SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE
Priekšsēdētāja vietnieks

(Sēde tika atklāta plkst. 9:00.)

  Priekšsēdētājs. – Pirmais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Karin Karlsbro ziņojumu Starptautiskās tirdzniecības komitejas vārdā par priekšlikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes regulai, ar ko izveido Ukrainas aizdevumu sadarbības mehānismu un sniedz ārkārtas makrofinansiālu palīdzību Ukrainai (COM(2024)0426 - C10-0106/2024 - 2024/0234(COD)) (A10-0006/2024).

  Karin Karlsbro, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commission, colleagues, since the first day of Putin's war, it has been clear: one day Russia must pay for the destruction of Ukrainian society and the rebuilding of future Ukraine. But already today, the European Parliament can make it happen – by using the windfall profits from frozen Russian assets, we can send EUR 45 billion to Ukraine and let Russia pay.

The brave Ukrainian people are not only defending their country and territory; what we see is an existential defence of values – for freedom, democracy and for Europe.

The price the Ukrainian people pay for this war cannot be measured in euros or in dollars. Nevertheless, we cannot escape the financial dimension of this war. Ukraine's economy is under huge pressure, and after years of Russian attacks on infrastructure, power plants, cities and villages, schools and hospitals, on houses and homes, we need financial support. The need for financial support is urgent. Our assistance is a question of moral duty and responsibility.

Today's decision here in the European Parliament marks a historic moment. It takes place at a decisive moment for Europe, for Ukraine and for the free world. The EU and the G7 countries, including the US, are now moving forward together with a completely new model of support for Ukraine. This means borrowing funds to a value of EUR 45 billion, in which the EU undertakes to cover up to EUR 35 billion. The repayment of the loan will be financed by the returns from frozen Russian assets in Europe.

This is the first time this strategy is being applied in a structured manner and on such a large scale by lenders across the EU and G7. Not long ago, some said it wouldn't be possible, but today we will show they were wrong. We want to – and we will – make Russia pay and hold them accountable for their aggression and horrendous crimes.

Despite the rapid time frame, we have done our democratic duty in Parliament to scrutinise and vote on this proposal. I want now to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their excellent cooperation in this simplified procedure, in this very urgent situation.

What is happening in Ukraine right now, while we are sitting here, will soon be our common European history. Today, we, the European Parliament, will make Russia pay.

  Janusz Lewandowski, sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej – komisji BUDG. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie komisarzu! Dziś zdajemy kolejny egzamin z europejskiej jedności i solidarności w obliczu agresji wobec Ukrainy. To nie pierwszy i nie ostatni sprawdzian, trudny sprawdzian, bo to jest wyścig z czasem. Amerykański udziałowiec programu miał kłopoty z naszym sześciomiesięcznym cyklem odnawiania sankcji wobec Rosji. Kaskadowa konstrukcja oparta jest na wykorzystaniu odsetek od zamrożonych aktywów rosyjskich.

W mojej ocenie budżetowej, która jest załącznikiem do sprawozdania, zwróciłem uwagę na pewne ryzyka eksploatowania naszego budżetowego headroom przez zobowiązania, których nie przewidziano w ramach finansowych w 2021–2027. Potrzebna była dobra wola wszystkich stron, okazano ją ze strony pani sprawozdawczyni Karin Karlsbro, prezydencji węgierskiej, Komisji, sekretariatu budżetowego. Dlatego zmierzamy do szczęśliwego finału.

  Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to express the Commission's gratitude to the European Parliament for its swift work. In June 2024, leaders committed, together with G7 partners, to provide USD 50 billion or equivalent, EUR 45 billion, all the necessary support by the end of the year to meet Ukraine's military, budget and reconstruction needs. After consultations with G7 partners, the Commission's proposal was submitted one month ago. This file has been taken forward in record speed and I commend you for it. It was very important to go very fast, and thank you for the different efforts that you made to to be sure it was possible to reach the goal today.

The European Union came first with the proposal and with the biggest amount, as Ukraine is a candidate country and belongs to the European Union. We are now at the last stage to get your approval, which will allow for the operationalisation of the proposal by the end of this year, thereby enabling the European Union to proceed with the set-up of the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism and the disbursement of the macro-financial assistance loan to Ukraine.

First of all, let me recall that the European Union and its Member States have been providing strong financing support to Ukraine since the onset of Russia's war of aggression. Our support has reached over EUR 120 billion, including over EUR 25 billion from all previous macro-financial assistance operations. Our support has been a lifeline for Ukraine in order to bolster economic, social, financial and military resilience to withstand Russia's war.

However, additional and urgent financial support is critical for Ukraine. Russia's intensified war on Ukraine and its attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure are having a significant impact on Ukraine's economic and public finances. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the financing gap could reach USD 41.5 billion in 2025, meaning USD 15.6 billion higher than previously anticipated. In light of these challenges, G7 leaders committed in Apulia in June 2024 to provide, as said, a total of approximately USD 50 billion of the so-called extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine. These loans will be repaid by future flows of extraordinary profits stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, known as windfall profits.

I would like to recall that this commitment was followed by the European Council conclusions from 27 June, which invited the Commission, the High Representative and the Council to take this work forward. Following this, the Commission has adopted a regulation to establish the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism and to provide a macro-financial assistance loan to Ukraine. Allow me to briefly summarise the content of this regulation.

First, the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism is an instrument aimed at collecting the windfall profits stemming from the Russian immobilised assets and make them available to Ukraine for the repayments of the loans of the EU and G7 partners, and potentially other countries wishing to join the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans initiative. This means Russia will pay for the damage of the war in Ukraine. And you know that we had two main goals: the fight against impunity on one side, but also the certainty that Russia will pay for the damage caused by the aggression against Ukraine.

Second, the EU's contribution to the G7 agreed ERA initiative will come through an exceptional macro-financial assistance loan of up to EUR 35 billion. Similarly to our previous operations, this MFA loan will be linked to the fulfilment of political preconditions and specific policy conditions to be established under a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine.

At the same time, this MFA loan introduces some innovative features. Let me mention, in particular, the following ones. First, Russia is made accountable for its actions. The loan is not expected to aid on the one who was attacked, but it is paid back by the aggressor. Second, the Commission's proposal provides an authorisation to lend up to EUR 35 billion, with an automatic correction mechanism, should G7 lenders come in with amounts that would take the total exposure over the agreed cap. Later this week, on 25 October, in Washington, G7 partners will announce their contributions. We continue our close engagement with our partners to ensure their contributions for the ERA loan mechanism.

Recognising the novel nature of the proposal, the Commission will provide a statement confirming the need for both a high degree of transparency towards the European Parliament, as well as the disclosure of documentation that will be provided as we proceed with the implementation. This statement will be included in the verbatim record of this debate.

Let me conclude by expressing thanks to both the chair and the rapporteur for the Committee on International Trade, Mr Bernde Lang and Ms Karin Karlsbro. Their efforts over the past months have ensured a swift and efficient process, bringing this proposal to the point where you can now vote on its timely operationalisation. So when we have an urgency, it's possible to react very fast with the European institutions. Thank you very much for that.

Commission statement (in writing)

The European Commission acknowledges the importance of the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism in the Union’s support to Ukraine and the exceptional nature of the macro-financial assistance loan, confirming the need for a high degree of transparency towards the European Parliament and the Council. The European Commission confirms that any decisions or assessments undertaken by the Commission on the basis of Article 5(3), Article 6(4), Article 6(8), Article 7(1), Article 8(3), Article 8(5), Article 11(2), Article 11(5), Article 13(2) and Article 15(1), and any developments concerning the implementation of Article 10(1), will be treated as ‘developments regarding the implementation of this regulation’ as referred to in Article 17(1) and the corresponding documents will be provided by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council without undue delay.

In particular, the European Commission will immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council upon receipt of any information that impacts the amount of the macro-financial assistance. When providing the decisions regarding disbursements of the non-repayable support, the Commission will also inform the European Parliament and the Council of the remaining amount due under the macro-financial assistance loan and how any excess amount for the macro-financial assistance loan as referred to in Article 8(4) has been utilised. The information will be provided on the basis of the most recent available data.

  Sandra Kalniete, PPE grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Komisāra kungs! Godātie kolēģi! Krievija turpina brutālo agresijas karu pret Ukrainu, ar raķetēm un bezpilota lidaparātiem ik dienas graujot valsts enerģijas infrastruktūru un atņemot dzīvību nevainīgiem cilvēkiem. Ukrainai ir vajadzīgs mūsu nelokāmais atbalsts, jo ukraiņu tautai stāv priekšā kara trešā ziema — līdz šim visgrūtākā — jo Krievija ir izpostījusi vairāk nekā pusi valsts enerģijas resursu.

Tāpēc es aicinu visus deputātus balsot par Eiropas Komisijas sagatavoto 35 miljardu eiro lielo makrofinansiālās palīdzības paketi. Šis finansiālais atbalsts ir ļoti svarīgs, lai apmierinātu Ukrainas steidzamās budžeta vajadzības. Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikums paredz izmantot ievērojamo peļņu no iesaldētajiem Krievijas aktīviem, kā arī no dalībvalstu un trešo valstu iemaksām. Šis mehānisms piedāvā Ukrainai finansiālu atbalstu, ko tā var izmantot, lai atmaksātu Eiropas Savienības ārkārtas mikrofinansiālo aizdevumu, kā arī G7 valstu divpusējos aizdevumus.

Balsojot par šo Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu, mēs būtiski atbalstīsim Ukrainas atveseļošanos un izpostītās infrastruktūras atjaunošanu. Krievijas iesaldēto aktīvu izmantošana Ukrainas aizdevumu sadarbības mehānismam ir pareizais signāls Putinam. Krievija ir jāsauc pie atbildības un jāpanāk, lai tā tieši maksātu par savu agresiju un noziegumiem pret Ukrainu. Šodienas balsojums par Ukrainas aizdevumu ir izšķirīgi svarīgs, taču Eiropai ir jādara vēl vairāk. Dalībvalstu līderiem ir jākonfiscē Krievijas iesaldētie aktīvi un tie jāizmanto Ukrainas apbruņošanai un atjaunošanai. Putinam ir jārēķinās ar savas rīcības sekām.

  Brando Benifei, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Parlamento europeo è chiamato a rinnovare concretamente la solidarietà all'Ucraina con il nuovo meccanismo di cooperazione per i prestiti, a cui sono orgoglioso di aver lavorato per conto del mio gruppo politico.

Uno strumento urgente e necessario per sostenere un Paese europeo che si trova sotto l'attacco brutale e ingiustificato della Russia di Putin, che sta intensificando il suo sforzo bellico proprio per distruggere infrastrutture strategiche ed energetiche dell'Ucraina, proprio adesso che l'inverno si avvicina per provocare ulteriore sofferenza a un popolo che lotta per la sua libertà.

Uno strumento giusto, perché i 45 miliardi di aiuti che arriveranno a Kiev saranno finanziati dai profitti derivanti dagli asset sovrani russi congelati, perché il costo del sostegno all'Ucraina deve essere pagato da chi è responsabile per tale devastazione, non dai cittadini europei.

Credo che l'Unione debba tenere quindi aperte tutte le opzioni per garantire il sostegno fattivo alla stabilità finanziaria e alla ricostruzione dell'Ucraina, perché il futuro dell'Europa passa da qui.

  Thierry Mariani, au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, de la visite du président Zelensky à Bruxelles et de son plan pour la victoire il ne restera pas grand chose. Ou plutôt si: 35 milliards d’euros. Oui, 35 milliards d’euros que la Commission veut nous imposer comme un remède miracle pour maintenir en vie un État déjà gangrené, bien avant la guerre, par la corruption et incapable de subvenir aux besoins élémentaires de ses concitoyens.

Retraites, salaires des fonctionnaires, hôpitaux: tout vacille en Ukraine. Et ce n’est pas la première fois, car ces 35 milliards viennent s’ajouter à une montagne de dettes contractées auprès de l’Union européenne: 18 milliards en 2022, 33 milliards en 2023. Évidemment, chacun sait que rien ne sera jamais remboursé. D’autant que cette gabegie financière ressemble de plus en plus pour l’Europe à une aventure en solitaire, puisque Washington n’est plus vraiment certain de vouloir contribuer à cet effort financier massif. Et chacun sait que, si les États-Unis se retirent, c’est que la dette n’est plus soutenable. D’ailleurs, la Cour des comptes européenne ne dit pas autre chose dans son dernier rapport sur l’exercice budgétaire 2023, en qualifiant ces prêts successifs de «risques non négligeables» pour les futurs budgets européens.

Mais vous voulez connaître l’étape suivante? Ces prêts reposent en grande partie sur le gel des actifs russes. Lesquels, si une paix est négociée et que les sanctions sont levées, ne pourront plus servir de garantie. Alors, la bombe à retardement budgétaire sera prête à exploser. Soyez lucides: cet endettement sans garantie ni vision à long terme met en péril l’avenir économique de l’Europe.

Pour Shakespeare, «la mort est une dette que chacun ne peut payer qu’une fois». C’est exactement ce que vivent les Ukrainiens. Il est temps que cette guerre s’arrête.

  Rihards Kols, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, this is a crucial step. Yes, EUR 35 billion to help stabilise a war-torn economy is no small feat. But the goal of this mechanism is not in the plan itself; it is in the implementation.

The aggressor must not only lose, but also pay. Using immobilised Russian assets as collateral is a bold statement – one that Russia should pay attention to. And now, with this mechanism in place, we must create a framework for seizing frozen Russian assets and impose sanctions – not every 6 months, but until Russia withdraws from Ukraine entirely and pays reparations.

We must not only provide financial help, but also confront the international dynamics that threaten Ukraine's sovereignty. At this time, Ukraine faces two nuclear powers as the warring parties on its soil. Reagan warned us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We must safeguard Ukraine's freedom today, or we shall spend our lives recounting stories about what it was like when the nations were free.

  Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, aujourd’hui nous devons réaffirmer notre engagement envers l’Ukraine, une nation qui lutte pour sa souveraineté et pour les valeurs démocratiques qui nous unissent. La guerre injuste menée par Moscou menace plus que la paix: elle menace la stabilité en Europe et remet en question l’ordre international.

L’aide macrofinancière que nous proposons ne se limite pas à n’être qu’une assistance économique. Elle constitue une réponse résolue à l’agression russe, un signal clair de notre volonté de soutenir l’Ukraine. Financer cette aide avec les avoirs russes gelés constitue une démarche juste, permettant d’utiliser les ressources de ceux, agresseurs, qui ont provoqué ce conflit pour en atténuer les conséquences.

En soutenant cette mesure, nous investissons pour l’avenir de l’Ukraine, une Ukraine libre et prospère, tout en renforçant notre propre sécurité européenne. Ne laissons pas la fatigue de la guerre éroder notre détermination. Le peuple ukrainien compte sur nous, et nous devons être à la hauteur de son courage et de sa détermination.

  Markéta Gregorová, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, honourable Members, we stand here today not just to discuss a financial transaction, but to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the people of Ukraine.

This is not a traditional MFA package; it is an extraordinary initiative. It is not just an act of solidarity; it is an urgent necessity. Without this assistance, Ukraine's fiscal stability – and therefore its ability to resist Russia's aggression – will be gravely jeopardised. This funding will help Ukraine balance its fiscal sheets, ensuring the country remains functional in the face of war.

Let me remind you that this MFA, like all others, comes with the usual preconditions: respect for democratic institutions, the rule of law and human rights. However, we recognise that Ukraine is in an extraordinary situation. We do not seek to impose further sectoral conditionalities. Instead, we must acknowledge their ongoing adherence to the IMF programme and the conditionalities of previous MFAs.

I especially appreciate the new mechanism that has been developed to support the repayment of the Ukrainian debt. Extraordinary profits from frozen Russian assets, totalling around EUR 210 billion in the EU, are generating yearly returns of up to EUR 3 billion. This revenue, which is neither sovereign nor belongs to the Central Bank of Russia, can help ensure Ukraine's repayment obligations and that they are manageable.

Our support for Ukraine is not just about financial assistance. It is about standing by a nation fighting for its very existence. By voting in favour of this MFA, we send a clear message: Europe will not allow Ukraine to fall, and we will continue to support their fight for democracy and sovereignty.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, lorsque des frontières sont violées, lorsque le droit international est bafoué, il n’y a pas à hésiter. Il faut se tenir du côté de l’agressé et défendre le retour à la paix. C’est le sens de cette aide accordée à l’Ukraine, financée par des avoirs russes gelés, que nous soutenons.

Mais permettez-moi, chers collègues, de faire trois remarques. Tout d’abord, je note que notre volonté commune de venir en aide aux peuples bombardés vaut pour les Ukrainiens, mais pas pour les Gazaouis. Comment expliquez-vous que vous puissiez débloquer des milliards pour l’Ukraine, mais pas pour Gaza? Le droit international ne saurait souffrir cet insupportable «deux poids, deux mesures», et tous les crimes de guerre doivent être condamnés, que le criminel s’appelle Vladimir Poutine ou Benyamin Netanyahou.

Deuxièmement: oui, il est utile d’utiliser les intérêts des avoirs russes et de faire payer les belligérants pour aider l’Ukraine, mais pourquoi imposer à l’Ukraine des contreparties économiques? On ne peut pas demander aux Ukrainiens d’appliquer des réformes austéritaires libérales alors que le pays est brutalisé par la guerre. Cela n’a aucun sens, et c’est d’autant plus hypocrite que vous continuez à subventionner en parallèle les oligarques russes et Poutine en continuant d’acheter leur gaz. À quoi sert alors de prendre d’une main ce que l’on donne de l’autre?

Enfin, il faut aussi mettre sur la table le sujet de la dette ukrainienne. Elle doit être restructurée et partiellement annulée pour permettre au pays de remonter la pente. Pourquoi, alors, le refusez-vous systématiquement à chaque fois que nous le proposons? C’est la priorité aujourd’hui: desserrer l’étau pour permettre ensuite au peuple ukrainien de se reconstruire une fois la paix revenue. Une méthode que nous ferions bien d’appliquer à tous les théâtres de guerre de par le monde.

  Milan Uhrík, za skupinu ESN. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, máme tu zase ďalších 35 miliárd pre Ukrajinu. Zase Európania: plaťte, plaťte a zase plaťte. Pán komisár, hovoríte, že Európska únia podporuje len projekty, ktoré spĺňajú európske demokratické hodnoty. Povedzte mi, prosím Vás, aké hodnoty spĺňa tá súčasná ukrajinská vláda? Veď to je opak demokracie. Najskorumpovanejší režim v Európe - je to tak -, ktorý zrušil voľby, zrušil opozíciu, zakázal nezávislé médiá a práva menšín, a napriek tomu sa tam neustále posielajú ďalšie a ďalšie peniaze. Slovenská vláda, slovenský premiér nedávno oznámil, že Slovensko pripravuje balík finančnej pomoci pre Ukrajinu. Presne v čase, kedy vláda oznámila najväčšie zdražovanie pre Slovákov. A presne v čase, kedy ukrajinský premiér v ten istý deň povedal Slovákom, že od nového roka zastavujú pre Slovensko dodávky ruského plynu. Akože čo je toto? Čo toto má znamenať? A nikto nič. Všetci si tu sedíme a všetci sa tvárime, že všetko je v poriadku, a donekonečna sa tam len posielajú peniaze, ktoré nikto nekontroluje. Toto už skutočne, kolegovia, musí prestať a tá vojna už musí skončiť.

  Jörgen Warborn (PPE). – Herr talman! Jag tror att vi alla kan vara överens om att Rysslands oprovocerade och omotiverade aggression mot Ukraina inte på något sätt avtar, och att en bitter vinter väntar för Ukrainas medborgare.

Samtidigt som levnadsförhållandena inte förväntas bli bättre ökar landets finansieringsgap till över 40 miljarder dollar år 2025. Då måste vi i EU använda alla tänkbara sätt för att stödja Ukraina. Det här föreslagna makroekonomiska stödet kommer att lindra de ekonomiska påfrestningarna och stärka den finansiella stabilitet som landet så väl behöver. Det är en viktig samarbetsinsats med de övriga G7-länderna.

Tiden är av yttersta vikt här. EU måste visa ledarskap och anta det här förslaget omgående, så att en smidig utbetalning av de här lånen kan ske före årets slut. De oroväckande attackerna och det mänskliga lidandet kommer inte att upphöra. Vi måste agera nu. Ukraina kan räkna med Moderaterna och EPP:s orubbliga stöd.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Erst einmal, Herr Kommissar, herzlichen Dank für die freundlichen Worte, dass wir schnell gehandelt haben im Handelsausschuss und im Parlament insgesamt.

Ich glaube, das zeigt auch noch einmal sehr deutlich, dass wir in der Lage sind, ohne auf Artikel 122 oder auf Dringlichkeitsverfahren zurückzugreifen, schnell und klar zu handeln, wenn es notwendig ist. Und in diesem Fall ist es wirklich notwendig, dass wir den Haushalt der Ukraine stabilisieren, damit die wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeiten und die Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten gesichert bleiben. Wir haben versprochen, insgesamt 45 Milliarden Euro auf den Tisch zu legen. Gerade hat Großbritannien noch einmal erklärt, sie werden mit 2,2 Milliarden dabei sein. Ich hoffe auch, dass die Vereinigten Staaten bei ihren Verpflichtungen bleiben.

Wir brauchen die Unterstützung, weil es nicht sein kann, dass ein souveräner Staat in der Europäischen Union durch eine Aggression Russlands unter Druck kommt und leiden muss. Wir sind hier solidarisch.

  Tomasz Buczek (NI). – Szanowni Państwo! Polska uczyniła już wiele dla Ukrainy. Po wybuchu wojny przyjęliśmy do naszych domów prawdziwych uchodźców wojennych. Daliśmy im takie same świadczenia socjalne, jakie otrzymywali nasi rodacy. Dostali dostęp do polskiej opieki medycznej na takich samych prawach jak obywatele Unii Europejskiej. Z zasobów naszej armii przekazaliśmy między innymi czołgi i samoloty bojowe warte miliardy euro. Nie oczekiwaliśmy w zamian nic prócz zwykłej uczciwości wobec prawdy historycznej. Nie dostaliśmy nawet tego.

Na skutek błędnej polityki Unii Europejskiej otrzymaliśmy w zamian destabilizację polskiego rynku rolnego, nieuczciwą konkurencję wobec polskich transportowców i – to, co najbardziej boli – dalszą blokadę ekshumacji i godnego pochówku dla moich rodaków zamordowanych przez ukraińskich szowinistów na Wołyniu.

Ukraina traktowana jest dzisiaj przez Unię Europejską na równi z państwami członkowskimi zawsze wtedy, gdy chodzi o udzielenie jej pomocy. Natomiast normy i wymogi dotyczące produkcji rolnej czy ratowania klimatu Ukrainy już nie obowiązują. Chętniej byśmy pomagali Ukrainie i byłoby nam łatwiej to czynić, gdyby nasze rolnictwo i nasz przemysł miały takie same warunki funkcjonowania jak firmy i gospodarstwa rolne na Ukrainie, które nie muszą ponosić kosztów chorej polityki klimatycznej Unii Europejskiej. Oczekujemy takich samych zasad dla Polski, jakie posiadają na rynku unijnym...

(Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)

  Michał Dworczyk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni państwo! Od 2014 roku, czyli od zajęcia przez Rosję Krymu i części Donbasu, Ukraina mierzy się z rosyjską agresją. Przez większość tego okresu państwa zachodnie – przede wszystkim Niemcy, ale nie tylko – ponad głową Ukrainy i państw regionu prowadziły lukratywne interesy z Rosją, zasilając miliardami euro rosyjski budżet. Niedługo minie tysiąc dni od pełnoskalowej agresji. Co prawda gaz Gazociągiem Północnym już nie płynie, ale kolejne sankcje są nakładane na Federację Rosyjską. Ale wciąż mamy do czynienia z grą pozorów. Jesteśmy zbyt mało zdecydowani i to nie pozwala Ukrainie wygrać.

Oczywiście popieram mechanizm pożyczkowy z zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów, natomiast budzi sprzeciw propozycja udzielenia przez Unię Europejską Ukrainie pożyczki z regresem. Uważam także, iż stabilność mechanizmowi zapewniłoby automatyczne przedłużenie sankcji, dopóki Rosja nie zaprzestanie łamania prawa międzynarodowego.

Ukraina potrzebuje naszego wsparcia bardziej niż kiedykolwiek. Nowe formaty normandzkie, gdzie przy stole nie ma miejsca dla przedstawicieli regionu, o którego przyszłość toczy się ta gra, z pewnością nie są krokiem we właściwym kierunku.

