested species above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainableyield. I would stress that the fisheries and extensive aquaculture sectors are important directand indirect sources of job creation for our maritime regions. I voted for the proposal.

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. The report forms part of thereform package of the Common Fisheries Policy, released last year and which is in fulldebate in the Fisheries Committee now. It covers the COM's general overview of what itproposes in the CFP reform. The danger, and a bad precedent for the rest of the reform, isa call for the subsidisation of construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. Therewere many amendments to this effect which were defeated but in the Salavrakos report,one such amendment was adopted. Most groups share our wish to eliminate this paragraph.As the reference to subsidies for vessels was not eliminated, we voted against.

Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report.Indeed, it should be remembered that the previous common fisheries policy (CFP) did notmeet some of its main objectives: many stocks are still overfished, the economic situationof parts of the European fleet is still fragile despite subsidies, jobs are still being lost in thefishing sector, and they are unattractive to young people entering the sector, and thesituation of many coastal communities depending on fishing and aquaculture is stillprecarious.

The prime objective is to ensure the supply of fish to the public and the development ofcoastal communities, by promoting employment and better working conditions for fishingprofessionals. I should just like to make the point that if we put the sustainability of stockson the back burner and if we do not, for example, let stocks which have suffered fromoverfishing recover we shall soon reach the point of no-return.


Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that the future common fisheries policy,taking an even-handed approach aimed at mutual reinforcement, should focus on theenvironmental, social, economic and cultural pillars of fisheries, in order to encouragesustainable development. As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on RegionalDevelopment, I advocate the need for this reform to include specific measures for certainregions such as the outermost regions, whose economies are heavily dependent on thefisheries sector. The fisheries reform in these regions should therefore focus on ensuringthe survival and prosperity of small-scale coastal fishing and on achieving economic, socialand territorial cohesion objectives, such as promoting employment. I voted for this reportin Parliament and I hope that, in the future, this policy responds more adequately to theneeds and sensitivities of each sea basin.

Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the overarchingcommunication on the common fisheries policy (CFP). This non-binding report is acceptableinsofar as its content anticipates and influences forthcoming debates on the basic CFPRegulation. It has enabled us to make some progress on the Commission’s proposals, whichis important for future negotiations, and which, I hope, will allow for further improvements.In the face of the EU’s very controversial proposal to introduce transferable fishingconcessions, a tool for liberalising the fishing industry, Parliament spoke in particular infavour of a voluntary system, allowing Member States to decide whether to implement itor not, which is an encouraging start. Parliament also noted that we should reach themaximum sustainable yield by 2020, and not exceed it, a notion thought to be too vague.The proposal to land all by-catches, which the industry has great difficulty in implementingbecause of technical constraints, has also been watered down, in favour of a gradualimplementation on a case-by-case basis, depending on the characteristics and realities ofthe different fisheries. There should be further discussion about the technical feasibility ofimplementing such a measure.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the EuropeanParliament’s resolution on the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). The fishingindustry is of strategic importance in terms of the public supply of fish and the food balancein various Member States and in the European Union itself, and it makes a considerablecontribution to socio-economic well-being in coastal communities, local development,employment, the preservation and creation of economic activities upstream anddownstream and the preservation of local cultural traditions.

The EU is the world’s fourth-biggest producer; nevertheless, the EU imports over 60% ofthe fish it consumes. I think the CFP must apply the precautionary approach to fisheriesmanagement and ensure the sustainable exploitation of living marine biological resourcesin order to restore and maintain the populations of all stocks of harvested species at levelsthat are close to those capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. We call on theCommission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans for all EUfisheries and for the use of the ecosystem approach as a basis for all such plans, with clearlydefined objectives and harvest control rules playing a pivotal role in each plan.

Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. − (LV) Reform of the common fisheries policy haslong been needed to put the governance of fisheries in order so as to ensure sustainablefish stocks, phase out overfishing and ensure income for fishermen in the future. However,a solution should be offered for this scenario which finds a balance between the developmentof the industry, its impact on the environment, and social interests in the long term.Renovation of fleets does not automatically lead to increased fishing capacity. If a fleet is


completely worn out and old, modernisation measures alone are not enough to fulfil therequirements with regard to safety, environmental protection and fuel economy. Therefore,I support using the resources of the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund not onlyfor modernising fleets, but also for renewing them without increasing fishing capacity.

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This part-session has providedus with the opportunity to debate this reform, a subject that has been dominating thecurrent negotiations in the fisheries sector.

The Green Paper on the reform of the sector was presented in April 2009. The main aspectswere discussed in the course of various Council meetings at which ministers addressed thetopic, in order to reach initial agreement on a joint text.

One of the main topics addressed by the text is in my opinion paragraph 58, which callsfor the future European Fisheries Fund to offer grants for the renewal and modernisationof fishing fleets in order to achieve the aims of the reform of the common fisheries policy.

The average age of fishing fleets in the EU is currently 27 years. I voted for the amendment,but unfortunately it was not adopted. That is why I felt obliged to vote against the entirereport, since I believe the modernisation of the fishing fleet is vitally important on thegrounds of safety, environmental protection and fuel economy, as demonstrated in thereport.

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − Today I voted wholeheartedly for reform ofthe Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Led by British Conservatives, we in the ECR Grouphave been urging the Commission for a long time to back a policy that moves decisionmaking away from unelected Brussels officials to the people actually doing the job – thoseengaged in our local fishing industry. We will continue to urge the Commission to backreforms that strengthen measures for the conservation of marine resources, strengthenour British fisheries industry and move away from the current over-centralised system. Ihave always said that CFP was bad for our fishermen and even worse for the fish. We areachieving some improvement but our eventual goal should be repatriation of CFP.

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) In order to improve the situation ofthe fishing industry (overfishing, poor job prospects etc.), comprehensive reform is neededwhich will open up new horizons for the fishery policy. At the same time, we must notforget sustainability. We also need to focus on the situation of fishermen and consumersand on the problems of overfishing and accidental by-catches.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Having carefully analysed the reform of thecommon fisheries policy in view of its strategic significance in terms of providing for thepeople, I voted in favour of this resolution, fully aware of its consequences. It deservessupport because of its provisions regarding sustainable fishing, combating unethical fishing(a number of fish stocks are still overfished), and especially because it takes account ofbiological, ecological, commercial and social issues. I am convinced that a well supervisedfisheries and aquaculture sector will make a major contribution to meeting the needs ofthe people of Europe.

Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the own-initiative report in questionsince I agree with and support the primary objectives of the common fisheries policy reformthat it identifies. These include environmental sustainability, socio-economic sustainabilityand regionalisation. The Committee on Development recalls that an in-depth reform ofthe EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP) is needed, due to its failure to meet its objectives


fully. It should also be emphasised that sustainable fishing will be of huge environmental,social and economic advantage, as the environment will not be degraded, fishingcommunities will have a secure future, and the fisheries sector will be profitable withoutneed of public support. It is also essential that the CFP is consistent with development andenvironment policies.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 14.25 and resumed at 15.05)

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZVice-President

10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

11. Political situation in Romania (debate)

President. − The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements onthe political situation in Romania.

I would like to inform you that we have the pleasure of Mr Valeriu Ștefan Zgonea, Presidentof the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, and also Mr Dan Șova, Minister for relations withParliament in his country joining us in the gallery. We welcome these two distinguishedguests to this important debate.

Mr Mavroyiannis, I want to make use of the opportunity to congratulate you and thankthe Presidency for the hospitality provided by the Cypriot Parliament and administrationduring the last three days whilst the first interparliamentary conference on the commonforeign and security policy and the common security and defence policy was held in Paphos.It was an extremely interesting conference, which opened up a situation that had beenclosed for too long, and I must say that the participation and efforts of our Cypriot hostswere decisive in making the event a success.

Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourableMembers, let me first thank you for your kind comments on the success of the meeting inPaphos. We are looking forward to continuing until the end of the Cyprus Presidency,providing both hospitality for meetings but also substantial meetings that will contributeto moving forward our common European agenda.

Please allow me to begin this debate by stating that the Presidency is well aware of theconcerns that have been expressed by many Members of this Parliament at recent politicaldevelopments in Romania over the last few weeks and months. Given the implications ofsome of the actions and decisions taken at the highest political level in Romania, it is veryunderstandable that this Parliament has not only followed developments closely, but hasalso wished to express its profound unease.

Unlike Parliament, the Council has not discussed this issue. You will appreciate that, sinceas a Presidency I speak on behalf of the Council as a whole, it follows that my contributionto this afternoon’s debate will necessarily be limited. I would, however, like to make somemore general comments and offer some reflections which are relevant to the wider context.I hope these will also clarify the situation from the point of view of the Council.


Firstly and importantly, I would like to stress one point which is well known to all of us –that the European Union is founded on a number of basic values and principles which areset out in the treaties. These values and principles, which include freedom, democracy andthe rule of law, are also enshrined in the constitutional traditions of all Member States.

The Council attaches particular importance to ensuring that these values and principlesare fully respected. I know that this House also fully shares that view. However, there hasbeen no suggestion – either within or outside the Council – that any procedure involvingthe Council linked to the respect for the values on which the European Union is founded,should be invoked in the light of recent events in Romania.

All Member States are required to ensure that their legislation respects the basic values onwhich the EU is founded. But the rule of law and democratic values have not only to beenshrined in the texts, but also put into practice. That means that the legislation has to berespected and enforced. If there are any concerns or doubts that this is not the case, this isfirstly a matter for the Commission. I know that the Commission has raised its concernsin various contacts with different parties within Romania. The undertaking given to theCommission by the Romanian Government to act swiftly to ensure respect for the rule oflaw and the independence of the judiciary will certainly be welcomed.

On a separate note, and though legally not linked with Schengen accession, I am sure thatthe Commissioner will wish to say more about the concerns which the Commission raisedwith the Romanians and which are set out in the Commission’s latest report under theCooperation and Verification Mechanism which it adopted on 18 July. The Council isexpected next week to take a view on this report as a whole and recall that the existenceof an impartial, independent and effective administrative and judicial system is indispensablefor EU policies to function properly and for citizens to benefit from all the opportunitiesoffered by membership of the Union.

I hope you will understand that I am not able at this stage to make a more detailedcontribution to this debate, given that the Council has not adopted a position on this issue.I can, however, assure Members that I will listen with particular interest and attention toyour comments and reactions to this issue. Let me finish by greeting the presence ofVice-President Reding and the Ministers.

Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members,at the beginning of this summer we witnessed a combination of actions by the Romanianauthorities, which called into question the rule of law, democratic checks and balancesand the independence of the judiciary. We have built our Europe on judicial independenceand on the respect for the rule of law. Those are fundamental values for our Union and theCommission, as guardian of the Treaty, has a duty to see that they are respected by all.

Let me be clear about the nature of the concerns the Commission expressed during thesummer. They concerned respect for constitutional norms and judicial independence.They concerned the rule of law, because in Romania laws and emergency decrees werepassed against constitutional practice with the aim of reducing democratic checks andbalances, notably by imposing sudden limits to the powers of the constitutional court. Atthe same time, judges and prosecutors were subject to intimidation and pressure by politicalforces. Let me be very clear on the following: pressure on the judiciary is unacceptableregardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from. That is why theCommission reacted swiftly and decisively.


On 6 July, in a press release, the Commission expressed concerns about the developmentsin Romania. On 11 July I met the Romanian Justice Minister in Brussels and PresidentBarroso met Prime Minister Ponta the day after to share the Commission’s concerns aboutthe developments in Romania. As a result of our exchanges, the Romanian Governmentmade a number of important commitments in response to the eleven specific points thatwe had raised. The Romanian authorities addressed some of our concerns and, in particular,restored the constitutional norms, notably in the run-up to the referendum to impeachPresident Băsescu on 29 July. The referendum, unfortunately, did not bring an end to thepolitical strife.

Following the referendum there was again evidence of pressure on judges and of prosecutors’attempts to influence the circulation of the referendum turnout. President Barroso againset out the Commission’s concern in a letter to Prime Minister Ponta on 10 August. In thisletter the Commission called upon the Romanian Government to cooperate fully with theconstitutional court and to act swiftly and decisively on allegations of intimidation againstjudges.

Let me also recall that the Venice Commission echoed the Commission’s concern. ThePresident of this Venice Commission stated on 7 August and I quote: ‘it is a general principleof the rule of law that pressure on any court, whether constitutional or ordinary, in orderto influence its decisions, is inadmissible’ and he also appealed to ‘all state authorities andpolitical parties of Romania to fully respect the independence of the constitutional courtand to refrain from exercising pressures’.

On 21 August the decision of the constitutional court to declare invalid the referendumfor the impeachment of President Băsescu was respected by all mainstream political forces.This is an important step because it provides an opportunity for the normalisation ofpolitical life. In this context the Commission urges all political forces to seize thisopportunity.

The Romanian people deserve a political discourse based on policy arguments, not onpersonal attacks. I hope that the coming weeks and months will show that all politicalactors in Romania are determined to fully respect the rule of law and the independence ofthe judiciary in a sustainable and irreversible way.

However, the situation in Romania remains fragile and requires our attention and support.Since Romania’s accession to the EU in 2007, the Commission has a particular responsibility– as the Minister has just said – to monitor progress on the rule of law and the judicialindependence in Romania under the cooperation and verification mechanism.

The political developments in Romania over the summer were of particular relevance tothis monitoring exercise. The Commission therefore set out in detail its concerns in itsreport on Romania, which was adopted by the Commission on 18 July. Not all concernsand recommendations by the Commission regarding the rule of law and judicialindependence have been addressed. The Commission will therefore continue to closelymonitor the situation in Romania and maintain close contact with the Romanian authorities.

In the coming days President Barroso and I will be seeing President Băsescu. PresidentBarroso will receive Prime Minister Ponta and I will receive the new Romanian Minister ofJustice. Before the end of the year the Commission will prepare a report on Romania withinthe cooperation and verification mechanism, as announced in July. In this report we willcritically assess whether the rule of law and the stability of institutions have been restored


in Romania and whether confidence lost over the summer has been regained by thenecessary cooperation among all political actors.

I am confident that this Parliament shares the Commission’s conviction that the rule oflaw and judicial independence are at the heart of the European Union and must be respectedwith impartiality in all 27 EU Member States. That is why the Commission calls on allpolitical forces in this House and outside this House to act with responsibility and restraintin order to contribute to a stabilisation of the political situation in Romania. All politicalactors will have to contribute to this.

Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Vice-President Reding,Mr Mavroyiannis, ladies and gentlemen, in July, contrary to existing laws, an impartialOmbudsman who has long campaigned against corruption was replaced by a governmentwith someone who is willing to tow the party line. Two pieces of emergency legislationwere passed that drastically reduce the powers of the constitutional court and change thelegal position for a referendum to suspend the president from office while the case is inprogress. An extremely dubious suspension procedure was pursued against the statepresident that was no longer under the supervision of the constitutional court as a resultof the emergency legislation. The quorum requirements of the constitutional court wereignored. Finally, there are reports of irregularities in the electoral lists for the referendumon the suspension of the office of president, indicating that the electoral lists were evenchanged after the ballot was complete. To cap it all: constitutional lawyers and advocateshave received personal threats during the process.

As I read this list, you might think I am talking about a banana republic in some obscurepart of the world. However, I am, in fact, talking about reports that we received during thesummer from Romania, a Member State of the European Union. These reports and thediscussions we have had to hold about them are disappointing and quite simplyunacceptable. I am therefore pleased and grateful that the President of the Commissionand, above all, our Vice-President, Ms Reding, have responded in a committed and decisivemanner, demanding an explanation from Romania.

It is unacceptable, however, for Prime Minister Ponta to promise the President of theCommission that the illegal and highly undemocratic emergency legislation will be repealed,while doing nothing at home in Romania. On the contrary, Mr Ponta has exploited theopportunity to bad-mouth the European Union. This is unworthy of a democraticallyelected prime minister and shows a profoundly undemocratic attitude of mind. Thanksagain to the Commission for its decisive stance. The citizens of Romania and of Europe asa whole appreciate this.


Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask theadvice of the distinguished speaker on a matter which is very important to us in Romaniaand perhaps to the other countries in the European Union as well. I am glad thatCommissioner Reding will also hear this.

The question is: when does the justice system become a political actor and involve itselfin the political game? How can we return to a normal situation where they do not do that?Give us a response to this to see how we can solve this problem. In my opinion, and notonly in my opinion, this is the situation.


Manfred Weber (PPE), blue-card answer. – (DE) I am happy to answer this questionbecause Mr Paşcu is surely aware that neither he, nor I, nor Prime Minister Ponta is entitledto assess whether or not a court is biased in its decisions. A constitutional court isindependent and, as such, is required to reach independent decisions, which both of usneed to accept.

You come from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in theEuropean Parliament. Your party has now decided not to hold your party congress inBucharest because all party leaders in Europe say: I refuse to be photographed with Ponta.This is the reality and this is why I would ask the social democrats to go to Bucharest andsay: see to it that the rule of law is implemented.

Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I stated directly afterthe Commission’s intervention, or rather before the Commission’s intervention, that Iwould be guided strictly by the Commission’s findings. I never heard anything like thisfrom you, Mr Weber, or from Mr Daul in the case of Hungary. The same Mr Orbán, whois still the Vice-President of your party, naturally came down on the side of Băsescu, exertingexternal influence on the decision by the people of Romania, or at least attempting to doso.

Ms Reding, I hold you in great esteem on many counts. However, your observations haveonce again called into question the objectivity of the Commission. I find that regrettable.You have several times on other occasions referred to a parliamentary coup. This is acontradiction in terms in itself. It is not a coup, however. In Lithuania, a democraticallyelected president has been dismissed by parliament without a referendum. In the Romaniancase, a referendum was held, and there was no talk of a coup at the time. Now we arehearing the word coup being used.

As you are well aware, Mr Weber, Mr Băsescu introduced the 50% provision just beforethe referendum, in fact while the campaign was still in progress, because he knew what toexpect. I am opposed to such measures. Nonetheless, I clearly stated prior to the referendumthat it would be necessary to stick to this figure of 50% afterwards. I am very pleased thatthe government has kept its promise and that this has been changed. The fact is thatMr Ponta is keeping to his promises. It is scandalous to speak of a coup in this context.That is not true. Also, Ms Reding and Mr Weber, why is it that you said nothing in all themonths prior to this when Mr Băsescu and his people ruled by emergency decree? WhatMr Băsescu did with emergency regulations was alright because they were nothing new. Idid not hear any complaints from the Commission either. Then suddenly you turn aroundand say that this is a scandal. The fact is that when Mr Băsescu and his people did the samething, it was not a scandal. That is not being objective, and what I demand is objectivity.

This is all very interesting: Mr Băsescu was elected with 5.3 million votes. 7.4 million havenow rejected him. That is very interesting. Is it not one of the functions of the president ofa state to ensure that people come together in reconciliation? That is not the way of thisparticular state president. I agree with you, Ms Reding, in that I, too, would like to see allsides play their part here. However, I see no sign of Mr Băsescu playing his part. After all,a figure of 7.4 million means that 2 million more people have now tried to dismiss himfrom office than voted for him in the first place. You must take note of how popular andhow effective a president is when the majority of the population has voted to dismiss him,except for those who boycotted the referendum, because this boycott, which he andMr Orbán supported, was the only chance he had to survive. I am not concerned with


whether this is right or wrong. I simply want to point out that here a man has failed tocarry out his duty as president of the country. Many Romanians have recognised this andmany continue to do so. As a social democrat I also believe that Mr Băsescu has failed inhis task of bringing people together and that we are also feeling the effects of this.


Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), blue-card question. – (DE) I would like to know whetherMr Swoboda has been informed that it was the socialists and the liberals who togetherdecided on the legal framework and that it was also the same two groups who, as thegoverning parties, organised the referendum, and who then disputed the result. Furthermore,did you know, Mr Swoboda, that 7.4 million is not 50% of the electorate in Romania?What is your view of this behaviour? Do you not find it antidemocratic?

Hannes Swoboda (S&D), blue-card answer. – (DE) I can understand that you do not liketo see socialists and liberals form a government. I understand this and the fact that youand Ms Macovei and many others seek to resist this. This is perfectly justified from a politicalstandpoint. The permanent propaganda war being waged here, however, with manyuntruths in relation to the socialist and liberal government is something that I findunacceptable. When mistakes are made I will say so, also pointing out who made them. Iam also happy to say this directly to Mr Ponta. Nonetheless, I am unable to accept theuntruths and lies that are permanently being told, including in this House. The fact is that7.4 million is far more than 5.3% (The President interrupted the speaker.) I would ask you totake this on board.

Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Romania provides a casestudy of the trials of transition from Communism – a President alleged to have been amember of the Securitate, a political class so fearful of the files that they fail to publish thepast, a culture which 20 years on has still not shaken off all of the corruption ofCommunism. From this recent episode no party, the European Union included, emergeswith much credit.

Commissioner Reding, this was not in any sense a coup d’état, even in your phrase ‘aparliamentary coup d’état’. A majority of Members of a democratically elected assemblyvoted to impeach a President with a long history of abusing his office, for trying to turn aparliamentary democracy into a presidential fiefdom. The constitutional court declaredthe procedure for suspending the President to be constitutional. The President himselfaccepted the procedure when he went to Parliament to answer questions.

What happened then is almost the stuff of fairy tales. It leads many of us to agree with EmilConstantinescu in his letter to President Schulz that the current mandate of the Presidentof Romania is unlawful. In Romania, appointments to public positions are too oftenpartisan. The President has protected his post by placing his pals in positions of power.Transparency International, Freedom House and others have warned against the gradualreversal of the rule of law. Not for the first time, President Băsescu faced impeachment.When he had the referendum law changed, against the advice of the Venice Commission,his friend the Ombudsman rejected a petition to challenge the move at the constitutionalcourt.

In no other EU country is a vote invalid if fewer than half the people participate. So whydid the Commission insist on it for Romania? In any other country, if over 85% vote for apresident to go, that president is toast.


Part of the problem is that the European People’s Party, keen to boost its majority position,has welcomed into its fold people such as Berlusconi, Borisov and Băsescu – Europe’s Bteam, playing fast and loose with the rule of law but all part of the EPP and all protectedby the EPP. Europe’s Socialists have decided to move their congress this year from Bucharestto Brussels. We know the EPP has no such sense of shame since they gave Prime MinisterOrbán a five-minute standing ovation.

(Applause)

They are on the same slippery slope with Saakashvili. I remind you of the words of yourown Konrad Adenauer: God placed limits on man’s wisdom but not on his stupidity. Unlessall Europe’s parties are scrupulous in their insistence on the finer points of democracy andthe rule of law, Europe’s future is in peril.

The best thing for Romania would be new elections both for Parliament and the President,following the advice of the Venice Commission, and then a convention between all partiesto set some ground rules about how to behave in a democracy. And the European Union,Commissioner Reding, might also reflect on the advantage of parliaments over presidentialsystems.

(Applause)

Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies andgentlemen, I am really surprised at the tone of this discussion. I am not sure that we aredoing any favours to European values and European democracy by allowing this debateto descend into an extension of the Romanian election campaign, which has already begun.I would like to pick up on a comment made by Mr Watson. You said that, whether debatingon Hungary or Romania, we were dealing with countries that had not really made a fulltransition from communist regime to European democracy. I completely agree. HoweverI believe that Mr Ponta is also one of the players who has not made this transition. Theparallels I see between Hungary and Romania are simply that a political majority, when itfeels securely in power, will not hesitate to reorganise the institutions of the state to suchan extent that independence from the majority power in the government in Parliament islost. I certainly see a parallel with what we discussed regarding Hungary, although thesituation is different.

The fact that we have this instrument, the cooperation and control process that has allowedus to take a closer look with the help of the Commission, shows that we have long knownthat something was not right with the rule of law and the whole campaign againstcorruption in Romania, as well as Bulgaria, where the same instruments also exist. Thesame goes for President B sescu. Hence my insistence. It is good that the Commission hasnow taken a closer look at Romania. I would be very pleased if we had such measuresavailable for the EU as a whole, so we would not find ourselves again and again facing asituation where it is claimed that we have no powers or authority or that we are guilty ofplaying party politics when we focus attention on a particular party that belongs to a largeparty grouping in this House, whether on the left or right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am frequently ashamed to see how the large party groupings arereally fellow travellers with non-democrats in the European Union. If this practice doesnot stop, I am pessimistic about the development of the rule of law, which Ms Reding hasupheld in this case, but also in Hungary, despite the opportunities that were open to usthere.



Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), blue-card question. – (RO) Ms Harms, I would like toinform you that Traian Băsescu has not been dismissed by the Ponta government. Thepresident may be dismissed by the Parliament, by the parliamentary majority, and in theRomanian Parliament six political groups have voted in favour of Traian Băsescu’s dismissal.I would also like to reiterate that Traian Băsescu has been dismissed twice in five years bytwo different governments. I believe this shows that the rule of law was respected and that,politically speaking, we were right.

Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – (DE) Firstly, I was unable to detect aquestion here. Secondly, I never claimed that everything was fine in Romania prior to thePonta government taking office. In fact I share the concerns of many citizens that the ruleof law in Romania is not yet secure. That is why we must all keep a close eye on thingsfrom Brussels – whatever the political conditions – just as we did in disputes with Italy,Hungary and, to a certain extent, France.

Charalampos Angourakis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (RO) Mr President, Ipersonally consider today’s debate unacceptable, not because I do not sympathise with theRomanian people, on the contrary, but because I believe some of the things we have heardin this chamber and some of the things which have happened in the past are an insult tothe Romanian people and its democratic traditions. I believe the Romanian people iscapable of finding a solution to the problem it is currently facing, all the more so,Mr President, as the root of the problem lies, in my opinion, in the very difficult andunfortunate social situation that people in Romania are facing.

I would now like to switch to Greek, to express myself more easily.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, I think that this debate is the outcomeof the unacceptable circumstances in which the Romanian people are living. As you know,a strict austerity programme is being applied in Romania, a programme which is becomingstandard throughout the European Union. The more harsh and unfair these measures arefor the majority of workers, the more we shall see such situations.

To close, I should like to say that, unfortunately, everyone who warned the people in theformer socialist countries that, when they joined the European Union, they would facevery difficult and unacceptable circumstances such as those we are witnessing in Romania,where, in addition to poverty and unemployment, anti-democratic measures are beingtaken against them, have proven to be right.

Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - (NL) Mr President, we in the outside world have beenwatching the soap opera taking place in Romania for months now: one politician afteranother has been accused of corruption, fraud and other shady dealings. Romania iscurrently projecting an image of itself as a banana republic. But we knew that already.Romanian politicians would certainly not win any prizes for decisive action or transparencyof government.

However, these are Romanian problems; this is who the Romanian electorate are votingfor year after year. The country might be in a mess, but it is their mess, their own sovereignchoice. The European Union must stand apart from internal political struggles and elections.The European Commission is constantly overstepping its remit by imposing EU dictateson to sovereign states. As soon as there are elections in sovereign countries, the Eurocrats


start tumbling over themselves to interfere. They often resort to using EU commissionersfrom the relevant countries for that purpose.

In the Netherlands, Ms Kroes had occasion to promote her Europhile drivel in the pressand, in Finland, Mr Rehn was never far away, either. In Romania, Mr Reding and Mr Barrosofound it necessary to interfere with domestic affairs. This is unacceptable behaviour fornon-elected officials who should not interfere with democratic processes in sovereigncountries.

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, Romania is a perfect illustration of whatTocqueville called ‘the tyranny of the majority’. However, the impact is not only nationwide,even though, by its action, the socialist majority in Bucharest added to the Europeaneconomic crisis an extensive political crisis in one of the Member States. In fact, the eventsof 3-6 July caused confusion, given that they dramatically brought into opposition theEuropean and national policy discourse.

Indeed, what can Europeans do when a country’s majority becomes tyrannical, dismissingthe Ombudsman, the Presidents of the Parliament’s Chambers and the Head of State in justthree days, in contempt of the Constitution? How should I react when the Parliament inBucharest requests the Constitutional Court to rule on the President’s suspension within24 hours? What can I say when the majority members of the Romanian Parliament arelodging criminal complaints against European MPs for having criticised their country’sgovernment? How should I react when Romanian citizens working or studying in one ofthe other 26 Member States are being denied the right to vote? Is it not absurd when apolitician believes the electoral list should be established after and not prior to the citizenconsultations?

The entire European public opinion was concerned with such questions in July and August.The Commission’s intervention was prompt, in support of those Romanian institutionswhich could stop the drift of the majority and, for this reason, we must thank theCommission. I too wish to do so, on behalf of those Romanian citizens who do not perceivethe European identity as a burden, but as enriching the national identity.

However, this is not the interpretation given in his turn by Victor Ponta, the RomanianPrime Minister. Accused of plagiarism by the same University that had awarded him thetitle of Doctor a decade ago, Mr Ponta did not have the courage to come here today andexplain why he has not answered all the requests made by the European Commission.Instead, he chose to stay in Bucharest and criticise the Commission, using that nationalistand populist discourse which, as President Barroso said this morning, is a denial of Europe.Such a politician embodies the past, not the present. For this reason, I demand hisresignation.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)).

Ioan Enciu (S&D), blue-card question. – (RO) Our esteemed, distinguished fellow Memberhas mentioned violations of the rule of law by a parliamentary majority, which, in myopinion, is a contradiction in terms. I would like to remind him and our esteemed fellowMembers of the Democratic Liberal Party (PDL) that, no later than 7 March 2012,President Băsescu stated in the plenary of the Parliament that ‘if there is a guarantee ofdemocracy in Romania, then that is the Parliament’. I would like to ask my distinguishedfellow Member what has happened: only three months after uttering these words, the samepresident, together with ...


(The President cut off the speaker)

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), blue card answer. – (RO) Unfortunately, as I was saying, whathas happened in Romania shows that, indeed, a majority can disparage the rule of law.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, Commissioner Reding, I am glad youare here today, in the European Parliament’s plenary, as this is the institution directlyrepresenting the European citizens. Here – and if not here, then where? – you must tell uswhy the vote of 8.4 million European citizens did not count at all for you this summer;why a rule that is valid nowhere else, in no other Member State of the European Union,was imposed on Romania by the Commission, and I am referring to the 50% voter turnout;how a decision made by six of the seven political groups forming the national Parliamentended up being considered a parliamentary putsch.

Commissioner Reding, with all due respect, this summer you acted as if you were one ofTraian Băsescu’s electoral agents. You were precisely as you reveal yourself today, withthat orange jacket you are wearing: namely, an impeccable member of the LiberalDemocratic Party (PDL), supporting Traian Băsescu unconditionally. By the statementsyou have made, you have caused serious damage to Romania, not only politically, but alsoeconomically. You managed to humiliate an entire people, tread on the sovereignty of aMember State of the European Union and annihilate the right of a national Parliament tomake its own decisions.

Perhaps you care to explain to us today how a referendum, in other words, a popular vote– and the decisions of the Constitutional Court have indicated beyond any doubt that thereferendum had been organised in compliance with the Constitution and the existinglegislation – has been turned into a coup d’état overnight.

Finally, Commissioner Reding, I wish to congratulate you on creating a very dangerousprecedent in the European Union: you managed to impose a head of state on a MemberState of the European Union against the will of the very people of that State. There areanother 26 EU Member States. The question remains for my fellow Members, when electionsare held in their countries, whether they will be able to count on Ms Reding’s support, aswe did this summer.

Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I will not consider today’s debate a debateon Romania, but a debate on the state of the EU and of democracy in the European Union.This is what it is about, Ms Reding. It is about the principles and values you have remindedus of, which Romanians, and not only Romanian politicians, but also the citizens ofRomania, abide by. I would like to remind you of one of the fundamental obligations ofthe leaders of the European Union and of its citizens – namely, to protect democracy,cultural diversity and the organisation of the public powers of the Member States at nationallevel.

