Category: Fisheries

PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
Vicepresidente

(La seduta è aperta alle 9:01)

  President. – I would like to announce that, pursuant to Rule 47(2), the President has declared admissible a proposal for a Union act on the need to amend the Council Regulation on fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas for 2025, and to protect the trawling sector.

The proposal is referred to the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) as the committee responsible, and to the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety for opinion.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, good morning to all honourable Members in this House. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement with you. As you know, this has been a busy plenary week and it has been my honour to address the House from this podium several times.

On each occasion, it has been necessary to frame our dialogue in terms of the world that Europe finds itself in today: a world of increased global competition, a rise in unfair economic practices, and a more complex and uncertain geopolitical reality.

In the face of this, the European Union’s network of free trade agreements – the world’s largest – is a vital asset in ensuring we can maintain our economic edge. I’ve heard the same messages from many of you, honourable Members, in a plenary debate on Tuesday, when a new trade era was discussed, as well as yesterday when we discussed the Commission work programme for this year.

Free trade agreements open up markets around the world to our companies. They provide drivers for growth and innovation, and they are helping our industry retain and regain its competitiveness. And these agreements are mutually beneficial, with the EU being a trusted trading partner in a rules-based system. We only need to look to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada to see the real-world benefit.

At a time when the old-world order in global trade is being shaken up, it is more important than ever to grow this free trade agreement network. This growth can contribute to our overarching efforts to de-risk via trade diversification and ensure our long-term industrial competitiveness. The EU-Mercosur partnership agreement is a vital element of this effort and a sign of our commitment to the Latin American region.

The conclusion of negotiations strengthens our political and economic ties, giving EU companies a first-mover advantage in a region where trade with China is dominant. For instance, China is the main exporter to and importer from Brazil. The agreement will provide additional continuity, stability and predictability in our trade relations, and it highlights that regional blocs can commit to shared values and deliver concrete results for the mutual benefits of our citizens.

Above all, the agreement is an economic win-win for the European Union. It offers export opportunities to the fifth biggest global economic bloc outside the European Union, with 273 million potential consumers. Our exports to Mercosur already amount to EUR 84 billion, with EU investment in the region of some EUR 340 billion.

But with this agreement, we can now strengthen this trade and investment relationship even further. For example, this agreement would help us to save, and especially for EU exporters, over EUR 4 billion in customs duties every year – EUR 4 billion a year. It would eliminate tariffs on key commodities, like, if we take as an example cars, which are currently at the level of 35 %. If I’m talking about machinery, I’m talking about 20 %. If you look at chemicals, it’s 18 %. And if you look at pharmaceuticals, it’s 14 %. So, you see that these duties are very, very high and we are going to completely eliminate them.

Mercosur countries can become one of our best sources of critical raw materials, thereby increasing our resilience by diversifying our supply chains. And I can assure you that the deal reached in Montevideo in December is not only a good deal, but it’s also a new deal – different and better than the one agreed in 2019.

We have secured several negotiated outcomes that respond to our sustainability concerns while preserving the EU’s sensitivities. By including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as an essential element of the EU Mercosur Partnership agreement, this sends a strong message in support of multilateral cooperation on climate change and this allows for partial or total suspension if a party leaves the Paris Agreement or if it undermines it from within.

The agreement also contains legally binding commitments to take measures to halt deforestation as of 2030. Importantly, the agreement provides a critical platform of cooperation with Mercosur countries on our common sustainability ambitions, with strong commitments on labour and the environment.

In addition, we have reached a balanced outcome on agrifood trade, considerably improving market access for many EU agrifood products, while striking a cautious balance in sectors where our interests are more sensitive and negotiated clear and well-calibrated tariff quotas amounting to a very small percentage of EU consumption, for example, not more than 1.5 % of beef, as well as a gradual implementation to market opening over several years.

The Commission will monitor market developments closely after the agreement is implemented, particularly with regard to the agricultural sector, to ensure that the partnership with Mercosur does not negatively affect the competitiveness of the European farmers. In case of an imbalance, we will impose safeguards to protect our sensitive sectors and to ensure that agricultural producers are fully protected. President von der Leyen has announced that at least EUR 1 billion will be available to address any unforeseen circumstances.