  Lucia Yar (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, to, čo Putin Ukrajincom zničil, máme teraz možnosť obnoviť z ruských peňazí a tak je to správne. Kremeľ už takmer 1000 dní bombarduje ukrajinských civilistov, nemocnice a školy. Je načase, aby za to zaplatil, a to doslova - prostredníctvom výnosov zo zmrazených ruských aktív. Hoci my v Európskej únii Ukrajine pomáhame, stále nie sme dôslední. Ruským oligarchom sme dovolili užívať si jachty, dali sme im diplomy z elitných škôl, predávali im luxusné nehnuteľnosti, kabelky, ale čo je horšie, prižmurujeme oči, keď európske firmy obchádzajú sankcie alebo keď nakupujú plyn z tretích krajín, ktoré ho majú za lacný peniaz z Kremľa. A aj preto vojna na Ukrajine pokračuje ďalej. My ani zďaleka nemáme právo byť z vojny na Ukrajine unavení. Pozrite sa na Ukrajincov. Oni vedú spravodlivý boj a bojujú aj za nás. Naša zásadovosť im pomôže vyhrať.

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I am very happy and proud we are now approving the EUR 35 billion for Ukraine via the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism. Russia needs to pay. Russia needs to pay for the reconstruction. Russia needs to pay for bombing children and hospitals and electricity plants. And I'm happy we're making the invader pay because – although it's still hard for some to understand – Russia is the invader.

But colleagues, it's also part of the truth that Orbán is again stopping a more long‑term solution within the Ukraine Facility that we just approved a couple of months ago, and that he's stopping EUR 10 billion from the US, by not allowing the extension of the freezing of Russian assets. So for all those from the far left and the far right who were clapping here two weeks ago for Orbán, who was sitting here, we have to be aware that you're on the side of North Korea now that is trying to help Russia invade. You're on the side of Putin. You're on the side of the guy who is using Russian interests within the European Council. And we need to wake up. We need to make Russia pay and Ukraine win.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  András László (PfE), blue-card question. – Why are you saying all these lies? Why are you pretending that a country of 10 million is somehow blocking or making a major difference in this issue? The situation is: European countries, including Hungary, gave what they could to Ukraine at the beginning of the war. Afterwards, the EU gave money to Ukraine. Then it was joint debt. Now it's joint debt based on Russian assets.

Do you think, really, a country of 10 million will be blocking or determining the fate of Ukraine? That's ludicrous. And what do you think about your Chancellor – you're in government in Germany in coalition – who's also saying that you should be talking with Putin and discussing peace negotiations? Why don't you comment on that?

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thanks a lot for asking, because I was here and I negotiated the Ukraine Facility and the EUR 50 billion we had there, and I did see Orbán trying to block that and only being bought by EUR 10 billion that we had to unblock here in the European Union. That was already blackmail, and he has been doing this a long time. Now again, yes, he is blocking. You can ask him. He's currently blocking the extension of the freezing of Russian assets, which makes it impossible for the US Senate, or at least the President, to unlock 10 billion. So I'm not making this up; this is not lies. You have a problem with Orbán in Hungary and we need to solve it. I think we need to take the veto away.

  President. – Thank you very much, colleagues, we can have different views, and let's keep this democratic principle in this House, as long as it's not breaking the rules.

  Hans Neuhoff (ESN). – Herr Präsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Ukrainekrieg ist weithin unverstanden, auch und gerade in diesem Haus. Der große US-Stratege polnischer Herkunft, Zbigniew Brzeziński, hat in seinem 1997 erschienenen Meisterwerk „The Grand Chessboard“ das verkümmerte geopolitische Bewusstsein der Europäer mit gnadenloser Schärfe beschrieben: Tributpflichtige Vasallen, so Brzeziński, übernehmen sie willfährig das Denken ihres Herrn. Und so wollten die Europäer nicht begreifen, dass der Ukrainekrieg hätte verhindert werden können, wenn sie, die Europäer, von Anfang an klargestellt hätten, dass eine Aufnahme der Ukraine in die NATO für sie nicht infrage kommt.

Wir treffen eine falsche Entscheidung nach der anderen, zum Schaden aller, die den eurasischen Kontinent bewohnen. Wenn das Parlament heute die Einrichtung des Kooperationsmechanismus bei Ukraine-Darlehen beschließt, dann treibt es nicht nur die Ukraine noch tiefer in einen Konflikt hinein, den diese nur verlieren kann. Wir schaden uns vielmehr auch selbst, indem wir gegen den römischen Rechtsgrundsatz des usus fructus verstoßen und als einziger großer Wirtschaftsraum der Welt verkünden, dass die Früchte aus Einlagen ohne Zustimmung des Eigentümers einer anderweitigen Verwendung zugeführt werden können. Wenn man ausländische Investoren, namentlich auch aus den BRICS+-Staaten, abschrecken will, in der EU ihr Geld anzulegen, dann tut man es genau so.

Ja, der Ukraine muss geholfen werden. Was die Ukraine braucht, ist ein Waffenstillstand als Grundlage von Friedensverhandlungen. Was Europa braucht, ist eine gesamteuropäische neue Friedensordnung. Was Europa braucht, ist ein neuer ...

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Fabio De Masi (NI). – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich fasse die bisherige Debatte zusammen. Erstens: Kredite für den Schuldendienst der Ukraine bei den G7-Staaten und die Fortsetzung eines endlosen Krieges und somit die Zerstörung der Infrastruktur sind gut. Zweitens: Kredite für zivile Investitionen und den Aufbau der Infrastruktur in Europa sind schlecht. Diese Verrücktheit wird Europa wirtschaftlich weiter abhängen.

Während die EU Kredite für den endlosen Stellvertreterkrieg aufnehmen will, soll Frankreich etwa seinen Haushalt um 110 Milliarden Euro kürzen. Mario Draghi empfahl jedoch, die Investitionen in der EU um 800 Milliarden Euro zu erhöhen. Währenddessen ist die Ukraine von Korruption zerfressen. Es wird darauf bestanden, dass sie weitere staatliche Betriebe privatisiert und langfristig zu einer wirtschaftlichen Kolonie wird.

Die EU hat keine Strategie, um den völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg in der Ukraine zu beenden. Das Parlament fordert weitreichende Waffen – gegen die Linie des US-Präsidenten und des deutschen Bundeskanzlers. Radikale Phrasen über einen vollständigen Sieg über die Atommacht Russland sind weltfremd. Die EU spielt bei der brasilianisch-chinesischen Friedensinitiative, die von der Schweiz unterstützt wird, keine Rolle. Den Preis zahlen die Ukrainer: Das Land ist zerstört, über eine Million Menschen sind tot, zurück bleiben Alte und Verletzte.

Die Ukraine muss aufgebaut werden, aber dafür braucht es eine realistische Strategie mit Sicherheitsgarantien und einer neutralen Ukraine. Wenn Donald Trump die US-Wahlen gewinnt, wird er uns ein kaputtes Land vor die Füße kehren.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we need to say the truth. There is only one responsible for the suffering, for the damage caused to Ukraine and to the people of Ukraine, and that is the aggressor, that is the Russian Federation, and the job of the European Parliament is to be united against this.

Today we have the opportunity to prove our commitment to the people of Ukraine. Establishing this loan cooperation mechanism is a win for Ukraine, and it is also a win for Europe. It means that we put to good use Russia's frozen assets. They have to contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. The aggressor needs to pay for the damage that he has created.

We, the European Union, have proven that we are a strong supporter of Ukraine. We stand firm financially, militarily, because we understand that helping Ukraine is the right thing to do, but it also means that we are helping and contributing to the security of the European Union.

My call to you today is: let's make sure that Ukraine has all it needs to defend itself and to win this war. I am not afraid of Putin losing this war; I'm more afraid of Putin eventually winning this war.

By supporting Ukraine, we are investing in our own security. What Russia is doing today in Ukraine is an attack upon the whole free world. We cannot let Russia win. We must continue supporting Ukraine and defending our democracy.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. formand! I snart tre år har ukrainerne kæmpet for deres land og for deres frihed. Men de har også kæmpet for europæiske værdier, for vores fred og vores frihed. Ukraine udgør lige nu et fysisk bolværk imod Putins aggression. Det mindste, vi kan gøre, det er da at støtte og styrke ukrainernes kamp, militært, civilt, økonomisk. Derfor er det en vigtig beslutning, vi skal stemme om i morgen. Det er dyrt at føre krig. Nu giver vi i fællesskab Ukraine en ekstra økonomisk håndsrækning, den er vigtigt. Denne lånemekanisme kan hjælpe dem til at føre krigen videre. Den er så vigtig. Og finansieringen, den kommer af renteindtægterne fra indefrosne russiske midler. På den måde er russerne selv med til at finansiere Ukraines krigsøkonomi. Det, synes jeg, er ret smart. Jeg håber, I vil støtte lånet i morgen, når vi skal stemme om det. Det er utrolig vigtigt for Ukraine. Det er utroligt vigtigt også for vores frihed. Og så er det utrolig solidarisk.

  Petra Steger (PfE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Ich sage es klar und deutlich: Es muss endlich Schluss sein! Mit diesem Satz spreche ich nicht nur für die europäischen Bürger, sondern auch für die zigtausenden Ukrainer, die seit Beginn dieses abscheulichen Krieges ihr Leben verloren haben.

Es muss endlich Schluss sein mit dieser Eskalationsstrategie, mit immer mehr Waffen, Sanktionen und Milliardenzahlungen. Wenn Sie so weitermachen, steuern Sie Europa geradeaus in den Krieg. Ich frage mich ja immer: Was ist aus dem angeblichen Friedensprojekt der Europäischen Union geworden? Was ist mit den Interessen der europäischen Bürger? Was ist mit der Solidarität gegenüber der eigenen Bevölkerung?

Bei uns fehlt es mittlerweile an allen Ecken und Enden. Mehr als zwei Jahre unterstützen Sie jetzt schon bedingungslos die Ukraine. Keine einzige Friedensinitiative! Die Friedensaktivisten von gestern sind die Kriegsaktivisten von heute geworden. Dieses 35-Milliarden-Paket ist der nächste Schritt eines sich ständig steigernden Eskalationsprozesses. Ich frage Sie: Wohin soll das noch führen?

Zu glauben, dass ein Krieg rasch zu Ende geht, wenn man immer mehr Waffen produziert und Geld liefert, ist hanebüchen und verantwortungslos. Wenn die EU ihre Strategie nicht endlich ändert, wird es nur Verlierer geben. Es wird keine Lösung auf dem Schlachtfeld geben. Das, was es jetzt braucht, ist Mut. Mut für Diplomatie, Mut für Gespräche und Mut für Frieden anstatt immer weitere Milliardenpakete.

  Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s, de Russische invasie bedreigt niet alleen de soevereiniteit van Oekraïne, maar ook de fundamenten van onze Europese waarden. Laten we er geen doekjes om winden: denk aan de recente onthullingen over de samenwerking tussen Rusland en Noord-Korea. Noord-Koreaanse troepen zouden de facto de intrede van China in dit conflict betekenen.

Onze voortdurende steun is absoluut noodzakelijk. We moeten Oekraïne niet alleen voorzien van humanitaire en financiële hulp, maar ook de Oekraïense defensie-industrie ondersteunen, zoals Denemarken recentelijk actief deed. Door deze sector te versterken, kunnen we Oekraïne helpen zichzelf te verdedigen en onze gezamenlijke veiligheid te waarborgen.

Investeren in de Oekraïense defensie-industrie zou meer betekenen dan alleen maar wapens en materieel. Het zou uiteraard de economie stimuleren, de tewerkstelling bevorderen en ook aanleiding geven tot innovaties die ook voor de Europese markt interessant zouden zijn. Bovendien vermindert het de afhankelijkheid van externe leveranciers. Door Oekraïne te ondersteunen, verdedigen we niet alleen hun vrijheid, maar ook de onze.

  Dan Barna (Renew). – Domnule președinte, mecanismul de împrumut pentru Ucraina, pe care îl vom vota în această plenară este un pas extrem de important pe care Europa îl face atât în susținerea Kievului, dar și în procesul de a trage la răspundere un regim dictatorial.

De la începutul invaziei ilegale a lui Vladimir Putin în Ucraina, am auzit des vorbele: „Rusia trebuie să plătească!” Acest mecanism este cu adevărat o notă de plată dată Kremlinului. Am auzit vocile extremei drepte în acest parlament, spunând despre reconstrucția Ucrainei, dar nu spun cine a distrus Ucraina, cine este responsabil de distrugerea acestei Ucraine.

Vladimir Putin a utilizat profiturile generate de activele rusești imobilizate pentru a susține financiar Ucraina. Este un gest de responsabilitate și moralitate atât din partea Europei, cât și din partea comunității G7. Vreau să spun însă ferm că acesta trebuie să fie doar un prim pas. Uniunea Europeană contribuie acum cu 35 de miliarde de euro prin acest mecanism, dar valoarea totală a activelor rusești imobilizate în Europa este de peste 210 miliarde. Dintre acestea, 190 de miliarde sunt imobilizate doar în Belgia. Cer răspicat Comisiei Europene și Consiliului European să formuleze și să aprobe instrumente legale pentru ca toate aceste fonduri să fie folosite la reconstrucția Ucrainei. Când un barbar ne atacă cu ghioaga, nu ne putem apăra cu uneltele unui stomatolog. Rusia trebuie să plătească (...)

(Președintele a retras cuvântul vorbitorului)

  Рада Лайкова (ESN). – Уважаеми граждани на Европейския съюз, през цялата година Европейският съюз се опитваше отчаяно да използва замразените руски средства или техните лихви, за да създаде някакъв вид фонд за Украйна. Това обаче постоянно се проваляше, тъй като схемите изглеждаха крайно съмнителни и дори наподобяваха кражба на руски средства.

Сега Европейският съюз иска да вземе заем, а откраднатите лихви да се използват за погасяване на заеми в бъдеще. Но първо, тези средства никога няма да помогнат на украинските граждани. Те служат само за покриване на дупки в украинския бюджет като кредитна карта, използвана за погасяване на други кредитни карти.

Второ, тази кражба на руски средства може да доведе до ответни действия от страна на Русия, като например конфискация на активи на европейски компании в Русия. И трето, може би най-лошото, това изпраща ужасяващ сигнал. За първи път Европейският съюз не само присвоява средства на свои граждани, но и чужди средства. Правно това е изключително рисковано и ще отблъсне чуждестранни инвестиции в Европейския съюз, защото вие бихте ли инвестирали при един крадец?

(Ораторът приема да отговори на няколко въпроса „синя карта“)

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE), blue-card question. – The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly have established that these are legitimate countermeasures because the Russian Federation has breached international law. Something similar has been done in the case of Kuwait; also, it has been a breach of international law. So what was the problem to respect the international law? I think that is the key question. Why is it so difficult also to respect the will of the Ukrainian people? You say you are sovereigntist. So why not respect the will of the Ukrainian people to be part of the West?

  Рада Лайкова (ESN), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Както вече казах, тези руски средства изключително трудно могат да бъдат оправдани по един правен начин и Европейският съюз цяла година се опитваше да намери механизъм, чрез който да оправдае това присвояване на чужди средства. Също така е важно да си припомним докладите и доклада на Драги, който говори за рязко намаляване на чуждестранни инвестиции. И следващият път, когато прочетете за едно такова рязко намаляване, си спомнете дали някой би инвестирал в Съюз, който се държи като крадец.

  Rihards Kols (ECR), blue-card question. – Just a very simple question. So you said that the budget financing is something that is governments' and not people's. How is your country when your government approves the budget? Is the budget that you see only for governments and not for the citizens? Or did I get it wrong, what you said about Ukraine – that the money's not going to the Ukrainian citizens?

  Рада Лайкова (ESN), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Това, което казах по отношение на ползата за украинските граждани е изключително просто. Всички знаем, че тези средства на първо време ще отидат за погасяване на кредити по други кредити, след това ще отидат за запълване на дупки в украинския бюджет. Всички знаем, че в този проект Украйна в момента отчаяно трябва да се инвестират европейски средства, защото други държави като САЩ вече не желаят да инвестират там. Тези средства ще отидат не за украинските граждани, а за погасяване на дупки в бюджета.

  Ľuboš Blaha (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, zmrazenie ruského majetku je krádež, doslova lúpež. Môžete si tu hľadať tisíce výhovoriek, ale ak niekomu ukradnete majetok, a vy ste Rusom ukradli ich majetok, tak to robíte to, čo robia zlodeji. A ja to absolútne odmietam. Navyše, pýtam sa, či ste mali potrebu kradnúť cudzie majetky, keď Spojené štáty americké viedli nevyprovokovanú agresívnu vojnu proti Iraku? Kradli ste majetky Američanov, keď NATO bombardovalo Belehrad a keď protiprávne odtrhlo Kosovo od Srbska? A pýtam sa, aj dnes budete kradnúť majetky Izraelčanov za to, že páchajú genocídu na palestínskom národe? Prosím, spamätajte sa a prestaňte liať miliardy a zbrane do Ukrajiny. Miliardy potrebujú chudobní Európania, tak prestaňte dookola riešiť len Ukrajincov. Je to nefér voči našim vlastným občanom. Tie vaše sankcie proti Rusku nefungujú. Bol som pred pár dňami v Moskve a videl som na vlastné oči, ako Rusko prekvitá. Jediné, čo môže priniesť mier, je dialóg s Ruskom. Nie krádeže, nie zbrane, nie ďalší mŕtvi Ukrajinci, ale dialóg a rešpekt. A ja budem do Ruska chodiť aj naďalej, lebo na rozdiel od vás neverím vo vojnu, ale verím rovnako ako Slováci v mier.

(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na viaceré otázky položené zdvihnutím modrej karty)

  Maria Grapini (S&D), întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Domnule, ați spus că confiscarea activelor Rusiei este un furt. Dacă casa dumneavoastră ar fi dărâmată de un oarecare, ați vrea să vă recuperați activul? Ați vrea să fie blocate veniturile celui care v-a ... (Președintele a întrerupt vorbitoarea) Ați spus că activele Rusiei au fost furate de Uniunea Europeană. Vă întreb, dacă casa dumneavoastră ar fi dărâmată de un oarecare, așa, peste noapte, ați dori să vă recuperați casa? Ați dori să fie blocate veniturile individului sau, mă rog, celui care v-a dărâmat casa?

  Ľuboš Blaha (NI), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, ďakujem pekne za otázku, ale nepočul som preklad presne, ale trvám na tom, že áno, ide o krádež, pokiaľ kradneme ruské majetky, a som presvedčený, že jediný spôsob, ako zabezpečiť, aby Ukrajinci neumierali, je prestať s expanziou NATO prestať s rusofóbiou, prestať s nenávisťou proti ruskému národu. A presne toto chceme my, Slováci, dialóg s ruskou stranou, a áno, k tomu patrí aj vďaka za to, že nás oslobodili od fašizmu v druhej svetovej vojne, a patrí k tomu, áno, aj ospravedlnenie za to, že tu prijímame rasistické, militaristické a nenávistné deklarácie.

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D), pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, aš paklausiu Jūsų lietuviškai. Jūs sakėte, kad buvote Maskvoje ir matėte žydinčią Rusiją. Tai klausimas, ar buvote Putino viloje ir ten matėte tą žydinčią Rusiją? Ar iš tiesų Jūs suvokiate, kur Jūs buvote?

  Ľuboš Blaha (NI), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážený pán poslanec, bol som na 80. výročí Univerzity MGIMO, svetoslávnej diplomatickej škole, a prednášal som veľmi múdrym a šikovným ruským, slovenským a ďalším študentom z celého sveta. Chodil som po Moskve, bol som dokonca v obchodoch a neuveríte, majú tam práčky. Tvrdili tu západní propagandisti, vraj ich kradnú na ukrajinskom fronte. Nie, oni tam majú aj práčky, aj chladničky, aj autá. Majú tam všetko. Troj a pol percentný rast očakáva ruská strana. Tento rok nemecká ekonomika klesne o 0,2 percenta. Tak sa pýtam, v koho záujme sú tieto sankcie - v záujme Ruska alebo v záujme Európy? Pán kolega, ste veľmi, ale veľmi pomýlený.

  Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, desde la invasión de Putin, Ucrania ha perdido el 30 % del PIB. El coste de la reconstrucción del país se aproxima ya a los 500 000 millones de dólares, una cifra que, lamentablemente, aumenta cada día.

Para hacer frente al drama humanitario y evitar el colapso de Ucrania, mañana votaremos un paquete de asistencia financiera a Kiev de hasta 35 000 millones de euros: una factura de miles de millones de euros con cargo no a los ciudadanos europeos, sino a Vladimir Putin, al responsable de la invasión y de la devastación de Ucrania.

Y es que hemos logrado canalizar, en favor de Ucrania, los activos rusos congelados, valorados en más de 200 000 millones de euros. Y así lo hemos acordado con los Estados Unidos y el resto de socios del G7.

El camino hacia la victoria de Ucrania y su reconstrucción requerirán de un esfuerzo titánico por parte de todos; también por nuestra parte, la de los europeos. Pero, no lo olvidemos, el principal financiador de la reconstrucción debe seguir siendo Vladimir Putin: el responsable.

  Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Kriget i Ukraina pågår här och nu. När vi möts här i dag faller bomber och raketer över oskyldiga – över kvinnor och barn i deras egna hem. Det ukrainska folket lider men kämpar för sin frihet och vi, vi måste fortsätta göra allt för att öka stödet till Ukraina: ekonomiskt, militärt och humanitärt.

Vi måste också få stopp på den ryska gasen. Den är fossil, och den göder Putins krigskassa. Jag vill också att vi använder de frysta ryska tillgångarna till mer hjälp åt Ukraina, och jag hoppas innerligt att vi står eniga i vårt stöd här i morgon.

Det ukrainska folkets kamp är också en kamp för vår fred och frihet. Vi ska stå i solidaritet med det ukrainska folket. Slava Ukraini.

(Talaren godtog en fråga ("blått kort").)

  Dick Erixon (ECR), fråga ("blått kort"). – Jag välkomnar socialdemokratins stöd till att skicka vapen till Ukraina. Men det är oroande att er samarbetspartner Miljöpartiet nu, enligt Sveriges Radio, kritiserar Polen när det stoppar Rysslands hybridkrigföring med migranter över gränsen från Belarus. Är det inte allvarligt att Miljöpartiet springer Putins ärenden?

  Heléne Fritzon (S&D), svar ("blått kort"). – Herr talman! Mitt svar till Dick Erixon, som representerar Sverigedemokraterna från Sverige och de högerextrema partigrupperingarna här i parlamentet, är att jag är mer orolig för era partiers kontakter med Ryssland och närhet till Putin, och jag vill noga följa upp att vi står eniga i morgon kring ett fortsatt stöd till Ukraina, både ekonomiskt, militärt och humanitärt.

  Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr Parliament, Rule 178, paragraphs one and three, sentence two, states that you may only speak when given speaking time. And also, when you are at your place in this debate here today, which is a troublesome debate. And I also feel that some things that are being said here are despicable. We have Members screaming stuff from their seats into the plenary multiple times. So I request that we stop this, because this is not the way that we should debate here. We should be civilised. We should listen to each other. Of course, we can applaud and we can boo, because this is what people do. But if we don't have speaking time, we should keep ours mouth shut.

  President. – Thank you very much. I am trying to keep Parliament's Hemicycle in order. As I see it, there could be some emotions, but so far, in my opinion, it's okay. But I fully take your point into account, and if colleagues would follow your suggestions, I would appreciate it.

  Angéline Furet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’Union européenne et ses États membres ont apporté ensemble une assistance civile et militaire à l’Ukraine qui se porte à 118 milliards d’euros depuis le début de la guerre et à 43 milliards rien que pour cette année.

Toutefois, les besoins de financement de l’Ukraine dépassent les projections du Fonds monétaire international, qui prévoyait une fin de conflit pour 2024. L’Union européenne propose donc, pour la fin de 2024, une nouvelle aide financière sous forme de prêt, d’un montant de 35 milliards d’euros, et à laquelle il faudra ajouter à nouveau environ 40 milliards d’euros en 2025: un véritable tonneau des Danaïdes, des prêts que nous savons difficilement remboursables – si tant est qu’ils le soient.

Si, sur le principe, nous sommes favorables à une aide civile à l’Ukraine, les différents textes et communications de l’Union européenne n’abordent jamais la fin du conflit ou l’avènement d’une solution diplomatique. Comment se fait-il que des pourparlers de paix ne soient pas une condition de cette aide financière? Le soutien à la paix et non à la guerre ne serait-il pas la solution la plus économique et la plus humaine?

De plus, à l’heure où la France a été mise en procédure pour déficit excessif par l’Union européenne, où l’inflation touche les peuples européens et où l’Union européenne se demande comment boucler le prochain budget, charité bien ordonnée ne commence-t-elle pas par soi-même?

  Alberico Gambino (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, la proposta di un meccanismo di cooperazione per il prestito all'Ucraina e l'assistenza macrofinanziaria eccezionale di 35 miliardi di euro non è solo una questione economica ma un atto di responsabilità verso la stabilità dell'Europa.

L'aggressione russa ha devastato l'Ucraina con impatti diretti sull'economia e sulle infrastrutture del Paese. Senza un intervento deciso, le conseguenze si rifletteranno su tutta l'Europa, minacciando la nostra sicurezza collettiva.