Could you tell me, Ms Reding, specifically which are the constitutional provisions violatedby the suspension procedure, which is stipulated in the Constitution of the Romanianstate? Because the decision of the Constitutional Court states very clearly that theconstitutional procedures have been complied with during this suspension procedure andthe Constitutional Court of Romania validated the constitutional procedure. Moreover,this procedure was validated by the Romanian people, as 7.4 million persons voted for thepresident’s dismissal. Of course, Ms Reding, people may not count for some of you in theEuropean Union. However, people do count for the great majority of us sitting in this


chamber, Ms Reding, and I wish to remind you of the words of Jean Monnet, who said thatmore Europe will not be achieved by building a coalition of states, but by uniting people.This summer’s events, your brutal intervention in legitimate constitutional and legalprocedures of the Romanian state, have only managed to divide people.

Ms Reding, as a liberal politician, I stand for ‘more Europe’. I support a Europe of diversityand I am convinced that together we will be stronger. But we will not be stronger, Ms Reding,through a manifest political partisanship. We will never be stronger if we favour ourideologies and political families. We will be stronger, Ms Reding, when we know whatcultural diversity is, when we learn a little about the countries we are criticising, when werespect their traditions and, especially, when we respect the fundamental principles of theEuropean Union.

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - (NL) Mr President, I am listening to this debate withincreasing amazement. We have had a couple of similar debates in Parliament previously,first about the situation in Italy, then the situation in Hungary and now that in Romania.It has become very clear how the cards are being placed on the table. On this occasion,Mr Weber from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) praisedMs Reding to the skies in terms of the investigation that she is carrying out in Romaniaand Mr Swoboda says that the popularity of the Romanian President is suffering a hugesetback as a result.

We are taking sides and that is happening because we have still not laid down a basic rule,namely that the Copenhagen criteria should also apply to countries that are already membersof the European Union. We keep stealing a march on each other in this House andsuggesting that these are party political debates because we are refusing to assess peoplein terms of how they need to be assessed.

My question is: if the elections are held on 9 December, will the results of the investigationsby Ms Reding come before us in time? Or should we just wait for those elections withoutany further facts and look on as these undemocratic trends unfold?

Véronique Mathieu (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council,Commissioner, if I am to believe the speeches that I have just heard by thePresident-in-Office of the Council and Ms Reding, the rule of law is no longer respected inRomania. That is what the Commission has stated and what Ms Reding has repeated to us.The Venice Commission is also extremely concerned, as is the President-in-Office of theCouncil.

The Ombudsman in place in Romania has been revoked without any legal grounds. A fewdays later, emergency decrees were passed with the aim of reducing the remit of theConstitutional Court. A new Ombudsman was appointed, close to those in power. I amnot going to repeat what my fellow MEPs have said, and yet the fact remains that we areextremely concerned within the European Union about what has been happening sincethe new social-liberal ruling coalition came to power.

All mechanisms of democratic control have been undermined, from the impartialOmbudsman to the Constitutional Court, with total disregard for procedures in force, andeven electoral regulations. The referendum was held. I am now told that a certain numberof investigations have been carried out in Romania. I have been told that several hundredthousand votes are alleged to have been in all cases fraudulent. We can understand thereto be haste to move towards new policies when there is a change of government. Changes


of government are familiar to us in all the countries of Europe. In my country, France, mygovernment fell and the Socialists came to power, but that took place properly, withoutany change in legal regulations. Why have the Socialists not come to power properly inRomania, like in other European countries?

Ms Reding, Mr Barroso, I call on you today to ensure that the rule of law is upheld. That isyour duty. That is what you must do and I call on the new ruling coalition to do the same.

Democracy in Europe cannot be bought and sold. I call on the socialist group to make surethat it keeps its word and its commitments. Democracy is at the heart of our Europe, andat the heart of the European Union. Today we have visitors in this House, and I wonderwhat they think of what you have done in your country.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149 (8))

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), blue-card question. – (RO) I wanted to ask Ms Mathieu– from what I gather, she is perfectly acquainted with the situation in Romania – I wantedto ask her where she managed to obtain so many details of the fraud from, the so-calledfraud, the alleged referendum voting fraud, and also, as Mr Weber said earlier in referenceto some family portraits, whether the gentlemen of the Liberal Democratic Party (PDL) ...


Véronique Mathieu (PPE), blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr Tănăsescu, I read the press, I usethe Internet and, like everyone else, I use the media. I imagine that you must do the samething, especially as you are in Romania. You must therefore have the same information asI do.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I made a speech this morningduring the debate on the State of the Union to indicate that the European Union is goingthrough its worst ever crisis. This crisis is not only financial or economic, it also affectstrust between Member States, given that one of the aspects of the crisis consists in thecommunity method having been displaced by an intergovernmental method in whichsome governments, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, are more equal than others.

As a result, distrust is spreading between Member States and among public opinion inMember States. For that reason, it is good that Parliament debates this issue, because itaffects the role of Parliament, which should concern itself with citizenship, fundamentalrights and the quality of democratic standards, whilst also ensuring the Commissionsafeguards those standards fairly and without double standards.

When it comes to the events, it appears that a solid parliamentary majority initiated thereferendum. The Constitutional Court has validated the referendum process and, despitebeing very significant, the results are not effective, given that the legally required quorumwas not reached.

What is clear is that a large majority of Romanian citizens do not wish President Băsescuto continue in the role. On that basis, the Romanian Government should make themselvesavailable for dialogue with the Commission and cooperate to clarify all the possible relevantinformation for the debate.

It is also important, however, that there is not even a whiff of double standards, neither interms of corruption among Member States, nor in terms of taking part in the free movementof persons provided by the Schengen area, given that Parliament has repeatedly provided


its support and backing for Romania and Bulgaria to join, nor in any other area, even asregards ensuring the Copenhagen criteria are fulfilled.

After all, you must be aware that the Copenhagen criteria are used not only for joining theEuropean Union, but also for being a member on the same footing as everyone else andthereby deserving the ongoing respect of everyone else.

Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,I no longer experience the same surprise as I did sometimes in the past, when we discussedBerlusconi and the lack of media freedom in Italy or other topics. There has been a greatdeal of surprise and anger expressed at the way in which the two groups have attacked oneanother, despite the fact that they have colleagues in government in the various countries,using the same tone and never actually making it clear what the real issue was. It is a trulyterrible thing to place the credibility of the European Union in jeopardy in this House.

If the EU is to champion human rights, democracy and the rule of law, how is it that wesimply criticise one another here without making it clear what the real issue at stake is?We need new, faster and more efficient procedures to counter violations of European valuesquickly, not just the procedure under Article 7, as it is being used in relation to Hungaryhere in this House at present, but also the control process that the Commission uses.Everything takes so long and we are making no real progress against violations in the areasof human rights, democracy and the media in the Member States of the EU. We need togo further. I also regret that Mr Ponta is not here today. I do not entirely understand whythe European Parliament and the Bureau did not exert greater pressure on Mr Ponta andMr Orbán to come here today. That would have been important.


Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,today we find ourselves debating the political situation of a country that since 2007 hasbeen an EU Member State, and one that has been meeting its obligations under the acquiscommunautaire.

Among the legal requirements and political objectives that unite and bind together theMembers of the Union, the rule of law is an indispensable prerequisite for the democraticorganisation of society. That is why it is so important to debate the current situation inRomania, which is taking on worrying proportions as a result of a power struggle and anunprecedented war between its institutions.

In this conflict a majority has tried to take over and dominate all the other bodies, includingthe Constitutional Court, the judiciary and the other institutions, and bend them to its will,while overstepping and sweeping away the balance between the powers, offices andinstitutions. It is strange that a certain part of this Parliament that always takes an interestin the level of democracy and freedom in the countries that make up the Union appearsindifferent on this occasion or is even trying to justify the situation.

I think this House and the Commission would do well to keep a very close eye on what ishappening in Romania.

Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, the powers of the constitutional court cannotbe limited overnight – this was President Barroso’s message to the Romanian Governmentin July 2012. I agree with him. Yet neither President Barroso, nor Commissioner Redingreacted when the Hungarian Parliament amended the constitution in November 2010 and


limited the powers of the constitutional court. The reason for the amendment was thatone month earlier the constitutional court had annulled a new law put forward by thegovernment. Calling court judgments in question and removing the fundamental checksand balances casts doubt on the government’s commitment to the rule of law, said JoséManuel Barroso to Prime Minister Victor Ponta in July 2012. I agree with him.

Yet the Commission did not react when the Fidesz Government annulled court judgments,rearranged the electoral districts to its own benefit, appointed its own people as heads ofindependent institutions, and adopted 365 laws over a span of one and a half years whiledisregarding even the most basic rules of social consultation and parliamentary discourse.In his statement made in January this year Joseph Daul, Chairman of the Group of theEuropean People’s Party (Christian Democrats) states that Mr Orbán will prove that he iscommitted to freedom rights and the values and principles of democracy. Upon the visitof Victor Ponta to Brussels in July this year, Mr Daul said that they strongly doubted thatthe diplomatic statements made by Prime Minister Ponta in Brussels would be followedby concrete action on the part of his government.

Double standards have no place in Europe; we must take joint action to protect democracyand the rule of law when they are under attack in a Member State, regardless of whether itis under conservative or left-wing leadership. I find it unacceptable thatCommissioner Reding, who did not raise her voice against the violation of the rules ofdemocracy in connection with the earlier actions of President Băsescu, is in the presentsituation making political judgments and is threatening Romania with a postponementof its Schengen accession while both the experts and the Commission found the countryto be ready for accession in every respect. We have a right to expect objectivity from theCommission. This requires a monitoring mechanism that utilises impartial expert opinionsto provide us with appropriate tools to investigate and sanction Member State measuresviolating democracy and the rule of law at Community level. I honestly …

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8).)

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). blue-card question. – (HU) Ms Göncz, do you believe that youare helping the Romanian Government while slandering your own government, whichhas proven on several occasions that it respects the rule of law, and all of its institutionsare democratically elected? Do you believe that you are helping your fellow party memberswith this?

Kinga Göncz (S&D), blue-card answer. – (HU) I believe that this was about a differentmatter altogether. I believe that this is about the credibility of the European Union. Aboutstanding up for our European values regardless of party affiliation, and in this we need anappropriate mechanism and appropriate institutions. I believe that this would also helpthe Commissioner, as well as the Group of the European People’s Party (ChristianDemocrats) to regain their credibility, which they have lost in this debate in several respects.

Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, what has happened in Romania is seriousand should be taken seriously. The European Union cannot ignore any intervention in theindependence of the judicial system, for example in the separation of powers, and it cannotallow any suspicions surrounding fundamental rights in the Member States. The EU citizensrequire that kind of confidence. It is in the spirit of our Treaties, it is spelt out right therein Article 2 of our Treaties, and we cannot ever forget that the judge of an EU Member


State, a Romanian judge, is also a European judge who will judge other EU citizens. As amatter of mutual trust, we must be able to rely on the separation of powers in all MemberStates.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am the rapporteur on fundamental rights in Hungary. Hungariancitizens, the Hungarian Government and journalists all ask me if we will apply the samestandards to other EU Member States, and their questions are justified. There must be nodiscrimination. I think it is essential that this Parliament and the Commission stop livingunder the illusion that, once a Member State has acceded to the European Union, itsfundamental rights record suddenly becomes impeccable. This could never be the case andwe must end this asymmetry, in which financial violations lead to the Troika visiting EUcountries while fundamental rights violations pass without consequence, by continuouslymonitoring the EU’s Member States. This is what we need to think about and implement.

Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, we, Romanians, joined the EuropeanUnion with the aim of abiding by the rules, consolidating our democracy, being free andin charge of our lives, and having a fair, independent and impartial judicial system,investigating anyone, including members of the government and politicians, which hasnot happened before. We have achieved this now. We thank the Commission and theEuropean Parliament for their support during the pre-accession period and afterwards.

The prosecutors and judges who are handling cases against politicians are the ones beingpraised today; they are the ones who have been acknowledged in each report of theEuropean Commission regarding the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. They arenot handling political cases; on the contrary, they are investigating any member of thegovernment. I wish to emphasise this because, in reality, what has happened in Romaniawas aimed at stopping these investigations and holding justice captive in the back gardenof certain political parties. Therefore, it is extremely important to return to this state ofnormality.

At present, prosecutors and judges are investigating referendum frauds, following certainclaims. There are over 500 cases. Let me give you just a few figures: one of the cases involvesallegations regarding 1.5 million votes stolen during the referendum and, several days ago,the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate stated that leads andevidence of fraud amounting to 5-10-15% have been found in the investigated pollingstations. These files must, therefore, be finalised, these prosecutors must continue to holdoffice, in spite of the efforts being made to dismiss them, and we must see the result ofthese investigations. Voting fraud is the vilest form of corruption because it is directedagainst the people.


Victor Boştinaru (S&D), blue-card question. – (RO) Vice-President Reding, what youhave just heard is blatant evidence that a Member of the European Parliament has interferedwith my country’s judicial matters. I would like to ask Ms Macovei where she got thisinformation from, since we are talking about files that are currently under investigation.You may not know, but on 22 May the Superior Council of Magistracy accused Ms Macoveiof having interfered with a prosecutor’s case and described this act as ‘interference withand undermining of judicial matters’ ...



Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), blue card answer. – (RO) The figure of 1.5 million appearingin a single case – and, since you have given me this opportunity, it concerns the GeneralSecretary of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) – has been put forward by the media, whilethe fraud percentage of up to 15% is taken from the statements made by theChief-Prosecutor, whom they wish to dismiss. However, I wish to repeat: justice is ofparamount importance for the European Union because we are all part of a country, of aUnion, and we must cooperate. If there is a lack of confidence in the Romanian judicialsystem ...


Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, first of all I would like to mention that duringthe referendum, on the day of the referendum, and immediately afterwards, the DemocraticLiberal Party (PDL) made no complaints regarding the fraud allegations. Only three weekslater were these allegations formulated, although it is clear that, despite what has been saidhere, the procedure for suspending the President of Romania, like the initiative of 2007,complied with the Constitution and the decisions of the Constitutional Court. Unfortunately,this time around, the European Commission adopted the position of President Băsescu’spolitical ally, instead of that of a neutral mediator in an election process, in a domesticpolitical dispute, blaming, from the very beginning, both the government and thedemocratically elected Parliament.

Commissioner, I have not seen you in the debate on safeguarding democracy in Hungary,but I see that now you intend to make a completely groundless analogy between these twocountries. For years, you have ignored the signs of the abuses committed by the PDLgovernment. You have brought up two emergency ordinances of the Ponta governmentwithout saying a single word about the hundreds of emergency ordinances abusively issuedby the PDL government. The double standard you are applying to the Romanian internalpolitical groups is so obvious that it is no wonder the Romanian citizens’ confidence inthe European Union has dropped by 10% in one month alone during this summer.


Jacek Protasiewicz, (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I will begin from the European dimension.I am truly amazed and surprised by the statement made by Mr Watson, a liberal democratleader in this Parliament, that the majority has a right to impose its view and the right todecide what the truth is, as is the case in dictatorships. Mr Watson, protection of the rightsof minorities is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. We now have a situation where amajority of Romanians rejects the Romanian Ombudsman, introduces changes, challengesthe constitutional court, and wants to dismiss the President. The majority is not right onlyby virtue of being the majority. What is right is right, but not because it enjoys a majority.

I want to add one more comment – there can be no comparison between Romania andHungary. In Hungary, the socialist party has, along with its once-liberal coalition partner,led the country to ruin. It has been rejected by the vast majority of the nation in a clearmanner. Two thirds of the Parliament – two thirds went over to the Fidesz Party. Thesetwo thirds had the authority under the constitution to introduce constitutional amendments.There is a big difference between two thirds and half or less than half in a referendum whenit comes to making changes such as dismissing a president.

This is not a Romanian exception. In Poland, a referendum is valid only if half the populationparticipates in it, since the alternation of power is a principle of democracy and either we


defend such principles or else we will end up governed by the law of the jungle or the steppe– might is right. Such customs are not European, they belong to the steppe. Socialists andliberals, remember this.

(Applause)

Birgit Sippel (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, naturally it is possibleto revise constitutions, media laws, Schengen rules and many other things. However thereare rules. If the suspicion exists that existing laws and the values of the European Unionare being violated, then this is something that must be pursued, whether in Hungary andRomania, or in France or Denmark, or any other country that could give cause for concern.

I wonder, however, not just in view of the present debate, whether all those involved arereally concerned with an objective clarification of events, or whether they are not moreinterested in party political mud-slinging or scoring party political points throughsound-bites. This will not help us win back the confidence of our citizens. We need toarrange for an objective investigation to be carried out, using the same yardstick for allMember States, rather than different standards depending on whether we are located inthe north, south, east or west of the European Union. If we consider the issue at the heartof these matters rather than relying on rumours and newspaper reports, then this discussionwill have added value for the people of Hungary, Romania, France and Germany, andeveryone else.

Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, for eight years Romania was ruled by anauthoritarian president who violated fundamental rights, who regularly attacked theparliament, the government, the judiciary, the trade unions and all the media that opposedhim. Băsescu’s regime was based on a parallel system of personal power. It was the sameold story – using intelligence services, the police, and the office of the prosecutor to spyon citizens, to intimidate political opponents and protect friends. The mafia, corruptionand clientele were closely associated with this parallel system that was finally challengedby a popular reaction.

The Commission did not lift a finger against all these abuses. Romania got a new parliamentthat started an impeachment process which it carried out according to constitutional rules.At this point the Commission intervened, endorsing all the allegations brought by Băsescu.So, Ms Reding, you should apologise for the irresponsible language you used against aMember State and a democratic government calling a process that was constitutional andlegal a parliamentary coup.

President. − Ms Macovei has already spoken during this debate and cannot, therefore,ask a blue-card question, in the same way that the questioner cannot take part during thespeeches.

I would like everyone to be clear on that, therefore, so that we all abide by the rules of theHouse.

Many colleagues have asked to speak and we are significantly behind schedule.

Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I am sorry but I object. I was quite happy notto come in and reply to Mr Protasiewicz, but you must know that Rule 149(8) of the Rulesof Procedure of in this House sets no limitation on MEPs’ interventions in debate. I respectyour wish to bring the debate to a close, I respect the fact that you have to follow a timescale,but under the rules you could have allowed both Ms Macovei and me to come in.


President. − Firstly, the rule is that it is the President’s role, as you know, to manage theplenary sittings. Secondly, when it comes to the ‘catch-the-eye’ and ‘blue-card’ procedures,this is the way we are operating.

Those who make use of the ‘blue-card’ procedure cannot take part in the rest of the debates,and those who make a speech cannot, at any time, use the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure tomake another speech.

I think it is very important, therefore, that a fine lawyer like yourself also reads Rule 149(8)of our Rules of Procedure to see that it precisely states: ‘the President may give the floor’and, consequently, not give the floor, based on the practice I have explained to you all. Iam not explaining it for this debate; I am explaining it in general terms, so that those whomake use of the ‘blue-card’ procedure know they cannot make another speech, and thosewho make a speech cannot make use of the ‘blue-card’ procedure, as otherwise it couldlead to the same Member making five speeches when there are others, as is currently thecase, who are not able to speak due to a lack of time.


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I am a member of RMDSZ, the DemocraticAlliance of Hungarians in Romania. Over the past 22 years, this alliance in Romania haschanged neither its name nor its programme. We did not participate in the referendumeither. I do not wish to become involved in this debate either, but in connection with therule of law and the independence of the judiciary I would like to draw attention to the issueof the restitution of church and private property confiscated in the course of nationalisation.The Mikó College is older than Romania itself. Now it has been re-nationalised! We protestedagainst this, and the Prime Minister requested the supreme council of justice to investigatewhether the protest and the statements made there could be regarded as pressure on thejudiciary.

Many, including us, the members of minorities, ask the question what the solution couldbe in the case of Romania, for example. The solution is to enforce the Copenhagen criteriaeven after accession.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, the position of a European democratcannot depend on his or her party affiliation or nationality. There must be no place fordouble standards of any kind. As a Hungarian, a European democrat, and a friend of theRomanian people my interests lie in ensuring that there is true democracy and rule of lawin Romania. This is also vitally important for the Hungarian national community of oneand a half million that lives in Romania. From the example of my own country I knowwhat it means when a government assaults democracy, restricts the freedom of speechand systematically dismantles the rule of law. I agree with the essence of Ms Reding’scriticism, though I find some of the statements exaggerated and unjust. It would have beenmore credible if she had also criticised the anti-democratic steps of President Băsescu.

What is at stake at today’s debate is to create a uniform set of criteria on the basis of whichthe situation of democracy and the rule of law in all Member States of the EU can …

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Renate Weber (ALDE). - Mr President, this Union is based on principles and values andI have always asked the Commission to defend them. But this must be done in good faith


and based on real facts, not on mere allegations. In particular, Vice-President Reding, youoverreacted and made some false accusations simply ignoring part of the truth.

Were you aware that the procedures were entirely supervised by the Constitutional Court,which in fact even underlined a couple of situations were it considered the President wasin breach of the constitution? Let me tell you that now President Băsescu has returned tooffice without any shred of legitimacy. He lost the legitimacy because I, together withanother 7 million Romanian citizens, sanctioned him for his unconstitutional behaviourand voted for his dismissal.

Corneliu Vadim Tudor (NI). - Mr President, congratulations to Mrs Reding. You areright and I appreciate your report.

I love my country and I am really worried. I am not involved in this ridiculous quarrel. Ido not agree either with Mr Băsescu, or with Mr Ponta, but it is obvious that in Romania,all the elections are stalled. Trust me, because I was one of the finalists of the presidentialelections in 2000. But the mafia reversed the results.

Another great fraud is being prepared today for the general elections of 9 December andthe machine of this robbery is created by the secret services and the CIA. Romania is anAmerican colony. What democracy, what human rights? Please, will you help us withinternational observation of these elections?

Kinga Gál (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that I fully agreewith Ms Weber, and that this is more or less what we ourselves said at the debate aboutHungary. Back then we were not heard by that side. I would like to add that I am seeing arather interesting concept of democracy on the part of the socialist and liberal Membershere. Especially as regards my Hungarian socialist fellow Members, who take everyopportunity to give their own government the boot.

They seem to forget about the non-negligible fact that this time we are debating the measuresof a provisional government, which are unconstitutional and violate the rule of law, andnot how a democratically elected government with a two-thirds majority is attempting inHungary to implement the reforms that did not take place at the time of the change ofregime, and to repair a country ruined by eight years of successive socialist governments.I categorically reject this mendacious and deceptive comparison.


Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, this is the second timethis year that we have had to address a very serious situation concerning the rule of law inone of the Member States of the European Union. After Hungary, Romania. And the debatetoday, like those we have had in the past on a similar question, was very much led by partypolitical concerns, similar attitudes in similar debates.

The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and this is why we always need to act withfairness and impartiality. When there is an attack on the rule of law or a breach of EUlegislation, irrespective of the political colour of the government, the Commission willremain firm in expressing concerns and taking actions, and this does not apply only nowbut has also applied in the past.

I still remember a time when I took action on a very similar matter, which was in 2009when I was Telecoms Commissioner. I started infringement proceedings against Romaniato protect the independence of the national telecoms regulator. At that time a right-wing


government coalition had introduced emergency legislation to deprive a court ruling ofits effect and to remove the president of the national telecoms regulator from office.

It was the same rationale that the Commission followed earlier this year when we broughtHungary to the Court of Justice for violations of the independence of the Hungarian dataprotection legislation and other infringement procedures.

Of course such legal issues may seem small in the overall context. So what about the bigpicture? What about the rule of law in general and what about the independence of thejudiciary?

I agree with those who asked these questions. Yes, the Commission has to play its role asguardian of the Treaties and it has to go after breaches in EU law by means of infringementproceedings. It is a general principle, and small violations count too. What about the bigviolations? Here I would to draw two lessons from the recent experiences.

First, of course, we always need to tackle these matters with independence and objectivity.Respect for the rule of law has nothing to do with the political party in power. For PresidentBarroso and for myself, this has been very important throughout these processes. LadyJustice is blind. She does not recognise party political colours. She only reacts to the ruleof law which is in danger.

Secondly, we can see very well by these very concrete examples that we have experiencedthis year that we lack effective mechanisms in the EU to enforce respect for the rule of lawmore generally and more systematically.

Today everybody mentions the situation in Hungary and Romania. Are we sure that wewill not see such a situation again in a couple of weeks in another EU country? Now let usbe honest – and some of the parliamentarians have said it very clearly – we face aCopenhagen dilemma. We are very strict on the Copenhagen criteria, notably on the ruleof law in the accession process of a new Member State but, once this Member State hasjoined the European Union, we appear not to have any instrument to see whether the ruleof law and the independence of the judiciary still command respect.

We as a European Union need to stand firm on our values and on the rule of law, and thatis why I think that we need to put in place an objective mechanism to assess the judicialsystems in all of our 27 Member States, because our infringement procedures are tootechnical and too slow to react to high-risk situations concerning the rule of law, andbecause the Article 7 procedure is a nuclear option that should only be used by theCommission, Parliament and the Council when there is really no other solution.

But what do we have in between? I would therefore like to work with the EuropeanParliament and with the justice ministers of all Member States on a new intermediate andmore focused mechanism. I propose to add to the economic and social benchmark in theEuropean Semester a new mechanism for measuring, comparing and benchmarking thestrength, efficiency and reliability of the justice systems in all Member States.

(Applause)

So my experts are at this moment developing for the European Semester a justice scoreboardthat will allow a detailed assessment of the justice systems of all Member States, theirstrengths and their weaknesses and I am going to start a discussion with Parliament andwith the justice ministers in the coming weeks.


We Europeans have built a Community based on the rule of law – Rechtsgemeinschaft as theGermans say – and we therefore cannot allow the rule of law to become an object of anyparty political game. We need a strong, reliable rule of law in all 27 Member States of theUnion and I count on this Parliament to strongly support the European Commission inthis endeavour.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOSVice-President

Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourableMembers, as I promised I would at the outset, I have followed this debate closely andlistened with interest to your remarks. I fully understand the unease with which thisParliament has followed developments in Romania over the summer. I have taken goodnote of all the criticisms I have heard in the course of the debate and I will, of course, conveyall of them and all your comments to the Council.

As the Presidency representative, I speak on behalf of the Council as a whole and musttherefore reflect the position of the Council, and that applies in particular when we areaddressing the situation in any one Member State. It is particularly important however thatthis Parliament also has the opportunity to make its views known and I therefore welcomethe possibility of hearing your views at first hand. Let me conclude by reminding you that– irrespective of the merits of the contradictory arguments aired here – the quintessenceof democracy, stemming directly from Socrates in ancient Athens, is that you do not changethe rules governing the operation of the democratic system for reasons of politicalexpediency.

President. – That concludes the debate on this item.

Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Commissioner, you have stated that a coupd’état or a ‘parliamentary putsch’ has taken place in Romania. Leaving aside the absurdityof a situation in which a democratically elected Parliament in one of the EU Member Stateswould carry out a putsch or a coup d’état, since it is itself the most democratic form of stateexistence, let me ask you, in your capacity as Commissioner responsible for the Europeanjustice: what are you relying on when making such statements?

Are you familiar with one of the basic principles of international justice, that of audiatur etaltera pars, meaning ‘hear the other side too’ whenever a decision is being made? If so, andI am sure this is the case, why are your conclusions identical to those of only one of theparties, namely President Băsescu’s?

According to another principle of law, all statements must be proven. What evidence haveyou looked into before convincing yourself that a coup d’état has taken place? Are youprepared to take responsibility for the increasing anti-European feelings manifest in Romaniaafter the Romanian citizens have taken note of your statements? The truth is that in Romania7.5 million citizens have overthrown an anti-democratic president, and not the state.

George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Romania is not just a market outlet forthe large EU Member States. Romania has earned the right to a non-discriminatorytreatment, and Romanian citizens are demanding to be treated with the same respect asthe citizens of Luxembourg or Denmark. My country is facing the risk of an anti-European


movement fuelled by the partisan attitudes of several European officials. Seven and a halfmillion Romanian citizens have had enough of Traian Băsescu’s abuses.

Today’s debate must be regarded from a wider perspective, that of the European Union’slegitimacy. When a European Commissioner expresses opinions regarding the domesticpolitics of one of the Member States without checking the reliability of the informationunderlying his or her intervention, the EU as a whole is faced with a serious problem. Iwould like to draw Commissioner Reding’s attention to her information sources withinthe Democratic Liberal Party (PDL). Monica Macovei is untrustworthy when referring tothe interference of the Government of Romania with the judicial system, given that theSuperior Council of Magistracy has decided that she has exerted pressure on a Romanianprosecutor in charge of settling a criminal case.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) At a time when all political leadersshould focus on the economic recovery of the Member States, here we are, four monthsafter the appointment of the socialist-liberal government in Romania, and there is no signof concrete economic measures. Moreover, the serious violation of Parliamentary regulationsand the attempts at obstructing justice have had an adverse impact on the country’s future.The excessive depreciation of the national currency, the drop in foreign investments, theincrease in bank rates, the decrease in the number of jobs and the collapse of Romania’saccession to the Schengen area are but a few of the problems caused by an incompetentgovernment.

I sincerely feel sorry for the difficult position which the European socialists and liberalsfind themselves in at the moment. On the one hand, they are aware of the serious violationsof the rule of law principles committed by the Social Liberal Union (USL) government and,on the other hand, they are wondering whether or not it is a good thing to embarrass theirfellow members belonging to the same political family, whom they would like to teachthe basic concepts of democracy.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) President Barroso ended his “State of theUnion” address today by expressing his support for parliamentary democracy both atnational and European level and by calling for the strengthening of the role of the EuropeanParliament, as well as of the national Parliaments. Article 4 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion states that the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties,as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental political and constitutionalstructures.

I believe the European Commission has exceeded the mandate voted by the EuropeanParliament in that it has established and transmitted to the Government of Romania thelist containing 11 requirements, some of which going beyond its competences and violatingthe sovereignty and subsidiarity of a Member State. President Barroso was also speakingtoday of a contract of confidence between the Member States and the European institutions.I think this partnership should be based on mutual respect, cooperation and, in particular,on respecting the role, duties and scope of the mandates of each institution, both at nationaland European level. Finally, I regret and denounce the intention of certain LiberalDemocratic Party (PDL) MEPs to suggest the temporary suspension of several of Romania’srights, such as the vote in the Council. I believe this is an action directed against theRomanian citizens.

László Tőkés (PPE), in writing. – (HU) We can only welcome the fact that the EuropeanParliament hosted today’s debate, as democracy itself and the rule of law have become


endangered in Romania in the past few months. One of the reasons why we, the Hungariansof Transylvania, consider the attention of the EU and Parliament to be important is thatthe post-communist Romanian Government broke a record in anti-Hungarian measures,launching a series of attacks against our minority institutions. Its series of hostile attacksbegan with its action against the Hungarian faculty at the Târgu Mureș University ofMedicine and Pharmacy, in connection with which President Traian Băsescu rightly saidthat it is a fundamental right for a minority to have access to education in its native languageat a university that is obliged to provide native language education for minorities. Theseries continued, among other acts, with an arbitrary attempt to re-nationalise the SzékelyMikó Reformed College, which had been confiscated during communism and was laterreturned through restitution to its rightful owner, the Hungarian Reformed Church. Despiteall this, we can ultimately conclude with satisfaction that ‘one way or the other, theRomanian institutions are resisting political pressure, and have managed to stay true totheir mission as far as the Constitutional Court, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and theAnticorruption Prosecution Office are concerned’ (Traian Băsescu). One of the reasonswhy the Ponta–Antonescu Government has launched a campaign of retribution againstus is that the Hungarian community refused to support its unlawful and unconstitutionalpolicy, namely the coup-like removal of President Traian Băsescu. In conclusion, I wouldlike to ask Parliament and the Commission to continue to monitor the situation in Romaniaand the fate of the Hungarian minority.

Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (RO) With its 1.5 million citizens, the Hungariancommunity in Romania is the largest minority community in the EU, and is firmlycommitted to the European principles and values regarding the structure and operationof the rule of law. Like all the other political forces in Romania, the Democratic Allianceof Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), the legitimate representative of this community, hasgone through a stormy period. The societal split, the suspension of the Romanian president,and the institutional and political crisis have forced us to face some difficult decisions.

In addition to the general crisis, my community has also faced an attack directed againstone of our specific wishes that originate in our history and traditions, namely the restorationto the community of property abusively confiscated by the communist regime. Almost30 000 people protested in Sfântu Gheorghe on 1 September against the abusive decisionto renationalise the building of the ‘Székely Mikó’ Secondary School, which had been legallyreturned to the Reformed Church in Transylvania in 2002. This decision completelydisregarded the principles of the rule of law and brought into question the guarantee ofthe property rights of Hungarian historical communities and churches. The only long-termsolution to the institutional conflicts in Romania, which have reached their peak thissummer, as well as to guaranteeing property rights is a real judiciary system reform andthe long overdue constitutional reform.

12. Proposals for a European banking union (EBU) (debate)

President. – The next item is the oral question (B7-0360/2012) by Sharon Bowles, onbehalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Commission onproposals for a European banking union (O-000151/2012).

Sharon Bowles, author. − Mr President, Commissioner, problems with the democraticlegitimacy, accountability and timing of the various proposals on the banking union wereforeseen. Unfortunately my concerns have now increased in other areas. This is importantbecause there is a single-market cost benefit in making the European Central Bank the euro


zone supervisor. I am concerned that this benefit is now more marginal. We will, of course,aim to rebalance that.

Given the Treaty provisions – which I must say now look extremely deficient in the areaof financial services – I supported the ECB as euro zone supervisor in the interests ofcredibility. However, we should not pretend that this is a mutualisation that gives over thepockets of the ECB to backing euro zone banks. The only back-up is the European StabilityMechanism (ESM), which is in fact dubious and indirect now. After that, in terms ofaccountability, it is the pockets of the Member States that are relevant.

Regarding the proposals themselves, Parliament must be fully involved in both pieces oflegislation. There are ways that this can be done, and the moral pressure is enormous. Weare turning the ECB into the banking supervisor at a time of crisis and a time when the ECBitself has moved centre stage in both economic and political events. Furthermore, giventhat the transfer of power to the ECB is not comfortable for many Member States – indeedmaybe not for the majority of them – nor easy to balance in terms of single marketprocedures and accountability, it is all the more important that this directly elected Housebe seen to play a strong role beyond that of merely giving an opinion.

I acknowledge that you, Commissioner, and President Barroso have both spoken of thisbeing treated as a package.

With regard to accountability, Parliament’s role must stretch beyond occasional hearingsin the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I have conspicuously defended theindependence of the ECB in monetary policy, but this must not inhibit due process on thesupervisory side. We do not expect regulatory failure but, in such an event, an inquiry hasto be possible. Without such inquiries we would not have found out about many aspectsof the financial crisis and what went wrong. Waiving independence in this respect wouldhelp to demonstrate the separation of the supervisory side of the ECB from the monetarypolicy side.

On disciplinary matters, the procedure should, as far as possible, mirror the norms ofnational procedures. The ECB will, in effect, be prosecutor and judge, with the possibilityof review by the European Court of Justice. If a banking licence is at stake then this reviewprocedure is not fast enough. When it comes to procedures for hearings, the ECONCommittee has more than once indicated dissatisfaction with the DG COMP hearingprocess and the lack of clarity in charges and evidence. I do not wish to see that as themodel to follow.

More work needs to be done to protect the single market. A duty of care must be requiredfrom the ECB in relation to the single market, in the same way that it is required of theCommission. The interaction of the ECB and the European Banking Authority (EBA) needsadjustment to make sure that it is fair to all parties, and I know how difficult that will be.The ECB must adopt an outward-looking approach: for example, supervising all banks,including branches of third-country megabanks. That is a role for an internationalsupervisor. There is, of course, also an issue of ensuring gender balance on the supervisoryboard. Having the Chair and Vice-Chair selected from the ECB’s men-only pool is notsatisfactory.

Finally, supervisory policy is a matter for the single market and the EBA, not just the ECB.A single rulebook is no longer sufficient: we must have a single supervisory handbook,


compiled using the expertise of supervisors from across the Union under the auspices ofthe EBA.

Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, honourable Members,Madam President, I should first like to thank Ms Bowles for the question she has askedtoday, on the day when the Commission, after extensive efforts which I have had the honourof leading under the authority of President Barroso, publishes its proposal for a singlesupervisory mechanism in the euro area banking sector.

I would like to thank you sincerely, Madam President, for the opportunities that you havegiven me to listen to you, to reply to you and to listen to other MEPs who have opinionsabout this topic.

We want, with this banking union, to provide responses to the challenges that Europe and,in particular, the euro area, is currently facing. These, honourable Members, are challengesthat you know well as you have been taking action and talking about them for a long timenow.

The first concerns the link between the situation of the banking sector and sovereign debt,a link that we want to break. The second concerns the temptation banks have to turn inon themselves, when in difficulties, and retreat to their national domain. It is thereforehigh time that we took action, and that is what we are doing today with these two legislativeproposals, which are complementary and which should allow for the introduction of asingle, efficient supervisory mechanism.

Firstly, the Commission presents a proposal for a regulation based on Article 127(6) ofthe Treaty to entrust the European Central Bank with specific missions in the area ofprudential supervision. This is a simple system, it is credible and we believe that it is robust.It will enable the European Stability Mechanism to play its role if necessary, in accordancewith the rules laid down in its decision-making procedures.

It is a credible system because the European Central Bank will, ultimately, be responsiblefor taking key supervisory decisions, namely those which have an impact on orconsequences for financial stability. Other supervisory decisions, for example, and yourAssembly pays very close attention to these in the case of consumer protection, will remainclearly within the sphere of competence of national supervisors.

The single supervisor will thus be able to grant and withdraw licences from banks, checkthe risk management of a bank or even require it, within the framework of a Europeanprudential regulation, to increase its funds.

This system is as simple as it is because we plan to make the European Central Bankresponsible for the supervision of all the credit institutions in the euro area. These, ladiesand gentlemen, are, quite simply, the lessons that we have drawn from the crisis. Systemiccrises can be caused, as we have seen, by difficulties in medium-sized banks, sometimeseven small banks, and not only by major international groups.

This system is also robust because, quite clearly, it is not a question of asking the EuropeanCentral Bank to do everything by itself. We want to retain a role and responsibility withinthe joint supervisory framework for national supervisors who, as we are well aware, haveresources, expertise and experience in each country. This single supervision will need theseto plan its decisions, carry them out and implement and apply what I shall call the manual


for single supervision for each of the banks, but do it at national level, once again, relyingon a national supervisor.

Finally, this system will be open, so to speak. We are proposing to those Member Statesthat are not, or not yet, in the euro area to join the single supervisory mechanism voluntarily.

I am aware that some of you are concerned about the legal basis that we have chosen. Thesepeople rightly point out that this basis does not provide for a co-decision procedure, butrather the unanimity of the Council, even though Parliament played a crucial role, whichI do not forget, in the introduction of supervisory authorities for markets, banks andinsurance companies.

Ladies and gentlemen, to be perfectly frank as I have always been with you, the choice thatwe made is the result of several objective considerations. Article 127(6) of the Treaty hasthe precise objective of entrusting supervisory tasks to the European Central Bank. Thatwas therefore a logical and solid basis, and that is why the Heads of State or Governmentof the euro area explicitly requested the Commission to work on this basis in theirdeclaration of 29 June. However, Parliament, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, willhave its role to play. That I know and that is what I wish. I shall pay attention to anycomments, proposals or criticisms that you make, because the two proposals that we aremaking today, for the regulation of the European Banking Authority (EBA) and forsupervision, go together, as President Barroso said this morning to you and in your name.

Furthermore, the texts that we propose introduce a genuine system of accountability ofthe new and future supervisory Council vis-à-vis Parliament, which I think is a big stepforward.

Thus the second regulation that I have just mentioned will be targeted at adapting thefunctioning of the EBA to take account of the new balance arising from the singlesupervisory mechanism.

This regulation is based on Article 114 of the Treaty, which provides for the ordinarylegislative procedure. This proposal amends certain voting procedures within the EBA toenable to it continue to play a full role in developing common standards for the singlemarket as a whole. This amendment is also targeted at enabling decisions to be taken andguaranteeing the single market as a whole, while protecting the rights and interests of eachof its members.

Finally, we are putting forward a document which provides the background to this singlesupervision project. We cannot put together integrated, efficient supervision without solidfoundations, and these foundations, these bases for the 27 countries of the European Union– and that is why I do not want us to confuse the scope of the regulation, which is the sameas that of all the other texts we have been putting together for the last two and a half yearsand that of the supervision – are the legislative proposals already on the table, and partlyalso adopted, and in some cases already implemented, concerning the future resolution ofbanking crises, the deposit guarantee system and the requirement for own resources throughCapital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV).

These initiatives are key elements in what we together have called the ‘single rulebook’, forthe internal market, which should indeed apply to all 27 Member States. The Commissiondoes not therefore intend to withdraw either of these two proposals, which not only arecompatible with banking union, but are also essential to its development and essential ifwe want to protect and consolidate the single rulebook, this common regulation for the


European banking union as a whole. That is why I want Parliament and the Council ofMinisters, and this is something we will discuss with the ministers tomorrow in Cyprus,to come to an agreement as soon as possible on these texts.

This clearly shows that strengthening the single market and single supervision are twocomplementary processes. Naturally, the introduction of this banking union will take usfurther on the way towards strengthening our dispute resolution and guarantee mechanisms,in accordance with the guidelines that have been clearly laid out in the report by the fourPresidents and in the European Commission’s communication.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are all well aware that there is an urgent need to pull the euroarea out of the crisis that it is in, and for the European Union, with its single market, torecover the growth that its citizens expect.

I wanted to draw attention to this urgent need, and that is why the Commission, since29 June, has worked tirelessly, seriously and yet fast, to be able to put on the table in frontof you and the governments these two proposals, which go together, to create an open,robust and credible supervisory system.

Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, to startwith, I would of course like to congratulate you and thank you for the extremely thoroughand very expeditious work that you have carried out to introduce the two proposals thatare here before us today. We shall play a different role in each of them, which will also bedependent on the legal basis.

However, Commissioner, I feel, when I listen to what each of you has to say and read thenewspapers, that these negotiations are fraught with danger, because people’s opinionsare different. The commitments entered into are not clear. Yet, we are currently beingwatched closely by our fellow citizens, who want to understand and see what Europe isdoing, by our entrepreneurs, who want to know if they can invest, and by the markets,which are anxious to know what to do.

I believe that, in the coming months and weeks, the direction that the negotiations takewill be a determining factor. I shall not go into technical details here, as they will be thesubject of the debate, but I shall merely observe that, unless we show a real European spirit,unless we show that we can set aside short-term national interests and unless we are ableto put in place genuinely robust European institutions, all our work will be to no avail andcause disappointment.

I am confident in your determination, Commissioner, which I know to be unflagging. Youhave a record that does credit to you and, therefore, we can say that luck is on our side. Itis now up to the Member States to shoulder their responsibilities and rise above squabblesover technical matters. The issue is not how we share out one minor competence or another.The real issue is whether we are able to create banking union, or at least a quality prudentialcontrol system, to put finance at the service of the economy.

Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcomethe proposal you have presented and I apologise that I will not be able to listen to yourreplies, due to conflicting schedules. Rest assured, however, that I will examine your replycarefully, as I have someone here to listen to you.

As I was saying, I welcome the proposal. The proposal’s only flaw is that it is late and Itherefore wish you the best of luck in developing it. However, the devil is in the detail and,


as you know, in 2010 this Parliament requested many of these initiatives, but none of themhas been adopted thus far.

We want to meet two objectives. The first is to guarantee citizens’ deposits. The secondobjective is that, in the event of a bank failure, we end what has been happening to date,in that citizens have paid for this failure. This, however, is the vaguest area of the proposaltabled here. How should the orderly resolution of a failed bank be organised? What is thetimetable for establishing the new authority that will manage this process? How will theprudential powers of the European Central Bank (ECB) then be transferred to the newentity?

This aspect of managing a bank failure without charging citizens is a key factor in theviability of this proposal. Finally, how do you ensure that the European Central Bank hassome appeal mechanism, so that citizens or national supervisors may appeal againstdecisions by the European Central Bank, which currently has absolutely intrusive andgreater powers, and will this probably have to be the way forward?

Finally, I end Mr President by asking how you ensure that there is no imbalance in theapplication of the relevant regulations between the practical supervision of the ECB andother countries and countries that are outside the euro area.

Sylvie Goulard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, thankyou for these proposals and for the enormous contribution that you and your team havemade over the summer period. We are, in any event, aware of the fact that this is a complexsubject, which should not be over-simplified and which should be examined in detail.

I can see that you need to manage two contradictory aims. On the one hand, you have theunity of the internal market about which we care a great deal and on which, as you said,we worked two years ago. We have the right of oversight over an institution to which wehave contributed. On the other hand, there is the perfectly legitimate right of the euro areato enhance its credibility in the sovereign debt crisis. I believe you also have tried to strikea balance. In the forthcoming discussions, we will see if it is the right one.

I would like to point out two things. You have been brave enough to decide to place allbanks under the responsibility of the European Central Bank (ECB), which is, I believe, theright approach in terms of competition. Furthermore, it allows you to make the point tothe outside world that the supervision of the banks in the euro area is a European affair,and that is obviously an important point to make. It is also very important to emphasisethat we are opening up to countries which are not yet members of the euro area, and towhich, I believe, we should appear to be welcoming. Therefore, we shall of course dealwith these issues as coherently as possible.

I also have a small concern about the change to which this might give rise for the CentralBank. I am not saying that it should not be done. I believe that we must look at thingscarefully. The strength of the ECB today is its independence, the narrowness of its mandateand its federal structure. What we want is an institution which is more accountable to theelected representatives, with a much wider mandate and one that is part of a network. Wemust ensure that we retain all the qualities of the Central Bank, when we give it anotherfunction.

Finally, my last point, you will doubtless remember that, when we proposed a much moreintegrated supervision, we were very aware of those companies which act as a bank andan insurance company at the same time. We proposed bringing together the banking and


insurance authorities in Frankfurt. Keep that in mind. The closer people are to each otherand the more we work together, the better it will be for companies.

Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,as co-rapporteurs we have an extremely important role here too. It will be very importantto my colleague that work should progress quickly and reliably on this file in the comingweeks and months. All eyes are on us and the Council in this regard, waiting for us toovercome the crisis with the banks in Europe with a further step towards Europeanisation,namely a European banking union. It should be pointed out that Parliament demandedthis with a broad majority two years ago. We held 26 trialogues. We made some progressin this direction, but unfortunately we did not get as far as we really needed to. This resultedin several billions more being added to the bill. It is good that the Council has now seenthe writing on the wall and wishes to take things one step further for the good of the euroarea. It is praiseworthy that the Commission has drawn up the proposals so quickly.

There are some difficulties with the Council’s proposal that the European Central Bank(ECB) should become the euro area watchdog, however. This results in unanimity in theCouncil, and means that Parliament is no longer involved in this matter in the codecisionprocedure. In the light of our experience with the supervisory package, this is not acceptable.That is why it is important that we should work quickly and that we should also negotiatethis proposal regarding changes in the ECB as a package with the necessary changes in theexisting supervisory regime, thereby securing the principle of the democratic involvementof Parliament on a de facto basis.

Other challenges also exist on a democratic level. The ECB is independent in terms ofmonetary policy, but not in terms of fiscal policy, for which it has had no responsibilityuntil now. If it is now made responsible for bank supervision, Parliament needs fullbudgetary rights, control rights, questioning rights and appointment rights, and I am certainthat Parliament will support this with a broad majority. We shall have to discuss the complexadditional questions relating to the internal market, consumer protection and the balancebetween European power and financial responsibility in detail in the coming weeks.

Ivo Strejček, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstlike to say on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group that we verymuch want the European area to be a prosperous area and an area of economic and socialstability.

Nevertheless, just like Mr Gauzès, I think the proposal we are talking about today first andforemost deserves a more general debate. It is also necessary to view the debate in thecontext of what we heard today from Mr Barroso, who told us that banking union is onlypart of the plan for deeper currency union, for the completion of fiscal union and for thecompletion of political union. These cannot be separated.

We simply do not agree that banking union is the miracle solution to all current economicproblems. We believe that individual Member States must make serious structural reforms,and we see instead in the banking union proposal a postponement of these reforms, wesee instead something that helps states to leapfrog them, something that transfers all debtsto the supranational level and something that for a time, shall we say, should address at asupranational level the serious, profound and age-old problems which this proposaladdresses only in the short term.


If I am saying this, and if what Mr Barroso said today holds true, then we must say thatsuch a process has to be legitimised in a fundamentally democratic way. It cannot takeplace - and I apologise to the chamber - but it cannot take place only in these half-emptyrows of seats. It must be the subject of serious and profound debate in the individualnational parliaments. Citizens must be seriously informed about what is being planned,about what the consequences are for their states and for their pockets, what the benefitsare and what the costs are. In my opinion, this is not possible without a fundamental andserious debate.

Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I rise somewhat wearily toexplain yet again the banking crisis to this House. Banks lend long, but borrow short.Central banks encourage malpractice by printing money – counterfeiting by any othername. Politicians use this fake money to prop up corporate and social welfare, basicallybribing people with their own money. Financial regulation has become a shield to protectcrooked bankers, while politicians, central and commercial banks spend money they donot have. The problem will simply fester.

So what of banking union? Will national parliaments have any say? I take this opportunityto ask, as there are British Conservative colleagues in the House tonight, will Cameron stopthis? Will he invoke Article 127 of the TEU or will he, as form suggests, sit like a paralysedrabbit in the EU’s headlights?

Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Iconfess that I share much of the concern that was initially presented here on the democraticlegitimacy and democratic control related to this proposal for banking union and bankingsupervision, as a key issue is unclear and unresolved: the role of Parliament, the onlyinstitution democratically and directly elected by citizens.

However, I also have another concern, which is an underlying concern: the EU controlsmonetary policy instruments, monetary policy is the EU’s responsibility, and bankingsupervision also becomes the EU’s responsibility. However, if everything goes wrong, ifthe banks fail, the responsibility for paying for this failure falls to the taxpayers of theMember States and it remains a national responsibility. This is not a minor problem; it isa fundamental problem that is not resolved. Finally, I would also like to mention anotherunresolved problem: the fact that we continue to tie monetary policy to inflation, whichis a secondary issue in the current climate, and not to job creation and growth, as it shouldbe.

Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the proposals for bank supervision are a directconsequence of the breaking of taboos at the EU summit in June. We are now faced withArticle 12 of the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) without aratification process, in other words, broken taboos are now to be followed by broken laws.We have heard that it is not only the ESM members, in other words the countries themselves,that are to receive financing, but also the banks directly. By breaking this taboo we have asituation whereby funds are to be paid out via the ESM and the supervision of the banksis to be handled by the bank that is increasingly becoming a bad bank because it is to buyup all the scrap loans of the bankrupt states of Europe. This system is doomed to failure.

Besides, the previous proposals in relation to bank supervision are in no way suitable forcontrolling the financial markets. If we really want to control the financial markets, thisbank supervision by the ECB is wholly inadequate. The supervision of the financial marketsthat would be needed in order to take control in this area has failed mainly due to the


resistance of the United Kingdom, which is unwilling to place its own financial economyunder the control of the European Union. Thus, we find ourselves in an absolute dilemma.Nothing that is being done is sufficient. In the final analysis it will cost the taxpayer billions,taking us one step closer towards a union of the permanent debtors of the rest of Europe,a new USSR in other words. The countries with a healthy balance sheet are constantlyrequired to pay for those countries that previously received low interest rates, despite thefact that they did not have the balance sheets to warrant these. This is a complete dead-end.

Marianne Thyssen (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, with the legislativeproposals you have announced today, the Commission will really be putting money whereits mouth is and that is a positive thing for three reasons.

It is a good thing because it is now clear that, following in the Council’s footsteps, theCommission has now reached the same conclusions as Parliament in 2010, namely thatwe need a banking union. Secondly, this is positive because the creation of a Europeansurveillance mechanism offers the prospect of breaking the vicious circle between thebanking problems and those of national debt, and thus the taxpayers. The third reasonwhy this is to be welcomed is because concrete policy processes have now been put intomotion. It is only with solid and conclusive decisions and with serious concrete stepsforward that we will be able to regain the confidence of the people and the markets.

We should now discuss this in detail. This is a proposal that demands a lot of attentionbecause it is a very radical proposal. Later, we will definitely have the opportunity to returnto this issue. But what I would now like to add is: in Parliament we have been concernedon at least one occasion about the democratic dimensions of this issue and– as you havealready indicated – about its legal basis and the consequences of that basis on theinvolvement that Parliament can have in this important matter.

I am pleased that we will not be choosing a different legal basis: we would need at leastanother six months, and that is a considerable loss of time, time that we cannot afford tolose. So, I am pleased that you have announced – as Mr Barroso said this morning – thatwe should debate these two proposals together. We trust that that will take place and thatthere is an agreement with the Council on that. It is the best guarantee of achievinghigh-quality surveillance, the kind of surveillance that is necessary to ensure that the banksagain play the role that they have to play, and that is being at the service of the real economyand ensuring growth and jobs.

I look forward to working constructively with everyone involved.

Peter Simon (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I extend warm thanks for yourcooperation on one of the important elements in the banking union project, depositguarantee schemes. You have quite rightly pointed out that the four pillars alongsidesupervision are of equal importance. Deposit guarantee schemes and crisis funds are twoof these four pillars. This morning, Commission President Barroso stated that we couldnot have a situation where, in future, citizens would still have to pick up the tab for themistakes of the banks. As you know, you have significant support in this House for thebest possible financing of deposit guarantee schemes and crisis management. However,you know as well as I do that our common opponent is sitting in the Council. You knowas well as I do that the deposit guarantee scheme that we adopted with a large, cross-partymajority seven months ago with a worthwhile level of funding that would bring stabilityto the area has been given the green light by this House and sent forward for


implementation. For the last seven months, the governments of the Member States havedone nothing to meet us half way, nothing to ensure the future stability of the systems.

I would like to ask at this juncture how you think we can rescue this situation. One thingis clear: Parliament will not allow plans to be drawn up for chronically underfundedguarantee schemes that are not worthy of the name. How can we work together to persuadethe Council to keep its promises, so that our citizens are no longer asked to provide backingfor banks that should be wound up or to pay out on deposits, but that the banks themselvesshould provide their own protections in future by contributing to corresponding funds?

Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, two years ago the EuropeanParliament came to the conclusion that the European internal market for financial servicesalso needs European supervision and it proposed establishing this supervision with, butnot in, the European Central Bank, so as not to put the Bank’s independence at risk.

The Commission now suggests establishing such supervision within the ECB and firstfocusing its work on the financial institutions of the euro area. The European internalmarket for financial service providers involves more than just the euro area, however. Forthis reason I believe it is crucial for us to act as quickly as possible to place not only thefinancial institutions of the euro area under this supervision, but also the entire EuropeanUnion. The first step should be at least to place all the countries that have committedthemselves to introducing the euro, in other words all countries except Denmark and theUnited Kingdom, under this supervision. It is important that this supervision should notbecome a bureaucratic monster. That is why it is crucial that the share-out of tasks betweenthe ECB and the national supervisory bodies should be clarified quickly. It is also necessaryto clarify the share-out of tasks between the ECB and the European Banking Authority(EBA).

Democratic legitimation has been mentioned more than once here. The key is that theaccountability of this supervision is assured without putting the independence of the bankat risk. One more point: the project must be implemented in such a way that citizens haveno reason to be even more Eurosceptic. Be careful in your use of national rescue, resolutionand deposit guarantee funds. Our citizens see this as their money and want it to be usedin their own countries.

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) (off microphone) could not have done that to you,as that would have shown a lack of ambition. I really cannot see how we could have goneany further than what you are proposing. I think you have scored 20 out of 20 here. Youare trying to supervise all the banks in Europe, and not only some of them. You are aimingfor simplicity and I think that we can only welcome this.

Where you have perhaps shown a little less ambition, is when you said, ‘We accepted thelegal basis that the Council recommended to us.’ I would nonetheless like to remind youthat it is you, and you alone, who have the right of initiative, and therefore you wereperfectly at liberty to choose another procedure.

More seriously, obviously I understand the choice of the European Central Bank, but Ithink that it causes us two problems. It causes us the problem of the concentration ofpower. I do not think that it is healthy, in a democratic system, for one institution inparticular to accumulate too much power. However, here, in the context of crisismanagement and monetary policy, we are witnessing a kind of mission creep at the Central


Bank, a change in its mandate, the temptation, in brief, to extend its powers, and here, weare going to increase them even further. I think that we should pay attention to this matter.

My second point is this: we are dealing with an institution whose traditions do not includedemocratic accountability, in other words one in which independence is a deeply rootedfamily tradition. I find it hard to see how those very people who pride themselves on theirtotal independence when they come before us as a monetary authority can then show therequisite deference to the democratic institutions when they act as supervisors. I think thatwe would need a great deal of imagination to introduce provisions and rules to ensure thatthere are no abuses of power or lack of democratic accountability.

In any case, it is clear that, by subjecting all European banks to European supervision, youare breaking not only the unhealthy link between public debt and private debts, but youare also perhaps breaking another link, that is the rather excessive complicity between thesupervised and the supervisors at national level. That incestuous behaviour should ceaseand you will contribute to that.

Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, today’s debate on a euro zone banking unit is thecontent of an oral question and now even though I have seen the Commission’s proposalsit seems all I still have are questions. How are the non-euro zone Member States’ banksgoing to interact within euro zone countries? How will cross-border and third countryrelationships in the financial services be treated? How will the single market and the singlerule book for the 27 be preserved and how is the EBA (the European Banking Authority)going to function with 17 Members represented by a single body balanced against theother ten? Solving the constitutional quandary will not be easy, and in doing so I hope thatthe Commissioner will be able to answer all of these questions to the satisfaction of thisHouse and all 27 governments. The EU Treaty article being used might seem convenientto redistribute the powers of supervision, but the barrier of unanimity is going to be adifficult safeguard to overcome.


Ashley Fox (ECR), blue-card question. – Dr Swinburne, do you share my concern as tohow the ECB will maintain its independence when it is being asked to followCommission-initiated legislation and potentially submit to binding mediation by the EBA?

Kay Swinburne (ECR) , blue-card answer. – It does seem that, if the ECB is being asked toactually supervise the euro zone banks, then it is going to be acting as a supranationalcompetent authority. That would suggest that it has to submit to binding mediation. Ofcourse the powers of the EBA come under delegated powers from the Commission so itreally is – as I guess I commented earlier – a constitutional quandary. I am not sure I havethe answers to it yet and I hope someone else does.

Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wonder what thepurpose of a banking union might be.

If its aim is to ensure greater supervision, then I wonder what purpose was served by therecent establishment of a European banking supervision authority, unless it was to decreethe failure of these authorities, which have been unable to provide any useful answers.

Many banks have continued to behave recklessly, not helping the real economy but insteadinvesting in risky and ethically questionable operations, such as the Spanish banks’ ongoingfinancing of their country’s debt-ridden major football clubs.


Instead of a banking union, I think it would be more useful to talk about bank separation;I mean splitting deposit banks from investment banks, along the lines of the Glass-SteagallAct in the United States.

Banks that hold money from current accounts and small savers should certainly beprotected, but I see no reason why we should provide common safeguards – in other words,funded from every citizen’s pockets – to cover those banks that try to make their profitsfrom speculation and high-risk investments.

Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I basically welcome yourinitiative for common banking supervision in Europe. I believe that is necessary. I have acouple of questions, however. The European landscape, the EU, is dotted with a wide varietyof banks: savings banks, cooperative banks, private banks, big banks. I believe that we mustmaintain and protect this variety, even with European supervision. I believe this is veryimportant because many of the small banks were stable throughout the crisis and shouldnot be sent to the wall.

Secondly, I would like to say that I do not believe that supervision alone will be enough.The supervisory body must also have effective instruments to enable it to intervene in themarket as necessary, even removing toxic products from the market as required.

Thirdly, and lastly, however good a bank supervisory body may be, it can still do little, withthe legal situation as it currently is, with regard to the shadow bank sector. This means thatwe still need to remain aware of the fact that only part of the problem will be resolved withsuch bank supervision. The problem of the shadow banks will remain.

Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). - (NL) Mr President, there is still a persistent lack oftrust in our banking sector and it is SMEs that are bearing the brunt of this, because theyare having difficulties borrowing money. And that is the very thing that is crucial for growthand jobs. I wish to compliment Commissioner Barnier on the proposals he has tabledtoday. The direction he has taken is good because it means giving intervention powers tothe ECB. However, we have to see how well this will be organised.

We now need to focus on certain considerations. We must not distort the internal market,but strengthen it. That means a strong role for the EBA as guardian of the simple European‘rulebook’. But, how will this work in the future? Will it be revoked by the ECB withadditional capital or liquidity requirements? What is the connection between the two? Inaddition, we need to expand banking supervision as soon as possible to as many banks aspossible in the Member States.

Therein lies my second point of concern. Because, despite what you said, a wall is likely tobe erected between banks in the countries within the euro area and those outside it. There,too, there are banks that have been infected by the crisis virus and there, too, there aremany countries, such as Poland, Hungary and others that would like to join. We need todeal with that seriously because, ultimately, we want stability throughout the whole of theEuropean Union.

Some countries have already tried to take the edge off the proposals. But, we need tostrengthen those proposals and, to do that, we need Parliament! This was the case when itcame to the establishment of the European supervisory authorities. This was the case whenit came to decision making for the six-pack for economic governance. We must alsostrengthen our co-legislative role for proposals for which we have advisory powers. Wehave proved that with the six-pack, too.


With this package, we want to create the momentum to make it as robust as possible fora stronger Europe.

George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I too would like to remind you thatthe European Parliament has repeatedly stressed, ever since the summer of 2010, that it isimperative to create an integrated banking supervisory mechanism. Regulations in thisarea are insufficient and the citizens have already paid enough for the excessive costs ofrescuing institutions from bankruptcy by turning private debt into public debt. Two yearslater, the Council finally calls for the establishment of a banking union.

I believe the European Union is paying today the high price of overdue decisions andinsufficiently transparent procedures. In a European Union where anti-European feelingsare on the rise and citizens want concrete solutions, I hope we will eventually learn ourlesson and live up to the expectations of the people we represent.

Vicky Ford (ECR). - Mr President, a central bank does need the power to oversee banks.In the UK, the socialist government gave away that power and it was a very expensivemistake. Therefore, the euro zone central bank supervision of euro zone banks makessome sense for the euro zone but not for those of us who are outside the euro zone. Alsoyou cannot have strong supervision without strong rules. In our backroom negotiationson banking rules we are going round and round in circles. Sometimes a single rulebook isfar from a single market and it feels as if, within that market, each market stallholder issetting their own standards. Sometimes those are far from the global minimum standards.In the cross-border world of banking that exposes us all to risk.

The UK supported the EBA to be a police enforcer to pull up standards across the singlemarket. We must not confuse the role of the ECB as supervisor with that of the EBA assingle market enforcer. Votes matter. If the ECB was to block-vote against the non-eurozone Member States and that was perceived as trying to drop standards within Europe,then that would undermine the euro zone even further. So the votes will matter.


Syed Kamall (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, could I ask Ms Ford whether sheshares my concern?