As a last point on Mercosur, we know that EU consumers care about the quality and safety of their food and health and consumer protection was never and will never be up for negotiations. Already today, agricultural products imported from Mercosur countries and from any other third country, with or without trade agreements, must comply with the EU’s strict sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

Honourable Members, I know how important openness and cooperation on trade issues is to this House. Indeed, it came up in our debate on trade and preparedness on Tuesday to which I was referring earlier on. So, I want to underline that I have already engaged on Mercosur with the INTA Committee and with the AGRI Committee, together with Commissioner Hansen, responsible for agriculture, as well as with different working groups. And I see this as an ongoing dialogue, and I want to assure you that we will continue to listen to your concerns and provide you with factual answers and ensure your views are taken into account moving forward.

So, I will stop here, Madam President, and I look forward to our exchanges and the debate.

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
Vizepräsidentin

  Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage. Because five years ago, the UK left the European Union. A month later – COVID‑19 – the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia launched a full‑scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time, European energy prices reached record levels, and this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All this at the same time when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order, and the BRICs is growing.

Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as now, most evidently seen last Monday, when Trump increased the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 25 %. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now.

We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world, and it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules‑based geopolitical order. Let’s do it. Let’s conclude. Let’s finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all.

  Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, let me thank M Warborn for his short history lesson. Of course, we agree very much with the fact that geopolitics has changed dramatically in the last five-to-ten years and the EU-Mercosur agreement is, in that light, important.

For the S&D, it is important also that, in the next coming months, we will fully scrutinise this deal up to the very detail. We need to make sure that this deal works not just for our economy, but for the environment and for the workers on both sides of the world. We hear the sincere concerns, Commissioner, from the unions, from the environmental NGOs and from the farmers.

It is important, as you mentioned, that the Paris Agreement is now an essential element. But many questions, Commissioner, on deforestation, remain. And we need answers on these. Let it be clear: this Mercosur agreement cannot water down the EU Deforestation Regulation. So we need answers.

The S&D will be a fair partner in this process, but we need answers to make sure that the impact of the agreement on climate, workers’ rights and European farmers is clear.

  Jean-Paul Garraud, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, il est encore temps de désamorcer la bombe agricole. Il est encore temps pour la Commission de renoncer à l’accord de libre-échange entre les pays du Mercosur et l’Union européenne, contre lequel nos agriculteurs protestent depuis des mois. Mais vous ne voulez pas renoncer, Monsieur le Commissaire, je viens de vous entendre.

Cet accord est pourtant un contresens, un archaïsme et une faute. Un contresens, puisqu’il remet en cause notre autonomie alimentaire au moment où toutes les autres puissances cherchent à la garantir face aux désordres du monde. Un archaïsme, car il contrevient à la raison écologique et multiplie les échanges avec des produits du bout du monde, produits qui, par ailleurs, ne respectent même pas les normes environnementales qui sont les nôtres. Enfin, cet accord est une faute: à travers un obscur mécanisme de règlement des différends, vous offrez à des pays tiers, à des concurrents, la possibilité de remettre en cause les décisions des États membres, donc leur souveraineté et les libres choix des peuples.

En promettant aux agriculteurs un fonds de compensation, vous reconnaissez d’ailleurs implicitement que cet accord va provoquer des ravages au sein de nos filières agricoles. Or, nos agriculteurs ne veulent pas qu’on subventionne leur déclin ou, pire, leur disparition. Ils veulent être protégés et promus. Ils veulent vivre dignement et librement de leur travail, de cette noble mission: nourrir l’Europe.

  Carlo Fidanza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’Unione europea ha colpevolmente lasciato il Sud America in balia della penetrazione cinese e di regimi, governi o movimenti che lo hanno spesso allontanato dall’Europa e dall’Occidente. L’accordo con il Mercosur ha quindi evidenti motivazioni geopolitiche e presenta anche altrettanto evidenti opportunità di crescita per alcuni comparti.

Eppure, questo accordo ha generato una immediata reazione da parte degli agricoltori europei. E sapete perché? Perché nel recente passato è stata proprio l’agricoltura a pagare il prezzo più alto in molti accordi di libero scambio. Ma anche perché in questi anni le scelte ideologiche dell’Unione europea hanno colpito duramente la competitività degli agricoltori europei, con le follie green, con una burocrazia asfissiante, con una ripartizione non equilibrata della redditività lungo le filiere.

È certamente vero che alcuni settori agroalimentari – penso a quello del vino o dei formaggi – potrebbero avere dei benefici dall’accordo. Ed è vero che il numero di denominazioni di origine formalmente protette è il più alto mai inserito in un accordo di libero scambio, sia pure con qualche evidente falla.