Il prestito è strutturato con condizioni ovviamente vantaggiose e finanziato anche attraverso gli asset congelati alla Banca centrale russa, un messaggio, questo, chiaro e forte per chi viola appunto il diritto internazionale: dovrà pagare a proprie spese la ricostruzione. Inoltre, il pacchetto complessivo di 50 miliardi di euro fino al 2027 include sovvenzioni che garantiscono servizi essenziali per l'Ucraina stessa.

Non è carità questa ma è un investimento nella sicurezza europea, è una dichiarazione di sostegno a valori di libertà e democrazia. Ora più che mai dobbiamo agire con determinazione.

  Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Dārgais priekšsēdētāja kungs! Dārgais Reindersa kungs! Es vispirms gribētu pateikt paldies mūsu ziņotājai Karīnai par to, ka mēs beidzot to esam izdarījuši, proti, pieņēmuši šo makrofinansiālo palīdzību Ukrainai, izmantojot Krievijas iesaldētos aktīvus kā garantiju. Šis ir ne tikai finansiāli ļoti racionāls projekts, bet arī morāli, protams, nepieciešams. Krievijai jau šodien ir jāmaksā par Ukrainai nodarīto postu tāpēc, ka mums ir jāpalīdz tai stiprināt savu ekonomisko dzīvotspēju un jāpalīdz tai arī militāri aizsargāt sevi.

Bet tie 35 miljardi — šī summa, protams, ir liela, bet nav īsti samērojama ar Ukrainas šībrīža vajadzībām. Tieši tāpēc es pievērsīšu jūsu uzmanību, ka Kremlim pietuvinātajiem oligarhiem, kuri ir profitējuši un joprojām profitē no šī noziedzīgā režīma, joprojām pieder ļoti lieli līdzekļi, daudz lielāki aktīvi Eiropā. Komisijai šeit vajadzētu mudināt dalībvalstis izturēties pret to ļoti, ļoti nopietni un domāt, ko darīt ar šiem aktīviem, arī tad, ja dalībvalstis reizēm ir pievērušas acis uz šādu te aktīvu klātbūtni.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ukraina potrzebuje zainteresowania, zrozumienia i wsparcia, i to w takiej kolejności. Nie będzie, krótko mówiąc, zrozumienia bez zainteresowania i nie będzie wsparcia bez zainteresowania i zrozumienia.

Kolejny element, który jest niezbędny, to pewna stabilność pomocy. Nie powinniśmy się kierować w tej materii wyłącznie emocjami, ale powinniśmy także zwracać uwagę na to, jaka jest prawdziwa sytuacja w Ukrainie, jaki przebieg ma ta wojna. Dopiero wówczas możemy pochylać się nad określonymi formami pomocy. One mogą być różne.

Tym razem mamy inicjatywę państw G7, aby skorzystać z zamrożonych środków rosyjskich, aby wesprzeć Ukrainę. Tę pomoc nazywa się pożyczką, ale generalnie rzecz biorąc będzie ona rodzajem bezzwrotnego wsparcia. Bardzo istotne jest, aby udzielanie tego wsparcia przebiegało we właściwym czasie, we właściwym tempie, bo wtedy będziemy efektywni, będziemy prawdziwi, będziemy autentyczni i będziemy po prostu skuteczni. I tego życzę, krótko mówiąc, Ukrainie i Ukraińcom.

  Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, enfin! Enfin ce mécanisme commence à faire payer l’agresseur. Mais, disons-le, c’est, comme d’habitude, trop peu et très tard.

Depuis deux ans, nous faisons tout dans l’Union européenne pour maintenir l’Ukraine à flot. Mais nous ne faisons pas assez pour lui permettre de gagner la guerre. Alors la question est simple: quand allons-nous enfin saisir les 200 milliards d’avoirs publics russes gelés dans nos banques? Quand allons-nous donner à l’Ukraine les moyens financiers et militaires de gagner cette guerre, qui définit l’avenir de l’Europe?

Chers collègues, dans quinze jours, Donald Trump peut redevenir président des États-Unis, et l’Union européenne peut se retrouver seule, seule face à cette guerre, seule face à Poutine, seul soutien véritable de la résistance ukrainienne. Est-ce que nous sommes prêts à cela? Avons-nous réellement compris les enjeux?

Alors que la France rabote son aide militaire, que nos pays continuent à imposer des restrictions absurdes à l’utilisation des armes européennes par la résistance ukrainienne, et que l’on entend partout monter le chant de la capitulation – comme à l’extrême droite de cet hémicycle –, permettez-nous d’en douter. Il est temps de se réveiller.

  Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, kolegos. 2022-aisiais metais Rusija pradėjo plataus masto karą prieš Ukrainą, tikėdamasi greitos pergalės. Tačiau Ukraina ir jos žmonės įrodė savo valią kovoti už savo valstybės laisvę, suverenitetą bei europietišką ateitį. Nesugebėjusi užkariauti Ukrainos, Rusija labai sistemingai siekė palaužti ją kitais būdais: atakuodama ligonines, mokyklas, strategiškai ir gyvybiškai svarbius energetinius objektus, keldama grėsmę atominės energetikos objektams. Už šios žalos atstatymą turi sumokėti pats agresorius. Rusija turi sumokėti už tai, ką ji padarė Ukrainoje. Ukraina negali veikti įprastai ir pati pasirūpinti reikiamomis pajamomis iš savo ekonomikos, nes ji turi skirti pakankamus išteklius gynybai nuo agresoriaus bei Rusijos nuolat griaunamos infrastruktūros atstatymui. Todėl finansinė parama su užpuoliku kovojančiai Ukrainai yra būtina, norint užtikrinti esmines valstybės funkcijas, makroekonominį stabilumą ir priartinti Ukrainą prie pergalės prieš Rusiją.

  Eugen Tomac (Renew). – Domnule președinte, Ucraina nu este ocupată astăzi, așa cum și-a propus Putin să o ocupe în câteva săptămâni, pentru că noi, Uniunea Europeană și Statele Unite, i-am spus „stop” lui Putin și am stat alături de Ucraina. Bătălia pentru Ucraina nu este doar pentru acest stat, ci este pentru viitorul Europei și este esențial să rămânem alături de această țară. Este esențial să înțelegem că Putin nu atacă doar cu rachete, atacă cu multă propagandă, cu multă dezinformare, pe care am auzit-o inclusiv astăzi, aici, în acest plen.

De aceea este esențial să susținem Ucraina și Republica Moldova, care a făcut față unei provocări fără precedent. În urmă cu două zile a avut loc un referendum prin care cetățenii Republicii Moldova, în majoritate, au spus „da” pentru integrarea europeană, deși Rusia a încercat să corupă sute de mii de cetățeni cu carduri bancare emise în Federația Rusă pentru a-i corupe. Trebuie să acordăm asistență financiară pentru a rezista în fața acestui război.

  Pekka Toveri (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Russia is attacking not only the Ukrainian defence forces, it is also attacking the whole Ukrainian civil society, killing elderly women and children daily, not vice versa. And if the civil society crashes, the soldiers at the front won't fight too long either. And that's the fact.

This loan helps to keep Ukraine and civil society and civil administration working, and helps also Ukraine to fight for its freedom and also for the democracy and freedom for all of Europe. This is a good start, but not enough. We need to be ready to do more.

It is also appropriate that this is a loan, because a loan safeguards that the money paid will be used wisely and effectively. It's also appropriate that we use Russian frozen assets to support Ukraine against the Russian criminalities. Criminals are responsible for the damage they have caused in all of EU countries' legislations, so why would it be any different when we talk about Russia's criminal activities?

  Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la semana pasada el Consejo Europeo reiteró el apoyo incondicional de la Unión Europea a Ucrania. Lo ha hecho con toda solemnidad, amplitud y contundencia. Pocas veces la Unión ha dedicado tanto esfuerzo a una causa, cueste lo que cueste, durante el tiempo que haga falta: ahora, en el esfuerzo de la guerra, y después, cuando la paz regrese, para la reconstrucción del país.

Ahora nos toca a nosotros debatir y votar la ayuda macrofinanciera. Este instrumento es, sobre todo, un compromiso político histórico para que Ucrania pueda disfrutar plenamente de su soberanía, recuperar su integridad territorial y vivir en paz y libertad: está en juego la democracia en Ucrania, pero también en toda Europa. Por eso, pido a todos los grupos que votemos a favor. A la ultraderecha, que se ha opuesto en el voto en comisión, le pido que diga claramente si está con Putin o con Ucrania. Señorías de la ultraderecha, están ustedes a tiempo de rectificar. Por la paz, por Ucrania y por Europa.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Mr President, German Chancellor Scholz's pursuit-of-peace policy, and Hungary's blocking of different forms of support, are dangerous for Europe.

This now-discussed new cooperation mechanism is a highly crucial piece of support for Ukraine in its fight against totalitarianism.

I specifically want to address my colleagues on the Left who weren't on board with the effort to support Ukraine in September. Nobody sings the songs of peace when someone breaks into your home or home country. Nobody wants this war to continue. Everybody wants a long-lasting peace. But we also want Ukraine to restore the integrity of its sovereign territory.

The best way to ensure peace is to ensure that Ukraine has the proper means to fight off the aggressor. Once Putin realises the hopelessness of his effort, he will cease. But he only speaks in the language of force. Let's give Ukraine another victory tool, not the thoughts and prayers of a fool.

  Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we are talking about money here. I have a few questions for you. How much does a life cost? How much does one Ukrainian cost? Mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in Ukraine. No billions can bring them back.

Second question: why does the war last so long? Because we have been debating for too long; about tanks and F-16s, about support and sanctions. We are too slow.

Third question: why do the sanctions fail to break the aggressor? Not only the third countries are to blame, but ourselves, because there are traitors and cheaters among us.

And the question of today: can we use Russian frozen assets to pay the needs of Ukraine? We have to do it. We owe it to Ukrainians. We are in big debt because it is not our sons and daughters dying out there, dying for us. This is the least we can do to make Russia pay. Slava Ukraini!

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caras e Caros Colegas, quero começar por saudar esta decisão, que vai no bom sentido: a atribuição de apoio à Ucrânia por via de um empréstimo que tem como garantia os fundos imobilizados russos. O agressor tem de assumir todas as suas responsabilidades pelos danos causados ao povo ucraniano.

Ouvindo este debate, fica muito claro. Aqueles que aqui estão ao lado de Putin não estão apenas ao lado da Rússia, estão contra os valores fundadores da União Europeia, porque, verdadeiramente, o que os aproxima de Putin é a rejeição do nosso modelo de sociedade e do nosso modelo de organização de um Estado de direito. O que rejeitam é uma sociedade livre. O que rejeitam é um Estado de direito democrático. O que rejeitam é uma sociedade que valoriza a cidadania individual e que valoriza uma cidadania democrática que está assente no princípio da igualdade.

E é por isso que há aqui uma divisão muito clara. Aqueles que vêm aqui falar em nome de Putin também estão a atacar claramente os princípios fundadores da Europa. E este debate é um debate que estabelece uma divisão muito clara nesta casa: entre aqueles que lutam e pugnam pela democracia e aqueles que verdadeiramente estão contra ela.

  Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wysoka Izbo! Od 970 dni Ukraina walczy nie tylko o własną wolność, o własną suwerenność, o integralność terytorialną, ale również o nasze bezpieczeństwo – bezpieczeństwo 27 krajów członkowskich. Dzisiaj Parlament Europejski decyduje o tym, czy przyjąć propozycję liderów G7. Absolutnie tak. Potrzeba wykorzystania tej makrofinansowej pomocy. Potrzeba również tego, żeby Ukraina mogła korzystać z tych środków, które zostały zamrożone.

Ale pojawia się następujące pytanie: czy jest to wystarczające? Według mnie nie tylko należy zamrozić, nie tylko przejąć, ale po prostu przekazać Ukrainie. Te środki muszą pracować. Nie jutro, nie pojutrze, ale dziś, po to, żeby Ukraina mogła zwyciężyć i wygrać tę wojnę.

Zbliża się zima, która będzie dla Ukrainy bardzo niebezpiecznym okresem ze względu na ataki na infrastrukturę krytyczną, energetyczną – Ukraina może zostać pozbawiona prądu. Ta pomoc jest potrzebna, jest czasowa. Dajmy zielone światło, ale pracujmy na bardziej odważnych decyzjach w przyszłości.

  Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, in September I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. There we witnessed the unwavering resolve and commitment of the Ukrainian people to defend their freedom, dignity and sovereignty. Their struggle is not only a national Ukrainian cause, it is our shared European cause. It is a cause of international law.

In discussions with Ukrainian officials, we talked about their urgent needs and the further direct support they need to win the war against Putin. That is why the Ukrainian facility is important, and not least – as my colleague Raphaël Glucksmann said – to make the aggressor pay.

Furthermore, it is crucial that the support also addresses the need of vulnerable groups in Ukrainian society. While Putin's dark forces unleash war and destruction, we must continue to stand firm for prosperity, democracy and victory of Ukraine.

And it is also sad to see over and over again that the far-right side of this Parliament manages to constantly stand on the wrong side of history over and over again.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – Priekšsēdētāj! Godātie kolēģi! Krievija ik dienas Ukrainā slepkavo, slepkavo arī sievietes, bērnus, iznīcina infrastruktūru. Kopš kara sākuma infrastruktūra iznīcināta 150 miljardu eiro vērtībā. Šis solis — solis, lai krievi maksātu par to, ko viņi ir izdarījuši, ir pareizs solis. Tam nav alternatīvas. Arī tam nav alternatīvas, ka mums visiem ir jāpalīdz un ka visām mūsu valstīm — demokrātiskajām valstīm — ir jābūt vienotām.

Mums ir jāiet arī tālāk. Krievijas iesaldētie aktīvi Rietumu bankās ir 210 miljardi. Tur klāt nāk arī vēl tomēr oligarhu iesaldētie līdzekļi, jahtas, nekustamie īpašumi, finanšu līdzekļi — tie ir nekavējoties jākonfiscē un jāizlieto Ukrainas atbalstam, kam ir vajadzīgi 400 miljardi eiro. Mēs nedrīkstam vilcināties. Ir jāatļauj Ukrainai uzbrukt militārajiem objektiem Krievijas teritorijā. Ir jāatrod līdzekļi, lai šis karš beigtos pēc iespējas ātrāk, lai karš beigtos ar Ukrainas uzvaru.

  Riho Terras (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Russia has waged this full-scale war against Ukraine for almost 1 000 days by now. Ukraine people are making sacrifices far bigger than we can imagine every day. It is in our hands to help Ukraine win this war. They need our military aid, as well as financial support, to reconstruct the infrastructure and keep the economy going, despite the ongoing war.

Using windfall profits from Russian assets to repay the loans is legitimate and just. Russia is the sole culprit and must be held accountable for these crimes. It is in the hands of this House to make sure that Ukraine gets the funds they need, and they get them fast. It is in our hands to make Putin's Russia pay for their crimes. Thank you very much. Slava Ukraini!

  Wouter Beke (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, hoge vertegenwoordiger, collega’s, vorige week stond in de media dat de steun van Europa aan Oekraïne een kwestie is van veel woorden maar weinig daden. Veel blablabla, maar weinig boemboem. Vandaag bewijzen wij het tegendeel en dat is broodnodig.

Vorige week was de Oekraïense minister van Defensie op bezoek in dit Europees Parlement en hij sprak van te weinig leveringen van wapens, munitie en ook F16’s. Vandaag zetten we wél een belangrijke stap in de steun aan Oekraïne. Met de lening van 35 miljard nemen we het voortouw in onze gezamenlijke steun van de G7. België speelt een belangrijke rol, want het grootste deel van de Russische goederen zijn bevroren bij ons.

De Europese Unie trekt aan de kar en dat is logisch, maar ook noodzakelijk. Op die manier moeten we druk zetten op de hele G7. De levering van Noord-Koreaanse troepen aan Rusland toont aan dat dit niet alleen een regionaal conflict is, niet alleen een zaak is van Europa, maar van de hele wereld en ook van de hele wereldvrede. Daarom is deze steun zo noodzakelijk.

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Mr President, Russia's aggression and war against Ukraine not only altered the geopolitical landscape, but also compelled us to act swiftly and decisively to support our brave Ukrainian partners. Two and a half years later, the European Union continues to show solidarity and strength against those who seek to undermine our democracies. The Ukrainian people are not only defending their own country, their dear friends; they are defending Europe.

Russia has invested 1 billion in propaganda and we can hear it here, all around where the elections were happening. They are investing money in propaganda and this money cannot be invested so much to extinguish the truth. The truth shall set you all free. Democracy cannot be killed. The Ukrainian people are fighting for us. We have to fight until the end to help them.

Many years ago, Croatia was fighting like this and we had propaganda against us, trying to stop us from telling the truth. Now we are here, we are standing here. We will stand until the end to help Ukrainians to fight for freedom.

  President. – Now we have the catch-the-eye procedure. I have 11 requests. We do not have time for everybody. That's why we use criteria. I will not give the floor here to those who were speaking either on the speakers' list or on a blue card. I apologise, but we have to take care about the time.

Brīvais mikrofons

  Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, o paradigma tem mesmo de mudar. Temos de ser claros que vamos apoiar a Ucrânia com o tempo e com os meios que forem necessários para que a Ucrânia ganhe mesmo esta guerra. Mas as palavras não param, claramente, os rockets russos que caem diariamente sobre a Ucrânia, nem reconstroem hospitais, nem escolas e muito menos as casas destruídas pelos mísseis de Putin.

Os ucranianos podem contar, através deste mecanismo, com o financiamento concreto de 35 mil milhões de EUR para a recuperação e reconstrução do seu país. Algumas forças deste Parlamento tentam minar o debate, como vimos. Mas, Caros Colegas, não nos deixemos enganar. O que estas forças anti‑Europa nunca mencionam é o tremendo impacto negativo que a vitória russa provocaria na nossa União. Quem se sentiria seguro com as tropas russas em Levive? Eu não. Para terminar, direi que a autonomia e independência estratégica da nossa União está dependente da vitória ucraniana e por isso...

(o Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

  Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, aujourd’hui, avec nos frères ukrainiens, l’Europe montre ce qu’elle a de meilleur. Elle est au rendez-vous. Elle est au rendez-vous depuis le début pour défendre le droit le plus essentiel: le droit des peuples à choisir leur destin. Et son destin, l’Ukraine l’a choisi: c’est l’Europe. Et l’Europe a dit oui en ouvrant sans délai la perspective d’adhésion.

L’Europe est au rendez-vous encore avec cette nouvelle facilité pour l’Ukraine de 35 milliards d’euros, financée par les revenus des avoirs russes gelés. La Russie devra payer les dommages de la guerre dont elle est responsable, et cela commence dès aujourd’hui avec cette aide macrofinancière, à laquelle je suis fier d’avoir contribué en tant que rapporteur fictif S&D de la commission des budgets.

L’Europe devra aussi être au rendez-vous pour que cette guerre prenne fin. Arrêter la guerre, c’est montrer à Poutine qu’il ne la gagnera jamais. C’est l’intensification des sanctions, c’est la levée des restrictions sur les frappes préventives, c’est une perspective d’adhésion à l’OTAN, c’est la convocation d’une conférence de prêt, c’est le plan de paix proposé par Volodymyr Zelensky, que je propose de soutenir.

  Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Russia's criminal aggression against Ukraine is the grossest possible breach of international law. Such an extraordinary situation undoubtedly requires extraordinary measures and solutions. Therefore, I welcome and support today's Commission proposal to employ the profits from immobilised Russian assets.

However, in my opinion, this is not yet the most comprehensive and the most effective solution to the problem. In my opinion, the Commission should also initiate, without undue delay, more courageous decisions on the secure confiscation of frozen assets of Russia, as well as very effective use in strengthening Ukraine's defence and ensuring Ukraine's post-war reconstruction.

I am convinced that under international law, this can be done at the expense of Russian reparations. By the way, the Commission's proposed regulation clearly states that Russian state funds must remain frozen until Russia ends its aggressive war and compensates Ukraine ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN). – Herr Präsident! Wenn man hier einigen Rednern zuhört, frage ich mich, ehrlich gesagt: Was wird denn auf Ihre Konten vom ukrainischen Regime überwiesen? Das ist grauenhaft, da kriege ich Ohrenschmerzen davon.

Wer hören will und sehen will, der konnte vor Jahren schon sehen, dass die Kommission zur Ukraine Papiere verfasste, wo die Ukraine als korruptes Land, als das korrupteste Land in Europa dargestellt wurde. Es hat sich eigentlich in der Frage nicht viel geändert, außer dass heute noch die Ukraine der Bandera-Ideologie huldigt.

Der Westen hat die Ukraine in diesen Krieg getrieben, den kann sie nicht gewinnen. Die Ukraine ist ein Fass ohne Boden in finanzieller Hinsicht. Wir könnten eigentlich vorne mit dem ganzen Geld einen großen Haufen machen und den anzünden. Dann könnten wir wenigstens uns noch an dem Feuer wärmen, aber das Geld bekämen nicht die korrupten ukrainischen Oligarchen, die letzten Endes das faschistische Regime der Ukraine stützen.

Keinen Pfennig Steuergeld für diesen Staat der Ukraine, solange in Deutschland die Brücken zusammenfallen, Schulen in unmöglichem Zustand sind, die Rentner Flaschen sammeln gehen!

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Grzegorz Braun (NI). – Mr President, what is this? A bank robbery? I don't want to take part in such activities. You're discussing here the money that is simply not yours. And it's wrong! It's deeply wrong, for many reasons.

One reason was just mentioned by the honourable colleague. The Kyiv regime is probably one of the most corrupt and deadly to its own people of the regimes in the history of Europe.

The other reason is when you open this door, this gate, and you let yourself indulge yourself – taking somebody else's money in this particular moment – then what happens next? I don't want to take part in organised crime.

  Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospod predsednik! Zmaga Ukrajine se mi zdi ključna zaradi sporočilnosti, da meja v Evropi v enaindvajsetem stoletju ni mogoče spreminjati na nasilen način. Seveda pa se bo ta vojna enkrat končala in ko se bo končala, nas bo čakalo dolgo in dolgotrajno delo pri obnovi Ukrajine. In na tej točki se mi zdi seveda pomembno in smiselno, da agresor plača za svoja dejanja.

Zato podpiram vse mehanizme, ki uporabljajo dobičke milijard agresorja zato, da pomagamo Ukrajino obnoviti in jo ponovno postaviti na njene noge. Za uspešen prihodnji razvoj Ukrajine pa se mi zdi ključno, da jo vključimo v Evropsko unijo in ji omogočimo dostop do vseh finančnih sredstev, ki jih Evropska unija podpira zato, da bo Evropa celostna in Ukrajina del Evropske unije.

  Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Mitmenschen! In dieser Debatte über die finanzielle Unterstützung der Ukraine unter Verwendung eingefrorener russischer Vermögenswerte sprechen viele Abgeordnete über Frieden. Frieden, während Putins Regime Schulen, Krankenhäuser und zivile Infrastruktur gnadenlos bombardiert. Frieden, während die russische Armee mehr und mehr ukrainische Soldaten, die kapitulieren, auf der Stelle exekutiert. Frieden, während das ukrainische Volk ungebrochen in seinem Willen zur Verteidigung seines vollständigen Heimatlandes ist. Frieden, während unsere Bevölkerung mehrheitlich – und das wird manchen nicht gefallen zu hören –, aber mehrheitlich eine Unterstützung der Ukraine bis zum Sieg wünscht.

Kennen Sie, werte Abgeordnete, eigentlich Putins Bedingungen für die Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen? Die hat er erst vor kurzem in einer Pressekonferenz offiziell verkündet: die vollständige Kapitulation des ukrainischen Militärs. Sie können sich vorstellen, wie diese Friedensverhandlungen aussehen würden. Slawa Ukrajini!

(Brīvā mikrofona uzstāšanos beigas.)

  Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I just want to say that it's important to thank you so much for reiterating your firm and unequivocal support for Ukraine, and for confirming it through this legislative initiative, adopted in a short period of time, as a number of Members of the European Parliament mentioned.

I'm impressed by the large support for this proposal, but the lack of unanimity proved the importance of fighting for values in the European Union too, and of fighting for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Because that is what we are doing here, with such a proposal, in Ukraine: defending our values, defending democracy, the rule of law and human rights. And I'm sure that there's a lot of things to do in different parts of Europe on the same level.

Last week, President Zelenskyy's request for further support this winter was warmly welcomed by European leaders and taken up in the Council conclusions that there is no time to lose. The coming months will be decisive. Your approval of the proposals is essential to honour the commitments of the EU and its Member States. With the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism, we not only reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine for as long as it takes, but we also take an important step towards ensuring accountability (including financial accountability) for vicious aggression. It's very important that Russia itself pays for the aggression and the damage caused by the aggression. And this will continue to be done in close cooperation and coordination with all G7 and other international partners.

So thank you again for your very fast reaction to such a proposal and the way we will continue to support Ukraine in the coming months and maybe years.

IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
Vice-President

  Karin Karlsbro, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, thank you for this important debate. Listening to you and my colleagues in this Chamber, I am proud that the support for Ukraine remains so strong also after the European elections.

I want the vote later today to be the first of many votes we take in this mandate to support Ukraine, because our support will remain firm until Ukraine's victory, until the last Russian soldiers have left Ukrainian territory.