In September 2007, it was announced that there was a run on Northern Rock. Five yearsafter that run began, does she share my concern that these proposals appear to be toovague in terms of ensuring that banks will never again be bailed out with taxpayers’ money?

Vicky Ford (ECR), blue-card answer. – Absolutely, and that is why every timeCommissioner Barnier has come to our committee and I have been able to ask him thequestion ‘Will we implement Basel standards in Europe?’ he has answered ‘Yes, but we arestill not there’.

In the UK that is why we are reforming banks, so that we will not have to bail them out,because we are putting in a ring fence. We must have the ability to implement the globalstandards and allow Member States to go further if they need to.

President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I get the impression that the blue-card procedure isbeing abused. Colleagues from the same political group whose opinions do not differmaterially are asking each other questions. I wish to point this out with due respect for theright to speak and the procedures which exist.


Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). - (FR) Mr President, I am talking about the rule on blue-cardquestions. You have just made the observation that I wished to make. I wanted to knowwhether, on the subject of banking Union, we were not perhaps spectators at an islandping-pong competition. I believe that the system which consists of hijacking the use ofblue-card questions by asking questions to friends of one's own group, thereby increasingone's speaking time, is essentially a poor use of the procedure. I am astonished that thisshould come from a country where fair play is generally held in high esteem.

Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Thank you, Mr President, for having made that observationyourself and having given the floor to Mr Gauzès. I share your observation entirely. Weshould ensure that blue-card questions encourage discussions between the different groupsand countries. Some are perhaps, indeed, a little inward-looking.

Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not find thisbanking union convincing, because it seems to have no purpose other than to place a finegravestone over any prospect of adopting the legal principles of the Glass-Steagall Act inEurope.

In that respect, how can we not share the concern expressed by Georg Fahrenschon, thepresident of the German savings banks association, for whom a banking union withcentralised supervision in the hands of the European Central Bank (ECB) and a commondeposit guarantee fund is like a life assurance policy for ‘systemic’ banks, in other wordsthose banks – not all of them – whose bellies are full of derivative rubbish? We are all wellaware of that, but nobody dares say it!

This solution will ensure that healthy banks, such as savings banks (not only the Germanones but also the ones in Padania) and cooperative banks, which are close to the land, thepeople and the regions – you may recall the message given out yesterday by 2 millionCatalans who want their freedom – will foot the bill so that the sick ones can continue tospeculate.

I would like to ask a final question: every day, Mario Draghi, the President of the ECB, saysthat the euro is irreversible. I would like to know if any of you have found an article in theTreaties that allows him to decide which currency the Member States should adopt. I havenot found one.

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Barnier, during today’s debateand on the subject of banking union, President Barroso said that rules need to be adoptedto prevent companies and mortgage loans from being manipulated via interest rates. Thisgives me the opportunity to observe that the Commission is unable, yet again, to see beyondthe end of its nose and to see that interest rates, lending and mortgages are being used tomanipulate both companies and consumer mortgages and Member States. In this particularinstance, in both Greece and elsewhere, this is being done by mortgaging public propertyand undermining any potential for growth. The Commission has opted to overlook certainthings and to play the role of ‘Pontius Pilate’, by establishing different tactics forrecapitalising the banks from one country to another.

The European Central Bank refuses to accept that its bonds should receive a haircut. Iunderstand that this is a step, a communication policy for more Europe. However, we haveasked you and you have not told us what will happen to the states’ sovereign rights, whatwill happen on the question of democracy, what will happen with labour rights, what will


happen to workers’ rights and to the future of the young generation. Unfortunately, whatwe see coming is a Europe in which neoliberalism will prevail as an absolute doctrine.

Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Parliament already considered the questionof European bank supervision with uniform regulations and rights of intervention twoyears ago. This project failed because of the Member States, and the Commission acceptedthe result. If things have changed, then I am unreservedly in favour.

However, serious concerns exist in relation to the role of the European Central Bank (ECB)and the legal basis; they also relate to the fact that all 6 000 banks in the euro area are nowto be controlled by a European super-authority in the shape of the ECB. This proposal runscounter to the principle of subsidiarity, disempowers the national supervisory authoritiesand emasculates the European Banking Authority (EBA). New rules have been introducedthat favour the non-euro area members of the EBA. In other words, this entire system willnot lead to the implementation of uniform regulations.

I am sure that the Council will not accept this proposal in this form. This is why Parliamenthas the right to insist on a different legal basis and thus, in particular, to make the EBA thecornerstone, rather than the European Central Bank. The establishment of uniformregulations for all locations and all authorities and banks is the right approach. Greater,risk-based distribution of supervision is also right. Last week, Mr Draghi said he wasconsidering a matrix in the distribution of functions involving the balance sheet total,international business and risk weighting. I see no evidence of this in the proposal. TheCommissioner has once again identified regional banks like Bankia, which has a balancesheet of EUR 310 billion, or Dexia with EUR 560 billion, or Northern Rock withEUR 150 billion, as small banks. This has been established within national competences,under EU competition law, not with excessive bank supervision.

This is not my main point, however. I am also in favour of the fund, of restructuring, ofthe EUR 150 billion fund that Mr Van Rompuy is to propose. I am opposed to a uniformdeposit guarantee scheme throughout Europe. After all, this would mean that first taxpayers,and then savers, would have to pay for the banking crisis. Parliament, or at least part of it,will resist this very strongly.


Vicky Ford (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr Langen, it is very good to hear you sayingthat you want to have a single market and a single set of rules. I too agree we need a singleset of minimum rules, but would you also say that your vote for those single rules wasdependent on ensuring it did not cover smaller banks? Therefore those rules are OK providedthey did not cover the small banks in Germany? Small banks can have big risks.

Werner Langen (PPE), blue-card answer. – (DE) This has nothing to do with size, but issimply based on definitions. The rules also defined by the Basel Committee state that: alarge supervised financial investment company is considered large if it has a balance sheetvalued at over EUR 70 billion. This is a workable yardstick. Following the principle ofsubsidiarity, why should smaller banks not also be supervised by the national authoritiesaccording to the same rules? Why not? With regard to the guarantees: the taxpayers are infavour. If we are now also to include deposits, while the banks are laughing up their sleeves,then this is socially unjust and irresponsible in my view.

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the fear caused by the crisis hasled to the discontinuation of inter-bank loans, contagion between public and private debt,


and the fragmentation of the internal market. This has resulted in the most at-risk countriesbeing in a worse situation, as well as deterioration in euro area stability, and reducedeconomic activity.

Confidence needs to be instilled so that capital goes to where it is needed. Banking unionshould achieve that through applying the same rules for all financial institutions in theinternal market, ensuring monetary policy is correctly conveyed and avoiding moral risk,giving rise to the possibility of direct recapitalisation of banks and the protection ofEuropean citizens and depositors.

The new package should be agreed by the ordinary legislative procedure and should notrestricted solely to the establishment of the European Central Bank as the commonsupervisory authority, given that it should also include, as was stated in the first supervisorypackage, a European deposit guarantee scheme and European mechanisms for crisismanagement and resolution.

Tadeusz Cymański (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, the crisis in the eurozone hasdemonstrated that the European banking system is sensitive and fragile. The proposal fora single banking supervisory mechanism, and in the longer term the setting up of a bankingunion has motivated my delegation to address a question to the European Commission.We are concerned primarily with the issue of the terms on which countries outside theeurozone would participate in the supervisory mechanism, countries such as Poland, whosegovernment has already – probably too easily - indicated a willingness to surrender a partof its sovereignty. We await a detailed reply from the Commission regarding the functioningof this forced mechanism and its decision making process, which includes so-calledvoluntary members from outside the eurozone.

The question is simple: how important will these countries be? Will they have a right tovote and what will they be able to influence? I am afraid that if there is further integrationof banking in the eurozone, the impact will be felt also by financial institutions outside theeurozone, since capital is extensively and closely connected in the current global situation.We therefore call for a very detailed and careful approach in reaching a decision on thismatter, and for the importance of those countries that form part of the European Union,but do not currently form part of the eurozone, to be taken into account also.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149 (8)))

Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), blue-card question. – (PL) Mr Preisdent, I would like toask the previous speaker where and from whom he heard the announcement that the PolishGovernment had agreed to join the banking union as an observer, because no suchannouncement has yet been made. There is no such union, and therefore there is no rush.No binding statement on this matter has been made either the government, or by anyrepresentatives of the Polish Government.

Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), blue-card answer. – (PL) More careful attention should havebeen paid to my speech. I clearly said that in their statements the government representativeshad expressed a willingness to take an interest in this matter, a willingness to consider it.There was no reference to taking a decision. No decision has been taken, but there is asympathetic and accommodating openness to the proposal. There is a subtle, but distinctdifference here.


Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, firstly, I believe it is appropriate tocongratulate Commissioner Barnier on his hard work and the great passion he is puttinginto this project.

We are again faced with a decisive moment for the euro. There can be no more delays. Wehave to progress towards true economic and monetary union, and ultimately, true politicalunion. There is no going back. We will all agree that banking union is the first basic andessential step towards political union.

There are three main pillars of this banking union. The first is a single supervisory authority,which supervises all banks in the euro area, and it is even more important that it comesinto force as soon as possible. The second is a common deposit guarantee fund. The thirdis a banking crisis management mechanism.

We also need the option to be able to directly recapitalise banks when required, to break,as mentioned by Commissioner Barnier, the vicious circle between banking debt andsovereign debt, and to finally overcome the debt crisis. This is the real deal. There is nogoing back on the euro. The Spanish Government has made a proposal, an ambitiousproposal, in this respect. This was born out of the Spanish Government’s commitment toEurope and the euro.

Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, ladies andgentlemen, the proposals you have illustrated, Mr Barnier, are very important both fortheir substance, which concerns what the banking union should do, and also for the politicalsignal they contain.

This is a form of shared sovereignty that is a step on the way towards developing a differentstructure for Europe’s institutions, one that is more advanced than the current structure.In my view, however, careful consideration should be given to a number of quite significantpoints.

The first is the timeframe. You said, rightly, that this is not the time to be sidetracked bythe debate on who should occupy these posts. Yet that subject will have to be tackled, andsoon, so as not to nullify the potential of the instrument we are discussing. The secondpoint concerns the need to find a suitable solution to the problem of the relationshipbetween the Central Bank’s supervisory functions and its own autonomous functions.

Its autonomy should be upheld, and its supervision role should be coordinated withParliament’s role. What is happening in the national parliaments today is clear; what willhappen here in the future is not yet defined.

Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, theproposal tabled by the Commission is logical and must be accepted. It makes the decisionsreached at the June summit more credible because it provides more concrete information.We must now turn to the legislation. A common currency needs a common supervisoryauthority for all banks, a common budget and a common tax policy, a common banking,fiscal, economic and social union, as well as a political union as an objective. The bankingunion is a tiny element along the way in learning lessons from the crisis and providinganswers to the common currency. We might say, why not act immediately? We called forthis two years ago, but were blocked by the Council until the autumn of last year. Let usnot start blocking the proposals in every detail once again instead of setting to workimplementing them and realising the goals. No more blocking tactics!


Banking union is also linked with the CAT4 and Basel III tasks. Please help us to establishcompatibility between the banking union and these proposals during this work. We needclarity between independent currency policy and the supervisory functions, between theEuropean Banking Authority and the European Central Bank and between the currentfinancial market regulations and the projects for the future. We have much to do. Let usnot block our own work.

Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the decision to confer on the European CentralBank central powers for supervision has been made necessary by the fact that now we mustmove from a view of supervision that is still broadly national to one that is fully European.That is the crucial decision that the European Council has taken and which involvesconferring new powers on the European Central Bank, an institution which, in additionto being completely federal and integrated, has also shown its expertise since the beginningof the crisis of the euro area.

I believe that it is essential for this decision not to be questioned in the forthcominglegislative process. I am not calling for a model where supervision would no longer be inthe hands of national and local authorities at all. To the contrary, the distribution of powersmust be objective and gradual so that we can reconcile an overview with supervision ofwhat is happening on the ground.

We should also be careful not to make public institutions, whether national or European,compete with each other. I understand that the European Banking Association (EBA) retainsduties which are not insignificant, but it is clear, to my mind, that, of the two, it is theEuropean Central Bank that is set to play a crucial role. The work that is starting now shouldnot serve to reopen discussions which have been settled. The more complex and fragmentedthe supervisory architecture is in France, the less robust the European banking landscapewill be.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for all thecompetence, patience and vision that you have employed in performing your duties.

I should like to make some observations on your proposals. Firstly, I am surprised that theCouncil is not here, because it is the Council which really should have presented thisproposal to us. It is in charge of this matter and not the Commission. It is up to the Councilto make this proposal for a specific mission of the Central Bank relating to prudentialsupervision. I agree with some of my fellow Members: this legal basis does indeed have themerit of being efficient, but I do not think it meets our fellow citizens’ expectations, as theywanted regulation at European level. Furthermore, I am puzzled about Article 15 of theproposal, which lays down sanctions, while the legal basis, namely Article 127(6), onlyprovides for prudential supervision. We are told that managers will be removed or finesimposed of up to 10% of turnover. I believe that we should have this point checked.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, for approximately the last fouryears, the Committee on Budgetary Control has, under this legal basis, been calling forregulatory supervision of the European Investment Bank, and it would be worthwhile forthis regulation to extend to cover public banks, and particularly public development banks.

Finally, I believe that, under Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EuropeanUnion, we could consider introducing a European policy on regulators, for, under thisArticle, the Union is entitled to adopt any measure it needs to ensure the proper functioningof the internal market – regulators for credit institutions, and also for insurance, which is


not provided for under Article 127(6), and for energy and digital technology. In short, wemust introduce a genuine regulatory policy for our European markets if we wish to achievea genuine internal market.

Catch the eye procedure

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for providingthis information; I followed your speech very attentively, and it seems to me that the banksof non-euro-area Member States are intended to be left out of this common supervision.Of course as you yourself have mentioned, the system is open to all Member States. Myquestion is how is it open? It does not confer any rights, yet it immediately imposesobligations on the entrant without offering any protection. If a country does not join, itmight be that it will not receive any information, meaning that it could be left out ofeverything. However, regardless of whether a country joins or not, if it is a non-euro-areacountry it will not have access to the ESM, meaning, Commissioner, that it can rely on itsown strength alone. This means that financial institutions within the euro area will enjoya greater degree of protection and security.

Let us ask ourselves this question, and I would like to hear your answer to it: do investorsfeel that their money is safer in banks within the euro area than in banks outside it? Theanswer is yes. Commissioner …


Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Mr President, I think it is important that we achieve bettersupervision and better implementation and also that we can secure the stability of Europeanbanks. I think we should be pragmatic and decisive in trying to achieve that. However, Iwould like to underline – and I know the Commissioner does not take a different view –that when we proceed we must ensure we do not create new unions within the Union,because that would lead to fragmentation which would be contrary to what we want:namely, better supervision and greater stability. So I would like to emphasise to you,Mr Commissioner, that we have one Union, and that is the one we shall develop.

Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Mr President, banking activities of a systemic nature with animpact beyond borders are a stark example of why we need the EU, its institutions and itsregulations.

It is also evident that the state-led interventions to stave off self-inflicted disaster on thepart of our banking sector had extremely serious consequences on many levels beyondthose directly stemming from the financial crisis itself. Our citizens have lost incomes,social entitlements and public services.

The whole narrative about the crisis has been turned on its head, as public debt hasskyrocketed and our exchequer has pumped unprecedented amounts of money to savethe financial sector.

We thus have many good reasons to welcome any solutions to enhance our pan-Europeansupervisory capacities and to break the link between the sovereign exchequers and bankingsector losses. However, for all its urgency, the European Parliament must not accept anysolution at any cost.

Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL) . – (EL) Mr President, the arrangements proposedare designed to safeguard new hot money for banks and, at the same time, to promote


even harsher austerity memoranda for all the workers, because it is they, of course, whowill be required to foot the bill. Thus, unemployment will spiral not only in Spain andGreece, but throughout the European Union, regardless of the extent of the capitalist crisis.Social security, labour rights, free education and health will, unfortunately, be a thing ofthe past. Wages of EUR 250 will become standard, in order to ensure that capital will haveeven wider profit margins in the post-crisis era. This is the bleak future being reserved byEU politicians for every nation, because the capital crisis is insurmountable. That is whythe fight to leave the European Union, for radical change and for power to revert to thepeople must spread to every EU Member State.

Mojca Kleva (S&D). - (SL) Mr President, we need a banking union. In my opinion, theCommission’s proposal is heading in the right direction, because it centralises supervisionat a time when virtually all European banks are operating across national borders. In fact,this should no longer even be called into question.

We need to break the vicious circle where, in recent years, Member States, which havealready been hit by the crisis, have had to burden their budgets even more with additionalcapital injections for banks.

In so doing, banks have exacerbated the public finance crises in their respective countriesand put a strain on European taxpayers.

We will be handing over the task of supervising and penalising banks to the EuropeanCentral Bank. That process requires more than just greater detail with regard to the technicalissues connected with the submission of information to, and cooperation with, nationalregulators. It also requires a clearer and more transparent and accountable governance ofthe European Banking Union.

Allow me, therefore, to reiterate what we, members of this House, clearly said in theresolution for a banking union: we need a strong role for Parliament in the supervisionand remediation of European banks and in the process of setting up and implementing abanking union.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, economic and monetary union hasdeprived euro area Member States of their role in monetary policy. Monetarist orthodoxystrongly limits budgetary and fiscal policy. As a whole these instruments are fundamentalto ensure that public policies suit the needs of each country and the aspirations of eachpopulation. These needs are obviously different because their situations are different.

Now they want to remove Member States’ ability to supervise and regulate the financialsector. It would be another area that would stop being subject to democratic monitoringand public scrutiny and would come under the control of the European Central Bank, aninstitution that in the name of so-called independence has fulfilled the triple role of thrustingMember States into the grip of financial speculators, lowering the refinancing costs of bigcapital and promoting labour exploitation through wage compression.

This false independence is truly total dependence on the financial system and its predatoryinterests. People are gradually being deprived of fundamental instruments to determinetheir future …


Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, we are currently faced with the need for abetter supervision of European banks in the euro area, and the single supervisory mechanism


could help achieve this objective. However, granting greater powers to the European CentralBank could lead to imbalances between the banks in the euro area and those outside it. Atthe same time, there are still some concerns regarding a possible competition startingbetween large and local banks. Therefore, I believe an appropriate balance must be struckin order to be able to reduce the vulnerability facing this sector.

In this context, Commissioner, I believe it is necessary to clarify the Commission’s intentionsregarding future legislative proposals. At the same time, it is important to know whetherthe amendment of the Treaties is envisaged in order to achieve the objectives in this area.

Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you verymuch for this initiative. There is no doubt that we need a common banking union, aEuropean union, common standards, common banking licenses, and common depositguarantees. However, my question is this – and I would like a very detailed answer – whycan we not have a European wide union? Why does it need to be created within theframework of the ECB, as opposed to the European Banking Authority, which is commonnot only to the eurozone, but to the entire European Union? After all we have exactly thesame problems – both within the eurozone and beyond it.

(End of the catch the eye procedure)

Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, Ihave listened to each of your speeches with particular attention; please forgive me, foronce, for not being able to respond to you individually, but I have to be away from thebuilding shortly.

I would sincerely like to thank you for the wide range of points of view you have expressed,for the constructive and critical approach, which I welcome, that you have adopted towardsthese two regulations proposed by the Commission. What has cost taxpayers money, as Imentioned to some of you, is the fact that certain banks had been poorly supervised. Whatwe propose is for banks, whatever their size, in the euro area and in any country that sowishes, for this is an open process, to be supervised in a serious, integrated and effectivemanner, precisely to protect consumers, companies and citizens. We shall go further,Mr Klute, on the question of consumer protection, over the next few months. The proposalsthat we have made are balanced. Many of you, Ms Bowles first of all, have mentioned thesingle market. I would like to point out that we must not confuse regulation withsupervision. Regulation falls within the powers of the 27 countries and the single market,which I support, as do you, and for which we are responsible. We shall continue to createthe different elements of this package with supervision for 27, with capitalisation for the27 countries and 8 000 banks, with credit and deposit guarantee schemes and with disputeresolution systems. The 27 countries need this regulation, as well as the other two partsof the package that we will propose on the parallel banking system and the separation ofrisks in banks, following the Liikanen report. This regulation will belong to the 27 and tothe single market.

The issue here, because there is the euro on one hand and an additional need for stabilityon the other, is that within the euro area the personality and nature of the supervision willbe different. It will be more integrated. Mr Langen, we shall take account of the role andposition of national regulators. We are not going to do that from Frankfurt, on a dailybasis, for all 6 000 banks. There will be work to be done in a coordinated framework, andit will be broadly decentralised at the level of all the banks. In our proposal I, as indeed all


of us are, am extremely concerned about the ways in which those countries either not yetor not in the euro area could be associated to this regulatory system.

Finally, as you all already know, I, like President Barroso, am committed to Parliament. Wewere careful to plan for parliamentary control systems for this supervisory mechanismand I shall act as guarantor of the proper exercise of this parliamentary control in theintroduction of this new regulation.

I should like to point out that the stability of the euro area, because that is what is at issue,is not of concern only to the countries of the euro area. It concerns the whole of Europe.When the euro area is fragile, when it is in crisis, Europe as a whole suffers the consequences.We must give ourselves the means to guarantee the stability of this area. This is not theonly response, but it is a fundamental and far-reaching element, I admit, in terms ofintegration in the euro area to guarantee the stability of this area and, beyond that, thestability of the entire single market.

President. I have received one motion for a resolution (1) to wind up the debate inaccordance with Rule 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12.00 on Thursday, 13 September 2012.

Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D), in writing. – (ES) Last week, the Union had to save a‘match point’ using the European Central Bank.

In the short term, it had to underwrite limitless sovereign debt to save the euro and toovercome the unfair financial instability in several countries for the benefit of others, butin the medium and long term there is a need to change the baton and rhythm of thisout-of-tune European orchestra. Instead of cutting back on consolidated rights, it needsto be tough on profiteers, tax havens and subsidies for unproductive companies. Thereneeds to be more union and political decisiveness.

I support the proposal to equalise income made by a leader, as long as it is not an obstacle,meaning that the countries with healthier finances, which earn through borrowing money,stop stimulating their own economy and those of their neighbours and partners in thecommon European company.

In the case of Asturias, for example, my constituency of origin, an important Frenchnewspaper asked whether the closed coalmines would need to be reopened on yesterday’sfront page. Let us consider very carefully whether it would be better not to close those thatremain open, which provide energy and social security. I was a tennis player, and I knowthat after you have saved a ‘match point’ the next return of serve is equally or even moreimportant.

13. Exclusion of certain countries from trade preferences (debate)

President. – The next item is the report (A7-0207/2012) by David Martin, on behalf ofthe Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007

(1) See Minutes.


as regards the exclusion of a number of countries from the list of regions or states whichhave concluded negotiations (COM(2011)0598 - C7-0305/2011 - 2011/0260(COD)).

David Martin, rapporteur. − Mr President, the EU has historically given one-sidedpreferences to our ACP partners. That was challenged in the WTO and we had a WTOwaiver until 2007 which allowed us to continue to give those one-sided preferences. Thatshould have expired if all EPAs (Economic Partnership Agreements) had been signed, butthey had not so we had then to pass the Market Access Regulation 1528/2007 to providea bridging solution and this has since allowed duty-free and quota-free access for the 36ACP countries that have initialled EPAs but not yet signed or ratified them.

The European Commission now believes that this temporary solution should come to anend and their proposal is to remove this preferential access on 1 January 2014. In my view,Mr President, the Commission is half correct. It is true that the regulation was a temporarysolution and it is therefore reasonable that an end date should be set. It is also fair to theother developing countries outside the ACP who see countries at a similar economic levelto them getting benefits that they are denied.

However, I believe that we have to see this proposal in the context of the current climateof economic partnership agreement negotiations. We must not create the perception, fairor otherwise, that we are bullying African countries into signing and ratifying EPAs withoutgiving them enough time for careful consideration. That is why the Trade Committee hasput forward the deadline of 1 January 2016 which gives due notice to the ACP countriesthat their preferences must come to an end but also, in my view, gives a realistic timescaleto complete negotiations.

Now some colleagues have said to me in the course of the debate that this is yet anotherextension of the deadline. Colleagues, it is not, because we have never had a deadline untilnow, so this is the first proposal for a deadline and if passed it is important to understandthat it will be set in stone, because no change to this deadline could take place without afurther Commission proposal and without the agreement of both Parliament and Council;and I suggest that it is unlikely that the Commission would bring forward another proposal.

The Commission believes that the 2014 deadline would give momentum to the EPAnegotiations. I have to say, having spoken to colleagues in many of the countries that areaffected, I believe the opposite to be the truth. Most of them regard 2014 as an unreasonabletarget. If we were to vote for 2014 we are, in my opinion, excluding 17 countries from thescheme. They would simply not be able to meet that 2014 deadline, whereas 2016 sets afirm but achievable target.

So for organisational reasons, for political reasons and for reasons of economics, I think2016 is a workable and achievable deadline, and I hope even at this stage we can persuadethe Commission that this is a good target to set. They get their objective of a firm end dateto the preferences but we also give our partners a reasonable negotiating timetable.

IN THE CHAIR: JACEK PROTASIEWICZVice-President

Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, some Members of this Househave been receiving fearsome messages about the EU being on the verge of burying 18developing countries, and you have just heard it from the rapporteur.


What you are not being told is the following. Up until the end of the 1990s, the EU wasgranting African, Caribbean and Pacific countries special unilateral tariff preferences thatwere more generous than the Generalised System of Preferences. Other trade partnersattacked us over this in Geneva.

Under WTO rules, special preferences cannot discriminate between countries in a similareconomic situation except by waiver, which we were granted for the last time between2000 and 2007. In the mean time we were expected to bring our trade relationship intoline with WTO rules.

In 2000 the EU and ACP countries signed the Cotonou Agreement wherein they agreedwithout coercion to modernise their trade and aid relations. Let us not forget that untilthen, even these very generous preferences were not enough to improve ACP exports toEurope. Indeed, between 1967 and 1999 the ACP’s share in total EU imports fell from7.7 % to 2.8 %, so we agreed in Cotonou – specifically in Article 16 of the Treaty – toconclude new bilateral trade agreements that would be WTO-compatible.

It was a proposal that made economic sense because of the poor experience with unilateraltariff preferences. But it was also one that matched the political moods at the time. Theinternational community at large had finally understood that development policies whichdo not sustain good governance are simply not sustainable. EU trade policy had to reflectthis too. I have said this before and I will say it again: the political value of bilateral tradeagreements is that they create flanking policies and institutions to manage theimplementation of commercial commitments. Besides stimulating the two-way flow oftrade, lowering customs tariffs reduces the potential for poor governance, in particularcorruption.

Let me try once again to explain what this regulation is about. In 2007, by the time we hadconducted and concluded EPA negotiations with about half of the ACP countries, the EU,acting in good faith, passed the Market Access Regulation to allow our EPA partnerscontinued market access to the EU on a duty-free, quota-free basis.

We did so on the understanding that our EPA partners would formalise their commitmentto these agreements within a year or two by signing and ratifying them. Most EPA partnersproved us right and did take the necessary steps. Eighteen had not until last year. But a fewmonths later Zimbabwe ratified its interim EPA. Nine of the countries left are least developedcountries and will continue to enjoy duty-free, quota-free status because they continue tobe eligible for ‘everything but arms’ benefits.

That leaves us with only eight countries actually affected by the proposal we are discussingtoday. To be even clearer, we are talking about Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji,Ghana, Kenya, Namibia and Swaziland, which makes me wonder why these particulareight countries need more time to adjust to a situation that was already required 12 yearsago, when 87 countries and territories are adjusting to our 2011 GSP proposal in less thanthree years.

The broader picture on EPAs is really something to be proud of. We are continuingnegotiations for comprehensive EPAs with practically all the EPA regions and I have a smallset of outstanding issues left with the East African Community, with Western Africa andwith EPA partners in the Southern Africa Development Community, the SADC. Furthermorewe are implementing agreements concluded back in 2007 with the Caribbean, Papua New


Guinea and four Eastern and Southern African countries. Some of them are also continuingnegotiations to get to comprehensive regional agreements.

What this agreement is about is the past: EPAs initialled by the end of 2007. So it is notabout negotiations on comprehensive EPAs, the argument invoked by some to justify anextended deadline. This is an agreement about doing away with the past, it is not aboutthe future.

If there is such heavy resistance today from those who would prefer to extend the statusquo, I cannot help but ask a question. Are we not letting down a promising entrepreneurialclass in eight ACP countries if the 2014 deadline is extended? Why should a Kenyan, anIvorian or a Namibian business person who has an innovative idea, finds a niche marketand wishes to develop a product with the assistance of good European machinery, continueto have to pay very heavy import duties for the next two, four or even seven years? Howcan that business idea grow if inputs are expensive? How many new jobs could be createdif tariff barriers were removed? Why do we continue to see Africa, the Caribbean and thePacific as not being capable of exporting much more than basic agricultural commodities?That is so far from present-day realities and needs. Sometimes wanting to do good is actuallythe enemy of the good.

In conclusion, as Trade Commissioner-designate, I took a pledge before this Parliament inFebruary 2010 to uphold and further strengthen the multilateral trading system. At thetime I also understand my ambition is to bring EPA negotiations to a successful conclusionprovided the results are WTO-compatible and can foster development.

As a Commissioner I am also bound by EU law. For these reasons, as well as my convictionthat free trade deals serve poor countries better, I continue to support the Commissionproposal to amend the Market Access Regulation with legal effect on 1 January 2014 andI very much hope that this wisdom will also convince Parliament.

Christofer Fjellner, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, inorder for there to be any real point to this debate, we probably need to start from thebeginning – with the reason why we are actually debating this matter.

It is because our old trade agreement with the ACP countries, that is to say the countriesin Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, was declared illegal. It discriminated against otherpoor countries. We therefore decided to opt for the approach we are now taking ofnegotiating economic partnership agreements with the ACP countries. It has taken a longtime – an unacceptably long time. It is in all of our interests for these agreements to be inplace as soon as possible, as it is only once we have these agreements that we will be ableto achieve any real development in poor countries, along with investments and bettergovernance.

The only reason we have had these temporary trade preferences is to bridge the gap betweenour old, illegal agreements and these new economic partnership agreements. They werejust temporary, however.

The entire debate here today is actually about how long we mean by ‘temporary’. Thoseon the left in this House say that temporary means forever, or at least until 2019. TheGroup of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliamentsay that temporary is probably up to 2016. I get the feeling that temporary means anytimeexcept right now. It has now been more than 12 years, however – and that is more thanjust temporary. Why is that? It is because the temporary customs facilities are essentially


unfair – they are unfair to other poor countries that do not belong to Africa, the Caribbeanand the Pacific. They are unfair in particular to those ACP countries that respected the factthat they were temporary and negotiated and entered into partnership agreements withus. We therefore have a responsibility to set an ultimate limit for this temporary scheme.

Let us continue to be honest and admit that we will never have any economic partnershipagreements if we say that the temporary scheme is to last forever. What should we say tothe other poor countries, to those countries that at one time accused us of not caring aboutfairness or about World Trade Organisation regulations? Therefore, we must support thisproposal and bring this temporary scheme to an end. We in the Group of the EuropeanPeople’s Party (Christian Democrats) therefore believe that the Commission’s proposalshould be approved.

I also think it would be good if we could try to agree to conduct a first reading of this inorder to get the rules in place as soon as possible. I therefore think the best thing to dowould be to vote on all of the amendments and then postpone the final vote so that wecan initiate negotiations with the Council. After all, it is only a date that separates us, a datethat is very significant, but it is something on which I believe we could reach an agreement.I would therefore call on both the President and the rapporteur to consider whether weshould initiate negotiations with the Council and try to achieve a first reading agreement.