Ma è altrettanto vero che la mancanza di reciprocità, la possibilità garantita ai produttori sudamericani di continuare ad utilizzare agrofarmaci da noi vietati da tempo, la mancanza di controlli affidabili in loco sugli standard sanitari e contro la contraffazione, così come nelle procedure doganali europee, in molti nostri porti europei, sulle importazioni, fanno pendere la bilancia verso una legittima e fondata preoccupazione da parte del mondo agricolo. E non basteranno a tranquillizzare i nostri produttori una clausola di salvaguardia di difficile attivazione o quel solo miliardo di euro previsto per le compensazioni, una goccia nel mare e addirittura meno di quel miliardo e ottocento milioni previsti dall’Unione europea per gli agricoltori del Mercosur.

Oggi questo accordo si presenta ancora troppo sbilanciato e troppo penalizzante per la nostra agricoltura e noi, a queste condizioni, non possiamo sostenerlo.

  Svenja Hahn, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Kollegen! Ich finde es ehrlich gesagt unverantwortlich, wie faktenbefreit und populistisch einige in diesem Parlament Ängste schüren, Ängste vor Freihandel.

Natürlich müssen wir Sorgen wie die von unseren Landwirten ernst nehmen. Deshalb gibt es auch in sensiblen Bereichen sehr niedrige Einfuhrquoten, wie zum Beispiel bei Rindfleisch, wo es anderthalb Prozent des gesamten EU-Konsums sind. Das ist ungefähr ein 200-Gramm-Steak pro Person. Das ist keine Marktverzerrung, und sollte es doch welche geben, plant die Kommission sogar Hilfszahlungen.

Das eigentliche Problem ist doch die EU-gemachte Bürokratie – nicht der Handel –, die die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer Landwirte behindert. Protektionismus wird dieses Problem nicht lösen. Auch der Klimaschutz wird nicht geschwächt; er wird sogar gestärkt. Denn die Einhaltung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens ist eine essentielle Grundlage dieses Abkommens.

Deshalb: Gucken wir doch mal auf die Zahlen! Dann sehen wir, dass alleine in der EU 800 000 Jobs am Handel mit den Mercosur-Ländern hängen. Allein aus meinem Heimatland Deutschland exportieren über 12 000 Unternehmen in den Mercosur, und 70 % davon sind kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen. Wir haben gerade gehört von Kommissar Šefčovič: Alleine die reduzierten Zölle bedeuten Einsparungen von 4 Mrd. EUR bei unseren Unternehmen. Die echten Chancen erwachsen doch erst durch diese Marktöffnung, wie zum Beispiel der Zugang zu kritischen Rohstoffen. Das hilft unserer Wirtschaft, unseren Klimazielen und vor allen Dingen reduziert es unsere Abhängigkeit von Autokratien wie China.

Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Ich bin nicht bereit, zuzusehen, wie die Autokraten dieser Welt Schulter an Schulter stehen – und wir in der Europäischen Union sollen nicht mal Handel mit anderen Demokratien hinbekommen? Ich bin nicht bereit, das zu akzeptieren, denn in Zeiten von drohenden Zollspiralen und Handelskriegen brauchen wir mehr Handel mit mehr Partnern, allen voran den Handel mit Mercosur. Wir brauchen keine Deglobalisierungs- und Degrowth-Fantasien. Wir brauchen das Mercosur-Abkommen für unsere Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union, für Wirtschaftswachstum und vor allen Dingen auch für internationale Zusammenarbeit.

  Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, quand, en Europe comme dans les pays du Mercosur, les agriculteurs, le monde associatif, les associations de protection des consommateurs, les syndicats, les académiques, les citoyens s’opposent au traité commercial entre l’Union européenne et le Mercosur, ce sont des millions de personnes qui dénoncent ces impacts économiques, sociaux, environnementaux, climatiques, humains.

C’est un accord qui date du siècle dernier, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce n’est pas un new deal. Ces millions de personnes pèsent peu face aux intérêts économiques de quelques industriels et des plus grosses exploitations agricoles pour – attention! – un bénéfice attendu de + 0,1 % du PIB. Peu glorieux, n’est-ce pas? Ah oui, il faut quand même aussi en déduire les millions du fonds de compensation agricole promis pour pallier les effets négatifs de cet accord sur le monde agricole, sans en régler les problèmes pour autant.

Il faut aussi tenir compte des effets du mécanisme de rééquilibrage: rééquilibrage pour les États des pays du Mercosur qui va permettre au gouvernement, ou plutôt à l’agrobusiness, brésilien de contester nos lois si elles affectent leurs intérêts économiques et commerciaux. Exemples: mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, lois anti-déforestation, contre le travail forcé, le devoir de vigilance de nos entreprises.