But I hear dangerous arguments from the extreme right willing to surrender to our enemy in the name of peace. But let me be clear. There will be no peace in Europe as long as Putin attacks Ukraine, as long as Putin occupies Ukraine, as long as Putin still tries to steal a country and steal its future. There will be no peace in such a situation. Instead of being worried about the legal base of this proposal, you should save your worries for Putin's next step.

Since the first day of Putin's war, it has been clear one day Russia will have to pay. One day Russia must pay for its destruction of the Ukrainian society and the rebuilding of a future Ukraine, a Ukraine in the European family. Already today, we, the European Parliament, can make this happen. We can make Russia pay.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Netrukus bus treji metai kai Rusija užpuolė Ukrainą su vieninteliu tikslu - atimti Ukrainos žmonių laisvę, jų šalį bei teisę nuspręsti savo šalies ateitį. Nuo pat pirmos invazijos dienos Europos Sąjunga išlaikė solidarumo testą teikdama karinę, finansinę ir humanitarinę paramą Ukrainai ir jos žmonėms. Matome, kad agresorius trauktis neketina, todėl mūsų parama Ukrainai ne tik privalo išlikti, bet privalo būti padidinta, kad Ukraina galėtų ir toliau apsiginti. Pagrindinis mūsų visų rūpestis privalo būti Ukrainos pergalė bei visokeriopa parama jai pasiekti, nes pralaimėjimo atveju viską praras ne tik Ukraina - praras visa Europa ir įžengsime į didelės grėsmės zoną. Labai sveikinu ES lyderystę telkiant paramą Ukrainai globaliu mastu ir įtikinant tarptautinius partnerius dėl būtinybės skubiai rasti finansavimo būdus ir padidinti paramą Ukrainai. Rusija privalo sumokėti už šio karo pasekmes, todėl labai džiaugiuosi ES ryžtu panaudoti iš įšaldyto Rusijos turto gautas pajamas ir jas skirti neatidėliotiniems Ukrainos finansiniams poreikiams. Už sunaikintą šalį, už prarastus gyvenimus turi mokėti ne Ukrainos žmonės ir ne ES piliečiai - tai privalo padaryti Rusija ir šį kartą mes ją praversime tai padaryti.

  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Pacea este importantă nu pentru că nu ar trebui să cheltuim bani pentru reconstrucție, ci pentru că trebuie să nu mai moară oameni. Mecanismul de cooperare cu Ucraina pentru împrumut prevede lucruri clare care trebuie respectate de Ucraina și verificate de către Comisia Europeană. Fondurile împrumutate trebuie folosite eficace. Se prevede corect rambursarea anticipată atunci când se constată fraude și acte de corupție în Ucraina. Banii împrumutați sunt pentru cetățenii ucraineni, pentru a le ușura viața, nu pentru oligarhi.

Apoi, Comisia Europeană trebuie să verifice să nu se suprapună finanțări complementare. Domnule comisar, ar trebui, până când se va reuși pacea, pentru care trebuie să se folosească toate instituțiile mondiale, diplomatice, să instituiți un mecanism de verificare pentru ca fondurile să fie folosite pentru scopul social și economic.

  Ľubica Karvašová (Renew), in writing. – When Russia destroys Ukraine, it has to pay for the destruction. This new financial instrument says that loud and clear. The €35 billion loan to support Ukraine is a lifeline for a nation devastated by Russia’s brutal war. This loan will provide urgent relief, directly addressing the country’s most pressing needs. In an unprecedented approach, the loan draws from profits on frozen Russian assets—a mechanism that enforces the principle of accountability, ensuring that those who inflicted the devastation contribute to rebuilding what they destroyed. With the backing and active contribution of the G7 partners, this instrument not only supports Ukraine’s immediate resilience but also strengthens its pathway toward sustainable, long-term recovery and the construction of a more robust economy. For the European Union, this initiative reaffirms its commitment to Ukraine’s journey toward stability, democracy, and a stable place within the EU family. Ukraine will rise stronger, and those who sought to destroy it will pay the price.

  Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), na piśmie. – Zgodnie ze zobowiązaniami podjętymi podczas szczytu G7 i posiedzenia Rady Europejskiej, uważam, że utworzenie Mechanizmu współpracy pożyczkowej dla Ukrainy jest istotnym krokiem, by zapewnić dodatkowe wsparcie finansowe Ukrainie w obliczu skutków rosyjskiej agresji. Mechanizm ten zakłada udzielenie Ukrainie pożyczek o wartości do 45 miliardów euro, w tym nadzwyczajnej pomocy makrofinansowej w kwocie do 35 miliardów euro. Kluczowym elementem tego rozwiązania jest finansowanie spłaty pożyczek z przyszłych dochodów pochodzących z zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów. Dzięki temu środki te będą trafiać bezpośrednio do pożyczkodawców, co zapewni stabilny i przewidywalny przepływ finansowy na ich spłatę, jednocześnie ograniczając obciążenia dla Ukrainy. Postrzegam ten mechanizm jako przykład efektywnej współpracy międzynarodowej, szczególnie że wysokość unijnej pomocy zależy od wkładu finansowego innych członków G7. Rada już zaakceptowała tę propozycję, jeśli Parlament również ją przyjmie bez zmian, przepisy szybko wejdą w życie, umożliwiając przekazanie pierwszej transzy wsparcia. Uważam, że warto poprzeć mechanizm, który jest wyrazem naszej odpowiedzialności wobec Ukrainy i dowodem na siłę europejskiej solidarności.

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the urgent need for a ceasefire in Lebanon and for safeguarding the UNIFIL mission in light of the recent attacks (2024/2889(RSP)).

  Janez Lenarčič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would like to thank the European Parliament, also on behalf of High Representative Borrell, for convening this session.

Lebanon is a fragile country, gravely weakened by multiple crises and at risk of being further destabilised by Israeli operations, which would also have wider repercussions on the region and beyond. The civilian population of Lebanon is paying the highest price. The country is facing the most devastating conflict in a generation, with almost 2 500 people dead, one in five Lebanese displaced, and with 43 % of the displaced being children.

The lack of space in shelters disrupted education. Numerous attacks on healthcare facilities, increasing number of deaths among health and other relief workers, and the high risk of disease outbreak are only some of the elements underlining the need for an immediate de-escalation of this conflict and the ceasefire.

UNIFIL's stabilisation role is essential for Lebanon and for Israel, and this role will become even more critical in the perspective of a ceasefire. It is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to define the mandate of UNIFIL. And, according to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL is supposed to be the only armed force, together with the Lebanese armed forces, to be deployed in the south of Lebanon.

The cooperation between UNIFIL and the Lebanese armed forces has been remarkable so far. The EU is committed to further empowering the Lebanese armed forces and to facilitating their cooperation with UNIFIL. To this aim, the Council of the EU has recently approved a new assistance measure for the Lebanese armed forces, worth EUR 15 million under the European Peace Facility. The Lebanese armed forces play a key role in guaranteeing Lebanon's national security, stability and sovereignty, and this is also in the interest of Israel's security.

The EU is equally committed to scaling up our humanitarian engagement in Lebanon. Humanitarian needs in Lebanon are huge and increasing by day. There is an imminent need for more humanitarian funding. For this reason, the EU allocated an extra EUR 10 million to Lebanon to address the most pressing needs of the conflict affected populations, both injured and displaced. This includes the provision of health and shelter services. Additional EUR 13 million for Lebanon are in the pipeline. This comes on top of the EUR 64 million already allocated earlier this year.

We have also activated the EU Civil Protection Mechanism to support the Lebanese health sector. A number of Member States have already offered medicine and medical equipment. In addition, to support the most vulnerable and displaced population in Lebanon, the Commission has launched the European Humanitarian Air Bridge. So far, three flights delivered a total of 105 tonnes of the EU humanitarian stocks. More flights with life-saving assistance are being scheduled.

Mobilisation of the humanitarian aid and support to the Lebanese armed forces and UNIFIL will be among the key objectives of the international conference on Lebanon that will be held in Paris this Thursday. The EU welcomes this conference, where both High Representative Borrell and I will actively participate.

The EU and its Member States have always supported UNIFIL and will continue to do so. The fact that 16 EU Member States contribute troops to UNIFIL speaks for itself. High Representative Borrell visited the UNIFIL headquarters next to the southern border during his last visit to Lebanon to emphasise this EU support. UNIFIL's brave decision to remain in the field in the face of threats against it deserves our political support, recognition and respect from all of us. This is crucial for the credibility and the security of multilateral peacekeeping operations, but also for the morale of our troops in the field so that they know that they have our full backing.

This point was made very strongly during the European Council last week, and it is clearly reflected in its conclusions. The European Council condemned the attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces against UNIFIL, which constitute a grave violation of international law and must stop immediately. The European Council also recalled that all actors have an obligation to take necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property and to respect the inviolability of UN premises at all times.

The European Council also recalled the need to ensure that civilians are protected at all times, that civilian infrastructure is not targeted and that international law is respected. The recent incidents affecting the civilian population and UNIFIL only make ceasefire even more urgent. We hear the many voices and declarations within Lebanon now calling for an immediate ceasefire and the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces along the Blue Line.

The European Union supports these voices and is ready to continue playing its part. To ensure that ceasefire is credible and efficient, a strong implementing and monitoring mechanism will be needed. As EU, we are confident that UNIFIL can play this important role.

  Nicolás Pascual De La Parte, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, de nuevo estamos ante una crisis en el Líbano, una crisis humanitaria sin precedentes: mucho sufrimiento humano, miles de desplazados y un país en total crisis.

Esto nos obliga, en la Unión Europea, a redoblar nuestros esfuerzos diplomáticos, nuestros esfuerzos políticos, para tratar de encontrar una solución pacífica al conflicto y, sobre todo, para exigir un alto el fuego: un alto el fuego inmediato para que callen las armas. Y, después, tenemos ya que empezar a ver cómo podemos diseñar una estrategia a medio plazo para la normalización política del Líbano, que es un país rehén de una organización terrorista como Hezbolá.

Hezbolá es una organización terrorista y como tal hay que tratarla: no hay que negociar con ella, hay que exigir su desarme y su disolución. Y no hay que distinguir entre brazo armado y brazo político: todos ellos son terroristas porque apoyan el terror y, por tanto, como tal la hemos de tratar.

Por otro lado, me hago eco del llamamiento a que cesen los ataques contra la misión de la FPNUL desplegada por las Naciones Unidas en el sur del Líbano para garantizar la vida y la integridad física de los soldados desplegados en la zona con el contingente militar, que está demostrando una profesionalidad y un valor humano increíbles.

Tiempo habrá en el futuro de ver cuál debe ser el mandato de una nueva misión en la zona, si es preciso, pero de momento han de callar las armas, han de cesar los ataques contra la misión de la FPNUL y nosotros, los europeos, tenemos que redoblar nuestros esfuerzos negociadores y de entrega de asistencia humanitaria al Líbano.

  Γιάννης Μανιάτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, στη Γάζα πάνω από 42 000 άνθρωποι, κυρίως γυναίκες και παιδιά, έχουν χάσει τη ζωή τους. Στον Λίβανο 2 500 άνθρωποι έχουν σκοτωθεί, 1,2 εκατομμύρια έχουν αναγκαστεί να εγκαταλείψουν τις εστίες τους, ζητώντας καταφύγιο ακόμα και στη Συρία. Είναι τόσο μεγάλα τα προβλήματα που η κυβέρνηση του Λιβάνου ζήτησε τη βοήθεια του μηχανισμού πολιτικής προστασίας της ΕΕ για να αντιμετωπίσει τις αυξημένες ιατρικές ανάγκες λόγω του πολέμου. Από την αρχή αναγνωρίσαμε το δικαίωμα του Ισραήλ στην άμυνα και στο να προστατεύει τους πολίτες του. Όμως, αυτό δεν του επιτρέπει να παραβιάζει διαρκώς το διεθνές δίκαιο, βομβαρδίζοντας αδιακρίτως, εκτοπίζοντας εκατομμύρια πολίτες, αποκλείοντας κάθε ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια προς τη Γάζα. Δεν είναι αποδεκτοί στόχοι οι κυανόκρανοι του ΟΗΕ ούτε είναι αποδεκτές οι επιθέσεις προς τον Γενικό Γραμματέα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Πρέπει να σπάσουμε αυτό τον φαύλο κύκλο. Ζητούμε άμεση εκεχειρία στον Λίβανο και τη Γάζα και την επιστροφή όλων των ομήρων στις οικογένειές τους.

  Jordan Bardella, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, le 10 octobre 2024, le contingent des Casques bleus des Nations unies au Liban a été la cible de tirs volontaires de la part de l’armée israélienne. Je veux dire ici qu’aucun pays, aucune démocratie ne peut tolérer ce type d’agression délibérée.

Depuis près de un an, dans le seul but d’assurer sa survie, Israël s’est lancé dans un combat légitime visant à neutraliser le totalitarisme islamiste au Proche-Orient. Une lutte nécessaire, qui doit se faire dans le respect du droit de la guerre et des conventions internationales. L’offensive israélienne récente a conduit à la neutralisation des terroristes du Hezbollah, à la solde de l’Iran, qui, depuis quarante ans, sèment la terreur et la pauvreté au sein du peuple libanais.

Parce que l’histoire nous lie, aucun Français, aucune Française ne peut rester indifférent à la situation préoccupante du Liban, à ses souffrances, à ses défis économiques, financiers, démocratiques et civilisationnels. L’histoire du Liban est le réceptacle de celle du Proche-Orient. Chaque crise, chaque conflit se répercute sur sa terre, dans ses frontières et dans sa chair.

La France en a payé un lourd tribut il y a tout juste quarante et un ans, le 23 octobre 1983, lorsque 58 soldats français avaient été lâchement assassinés par les islamistes du Hezbollah lors de la guerre civile. Je veux ici leur rendre hommage. Amie du Liban, protectrice des chrétiens d’Orient depuis saint Louis, la France doit tout mettre en œuvre pour que l’offensive militaire en cours épargne les civils et les infrastructures essentielles. «Vers l’Orient compliqué, je volais avec des idées simples», confiait le général de Gaulle.

La France a un rôle et une tradition historiques. Puissance d’équilibre, elle peut compter sur sa diplomatie comme rempart ultime face à la guerre généralisée au Proche-Orient et au Moyen-Orient, une guerre dont l’onde de choc serait ressentie jusqu’ici, en Europe, et qui provoquerait par la même occasion de nouvelles vagues migratoires sans précédent.

À l’heure où le conflit généralisé menace, il nous incombe de faire advenir ce qui paraît aujourd’hui impensable: la paix, la paix et la paix. Celle-là ne pourra se faire que lorsque le Liban aura recouvré la pleine souveraineté sur son territoire et qu’il sera débarrassé de la mainmise islamiste, du désordre intérieur et des désolations de la guerre.

  Carlo Fidanza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, Giorgia Meloni è stata il primo leader europeo a recarsi in Libano in questi giorni.

Lo ha fatto dopo gli inaccettabili attacchi israeliani ai nostri militari, per ribadire con forza che pretendiamo da tutti il rispetto delle truppe UNIFIL, della loro incolumità e sicurezza e del mandato della risoluzione 1701 delle Nazioni Unite. Se necessario, siamo pronti a rafforzare UNIFIL e a ragionare su nuove regole di ingaggio per contribuire a disarmare Hezbollah in quella striscia di terra.

Sul piano politico, a maggior ragione dopo la morte del "macellaio" Sinwar, è tempo di un cessate il fuoco – sia a Gaza che in Libano – e del contestuale rilascio degli ostaggi israeliani ancora nelle mani di Hamas.

Infine, l'Unione europea deve farsi carico della situazione drammatica non soltanto degli sfollati interni al Libano, ma anche dei rifugiati siriani, ai quali dobbiamo assicurare un pronto e sicuro ritorno in Siria per scongiurare una nuova ondata di immigrazione che non saremmo in grado, con le regole attuali, di gestire.

  Christophe Grudler, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, j’ai une impression de déjà-vu aujourd’hui, à quelques détails près, et toujours aucune déclaration du Parlement européen sur la situation au Liban, sur les attaques contre les Casques bleus ou contre les civils libanais.

Les besoins humanitaires sont énormes: 6 hôpitaux sur 8 sont fermés au Sud Liban, des cas de gale et de choléra surviennent parmi les 800 000 déplacés. Quel manque d’humanité nous contraint, nous Européens, à ne pas réagir officiellement par la voix de ce Parlement? Ce sont maintenant les Casques bleus qui sont pris pour cibles par des bombardements israéliens, d’abord timides, puis délibérés. C’est une violation du droit international, et tout le monde le sait. Vous, nous et l’ensemble de nos collègues ici présents. Qu’attendons-nous?

Nous avons besoin d’une prise de position a minima, d’une déclaration du Parlement européen d’envoyer de l’aide et des médecins au Liban, d’aider l’ONU à accomplir sa mission, de protéger l’aéroport de Beyrouth afin qu’il reste un terrain neutre et accessible, et enfin – et surtout – il faut un cessez-le-feu immédiat.

  Leoluca Orlando, a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è del tutto inaccettabile l'aggressione militare di Israele contro postazioni e soldati delle Nazioni Unite impegnati con l'operazione UNIFIL di peace keeping.

Non si è trattato di un errore durante una operazione di guerra ma della deliberata violazione della risoluzione 1701, che impone condizioni di rispetto da parte dei contendenti. È evidente che tale condizione debba essere rispettata anche dalle milizie di Hezbollah.

Tale violazione da parte dell'esercito israeliano fa seguito alla gravissima affermazione del presidente Netanyahu, che ha definito "persona non gradita" il segretario delle Nazioni Unite, António Guterres. È inaccettabile il disprezzo e l'aggressione verbale e militare nei riguardi delle Nazioni Unite, il cui ruolo è fondamentale per costruire condizioni di pace, sviluppo e convivenza nel mondo.

Israele ha il diritto di difendersi ma entro i limiti della legalità internazionale, che configura crimini di guerra e condanna ogni forma di apartheid e genocidio. Israele e tutti gli altri contendenti devono cessare il fuoco e riconoscere, non mortificare, bensì promuovere il ruolo fondamentale delle Nazioni Unite, unica organizzazione internazionale al di sopra di contrasti tra Stati e alleanze geopolitiche.

Il Parlamento chiede alla Commissione, con riferimento specifico all'aggressione militare contro UNIFIL, di censurare le violazioni della legalità internazionale da parte del governo israeliano e di adoperarsi per rafforzare la presenza delle Nazioni Unite in Libano, così come in tutto il Medio Oriente, per garantire aiuti umanitari, cessate il fuoco ed evitare e prevenire un'irresponsabile escalation che aggiunga, alla tragedia di Gaza, la tragedia umanitaria del Libano.

  Lynn Boylan, on behalf of The Left Group. – A Uachtaráin, we meet yet again to discuss Israel's escalating assault on Lebanon and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The EU must now reckon with its own ethical and moral failures, because it has been 'business as usual' with the Israeli Government as they have engaged in the most egregious breaches of international law.

And yes, last week, the European Council condemned the attack on UNIFIL. But the question is: who attacked UNIFIL? It was the IDF who attacked them, and it was deliberate. As an Irish MEP, I want to express concern for the 379 Irish soldiers in UNIFIL and commend them for their bravery.

The EU remains the largest trading partner of a country that violates human rights on a daily basis, that deliberately targets UN personnel, that wages an escalating campaign of brutality in north Gaza. How have we reached a point where burning patients alive in their hospital beds is not a red line for the EU? Where is the EU's moral compass?

This week, we will see shameful attacks in this House; attempts to attack and undermine UNRWA – the last lifeline for the Palestinian people. UNRWA provides essential services, including education, health care and support, for 5.9 million refugees.

And I can tell you now, the public are on the right side of history. They have taken to the streets to demand sanctions, to demand the application of international law and for a permanent ceasefire. So now, no more double standards, no more impunity and no more hypocrisy from European leaders.

  Tomasz Froelich, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Der Angriff der Hamas auf Israel ist zu verurteilen, und natürlich hat Israel auch das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung. Aber Israel hat nicht das Recht, den Nahen Osten in Schutt und Asche zu legen. Die Frage ist: Wann hört Verteidigung auf, und wann fangen Verbrechen an? Im Libanon verbrennen Patienten bei lebendigem Leibe. Es sterben Zivilisten, Frauen, Kinder. Ganze Dörfer werden ausradiert. Friedenstruppen der UN werden angegriffen.

Nein, werte Kollegen, das ist keine Selbstverteidigung mehr, das sind Kriegsverbrechen. Das ist die Hölle auf Erden, und mir blutet das Herz, wenn ich so etwas sehe. Es braucht jetzt endlich einen Waffenstillstand. Deshalb auch Schluss mit Waffenlieferungen nach Israel, denn wer Waffenstillstand fordert, aber Waffen liefert, der ist ein Heuchler. Mehr Waffen bedeuten mehr Terror, mehr Flucht, mehr Krieg; darunter leiden alle, auch wir.

Italien hat es begriffen, Frankreich auch, Deutschland nicht. Wir liefern weiter Waffen, obwohl 70 % der Deutschen dagegen sind. Hören Sie doch endlich mal aufs eigene Volk! Es braucht jetzt Diplomatie statt Eskalation, und das Ziel muss sein eine Zweistaatenlösung und Frieden im Nahen Osten.

  Laurent Castillo (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, en attaquant Israël le 8 octobre 2023, le Hezbollah s’est rendu coupable d’une guerre qui plonge le peuple libanais dans la tourmente. La sécurité d’Israël n’est pas négociable, celle du Liban non plus.

En tant que président de la délégation pour les relations avec les pays du Machrek, je tiens à exprimer ma profonde inquiétude. Les attaques récentes contre la Force intérimaire des Nations unies au Liban – la FINUL –, qui ont blessé plusieurs Casques bleus, constituent des violations inacceptables du droit international. Ces actions doivent cesser. Elles sont inacceptables.

J’appelle à un cessez-le-feu immédiat au Liban et à une reprise du dialogue fondé sur la mise en œuvre complète de la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. La paix passera par le désarmement du Hezbollah.

Aux morts s’ajoute le déplacement de plus de 1 million de Libanais, entraînant des conséquences humanitaires terribles. Notre soutien financier, matériel et humain, déjà renforcé, doit continuer, tout comme nous devons continuer à aider le Liban à retrouver une stabilité politique et économique.

  Nicola Zingaretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in Libano l'Europa c'è: quello che manca è la coerenza e l'unità dei governi. Eppure ciò che abbiamo fatto di buono nella nostra storia lo abbiamo fatto quando abbiamo superato gli egoismi nazionali per guardare più lontano.

Stiamo cercando di farlo per la guerra di Putin all'Ucraina ma non, purtroppo, di fronte alle guerre del Levante, in particolare a Gaza e in Libano, dove è in atto invece un'escalation che minaccia le stesse fondamenta – anche giuridiche – dell'attuale sistema internazionale.

L'attacco alla missione UNIFIL in Libano, voluto dal governo Netanyahu per ridefinire in maniera unilaterale il volto del Medio Oriente, contiene questo rischio e anche per questo va condannato. I governi europei devono cambiare passo, mettere da parte i nazionalismi e cercare tutti il rafforzamento della politica estera comune per esistere e incidere.

È ora di avviare un'iniziativa europea per la pace con un impegno diretto e di altissimo livello: rilascio immediato degli ostaggi israeliani, cessate il fuoco a Gaza e in Libano a tutela delle popolazioni, per aprire un processo diplomatico e costruire una soluzione politica, unica garanzia per una pace duratura.

  Sebastiaan Stöteler (PfE). – Voorzitter, sinds Resolutie 1701 van 2006 was het de bedoeling dat de blauwhelmen van Unifil de grensstreek van Libanon en Israël zouden monitoren, de zogeheten blauwe zone. Unifil had erop toe moeten zien dat daar geen militaire activiteiten werden ontplooid. Niet door Israël, niet door Hezbollah of welke andere club dan ook.

Maar wat gebeurde er? We zagen recente beelden van raketlanceringen door Hezbollah in de richting van Israël, onder de neus van Unifil-basissen. We zagen beelden van Hezbollah-tunnels en wapenopslagplaatsen in de zogeheten blauwe zone, de zone waar Unifil had moeten controleren, de zone waar Unifil de baas had moeten zijn.

In werkelijkheid was niet Unifil de baas, maar Hezbollah. Unifil heeft vreselijk gefaald en nu staat heel Libanon letterlijk en figuurlijk in brand. Het is vreselijk, maar Israël moet orde op zaken kunnen stellen. Unifil zou zich terug moeten trekken, want anders worden de blauwhelmen “blauwschilden” voor Hezbollah.

  Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s, de VN heeft gefaald in Libanon. Volgens VN-resolutie 1701 moest Zuid-Libanon vrij blijven van Hezbollah-strijders. Hezbollah trok zich daar echter niets van aan en legerde er een enorme troepenmacht. Unifil stond erbij, keek ernaar en deed niets.