Syed Kamall (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, I wonder whether I could ask MrFjellner, who talked in his speech about fairness, whether he considers it is fair to forcethose countries that would choose not to take part in an economic partnership agreement,and who do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to trade, to disallow that preferentialtreatment. Is it also fair that poorer countries do not have preferential treatment becausethey simply refuse to sign up to an economic partnership agreement? Do you really believethat is fair?

Christofer Fjellner (PPE), blue-card answer. – It is quite clear; nobody is forcing anyoneto sign anything. It is an offer for us to give them possibilities to negotiate EPAs. If theychoose not to do so, they will be treated equally with other poor countries and we will befair to them on the same basis as non-ACP countries. But just because you once were partof an illegal trade agreement, you will always be a part of an illegal trade agreement: thatis not fair – neither to those who sign EPAs nor to those who never were part of the originalillegal trade agreement.

Bernd Lange, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies andgentlemen, when negotiating the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), we mustalways remember that we are entering the negotiations with different requirements. Wehave the European Union on one side with a strong Commissioner and a large team ofofficials, sitting across the negotiating table from young countries with little capacity.

To this extent it is more than right and proper to allow these countries more time andopportunity for negotiations. We should not give the impression that we are puttingpressure on these countries by abruptly ending market access opportunities. I also believethat we should not force anyone to sign something but rather that, in a spirit of partnership,we should negotiate solutions with these countries that are acceptable to both sides.Sometimes this requires a bit more time.

That is why the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in theEuropean Parliament clearly supports the proposal from Mr Martin to give this two years,


but no more than two years, in order to identify ways in which we can reach agreement.Mr Fjellner, I would ask you to support this compromise, because we have succeeded inobtaining a sizeable majority in committee in favour of sending clear signals that thisshould be brought to a close, while at the same time offering opportunities for negotiations.

Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, we support the proposal resulting from the compromise in the Committeeon International Trade. We believe a very reasonable balance has been achieved.

On one hand, we have a firm date, a deadline. I would ask you all to consider how absurdit would be to reject the committee’s proposal while we have obligations in the WorldTrade Organisation that we have to fulfil. On the other hand, we are allowing a couple ofyears more, thereby at least partly meeting the demands of the African, Caribbean andPacific (ACP) countries.

I think this debate needs to be kept in proportion. After all, as the Commissioner pointedout in his speech as well, we are talking about an extremely limited volume of trade,although the decision we make tomorrow will be very important to some ACP capitals.There is a kind of asymmetry between the significance that we attach to what is at stakeand how certain ACP countries perceive it.

I do not believe that setting such a tight deadline – which might almost seem like animposition, at least in the eyes of some ACP countries – is an effective way of bringing thenegotiations on economic partnership agreements to a swifter conclusion. We do wantthese agreements. However, these partnership agreements need to be concluded in thebest possible way, through persuasion and trying to win the other side round.

These two extra years, if they are indeed both necessary, could be an opportunity for us tostep up our negotiating efforts, not least by expanding the range of people we talk to inaddition to just the governments. The general public in these countries remains somewhatwary, so we must also focus on the members of the national parliaments, who often donot ratify agreements but do carry political weight and influence in the debate in theircountries and complain that they are not given enough information.

As I proposed during our ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Horsens, it may perhapsbe necessary to organise public seminars with the media and non-governmentalorganisations to explain our position properly. There is a Kenyan proverb that says ‘If youwant to go far, go together’.

Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, by proposing toshut out developing countries from preferential market access, the Commission isattempting to coerce these countries into free trade agreements. These free trade agreementsare not partnerships, as the term economic partnerships would suggest, but rather are onlyconcerned with the interests of the EU and not the developmental interests of the partnercountries. This runs completely contrary to the EU’s objective of reducing poverty andorganising all external political instruments in line with this principle. Countries likeCameroon, Ivory Cost and Namibia would be very hard hit by this restriction. Regionalintegration projects, such as those in South East Africa, would collapse if Kenya were toconsent to such an agreement. South-south cooperation would be at an end. We cannotbroadcast the message of free trade to the world with the simple intention that othercountries should please buy our products. If the Commission really believes that trade canpromote development, then it should stop blocking it. The Committee on Development


in the House has recommended that the Commission’s proposal should be rejected. Weshould follow suit in plenary.

Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner DeGucht, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a proposal from you, Commissioner,that has the potential to do enormous damage to Europe’s reputation. While our partnersare still engaged in negotiations with the Commission, you are looking to put a gun totheir heads, forcing them to capitulate under the threat of exclusion from the Europeanmarket. Your approach has completely discredited the European Union as a partner innegotiations.

Ambassadors from all the relevant countries have vividly described to me what is at stakefor them and their population. The Committee on Development, armed with excellentand reliable barometers of mood in the African partner states, has recognised this and hastherefore completely rejected the Commission’s proposal in the statement from mycolleague and group chair Gabi Zimmer. My group is strongly supportive of this position,even in view of the trade-related aspects. I would call on all Members of this House, includingmy colleagues in the Committee on International Trade, to take this development policyperspective to heart and not to risk decades of close cooperation because of a short-sightedunilateral decision by the Commissioner for Trade. We will have a roll-call vote.

Commissioner De Gucht, your regulation would be devastating for the East Africancommunity. You risk isolating Kenya from the other Member States or causing thisassociation of states to wave goodbye to Europe as its most important partner. A numberof trading nations around the world would be happy at this development. You have madean unjust accusation against the Africans. You are seeking to punish a delay for which youyourself are responsible.

Why, for example, is the Commission insisting on abolishing export taxes? Namibia onlylevies such taxes on raw materials exports. If primary processing takes place in Namibiaitself, no taxes are payable. I see this as smart and legitimate economic policy, pointing theway for an industrial policy that is completely in line with the objectives of EU developmentpolicy. Commissioner, you are taking a very short-sighted approach that runs counter tothe medium- and long-term interests of Europe and the expansion of its trade relations. Iwould call on you to withdraw your proposal.

Vital Moreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, this Commission legislative initiative raisestwo questions. The main question is: should the EU withdraw unilateral trade preferences,which the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries temporarily enjoy, from thosecountries in the group that do not negotiate and ratify economic partnership agreementswith the European Union in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement? The follow-upquestion is: how long should we give the countries concerned to negotiate and concludethe agreements in question since, unfortunately, the 2007 regulation contained no deadline?

The answer to the first question can only be a definite yes. Firstly, the 2007 regulation wasclearly temporary; secondly, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) waiver expired in 2007,and therefore the trade preferences in question are illegal and violate the EU’s obligationsto the WTO; thirdly, maintaining these unilateral trade preferences would be unfair, bothto non-ACP least developed countries, which do not enjoy the same preferential treatment,and to those ACP countries that have concluded economic partnership agreements withthe EU.


In terms of the time period, the Committee on International Trade was not convinced bythe Commission and decided to extend the deadline proposed by the Commission by twoyears, from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2016. In principle it is a more balanced andreasonable solution. In contrast, proposals to extend this period even further no longerdeserve support, as they prolong the current illegal and unfair situation excessively. Inbrief, this Parliament should fully approve Mr Martin’s report.

Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, there is a word for this proposal to take awayduty-free quota-free access to EU markets for a group of countries in the African, Caribbeanand Pacific region. It is called blackmail. According to the NGO Comhlamh the loss ofDFQF market access could effectively close the European market for some sectors and willbe disastrous for the economies of the countries concerned. For Namibia, for example, theduties levied on beef exports alone would amount to almost EUR 60 million, around 30 %of their exports.

I share the position of the rapporteur when he suggests that the main reason behind theCommission’s proposal is to increase pressure on these states to sign up to economicpartnership agreements. Opposition to EPAs is growing in the region among trade unions,civil society organisations and now the Commission has responded by attempting to bullythese countries into responding to these agreements which are not in the interests ofworking people and small farmers in their country. But that is why I do not share therapporteur’s opinion that we should simply give them more time. The Commission’sproposal must be rejected.

Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, you were asking whywe should give more time to some countries to meet their commitments to sign thepartnership agreements. I believe the answer is that they are not all ready, given that theystarted from a very difficult political and economic situation.

I would like to ask you: is it in our interest to help these countries progress, or should weleave them in a more precarious situation than the one they are currently in? I believe it isin our interest. I think, therefore, that the 2016 deadline we are proposing to you wouldallow them to meet their commitments, and we would also be providing greater legalcertainty to European companies as well as companies from said countries, which shouldaid their development. I would also say that those two extra years do not mean a significantchange in terms of our commitments to the World Trade Organisation.

I am therefore going to vote in favour of this two-year extension tomorrow, and I wouldlike you to take that into account, Commissioner.

Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, my main concern with this proposal is that itputs pressure on governments of ACP countries to sign and ratify the respective EPAs,whether or not contentious provisions and issues have been resolved. The EPA musteffectively address some of the most fundamental challenges many ACP countries arefacing, for example regional integration, and Europe is well placed to know that thatintegration takes time.

As Chair of the Delegation for relations with South Africa, I am particularly concernedthat a satisfactory agreement for all is found on the SADC EPA. For the moment, both sidesseem to be in a dead end and neither seems to be able to find its way out, so therefore adeadline like this could be an impetus, but it could be a guillotine that does not serve thosemost in need.


I therefore fully support David Martin’s recommendation for a 2016 deadline as I believethis is a fair compromise for all parties, especially in this year which will be a litmus testfor relations between the EU and its African and Pacific partners as we are also reviewingthe Cotonou Agreement, the European Development Fund and the DevelopmentCooperation Instrument. We must get this right.


João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, this proposal for a regulation is a primeexample of the unacceptable process of intimidation and blackmail that aims to forceAfrican, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries to conclude so-called economic partnershipagreements (EPAs). In this process anything goes. The Commission’s strategy was to divideand conquer: to break the ACP countries’ unity, pressure them individually, and then reapthe rewards of blackmail. As authentic free trade agreements, and nothing more than that,EPAs would have profoundly negative consequences for the ACP countries, which in factjustify their resistance to concluding them. It is fair, understandable and should be respected.

It is necessary to strengthen friendship and cooperation relations with these countries,relations that contribute to their free and sovereign development, respecting their specificfeatures and choices. On the contrary, we must not establish neo-colonial relations thatwill prolong their dependency and subordination.

Patrice Tirolien (S&D) . – (FR) Mr President, all of us are well aware of how tedious andtime-consuming negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) can be. Myfeeling is that this has indeed been the case with this issue. On the one hand, it is not hardto see that only 18 of the 36 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries which haveembarked on or signed an EPA have ratified it. The remainder are therefore encouraged toconclude and implement an agreement quickly, if they do not want to see their negotiationefforts ruined by, for example, the deadline of 2014. On the other hand, we have all known,since 2007, that this regulation was merely temporary, being incompatible with the rulesof the World Trade Organisation.

These facts therefore lead me to believe that our rapporteur’s proposal is the best possiblecompromise if we want to give the Commission services and the ACP countries the timethey need to conclude their EPA negotiations. Nevertheless, if the date 1 January 2016does not win a majority in tomorrow’s vote, I would call on my fellow MEPs to reject theCommission’s proposal.


President. − This debate is really very interesting. If I could, I would also ask for the floorbut I cannot, and that is why I would like to ask Commissioner De Gucht to conclude thedebate on behalf of the Commission.

Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I could give you one minuteof my speaking time, for example, provided of course that you are not going to interruptme afterwards!

I understand a number of the remarks that have been made but I would urge you to staywith the facts as they are. What this is really about is that a number of countries have notyet signed and/or ratified an agreement they concluded in 2007. That is the reality.


So this is about the past. The idea that we want to force them to conclude and ratify adefinite and final economic partnership agreement is not correct. I have mentioned theeight countries – a limited number of countries – that could be affected in one way oranother by what we are proposing. I will read them out again: Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire,Fiji, Ghana, Kenya and Swaziland – which are lower middle-income countries – andBotswana and Namibia, which are higher middle-income countries.

It does not, in any way you could imagine, affect a developing country. In the developingcountries you have two separate categories: the least developed countries (LDCs) whobenefit from Everything But Arms – and that continues – and the other ones that benefitfrom the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) or the GSP+. So it is not about thosecountries. What it is really about is countries – albeit a limited number of countries, butin a much bigger category if you look at it worldwide – where, if we do not put an end tothe market access regulation in the form it exists, which is always considered to betemporary, unilateral access to the European markets would be created, with those countriesexporting duty-free and quota-free products other than arms. That is what you wouldcreate.

So in fact you would create inequality between the eight that I have mentioned and – I donot know how many but I would estimate – 50 or 60 worldwide that are in a differentposition.

Secondly, are we forcing anybody to do this? No. We are not. If they do not want to ratifythe agreement that they themselves concluded in 2007, then they do not do have to doso. Even then, our door is open to negotiating a new agreement with them. But I cannotsee how we would be unfair or bullying or blackmailing (and a lot of similar words havebeen used here) in asking somebody who concluded an agreement in 2007 – that meansfive years ago, with a further three or four years of negotiations, and especially given thatthey should have adapted their system already – to now ratify what they signed, initialledand promised to ratify. Do it!

They have already had five to seven years, depending on the starting point, and we aregiving them an additional year-and-a-half just to ratify, not to negotiate a new agreementbut to ratify. Is this unfair? Is this blackmailing? Is this jeopardising our position withrespect to Africa? Really, I do not believe so.

Bernd Lange spoke of a confrontation between a strong Commission and weak states. Thatis what I heard you say. First of all, thank you for calling us strong: that is not bad. Someof these states are weak but I did not mention the weakest, the ones that are in debt, theLDCs and the developing countries. We are talking here about lower and middle incomecountries. That is what we are talking about. The question is not whether they are weak orstrong. The only thing we ask of them is to ratify what they negotiated and concluded inthe past. We are not bullying them about anything other than living up to the commitmentsthat they made quite some time ago.

Finally, a remark to Mr Keller, who said the policy would be contrary to my statement,which is also in the communication, that trade can promote development. That is not truebecause you can currently see, with the existing schemes, that the trade volume is goingdown drastically. Why so? Because trade is about more than just exporting something toanother market. It is a means engaging with that market and having trade movements inboth directions. It is about aid for trade and about establishing a vibrant marketplace thatcan export products to the European Union.


I would warmly welcome their doing that to a much greater extent than they have donein the past. Personally I am very sad about the fact that the trade volume with Africa isgoing down. It should be going up. I am ready to be very flexible in the economicpartnership agreements (EPAs) that we still have to negotiate with a number of regionalentities. I have no problem at all with asymmetry. I hope the countries concerned canexport much more to the European Union. We are ready to help them with aid for trade.We are ready to help them with trade facilitation – my colleague, Andris Piebalgs is incomplete agreement with me about that – but they should live up to their commitmentsso that we can proceed and establish a sure legal system, legal obligations and legal rightsin a negotiated framework. That is what we are asking for and that is also why I stand bythe proposal that we have made.

I really hope that tomorrow when you vote you take this into account. This proposal isnot against developing countries and it is not against Africa. On the contrary, it is for thegood of having mature trade relations with countries that should develop and should takeoff. Most of the countries that have not yet taken off are in Sub-Saharan Africa, and thatis no accident. We should do something about this. It is our moral duty to do so.

David Martin, rapporteur. − Mr President, the Commissioner has to explain to the Housewhy some countries who initialled EPAs have not gone on to ratify them and this is because,as Mr Cashman and Mr Schulz and others have indicated, one of the key aims of EPAs issupposed to be about regional integration and we have put some countries in positionswhich, if not impossible, are at least difficult.

Take Kenya: if it was looking after its own economic interests, Kenya would ratify an EPA,but if Kenya ratified an EPA unilaterally it would break its relationship with the East Africans.And we put them in this position where either they break the relationship with East Africaor they suffer economic costs. Their cut flower industry is vital to them; that industry willface massive tariffs if they do not sign up for an EPA and we pass this regulation. At thesame time this Commission and probably this Parliament are going to pass the ColombiaFree Trade Agreement which is going to give trade preferences on cut flowers to theirbiggest rival, Colombia. So it is a double whammy against Kenya. We are not asking themto give them protection in perpetuity but we are at least saying give them two or threeyears in order to find a solution that encompasses both their objective of signing an EPAand staying within their East African regional partnership.

I have not got time to go into the others but South Africa is the same; Botswana and Namibiahave the same pressure in terms of their relationship with South Africa.

Commissioner, my view is simple. You want 2014 because you think this gives momentumto the negotiations. I do not want 2014 because I think it does exactly the opposite. Firstlyit will sour the mood in terms of our relationship with the ACP countries and secondly Ithink it is an impossible deadline to meet.

So all we are saying as a House to you is, let us not rush this, let us set a deadline. And I willrepeat what I said at the beginning: that deadline would be set in concrete. It is not a flexibledeadline; it is not one that is moveable once we pass the legislation. 2016 is notunreasonable; it gives African countries time to come into line and at the same time makesus, I hope, look a bit more reasonable and a bit less impatient.

President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 13 September 2012).


14. Intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries inthe field of energy (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A7-0264/2012) by Krišjānis Kariņš, on behalfof the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a decision of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council setting up an information exchange mechanismwith regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countriesin the field of energy (COM(2011)0540 – C7-0235/2011 – 2011/0238(COD)).

Krišjānis Kariņš, rapporteur. − (LV) Mr President, we know that we in the EuropeanUnion are heavily dependent on energy imports. In the gas sector, import dependence onthird countries has already exceeded 60% with a clear upward trend; in the oil sector, it isalready over 80%. Of course, it is very important for us – for Europe – to ensure secure andstable energy supplies.

How is that being done today? At present, each European Union Member State concludesa bilateral agreement with a third-country supplier for these energy supplies. Unfortunately,these agreements are completely non-transparent. No one except the specific MemberState really knows what provisions these agreements contain. There is also the possibility,of course, that European legislation is not being fully observed; in particular, it is possiblethat fixed energy-supply networks in the gas sector are impenetrable to competition. Whatdoes this mean for us? It means that European consumers may be suffering from thissituation. Where there is no competition, the price will unfortunately be higher; there isalso a lack of Europe-wide coordination, and therefore even a kind of ‘divide and rule’policy is possible on the part of suppliers. Each Member State fends as it can, alone.

What is the proposed solution? In February 2011, the Council in its Council conclusionsinstructed – requested – the Commission to come forward with legislation, with a solutionthat could improve this situation. The Commission has done so, and that is the legislationthat we are specifically discussing today.

What is the basic proposal for simplifying everything? There is a proposal to create a singleinformation-exchange mechanism in which all Member States would provide theCommission with information on bilateral agreements. Not only would the Commissionthen be able to assess whether such agreements comply with European legislation andwhether competition in terms of infrastructure is ensured, but a possibility for coordinationwould also arise, allowing Europe to start speaking with one voice in negotiations withthese third-country energy suppliers.

So far in the committee, when we started assessing this draft legislation, we were stronglyin agreement that the Commission’s proposed legislation should not only be supported,but even made stricter, assigning an even greater role to the Commission. More than 90%of the committee supported the final text – with this large mandate I headed for trilateraltalks with the Council, in the so-called trialogue, and there, as all shadow rapporteurs whowere also present know, we virtually ran into a wall. In essence, the Council, without sayingso directly, did not want this legislation – in spite of the fact that by working with theDanish Presidency in three trialogues, in three rounds, we reached a compromise solutionthat would be acceptable to both Parliament and the Council, so that we could adopt thislegislation at all.

What, then, is this solution? The solution is for the Commission to find the possibility ofestablishing the aforementioned information-exchange mechanism; for the Member States


to submit to the Commission all existing and also future agreements for assessment; for apossibility to be created for determining whether the legislation is being observed; and forthe unified information base that would help the European countries in negotiations withthird-country suppliers to be established.

What is not included is a right for the Commission itself to get involved even before thesigning of an agreement in order to eliminate problems in the initial version. The Councilsimply did not accept that. However, I urge you to support this compromise; by supportingthis legislation, we shall be taking a step towards a unified European energy policy andtoward securing the interests of our consumers.

Thank you.

Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members,this is not the first time that we have tried to establish a stronger common position regardingour external energy relations. I can only concur with Mr Kariņš and his account of theentire process. I can only thank him for his committed, diplomatically adroit presentationon behalf of Parliament, which has produced a successful result.

What is it all about? On the one hand, it is about the fact that we have intergovernmentalagreements between Member States and third states that we know are not based 100% onEuropean law, in other words that are not compatible with European law. We do not believethat these agreements were concluded by the Member States because they sought to angerthe European Union, but rather because they were pressurised into these agreements bythe supplier countries. That is why disclosure is the right way to determine whetheragreements between Member States and third countries are based on European law andinternal market law – and to change these if this is not the case.

It is a matter of competitive advantages and disadvantages. The playing field is not levelwhen suppliers and the states in which they are established are aware of all agreements,but the Member States only know about their own. Transparency rules can provide aremedy here.

The next matter is the investors. These are generally interested in private investments fornetworks, for example for gas pipelines. These infrastructural projects require a certaindegree of legal clarity. However, if the intergovernmental agreements are not known, theresult is uncertainty. Greater transparency in terms of the compatibility of the agreementwith European law means that we can prevent nasty surprises, avoid infringementproceedings, establish legal certainty and therefore establish investment incentives.

The compromise now achieved lags somewhat behind what we proposed and whatParliament wanted. This is an important first step, however. Historically speaking, this isthe first time that we have a certain European external energy policy. It will no longer beas easy for third parties to play the ‘divide and conquer’ game. All elements in the currentproposal, namely the commitment to disclose existing intergovernmental agreements(IGAs) that impact on the internal market, the confirmation that the Commission candemand to be allowed to participate in negotiations as an observer and to act in an advisorycapacity, and the option of being able, on request, to test in advance the compatibility ofnegotiated agreements with EU law – all of this establishes clarity sooner, strengthens theEuropean internal market and reinforces the position of the Member States in relation tosupplier countries, in other words third countries.


This is what we are now going to implement in the legislation. Again I would like to thankyou for your excellent cooperation in Parliament. We shall also examine how this worksin practice. The precise monitoring and compliance of our new laws will need to be managedin the coming years. The Commission will see whether we have sufficient instruments forthis purpose. If not, we shall present a proposal in a few years for how the issue of externalenergy policy is to be developed. This is the right and important first step, but no doubtfurther action will be required. I would like to thank you for your cooperation.

Marietta Giannakou, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – (EL)Mr President, the new information exchange mechanism will de facto increase consistencyand cohesion in the Union’s external energy relations and, at the same time, strengthenthe Union’s strategic position in its relations with third countries. Today I am speaking asthe representative and rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We must notforget that the European Union is still heavily dependent on energy imports, making thefunctioning of and the energy supply on the energy market insecure in numerous cases.This new mechanism may indeed substantially strengthen the Member States’ negotiationpower via the single European market and the Commission’s expertise in Community law.At the same time, the legal certainty that will apply to future investment decisions via astable legal framework will make it easier for the Union to finance such works and may,in numerous cases, speed up implementation times. Clearly, the improved coordinationthat can be achieved via this mechanism should not be interpreted as a loss of flexibilityin the Member States. The entire endeavour will be of an auxiliary nature and should notreplace the Member States as the competent bodies for entering into energy agreementswith third countries. However, the Commission’s involvement may generate exponentialbenefits by providing essential assistance to the Member States, especially during thenegotiation stage of such agreements.

Pilar del Castillo Vera, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner,please allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Kariņš, and all the shadowrapporteurs, who took the decision to continue moving forward during the negotiationin the trialogues, which was fraught with difficulties, and described so well by Mr Kariņš.

I would say that thanks to that effort and determination, we now have a mechanism that,for the first time, allows information and communication to be exchanged between MemberStates and the Commission regarding intergovernmental agreements in the field of energythat are reached in those Member States.

I believe the idea is to have constant knowledge of the supply map or the energy supplynetworks and it is very positive, therefore, for the improved management of energy supplyin the European Union.

When it comes to this regulation, if I had to use a simile, I would say we are paving the wayto progressing more quickly in developing the internal energy market. If we throw thisopportunity away and do not start paving the way, as is the desire of a certain politicalgroup in the House, we would simply be missing a golden opportunity. After a time, wewould find ourselves in the same situation as today, but much further down the line.

I trust, therefore, there will be a lot of parliamentary support for this proposal tomorrow.I thank the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs once again for their contribution.

Bernd Lange, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Kariņš,I should like to start by extending the warmest of thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Kariņš, for


his hard work and, above all, for his patience during negotiations. I would also like to thankyou, Mr Oettinger, for your proposal. In general, you are doing your work really well inthe area of energy policy. The object of my criticism, in other words the Council, is nothere at present.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have participated in around 50 conciliation procedures andtrialogues, involving negotiations with the Council. However, in all this time, I have neverwitnessed anything like this before, namely that the Council has taken a heavy-handedposition, seeking to blackmail Parliament by saying: take it or leave it. I have never knownthe Council’s chief negotiator to get up and leave a trialogue before.

So, we have a contradiction to what we are constantly being told in the sermons from onhigh: we need more involvement from Europe. This morning we have once again discussedthe fact that what we need in this crisis situation is more involvement from Europe and anagreement in relation to our core policies. Mr Oettinger, you have hit the nail on the head.Energy policy is central to the European Union, to economic growth and to aforward-looking energy policy. It is only logical, ladies and gentlemen, that we can onlyhave a sound energy policy if we can also agree on a common external energy policy, inother words agreements with third countries. Accordingly, while I understand andsympathise with the idea that achieving the lowest standard is better than nothing, wemust press for greater commitment in this legislative proposal. We want to make itmandatory for the Commission to be informed and we want the Commission to participatein negotiations. That is the least we need in order to ensure that a European external energypolicy really is put into practice and that the Member States do not drag their feet as usual.We shall table these amendments tomorrow and hope that you will support them so thatwe can give the Council something more to work with.

Commissioner, I am naturally hopeful that you are really serious about your last point,namely that there should be an examination of the Council’s behaviour in future, so thatwe can get a reasonable revision on track.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELANDVice-President

Jürgen Creutzmann, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner,ladies and gentlemen, in many political areas we already speak with a single Europeanvoice at international level. Unfortunately, this is not true with regard to external energypolicy. It is regrettable that the Commission’s proposal and the ambitious position ofParliament were rejected by the Member States. In formal terms the Council may be rightin claiming that the European Union does not have executive powers. However, it mustbe clear to all of us that we must all pull together in the energy sector if we are to meet thechallenges of security of supply and affordable energy in the long term. As globalisationprogresses and various actors in the energy markets flex their muscles, even the largeMember States must realise that in the long run we can only succeed by acting in concert.This is even more the case for the smaller Member States.

We knew from the start that our parliamentary position was very ambitious. We had toexpect resistance. However, it gives one pause to realise that the Council saw no room fornegotiations. Having weighed up all the options, we can agree to the results of thenegotiations. After all, we have the opportunity to agree at least a legal framework, a basison which we can build in a few years’ time. I believe that this is better than a failed legislative


text that would have forced us to start again from scratch next time around. For this reason,we will vote against the amendments tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance ofSocialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

I would like to express my sincere thanks again to the rapporteurs for their commitmentand for their efforts to support the Commission in this.

Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, the creation of an open and competitive gas market in Europe does notappeal to some of our partners. In recent years, the principle of equal access by differententities to transmission infrastructure and the freedom to re-export gas purchased havebeen openly opposed by Russia, who wants privileges. Gazprom could doubtless managein a competitive market, but like any state-owned monopoly it fiercely defends itsmonopolistic position, which – in view of the underdevelopment of the market in CentralEurope – enables it to dictate prices and impose contractual terms contrary to the rules ofa competitive market. Intergovernmental agreements whose sole objective is to circumventthe rules of the common market are a key instrument in such unfair competition practices.A few months ago, there was an opportunity to strengthen the protection of our naturalgas market by introducing control mechanisms relating to such agreements. Despite theenormous efforts of the rapporteur, this opportunity has been lost.

Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,Mr Kariņš’ report does indeed resolve many of Europe’s current energy problems. Forexample, the energy supply of Lithuania, for which the Commission has already initiatedan investigation into Gazprom for antitrust practices, is one such on-going case. This reportmay resolve such problems. On the other hand, however, Commissioner, we must notforget that energy and energy relations require stability and predictability. We hope thatthe new mechanism will not disrupt current good energy relations and situations betweenMember States and third countries.

Gaston Franco (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulatethe rapporteur from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), MrKariņš, for this difficult report, given the sensitive nature of bilateral negotiations in thefield of energy between the Member States and third countries.

The agreement reached in trialogue will allow the rapid implementation of the Commission’sdraft decision and, wishing to be pragmatic, we cannot but welcome it. Europe of energyis making progress, admittedly slow progress, but nevertheless progress. The EuropeanUnion relies heavily on imported energy, and is in a position of structural dependence oncertain supplier countries. In order for our thinking on our energy strategy to becomemore European, it therefore became necessary to make information on energy agreementsmore widely available in the Commission, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

The establishment of an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmentalagreements will therefore ensure greater transparency of the energy market and, thus,allow us to anticipate problems of energy supply.

I welcome the fact that this decision does not create obligations as regards agreementsbetween commercial entities. At times of crisis and, given the issues involved in terms ofcompetition and competitiveness, we have a duty to protect our companies’ interests andthe safeguards for private contracts.


András Gyürk (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, themajority of EU Member States ensure their long-term energy supply throughintergovernmental agreements with third countries. Yet in their negotiations concerningenergy supply they do not make use of the circumstance that the European Union, withits population of 500 million, is the world’s largest gas market. Most Member States stepin the ring as featherweights against heavyweight energy exporters. There is no coordinatednegotiating strategy, and the information essential for successful negotiations is unavailable.Without information exchange within the EU it is no wonder that our negotiating partnersmake use of their dominant positions, causing some Member States to lose by knockout.

Ladies and gentlemen, sharing information related to energy supply at Community levelis a pre-requisite of entering the heavyweight division. Knowledge of intergovernmentalagreements can facilitate the establishment of a coordinated negotiating strategy, whichwould allow Member States to obtain energy under more favourable conditions. Theguarantee for the security of our energy supply and more favourable energy prices lies incloser cooperation between Member States, and common action. This is why I find itimportant for the Commission to be able to become an active participant in internationalnegotiations upon the request of governments. I congratulate the rapporteur on his work,and would like to thank you for your attention.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the Commission, in cooperation withthe Member States, must ensure that the EU has access to diversified energy sources, therebyenabling European citizens to benefit from uninterrupted energy supply at affordableprices. The proper functioning of the internal energy market contributes to the security ofenergy supply in the European Union, which is essential for the economic and socialdevelopment of the European Union and its competitiveness. Given the need to improvethe functioning of the internal energy market, this Decision establishes a mechanism forthe exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission with regardto intergovernmental agreements in the field of energy.

I think that the Commission needs to make available to the Member States a guide fortackling negotiations in order to ensure compliance with EU legislation, solidarity betweenthe Member States and reliability of energy supplies. At the same time, it is important that,at the request of a Member State, the Commission provide support and technical assistancein the process of negotiation and conclusion of intergovernmental agreements with thirdcountries in the field of energy.

Romana Jordan (PPE). - (SL) Mr President, the Council’s decision to launch the internalelectricity and gas market by 2014 has certainly encouraged the preparation and adoptionof this legislative document. However, why was the Council so resistant in adopting itafterwards? Is this a misunderstanding or might it be interfering with monopolies?

It is very interesting to follow the Union’s legislative procedures. They usually begin withdebates about the added value that a certain common policy would bring for all MemberStates. This is followed by commitments in principle to draft certain policies. Finally, thepainstaking work of drafting legislative documents, in other words negotiations on howwe can translate commitments in principle into legislation, begins.

Any new EU legislative document means partly transferring national competence to theUnion. However, in many cases, Member States have been reluctant to accept this. Thishas also been the case with the document we are debating today. Although, so far, this has


only been about setting up an information exchange mechanism and not about establishingeffective control over the powers of Member States.