Alors là, c’est la sidération totale, une atteinte insupportable à notre souveraineté stratégique et même à notre sécurité économique. Nous refusons de brader notre agriculture en la soumettant à une concurrence totalement déloyale. Nous refusons d’exporter nos produits chimiques et pesticides interdits en Europe, de brader davantage nos normes et de consommer des citrons verts au glyphosate, du bœuf aux hormones ou de la volaille à la grippe aviaire. D’encourager aussi la déforestation.

Il est impossible de faire l’inventaire de tous les problèmes. Mais une chose est certaine, vous nous présentez un texte qui est pire qu’en 2019, quand le Parlement a dit qu’il lui était impossible de ratifier l’accord du Mercosur en l’état. C’est en défendant la démocratie, les valeurs, les normes sociales et environnementales qui protègent nos citoyens et assurent la prospérité de nos économies que l’Union européenne fera la différence.

Chers amis du Mercosur, nous voulons des partenariats avec vous, mais des partenariats réellement équitables.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, comment osez-vous venir défendre ici l’accord avec le Mercosur, le plus grand et le pire accord de libre-échange jamais signé par l’Union européenne? Comment osez-vous dire aux agriculteurs, qui peinent déjà à joindre les deux bouts, qu’importer des centaines de milliers de tonnes supplémentaires de bœuf, de poulet ou de fromage n’aura aucun impact sur eux? Comment osez-vous exposer délibérément la population à des OGM et des pesticides interdits en Europe? Car non, il n’y aura aucune réciprocité des normes. Comment est-il possible, à l’heure de l’urgence écologique, de soutenir un accord qui va contribuer à accélérer le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation?

Oui, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous devriez avoir honte. Honte, parce que la réalité, c’est que personne ne veut de cet accord. Et vous vous retrouvez ici à devoir passer en force, en piétinant les règles de consultation du Parlement européen. Hier, le vote d’un de mes amendements l’a montré très clairement: les inquiétudes sur cet accord sont extrêmement vives et il n’y a pas de réelle majorité en sa faveur.

Le dogme du libre-échange étouffe les peuples et dévaste la planète. Il est déjà en train de vaciller. La bataille n’est pas terminée. Comptez sur nous pour le faire tomber.

  Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-жо Председател, г-н Комисар, търговското споразумение между Европейския съюз и Меркосур предоставя възможности за европейската индустрия, както чухме и от Вас, но може да има катастрофални последици за селскостопанския сектор и европейските фермери не бива да плащат цената на това споразумение.

Липсва прозрачност относно процеса по ратификация на споразумението, както и относно предпазните мерки, предвидени от Европейската комисия. Беше споменат фонд от един милиард евро, без да е ясно нито откъде ще дойде финансирането му, нито пък дали то би било достатъчно. Няма никаква яснота и дали този потенциален фонд ще се създаде предварително или едва при смущения на пазара. Компенсаторните мерки няма да защитят нашето земеделие. На тях често им липсват ясни дефиниции, не достигат до истински ощетените, а докато влязат в сила, щетите вече ще бъдат нанесени. Освен това доказването на, цитирам, „сериозна вреда“, нанесена на производителите поради споразумението, е сложен и бюрократичен процес. Нека не предадем европейските фермери и този път.

  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Mercosur no es un tratado comercial más. Se trata de hablar de futuro. Nos jugamos nuestra capacidad de seguir siendo un actor relevante en el comercio global, de generar crecimiento y empleo y de abrir las puertas a un mercado de setecientos cincuenta millones de consumidores. Es indudable que tiene claros beneficios, entre otros, la eliminación de cuatro mil millones de euros en aranceles, el acceso a mercados estratégicos, la mayor presencia de nuestras industrias y pymes y la protección de más de trescientas indicaciones geográficas.

Dicho esto, entiendo y comparto, comparto claramente, las preocupaciones del sector agrario. No podemos ignorarlas. Pero seamos claros: el problema de nuestro sector agrario no es el Mercosur, es la política agraria europea diseñada sin tener en cuenta la realidad del campo. Si nuestros productores se sienten amenazados por este Acuerdo es porque la política agraria no les ofrece las herramientas necesarias para competir y esto es lo que debe cambiar. Por eso, más que bloquear el Acuerdo, lo que debemos hacer es reformar nuestra política agraria para que no penalice a nuestros productores con normas asfixiantes, asegurar salvaguardas eficaces que protejan a los sectores vulnerables de manera rápida y efectiva y garantizar un fondo de compensación justo y ampliable que realmente funcione y que se adapte cuando sea necesario. No se trata de elegir entre comercio y agricultura, se trata de hacer las cosas bien y de analizar con datos actualizados dónde está el origen del problema y buscar soluciones al mismo.