Israël moest daarom wel militair ingrijpen, zeker gelet op de dagelijkse beschietingen sinds 7 oktober. Nu dit de realiteit is, moeten conflicten met Unifil uiteraard worden vermeden. Maar Unifil moet zich ook één ding heel goed realiseren: de burgerbevolking verdient bescherming, Hezbollah niet. Op het moment dat Unifil in de weg gaat lopen in de strijd tegen Hezbollah gaat er dus fundamenteel iets fout.

Unifil zou – in lijn met Resolutie 1701 – eigenlijk moeten helpen Hezbollah uit het gebied te krijgen. Bijvoorbeeld door erop toe te zien dat de wapenleveranties vanuit Iran stoppen. De VN zou zowel de Libanese als de Israëlische bevolking daar een geweldige dienst mee bewijzen.

  Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, collega’s, Europa heeft deze maand 30 miljoen euro aan noodhulp aan Libanon gegeven. Sinds 2011 hebben we in totaal bijna 1 miljard euro gespendeerd. Maar structureel verandert er niets. Het land is enkel nog verder afgegleden.

Zolang Europa zich beperkt tot het geven van geld en wij ons niet verder politiek engageren, zal er ook niets veranderen. Sorry als ik mij wat cru uitdruk: een zak geld geven kan iedereen, maar waar is onze strategie om Libanon weer op de rails te krijgen? Waar is onze steun in het gevecht tegen corruptie? Tegen de Iraanse invloed? Waar zijn onze inspanningen om het land te stabiliseren?

Laten we er nu in de eerste plaats voor zorgen dat de Unifil-missie versterkt wordt. Zeker niet Unifil terugtrekken en zeker niet de blauwhelmen verzwakken. Zijn jullie het drama in Rwanda vergeten? Tien Belgische blauwhelmen gedood! Unamir dat zich terugtrok en een hele genocide die zich voltrok. Laten we er nu alles aan doen om de blauwhelmen te versterken en te beschermen. Dat is nodig om vrede daar te krijgen en ook hier bij ons.

  Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, we are safe and free from repression here, and this is a privilege. I said this last session and I might have to say it again next session: we all have a choice to make about how we use this privilege. Will we continue to play into the hands of terrorists and warmongers, accusing each other of anti-Semitism or double standards, using symbols and rhetoric merely to provoke, echoing the deep divisions and escalation in the Middle East? Or will we rise above it? Will we try to understand, to use the different perspectives we have inherited, the deep ties we have with one side or the others as a shared resource to build the bridges so desperately needed?

Dear colleagues, beyond the zero-sum game of brutality and retaliation, there are so many people in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran desperately yearning for peace. But if we, secure in this Chamber, can't even bridge our divides, how do we expect them to do so?

  Danilo Della Valle (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ancora una volta la maggioranza di questo Parlamento decide di mostrare al mondo la sua ipocrisia e i suoi doppi standard: oggi ci impedite di poter votare una risoluzione che dica anche una sola parola contro il governo Netanyahu.

Prendendo di mira le basi UNIFIL, Israele prende di mira dunque l'ONU, il diritto internazionale, i soldati italiani ed europei impegnati in questa missione di pace. L'obiettivo di Israele è chiaro: vuole carta bianca in Medio Oriente, vuole eliminare ogni possibile testimone dei suoi crimini di guerra.

La scorsa settimana l'UE ha espresso le sue preoccupazioni per queste azioni e Israele, di tutta risposta, ha abbattuto una torre di osservazione UNIFIL. Insomma, se ne fregano delle nostre richieste. Ai 40.000 morti di Gaza, di cui qui potete leggere alcuni nomi, centinaia in Libano e migliaia di sfollati, oggi si aggiunge anche la pressione sul contingente UNIFIL e i suoi 1200 soldati italiani.

Cosa deve accadere ancora prima che l'Unione europea decida chiaramente di smettere il velo dell'ipocrisia e dei doppi standard e si ponga dalla parte dell'ONU, delle popolazioni libanese e palestinese che soffrono in questa guerra e della Corte internazionale di giustizia? L'UE deve approvare l'embargo di armi a Israele e deve sostenere la Corte di giustizia internazionale nel proprio corso.

  Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, lo scenario di guerra che si sta delineando in Libano è profondamente preoccupante e minaccia di estendersi ulteriormente nella regione.

Certamente la strage di Hamas del 7 ottobre ha reso inevitabile per Israele difendersi. Ma anche il diritto di difesa deve avvenire nel pieno rispetto del diritto internazionale umanitario. Per questo motivo gli attacchi contro la base UNIFIL in Libano vanno fermamente condannati, perché mettono a rischio non solo il nostro personale delle Nazioni Unite ma anche la fragile stabilità della regione.

La scomparsa del capo di Hamas rappresenta un'opportunità per spingere verso un cessate il fuoco: ma è necessario lavorare con determinazione per una de-escalation immediata utilizzando ogni canale diplomatico.

Per questo motivo, nella giornata di ieri, il ministro degli Esteri italiano, Antonio Tajani, si è recato in Israele e Palestina: per costruire un dialogo che miri alla cessazione immediata delle ostilità ma anche a una soluzione a lungo termine, ossia "due popoli, due Stati", dove israeliani e palestinesi possano convivere in sicurezza e prosperità.

Questa è l'unica via per garantire una pace giusta e duratura.

  Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, this show in here unfolds a tragic scene. The name Gaza is being systematically erased from titles of the debate by the right wing and the far-right factions in here.

Meanwhile, horrors erupt in front of our eyes; children of Gaza in anguish. Their cries fill the air and they are burned alive. This is a nightmare created by humans that history really will tell about. No refuge remains – not even the hospitals. Even there, the world watched them burned alive. Sha’ban al-Dalou was one of their names.

How many must suffer? How many must die? Palestinian souls, Lebanese in need, humanitarians driving, journalists, bold UN peacekeepers, and many stories are yet untold.

I turn to the EPP, ECR, Patriots and ESN. Tell me: how many must be killed before you let go of the hands of Netanyahu, and your empathy rises for the Palestinians and Lebanese also? How many must die before you can say 'ceasefire now' for the people of Israel, Lebanon and Gaza, too? The greater the number, the less is your humanity.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, haluaisin, että kiinnittäisitte huomiota herraan, joka istuu paikalla 457, eli vasemmistolainen meppi, joka kävi täällä puhumassa pöntössä äsken. Hänellä on päällä paita, jossa on QR-koodi, ja kun häntä kuvataan, niin QR-koodin kautta paljastuu sivusto, joka on poliittinen palestiinalaissivusto.

Haluaisin kysyä teiltä arvoisa puhemies, että onko tässä salissa sallittua käyttää tällaisia poliittisia paitoja, poliittisia ilmaisuja, koska ajattelisin niin, että pelisääntöjen pitäisi olla samat kaikille?

  President. – Thank you very much. We will take note of that. And it's true that it's not allowed to expose political messages on your clothes. So please respect that, colleagues.

  Hermann Tertsch (PfE). – Señora presidente, tras un año de guerra provocada por Hamás, Hizbulá y el régimen criminal de Irán, tras inmensas tragedias agravadas porque el terrorista siempre se escuda tras la población civil, con los principales jefes de la matanza del 7 de octubre ya muertos y las organizaciones Hamás y Hizbulá diezmadas, hay una gran oportunidad para una paz estable en el Líbano y en la región.

Para ello, hay que acabar con el secuestro del Líbano por Hizbulá y eso está siendo impedido en este momento porque tenemos unas fuerzas de la FPNUL que fueron llevadas allí para que no estuviera Hizbulá y hoy en día sirven de parapeto a Hizbulá en una guerra abierta. La FPNUL se desplegó para mantener la paz: esa paz no existe, luego debe irse de inmediato. Algunos parecen querer impedirlo para que quizá haya accidentes y víctimas de la FPNUL y poder agitar aún más la animadversión contra Israel. La FPNUL no ha cumplido su cometido contra Hizbulá; ahora, de hecho, protege, sin quererlo, a Hizbulá de las tropas israelíes. Los cascos azules, muchos de ellos españoles, han de ser retirados de inmediato: en la zona de guerra no pintan nada, que se vayan ya.

  Giovanni Crosetto (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, si è appena concluso un importante G7 sulla difesa, nel quale è emersa una forte richiesta di supporto alla missione UNIFIL in Libano, missione che ovviamente noi condividiamo, in quanto la presenza di UNIFIL rappresenta l'unico vero impegno concreto per implementare la risoluzione 1701.

È altresì emersa una forte condanna degli attacchi dell'Iran sul suolo israeliano e, congiuntamente, la richiesta di interrompere dall'Iran il supporto alle organizzazioni terroristiche come Hamas, Hezbollah e gli Huthi.

Noi dobbiamo qui difendere il diritto di Israele di esistere e di difendersi da ogni attacco, ribadendo che il problema non è Israele ma il fondamentalismo e il terrorismo islamico. E al contempo dobbiamo riconoscere che, però, gli attacchi alle basi ONU preconfigurano violazioni del diritto internazionale, diritto al quale ovviamente chiediamo a Israele – come a ognuno degli attori coinvolti – di attenersi.

Nonostante le difficoltà e i fallimenti, abbandonare UNIFIL adesso è impensabile. UNIFIL deve riuscire a esercitare deterrenza e andare via minerebbe la credibilità dell'ONU. Accettare la guerra come unico modo di risolvere le controversie equivarrebbe a negare il diritto delle organizzazioni sovranazionali multilaterali di esistere e questo non ce lo possiamo permettere.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, at this very moment, Israeli Defense Forces personnel are actively putting the lives of UNIFIL peacekeepers at risk in south Lebanon with their deliberate actions. Soldiers from 16 EU Member States form part of UNIFIL, with my own country contributing just under 400 troops at present.

Members of Óglaigh na hÉireann have served continuously since 1978 in UNIFIL and, sadly, 48 of our soldiers have lost their lives while wearing the UN blue beret in Lebanon.

It's a sad situation, colleagues, where munitions sold by EU Member States to Israel are now being fired at the very own soldiers working under UNIFIL in the blue beret. What's worse, the vast majority of Member States are silent on Israel's actions in south Lebanon, and indeed in Gaza.

The EU talks a lot about the rule of law. Yet one country, Israel, gets a free pass for its actions, despite them being contrary to international law, cited by the International Court of Justice, breaching UN resolutions and the UN Charter, Article 2 of the EU-Israel trade association agreement, and, crucially, basic human decency.

The EU must once again become an honest broker in the Middle East peace process. We need to promote the two-state solution, and we need a ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the hostages and an immediate ceasefire as well in south Lebanon to ensure there is no more risk to UNIFIL troops.

  Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la violation du territoire libanais par Israël est inadmissible. Il y a urgence à retrouver la voie du droit international et à condamner les crimes de guerre par voie judiciaire et non militaire. Il y a urgence à rappeler l’essentiel: personne n’a le droit de se faire justice soi-même.

Les attaques israéliennes répétées accablent toute la population libanaise. Elles détruisent chaque jour un peu plus un pays qui était déjà à genoux. Nous, Européens, ne pouvons regarder cela les bras croisés. Face à cet embrasement régional, la FINUL, organe censé maintenir la paix à la frontière, est ciblée. Nos soldats sont en danger. Il est temps de rétablir le droit international et de défendre les Nations unies. Que ce soit la FINUL ou l’UNRWA, l’ONU n’est là que dans un seul but: le respect du droit des populations à vivre dans la paix et la dignité.

Il est encore temps de ne pas laisser le gouvernement israélien, de ne pas laisser Netanyahou piétiner tout ce que la communauté internationale a construit au fil des ans pour faire la paix.

  President. – Thank you very much. The next speaker is Ms Montero. But before I give you the floor, you have to take off your scarf, please. Thank you.

  Irene Montero (The Left). – Señora presidenta, las normas internacionales también impiden los genocidios y aquí está Europa apoyando uno. Esa norma no la cumplen.

Señor comisario, ¿por qué siguen dando apoyo a los genocidas? Esto no es una crisis humanitaria, es una invasión y es un genocidio. Y si Europa dejara de comprar y de vender armas a los genocidas y de permitir el tránsito de armas, si se rompiesen las relaciones comerciales y el Acuerdo de Asociación, Israel no podría acumular más de 43 000 personas asesinadas en Gaza y más de 1 000 en el Líbano.

El ataque a la misión de paz de las Naciones Unidas es un acto de guerra de Israel contra países europeos ante el que tampoco han hecho nada. Si ustedes llaman genocidio al genocidio, si dejan de participar de la propaganda sionista diciendo que Israel tiene derecho a defenderse, entonces el Estado terrorista de Israel tendrá que dejar de arrasar escuelas, hospitales, campos de refugiados, tendrá que dejar de bombardear el Líbano con fósforo blanco y de quemar vivas a personas en hospitales, bajo telas.

Señor comisario, esta es la barbarie retransmitida en directo y ninguno de ustedes podrá decir que no lo sabía. ¿Para qué sirve Europa si dejan que se imponga el más fuerte pisoteando la dignidad de la humanidad y también la legalidad internacional? Ustedes pueden practicar un embargo total de armas y romper relaciones con Israel. Y si no lo hacen, son cómplices.

  Malika Sorel (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, le monde est aujourd'hui en ébullition, la guerre sévit. Cela doit nous inciter à beaucoup de modestie et de sagesse. Je vous demande, Madame la Présidente, de faire respecter le règlement. Nous n'avons pas le droit, en tant que député au Parlement européen, d'arborer des signes politiques. Le keffieh palestinien jette de l'huile sur le feu, nous empêche de réfléchir. Le retirer ne suffit pas, il doit être banni de cet hémicycle. Je vous en prie, Madame la Présidente, plus de symbole politique!

Nous devons, en tant que parlementaires, donner l'exemple et réfléchir de manière calme. Il s'agit de la vie et de la mort de citoyens partout dans le monde. Donc, respectons ce qui nous est demandé. Le keffieh palestinien n'a pas sa place dans l'hémicycle.

  President. – Thank you very much for that. I agree that if you're here and at the speaker's place, then you're not allowed to expose political messages. That's the way I try to rule the debate.

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, firstly, I would like to say I sympathise with the victims or injured of the attack on the UNIFIL mission. But above all, we have to understand, finally, that securing Lebanon and especially southern border can be only assured if Hezbollah withdraws its forces from the area and in accordance with UN Resolution 1701. The Lebanese have to take responsibilities. They have to elect their president, that is being hijacked by Hezbollah again, the political wing, and we have to support them in order to make their army able to guarantee the security of the borders as it was.

Resolution 1701 was never respected. It's dead. It's the end. And I welcome the decision not to renew the mandate of Croatian soldiers that were there, to pull them back, the UN Security Council has to reconsider who is defending and who is observing these borders and this resolution. We have to discuss this issue and not to lose our time here spreading political messages.

  Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señora presidenta, quiero interpelar hoy aquí no a nuestros valores e ideas, ni siquiera a los valores constituyentes de la Unión Europea que deberían regir siempre y parecen no hacerlo en situaciones como la de Gaza: quiero apelar hoy aquí al más mínimo sentimiento de humanidad y desde ahí quiero pedirles que condenemos, de una vez por todas, la violación del Derecho internacional humanitario porque, señorías, no, las órdenes de evacuación por parte de Israel no son conforme al Derecho humanitario internacional, no. Los ataques deliberados a trabajadores humanitarios, a cascos azules, son violaciones del Derecho humanitario internacional. Lo que está ocurriendo hoy en el Líbano debe ser denunciado y debemos pararlo: más de dos mil trescientas personas muertas, más de un millón de personas desplazadas, han vuelto el hambre y el cólera al Líbano… Necesitamos ayuda humanitaria y garantías de acceso, necesitamos corredores humanitarios, necesitamos parar esta barbarie y necesitamos estar a la altura. Por eso, exigimos hoy a la Comisión que lo esté, para que podamos mirar a los ojos de nuestros hijos en el futuro.

  Ondřej Knotek (PfE). – Madam President, we shall not mix cause and consequence, and in this debate you are focusing too much on the consequence. So let's be honest: one of the root causes is simply that UNIFIL failed to help to protect the people of Lebanon from Hezbollah. UNIFIL even failed to protect our closest neighbourhood from the presence of those terrorists, which is what we are debating today. And also, to be honest, Hezbollah is supported by Iran and represents a threat not only to the people of Lebanon, but also to Israel. So Israel, just like Ukraine, which we debated in the previous item, is only doing what is necessary: they are protecting themselves.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it would be an application of double standards, if you ask now Israel for a ceasefire. If we are not doing it for Ukraine, don't do it for Israel.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Evin Incir (S&D), blue-card question. – Madam President, I'm a bit shocked at what was just said. Am I understanding it correct that the colleague from the far-right bench of this Parliament is saying that it is okay for Israel to attack the UN Blue Helmets, to attack UNIFIL? Is that correct?

  Ondřej Knotek (PfE), blue-card answer. – Madam colleague, you should be careful when people are talking, or go back to school, because I didn't say anything like that at all. Israel protected Israel. It's UNIFIL's problem that they were not careful, because close to their stations and positions, there were terrorists, so maybe they have not been doing the correct work. That's it. Please do not say things that I have not mentioned.

  Jaak Madison (ECR). – Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, about the facts: the fact is that from Lebanese territory, Hezbollah has been attacking Israel since October last year. That is the fact. They have been supporting Hamas. Hamas has been supported by the very many Palestinians and probably also by the many very left‑wing colleagues here. So they are destroying the ideology that we need to destroy Israel.

What is the fact? UN peacekeepers, they were warned that they are sitting next to the bases of Hezbollah. They were sitting next to it. They were warned. And now the General‑Secretary of the UN is visiting Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin at the BRICs summit. That's fine for you, of course.

So the problem now is there is a lot of hypocrisy. Left‑wing radicals are, of course, providing support with the EU funds that have been deported to Hamas in Palestine. This money has been used to support the Islamic terrorists, to kill Jews and to destroy peace there. We know the facts that Hamas is working together with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Russia, with Iran and North Korea. That is the side of evil. But we are standing on the good side to destroy the terrorists and to finally fight for peace.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Barry Andrews (Renew), blue-card question. – Is the speaker aware of the widespread reports that for many years the Israeli Government supported Hamas and facilitated financial support to Hamas through third‑party countries in order to undermine the Palestinian Authority? How does he reconcile that fact with the statements he's just made to the Hemicycle?

  Jaak Madison (ECR), blue-card answer. – Actually, you say big sentences like they have been supporting in history, when sometimes, we know just now the facts. Recently, in the last years, the EU taxpayers' money has been used by Hamas to force the terrorists against Israel. That's the fact in the last recent years. We know who are the good side and who are the bad side. If we don't look at the facts about who is actually working together, you are also supporting terrorists. And that's the problem. You are also supporting the Russian terrorism against Ukraine. You are supporting North Korea, because they are all working together there. And that's why I really don't believe that there will be peace without destroying the terrorists. And that Israel has to win with the good side.

  Irena Joveva (Renew). – Madam President, the escalation of conflict in the Middle East is horrifying, but who is really to blame?

Every day, another attack. Every day, tens of civilians dead, another hospital bombed. Displaced people seeking refuge still become targets in bombed and burnt shelters. Population of Palestine, Gaza, population of Lebanon – even UNIFIL peacekeepers – have nowhere to hide from bombs, destruction, mayhem. People are being burned to death, blown to pieces and shot every day in this war. For more than a year, we have been watching the breakdown of humanity, sending Israel weapons and supporting them with our trade deals. Meanwhile, much like a wildfire, the war has been spreading throughout the region.

For far too long, we have tolerated Israeli actions which only encouraged more brutality. Of course Netanyahu is to blame, but so are we or you. We need to cease support for Israel, cease weapons supply and cease our trade deals, and only then we will have a ceasefire.

  Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, tenía una intervención preparada, pero voy a decir otra cosa.

Señor comisario, llevo toda la mañana escuchando los argumentos por los cuales hay que apoyar a Ucrania, a su población, y estamos de acuerdo. Pero he pensado: «Hay que decir la verdad». Y la verdad es que es una hipocresía apoyar a Ucrania y no hacerlo con el Líbano o con Palestina.

Las fronteras de Ucrania valen tanto como las del Líbano o las de Palestina que estableció la ONU. Es una hipocresía sancionar duramente a Putin y no hacerlo con Netanyahu: lo que vale para Ucrania también tiene que valer para el Líbano, para Palestina. Es una hipocresía el doble rasero internacional.

Y decidimos aceptar las resoluciones de la ONU, de la Corte Penal Internacional, del Tribunal de La Haya en relación con Ucrania, en relación con Rusia y, en cambio, no hacerlo con Palestina, con Israel. ¿Hasta cuándo seguiremos siendo cómplices? Hasta ahora tenemos las manos manchadas de sangre.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, looking at the title of the debate, I'm wondering is there a limitation to the amount of text that you can put on the screen. It says 'Urgent need for a ceasefire in Lebanon and for safeguarding the UNIFIL mission in the light of the recent attacks'. I'll finish it off you: 'by Israel, using weapons provided by Germany and the United States of America'.

There will be no ceasefire so long as Israel has an endless supply of weapons. At this stage, I don't expect any better from the United States of America. In fact, I hear their Secretary of State Blinken is going there today to try and breathe new life into the possibility of a ceasefire. Those words make me sick because they're not serious.

But Germany, the country that keeps saying they will never forget the genocide during the Second World War, I do expect better from ye. But still, you're supplying them with 30 % of their weapons. You've got to stop this, because the reality is you seem to have forgotten, but the rest of the world hasn't forgotten. And we won't forget this either. Stop it now. Stop providing the instruments of death.

  Alice Teodorescu Måwe (PPE). – Fru talman! Jag undrar hur det kommer sig att Hizbollah har kunnat attackera Israel under det senaste året – flyglarmen har ljudit över hela Israel denna morgon – samtidigt som Unifil under 18 år inte fullgjort sitt uppdrag i enlighet med resolution 1701, av vilken följer krav på nedrustning och upplösning av Hizbollah.

Hur har Hizbollah, trots förbud att operera vid gränsen där Unifil befinner sig, kunnat upprätta tunnlar, bunkrar och vapendepåer, liksom att återkommande beskjuta Israel?

Varför stannar ens Unifil kvar och låter sig utnyttjas som civila sköldar när de misslyckats med sitt fredsbevarande uppdrag och uppmanats att lämna. Israel gör nu det FN inte förmått göra, vilket belyser den impotens som FN karaktäriseras av. EU behöver skyndsamt terrorklassa hela Hizbollah och rikta blickarna mot Iran som destabiliserar hela regionen.

Om morgondagen inte ska påminna om gårdagen, så måste den terror som israeler, palestinier, libaneser och andra folk tvingas leva med en gång för alla elimineras. Därför behöver vi stå bakom Israel, som står framför oss, i kampen mot terroristerna. Bara så kan det bli fred.

  Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, what is happening in Lebanon and in Gaza must shock us. With impunity, Israel is daily committing war crimes. While rejecting peace, Netanyahu got what he wanted: a regional war and destabilised neighbours. He turned the region into his playground.

In the strongest terms, I condemn Israel's attack on the UN peacekeeping mission and civilian infrastructure.

So, dear colleagues, I ask you: when did we accept that it is okay to bomb a school just because a shooter is hiding inside?

So I have this message for a certain EU minister. A civilian can never be – and I stress – is never a legitimate target.

People in Lebanon are desperate. They urgently need our help. We must immediately open a humanitarian bridge. The country is on the verge of collapsing.

I join calls for the implementation of the UN Resolution 1701. We need an immediate ceasefire. We need peace now!

  György Hölvényi (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! A 2022-es libanoni választási megfigyelő misszió vezetőjeként azt kell mondanom, hogy Libanon teljesen reménytelen helyzetben van. Izrael és a Hezbollah közötti konfliktus kirobbanása évek óta várható volt, de ezt a veszélyt sem a nemzetközi közösség, sem pedig a libanoni politikai élet nem kezelte.

A bejrúti parlamentben pontosan behatárolható politikai erőt, patthelyzetet idéztek elő, így az ország már két éve elnök nélkül sodródik, kiszolgáltatva a Hezbollah által gerjesztett konfliktusnak. A keresztény, szunnita és síita felekezetek közötti egyensúly maga jelenti Libanont. E nélkül – értsük meg – nincs Libanon.

Meggyőződésem, az Európai Uniónak és a tagállamaiknak nagy befolyással rendelkeznek Libanonban, és itt szóba jött többször Franciaország, sokkal többet kell tenniük a helyzet rendezése érdekében. Mindenekelőtt gátat kell vetni a humanitárius krízis további terjedésének.

Hadd emeljem ki, hogy Libanon déli részén szolgálatot teljesítő ENSZ békefenntartók munkája szükséges, a biztonságot szavatolni kell, összhangban az ENSZ Biztonsági Tanácsának megfelelő határozatával.

Libanon kizárólag nemzetközi segítséggel képes talpon maradni, önmagában erre az ország nem képes többet.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner and colleagues, Israel's Ambassador to the UN last week said, and I quote, 'Hezbollah is using UNIFIL outposts as hiding places'. This is patently false. The truth is that the IDF has continuously and flagrantly violated international law, drawing condemnation from the US, from the UK, France, Germany and Italy, in a rare show of moral enlightenment.