The legislative text is rather weak, but it will mean that we are starting to monitorintergovernmental agreements, which will lead to a more coordinated external energypolicy of the Union.

It is a start. In the future, this mechanism will be made much more sophisticated - shouldthe actual situation so require. It is right and proper that we support it in the interest offurther developing a common energy policy.

Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like tocongratulate Mr Kariņš on the negotiation work that led to a compromise text which,despite being less ambitious than Parliament’s initial proposal, is a step forward in termsof establishing legislation in the field of external energy policy. I agree with the key pointsin the compromise text that enhance cooperation between Member States with regard tointergovernmental agreements in the field of energy.

In particular, I welcome the efforts to strengthen the Commission’s role, through both itsinvolvement in negotiations with third parties and its assessment of the compatibility ofintergovernmental agreements with Union law.

I also note the agreement reached as regards sharing information on the agreements signedby the Member States to ensure that they support and are in conformity with EU law, inparticular the internal market legislation.

I believe that the agreement reached ensures greater transparency of the intergovernmentalagreements in the field of energy and is a step towards strengthening the external dimensionof the internal energy market in Europe.

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor for halfa minute. As I see it, the countries in the eastern part of the EU are having a very hard timeof it with Gazprom and Russia. It is no secret that Europe’s largest energy companies havestrong links with the political world. Consequently, these countries’ attitude is not alwaysequally logical. As far as I can see, the worrying element is the current practice, which isundermining the internal market. We should ensure that the European energy market istransparent and liquid. We must stop the practice whereby, in connection with gas pipelineprojects for third countries, agreements are entered into stating that the supply is subjectto rules that are not compatible with the rules of the internal market. This is not beneficialfor consumers. Nonetheless, I would urge all Members to vote in favour of the agreement,because the agreement is better than the status quo. It will provide greater transparency,and it will provide a revision clause which means that the agreement will have to bescrutinised in great detail in three years’ time.

Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the crisisin the supply of natural gas to Europe at the end of the last decade showed the weaknessof the EU and exposed its sensitivity to this type of event. It is true that many actions havebeen taken to improve the security of energy supply to the European market. I refer to theregulation regarding security of supply, and to the measures taken to build a single internalmarket). The Commission’s proposal for a decision on setting up an information exchangemechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements required clarification.


I would like to emphasise that during the Polish-Russian gas negotiations, the Commissionhad a justified complaint regarding conditions imposed by the supplier in the negotiatedagreements. I also made allegations regarding failure to provide complete information. Itshould be emphasised that as a result of these measures, Poland has developed a workingand, as it turned out, a highly effective mechanism of information exchange with theCommission. It is perhaps the only Member State to have done so.

The draft decision which the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy voted throughin July contains provisions regarding the Commission’s assistance in the implementationof transnational projects. An example of these are or will be the proposed negotiations byCommission on the issue of gas supply in the Caspian region. The energy balance of theEU in the light of the proposed open and free energy market should not be disrupted byirresponsible or unwise bilateral decisions. Member States should therefore shareinformation regarding intergovernmental agreements concluded, and the Commissionshould be aware of the existence of such agreements and of the negotiations conducted.

Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, a stable economicenvironment and secure energy supply are exceptionally important for the developmentof European Union industry. The best way for us to ensure reliability in this regard isthrough a functional internal energy market. With the introduction of the third energypackage, several Member States separated electricity production from transmission, whichallowed for the entry of new participants to the market. However, external vulnerabilitystill remains, meaning that the EU needs to import more than 60% of its gas and over 80%of its oil. The 2009 gas crisis, too, pointed out the vulnerability of our energy supplysystems. We must find solutions as soon as possible to ensure sustainable supply toEuropean consumers at competitive prices.

The challenges we are facing include the intergovernmental energy supply agreementsconcluded by Member States with third countries, as these agreements can sometimes havea considerable influence on the internal energy market of the EU. Therefore, in order toprevent infringements of the effective internal market rules concerning energy, we needreinforced cooperation and accurate information exchange between Member States.Experience has shown that the Commission’s participation in Member States’ negotiationswith third parties can have a positive impact on the outcome of the negotiations. In manycases this can help ensure conformity with the internal market rules, and can guaranteethat the agreements are not contrary to EU laws.


Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, at the moment, Europe is dependent on energyimports, spending approximately EUR 400 billion on them each year. We need greaterdiversity in supply sources and networks in order to reduce vulnerabilities and increaseenergy security. At the same time, improvements in energy security help strengthen theEU’s role in foreign policy.

As regards Romania, my country benefits from both its geographical and geopoliticalpositions, given that the Black Sea has great potential to achieve European energy security,being a gateway to the regional economic and political block of the European Union. Mycountry supports major projects such as the Nabucco gas pipeline. Romania also attachesparticular importance to the interconnection of the national energy and electricity systemto similar systems in neighbouring states.


Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Kariņš, congratulations on your report, itwas most rational. Commissioner, I have a question about the procedure for reviewingintergovernmental agreements: will the Commission service responsible for foreign casesplay a decisive role? I consider that energy should fall outside foreign policy rules, becauseenergy is characterised by long terms and predictability and foreign relations are not.


Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members,I am grateful for the broad agreement here in Parliament across all groups. We share thesame goal of pooling our forces, strengthening the internal market and improving ourposition in relation to the procurement and delivery of primary energy throughtransparency, competition and consultation. I also agree with the criticism expressedconcerning the lack of cooperation from the Council. The Council’s call on the Commissionto present proposals for how to improve external energy policy does not sit well with itsdaily work of evaluating and rejecting the implementation of the proposals drawn up andpresented by the Commission in accordance with its duties. Because this was a strategicquestion, it was all the more important to achieve this result. If we had not done so, wewould have needed a new approach. We have already had a number of approaches to thistopic. We now have at least a number of building blocks developed by Parliament and theCouncil in the legislative proposal. We will now use these. We will then report back to youon how they work in practice. I am certain that the Commission will come up with proposalsin two or three years’ time for how this common external energy strategy can be furtherdeveloped and improved in a second step.

You asked how external energy policy in particular can be linked with foreign policy ingeneral. I have an excellent working relationship with my colleague, Baroness Ashton. Weconsult closely. In general, energy policy has precedence when it comes to relations withthird countries. There can be exceptions to this. I will illustrate this with an example. Froman energy policy perspective, boycotting the purchasing of oil from Iran is disadvantageous.It gives us one fewer source of fuel. Some Member States, such as Greece, Italy and Spain,have a problem with this because they buy up to 30% of their oil from Iran. However it isclear that if we are to have an agreed, consistent policy in relation to Iran, then the boycotton purchasing oil must be seen not just from an energy policy perspective, but also froman overall perspective. Hence the need for coordination. In this particular case, energypolicy must cede to foreign policy and security policy. Once again: as a rule, the DirectorateGeneral for Energy has operative responsibility and we have particular interests in externalenergy policy that cannot be subordinated to general foreign policy.

Nabucco has been mentioned and the question of how we are to make progress in tappinginto new fuel sources. I am certain that it will take until 2018 before significant volumesof oil reach the European market from Azerbaijan, adding another source alongside Russia,Norway, Algeria and our own deposits from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, aswell as LNG gas for the gas markets of Europe. We are confident that in nine months’ time,decisions will be made in relation to the specific Nabucco, Nabucco-West, TANAP andTAP lines. It still remains to be seen whether we shall receive gas from Azerbaijan only, orwhether volumes of gas from Turkmenistan or Iraq will follow, so that the southern corridorwill become an equally significant gas corridor to match long-standing relations withRussia, Norway and Algeria.

Thank you once again for your successful cooperation.


Krišjānis Kariņš, rapporteur. − (LV) First of all, I should like to thank everyone whoworked on this report, especially the shadow rapporteurs, who were beside me not onlyin the committee, but also during the trialogue with the Council. Together we achieved asmuch as we could achieve. I give my thanks to you, to the Danish Presidency, of course tothe Commission itself for its support, and to all participants in today’s debate.

In summarising it all, let us remember what exactly our main task – the task of politicians –is with regard to energy policy in this particular case. We must think about European energyconsumers, about how to ensure competition, to ensure better, lower, fairer prices for ourpeople. Although this draft law is not perfect, it is an important first step towardsestablishing this information-exchange mechanism, and it will set real foundations, thefirst legislative foundations on which a common European Union foreign policy on energywill be built. We have some critics who say that they want a perfect law right away, butladies and gentlemen, let us remember that for a law to be improved – and believe me,virtually any law can always be improved – a law must have been adopted in the first place.There must be a law adopted, and here we have the opportunity to do so, to take the firststeps, and to also improve this law as needed by working together in the future.

Thank you all for your work. I urge you to give your support in tomorrow’s vote.


The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 September 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

Lena Kolarska- Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) When Vladimir Putin ordered stateentities of strategic importance to Russia to consult with the government on how to proceedin situations where they receive a request from another state or from internationalorganisations, he showed why we need this legislation. His decision that Gazprom shouldnot cooperate with the Commission is an affront to the European Union and its legislation.It is a signal that Russia has something to hide in terms of its gas contracts. We cannot letthis go unnoticed. The new law on intergovernmental agreements is an initial importantstep towards Member States working together and sharing information. It means that weimprove the prospects of cooperation within the European Union, but also the prospectsof a fair price from Russia. I regret that this legislation does not go further to provide foreven closer cooperation in the exchange of information between states. The Council allowednational interests to prevail over European energy solidarity. I hope that Russia’s rejectionof the third energy package and its statements prohibiting Gazprom from sharing anyinformation will prompt the Council to reconsider its position.

I would like the Council to make corrections to the adopted legislation as soon as possible.States cooperating with the European Union must respect our legislation, and Russia is noexception in this regard.

Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) This decision is a veryimportant and welcome step in developing a single EU external energy policy, ensuringthat entities from third countries operating in the EU’s future single internal energy marketcomply with the same rules as EU entities. Although the decision might be ambitious, ifMember States willingly cooperate in sharing information we will soon be able to ensurebenefits for the EU energy sector, the overall development of infrastructure and the creationof the internal market. I welcome the Commission’s declaration to participate actively,continue surveillance and provide further legislative proposals, if necessary.


15. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

16. Agricultural product quality schemes (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A7-0266/2011) by Iratxe GarcíaPérez, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposalfor a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural productquality schemes (COM(2010)0733 - C7-0423/2010 - 2010/0353(COD))

Iratxe García Pérez, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,two legislative proposals comprise the so-called ‘quality package’, which was presented inDecember 2010: one on agricultural product quality schemes, which basically covers therules on geographical indications and other voluntary schemes, and the other amendingthe articles in the single common market organisation (CMO) that refer to the marketingstandards that agricultural products should fulfil to be sold within the European Union.

With respect to the latter, the Council has not been able to agree on a full negotiatingmandate, meaning we have not even been able to debate the position adopted by theCommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development over a year ago, a position thatMr Dantin has now included in his report on the single CMO. I hope this wider contextleads to negotiation.

When it comes to the proposal for regulation before us today, the trialogue concludedwith an agreement on 20 June 2012, an agreement we hope to see ratified in thispart-session.

After the ‘milk package’, it is the second agricultural dossier to be adopted by means of theordinary legislative procedure, and it was a good running-in process to undertake theimportant negotiations that await us with the reform of the common agricultural policy.

The idea behind the geographical indications system is to protect designations that identifya product as originating from a particular area and to attribute to it the quality, reputationand other characteristics that differentiate and enhance it, due to either its origin or itsmode of production.

It undoubtedly means a potential economic opportunity for farmers and food producers,which is very beneficial to the rural economy, although it is first and foremost a systemfor registering and protecting intellectual property rights, a system that has been in placesince 1992 and is already one of the hallmarks of European agriculture. Since then, it hasprotected registered product names in the Union in a uniform and harmonised manner.Proof of its success can be seen in the fact that there has been a constant increase inregistered products since the system was introduced.

The Commission’s proposal was not as far reaching as expected given the overviewcontained in the Green Paper. It must be acknowledged, however, that the system has beensimplified and harmonised, and coherent rules have been put in place as required. One ofthe objectives the Commission took very much into account in their proposals was thestrengthening and simplification of quality systems.

I want to highlight other improvements, such as the strengthening of monitoring rules.Each Member State is a market, not only for its own ‘designation of origin’ or ‘protectedgeographical indication’ (PGI) products, but also for those from other Member States. Theyshould all ensure the appropriate use and effective protection of all the indications.


The use of Union logos will be compulsory from now on. This is essential to rectify thelack of consumer knowledge of the geographical indication system.

The traditional specialty guaranteed (TSG) scheme is not undergoing such a radical changeas was initially proposed. A transitional period for TSGs to exist without reserving a namehas been established, a simplified system is introduced, and a 30-year period is establishedfor the use of the term ‘traditional’.

A quality system is set up for mountain farming products, as requested by Parliament, theoperation and details of which will be developed by the Commission, ensuring it has auniform, community-based focus. I will take this opportunity, Commissioner, to pass onto you a question that I have been asked more than once since we reached the agreement:When do you estimate this quality system will be ready and in operation?

Undoubtedly, the role of producer groups is strengthened and acknowledged more thanin the initial proposal, although not as much as the Committee on Agriculture and RuralDevelopment would have liked. Those present here know that every effort was made sothat the final agreement would give them an active role in the repositioning of productionto the market, as was agreed with ‘designation of origin’ or PGI cheese producers in themilk package.

It was not possible with this regulation. It was not possible to overcome the Council’sopposition to accepting for this case what it had already approved for the dairy sector. Forour part, almost all the political groups have acted constructively by adopting the agreementwe have reached.

Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, honourable Members,today’s vote in Parliament marks an important development in the European Union’sagricultural product quality policy. As a member of the European Committee on Agricultureand Rural Development, I have always attached great importance to this subject, for Ibelieve that the future of the European agricultural product industry, particularly on theinternational market, resides in its quality and diversity.

The Commission welcomes the compromise reached during the trialogue of 20 June. Iwould like to point out that this trialogue took place in a truly constructive atmosphere,which I welcome, because we managed to reach a balanced and satisfactory outcome. Theend result of this work is a compromise in the best meaning of the word: everyone hasgiven a little or ceded on one point or another, including on important points, and everyonehas also achieved genuine improvements.

Ms García Pérez is of the view that the Commission’s proposals were not very ambitious.However, on other points, the Commission too expected Parliament to be more ambitiousin relation to its own proposals. So finally I think that we have managed to reach acompromise which is satisfactory for all parties.

I would particularly like to thank Ms García Pérez for her constructive approach and herendeavour to understand the reasons behind the Commission’s proposal on points that Ithink are essential if we want to be able to say that there has been an improvement in theagricultural product quality policy. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteur aswell as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which contributed a greatdeal to this project, and also the Council, the Danish Presidency and the previousPresidencies for their hard work.


We now have a well-balanced, satisfactory text on the table. It is true to say that the futureregulation on quality systems will allow us to reinforce and simplify European policy onquality. From now on, we shall have a single instrument for geographical indications,designations of origin, traditional specialities and optional quality mentions. It will bringsignificant improvements to the protection scheme for these quality instruments that willcreate greater visibility for consumers.

This framework for a coherent, strengthened, quality policy will undoubtedly best serveall the different producers, products and consumers in the European Union.

I can therefore conclude by confirming that the Commission supports this politicalagreement and I hope that Parliament will adopt it tomorrow.

To answer Ms García Pérez’ question concerning the specific mention for mountain areas,we shall finalise the proposal as soon as the impact assessment has been carried out.

I would like to finish by saying a few words about comitology. During the trialogue on thedraft regulation, the Commission agreed not to adopt the draft implementing act if thecommittee responsible for it did not provide an opinion, in which case Article 5(4), thirdsubparagraph of Regulation No 182/2011 will apply. That goes against the Commission’sgeneral rule, but in this particular case, agreement could not have been reached if it hadmade an objection on this point.

Therefore, in a spirit of compromise, the Commission was reluctant to oppose a qualifiedmajority in favour of the Presidency’s text and wishes to make the following statement:the Commission stresses that it is against the spirit of Regulation No 182/2011 to invokeArticle 5(4), second subparagraph, point b), systematically. Recourse to this provisionmust respond to a specific need to waive the general rule whereby the Commission canadopt a draft implementing act when no opinion is provided.

Given that this is an exception to the general rule provided for in Article 5(4), recourse topoint b) of the second subparagraph cannot simply be considered to be a discretionarypower of the legislator, but must be interpreted strictly and must therefore be justified.

To conclude, I should like to note that the two institutions have thought it appropriate tocontinue discussions on trading standards, in particular, and also on other points whichhad initially been envisaged in this draft regulation within the framework of the reform ofthe common agricultural policy currently being discussed, and the Commission will providethe support needed to ensure a successful outcome.

Herbert Dorfmann, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, I am convinced that this legislation is an important step forward fordesignations of origin in Europe. We now have around 1 000 such designations in Europeand each year these account for sales of around EUR 15 billion, representing 4.5% of ourfood market in Europe. These products are constantly gaining in importance. These figuresshow just how important these designations of origin have become.

The rapporteur, whom I would like to thank for her cooperation in recent months, hasalready indicated the benefits of the new regulation. We shall have less red tape, greaterpublic protection for designations of origin and new designation options, such as the‘mountain products’ designation the Commissioner has just mentioned. That is majorprogress.


I very much regret that we have not succeeded in apportioning greater importance to thesupport consortia. There is no doubt that these products are perceived by consumers asbrands. Anyone who claims that consumers do not recognise names like Pata Negra orParmigiano Reggiano as brands is misunderstanding the situation. Support consortia lacka central element in market leadership, however. They are unable to decide on the amountof product to be put on offer. Unfortunately it has not been possible to reach agreementin this area with the Council, which is notable by its absence today. I hope that we willmanage to find such agreement during the debate on agricultural reform.

I also find it quite unhelpful that an amendment should now be tabled by the Group of theGreens/European Free Alliance, which we are to vote on tomorrow and which moves inthis direction. My group agrees with the substance of this amendment and would vote infavour if this was the only issue. We know, however, that this would prevent the adoptionof the regulation at first reading, which is why we shall have to vote against it. Thus, thisis not particularly helpful and achieves no progress. I hope that the Greens will support uswhen we raise this subject as part of agricultural reforms.

Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, the regulation on agricultural product quality schemes, on which we willbe voting tomorrow, is the second most important legislative provision in which Parliamenthas been fully involved under the ordinary legislative procedure for agricultural legislation.

As happened with the Milk Regulation, Parliament has again managed to introducesignificant amendments to improve the Commission’s proposal. I would highlight, forexample, the stricter rules to protect certified products against misuse and imitation (theso-called ex officio rule); the new system of optional quality terms, starting with the ‘productof mountain farming’ quality term; area marks; and greater simplification in theauthorisation procedures for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected GeographicalIndication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) products. I would also liketo mention the amendment to the list in the annex, which at last makes it possible forchocolate to enjoy a protected geographical indication. Allow me to take this opportunityto greet the friends of Modica chocolate who are here in this Chamber.

These are just a few of the many amendments that Parliament has successfully introducedto strengthen the prospect of leveraging quality in order to compete in the sector. This wasmade possible by the excellent work done by the rapporteur, Ms García Pérez, whom Ithank, as well as the shadow rapporteurs and the entire Committee on Agriculture andRural Development.

The only regrettable fact, as the rapporteur herself mentioned, is that Parliament has notmanaged to persuade the Council of the need to extend production planning, which weusefully introduced in the milk package, to all the other protected designations of origin,particularly in the ham sector. However, as has been pointed out by Mr Dorfmann, one ofthe shadow rapporteurs, we shall not fail to do so in the debate on the reform of thecommon agricultural policy, and on the single common market organisation documentin particular.

Britta Reimers, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladiesand gentlemen, we now have three years of discussions and negotiations under our beltsin a process that occasionally stalled and sometimes got quite tough. We set ourselves thegoal of simplifying the quality systems, ensuring the reliability of quality and alsoestablishing a way to get better prices for farmers. We did not succeed in controlling


marketing standards or the regulation of supply. We now intend doing this in the commonorganisation of the markets. Overall, however, it must said that we have taken a first steptowards a uniform quality policy. The long time spent in negotiations also shows howmuch we have struggled among ourselves to reach an agreement and that it is not alwayseasy to make progress at first reading.

The agreement has now also been confirmed by the Council. Speaking on behalf of theGroup of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I have no choice other thanto support the compromise before us and to ask you to support the amendments. We havefailed to achieve a lot of what we wanted. The ALDE Group was not happy with theintroduction of another new quality characteristic like the mountain products, howeverwhen one considers what has been achieved overall as a package, then we can support this.I think our colleagues will also be satisfied with this.

Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I suspect I will feel a littlebit like Banquo’s ghost in this debate, in that my group is manifestly not as content orhappy with the outcome of this process as other groups. I would record my appreciationto our rapporteur, who has worked very hard on this, the shadows also, but the fact is wecould have done better. I gently suggest to Mr Dorfmann that, if you support the text ofour amendment, then support it now.

We are the colegislator on agricultural issues. If we could have done better than we haveachieved at present, let us stick to our guns and deliver more for our quality products thanis on the table. I do not think we have won anything like what we could have won had westuck to our original ambitions within the committee.

That is not to say that there are not things to admire; there are steps forward and that ispositive. We see that the Council is not here today, as Mr Dorfmann says, and they havenot treated us well throughout this process. Amendment 87 was a key priority for ourcommittee, but it was not taken seriously enough. We have retabled it as Amendment 103,and I do urge colleagues to support it. If that means that we do not get a first-readingagreement, then we come back as colegislator to do our job.


Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I noted Mr Smith’scommitment with great surprise. I would be interested to know the role he personallyplayed in the negotiations concerning the relevant paragraph, because I have heard fromsome of my colleagues that his commitment in the negotiations left a lot to be desired,even with regard to our demands.

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – Thank you for that question. I understandGerman well enough, but I had to use the headphones for that.

The commitment of our group to this process has been total. If you are making a referenceto a meeting that I may have missed, well, all colleagues miss meetings from time to timeand we all have other things to do in other places. That in no way weakens the commitmentor involvement of our group in these discussions, or the commitment to Amendment 87on behalf of all our parties.

I would have thought that, if it was a priority in the committee vote, it should have beena priority within the trialogue negotiations. It was not treated seriously by the Council,


which has not treated this Parliament with the respect a colegislator deserves. We coulddo better than is on the table at present.

Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this report potentiallyoffers a very good opportunity for agriculture.

By improving the quality of agricultural output, not only will the supply side moveagriculture away from the production of basic raw-material commodities, for which itreceives basic raw-material prices, but there will also be an opportunity to add real valueto the products.

The types of strategy that might come into play here include building and exploitingregional identities, building and exploiting brands and points of differentiation, and bettermarketing of products whether that be through cooperation, strategic alliances or movingcloser to the marketplace.

These strategies do not just add considerably to producers’ incomes, they can also createand sustain a large number of jobs in the rural sector, they contribute strongly to growthin the rural economy, and they will significantly reduce dependence on subsidy supportfrom the common agricultural policy.

However, I have two criticisms of this report. First, it is too focused on the domestic orEuropean market. We should not forget that European products possess some of thebest-recognised and strongest identities in the world, but that export potential is not beingfully exploited at the present time. I therefore suggest that we should be doing more tohelp stimulate this important trade.

Second, we are keen to support and encourage regional and producer organisations. Butsuch organisations should not be empowered to restrict or control output levels. In practice,that would amount to an unofficial quota system which, in the short term, would beanti-competitive and, in the long term, would mean missing opportunities for efficiencygains and wider market exploitation.

Giancarlo Scottà, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,first of all I must thank Ms García Pérez for her long and patient work over the last year toreach an agreement that is as close as possible to Parliament’s position.

The course of events started back in 2009 with our own-initiative report on quality products,which highlighted certain important issues on which we have achieved results today andothers on which we still have work to do. The outcome we have secured is a success forall those producers, associations and cooperatives that have supported us over these years,and acknowledges their commitment to quality.

The importance of their work is highlighted in this report, since the Member States areenabled to promote the establishment and operation of such groups. The positive outcomesobtained are due to the teamwork shown by Parliament’s delegation to the meetings withthe other institutions. They include ex officio protection, whereby the Member States mustprotect products with quality marks, even where they are used as ingredients in processedproducts, without waiting for producers to make a complaint.

In contrast to the measures introduced in Mr Nicholson’s report on contractual relationsin the milk and milk products sector, production management for quality marks in othersectors has been left out of the report now being debated. It was simply not possible toreach agreement on production planning, a crucial issue for our producers. They wanted


this instrument above all to make it possible to balance demand and supply. We willcontinue working alongside our fellow Members to achieve this outcome as well.

Lastly I would like to thank the Italian associations that represent the cooperatives, whichhave worked with us and will continue to do so.

Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work thathas been done on this important subject.

Northern Ireland has, to date, three protected geographical indications: the early Comberpotato, the Armagh Bramley apple and the Lough Neagh eel. While I welcome the officialrecognition of these products, there must be adequate safeguards in place to protect notonly the standing of the products but also the scheme itself. This report goes some way toaddressing that.

If quality schemes are to be meaningful and useful in the marketing of products, then it isimperative that those products retain their authenticity. This is especially true of productsthat require traditional production steps but must also be manageable in today’s globalmarket. It is important too that the registration and monitoring of those using qualityschemes must be fit for purpose but not restrictive. The success of a quality scheme willdepend on its capacity to stay relevant to the consumer and to add value whilst maintainingexclusivity and regional brand identity.

Finally, while we continue to improve quality schemes in the EU, I think Parliament andthe Commission should do more to protect EU citizens from poor-quality imports whichdo not meet the same high standards, and should put an end to the hypocrisy in this regardand the unfair competition for our farmers.

Esther Herranz García (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the rapporteur, Ms García Pérez,should be congratulated on her work and on the agreement reached between Parliamentand the Council of Ministers. It is shame that the Council is not represented here tonightwith us.

The new quality system for agricultural products is a simplification of the current systemand a streamlining of current authorisation procedures, and that is good news. It is also agood achievement to have included the obligation to use the Union logo for designationsof origin and protected geographical indications, given that it increases the exposure ofEuropean products.

I think it is also worth noting that the provisions for protecting quality designations inbilateral agreements with third countries are strengthened, and that a legal basis fordefending the European Union logo in those third countries is created, as I honestly thinkthat the protection of European products in third countries should be a fundamentalobjective.

It is a shame that this package has been somewhat stripped back during the negotiationsand, I will say it again, it is a shame that the Council is not here to hear it, because theoriginal quality package proposed by the Commission has been rather forgotten and themarketing standards and management of supply through quality designations of originhave been cut from the agreement, leaving it, as I said, a little empty.

I think the Council’s blinkered attitude on these two issues is regrettable, as they refusedto listen to Parliament’s reasonable positions. Supply management by means of designations


of origin should have been defended, and will of course be defended in the single commonmarket organisation.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to congratulate therapporteur, because standardised EU labelling enhances the competitiveness of ourproducers. I would like to draw the attention of Commissioner Cioloş to the fact thatHungary has introduced an entirely unique labelling system that has no relevancewhatsoever to EU conformity, because it is not at all related to what has been establishedhere in Europe as a result of the work of the rapporteur and the Commission and the presentjoint decision. After all, what we need is not to be world-famous in Hungary but to be incompliance with the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications inEurope. I therefore ask the Commissioner to remind the Hungarian Government that theonly way to further the interests of Hungarian producers is to ensure that the Hungarianlabelling system complies with the system just adopted by the European Union.

George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, I too welcome the agreement on this legislativepackage on quality products. Hopefully the package should streamline and simplify theadministration and bureaucracy faced by organisations and farmers wishing to registerquality products.

The package should hopefully speed up the process, as well as giving stronger powers toproducer organisations in marketing their quality food produced in the EU. And, as RichardAshworth pointed out, there are tremendous opportunities to add value and hopefullygive a greater return to producers through that adding of value.

I believe it was a correct decision to separate out the proposal for supply control to begiven to producer organisations, to allow the rest of the package to be agreed. Thiscontentious proposal can now be discussed as part of the single CMO package.

I would personally like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs García Pérez, for all the hardwork she has undertaken to progress this dossier. While I completely disagreed with thesupply control part of the package, I am very happy to support the efforts made tostrengthen and improve EU quality policy.

Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, the Czech Republic is one of the new MemberStates in which producers have registered the greatest number of protected Europeanmarks. This shows that interest in this marks is relatively strong. Producers are doing thisthemselves, voluntarily, because they firmly believe that it will help them on the market.

The quality of food and agricultural products is also becoming a very important topic forconsumers. They are gradually learning to understand the European mark and its symbolismused on labels. It would be wrong to think that everyone now understands this mark.Nonetheless we are well on the way, and the numbers of people who do know this markare rising steadily. I firmly believe that this system mainly needs long-term stability. Onlythus can we reach a situation where all consumers will know it and take account of it intheir decision-making. Frequent and extensive changes will not help us, and will only leadto confusion. It is important for producers that the procedures and requirements forobtaining these marks be clear and straightforward.

Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). - (PL) Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur that our prioritiesshould include simplifying and developing the existing system, and adding new qualityterms, which can create greater value for Europe’s best products. I hope that these proposals


will improve the existing complex system, and that this will be a step in the right direction,although it will certainly not be the last.

As we all know very well, European agriculture provides us with a wide range of foodsproduced using many different methods, which consistently respect the environment andrural communities. It would be helpful if both farmers and consumers in particular wereaware of the special characteristics of home grown food. Such a quality-oriented approachis bound to help strengthen the presence of high quality products both in domestic andinternational markets.

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am convinced that the future of farminglies in quality. Quality must be worthwhile, however. For this reason, I expressly welcomethe fact that the decision on the quality package will create measures that will highlightEuropean quality and further secure protected designations of origin, geographicalindications and traditional specialities. It is also very important that these products shouldbe protected beyond Europe’s borders and that processes cannot be cheaply copied.Successful programmes are recognised by consumers.

We have very positive experience with brand registration in Austria. The designatedproducts enjoy a good reputation. However, measures are required on a Europe-wide basisthat will promote sales and increase brand recognition. At the same time, we also needmeasures to enable more of such brands to be registered. Agricultural producers needuser-friendly support with registration.

I also expressly welcome the introduction of labelling for products from mountain areas.This is clearly the handiwork of the European Parliament and I would like to thank thenegotiators for their dedication in this context. This new, counterfeit-proof label is amilestone for dairy producers. Milk production in mountain areas is hard work and isassociated with the highest quality standards. Consumers associate products from mountainregions with an untouched landscape, cows freely grazing the meadows, feeding on hayin the winter, and small farms. It must be possible for the greater effort and higherproduction costs involved to command a better product price. We need to keep on workingon this.

Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to welcome the effortsbeing made by the European Parliament and the European Commission to propose clearimprovements to quality schemes. However, the proposals on mountain products alsoneed to apply to island agricultural products, so that they too can be integrated into thevoluntary quality scheme. We all understand the peculiarities of islands, their serious andpermanent drawbacks, their physical and demographic problems, their distance from themainland, their small size, their difficult terrain, their specific climate and their dependenceon activities with limited potential. Many of these elements lend specific and particularquality characteristics to agricultural products and the labelling of such products as islandproducts would increase their added value. I would therefore ask the Commissioner tostipulate what action is planned to promote these prospects and, of course, if possible,within what timeframe.

Riikka Manner (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the quality of Europeanagricultural products is world class and excellent. To promote the sale of these high qualityproducts and to raise consumer awareness, we need quality schemes for agriculturalproducts and food.