Negarnos a ratificar este Acuerdo no resolverá los problemas del sector agrario y mandará un mensaje de que Europa renuncia a ser líder y prefiere dejar que otros aprovechen nuestras oportunidades.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich finde es unredlich, wenn man sich hier mit einem Zeigefinger hinstellt und sagt, am europäischen Wesen soll die Welt genesen, ohne dass man vernünftige Abkommen mit anderen Partnern auf Augenhöhe schließt. Und das machen wir genau so, dass wir die gleichen Ziele zusammen mit den Regierungen von Uruguay, Paraguay, Brasilien und Argentinien umsetzen wollen, was den Klimaschutz, was den Schutz der Artenvielfalt und was den Schutz der Arbeitnehmerrechte anbetrifft.

Das können wir nur gemeinsam machen und nicht mit einem erhobenen Zeigefinger nur hier aus Europa. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie uns doch nicht so defensiv sein! Natürlich, wie Lenny Kravitz sagt: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It´s Over.

Wir haben jetzt bis nächstes Jahr Zeit, zu gucken, wie die Entwicklung weitergeht. Wie wir es gemeinsam hinkriegen können, falls es Änderungswünsche, Ergänzungswünsche gibt, das umzusetzen. Wir haben das doch in anderen Handelsabkommen auch gemacht. Wir sind die Kraft, die letztendlich dafür sorgt, dass ein Abkommen ein gutes Abkommen wird.

Und wir brauchen stabile Abkommen in einer globalen Welt, die von Konflikten gekennzeichnet ist. Ohne stabile Bedingungen in unserer wirtschaftlichen Situation, gerade wenn 40 % unseres BIP vom internationalen Handel abhängig sind, können wir nicht weiter existieren. Wir geben unsere Wohlfahrtssituation auf. Deswegen brauchen wir stabile Verhältnisse. Wir wollen uns nicht Autokraten dieser Welt anheimgeben. Deswegen lassen Sie uns Abkommen diskutieren, gegebenenfalls verbessern, aber gestalten!

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf mehrere Fragen nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

  Raffaele Stancanelli (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è economicamente comprovato come il libero mercato porti sviluppo e benessere economico ed è per questo che, in linea di principio, noi siamo favorevoli allo stesso. Tuttavia, è fondamentale che gli accordi siano proficui per entrambe le parti. Questo non è il caso per il Mercosur.

Gli agricoltori e gli allevatori stanno disperatamente cercando di farci capire la gravità dell’impatto che questo accordo potrebbe avere per le loro attività. I nostri agricoltori si troverebbero in una posizione di svantaggio economico e non potrebbero competere con i grandi latifondisti sudamericani. A questo squilibrio si aggiunga la grande contraddizione green della Commissione: da un lato impone norme sempre più rigide ai nostri agricoltori, dall’altro permette che il nostro mercato venga invaso da prodotti esteri che non rispettano gli stessi standard imposti in Europa, specie sotto il profilo fitosanitario e quello della sostenibilità ambientale e sociale.

È un fatto ideologico dire che questo non è un accordo equo? No, noi pensiamo di no. Perché se è vero che gli accordi di libero scambio portano benefici, è altresì vero che il Mercosur, così come è strutturato, danneggia e svende i nostri agricoltori, produttori, allevatori e consumatori. Forse sarebbe il caso di non restare chiusi nei palazzi, ma ascoltare con umiltà chi lavora la terra e produce ricchezza.

  Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, trade agreements aren’t just about tariffs and paperwork; they create real opportunities. For our SMEs this means access to a market of 260 million consumers. So far, all EU trade agreements have delivered benefits while maintaining high standards. It’s a fact. This deal does the same: lowering tariffs, cutting red tape and ensuring fair competition.

Yes, concerns exist. That’s why the Commission has announced a EUR 1 billion fund to support affected farmers. But if we can fund compensation, we should also fund opportunity. A one-stop EU platform should be established for Mercosur markets that will help our businesses expand without excessive costs, because access should not be a privilege but a policy priority.

Commissioner, you must ensure a structured engagement similar to the CFSP and CSDP. We should have a CTP conference during every presidency, where civil society and national parliamentarians can engage with the European Parliament and with the Commission. This is a chance to expand, compete and lead – and we should take it.

  Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, voitures allemandes contre agriculture française: certains voudraient réduire l’accord de commerce entre le Mercosur et l’Union européenne à ce clivage. À mes collègues, notamment allemands, je vous le dis, je ne me ferai pas complice de cette instrumentalisation.