Yesterday, an Israeli bulldozer deliberately demolished an observation tower at a UN position. Last week, two Israeli tanks destroyed the main gate of another UN position. Many UN peacekeepers have been injured. So let me take this opportunity to commend the bravery and integrity of UN peacekeepers drawn from 16 Member States. Under intense pressure, they have held the line, carried out route clearances and managed to resupply vulnerable positions, which really underlines how difficult humanitarian access is in the rest of the region.

I am struck by the near unanimity in this House, for once, condemning the actions of the IDF. And I hope this message is heard clearly by the IDF, and especially by those UNIFIL troops, to help them to endure the hardships brought about by the current conflict.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left), blue-card question. – MEP Andrews, you talk a good talk in here, and what you said earlier was very good and very interesting. But I find it hard to square that with the fact that you are part of a government in Ireland that facilitates US war planes landing at Shannon, facilitates weapons being transported through our airspace.

And while that continues, do you not think you are a hypocrite coming in here, saying you're defending the people in the Middle East, when your government is actually facilitating them being shot in the head?

  Barry Andrews (Renew), blue-card answer. – Well, I don't have time to go through your own voting record on human rights issues, but let me restate that the Irish Government was one of the first to recognise the State of Palestine, has continuously insisted on the support of UNWRA, has demanded that there be a review of the EU-Israel trade agreement, and has been four-square standing behind the people of Palestine against Israeli aggression.

And this is recognised not only by UNWRA, but by the people of Palestine. And they have very much acknowledged and recognised the commitment of the Irish Government in this very, very difficult time.

  Estrella Galán (The Left). – Señora presidenta, el Líbano ha sido siempre un país de acogida, yo misma lo he podido comprobar trabajando en sus campos de refugiados y en sus asentamientos en la propia capital. Con una población de más de seis millones, acoge a casi dos millones de personas refugiadas de una forma solidaria, personas refugiadas que se vuelven a ver obligadas a huir, ahora acompañadas del resto de la población civil. Israel sigue actuando impunemente contra todos y contra todo, también contra nosotros. Primero exigió la retirada de las fuerzas de la ONU y, cuando esta rechazó sus chantajes, no dudó en atacar sus bases y, por tanto, atacó el Derecho internacional. Lo que hace ahora en el Líbano es lo mismo que hace con el UNRWA: Netanyahu quiere evitar cualquier testigo internacional de su política genocida.

Señor comisario, ¿hasta cuándo la Comisión va a permitir esta masacre? Los llamamientos al alto el fuego son ya papel mojado y no evitan ni las muertes ni los crímenes de guerra: detengan ya la compraventa de armas, suspendan inmediatamente el Acuerdo de Asociación con Israel, dejemos las excusas a un lado y sancionemos a Israel, porque, si Israel se llamase Rusia, esto habría sido otra cosa.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, uoči međunarodne konferencije u Parizu mi moramo ovdje još jednom naglasiti važnost i potrebu pune implementacije rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti 1701, jer to je ključ ne samo za prekid vatre nego i za održiv mir.

Ako želimo to, onda moramo podržati implementaciju te rezolucije za izgradnju političkih institucija u Libanonu, za teritorijalnu cjelovitost Libanona, ali i za razoružanje Hezbollaha, koji je teroristička organizacija i kao takvu je moramo tretirati.

Ako želimo doista zaštititi civile, ako želimo zaštititi civile i u Izraelu, i u Libanonu, i muslimane, i kršćanske maronite, nemojmo njih zaboraviti, onda moramo doista tražiti potporu UNIFIL-u, ali i potporu koja će biti isto tako onda u punoj implementaciji rezolucije 1701, a to traži razoružanje Hezbollaha, jer je on prijetnja i Izraelu i unutarnjoj stabilnosti Libanona.

  Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a guerra no Médio Oriente agrava‑se todos os dias, atingindo agora também o Líbano, onde os bombardeamentos de Israel forçaram 1,2 milhões de pessoas a abandonar as suas casas. E, na semana passada, assistimos a um ataque do exército israelita à UNIFIL, que segue um padrão de desrespeito já usado em relação à UNRWA.

Esta é mais uma prova de que o que está em causa no Médio Oriente é, para além de uma guerra trágica, um ataque deliberado à ordem internacional, à ONU e agora às suas forças de manutenção da paz.

E é por isso que não desistimos de continuar a reclamar um cessar‑fogo imediato em Gaza, na Cisjordânia e no Líbano, a entrega dos reféns israelitas, alvos do ataque terrorista de 7 de outubro, o respeito pelas regras do direito internacional humanitário e o reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina como condição para a negociação da paz para a região e do desmantelamento dos grupos terroristas.

E é por isso que insistimos em que utilizemos a alavanca da suspensão do acordo de associação entre a União Europeia e Israel e o embargo comercial a todos os colonatos ilegais.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, since Israel's invasion of Lebanon, not only has more devastation been brought in the world, but also another offensive against the rules-based order, which the United Nations has worked to protect since the Second World War. UNIFIL are not in southern Lebanon to attack anyone. They are a force mandated by the UN to keep the peace. Yet, as we have seen, 'peaceful' or 'UN' do not necessarily qualify as exemptions to Israel's reconnaissance, by far.

There are 380 Irish peacekeepers on the front line in south Lebanon with this mission, and over the last 46 years, over 30 000 Irish peacekeepers have been stationed there, engaging in humanitarian activities. Their impact is such that the people speak English in an Irish accent as strong as mine. We must commend to the highest possible degree the peacekeepers for their commitment to their mission in ever-challenging circumstances, and for their bravery against the IDF, who have threatened them and injured their colleagues.

  Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (S&D). – Madam President, what more will it take for the EU to sanction Israel? Israel has turned Gaza into a sea of rubble. It is engaging in the indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon. Now it has threatened the UNIFIL mandate in Lebanon and even attacked UN troops and property.

Of course, this disregard for the mandate of the UN by the Israeli Government is nothing new. For years, Israel has sought to undermine the Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA.

UNRWA is the last lifeline for Palestinians in Gaza. For many, they are the only source of food, shelter and access to healthcare. UNRWA is the only hope we have to start education for over 650 000 children in Gaza – the children that Israel has not gotten around to murder yet. Without UNRWA, an entire generation will be lost to this conflict.

I want to say to those on the right of this House who want to do Netanyahu's dirty work by defunding UNRWA: it is shameful what you are doing. History will surely curse you.

Ireland stands with Palestine and Ireland stands with UNRWA.

  Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, time and again, for more than a year already, in each plenary week of the European Parliament, we have to focus on the Middle East, and that's a tragedy, but it's also necessary that we keep attention up for the ongoing attacks, terrorism, war.

And suffering are in the first place citizens, in the case we are discussing today, citizens of Lebanon. Lebanon is not attacking anybody. Lebanon is a battlefield. Lebanon is a battlefield misused by the Iranian mullah regime, just as the Iranian mullah regime misuses its own population for their negative and destructive harmful purposes. And the Iranian mullah regime is not only using Lebanon as a battlefield, but also Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, as well as Hamas as a terrorist organisation, not only against our ally Israel, but against all of us.

So let's keep things to be in order and let's seek for peace.

  Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, los dobles estándares son el cáncer de la política exterior de la Unión Europea y las metástasis se multiplican por el mundo de modo que nuestro discurso de los valores solo provoca sonrisas de incredulidad.

Estamos actuando como el peor Kissinger: promoviendo y defendiendo violaciones de la soberanía y de los derechos humanos, porque las hacen —para algunos— «los nuestros». Sí, Netanyahu es un conspicuo violador del Derecho internacional, pero para algunos es «nuestro» violador del Derecho internacional.

¿Son las fronteras internacionales inviolables? Pues depende de qué ejército lo haga: si lo hace Turquía en Siria, gran escándalo; si lo hace Rusia en Ucrania, resoluciones y sanciones; pero, si es Israel, se acude al 7 de octubre y a Hamás y se justifica cualquier cosa: los más viles asesinatos de población civil indefensa con la excusa de los escudos humanos, los más enloquecidos ataques verbales y militares a las Naciones Unidas.

Las violaciones son tan flagrantes y repetidas que la cuestión de repensar toda nuestra relación con Israel no va solo de justicia y valores, va también de nuestra credibilidad en el mundo.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, cred că cel mai important lucru pe care l-am auzit astăzi în hemiciclu este să ajungem să punem în aplicare Rezoluția 1701 a ONU, să pledăm pentru pace, să nu ne poziționăm, subiectiv, poate, de o parte și de alta. Mesajul nostru trebuie să fie foarte clar: pace, să înceteze războiul. Da, trebuie să vedem cum au ajuns Hamas și Hezbollah să nu poată să fie dezarmate. Avem misiune ONU. De ce de atâția ani nu reușim să punem capăt acestor teroriști?

În plus, cred că foarte bine s-a spus aici – trebuie văzut ce facem cu Iranul, pentru că Libanul a fost atacat de fapt de Iran. Pacea trebuie să fie pentru noi, să ne unească aici, dar să reușim ca Înaltul Reprezentant să-și pună pe agendă acum, primul lucru, discuția cu ONU și punerea în aplicare a Rezoluției 1701. Avem două focare de război și pentru ambele trebuie să luptăm, fără dublă măsură, pentru pace și în Ucraina, pentru pace și în Orientul Mijlociu.

  Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, όλοι λέμε για σεβασμό του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών και καταδικάζουμε οποιεσδήποτε επιθέσεις κατά του προσωπικού. Να θυμίσω την επίθεση του τουρκικού κατοχικού στρατού στην Κύπρο μαζί με άλλους Τουρκοκυπρίους, πρόσφατα, το 2023. Χτυπούσαν μέλη των ειρηνευτικών δυνάμεων, απειλούσαν να τους πατήσουν με φορτηγά και αυτοκίνητα, έσπρωχναν με μπουλντόζες τα αυτοκίνητα του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών, προκαλώντας ζημιές. Ενέργειες, δηλαδή, που είναι απαράδεκτες και συνιστούν σοβαρό έγκλημα σύμφωνα με το διεθνές δίκαιο. Η αιτία; Ήθελαν να φτιάξουν δρόμο σε περιοχή που δεν τους ανήκει, δηλαδή να επεκτείνουν τα κατεχόμενα εδάφη με πρόσχημα δήθεν ανθρωπιστικούς λόγους· ανθρωπιστικούς λόγους, όμως, για τους οποίους οι ίδιοι είναι υπαίτιοι με την παράνομη κατοχή της Κύπρου.

Τελικά, όλοι έκλεισαν το στόμα τους, τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη υποχώρησαν και η παρανομία υλοποιήθηκε χωρίς καμία αντίδραση ή κύρωση. Οι Τούρκοι έκαναν το δικό τους και όλοι «σφυρίζουν αδιάφορα» για την Κύπρο. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ο σεβασμός των μελών ειρηνευτικών δυνάμεων είναι … 

(Η Πρόεδρος αφαιρεί τον λόγο από τον ομιλητή)

  Ciaran Mullooly (Renew). – Madam President, the horror of the violent onslaught on Gaza is a live TV news event as we speak. Cameras are showing the bombings every hour and over 40 000 people have already died there. Israel has the right to defend itself, but this is outrageous. It must also respect international law. And in years to come, I wonder what the historians will say about what we did in this House, or what we did not do, perhaps more to the point.

And in the middle of it all are 370 Irish soldiers in the 124th Infantry Battalion supporting the UNIFIL forces there. Young men and women from the Custume Barracks in Athlone, from the Curragh and County Donegal, who have been attacked day after day. The peacekeepers! I spoke to the father of one of these just 20 minutes ago. His son has now been in a bunker for more than 40 hours. A peacekeeper under attack. What a disgrace! At the end of the day, what are we going to do about the situation? The father asks us, why is Israel trying to kill his son, a peacekeeper?

Ladies and gentlemen, the time for action is long gone. A violation of international law must be punished.

  Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, Europa tiene que reclamar el alto el fuego en Gaza y en el sur del Líbano. Señor comisario, Europa tiene que reclamar corredores humanitarios. Señor comisario, Europa tiene que reclamar que se cumpla el Derecho internacional humanitario. Y, por último, señor comisario, hagan por luchar por la paz, luchen contra este genocidio.

La situación en el sur del Líbano y en Gaza es catastrófica. Tenemos peticiones, en estos momentos, de personal médico que nos está diciendo que hay una verdadera catástrofe. Se atacan ciudades, pueblos, hospitales, escuelas… Y, ¿saben?, hay que ir a la geopolítica y saber que la cuestión de las invasiones del Líbano, desde la de 1978, la de 1982, la de 2006 y ahora la invasión, se debe a la causa palestina, y ahora mucho más, porque, si hubiese un alto el fuego en Gaza y el cese de la ocupación, seguramente esta invasión no se produciría. Y hay un culpable, señor comisario: es Israel.

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, as conclusões do Conselho Europeu e o título deste debate espelham a dualidade de critérios da União Europeia e a sua cumplicidade com Israel. Sim, o ataque às forças das Nações Unidas deve ser condenado. Sim, esse ataque constitui uma grave violação do direito internacional. E sim, ele foi feito por Israel.

O facto de não se referir o agressor é revelador da cumplicidade da União Europeia com Israel e com a escalada de guerra que leva a cabo com os ataques ao Líbano e a agressão ao seu povo, arrastando a região para um conflito com desenvolvimentos imprevisíveis.

Cumplicidade com Israel, que há décadas faz tábua rasa do direito internacional, que leva a cabo um genocídio em Gaza, pondo em risco a vida de quase 2 milhões de palestinianos – situação sobre a qual a maioria dos grupos políticos e a presidente deste Parlamento recusaram debater nesta sessão.

Sim, é preciso um cessar‑fogo no Líbano e na Palestina. De que lado está a União Europeia, à espera de condenar Israel e tomar outras medidas, incluindo a suspensão do acordo de associação?

  Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Madam President, the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon is present pursuant to a resolution of the Security Council, and under the UN Charter, everybody has a duty to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

But two weeks ago, Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister – and a Green – suggested it is now Germany's position that Israeli attacks on civilian centres are acceptable, as a matter of 'self-defence', to achieve the goal of 'destroying' terrorists. The position of Czech Government, mostly related to PPE, is similarly shameful.

Ladies and gentlemen, nothing in war is black and white. But few things in international law are easier, clearer, than the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

Attacking the UN peacekeepers is an abomination, which was in past perpetrated by terrorists, but never by state actors and members of the United Nations.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I and eight other Members have submitted a motion calling on Israel to desist from these attacks and to fulfil its obligations under international law. Thanks for everybody in the room supporting this position.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Janez Lenarčič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, an allegation was made that EU funds – EU taxpayers' money – went to Hamas. This is a very crude allegation without any proof and I want to categorically reject it here. The sources of funding for Hamas are very well known and they are not in the EU.

Second, calls were addressed to the Commission to stop arms exports to Israel. I wish to clarify that military cooperation between EU Member States and third countries, including Israel, fall completely outside the EU competence and the Commission has zero competence in this matter. This issue would have to be reviewed at the national level.

With these two clarifications, let me try to summarise, on the basis of the discussion that we held, a few key orientations for the way forward and possibly, just possibly, a way out of the crisis in Lebanon.

First, attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure must stop immediately. Second, the Israeli Defence Forces attacks against UNIFIL must also stop immediately. Third, the EU remains strongly committed to supporting UNIFIL. Its role will become even more important in the perspective of a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. And fourth and last, the EU reiterates once again its call for an immediate ceasefire. It actively supports international mediation efforts in this direction and is ready to bring its own contribution to make it possible at the earliest.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

  Idoia Mendia (S&D), por escrito. – Los ataques aéreos israelíes en Líbano se han cobrado más de 2.300 vidas y han desplazado a 1,2 millones de personas, lo que representa una quinta parte de la población libanesa. Durante la ejecución de la estrategia, se han atacado de forma deliberada las inmediaciones de la Fuerza Provisional de las Naciones Unidas para el Líbano (FPNUL), que opera desde 1978, a la vez que Israel ha indicado que deben retirarse los cascos azules. Todo ello, a la vez que Israel sigue su ofensiva letal en el Norte de Gaza. La situación humanitaria es crítica.

Nuestra postura se enmarca en torno al respeto del derecho internacional y el cumplimiento de la Resolución 1701 del Consejo de Seguridad. España es uno de los 10 mayores participantes en la misión de FINUL y estamos en contra de cualquier retirada de la Misión. Del mismo modo, defendemos el cese del envío de armas y de la revisión del Acuerdo de Asociación de la UE e Israel a raíz de la estrategia de Israel contra el Líbano, Gaza y su ocupación de nuevos territorios. Por último, abogamos por una mayor ayuda humanitaria en el marco de la UE al igual que ha constatado el Gobierno de España.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)

PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA
President

(Ħin li fih tkompliet is-seduta: 12:04)

  President. – Before we start the votes, I would like to welcome some guests in the gallery. We have a delegation of mayors from across Europe, participating in the European Mayors Summit taking place here these days in Strasbourg. Welcome to the European Parliament.

  President. – I have received a request from the competent authorities in Hungary for the parliamentary immunity of Ilaria Salis to be waived. This request is referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.

  President. – I would like to inform you that I have received a request for urgent procedure from the ENVI Committee, pursuant to Rule 170(6), on the Deforestation Regulation: provisions relating to the date of application.

The vote on this request will be taken tomorrow. If adopted, the vote will be added to the draft agenda of the November I part-session.

  President. – The ENVI Committee has decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations ahead of Council's first reading on two files, pursuant to Rule 73.

The positions adopted by Parliament at first reading, which constitute the mandates for those negotiations, are available on the plenary webpage, and their titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting.

  President. – The next item is the vote.

  President. – The first vote is on the report by Karin Karlsbro on establishing the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism and providing exceptional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (See minutes, item 9.1).

PRÉSIDENCE: YOUNOUS OMARJEE
Vice-Président

  Le Président. – Le vote suivant porte sur la refonte de la mise en œuvre du ciel unique européen (voir point 9.2 du procès-verbal).

  Le Président. – Le vote suivant porte sur le projet de budget rectificatif numéro 2 au budget général 2024: budgétisation de l’excédent de l’exercice 2023 (voir point 9.3 du procès-verbal).

  Le Président. – Le vote suivant porte sur le projet de budget rectificatif numéro 4 au budget général 2024: mise à jour des recettes (ressources propres) et ajustements pour certaines agences décentralisées (voir point 9.4 du procès-verbal).

  Le Président. – Le vote suivant porte sur la mobilisation du Fonds européen d’ajustement à la mondialisation: demande EGF/2024/001 BE/Match-Smatch (voir point 9.5 du procès-verbal).

  Le Président. – Le vote suivant porte sur deuxième rapport concernant la décharge sur l’exécution du budget général de l’Union européenne pour l’exercice 2022, section II: Conseil européen et Conseil (voir point 9.6 du procès-verbal).

(Ceci clôt l'Heure des votes)

(La séance est suspendue quelques instants)

(La séance est reprise à 12h15)

  Le Président. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Victor Negrescu et de Niclas Herbst, au nom de la commission des budgets, sur le budget général de l’Union européenne pour l’exercice 2025 – toutes sections [12084/2024 - C10-0099/2024 - 2024/0176(BUD)] (A10-0008/2024).

  Victor Negrescu, rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Commissioner (I also expected the ministers to be here), dear colleagues, when preparing the speech for today's plenary, I felt trapped in a maze that seems to repeat every year. This is the annual EU budgetary procedure. We know there is a way out – a better solution for the European Union to continue to have a positive impact in the lives of the people we represent – but we always make things more complicated than they are.

The EU budget is an investment budget designed to provide financial resources in the areas that require common action. And today, based on EU polls, citizens expect us to finance the programmes and actions that increase their living standards and protect their prosperity and quality of life. This is what the European Parliament is proposing in its resolution, adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Budgets. I take the opportunity to thank all the political groups involved, and our staff, for a wonderful work and for this result that corresponds, in my opinion, as general rapporteur, to what needs to be done to match citizens' expectations.

Our proposal is prudent yet ambitious. We seek to allocate adequate resources for the key flagship programmes, while at the same time maintaining financial availabilities for unforeseen events and for the payments needed for the Recovery and Resilience Facility. In this regard, in our resolution, we call upon the European Commission to assess what we call 'errors', to conduct better forecasts when it comes to financing the full implementation of the recovery plans, and to ensure the predictability we need for the EU budget.

The European Parliament's position is clear: the EU budget cannot be a prisoner of the interest rates by reducing our programmes beyond the agreement we reached during the revision of the multiannual financial framework. The European Parliament will defend its role as budgetary authority and will continue to protect a budget that is fit for the current challenges.

Coming back to the maze. The position of the Council – Hello, Minister. Thank you for coming – is based on false assumptions that go against what we believe to be the economic theories at work. In a challenging economic environment, we need to invest and increase Europe's impact at global level. The Draghi and Letta report highlight the importance of increasing investments in order to maintain the competitiveness of the European Union.

Let us call it what it is: what the Council is proposing is austerity. Reducing our investment capacity at the European Union level will make us vulnerable on the world stage, will diminish our capacity to help Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and the frontline countries affected by the illegal war launched by the Russian Federation, would reduce our instruments to innovate and build a competitive economy, will leave our borders unprotected, and would ignore our farmers and young people calling for help that year.

I will switch to Romanian.

De aceea, Parlamentul European dorește ca bugetul nostru anual de circa 200 de miliarde EUR să cuprindă următoarele priorități:

o creștere cu 110 milioane pentru programele din domeniul sănătății. Pandemia de COVID-19 s-a încheiat, dar nu putem ignora lecțiile învățate. Putem face mai mult și mai bine împreună în domeniul sănătății. Planul de combatere a cancerului, precum și prevenția bolilor cardiovasculare, îmbunătățirea sănătății mintale sau ajutorarea pacienților care suferă de boli rare și a copiilor care au nevoie de îngrijire medicală sunt doar câteva dintre lucrurile pentru care putem face mai mult împreună;

pe lângă respingerea tăierilor propuse de Consiliu, solicităm suplimentarea cu 70 de milioane EUR a programelor noastre de tineret și educație. Erasmus a devenit un program care este accesat mai ales de elite, deoarece a devenit imposibil pentru studenții și profesioniștii noștri să aibă acces la mobilități odată cu creșterea costurilor de trai;

42 de milioane EUR în plus pentru a ne proteja cetățenii împotriva efectelor dezastrelor naturale, inclusiv ale inundațiilor recente care au afectat Europa Centrală și de Est. Președinta von der Leyen a promis 10 miliarde EUR și a organizat o conferință frumoasă, dar avem nevoie de surse de finanțare noi. Parlamentul European are o abordare practică și identifică sume suplimentare din fondurile disponibile;

96 de milioane EUR suplimentare pentru fermieri și agricultură. Trebuie să ne asigurăm că cetățenii noștri au acces la alimente de calitate, în timp ce fermierii noștri sunt plătiți corect pentru munca lor. Zonele rurale, izolate și montane au nevoie de o atenție deosebită din partea Uniunii Europene. De exemplu, în frumosul meu județ Alba din România, chiar în Munții Apuseni, oamenii încă se așteaptă ca Europa să facă mai multe pentru ei;

35 de milioane EUR pentru protecția frontierelor și sprijin pentru solicitanții de azil, inclusiv pentru a finaliza integrarea deplină în spațiul Schengen a României și Bulgariei;

acordarea de sprijin pentru infrastructura de transport și energie prin creșterea fondurilor pentru Mecanismul pentru Interconectarea Europei sau suplimentarea fondurilor pentru a proteja natura și biodiversitatea și a sprijini lupta împotriva schimbărilor climatice;

creșterea capacității noastre de a acționa la nivel global prin majorarea fondurilor în acest sens, fie că vorbim de ajutor umanitar sau fondurile pentru vecinătatea de est și cea sudică, în special pentru Republica Moldova, care acum, după recentul referendum, are nevoie de mai mult sprijin.

De asemenea, este clar că Europa poate acționa. De aceea, doresc să subliniez mesajul nostru puternic atunci când vine vorba de o acțiune mai eficientă și mai puternică a Uniunii Europene în confruntarea cu cartelurile de droguri, în asigurarea sănătății mintale sau în dezvoltarea capacității noastre militare și de apărare. Voi sublinia de asemenea în final necesitatea de a facilita mobilitatea în UE. Acesta este motivul pentru care Parlamentul European solicită îmbunătățirea coordonării securității sociale, care va permite diasporei europene să-și transfere mai rapid beneficiile sociale și pensiile dintr-o țară în alta.

  Niclas Herbst, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Herr Staatsminister, Herr Kommissar, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Der mehrjährige Finanzrahmen ist ein sehr enges Korsett – ein zu enges Korsett. Das macht uns bei den jährlichen Haushaltsplanungen immer wieder Probleme. Obwohl der mehrjährige Finanzrahmen ein so enges Korsett ist, schaffen wir es nicht, wirklich vorausschauend zu handeln.