I am very pleased with the report by my colleague, Ms García Pérez, who has achieved anexcellent result in negotiations. I am also very pleased that the report now obliges theCommission to present a report to Parliament and to the Council on the case for a newlocal-farming and direct sales labelling scheme. This is a genuine step forward in thepromotion of a short supply chain and locally produced food. Farmers will now be givena real opportunity to acquire added value for their products by means of the new labels.We nevertheless have to ensure that the new labelling scheme becomes suitable for allMember States. Restrictions that are too harsh will do nothing to encourage this excellentinitiative. The scheme needs to take account, for example, of sparsely inhabited regionsand long distances in some of our Member States.

James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, first of all I would like to take the opportunityto thank the rapporteur for all her hard work on this report. I am only too well aware thatthis file has been subject to very tricky and intricate negotiations. It has not been easy, byany means, but it is good that we have managed to reach a final agreement.

I think that quality production is a great way to add value to what is being produced onour farms throughout the European Union and therefore will, hopefully, increase the profitmargins of the producers and all involved in the supply chain. In this regard, it is definitelysomething that our agriculture sector should be exploring as part of the strategy, in orderto ensure its future growth and sustainability especially in relation to exports.

However, I am a bit wary about the issue of supply management and I seriously doubtwhether the measure will prove to be of any benefit to farmers. I would therefore certainlyadvise the House to vote against Mr Smith’s amendment 103.

Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to join with everyone else in thankingthe rapporteur. You never get everything you want from a trialogue but in this case I believeshe has done a pretty good job.

My Member State, the UK, has not historically always been at the front of the queue whenit came to applying for and using these quality schemes, but we are catching up very fast.These provisions will make it easier to continue with this trend.

I am particularly pleased with the agreement on Traditional Speciality Guaranteed products.The Commission proposal would have wiped out the majority of UK products with thisstatus and this has now been avoided. I look forward to being involved in the futurediscussions on the creation of new labels for local farming, which I believe represent realopportunities for food products and food producers and is something that we should geton with as soon as we can once this package is agreed.


Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, hardwork by all the Members of this House has enabled us to reach the final vote on agriculturalproduct quality schemes.

The outcome of the negotiations with the Council is excellent, in my view. The ex officiorule, the new possibilities for labelling and the amendments to the annex – which allowfurther products, such as chocolate, access to EU quality marks – are just a few examples.There is just one regrettable fact, Commissioner, which is that the Council refused to agreeto production planning by protection cooperatives, which has left a rather bitter taste inthe mouth.


You may be sure, Commissioner, that this Parliament will propose the subject again duringthe forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy, not least so as to avoiddifferential treatment compared with other production sectors that have already securedsuch recognition. Tomorrow we will all – including myself – vote against the amendmentwhich, although it seems acceptable – is in fact too late to be assessed positively.

Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union enjoys competitiveadvantages over the other global competitors in several areas. One such advantage is theproduction and marketing of high quality agricultural products. I believe the currentproposal will enable European farmers to benefit from additional means of communicatingto consumers essential details of the products they purchase. It will also improve thefunctioning of national and private certification systems.

This will have a significant impact on Romanian farmers and producers. Establishing atraditional specialities guaranteed scheme will stimulate traditional production methodsand recipes. At the moment, many Romanian producers are unable to promote their recipesand products that provide added value.

Last but not least, I believe that simplifying marketing standards and place-of-farminglabelling will have a positive impact on the European consumers.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, thank you for giving me a chance to say a fewwords on this important and interesting topic. I would like to thank the rapporteur for hergood work.

I think one of the things that we have not highlighted enough in terms of the commonagriculture policy and farming is the fact that there has been a gradual improvement inquality in every respect during the lifetime of the CAP. The environment has improved,water quality has improved, biodiversity continues to improve and, of course, the qualityof the food produced is constantly improving.

We have, without any doubt, a guarantee that food can be traced from farm to fork, butsometimes the primary producers have not benefitted from this, and these proposals shouldhelp to ensure that happens, particularly if we streamline the bureaucracy and ensure thatthe solutions are simple ones. The EU logos will be a big help, and I think consumers willbecome familiar with them more quickly than we expect.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, measures to recognise and defend thequality of certain agricultural products are positive and undoubtedly play an importantrole in raising production value and thus producer income, informing consumers andpromoting healthy eating habits. However, quality schemes cannot be a panacea for solvingthe multiple problems that are facing agriculture and the rural world today, especially inless developed regions.

Under the continued liberalisation policies and the deregulation of markets for agriculturalproducts, it will be very difficult to ensure the continuity of many high-quality productions,with great relevance for the cohesion of the rural economic and social fabric. The samecan be said about the continued policies that crush the income and purchasing power ofthe general population. Both kinds of policies must be changed.

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to welcome twoproposals in particular, namely those under amendments 73 and 75, which I considerextremely important. The first amendment concerns the establishment of a new term, that


of ‘mountain product’, to describe products containing raw materials from mountain areas.The second amendment refers to the possibility of establishing a new local farming anddirect sales labelling scheme to assist producers in marketing their produce locally. Theintroduction of this label depends on a study to be carried out by the Commission, whichI hope will be carried out soon.

I believe that the two new terms could bring important benefits for producers, enablingthem to find market niches more easily and compete against large producers. They willalso benefit consumers who want to buy food produced in their region, through the effortsof farmers located near the cities they live in. Along with the future support measuresprovided for by the reform of the European agricultural policy, encouraging the two labelswould be an important support for small and medium-sized producers.

Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies andgentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur for the waythat they have led this process, which is now culminating in the vote on this proposal atfirst reading. I hope that it will help us make certification schemes simpler and moretransparent, adaptable to innovation and less burdensome for producers and consumers.Farmers will certainly continue to focus on quality, but they expect us to create the necessaryconditions for them to secure a fair return on their investment, not forgetting that theimposition of such high production standards, in terms of food security, animal welfareand environmental sustainability, is reflected in a higher final product price. Consumerswho demand quality from European producers end up buying cheaper and poorer-qualityimported products. This is our challenge: to invest in quality, secure a fair income forproducers and provide a reasonable option for consumers.


Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I am delighted with thevery clear support that this proposal received during the debate. I hope that Parliamentwill adopt the agreement that we have reached, through the discussion of certain elementsin the context of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I think that it wouldbe a pity to block the decision on this Quality Package and hold it up on the grounds ofpoints which we can discuss and clarify at the time of the CAP reform.

Several of you pointed to the discussion on quality-related volume control, which did notlead to an agreement between the Council and Parliament.

I am open to pursuing this discussion with you and with the Council in the context of CAPreform, with a view to determining how the monitoring of volumes might have a positiveimpact on quality, and I am ready to take this aspect into account, if need be.

I think that this legislative proposal, if it is adopted, will create a proper framework forencouraging producers to register their products and for ensuring that the quality ofagricultural products in the European Union is more obvious in the marketplace. Theadvantage of this regulation, to reply to Mr Tabajdi, who unfortunately is no longer here,is that, once this regulation comes into force, all Member States will have to apply the samelabelling and quality mentions. This will make it easier for European customers, throughoutthe Member States, to identify quality products from the same category.

Some of you have spoken about the export potential for quality products. The Union isindeed one of the top exporters of agricultural products and foodstuffs in the world, but,unlike other global partners, such as the United States, which export mainly raw materials,


we primarily export added value, with quality products. The regulation that we are aboutto adopt will make negotiations for the recognition of this system of geographical indicationoutside the European Union easier for us with our international partners and consequentlyeasier to ensure the legal protection of these products on external markets.

That will allow us not only to promote quality more effectively outside the Union, but alsoto protect our quality products against counterfeits still to be found on the market.Admittedly these counterfeits are proof that European products are appreciated byconsumers outside the Union. However, we now need the legal framework to be able toprotect our producers from these counterfeits.

The Commission also plans to present a legislative proposal with a view to promotingagricultural products and foodstuffs on the European market and abroad. It intends topromote actively quality labels and ensure that the European consumer recognises them.We shall invest money to promote the logo that we have designed as part of this regulation,so that European consumers are better able to identify quality products on the market.

As far as local products and products of island farming are concerned, you asked theCommission for reports. I can assure you that the Commission has already started to carryout evaluation work on the quality potential of local products and products from shortproduction and distribution chains. The same work is being carried out for products ofmountain farming. It will also be carried out for products of island farming. Finally, at theend of this year, the Commission will present a report, possibly accompanied by legislativeproposals for registering these quality labels. I can assure you that this is indeed our intentionand that we have already started to work on it.

I would like to thank you again for your support for this legislative proposal. I hope it willlead to a vote in favour tomorrow.

Iratxe García Pérez, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, as has been stated by a number ofcolleagues during this debate, I regret that the Group of the Greens/European Free Allianceis using this opportunity to table an amendment, which I recommend the other groups toreject.

Even though you may agree with its content, agreements should be respected. After all thework over recent months, I do not think anyone doubts my support and that of manymembers of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) for supplymanagement by producer groups.

Despite the fact it is not represented here, the Council should not think that theaforementioned objective will be forgotten: it will be taken up again in the reform of thecommon agriculture policy, and more widely than just in relation to quality products.

I want to also make use of the opportunity to express my gratitude for the invaluable helpgiven by my assistant, the technical cooperation of the committee secretariat, and the hardwork, good rapport and willingness of all the group shadow rapporteurs we have workedwith over this year.

I want to close by reiterating the uniqueness and importance of our geographical indicationssystem. The total turnover of products with designation of origin and protected geographicalindication is estimated at EUR 15 billion, around 2.5% of the spend on foodstuffs in theUnion. It is a system that should continue to be protected by improving its exposure to


the European consumer and its capacity to attract producers and operators so that themarket can reward their efforts.



(The sitting was suspended at 20.30 and resumed at 21.00.)

Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) European agriculture delivers food of greatvariety, with production methods that are respectful of the environment and of ruralcommunities. The regional diversity of food, the traditional methods of production, andthe emphasis on safety and good environmental conditions lead to the fact that the qualityof European food is among the highest in the world. We must also demand this fromthird-country products entering the EU. Farmers and consumers alike need to be madeaware of these special characteristics of their home-grown food. This quality-orientedapproach could help reward the best-quality products on the domestic, as well asinternational markets. These labels and quality schemes provide recognition for thehigh-value characteristics of the products and also for the regional specificities of theproducts. The current quality schemes are: Protected designation of origin (PDO), ProtectedGeographical Indication (PGI), Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG), Organic Farmingand Outermost Regions, all with their respective logos. They bring greater added value forfarmers and consumers. I therefore welcome the rapporteur’s initiative, which urges theCommission to make these schemes easier to understand and to extend them to ‘productsof island farming’.

Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. − (CS) Europe is based on products that are cultivatedor produced on a long-term and traditional basis. European food producers provideconsumers with very varied and mostly very high-quality food. They are creating protectedEuropean marks that represent their history and their quality. The current quality regimesinclude the protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI)and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG), products of organic farming and the mostremote regions. The food in these systems is marked out by its own logo, enabling rapidrecognition by the consumer. The food quality and labelling system helps successfulpromotion on both the European and global market. It is essential to continue this effortand to continue improving the policy on food and product quality. The Commission’s newproposal sets out the aim of modifying EU legislation in the area of quality, and improvingthe functioning of national and private certification systems so that they are simpler, moretransparent and comprehensible, and more adaptable to innovation and rapid progress.It is also important to reduce the burden they impose on producers and administrators.The report on the quality of agricultural products is a benefit for European legislation, theagricultural market, producers and consumers, and I therefore support its adoption.

Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European agricultural sector uses safe,clean and environmentally-friendly methods that provide high-quality products that satisfyconsumers’ needs. The regional diversity in foodstuffs and traditional production methodsthat, in some cases, date back centuries, and an emphasis on safety and good environmentalconditions contribute to the fact that the quality of European foodstuffs is among thehighest in the world.

This quality-focused approach can help when evaluating products of the highest qualityon both domestic and international markets. The EU introduced a set of marks and quality


systems under its food quality policy that recognise the characteristics of high-valueproducts as well as regional product specifications.

The new legislative proposals on quality submitted by the Commission will improve EUlegislation in the area of quality and, equally, in the area of the operation of national andprivate certification schemes. They aim to make them simpler, more transparent and easierto understand so that they can be adapted to innovation and are less of a burden onproducers and administrators. The European quality system will thus be clearer and morecomprehensive.

Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Quality schemes for agriculturalproducts play a special role in strengthening the clear rules of competition, providingconsumers with accurate information about the products, ensuring adequate protectionof intellectual property and safeguarding the integrity of the internal market. Theintroduction by the regulation of protection of designations of origin and geographicalindications ensures appropriate product designations which maintain the unique andtraditional character of the products.

The retention of characteristic quality features of EU agricultural products is importantbecause it applies to product groups that build a competitive advantage for EU agriculturein the world and meet the demand for high quality food. We should therefore make everyeffort to ensure that regional products (such as the categories of products of mountain andisland farming specified in the regulation) are duly registered, labelled and protected againstunfair competition. We must ensure that when these products are placed on the marketthey build a reputation for European food in the world and contribute to maintainingemployment in traditional methods of food production.

Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Every day brings media reports about thepoor quality of the foodstuffs being placed on the consumer market. I would therefore liketo applaud the work of the rapporteur. The registration and labelling of foodstuffs, statementof product composition, and so on, is only one – albeit significant – measure. I considerit important that consumers be properly informed so that, at a time of crisis, when peoplelook to buy cheaper products, they do not buy low-quality agricultural products. It issimilarly important that national inspection authorities conduct thorough checks of theconsumer market so that we will never again useindustrial salt on our food, or eat chickensthat have been around the world twice and frozen four times, and whose origin we cannottrace. Foodstuffs such as these harm human health, and even kill people. We see examplesevery year: last year in Germany, and now people are dying in the Czech Republic frommethanol. I therefore believe that the adoption of the regulation of Parliament and of theCouncil on agricultural product quality schemes will contribute to ensuring a better qualitysystem for foodstuffs.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVAROVice-President

17. European Venture Capital Funds - European Social Entrepreneurship Funds(debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on:


– the report (A7-0194/2012) by Sophie Auconie, on behalf of the Committee on Economicand Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and ofthe Council on European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (COM(2011)0862 - C7-0489/2011- 2011/0418(COD)) and

– the report (A7-0193/2012) by Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Committee onEconomic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliamentand of the Council on European Venture Capital Funds (COM(2011)0860 - C7-0490/2011- 2011/0417(COD)).

Sophie Auconie, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,this evening we are examining two important texts, two proposals for a regulation, oneon the European Venture Capital Fund and the other on the European SocialEntrepreneurship Fund. The objective is simple: to establish a European label.

As regards entrepreneurship, it is one tool among a number of provisions. In any event, Ihope that the Commission will take ownership of entrepreneurship, which is a driver ofgrowth, and that it will consider a number of provisions, mechanisms and tools associatedwith social entrepreneurship. I am going to let my colleague Mr Lamberts speak on venturecapital.

I would like to speak on two matters. Firstly, what are the issues raised in this text? Secondly,why are we voting on it tomorrow in plenary?

First of all, as regards the issues raised in this text, what is the aim pursued? The aim istwofold: to foster the development of social investment and also to diversify the fundingsources of social undertakings.

What is a social undertaking? The principle objective of a social undertaking is to achievea positive social impact. It is, for example, to ensure that its human resources, itscollaborators, include vulnerable or marginalised persons. A social undertaking is onewhose objective is to support social activity. Today, these undertakings are mainly financedthrough grants. We all know that Member States and communities will find it harder andharder to support funding through grants. Therefore, these undertakings see their futurecompromised, at a time when they need sustainable growth and to bring about innovation.We must help them to find other sources of funding so that we can improve our socialmarket economy. In this respect, I must point out that social entrepreneurship accountsfor 10% of European undertakings and 11 million employees. The social investment marketis already very active in a number of Member States which are experiencing high levels ofgrowth, but it is, unfortunately, very fragmented.

At a time when the world of finance is so reviled, I find it satisfying that this text is able todemonstrate that profit is not the be all and end all for this world of finance, and that financecan and must play a major role in the social economy and the real economy.

I would like Mr Barnier to know how much I welcome this proactive approach.Traditionally, the Commission had a relationship of regulation and control with finance,which was appropriate. Today, we are committed to a proactive approach, the aim ofwhich is to give an impetus to put finance at the service of the real economy. I am gratefulto the Commission for adopting this approach.


Why are we voting on this text tomorrow in plenary? We worked actively on it this summer.My objective was twofold. It was to obtain accessibility and security, because this labelmust be open and accessible, but not at any price and not to just anyone.

Today, we reached agreement in the trialogue – I am sorry for taking slightly longer thanmy allotted time, Mr President, but the issue is a little complicated – and I will ask mycolleagues to support this agreement tomorrow.

I hope that the Council will follow us immediately when we have adopted this regulation.I would remind you that it is a true driver of economic growth and a vehicle for inclusionand progress for our society.

Philippe Lamberts, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, friends of culture, good taste andventure capital, good evening. How good it feels to be among friends in the Chamber inStrasbourg – such an intimate place – this, still summer, evening. Thank you to the manymembers of the public for being here, and for coming to applaud the performance of thetwo rapporteurs.

Joking aside, the issue of venture capital is important because it is a fact that, in the EUtoday, we need investment. Our economy has been hijacked too often these last 30 years,both publicly and privately, by, essentially, consumption and speculation at the expenseof value-added investment.

It is in this context that venture capital plays an important role, especially in drivinginnovation. It must be recognised that, in the EU, we have a process of innovation that is,without doubt, excessively regulated. What we have, therefore, is top-down innovation,where the objectives set by the Commission or by the Member States, for example, stimulateinnovation. This can be distinguished from the American model of bottom-up innovation,where people risk both their money and their reputation on innovations, not all of whichsucceed – far from it. However, this is a model we would do well to draw on, not to simplyadopt it but to achieve a better balance between top-down innovation, which is guided byregulation, bottom-up innovation, which is guided by investment, and innovation I wouldcharacterise as autonomous, which is guided by the market and stakeholders on the ground.

It is not easy to encourage venture capital because, first of all, it is, of course, a question ofculture. If, in Europe, we have a culture that is just a tad allergic to risk, it is clear that thiswill not change overnight. Nevertheless, it is good to do whatever we can to removeregulatory obstacles or, rather, to establish mechanisms that encourage venture capital. Inthis context, the Commission proposal to create a European venture capital funds passport,which is to some extent a guarantee of quality and also a guarantee of access to the entireinternal market, is a good idea.

From that point of view, the issue should have been simple, and it was. The negotiationswere quite speedy. In the end, there were not many points of divergence between us. Oneof the issues was whether or not it was necessary to have a system of depositaries with aview to protecting the consumer. We, rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, decidedtogether that venture capital is perhaps an area where, in fact, we want to encourage risk,with investors who know a bit about the risks they are taking, and that, when addressingprofessionals, concern for consumer protection can become a sideshow to considerationsof efficiency. We therefore abandoned the system of depositaries to finalise an agreementin short order on 28 June which was welcomed by the three partners: Parliament, the


Council and the Commission. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Commission forhelping us to reach an agreement in relatively short order.

Then, I was surprised to discover, five or seven days later, I do not remember – I am sureMs Auconie will remind me – almost via a rumour, that the Council had reneged on itsagreement. At this point I would like to say that, in terms of procedure, it is unacceptable.It is possible to realise that one has gone too far in negotiations, that too many concessionshave been made and so on, but an agreement is an agreement. When an agreement hasbeen reached, when it has been announced and welcomed, well then, it is honoured. Thatis what we are going to do tomorrow, when we vote on this text. I therefore call onParliament not to try to outsmart the Council, that is to say to reverse its original positionsand to act as if it were going to recommence negotiations. No, we are faithful to theprocedure we have gone through and the agreement we have reached, and it is in theseterms, in these exclusive terms, that we will proceed to the vote tomorrow. I thereforeencourage you to support us in this and I hope that I will hear a lot of encouragement inthis respect from the many members of the public who are present.

Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, honourable Members,I welcome the opportunity to say a few words this evening on these two important subjectsof venture capital and social entrepreneurship on behalf of my colleague, Mr Barnier, whowas unable to join you this evening due to the informal Economic and Financial Affairs(ECOFIN) Council which will take place in Cyprus tomorrow. At this moment, therefore,he must be somewhere in the skies above us.

Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years there have been too many signs suggesting, rightlyor wrongly, that finance was an activity serving the financial stakeholders personally insteadof moving the economy forward as a whole. It is up to us to reverse this trend and to useevery means available to us to improve the financing of companies. This is a crucial steptowards economic recovery and sustainable growth.

Since April 2011 and the adoption of the Single Market Act by the Commission, importantsteps have been taken to boost the competitiveness of our enterprises, especially small andmedium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs – by way of reminder, there are almost 22 millionin the EU – are the backbone of the EU economy and of its capacity to innovate and createjobs. However, unlike other regions of the world, the European Union has been late indetecting and encouraging these champions of tomorrow through a sustainable,growth-oriented funding framework, that of venture capital. These growth drivers arebadly needed today, especially in new technologies.

Similarly, enterprises that pursue so-called ‘social’ objectives have huge potential forsustainable growth, which we need. These enterprises create a social link thanks to theirpolicy of inclusion in favour of the most disadvantaged citizens, in particular by enablingmany people who are out of work to return to employment. The pursuit of social, ethicaland environmental objectives can generate positive external effects for a country. Theycan also help revitalise some of our regions.

The debate we are holding today falls fully within this context. Finance must once againserve the real economy, which innovates and creates jobs. Europe has financial resources;it even has one of the highest savings rates in the world. These savings must be channelledtowards sectors with the greatest need and, primarily, towards the SMEs operating in thesesectors.


That is why the Commission has proposed establishing a new legislative framework forEuropean venture capital funds and social entrepreneurship funds. Through these proposals,these funds will be able to obtain a single marketing authorisation, valid throughout Europe,which will enable them to collect money far more easily from investors.

We are very grateful to the rapporteurs, Mr Lamberts and Ms Auconie, and to the shadowrapporteurs for the work they have done on both these issues. Many technical questionswere resolved quickly under the Danish Presidency, and we are satisfied with the politicalagreement reached on the last day of this Presidency. We welcome the spirit of cooperationand compromise which made it possible.

Today, therefore, there is broad agreement between the Council and Parliament in themany areas covered by these two reports. However, there is one outstanding issue, that oftax havens. I am fully at one with you in the fight against tax havens. I believe that thesetypes of tax systems are a major problem which must be resolved as a matter of urgency.

However, I also believe that these two proposals cannot be the hostages of a single issue.When there is agreement on practically all of the content and when the disagreement relatessolely to a very specific element, all means must be deployed to break the stalemate. All ofus in this House are aware of the time we would lose and that companies would lose if wewent to second reading. I would therefore urge you to pick up the thread of the discussionswith the Council as soon as possible on this last point. The Commission is ready to facilitatea new compromise on this.

From our perspective, an envisageable solution could be constructed on four pillars. First,the inclusion in the instrument, that is to say in the very text of the directive, of a clausereproducing an existing article of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM)Directive. This clause, which makes reference to the OECD Model Tax Convention, hasalready been accepted by the Member States. Second, the retention of the existing recitalson tax havens. Third, a Commission declaration on the establishment of harmonisedstandards for the identification of tax havens. Fourth, the mention of a revision clause inthe regulations by which the Commission undertakes to promote, if necessary, additionalmeasures to ensure that venture capital funds and social entrepreneurship funds are notdomiciled in tax havens.

The Commission has always been committed to ensuring compliance with internationallaw on taxation and will continue to fight against all forms of tax evasion. With its draftdeclaration on tax havens, it wishes to clearly reaffirm its principles and its utter resolve.However, today, it is essential that we undertake to move forward rapidly towards theadoption of both these texts, because the ultimate aim is to facilitate the funding of SMEs.

Today, we can send a strong signal to all economic stakeholders to show them that Europehas understood the extent of the problems and is there to propose solutions.

Pervenche Berès, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and SocialAffairs. − (FR) Mr President, I am going to speak on behalf of the Committee on Employmentand Social Affairs on the report by Ms Auconie on a proposal to support European SocialEntrepreneurship Funds.

Last week, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, in an excellent conferenceorganised by Commissioner Andor, emphasised that the European social model was anelement of EU competitiveness and that social entrepreneurship clearly formed part ofthis. The proposal we have on the table is therefore welcome.


However, I think that we must ensure – and that was the subject matter of the opinion ofthe Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) – that, through these socialentrepreneurship funds, we do not create new niches in financial markets. I have to saythat, from this point of view, we have two concerns.

We had asked in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that the issue of socialhousing be treated specifically, and I think that that would have been valuable.

Finally, I have to say that the response from the Commissioner representingCommissioner Barnier on the establishment of such funds in tax havens is, in my view,problematic, as, once again, it is not a question of creating new niches or nouveaux richesbut of fostering a new, highly promising sector, that of the social market economy, throughsocial entrepreneurship.

Dimitar Stoyanov, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (BG)Mr President, the actual fact that this two-report package is being proposed in this manner– special entrepreneurship and venture capital – shows that despite everything Europe willalways appear peculiar to the rest of the world, namely in that it sees operating with largecapitals primarily as an opportunity to develop its social activities.

Unfortunately, in my Member State – Bulgaria – it is as if the companies which have a socialelement disappeared during the transition. They disappeared as communism disappearedfrom Bulgaria. I personally have had business relations with a company employing peoplewith impaired hearing, and I know how important it is to these people that they have anopportunity to work, be employed and earn their own living, instead of relying only onbenefits and other social instruments.

This is why I feel that adopting the report on the Social Entrepreneurship Funds is a bigstep forward and, as I said, tying this package together truly shows the European continent’ssocial face.

As for the Venture Capital Funds with regard to which I was also a rapporteur on thecommittee asked for an opinion, I can say that I am considering this in relation to theCommission’s promises for better financial regulation, for better financial discipline toprevent potential financial speculations in the future, thus for me this is also an importantstep forward.

In conclusion, I will say that I see that the committee responsible has elaborated the legalcommittee’s proposals we made in the report, therefore, I believe that we, as a committee,did our job, namely to assist the committee responsible, directing it towards the areas ithas elaborated in our proposals.

Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, that Europe needsgrowth and growth requires investment, which in turn cannot occur without funding, isnot a surprising statement. Unfortunately, we face this challenge of growth and investmentat a time when Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises are suffering from a fundingdeficit and when lending conditions have seriously deteriorated as a result of the crisis.

But the challenge is all the more demanding because Europe’s SMEs need to invest inknowledge-based undertakings, innovation and new sources of growth that can createsustainable jobs and upgrade the competitiveness of the European economy. Here thesolution is a major push towards developing venture capital. This is a front on whichEurope is seriously lagging behind the US. Venture capital is crucial for young enterprises,


particularly in the early years of their development when, despite innovative plans andstrong growth potential, they struggle to find the necessary funding. Moreover, ventureinitiatives can also provide companies with valuable expertise and knowledge, businesscontacts and strategic advice.

The regulation we are debating today aims to address Europe’s growth funding deficitthrough an EU-wide venture capital passport. This regulation can provide a much-neededboost to kick-start some of the main drivers of growth. It is vital, therefore, to get theventure capital legislation working as soon as possible. I recommend that the Housesupports the compromise reached with the Danish Presidency and that negotiationscontinue towards a successful first reading.

Saïd El Khadraoui, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to startby thanking the rapporteurs, Ms Auconie and Mr Lamberts, for the valuable collaborationwe have enjoyed over the past few months. We, as the S&D Group, can support what iscurrently on the table: it is a good compromise.

This morning, we heard from Mr Barroso in his State of the Union address that we needto do everything we can to foster economic growth. Of course, we fully support this move.Investing in innovative companies with venture capital and social economy projects throughsocial investment funds can make a difference. Developing such passports constitutes amodest, yet effective contribution towards that goal. After all, it will provide a frameworkthat can give investors confidence and it can contribute – and you have mentioned thisyourself, Commissioner – to making greater use of the available savings in the real economy.This will lead to investment in young innovative enterprises and the social economy.

The text that we will be voting on is a step forward on various points. There will be apassport for the funds in question and better protection for investors. It is a balancedpackage that came about after a series of difficult negotiations with the Council. We weretherefore very surprised and disappointed that the agreement reached, which had evenbeen officially communicated by the previous Danish Presidency, could not be finalisedby the Cyprus Presidency within the time given. As a result, a number of countries hadtime to organise opposition and politicians blocked the agreement. These circumstancesmean that although we will be able to vote on the agreement reached tomorrow, we willnot be able to have a final vote at this stage.

I want the Commissioner to know that we appreciate that the Commission is coming upwith proposals to push forward a compromise, but, to be honest, I think the ball is nowin the Council’s court. Quite honestly, we have a deal that we have finalised and acceptedand we are willing to approve it. I think that the Council should be consistent on this matter.After all, the crisis is more prominent than ever and goes far beyond these two proposals.

My question is: do we, as the European Union, think it is normal to be working with adefinition of tax havens that is riddled with holes? Will the fight against tax fraud atEuropean level remain merely a verbal battle or are we actually going to tackle it effectively?We as Parliament need to stick to our guns on that point.

Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, I wouldlike to say a big thank you to the two rapporteurs, Ms Auconie and Mr Lamberts, for theirexcellent work. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is in favourof the proposals on both venture capital funds and social entrepreneurship funds. Withthese proposals we are making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to obtain


finance. That has already been said here, but it is not enough to say it just once; in view ofthe problems Europe is experiencing it is worth pointing it out several times.

It is also important to increase the competitiveness and growth potential of small andmedium-sized enterprises. Venture capital investments can be a very valuable alternativeto bank financing. In order to support the most promising start-up undertakings, theinvestments made by the venture capital funds need to be larger and more diversified, andthe funds need to promote innovation. Social entrepreneurship in the EU must bestrengthened, particularly in these times of crisis.

We welcome the idea that managers of venture capital funds and social entrepreneurshipfunds should be able to use a quality mark, a European passport, to market their fundsthroughout the EU. This has been shown to work really well in other contexts. Introducinga single set of rules throughout the EU is important. That will reduce unnecessary problemsand red tape. It will facilitate investment and entrepreneurship on the internal market.Certain burdensome and unnecessarily bureaucratic rules, such as the requirement for adepositary, have been dispensed with in the compromise with the Council. I think that isa good thing. I think we have found the right balance, and this really will be able to facilitateinvestment for Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises.

The question that remains then is that of tax havens. I hope that we can find a solution. Iwould like to finish by saying that I think it is a pity that questions concerning taxes,including those relating to the issue of tax havens, cause such division.

Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Auconie, we haveworked very well together in Parliament on this report. We have made improvements towhat was already a good proposal from the Commission, finally establishing a financialinstrument that specifically supports the social economy.

It is not hard to achieve agreement on the fact that some of the bureaucratic red tapeincluded there should be removed: for example it should also be possible to provide largerloans, as required for the construction of social housing, for example, or to deliver assistanceto institutions that do not operate in the social economy in the EU, but rather in developingcountries, so that these funds, when they are finally introduced – can also help the world’smost vulnerable.

We have also been able to ensure that some criteria are worded with greater clarity, forexample that it is necessary to prove the companies receiving investment from this fundhave a genuine social benefit, so that these funds do not become a cheap label that peoplecan use, even though in reality there is no social economy dimension to their business.This fund is a rational instrument within the framework of the Commission’s broaderinitiatives for the social economy, as currently promoted by Mr Barnier and Mr Tajani.That makes sense.

The icing on the cake would be if the positive outcome we have now achieved with theCommission were also to be worthwhile for the businesses. The only thing standing in theway here is the Council, which is absent from this debate yet again and which refuses toinclude a reasonable definition of tax havens in the provisions for this fund. The fact thatfunds like this, which have a social benefit, are not to be diverted to tax havens is somethingthat goes without saying. This also applies to European venture capital funds. It is scandalousthat the Council should allow initiatives that promote growth and the social economy tofail over an issue like a European definition of tax havens.


Kay Swinburne, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the Commission’s proposalsfor both the European Social Entrepreneurship Fund and the European Venture CapitalFund as part of the EU action plan are important to help SMEs access more financialresources across the whole of the EU.