C’est une hérésie, une faiblesse politique abyssale que de nourrir un protectionnisme exacerbé qui ne fait que creuser des divisions et empêche toute évolution. Ce n’est pas un combat entre États européens que nous devons amplifier, mais notre crédibilité à construire des partenariats durables et équitables avec des États tiers avec qui nous dialoguons et commerçons déjà. Ce n’est pas une opposition entre secteurs qui est en débat, mais notre engagement à transformer des chaînes de valeur pour qu’elles soient durables, résilientes et sûres.

Alors, au-delà des postures, de nombreuses questions demeurent, dont celle-ci: avons-nous, nous Européens, la capacité de contrôler les produits qui rentrent sur notre marché, accords de commerce ou non? Alors soyons à la hauteur de tous les enjeux. Ne laissons pas la souveraineté, la durabilité, la compétitivité devenir de vagues concepts déconnectés des réalités, de la vie de nos industries, de nos agricultures, de nos concitoyens.

  Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, no se pueden hacer trampas al solitario. No puede usted decir que es bueno para el sector agrícola europeo y, al mismo tiempo, decir que hay que aumentar las compensaciones al sector agrícola europeo. ¿En qué quedamos? Si es bueno, no se debe compensar. Si hay que aumentar las compensaciones, no puede ser bueno para el sector agrícola.

Segunda cuestión: ustedes han conseguido en este Acuerdo con el Mercosur dos unanimidades que son absolutamente increíbles. La primera, unanimidad de todos los sectores agrícolas y sus representantes de Europa, pero también de los países del Mercosur. También han conseguido ustedes la unanimidad en contra de todos los sindicatos europeos y de los sindicatos del Mercosur.

¿A quién beneficia este Acuerdo con el Mercosur si tiene en contra a todos los sindicatos agrarios europeos y del Mercosur y a todos los sindicatos de trabajadores europeos y del Mercosur? ¿A quién beneficia? Clarísimamente, a los europeos y a las europeas no, porque nos hace más dependientes. ¿De quién? De las grandes multinacionales, que son a los únicos a los que va a beneficiar.

Por eso, nosotros estamos en contra, de forma clara y contundente. Necesitamos más apuesta de verdad por los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, más inversión en Europa para hacer una Europa mucho más fuerte, más inversión en la agricultura europea y no más vulnerabilidad y dependencia de terceros y, especialmente, de las grandes multinacionales.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, in order to properly debate the impact of this proposed agreement – proposed agreement; the title doesn’t say proposed, but we haven’t agreed to it yet – the proposed agreement on beef farmers in the EU, we need to compare like with like. In other words, you cannot compare carcass waste to processed premium beef waste. But that’s what your spin doctors are doing. The reality is that this deal will guarantee that at least 9 % of high-value cuts sold in the EU will come from Mercosur: 209 000 tonnes in a market of 2.3 million.

I hear people talk of opportunities. If you’re a suckler farmer in the west of Ireland on a 30-hectare farm, where are the opportunities? If it’s a win-win, as you say, why then the need for a compensation package?

And if there’s money, and EUR 1 billion for a compensation package, how come there’s no money to increase the farmers’ money that they get from the CAP, from what it was in 1991? Farmers in Ireland are facing a 60 % cut in CAP payments since that year.

You’re talking about a EUR 1 billion compensation package for something that’s a win-win deal. There is no win-win – no win-win in science. You cannot destroy or create energy. It’s rubbish.

  Arno Bausemer (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Es ist ein großer Fehler, gegen die Bürger Europas Politik zu machen. Es ist ein noch größerer Fehler, Politik gegen diejenigen zu machen, die diese Bürger Europas ernähren, nämlich unsere Landwirte.

Die hohe Qualität der Produkte, die unsere Landwirte produzieren, ist weltweit einmalig. Wenn man sich anschaut oder anhört, was hier teilweise gesagt wird, dann ist es eben falsch. Es ist kein Wettbewerb, wenn man andere Standards – viel niedrigere Standards, etwa in den Mercosur-Staaten – mit den Standards vergleicht, die wir hier in Sachen Qualität haben. Nun habe ich mich natürlich mit dem Thema beschäftigt. Ich selbst bin kleiner Landwirt im Nebenerwerb und war auch bei den Landwirten bei den Protesten im Oktober in Brüssel; im Dezember auch hier in Straßburg. Wo waren Sie? Wo war die Kommission?