Ich nehme mal das Beispiel der Revision des mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens. Es ist uns nicht gelungen, die Probleme in Rubrik 7, die wir kannten, wirklich anzugehen; stattdessen haben wir sie wieder mal aufs nächste Jahr verschoben. Wir stehen jetzt davor, wohl wissend, dass wir hätten handeln müssen und dass wir im nächsten Jahr vor genau den gleichen Problemen stehen werden und dass wir wieder spezielle Instrumente nutzen müssen. Rubrik 7 ist im Haushalt nicht ausreichend repräsentiert.

Das Gleiche, ebenfalls nicht vorausschauend, beim Thema Cybersicherheit: Seit Jahren reden wir darüber, über neue Posten, über mehr Zusammenarbeit, und stellen jetzt fest, dass wir in allen Institutionen handlungsfähig sein müssen – mit den Problemen, die es auch für die Postengestaltung mit sich bringt. Positiv anzumerken: Die Zusammenarbeit wird gestärkt. Auch im Berichtigungsschreiben schaffen wir es, die EU zu stärken, neue Posten zu schaffen und auch Mittel zusammenzufassen. Gleichwohl sehen wir bei den Verhandlungen über Posten für Cybersicherheit, dass es auch hier wieder Probleme gibt. Das ist nicht vorausschauend.

Stabile Personalpolitik: Ich kann es aus der Sicht des Rates gut verstehen, dass hier von Jahr zu Jahr ein klares Signal bei der Personalpolitik gefordert wird; gleichwohl ist es nur die eine Seite der Medaille. Wenn wir es nicht schaffen, durch Aufgabenkritik wirklich auch Personal an der einen Stelle abzuschaffen oder umzuschichten, dann sind wir natürlich an anderen Stellen, wo wir mehr Personal brauchen, sehr eng gebunden. Das sehen wir nicht nur beim Thema Cybersicherheit. Ich nehme mal das Beispiel EDSB beim Thema Datenschutz. Wir wissen, dass wir in den nächsten Jahren sehr stark auf KI-gestützte Systeme und -Anwendungen setzen müssen, zum Beispiel bei der Risikobewertung, wenn es um das Thema Betrug und Korruption geht. Auch in anderen Bereichen werden wir darauf setzen müssen. Gleichzeitig streiten wir uns um sechs, sieben oder acht Stimmen beim Datenschutzbeauftragten, wohl wissend, dass die Implementierung und die Zulassung solcher Systeme dann Probleme bereiten wird. Das ist nicht vorausschauend.

Ebenso beim Thema Eurojust, beim Thema Europol und beim Thema Frontex. Über all die Jahre haben wir uns hier gestritten, und jetzt merken wir, dass der Außengrenzenschutz extrem wichtig ist. Wir haben dort nicht vorausschauend gehandelt.

Wenn es um vorausschauendes Handeln geht, möchte ich ein weiteres Thema nennen: den EAD. Wir wollen in der ganzen Welt diplomatisch präsent sein, haben es aber versäumt, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen in den über 50 Delegationen vernünftig umzusetzen. Wir haben jetzt Probleme – wohl wissend, dass Terroranschläge und auch Angriffe anderer Art immer wahrscheinlicher werden. Das war leider nicht vorausschauend gehandelt. Wenn wir jetzt hier nicht die notwendigen Mittel bereitstellen, dann handeln wir schon wieder nicht vorausschauend, und wir werden am Ende weltweit Delegationen streichen müssen.

Ein weiteres Beispiel, wenn ich nochmal das Wort vorausschauend benutzen darf: Mietzulage in Luxemburg. Auch hier haben wir jahrelang zugeschaut, haben gewartet, bis die Schere immer weiter auseinandergeht, und stellen heute fest, dass es erhebliche Probleme bereitet, Personal zu rekrutieren. Wir sind auf der anderen Seite auch nicht bereit, Standorte infrage zu stellen. Das ist nicht vorausschauend, und wenn wir in diesem Jahr nicht handeln, dann wird das Problem im nächsten Jahr noch größer.

Ich weiß, dass es natürlich auch für eine Präsidentschaft extrem schwierig ist, in der kurzen Phase, in der man den Ratsvorsitz innehat, wirklich zu handeln. Ich hoffe aber, dass die ungarische Ratspräsidentschaft mit uns vorausschauend verhandelt. Ja, auch wir als Parlament müssen da unsere Hausaufgaben machen und haben auch in der Vergangenheit oftmals vielleicht nicht vorausschauend genug gehandelt und auf der eigenen Seite auch keine harten Einschnitte befürwortet.

Ich hoffe, dass wir von den institutionellen Kämpfen wegkommen, die immer so zwischen den Institutionen geführt werden, denn auch das ist nicht vorausschauend, aber genau das ist unsere Aufgabe. Ich freue mich auf konstruktive Verhandlungen.

  Péter Benő Banai, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to attend today the European Parliament's debate on the draft budget of the Union for 2025. We already had the opportunity to exchange views on this important topic in September when I presented to you the Council's position. Meanwhile, the Commission has presented an amending letter to the draft budget, which will have an impact on both of our institutions.

I will start by stating that the Parliament and the Council share many of the key priorities for the entire MFF period and for the next year as well. But we live in difficult times. As I outlined at the September plenary session, we must have the courage to make clear choices, so that the available financial resources in 2025 allows the Union to act effectively without increasing the pressure on national budgets and taxpayers indeed. The current economic and budgetary situation calls for a prudent approach. This is why the Council supports the backloading of some priorities to reinforce others, as well as the creation of margins and flexibility in the budget to ensure a rapid response to address new challenges. This is the key principle of our approach.

Unfortunately, the differences between our respective positions at this stage remain relatively high, near EUR 2.8 billion in commitments and EUR 1.8 billion in payments. It seems to us that the Parliament increases several budget lines, requests an almost full use of the tiny remaining margins, and imposes a substantial use of special instruments to cover expenditure that is not unforeseeable, such as the financing cost of the European Union recovery instrument and the administrative costs. The Council finds this unjustified and in contradiction with our approach, which is based on budgetary prudence and financial discipline. Therefore, the Council would not be able to approve all the Parliament's amendments to its position should you vote them through tomorrow.

Please, honourable Members, Commissioner, allow me to make some preliminary remarks on some amendments. As regards Heading 1, it's important to support the digital green transition, which contributes to the union's economic recovery. However, we cannot accept those additional increases linked to Horizon which stem from the commitments made under the Financial Regulation. This is in contradiction with what was agreed for the whole MFF period, to which the Parliament gave its context as well.

As regards Heading 2a, Heading 3, we have not big differences. I hope that we can reach an agreement on on these headings.

On Heading 2b, let me reiterate, the Council fully acknowledges the importance of programmes such as Erasmus+ or EU4Health, and emphasises the programmes appropriations are already aligned with their financial programming. Therefore, the increases proposed by the Parliament are, in our opinion, not justified.

As regards the interest cost, we still believe that our reading of the use of the cascade mechanism is appropriate to limit the use of special instruments and to ease the situation in the future years, when the financing will become more difficult.

As regards Heading 7, which was mentioned by Mr Herbst, let me mention the Luxembourg housing allowance, which we think is premature. We think it's not the right time now to have this new initiative. Of course, we are ready to come back to this issue in a later year.

To sum up, the Council and Parliament share many priorities, but we need to work together to achieve a well balanced budget for 2025 that avoids unnecessary expenditure and foresees sufficient flexibility to face unpredictable challenges. To that end, I think we have some work to do in the coming weeks. I can reaffirm the Council's willingness to reach a balanced agreement on the budget for 2025 as soon as possible.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister Banai, honourable Members, we are indeed one week away from the start of the consultation on the draft budget for next year. I would like to thank the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Budgets and all specialised committees, for the intensive work on the Commission's proposal for and the Council reading of the draft budget 2025. Of course, I welcome that there could be found a compromise, not by all the political groups but by the majority of political groups and committees representing a united Parliament's position on this subject.

Both Parliament and the Council have now set the framework for their respective negotiation mandates. As usual at this point, the positions of Parliament and the Council diverge substantially, but as already said here in September, I regret the Council cuts and I don't find the justifications really convincing, in particular where they contradict the Council's own priorities and decisions.

Looking at Parliament's position, I welcome that the amendments proposed by Parliament reinstate the expenditure at the level proposed by the Commission in the draft budget. However, may I say, like always, the Parliament proposes reinforcements of a broad number of programmes, also for 2025. This includes research and innovation, including the use of Article 53 of the Financial Regulation, digital climate action, agriculture, competitiveness and employment opportunities, crisis response, health, EU values actions related to asylum and migration, humanitarian aid and neighbourhood.

I must stress that substantial increases would require extensive mobilisation of special instruments, and we need to treat the remaining availabilities carefully, something we state regularly in the different discussions and settings.

Clear prioritisation of tabled amendments, as well as concessions on both sides, will be necessary, and discussions should focus on those programmes where meaningful adjustments can happen. This is even more important this year when we implement the EURI cascade for the first time. This cascade foresees that part of the cost overrun, a benchmark of 50 %, should be financed from existing availabilities.

I presented the Commission's amending letter during our budgetary trilogue last Thursday. It addresses some elements included both in the Council position and in Parliament's amendments, in particular with regard to the updated needs for payment appropriations, agriculture, the EURI line and administrative expenditures.

I would like to ask Parliament and the Council to consider this amending letter as a starting point for a negotiating process. I am confident that the negotiations will continue in the positive spirit we had until now, and that Parliament and the Council will manage to reconcile their positions in due time. Of course, my team and I spare no effort to support your work throughout the conciliation period to reach a good agreement, a good compromise, and we remain as honest brokers.

  Hilde Vautmans, rapporteur voor advies van de commissie AFET. – Voorzitter, collega’s, vanuit de Commissie buitenlandse zaken hebben we deze begroting bijgestuurd, want we zien allemaal dat de wereld in enkele jaren tijd een stuk vijandiger is geworden. Ons nabuurschap staat letterlijk en figuurlijk in brand. Met deze begroting wordt dan voor mij ook een eerste voorzichtige poging gedaan om tegemoet te komen aan die uitdagingen.

Extra inspanning in humanitaire hulp, een verdubbeling van de begroting voor vredesopbouw en – heel belangrijk – extra middelen voor defensie en in het bijzonder voor de militaire mobiliteit tussen de lidstaten.

Ik steun die verhogingen volmondig, zolang we maar beseffen dat we niet meer doen dan wat tijd kopen. Want als morgen Trump opnieuw verkozen wordt, zal blijken dat dit allemaal zwaar onvoldoende is. We moeten beseffen dat met Joe Biden de laatste Amerikaanse president vertrekt die Europa in zijn DNA heeft. In het post-Bidentijdperk zullen we veel meer moeten doen dan wat begrotingsverhoginkjes links en rechts. We gaan antwoorden moeten vinden op de volgende vragen: hoe integreren we onze nationale legers? Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat we niet alleen Amerikaanse wapens kopen, maar ook zorg dragen voor onze eigen Europese defensie-industrie? In afwachting van meer en beter steun ik de voorliggende begrotingsverhogingen.

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur pour avis de la commission DEVE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, de nouvelles crises humanitaires viennent s’ajouter à celles déjà existantes, en l’occurrence aux conflits ouverts, oubliés ou gelés.

Soucieuse de répondre à des besoins humanitaires croissants, la commission du développement a proposé pour 2025 120 millions d’euros supplémentaires pour l’aide humanitaire. Elle a également proposé de maintenir les ressources nécessaires au financement des droits de l’homme, à l’action de la société civile et à la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable, et ce, au moins, à leur niveau initialement prévu.

Aussi sommes-nous d’avis que les États membres doivent agir de concert avec l’Union européenne, eux qui disposent de quatre fois plus de moyens budgétaires que l’Union européenne elle-même. Le traité de Lisbonne, d’ailleurs, fait de la complémentarité des 27 États membres et de la cohérence dans leur action une exigence.

Soyons donc conscients du message que nous envoyons à nos partenaires du Sud, dont bon nombre sont en train de nous tourner le dos. Il serait contre-productif, en effet, de baisser la garde dès lors que nous sommes, de loin, le principal acteur mondial en matière de coopération au développement et d’action humanitaire.

  José Cepeda, ponente de opinión de la Comisión CONT. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, gracias por estar aquí presente y, sobre todo, gracias también a los ponentes, a los señores Negrescu y Herbst, que han hecho un magnífico trabajo para precisamente trasladar la opinión del Parlamento a este proyecto de presupuesto.

Desde la Comisión CONT queremos, desde luego, poner en valor la importancia de buscar que los sobrecostes, por ejemplo en los programas de Next Generation EU, no impliquen recortes a nuestras políticas públicas. La Unión Europea, desde luego, necesita tener recursos propios y, en ese sentido, tenemos que trabajar de una forma muy importante para garantizar el Pacto Verde, el Pacto Digital, e intentar desarrollar un nuevo marco en un modelo de mercado donde el conocimiento posiblemente se vaya a imponer a los sistemas monetarios. Y, en ese sentido, y pensando en las futuras generaciones, desde luego queremos también mencionar la importancia de la ciberseguridad: tenemos que proteger nuestras políticas digitales al menos con un 10 % de inversión en cada desarrollo de ciberseguridad que se implemente.

  Antonio Decaro, relatore per parere della commissione ENVI. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il parere annuale sul bilancio è un momento fondamentale per il Parlamento, perché attraverso le scelte che faremo oggi diremo ai nostri concittadini quale Europa vogliamo.

In qualità di presidente della commissione ENVI, non posso sottrarmi dal ricordare gli impegni che abbiamo preso con le prossime generazioni sulle azioni per il clima, ma anche con i nostri concittadini, con le imprese e con i lavoratori.

Il nostro pianeta ci chiede scelte coraggiose adesso. Quelle date scritte sui documenti ufficiali si devono tradurre in risorse per accompagnare il percorso verso quella data. Il nostro obiettivo è portare a termine una transizione ambientale giusta, che non lasci indietro nessuno.

Aggiungo che non è pensabile tagliare i fondi per il meccanismo unionale della protezione civile, visti gli eventi climatici che si abbattono sempre più feroci sui nostri territori. E non è possibile tagliare i fondi sulla salute: vuol dire che non abbiamo imparato nessuna lezione dalla pandemia.

Un'Europa che non investe nella prevenzione e nella salute dei suoi cittadini – tutti – non è l'Europa che vogliamo.

  Anna Cavazzini, rapporteur for the opinion of the IMCO Committee. – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, let me highlight the priorities of the IMCO Committee. First, our customs and market surveillance need sufficient resources to implement consumer protection, for example in e-commerce, and to ensure compliance with EU law by all companies to create a level playing field in the single market.

Second, our milestone legislation like the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the AI Act, but also the product ban on forced labour, needs to be implemented and enforced effectively and robustly. The digital single market has to benefit citizens and companies alike. We cannot tolerate human rights dumping on our market and, to enforce all of that, we need adequate resources in the Commission.

And third, with the reform of public procurement coming up, we want to remind you that the single market programme is also aiming at supporting actions for strategic public procurement, and this can continue paving the way for the reform.

  Daniel Buda, raportor pentru aviz al Comisiei AGRI. – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, bugetul pe anul 2025 trebuie să reflecte nevoile unor realități pe care astăzi nu le putem contesta. Avem un sector agricol slăbit, urmare a unor provocări majore generate de secetă, inundații, inflație sau războiul din Ucraina, iar bugetarea adecvată este o necesitate.

Le mulțumesc raportorilor pentru că o bună parte a opiniei comisiei de agricultură se regăsește în documentul final. Programele de promovare sau banii suplimentari alocați pentru tinerii fermieri reprezintă un pas înainte către consolidarea sectorului agricol european. Sumele dedicate programului de fructe și legume în școli contribuie atât la setarea unor obiceiuri alimentare sănătoase, cât și la combaterea abandonului școlar.

În același timp, solicit o rezervă agricolă a politicii agricole comune mai consistentă în bugetele anilor viitori, pentru a sprijini mai bine fermierii în fața crizelor neprevăzute, așa cum de altfel cred, domnule comisar, că este nevoie de o creștere a bugetului alocat pentru agricultură. Convergența externă în ceea ce privește plățile directe sau egalizarea subvențiilor trebuie să fie un obiectiv clar al noii Comisii Europene, în condițiile în care fermierii sunt actori pe aceeași piață unică și au aceleași costuri de producție.

  Carmen Crespo Díaz, ponente de opinión de la Comisión PECH. – Señor presidente, muchas gracias, señor comisario, y también a los ponentes. Yo creo que el presupuesto apuesta por los sectores productivos —como nosotros queríamos especialmente y como quería la presidenta Von der Leyen en el diálogo estratégico—, pero, en realidad, aunque los 96 millones de euros para la PAC y los jóvenes son muy importantes, hemos perdido una oportunidad para luchar contra el cambio climático con los sectores productivos.

En este caso, la reserva de crisis no se toca para aumentarla, con respecto a la sequía no hay una perspectiva hídrica para los fondos Next Generation EU y, por supuesto, esto no apuntala la soberanía alimentaria, especialmente también en relación con el FEMPA, que baja un 11,6 %, pese a que se trata de un sector muy vulnerable, pero que es fundamental para el desarrollo de las zonas costeras y también para tener una proteína saludable para alimentar a todos los europeos.

Creo que hemos perdido una oportunidad también aquí con respecto al Pacto Rural europeo: especialmente hay una incidencia de ese Pacto, por parte de las regiones, por lo que respecta a la utilización del dinero de forma integral, pero, además, saliendo fuera del presupuesto de la PAC.

Es decir, tenemos muchos aspectos que trabajar. Nos congratulamos de trabajar en esa apuesta por la PAC con la subida, pero necesitamos en este momento que haya otros aspectos —especialmente para la lucha contra el cambio climático— que, con los sectores, se puedan añadir a ese trabajo dotándolos de recursos económicos. Y, por supuesto, la bajada del presupuesto del FEMPA no es nada halagüeña para la soberanía alimentaria de la Unión.

  Nela Riehl, rapporteur for the opinion of the CULT Committee. – Mr President, dear colleagues, some ask 'what does the EU offer me personally?' Here is one of the EU's most successful offers: Erasmus. Erasmus is the European success story of public outreach, but also of dismantling borders and drawing Europe closer together.

National Erasmus agencies were telling me just last week the programme is already now underfunded. Every euro that is cut now results directly into student mobility that we cannot support. Last year, Erasmus mobility requests of EUR 833 million in Germany alone, with a budget of EUR 418 million. That is almost twice as much as we could provide.

There is a huge deficit in our Erasmus budget already and the Council tries to cut here. I am happy to see that Mr Negrescu receives a mandate to ask for funding increase of EUR 70 million to this extremely popular programme. This must be the EP's priority.

  Sven Simon, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des AFCO-Ausschusses. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Diese Debatte ist ein guter Anlass, um grundsätzlich über die Zukunft der europäischen Haushaltspolitik zu sprechen. Es sind Reformpläne für den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen durchgesickert, die eine stärkere Dezentralisierung und mehr Flexibilität der Mittel vorsehen – diese Absicht begrüße ich sehr. 500 Strukturfonds mit aufwendigen Verwaltungsapparaten können keine Antwort auf die struktur- und wirtschaftspolitischen Herausforderungen der Gegenwart sein. Deshalb sind Anpassungen ohne Zweifel notwendig.

Ziel muss eine gezieltere und effektivere Haushaltspolitik sein. Was wir in keinem Fall zulassen werden, ist eine geringere parlamentarische Kontrolle. Europäische Mittel dürfen nicht dazu dienen, nationale Haushaltslöcher zu stopfen. Jeglicher Zweckentfremdung müssen wir den Kampf ansagen. Europäische Mittel müssen einen echten europäischen Mehrwert haben.

Und sollte die Kommission mit einem Vorschlag kommen – von dem wir heute noch nicht wissen –, der es vorsieht, das Parlament weniger zu beteiligen, werden wir dem heftig widersprechen und dies selbstverständlich nicht zulassen.

  Lina Gálvez, rapporteur for the opinion of the FEMM Committee. – Mr President, Commissioner, gender equality is a principle enshrined in the European Union Treaties. And in order to advance on aid and gender equality, we need to develop a gender equality law policy, but also to bring equality to all policies. And the best way to do it is through budgeting and promoting indicators to truly measure the gender transformative impact of our policies and spending programmes.

For the FEMM Committee, the key topic to include is the promotion of gender equality in employment, education and training, with a specific emphasis on addressing the gender pay gap. Of course, we call for increased funding for recent legal advances such as the directive on equality bodies, pay transparency, women on boards, and especially the gender-based violence directive, as well as to reinforce the EU4Health programme to include comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services with access to legal abortion, gender-specific health research and cross-border health services.

We must live up to our ideals and fully support this gender equality strategy, especially in this gender backlash moment.

  Gheorghe Falcă, raportor pentru aviz al Comisiei TRAN. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, în primul rând vreau să spun că am colaborat foarte bine cu raportorii. Avem o gândire comună în Parlamentul European și mă bucur că din partea Comisiei pentru transport putem spune că ne-am atins obiectivele. Am fost interesați ca în ultima parte să discutăm foarte mult de mobilitate, atât ceea ce înseamnă mobilitatea urbană, cât și ceea ce înseamnă conectivitatea infrastructurii de transport, cea rutieră și cea pe calea ferată.

Un punct important a fost analiza mobilității militare și trebuie să facem o strategie, pe lângă ceea ce înseamnă infrastructura TEN-T, pentru a ne atinge acest obiectiv de siguranță europeană. Apoi, conectarea regiunilor periferice a fost un punct care va menține de aici încolo mulți ani de zile efortul financiar pe care Parlamentul și Consiliul trebuie să-l realizeze. Un punct, din nou, care este arzător, este faptul că la nivel european două țări nu sunt astăzi în Schengen și crește poluarea din zona respectivă. De aceea am atins și acest punct în programul meu. Eu vă mulțumesc și sper că atingem obiectivele Uniunii Europene.

  Andrzej Halicki, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Szanowni Państwo! Budżet na rok 2025 będzie pierwszym budżetem po wyborach do Parlamentu Europejskiego nowej kadencji, a także pierwszym budżetem realizowanym przez nową Komisję Europejską. To bardzo ważne, bo w ten sposób jakie priorytety pokażemy naszym obywatelom, tak będziemy oceniani. A te priorytety są bardzo jasne. Nie możemy – i myślę, że Rada skłoni się do naszej oceny sytuacji – ograniczać flagowych projektów, które znają obywatele, takich chociażby jak Erasmus, edukacyjnych, innowacyjnych projektów, które służą poszerzeniu wiedzy i daniu szerokich możliwości. Musimy wspierać rolnictwo, rybołówstwo, bo to ważne zadanie w budowaniu bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego, lecz także bezpieczeństwo zdrowotne. To nowe zadanie, które również jest wpisane w ramy naszej aktywności.

Nie ma ważniejszego tematu niż bezpieczeństwo fizyczne. Dlatego dodatkowe środki na takie agencje jak Europol, jak Prokuratura Europejska, a przede wszystkim Frontex, są niezbędne. Chciałem też przypomnieć, że 1 stycznia stery przejmie polska prezydencja. Problem skutecznej walki z migracją i skutecznej ochrony granic jest naszym wspólnym zadaniem. Cieszę się, że po raz pierwszy mamy możliwość wsparcia ochrony granic zewnętrznych z budżetu, czyli to, co nie udało się w zeszłym roku czy dwa lata temu. Cieszę się, bo nasi obywatele będą się mogli czuć bezpieczniej, widząc, że to także nasze wspólne zadanie. Z tego miejsca chciałem podziękować za szerokie zrozumienie, a jako negocjator ze strony Europejskiej Partii Ludowej sprawozdawcom – za współpracę.

  Jean-Marc Germain, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, ce budget est le premier de la nouvelle législature. Il se devait ainsi de refléter les engagements que nous avons pris auprès des électeurs et de nos concitoyens.

Mon groupe, le groupe S&D, dont j’ai l’honneur d’être le coordinateur au sein de la commission des budgets, est d’avis que le présent budget va dans le bon sens. Il va dans le bon sens lorsqu’il préserve le Fonds de cohésion ou lorsqu’il propose d’accroître les financements de nos programmes phares, tels qu’Erasmus+ pour l’éducation, qu’Horizon Europe pour la recherche ou que le Mécanisme européen de protection civile pour faire face aux désastres naturels.

Il va aussi dans le bon sens lorsqu’il utilise nos possibilités financières en faveur de ceux de nos concitoyens qui en ont le plus besoin, lorsqu’il répond à leurs priorités quotidiennes – le logement, l’emploi et l’industrie européenne – et lorsqu’il continue à soutenir la transition.

Ce projet, c’est aussi le premier dont nous discutons depuis la réforme du cadre financier pluriannuel, qui fixe de nouvelles règles. Ces règles nous imposent tout simplement d’utiliser les marges de manœuvre financières lorsqu’elles existent avant de les réduire, et elles doivent être respectées.

Ce budget, dont je viens de parler, ce n’est pas celui de la Commission, ce n’est pas celui du Conseil, c’est celui patiemment élaboré par notre rapporteur Victor Negrescu. Je veux le féliciter pour le travail accompli et pour ce premier succès, puisqu’il a été adopté dans notre commission des budgets.