These two reports have been specifically drafted to encourage investment in these importantsectors. The EU passport for these two brands will allow cross-border business andinvestment and thus channel money into areas that we know are vitally important toeconomic growth as well as simultaneously benefiting our whole society.

We all agree that stimulating growth, particularly in the SME sector, is intrinsic to oureconomic recovery. The committee negotiations have been carried out in an inclusive spiritwhich has continued into the trialogue discussions. It is therefore a shame that negotiationshave deteriorated. I believe that all political groups are keen to see successful implementationof these two reports. It is therefore a pity that this has been stalled with the addition of atopic that many argue is not immediately essential to the EU Venture Capital andEntrepreneurship Fund debate.

The global issue of tax evasion and the definition of tax havens, especially in light of theglobal economic situation, must be addressed. There is widespread acknowledgement ofthis and indeed the Commission has promised to come up with specific proposals. It isnot standard practice, however, nor indeed Parliament’s right, to set tax policies within theFinancial Services Regulation. Whatever our aspirations, we must be careful that we donot cause more harm than good.

Of course we should look at tax havens, but at the right time with the right people on theright dossiers. There is a strong majority in the Council against the addition of Article 3.Our priority surely should be to pass these two reports without delay, taking full advantageof the agreements and improvements that the Parliament has already successfully negotiatedin trialogue. We can then address tax evasion in the appropriate manner followingCommission proposals. If we are serious about stimulating growth, we must allow thislegislation on the Social Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Funds to come to fruition.

Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,the aims of these two funds – helping small businesses and social entrepreneurship – arecertainly important and worthy of our support.

I am very familiar with the second of these areas, as I have often been involved with disabilityassociations, and my position as vice-chair of the Disability Intergroup in this Parliamenthas led me to listen to a large number of proposals and demands in this field. Thousandsof bodies operate in this sector and help produce roughly 10% of GDP across Europe, whileproviding jobs for over 11 million people. As we must all realise, these are significantfigures that have not only a valuable social impact but also major consequences for Europe’sentire economy.

Even more than other kinds of business, social undertakings always find it difficult to obtaincredit, perhaps because it is thought – unfairly – that they cannot give sufficient assurances.In fact, though, they are often highly efficient and economically competitive. Nevertheless,it is important to remain extremely vigilant and to check carefully that these instrumentsare used only where there is a genuine need. Even in this field there can be speculation andinterests that deviate from the real objectives for which these funds have been developed.


In this respect, the criteria for allocating these funds should be made much clearer, as Iwould not like to see them transformed into a potential new mechanism for fraud, at theexpense of both Europe and the social undertakings themselves, not to mention all thosepeople, including people with disabilities, who have considerable opportunities in thissector and expect a lot from it.

In the past, grants from the European Social Fund, for example, were used in Italy forcompletely different purposes from those that were initially proposed. It is absolutelydisgraceful that there are people who speculate in this sector instead of helping others whohave major difficulties.

To conclude, I reiterate my support for these initiatives, provided due attention is given toensuring they are properly implemented.

Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, I wouldlike to speak this evening as Vice-Chair of the Social Economy Intergroup.

Two texts are currently under discussion in Parliament, one on the social entrepreneurshipinitiative, which will be examined in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs(EMPL) next week, and another, which we are examining this evening. It is far fromsatisfactory that we are examining the second before the first, which is much more general.

From this point of view, it seems to me that the definition of social enterprises presentedto us today is too restrictive. I hope that it will be able to put a stop to attempts at social‘washing’. However, once again, it reduces social enterprises, in particular those of thesocial economy, which are its main component, a little too much to the single issue of themost vulnerable. The stakeholders in the social economy who manage partnerships andnot capital enterprises are hoping to see other signs from the European institutions, inparticular the recognition that their status is different from that of capital enterprises.

As you have said, Commissioner, we still have a lot to do to make up lost ground in relationto these champions of tomorrow, these enterprises which are not obsessed with simplymaximising their profits.

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make itclear at the outset that we need more venture capital in Europe. After all, private capitalinvestors are actively seeking out opportunities, for example in my home country, Hungary.At the same time I must also note that the managers and owners of enterprises often havea cautious attitude towards this form of financing. In order to support the most promisingstart-up enterprises, venture capital funds need to be enlarged and their investmentsdiversified. I believe that the aim of the two proposals put forward today and of these twofunds is precisely to facilitate the development of this budding market.

One of the reasons why I believe this is that on one hand, in the middle of the current crisiswhere lending to the real economy is on a decline, enterprises can have an extremelydifficult time obtaining loans. On the other hand, I agree with the Commission thatenterprises undertaking long-term investments and possessing venture capital are moresuccessful than enterprises that are forced to rely on short-term bank financing. Thirdly,larger venture capital funds not only mean larger volumes of capital available to individualenterprises but also allow for specialisation in specific sectors. I am convinced that venturecapital can help small and medium-sized enterprises increase their competitiveness. I amhopeful that we will be able reach an agreement at first reading, and I will, of course, supportthis with my vote.


Sari Essayah (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, my thanks go to the rapporteurs, Ms Auconieand Mr Lamberts, who have done an excellent job in connection with these proposals forregulations.

I would particularly like to raise the issue of investment in social enterprises, the main aimof which is not to make a profit, but to develop those businesses whose activities areextremely valuable for society as a whole. In many Member States these companies arelegally obliged to operate in exactly the same environment and according to the same rulesas other enterprises, even though it is certainly far more difficult for them to attract financingand investment for their business. Often a social enterprise is fundamentally a businessthat is based on an organisation, a foundation or voluntary work, and which needs capitalfor it to operate. I believe that this Rrgulation will boost confidence in socialentrepreneurship funds and among investors in them, and enhance the reputation of suchfunds.

As has been mentioned here, we should not be naïve; good intentions will not preventattempts at abuse, and that is why it is important to support proposals to stop abuse offunds of this sort or distortion of competition between different funds. For the sake ofgreater confidence, we also need to investigate openly loopholes in connection with taxevasion and tax havens.


Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s proposal aimedat providing increasingly greater support to promoting access to finance. In this regard,venture capital funds have a particularly important role in the economy, encouraginggrowth and job creation. In addition, they foster the establishment and expansion ofinnovative undertakings, thereby supporting innovation and competitiveness. They respondto the challenges currently facing most Member States.

In this context, I would like to emphasise the importance of laying down a commonframework of rules as soon as possible. This will allow for reducing the obstacles againstthe proper functioning of the internal market and eliminating the distortion of competition.European venture capital funds contribute substantially to promoting the access of SMEsto finance.

Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, unfortunately, we are going througha period when the primary objective of business start-ups is to obtain immediate andsubstantial profits. The regulation of European social entrepreneurship funds is a greatopportunity for those entrepreneurs whose primary objective is to achieve social impact,which unfortunately has been less and less targeted lately.

However, I am concerned about the risk that the leverage outlined in the report andinsufficiently explained in detail might be used for inappropriate purposes. Therefore, Ithink we need to focus our efforts on drafting a regulation that is as comprehensive aspossible, providing specific protection and control rules in order to fully eliminate anypossibility of misuse of these funds, which have enormous potential for social progress.


Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, honourable Members,in order to promote the emergence of an economy that is geared more to the citizens, thatis to say a more innovative and socially inclusive economy, it is essential to strengthen the


conditions under which enterprises that pursue objectives that are not only economic butalso ethical and environmental access funding. That is why we must ensure that these twoinstruments – venture capital funds and social entrepreneurship funds – can be madeavailable to our enterprises as soon as possible.

I have listened to all the concerns you have raised today, including your position on thepossibilities of reaching a compromise on the issue of tax havens. I will certainly pass onyour considerations to my colleague, Mr Barnier, who is at your disposal, as are his services,to find a satisfactory and timely solution.

We remain convinced that it is possible and necessary to adopt both these reports at firstreading.

Sophie Auconie, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen,first of all, I would like to thank, in their presence, all the shadow rapporteurs and then, ofcourse, my colleague Mr Lamberts, because we have worked very constructively in across-party review that has been full of conviction, and we have achieved an entirelysatisfactory result. Thanks to all of you.

I would like to remind you, in this conclusion, that one in four enterprises in the EU is asocial enterprise. I would like to remind you that the social investment market is worthEUR 1 billion. Mr Lamberts, there are not many of us here in this Chamber, but I am certainthat many entrepreneurs, in particular social entrepreneurs, are watching us live onParliament’s website. I would like to say to them, and to all of you here, that socialentrepreneurship is not a niche and that the European label represents genuine added valuefor Europe if we define it responsibly.

As you have said, Commissioner, today we need to improve funding for social enterprisesand we must not be hostages of a single issue. As we have all demonstrated, a secondreading would be a real waste of time.

I will therefore ask all my colleagues, in a very socially inclusive manner, to support meand to support the agreement reached in the trialogue in the session and during the votetomorrow. I hope, then, that the Council will take our lead to ensure that this regulationis adopted quickly. It is, I would remind you, a driver of growth for our economy and avehicle for inclusion and progress for our society.

I ask all my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the agreement reached in thetrialogue.

Philippe Lamberts, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should first of alladdress the Council but, on occasions such as these, it is never here. It is therefore ratherdifficult to negotiate like that of course. Therefore, I am going to address you to tell youthat we must make sure that we do not distort reality.

We have an agreement. It is not that there remains a small obstacle to an agreement; wehave an agreement. Simply, one of the two parties did not keep the promise it had madein public. There is therefore a real problem of confidence between the negotiating partners.I am sorry, these things are just not done.

They may have realised in retrospect that they had gone too far, that they had made toomany concessions, but it was a matter for them. It was for them to prepare and managetheir negotiations properly. If they are incapable of doing so, that is their lookout. That iswhat it is like in business. If you are outsmarted because of poor negotiating skills, that is


the price you pay. The Council spurns this House too often to be passed the sponge andto be told, ‘We understand that you have messed up a bit, so we are going to discuss itagain’. No! I am in favour of an agreement at first reading. Well, it is very easy. If we wantan agreement at first reading, we keep our word, they keep theirs and that is it, end of story.If they want to do something else, it is going to be expensive, it is going to be hard and itcould go on and on. You are going to say that it will take an important issue hostage. Yes,of course. It is not the first time either that the Council has taken Parliament hostage onother issues. They must stop abusing our trust, because I find that unconscionable.

As for the compromise proposals, the Commission, always disposed to put forwardproposals, is clearly recognisable and I very much welcome that. I just want to say that theAlternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) clause is exactly what we did not want. TheAIFM clause is a paper tiger! Today, according to the OECD, there is no longer anyjurisdiction on their black list. You are in Liechtenstein? You are ‘clean’! You are in theCayman Islands? You are ‘clean’! You are ‘clean’ throughout the world! There are no taxhavens any more. We no longer have to fight against tax havens. It is precisely to avoidthis situation that we want to establish in an article – and not just in recitals – seriousstandards on tax havens.

They must stop making us empty promises just to please us, telling us, ‘Look, we areworking hard to combat tax havens’. This kind of cinema is over.

I would like to thank Ms Auconie and the many shadow rapporteurs who are here. In anyevent, we worked well together, and we intend to continue to do so. It is therefore not justa Green telling you that it is going to be hard if the Council persists, it is the entire Parliamenttelling you.

(Applause)



(The sitting was suspended for a short time)

Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Social enterprise is a theme which maybe very important for addressing mass unemployment - which is one of the EU’s keyproblems - not only in the current crisis but also in the future. Social enterprises areexclusively small and medium-sized enterprises, and their mission reflects a strong emphasison sustainable development, or development that supports the inclusion and resolutionof the EU's social problems. This means that investments in social enterprises should havea greater positive social impact than general investments in small and medium-sizedenterprises.

The aim of the proposed regulation is to create a legislative framework adapted to the needsof social enterprises. It focuses on a clear elucidation of the properties that distinguishsocial enterprise funds from the broader category of alternative investment funds. Onlyfunds that fulfil these characteristics are eligible for resources as social enterprise funds onthe basis of the proposed European framework. It introduces unified requirements for theadministration of entities identified as a European social enterprise fund, for investmentportfolios, investment techniques and the eligible enterprises on which they can focus.Unified rules make it possible to utilise a valid certificate of registration for European socialenterprise funds throughout the EU. Issues of transparency are also resolved. Investments


are directed towards social return or a positive social impact. Funds must be supportedwith corresponding tax rules in the EU. The concept of social enterprises forms part of theprogramme of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left,which therefore supports it.

18. Implementation of the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanismfor bananas of the Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru -Implementation of the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanismfor bananas of the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America(debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on:

– the report (A7-0249/2012) by Bernd Lange on behalf of the Committee on InternationalTrade on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Councilimplementing the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanism for bananasof the Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru(COM(2011)0600 - C7-0307/2011 - 2011/0262(COD)) and

– the report (A7-0237/2012) by Jörg Leichtfried on behalf of the Committee onInternational Trade on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and ofthe Council implementing the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanismfor bananas of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Unionand its Member States on the one hand, and Central America on the other (COM(2011)0599- C7-0306/2011 - 2011/0263(COD)).

Bernd Lange, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thankyou for attending this evening’s sitting, so that we can discuss this matter. This issue isclearly not of interest to everyone in plenary this evening.

With these safeguard regulations we are still feeling our way somewhat in relation to theTreaty of Lisbon, because the roles of the various institutions and where certain things areregulated are still unclear. Thus we now have to incorporate a number of items in thelegislation, by which I mean the ordinary legislation, that have already been included inthe wording of the Treaty and in the Council’s decision, but which were in the wrong place.That is why it is good practice to take a closer look at the overall process of establishingthis safety net for the agreement with Colombia and Peru.

On the one hand, we are placing demands on Colombia and Peru in the agreement andnow we must also see how we can define the requirements that we place on ourselves. Itis also important that the safety net should remain practicable. It makes little sense to setdown regulations that are never applied. This is how things were done in the past. For thisreason, we should exercise the powers we have to dust down the safety net legislation sothat we can apply it in a positive way.

Commissioner, we are concerned about five points. The first is to see what the actual criteriaare for casting a safety net. I am quite convinced that, in order to determine when somethingis having a detrimental effect on the market, we must also address the issue of socialstandards because, of course, the violation of social standards leads to dumping and cangive rise to competitive advantages. Accordingly, this is one of the criteria for applyingsafety nets, particularly in the area of bananas.


Now for my second point. If we are cautious in our approach to the Treaty of Lisbon, thenwe will naturally find ourselves being more and more cautious about the role of theEuropean Parliament. It is fundamental for us that we, like all the other Europeaninstitutions, should have the power to launch an investigation.

My third point is that if we are serious about more transparency, then this also means thatwe must include civil society in our dialogue to a greater extent and that this should beinstitutionalised when we come to examine this agreement with Colombia and Peru. Thatis why I want to strengthen dialogue with civil society. We need more transparency.Commissioner, you always refer to the safeguard regulations with Korea as a template.The problem is that you have forgotten Article 11 of the agreement with Korea when itcomes to the issue of the transparency of monitoring and reporting. I am referring to therequirement that a report must be presented that covers all the different angles, which issomething we want to see guaranteed.

The fifth issue relates to providing security for the banana producers in Europe’s regions.

Jörg Leichtfried, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, the situation and general issues withregard to Central America are similar to those with Peru and Colombia. I therefore verymuch concur in my report with what my colleague said earlier, so I can keep my speech alittle shorter.

I believe that there are two aspects to the discussions currently under way – a technicalaspect and another aspect that is a great deal broader. The technical aspect is relatively easyto explain: the safeguard clause is intended to protect European producers against unfaircompetition as a market is opened up, particularly in those areas close to this new market.We have done our utmost to frame the safeguard clauses so as to enable this to work, butalso in such a way that free trade will be able to function more effectively in the future. Ofcourse there are different opinions on how to achieve this, however I believe that we havefound some good compromises that will help bring things to a resolution.

Then there is a second aspect that is perhaps more philosophical in nature, because itdirectly addresses the fundamental question: should trade policy just be restricted to tradepolicy, or should it go further? This is a question that has always concerned us in ourdiscussions regarding the safeguard clause. I should state that the safeguard clause is justone small element in this agreement with Central America.

However this was also the reason why we said that a safeguard clause must be more thanjust a trade clause. It also needs to try to influence certain other things: the issues of humanrights and social standards, as well as environmental aspects. Some legal opinions statethat such things have no place in a safeguard clause. I believe, however, that they do havea place here and must be included, because such a clause, as Mr Lange has already explained,will protect European jobs and social standards. In order to achieve this, social standards,human rights and work conditions must also be improved in our partner countries.

Of course, the big question that divides us from many of our colleagues is to what extentthese influences should be permitted, representing as they do attempts to intervene inother countries through trade policy. We cannot use trade policy as a way to coerce thegovernments of other countries into action. At best we can try to influence thesegovernments so that they move in the direction we consider to be correct. That is what wehave attempted to do. Of course, people differ on how far this should go. The result is acompromise. I believe it is an acceptable compromise. That is why I also believe that it


makes sense to adopt these safeguard clauses tomorrow. Discussion of the nuts and boltsof the agreement will be more intensive in some areas. With regard to safeguard clauses,however, it must be seen that these are just safeguard clauses and not an entire agreement.

Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, dear colleagues, first of all,allow me to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Lange and Mr Leichtfried for the work they did onthese files.

I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to clarify outstanding issues regardingthe adoption of the Bilateral Safeguard Regulations in the context of the agreements withColombia and Peru and with Central America. As you know, these agreements were signedin June, and Parliament will soon take a decision on them via an assent procedure. Butbefore I go on to explain the importance of adopting these safeguard regulations, let mefirst once again underline the significance of these agreements for the EU and for these twoLatin American regions.

These agreements, between the EU and Colombia and Peru, and between the EU and CentralAmerica, will fundamentally change and upgrade the relationship between the EU andthese two regions. On the trade side, the agreements aim at opening markets for goods,services, government procurement and investment. Tariffs in industrial and fisheriesproducts will be fully eliminated on both sides, while trade in agricultural products will beconsiderably enhanced by substantial tariff concessions. In addition, the agreements willestablish a set of predictable and enforceable trade rules which in many instances go furtherthan the commitments taken in the framework of the WTO.

In short, together with your report, these agreements will give us an improved, stable,predictable and enforceable set of trading conditions under which economic operatorsfrom the EU, Colombia, Peru and Central America will be able to take full advantage of theemerging complementarities between our respective economies. Beyond pure trade flows,let me remind you that these agreements will also improve far-reaching provisionsguaranteeing the protection of human rights as well as commitments on labour rights andenvironmental protection and will foster the promotion of sustainable development.

Let me now move to the specific question of the adoption of the Bilateral SafeguardRegulations.

The objective of these regulations is to provide a safety net for the Union’s industry in casethe tariff liberalisation results in an injurious surge of imports. We need them in order toimplement the safeguard provisions of the agreements. The Commission welcomes theprinciple adopted by the rapporteurs when examining the Commission proposal anddrafting the amendments, namely of following the model of Korea as closely as thespecificities of the agreements allow.

There is also a consensus that the implementing regulations cannot be in conflict with thecommitments undertaken in the agreements and WTO provisions. Here it is importantnot to lose focus. This parliamentary debate on the safeguard regulations is very important,but it should not serve as a framework to re-open questions that have already beenaddressed, such as the need to make these agreements conditional on respect for humanand social rights. As you know, these issues are already covered by the agreements, and inits June 2012 resolution, Parliament already clearly expressed the political line to followand the need for Colombia and Peru to present a roadmap on human labour and


environmental rights. The Commission has taken due note of this resolution and is activelyworking with these countries on it.

To conclude, let me express my wish that the European Parliament, the Council and theCommission will enjoy good cooperation in the trialogues that will soon begin so that allthe conditions will soon be met for Parliament to take a decision on these agreements.

Gabriel Mato Adrover, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and RuralDevelopment. − (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, based on the fact that in my view theagreements with Peru, Colombia and Central America are tremendously damaging forEuropean banana producers, and the Canary Islands in particular, and that the only safetymargin we have left is economic compensation via the Programme of Options SpecificallyRelating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI), which I hope is obtained, I have to expressmy satisfaction, given that these reports have included many of our proposals, which I amgrateful for.

The negotiated safeguard clauses have been improved and the stabilisation mechanism forbananas has been strengthened. There will be greater transparency and exhaustivemonitoring of banana imports into the European Union with prior surveillance measures.

Moreover, and what I believe is an essential point, the Commission shall present an annualreport on how the clause is functioning, which should include an examination of thedevelopment of banana imports and their impact on European production. These are allvery positive elements.

European banana producers, all of which also come from the outermost regions, need helpduring these difficult times. There still some way to go, but this is a very significant step.

Pablo Zalba Bidegain, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner,ladies and gentlemen, the expected adoption of the amendments to the safeguard clauseand the stabilisation mechanism for bananas is a key step towards Parliament adoptingthe two agreements with Central America, Colombia and Peru. Those agreements areessential for the future of the European Union.

These clauses, along with the progress made by Colombia, acknowledged by the politicalresolution adopted by this House on 13 June, as well as the support of the Central Americancountries and Peru for this regulation, should provide the final approval for the ratificationof those agreements. These clauses will allow our producers to progressively adapt to afree-trade framework that will benefit us all.

At a time when the United States and Asian countries are signing free-trade agreementswith American countries, such as the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) orthe agreements between the United States and Colombia and Peru, respectively, we cannotallow the leading trading power in the world, the European Union, to continue to missopportunities. In this sense, I share the concern of the European business sector at the delayin these agreements coming into force.

Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner,Mr Leichtfried, the negotiations on the trade agreement with Colombia, Peru and CentralAmerica and the corresponding stabilisation mechanisms and safeguard clauses have keptmany of us and the Committee on International Trade very busy.

We are in favour of the proposed regulations because they secure a balance between variousdemands, all of them referring back to the principles of free trade, attending to Union


interests, and international trade as a tool for growth and development based onenvironmental sustainability and respect for human rights. In particular, these regulationsare designed to protect European companies and consequently the workers they employ– our farmers – especially those in the outermost regions of the European Union.

The safeguards and stabilisation mechanisms are effective for a limited time only, and webelieve that the time period suggested is long enough for us to adapt our production systemto the liberalisation measures included in the agreements and also for the countries inquestion to increase their exports considerably. That is why we voted in favour.

Catherine Bearder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, when is a hot potatonot a hot potato? Well, when we are talking about the EU free trade agreements withAndean countries, the hot potato, for once, is not human rights but bananas.

As with all trade agreements, we need to ensure that by opening our markets we allowEuropean companies and producers time to adapt to increased competition. I welcomethe safeguard regulations in the FTAs with Colombia and Peru and with Central America,as well as most of the changes introduced by the Committee on International Trade.

However, we have had long and bitter experience with banana wars, so we should be carefulnot to slip on another banana skin by creating further battles. My group, the Liberals andDemocrats, will vote against the amendments which, by sleight of hand, change the bananalimits into automatic quotas.

We need to give the Commission the flexibility to decide, for example, if a surge in bananaimports from Colombia or Costa Rica is harming EU banana producers or if it is simplycompensating for reduced production in other parts of the world. That is not to say thatwe should give the Commission carte blanche. Indeed I strongly endorse the amendmentswhich afford civil society and Parliament a stronger voice, so that the Commission is closelymonitored and the views of ordinary citizens are respected in the whole process.

Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, there are enormoushuman rights problems in Central America, as well as in Peru and Colombia. As Membersof the European Parliament, we cannot simply close our eyes to this fact.

We intend examining the road map for human rights demanded by Parliament in the caseof Columbia and Peru once it has been drawn up. This must have substance and be bindingand must cover initial results, such as the prosecution of criminals and the safe return ofexiles to their country of origin. Naturally, this road map must be in place before we voteon the agreement. We, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, believe it is rightthat the Committee on International Trade should call for environmental and socialstandards in the proposed regulation for the safeguard clauses, rather than just tonnagerestrictions for bananas. This must be confirmed by the trialogue, as otherwise the regulationis worthless.

The EU needs to do a lot more to keep a close eye on the situation at local level and, aboveall, the impact on the local population. That is why the Group of the Greens/EuropeanFree Alliance is also calling for a proper impact assessment prior to all negotiations,examining not only the economic impact on the EU, but also the impact on human rights.

Younous Omarjee, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner,I cannot share the optimism of those who think that the safeguard clauses, as amended,are enough to protect EU banana production. They are not. These clauses have nothing to


do with ‘safeguard’ except the name. Unless the plan is to safeguard wholesale agreementsthat neither the Commission nor the signatory Member States are prepared to questionand do not want to change. These agreements, as you know – and Mr Mato Adrover hasreminded you – are very detrimental to the banana industries of the outermost regions.After all, the mechanisms that activate these banana clauses are such as to becomeinoperable, almost virtual. However, we are now being asked to applaud the illusion ofproduction!

Despite these clauses, the banana industries of the West Indies have been left at the mercyof unfair competition from the exporting industries of Latin America and the blind tradeliberalisation that the Commission wishes to impose. I therefore call on my colleagues tovote in favour of the amendments I have tabled, which provide minimum protection forthe banana industries of the outermost regions and the jobs that depend on them.


Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Omarjee, I take whatyou have to say very seriously because I too always try to achieve as much as possible,particularly when it comes to social conditions and the protection of jobs in Europe andin our partner countries. That is why I would like to ask you: what specific points wouldwe need to include, so that you could vote in favour of these safeguard regulations?

Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Leichtfried,thank you for your speech. I think – and it is the purpose of the amendments I have tabled,which were not adopted by the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and will be putto the vote tomorrow – that there is a problem concerning the activation of the safeguardclauses.

Too much is discretionary. This opinion, which is mine, is also that, I believe, of somemembers of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) as well asbanana professionals.

I think that, in order to activate these safeguard clauses, slightly more binding criteriashould have been introduced. That is the first point.

The second point concerns the (off-microphone). I think there is a problem there, too.

Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the trade agreement with the CentralAmerican countries, Colombia and Peru is a significant agreement and the idea behind thesafeguard clause, with all the amendments we have presented, is for it to be a quick, easyand guaranteed process. We have presented amendments to protect European production,in accordance with the Treaties, and to establish safety mechanisms for both Europeanproduction and production in the countries where the agreement applies.

The outermost regions need protection given the lack of diversification of crops and theeconomic aspect, as a large number of jobs are affected – over 10 000 direct jobs and35 000 indirect jobs in Spain, in a population that has been suffering unemployment –and because of their specific nature. Bananas in the Canary Islands, for example, have avery specific place in agriculture, culture and gastronomy.

The agreement is also required where it will be applied – Central America, Colombia andPeru – given that trade is essential for development, and development means workers’rights, sustainability and profits for the producer.


Patrice Tirolien (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thankour two rapporteurs for the work they have done on this issue.

It was necessary because we started from a very low base with the Commission’s basicproposal: no specific mention of the outermost regions, which are directly affected bycompetition from Latin American countries; no automatic activation of the stabilisationmechanism; no possibility for Parliament to ask for a safeguard investigation to be initiated;non-compliance of social and environmental standards as possibly constituting an unfaircompetitive advantage.

That is why it is extremely important that tomorrow’s vote validates the progress madeon these points in the Committee on International Trade (INTA).

Nonetheless, it is not sufficient, because we know that the activation thresholds for boththese regulations are so high that they render these mechanisms practically inoperable.

Furthermore, the Commission must provide for an additional financial envelope to supportEU banana production. We must bear in mind that numerous jobs are at stake in theseEuropean regions, which already have record unemployment rates.

Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all let me reiterateour appreciation for the rapporteurs and for everybody who has been working on thesefiles.

I will try to give an answer to some specific questions that have been put to me, althoughnot all of them refer to the safeguard mechanism. I was asked where we stand regardingthe human, labour and environmental roadmap that the European Parliament requestedfrom Colombia and Peru in its June 2012 resolution. I am fully aware of the importancethat you, the European Parliament, attach to this roadmap.

The latest information I have is that Colombia has already presented some preliminaryinformation to the rapporteur for the trade agreement, Mário David, and the rapporteurfor the present regulatory safeguards, Bernd Lange, which shows that the country is takingthis exercise very seriously. They should be able to present a full roadmap proposal byearly October. I also understand that the Colombian Deputy Foreign Minister is to meetMr Lange to present his country’s plans.

We have less information on where Peru stands, but the Commission is in regular contactwith them to underline the fundamental importance of this exercise. I understand thatParliament is also in contact with the Peruvian authorities via your rapporteur.

Secondly, on the banana stabilisation mechanism, which would not provide enoughprotection for the outermost regions, let me make a few remarks. I know that the outermostregions are especially vulnerable to a sudden increase in imports. That is the reason whywe have negotiated specific conditions in order to safeguard their interests. These conditionsreflect their particular situation and are based on a model we have previously used. Thisseems to have given them full reassurance in the past and I trust this will be the case hereas well. The special safeguard for the outermost regions will still apply after the transitionperiod has expired, which means after the banana mechanism has been discontinued.

There were also some remarks on how to put it into practice. There I believe it is goodpractice that the Commission has a margin of appreciation. You could have substitutionfor example, as was mentioned in the debate, but we take these things very seriously. It isnot only on bananas that we could get these kinds of safeguard requests from Member


States. For example France has recently made a request to monitor car exports from Koreainto the European market. That is a first step in the safeguard that we would obtain bymonitoring. If we get such a question we duly research it and only take a decision afterhaving considered all elements of the file. So we are very serious about this, not only wherethe major economic interests of the European Union are concerned. For example thisconcerns the economic interests of the outer regions. We will be very scrupulous in doingthis.

Turning briefly to the access to the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, I need to be frank withyou on the issue of compensation. It is unprecedented for the outcome of the internationaltrade negotiations to be compensated as far as the lost market shares for individual productsand farmers are concerned, but I would like to recall that the Commission has made aproposal regarding the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which the co-legislatorsare called to decide upon.

Furthermore, the Commission has already examined the consequences of tariff liberalisationcomparable to the tariff cuts in the current banana agreement in the context of the reformof the banana common market organisation in 2006. To reflect that, the budgetaryallocation for the banana producers in the EU was substantially increased. It would beunsustainable and politically difficult to justify a further increase in the support for thebanana producers. The banana producers in the outer regions are the most supportedproducers in the whole European Union. I can only reiterate that the banana reform, withintegration into POSEI, has already included compensation of up to EUR 279 million peryear, also for the expected future FTA trade deals, including the ones for Colombia, Peruand Central America. You will agree with me that this is quite a lot of money.

Bernd Lange, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wehave a huge amount of work ahead of us in the coming three to four months. In accordancewith Parliament’s decision, we are going to launch a road map for strengthening workers’rights, human rights and environmental conditions in Colombia and Peru, while alsoestablishing a safety net for conditions here in the European Union. Neither of these is aneasy task. Hence my urgent call on you, Commissioner, to support this work in whateverway you can, particularly with regard to the road map and the involvement of thegovernment in Peru, in order to ensure that we establish a road map for Colombia andPeru within a reasonable timeframe. I get the feeling that the message has not been fullyunderstood there and that people are unaware of just how serious Parliament is about itsconditions.

Secondly, Commissioner, I would ask you to please take an active mediator role in relationto the Council in the trialogue on the safeguards, so that we can also implement thesafeguard regulations in a reasonable timeframe to ensure that we have both the road mapand safeguard regulation in place in good time to enable us to vote on this in Novemberand finally put this matter to bed, in the interests of the people of Europe and the peopleof Colombia and Peru.

Jörg Leichtfried, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, this dossier was hard work and tooksome time to complete. I would like to use my speaking time to thank my colleagues fortheir excellent cooperation and interesting contribution to discussions, the staff in thesecretariat who provided sterling support, as well as my personal assistant who wasresponsible for the good work done here. Otherwise I have said all I have to say. Thankyou very much.




19. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was suspended at 22.30)


debates of the european parliament

Documents