Le message que nous devons envoyer au Conseil est clair: le premier budget de la nouvelle législature ne sera pas un budget de régression. Le premier budget de la législature n’a pas vocation à faire rembourser les dettes de la COVID-19 par les plus défavorisés de nos concitoyens.

Chers collègues, nous devons rester unis jusqu’au bout. Les discussions autour de la résolution budgétaire ne portent pas sur nos positions sur l’UNWRA ou sur la politique d’asile et d’immigration. Ne nous trompons pas. L’enjeu est de voter un budget de progrès social, écologique et économique.

  Tamás Deutsch, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A Patrióták frakciójának határozott álláspontja szerint az Európai Unió 2025. évi költségvetésének a békét, az illegális migráció megállítását, az európai emberek, családok és nemzetek érdekét, valamint a szuverenitást kell szolgálnia.

Az elmúlt öt évben az Európai Bizottság kudarcot vallott az Uniót sújtó kihívások kezelésében, nem segítette az európai embereket ezekben a nehéz időkben. Az európai polgárok az idei európai parlamenti választásokon ezért egyértelmű üzenetet fogalmaztak meg: változásra van szükség. Azt látjuk azonban, hogy ez a változásra irányuló igény sem az uniós intézmények vezetőinek cselekedeteiben, sem pedig a 2025-ös uniós költségvetés tervezetében nem jelenik meg.

A Patrióták frakciójának képviselői szerint gyökeres változásra van szükség a Bizottság teljesen elhibázott költségvetési javaslatához képest. Az illegális migráció további ösztönzése helyett a határvédelmet támogató, Európát és az európaiakat megvédő költségvetésre van szükség.

A Patrióták frakciójának képviselői ezért javasolják az Unió határvédelmi kiadásainak növelését és azt is, hogy az Unió költségvetése támogassa a tagállamokat a külső határok védelmében, határkerítések létesítésében, fenntartásában.

A Patrióták frakciója javasolja a nemzeti szuverenitást támadó uniós propaganda, illetve az intézményes politikai zsarolás, a jogállamisági dzsihád, a genderideológiai valamint a woke őrület uniós forrásokból való támogatásának megszüntetését.

Végül, de nem utolsósorban a Patrióták frakciója elvárja az új Európai Bizottságtól, hogy vizsgálja felül a jogállamisági feltételrendszer politikai célokat szolgáló alkalmazását, és állítsa le a tagállamok politikai és ideológiai zsarolását.

  Bogdan Rzońca, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie komisarzu! Parlament osiągnął dobry kompromis budżetowy – taki, jaki jest on możliwy. W tym kompromisie zadbaliśmy wszyscy o bezpieczeństwo, bo mowa była już o tym bezpieczeństwie na granicach, o wsparciu dla Fronteksu. Ja też podkreślę, że bardzo istotne jest to bezpieczeństwo w wymiarze popierania bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego, więc jest wsparcie dla rolników, w tym dla młodych rolników (przeznaczyliśmy 40 milionów euro więcej). Także zwiększyliśmy o 56 milionów euro Fundusz Gwarancji Rolnej, dzięki czemu będzie możliwe wdrażanie dobrych praktyk cyfrowych i środowiskowych.

Oczywiście cieszymy się z tego, że w budżecie są środki na bezpieczeństwo dotyczące Ukrainy i Bałkanów Zachodnich. To nie podlega u nas dyskusji. Natomiast także i fakt, że po raz pierwszy prawdopodobnie uda się finansować bezpieczeństwo na granicach poprzez wsparcie właśnie dla tej fizycznej infrastruktury ochrony granic Unii Europejskiej, to jest moim zdaniem taki symbol czasów i uważam, że jeśli tu dojdzie do kompromisu, to będzie to jednoznacznie pozytywnie ocenione przez mieszkańców Unii Europejskiej.

Konkludując, jesteśmy za takim budżetem, dzięki któremu Unia będzie bezpieczna, w którym będzie przewidziana współpraca między państwami, będzie poparcie dla małych, średnich i mikro-przedsiębiorstw. No i oczywiście czekamy na rozwój infrastruktury drogowej, kolejowej. To wszystko jest w budżecie. Zatem czekamy na zbliżenie stanowisk instytucji unijnych: Rady, Komisji. Mam nadzieję, że te poprawki, które ECR zgłosił, także będą dobrze przyjęte, bo one po prostu przeszły.

  Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, j’aimerais vous parler aujourd’hui du budget européen pour l’exercice 2025, qui s’inscrit dans la révision du cadre financier pluriannuel, que nous avions adoptée en février de cette année.

Les négociations sur ce budget ont apporté peu de changements. Hormis quelques augmentations dans certains domaines précis, les marges sont toujours restreintes, les lignes sous-financées, les instruments d’urgence presque instantanément épuisés.

Au cours de la dernière législature, l’Union européenne avait été sur le devant de la scène: crise de la COVID-19, emprunt commun, vaccins, guerre en Ukraine, autonomie stratégique: une vraie défense européenne! Que de bonds en avant! Le rôle et les compétences de l’Union européenne sont toujours plus importants, et pourtant nous ne sommes toujours pas en mesure de financer les programmes et les politiques de l’Union à la hauteur de leurs besoins.

J’appelle donc la Commission et les États membres à investir pour l’Europe, à nous donner de vrais moyens et à faire preuve de plus de souplesse pour le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel. Les citoyens attendent une Europe forte, et ils la méritent.

  Rasmus Andresen, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Stellen Sie sich vor, wir wachen in zwei Wochen auf und Donald Trump ist wieder US-Präsident. Wer von uns glaubt ernsthaft, dass die Europäische Union auf so ein Szenario vorbereitet ist? Und als Haushaltspolitiker kann ich sagen: Haushaltspolitisch sind wir es auf jeden Fall nicht. Denn anstatt mehr zu investieren, was wir dringend müssten, haben uns die Staats- und Regierungschefs in der Vergangenheit sogar Kürzungen eingebrockt – Kürzungen bei Forschung, Kürzungen bei Gesundheit, Kürzungen bei Zukunftsthemen. Gerade von den Staats- und Regierungschefs wie Olaf Scholz oder Emmanuel Macron müssen wir hier deutlich mehr erwarten.

Denn wir brauchen einen Haushalt, der so aufgestellt ist, dass wir außenpolitisch souverän und wirtschaftlich wettbewerbsfähig werden. Und wir brauchen einen Haushalt, der allen Menschen in der Europäischen Union eine Zukunftsperspektive gibt, inklusive sozialer Absicherung. Stattdessen lassen wir unsere Infrastruktur verrotten, und wir sorgen dafür, dass immer mehr Menschen in der Europäischen Union in Armut abrutschen – das ist nicht zukunftsgerecht.

Und nein, wir können hier als Parlament mit dem Haushalt 2025 nicht jedes Problem lösen, aber als Parlament formulieren wir kleine Schritte in die richtige Richtung, und jetzt kommt es darauf an, dafür zu kämpfen – beispielsweise unsere Infrastruktur zu verbessern, indem wir die Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ stärken, indem wir mehr in Erasmus investieren und dafür sorgen, dass mehr junge Menschen an Erasmus teilnehmen können, oder auch, indem wir mehr in Gesundheit, vor allem mentale Gesundheit, investieren.

Es wird in den nächsten Wochen darauf ankommen, auch bei diesem Haushalt, darauf zu achten, dass wir in die richtige Richtung gehen. Und ich fordere den Rat auf, nicht das zu machen, was Sie immer machen – immer nur Kürzungen vorschlagen. Diskutieren Sie mit uns über zukunftsfähige Haushaltspolitik und seien Sie bereit, auch dafür die richtigen Konsequenzen zu ziehen!

  João Oliveira, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, o Parlamento Europeu pretende reverter os cortes feitos pelo Conselho Europeu no Orçamento da União Europeia, mas não reverte as opções erradas que estão na base deste orçamento. Este orçamento reflete opções militaristas e armamentistas e vai ao encontro dos interesses dos grupos económicos e dos desejos do complexo industrial militar, mas ignora os problemas dos trabalhadores e dos povos.

Esses problemas podem ter ainda alguma consideração a partir das propostas que apresentámos. Propomos que as verbas associadas às opções militaristas e armamentistas sejam canalizadas para os fundos destinados a dar resposta a problemas sociais. Para que os direitos sociais dos povos sejam garantidos, em vez de serem transformados em negócios, propomos que o orçamento da UE dê apoio aos Estados‑Membros que decidam reverter os processos de privatização de empresas em setores sociais e estratégicos.

Propomos a criação de financiamento adicional e específico da União Europeia que os Estados‑Membros possam mobilizar para a expansão e requalificação dos parques habitacionais públicos e a defesa do direito à habitação digna e a preços acessíveis. Propomos que os fundos europeus estejam condicionados à proteção do emprego, ao respeito pelos direitos dos trabalhadores e ao contributo para o desenvolvimento local e regional. Propomos o reforço de verbas do Fundo Social Europeu+, uma dotação específica para a Garantia para a Infância e o apoio a redes públicas de cuidados a crianças, idosos e pessoas com deficiência.

Propomos o aumento de verbas para as fileiras produtivas, nomeadamente nas pescas, no vinho, no azeite ou na apicultura. Propomos ainda a criação de um programa POSEI Transportes que dê resposta às necessidades específicas das populações das regiões ultraperiféricas, como os Açores e a Madeira.

Na votação destas propostas, haverá ainda uma oportunidade para colocar os direitos e interesses dos povos como prioridade.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señor ministro, afrontar un presupuesto es una grandísima responsabilidad porque tenemos que decidir a qué gastos y a qué inversiones vamos a destinar el dinero proveniente de los impuestos de los ciudadanos.

Por lo tanto, hay que hacer tres cosas cuando afrontamos un nuevo presupuesto. En primer lugar, evaluar los programas que sí funcionan, aquellos que están teniendo el impacto deseado, que están generando las oportunidades que queremos para los europeos y que, además, están cubriendo esas necesidades básicas que queremos cubrir desde la Unión Europea. También tenemos que determinar esas necesidades a las que hay que destinar más recursos porque se ha dado esa situación, como puede ser, en este caso en el presupuesto, el caso de Frontex. Y en último lugar hay que determinar nuevas demandas, como puede ser —y es importante hablar de ello— el pago de los intereses de la deuda de los Next Generation EU.

Esto es lo que hace este presupuesto. Por un lado, mantiene y refuerza lo que funciona: Erasmus+, la política agrícola común, la política de cohesión, las inversiones en innovación. Y lo mantiene porque funciona. Por otro lado, refuerza algo que estamos demandando, que es reforzar nuestras fronteras, a saber, Frontex. Y, por otro lado, da una solución, que no es la ideal, sobre cómo hacer frente a los intereses que tenemos que pagar de la deuda de los fondos Next Generation EU. Y digo que no es ideal porque nos tiene que hacer reflexionar de cara a nuevos debates que está habiendo sobre crear nuevos fondos también con cargo a la deuda.

  Nils Ušakovs (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I will use this opportunity to talk about European administration. The recent incident at Strasbourg train station after the last plenary – which left thousands of employees stranded – has once again highlighted the inefficiency and, at the same time, the financial burden of the so-called 'travelling circus' that the European institutions endure every month. The annual cost is EUR 180 million, and it really raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of this event.

We also have a historical practice of maintaining multiple European institutions in different Member States, such as, for example, Luxembourg – probably the most beautiful, yet also the most expensive Member State, especially with respect to housing. We pay salaries that 90 % of Latvians wouldn't even dream of owning and, at the same time, for certain employees the salaries are lower than the Luxembourg minimum wage. As a result, the European institutions struggle to hire the talent they need to fulfil their primary functions.

Every year, the demands on the European institutions grow as we assign new responsibilities. Yet the financial resources provided do not match these increasing demands. For example, the European Union External Action Service, which operates globally, is forced to maintain offices in substandard, unsecure conditions, sometimes having to rent additional premises in order to provide and to prevent the risk of ceilings collapsing on the heads of staff.

Other institutions have to request budget transfers as early as the summer, because the initial allocations are insufficient to cover basic operational costs, such as heating or electricity bills. I am talking right now not about the budget alone, but also about the new MMF, because we are spending hundreds of millions of euros in administration and, at the same time, we face the situation we just discussed with the External Action Service.

We are discussing the usage of special instruments, such as the single market instrument to finance the needs of the administration. We are discussing the probability of taking funds from essential European programmes. That means that the European Parliament and the Council have to take the challenge and to start collaborating in order to provide a new MMF that will be dealing with hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money in the most cost-effective way.

  Julien Sanchez (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, en tant que nouveau membre de cette assemblée, je suis d’abord frappé de découvrir, à chaque rapport de la Cour européenne des comptes, la mauvaise gestion des fonds de l’Union européenne, avec des taux d’erreur indécents régulièrement constatés dans presque toutes les rubriques budgétaires et des défaillances persistantes dans les systèmes de gestion et de contrôle, ce qui constitue un signal d’alarme quant à l’efficacité des dépenses européennes.

J’ai été maire dix ans, et avant d’être élu ici je pensais que ces institutions, malgré leur fonctionnement dogmatique et sectaire, étaient au moins des institutions sérieuses. Je constate qu’il n’en est rien et que le budget de l’Union européenne est beaucoup plus mal géré que le budget d’une collectivité locale en France.

Nous sommes ici face à un budget de 191 milliards d’euros, qui dissimule un double déficit réel. D’une part, il y a un déficit par débudgétisation. En effet, les articles 6, 7 et 8 du règlement financier de l’Union exigent que des milliards de crédits de diverses masses financières, aujourd’hui classés sous les termes d’instruments, mécanismes ou facilités, soient réintégrés dans les lignes budgétaires. Or ces fonds sont soustraits de tout contrôle démocratique depuis des années. Ce budget est donc insincère.

D’autre part, il y a un déficit par dissimulation, notamment pour compenser la hausse des taux d’intérêt du programme NextGenerationEU, passés de moins de 1 % à plus de 3 %. Plutôt que d’affronter cette réalité, la Commission et le Conseil jouent sur les marges budgétaires et sur l’instrument de flexibilité, créant ainsi un artifice comptable peu durable.

La raison de ce chaos budgétaire? Une ambition politique démesurée d’une part et une vision idéologique étroite d’autre part. D’un côté, nous voyons une Commission européenne assoiffée d’élargissement à l’Est, dont les pays ne seraient, en plus, pas des contributeurs nets au budget de l’Union européenne, et d’interventions coûteuses, particulièrement en Ukraine, où la paix n’est plus un objectif de l’Union européenne, qui ne parle que de verser de l’argent encore et toujours, mais sans évoquer un quelconque objectif d’une issue diplomatique. De l’autre, une idéologie malthusienne qui a entravé les investissements essentiels dans nos infrastructures de santé et notre industrie.

Quand un budget est mal géré, il y a deux solutions: stop ou encore. Vous ne voulez pas tailler dans les mauvaises dépenses, car cela vous obligerait à retrousser les manches. Vous voulez toujours plus de recettes, vous imaginez même de nouvelles taxes, mais les dispositifs imaginés, au-delà d’être complexes et inefficaces, sont dérisoires, illusoires ou à tout le moins provisoires.

Nous nous y opposons fermement et refuserons tout impôt européen qui viendrait alourdir encore la charge fiscale des citoyens. Il est absurde de vouloir compter sur ces mécanismes pour financer l’avenir de l’Union. Nous avons déposé de nombreux amendements et nous espérons qu’il se trouvera une majorité de gens courageux et sérieux pour les voter, sans quoi nous voterons bien sûr contre ce budget.

  Ruggero Razza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Ministro, signor Commissario, ho sentito alcuni toni un po' entusiasti nel descrivere sia la proposta proveniente dalla Commissione sia il compromesso raggiunto nel lavoro di commissione.

E io non voglio pensare, secondo la retorica ascoltata, che questo sia il primo bilancio della nuova legislatura, perché una legislatura che si è aperta con una richiesta di maggiore competitività e di investimenti in Europa non li trova nel suo primo bilancio. Una legislatura che si è aperta con una grande attesa da parte dei cittadini su alcuni temi essenziali – penso a quello della sanità – non lo trova nel bilancio.

Certo, si partiva da un taglio di miliardo di euro sul quadro pluriennale e si arriva comunque a un taglio della sanità, che fa il contraltare ad un ulteriore taglio, che è quello della capacità del nostro sistema di far crescere l'economia.

E allora io voglio pensare, signor Ministro, che si potranno raggiungere i giusti compromessi ma voglio soprattutto pensare che questo non sia il primo bilancio della nuova legislatura, ma che sia l'ultimo della vecchia.

  Lucia Yar (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, kolegovia, kolegyne, európsky rozpočet sa po pandémii a vojne na Ukrajine musí vysporiadať s neočakávanými výdavkami. No naozaj chceme šetriť práve na úkor vzdelávania, inovácií a budúcnosti mladých ľudí? Vidím, že ich tu dnes veľa sedí, vitajte, ale mínus 300 miliónov eur pre Erasmus v budúcom roku je naozaj škandál. Sama som jeho absolventkou, tak ako milióny ďalších, a podobne, ako kedysi ja, mnohí mladí by si štúdium v Európe nevedeli bez štipendia dovoliť. A členské štáty chcú obmedzovať práve tých, ktorí majú potenciál rásť? Z nás absolventov sa aj vďaka tomuto programu stali skutoční Európania a Európanky. Takto sa buduje spoločná Európska únia, takto sa spoznávame, takto sa vzdelávame a takto domov prinášame naozajstné skúsenosti. Nedovoľme, aby pre našu slabú kreativitu vo financovaní dôležitých oblastí v Európskej únii akokoľvek trpeli mladí ľudia. Práve investícia do nich je investíciou do našej budúcnosti.

  Kai Tegethoff (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I'm glad there is a compromise. And we support this compromise. Nevertheless, I am disappointed in this House's unwillingness to take the steps that are really needed to tackle the climate crisis. For example, the political groups could not even agree on adequate funding for the European Railway Agency.

As Enrico Letta pointed out in his report, there is a growing risk that the 2030 targets for rail infrastructure will not be met. The modal shift to rail is our joint declared goal, and we are supposed to spend 30 % of the EU budget on climate-related actions, but this is not being reflected in the budget that we are talking about today.

As the European Parliament, we should take a clear stand on this. We should fund the European Railway Agency in a way that reflects the critical need to make modal shift a reality and to improve rail safety. We should demand the Member States start acting and start investing in climate-friendly transport infrastructure and have the core part of the European railway network ready by 2030.

We have tabled two further amendments to improve these factors, at least in the surroundings of the European Parliament. Since we can't stop this insane practice of travelling almost 500 km for every plenary session, we want to make it at least a little bit more sustainable and increase Parliament's charter train capacity.

And second, we should not only install solar panels on the roofs of our parliamentary buildings, but also clearly commit to phasing out fossil fuel heating and cooling systems. I really hope for your support. Let's lead by example.

  Pasquale Tridico (The Left). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Torino, Melfi, Termoli, Pomigliano, ma anche Bruxelles, Zwickau: le fabbriche di auto chiuse o in crisi sono dappertutto in Europa.

Solo in Italia sono 100.000 i posti di lavoro a rischio nel settore dell'automotive e l'indotto fatto da piccole e medie imprese è il più penalizzato. Se non vogliamo far sparire questa industria europea, dobbiamo intervenire subito, come durante il COVID, durante il quale grazie al programma SURE solo in Italia abbiamo salvato quasi 500.000 posti di lavoro.

La crisi dell'auto è europea: serve dunque una risposta europea. Abbiamo presentato un emendamento al bilancio dell'Unione del 2025, in cui proponiamo l'istituzione di un nuovo fondo SURE valido per due anni per l'automotive per 100 miliardi di euro.

In passato abbiamo distribuito soldi a pioggia e i grandi manager dell'auto hanno continuato a distribuire dividendi mentre i lavoratori erano in cassa integrazione. Con questo nuovo SURE voltiamo pagina: salviamo i posti di lavoro, aiutiamo l'industria ma obblighiamo le case automobilistiche a fare maggiori investimenti per la transizione verso l'elettrico, per la formazione e per non licenziare lavoratori.

Il bilancio europeo all'1,1% è troppo piccolo: non ha nessuna ambizione e rispetto alle sfide globali continua ad avere una dimensione insignificante. Adesso abbiamo una grande occasione: una causa comune in Europa sulla quale investire per dare maggiore rilevanza all'Unione. SURE per l'automotive è l'occasione.

Mi appello dunque a tutti gli europarlamentari: salviamo l'industria europea dell'auto, salviamo centinaia di posti di lavoro, sostenete l'istituzione di un nuovo SURE per l'automotive.

  Marcin Sypniewski (ESN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ten projekt budżetu to jest finansowa porażka Unii Europejskiej. Podam trzy przykłady. Po pierwsze, pomimo tworzenia nowych instrumentów, liczonych poza budżetem, tegoroczna propozycja przekracza już 200 mld euro rocznie. Te coroczne podwyżki powinny być wreszcie zatrzymane. Należy zacząć ograniczać wydatki, w szczególności w takich kwestiach jak szkodliwy Zielony Ład, wspieranie całego wachlarza państw spoza Unii, rozszerzanie kompetencji unijnych, bizantyńska administracja i niepotrzebne instytucje. Proszę państwa, Unia naprawdę nie potrzebuje trzech siedzib i ponad 140 przedstawicielstw dyplomatycznych! To jest naprawdę niepotrzebne.

Po drugie, program Next Generation EU, czyli olbrzymia pożyczka na 800 miliardów, którą planujemy spłacać przez 30 lat. Nikt nie wie dokładnie, ile trzeba będzie spłacić, wszyscy wiedzą, że to będą astronomiczne kwoty. Przypomnijmy, że jeszcze nie zaczęliśmy nic spłacać, a już mówimy o brakach pieniędzy na te zobowiązania i to liczonych w dziesiątkach miliardów euro. Tutaj najlepszym pomysłem na ten problem jest liczenie odsetek od długu poza oficjalnym budżetem oraz wprowadzanie nowych unijnych podatków, które w konsekwencji zapłacą przede wszystkim zwykli obywatele. Ja nie chcę żadnych unijnych podatków. Nie chcę też żadnych długów do spłacenia przez nasze dzieci i wnuki. Kogo my napadliśmy, żeby takie kontrybucje płacić przez lata?

I wreszcie po trzecie, naszym priorytetem powinno być bezpieczeństwo Europejczyków. Dotychczas w tej Izbie nic w tej sprawie nie zrobiono i na to powinniśmy wydawać pieniądze, a nie na te wszystkie niezbędne sprawy.

  Thomas Geisel (NI). – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bin ja noch nicht lange in diesem Parlament, aber ich habe den Eindruck, beim Haushalt gilt eigentlich immer dasselbe Verfahren: Die Kommission legt einen Haushaltsentwurf vor, der Rat streicht ihn anschließend etwas zusammen, und dann kommt das Parlament, stellt den Entwurf der Kommission wieder her und legt hier und da noch eine Schippe drauf. Ich bin nicht sicher, ob wir mit diesem Ritual unserer Verantwortung und unserer Aufgabe als Parlamentarier wirklich gerecht werden.

Es ist bedauerlich genug, dass dieses Parlament nicht das Recht hat, selbst Gesetzesinitiativen einzubringen, und eigentlich nur darüber entscheiden kann, was ihm von der Kommission vorgelegt wird. Umso wichtiger ist es, dass das Parlament seine Aufgabe wahrnimmt, die Kommission zu beaufsichtigen und zu kontrollieren. Und dabei kann es nicht darum gehen, der Kommission immer neue Kompetenzen zu geben und immer weitere Mittel zur Verfügung zu stellen. Es gilt vielmehr das Subsidiaritätsprinzip: Die Kommission sollte nur die Aufgaben übernehmen, mit denen die Mitgliedstaaten überfordert sind, Aufgaben, die eben nicht bürgernäher, transparenter und effizienter von den Mitgliedstaaten, vielleicht auch ihren Provinzen und ihren Kommunen übernommen werden könnten. Und wir sollten sorgsam darauf achten, dass mit dem Steuergeld der Europäer sorgsam und sparsam umgegangen wird.

Ich habe nicht den Eindruck, dass diese Gesichtspunkte hinreichend berücksichtigt wurden bei diesem Haushalt.

  Danuše Nerudová (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, President von der Leyen stood here in this house of democracy and declared that this mandate should focus on the largest investment in our competitiveness ever.

Instead, we are witnessing short-sighted cuts in strategic budget lines from the Member States. A cut in Horizon Europe, our flagship programme from innovation and research: experts are telling us we should double its funding, yet we are slashing it. This isn't a subsidy or expense. It's an investment to our future. A cut in Erasmus, the most successful policy the EU has ever implemented. How do we expect to boost mobility and skills-sharing across our continent if we reduce its funding? A cut in our health programmes at a time when the US spends USD 46 billion annually on health research. We invest only a quarter of that.

Dear colleagues, some states want to keep building our economy on subsidies instead of boosting investments with real European value. Fortunately, we in Parliament have the responsibility and power to push back on these propositions. I am confident that together we can succeed in protecting these crucial policies for the future of the Union.