Sie schicken Polizisten heraus, weil Sie Angst vor den Landwirten haben. Sie sprechen nicht mit den Landwirten. Mein Kollege von der ESN hat gerade den deutschen Bauernpräsidenten zitiert, der ganz klar gesagt hat: Dieser Weg ist falsch! Wir können mit diesen Produkten nicht konkurrieren, weil sie eben viel schlechter sind und weil sie unseren Markt mit geringer Qualität schwemmen. Das ist der Holzweg.

Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, es ist unsere Aufgabe, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Landwirte ihre hohe Qualität auch in ihren Produkten an den Markt bringen. Nun gibt es Vertreter in diesem Hause – ich denke da besonders an die Grüne Partei –, die der Meinung sind, man könnte die Versorgung mit hochwertigen Proteinen, Vitaminen, Zink, Eisen damit herstellen, dass man den Bürgern getrocknete gelbe Mehlwürmer vorsetzt und nicht hochwertiges Fleisch. Das ist der Fehler. Ich rufe gerade die Kollegen – sind ja auch welche da – von der Europäischen Volkspartei dazu auf: Lassen Sie die Grünen bitte links liegen, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Lassen Sie diese Politik auf den Scheiterhaufen der Geschichte verschwinden. Machen Sie Politik für die Bürger Europas!

Ich sage Ihnen noch eines zum Abschluss: Die AfD in Deutschland als Teil einer Regierung wird dieses Mercosur-Abkommen niemals unterstützen. Wenn Sie in der Kommission auf die Idee kommen sollten, das mit irgendwelchen rechtlichen Tricksereien zu umgehen – wir stehen an der Seite der Landwirte in der ersten Reihe bei den Protesten und werden dieses Abkommen verhindern.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

  Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ideálna dohoda neexistuje. Dohoda je kompromis a umenie možného a ja si myslím, že aj vy to tak rozprávate o farmároch. Neviem, kde ste boli, keď sme hovorili o slovenských a východoeurópskych farmároch a o zaplavení produktmi z Ukrajiny poľnohospodárskeho pôvodu. Ale myslím si, že v tomto prípade by sme mali byť pragmatickí. Farmárom pomôžeme znížením záťaže a nezmyselnej byrokracie, podporou spotreby domácich produktov a potravín, zvyšovaním platov, udržaním pracovných miest. A práve udržanie pracovných miest je podpora priemyslu a konkurencieschopnosti, ktorú ponúka práve dohoda Mercosur. A ja ju vidím ako príležitosť pre európsku ekonomiku, pretože sme orientovaní exportne. Príležitosť pre otvorenie ďalších trhov a presne, ako aj komisár Šefčovič hovoril, zníženie záťaže, čo sa týka ciel a daní alebo taríf na naše napríklad automobily, ktoré pre Slovensko sú veľmi dôležité, je určite príležitosťou a, myslím si, že pozitívom dohody Mercosur. Vyjednávalo sa to viac ako 20 rokov. Veľa sa o tom rozprávalo, snažili sa byť naozaj pragmatickí a vidieť, aká je príležitosť v tom všetkom, čo môžeme s touto dohodou dosiahnuť.

A rada by som upozornila aj na to, čo pán komisár hovoril: my sa tu rozprávame o nejakej kvalite potravín a o tom, že nechceme dovážať a chceme naše fytosanitárne štandardy. Komisia nám jasne povedala, že naše fytosanitárne štandardy budú dodržiavané a že to súčasťou tejto dohody je. Tak tu neklamme našich voličov a občanov Európskej únie.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, u trenutku kada se svjetska trgovina fragmentira, za Europu je strateški važno osigurati trgovinske partnere s kojima ima ugovorom uređene odnose. U takvim okolnostima sporazum s MERCOSUR dobiva novu geopolitičku težinu za naše odnose s Latinskom Amerikom. Iako nas povezuju povijest i kultura, bez ovog sporazuma Europa neće moći se nositi sa sve jačom konkurencijom globalnih igrača. Prisutnih u Latinskoj Americi. I ne samo prisutnih. Kina je već danas prvi trgovinski partner za veliki broj zemalja ove regije. Stoga nema dvojbe da je ovaj sporazum potreban, da, za europsku industriju, ali i općenito za europsku ekonomiju. No, isto tako je točno da postoji potreba za dijalogom s poljoprivrednicima. Za Hrvatsku poljoprivrednu komoru, tri su sektora osjetljiva. Govedarstvo, peradarstvo i šećerna industrija. I zato je važno komunicirati da su sporazumom dogovorene kvote za uvoz tih proizvoda od svega 1,2 % do 1,5 % ukupne potrošnje na europskom tržištu. I uz to, te male kvote uvodit će se postupno. Dakle, europsko tržište neće biti poplavljeno poljoprivrednim proizvodima iz Južne Amerike, ali, da, Komisija mora pripremiti paket kompenzacijskih mjera koji bi se mogao aktivirati u slučaju potrebe. Dakle, MERCOSUR nije prijetnja, ali jest prilika da Europa bude konkurentna na svjetskom tržištu.

  Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ce traité de libre-échange entre l’Union européenne et l’Amérique du Sud est en réalité une menace pour notre agriculture, notre environnement et notre souveraineté économique. Cet accord met en concurrence directe nos agriculteurs avec des productions dont les normes environnementales et sanitaires sont bien moins strictes.

Vous sacrifiez nos filières européennes, déjà en crise, pour vendre vos voitures allemandes. Le Mercosur favorise un modèle économique basé sur l’exportation intensive et la destruction des écosystèmes. Il affaiblit notre souveraineté en inondant nos marchés de produits à bas coûts, il détruit les filières locales et fragilise nos producteurs au profit des multinationales. L’accord avec le Mercosur n’est pas un progrès, c’est une régression économique et environnementale. Il est urgent de le refuser et de défendre une agriculture juste, durable et locale.

Sachez qu’un agriculteur se suicide tous les deux jours en France. Je pense que, en signant cet accord, les commissaires, Mme von der Leyen et les députés qui le signeront seront le dernier clou qui fermeront leur cercueil.

(L’oratrice refuse des questions carton bleu de Marie-Pierre Vedrenne et Manon Aubry.)

  Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Wszystko, co mówicie w sprawie umowy z Mercosurem, przypomina dokładnie sytuację z Nord Streamem. Wiele osób w tej Izbie mówiło wam, że pozbywanie się własnych strategicznych zasobów energetycznych na rzecz importu gazu z zewnątrz da krótkotrwałe zyski niewielu, a w dłuższej perspektywie skończy się tragedią.

No i co? I dzisiaj mamy dokładnie to samo. Chcecie zniszczyć europejskie rolnictwo, żeby sprzedawać samochody, które przestały być konkurencyjne między innymi przez was, przez Zielony Ład. Problem tylko polega na tym, że rolnictwo to nie tylko żywność, miejsca pracy, ale przede wszystkim bezpieczeństwo. I przestańcie kłamać, że to nie ma żadnego wpływu na rolnictwo. Gdyby tak było, to nie przedstawialibyście żadnych pakietów rekompensacyjnych. Po co takie pakiety?

Zakładacie, że żywność do Europy zawsze będzie można ściągnąć. Tak samo myśleliście z gazem. No i co, pytam. Chyba, że zakładacie, że Europejczycy zawsze sobie jakoś poradzą, bo dopuściliście do jedzenia robaki. Ale tak naprawdę to was trzeba wykopać, a nie rolników. Im trzeba dziękować, bo mamy najlepszą żywność na świecie, i nie pozwolimy wam tego zniszczyć.

(Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

  Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card question. – You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back and see the agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it would destroy the farmers.

The Commission has, on the other side, done a very good job. They have TRQs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers? We recognise that there are sensitive products, but that’s why the Commission has worked with us. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector, for cheese, for a lot of businesses.

  Patryk Jaki (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Jeżeli to jest tak, jak Pan mówi, że rolnicy na tym zyskają, to pytanie jest kluczowe, to dlaczego protestują? Pan myśli, że oni są głupkami, że nie wiedzą, co robią? Pan się lepiej zna na ich działalności niż oni sami? Ja uważam wprost przeciwnie. Poza tym, uważam, jest błąd logiczny w Pana pytaniu, bo skoro Pan twierdzi, że oni na tym zyskają, to po co pakiety rekompensacyjne? No po co? To szkoda pieniędzy. Lepiej przeznaczyć je na innowacje. Więc przykro mi.

Dokładnie to samo na tej sali słyszałem w sprawie Nord Streamu. Jeszcze raz to powtórzę – twierdziliście, że nie będzie żadnego problemu. I co? Rolnictwo to jest nasze bezpieczeństwo.

  Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Madame Karlsbro, merci. Vous dites que vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi certains et certaines s’opposent à l’accord avec le Mercosur que, très manifestement, vous soutenez.

Or, signer cet accord avec le Mercosur, le mettre en œuvre, c’est dire aux agriculteurs, qui souffrent déjà, qui crèvent déjà, de la faible rémunération liée à la vente de leurs produits, que nous allons les soumettre à une concurrence plus dure encore sur les produits les plus rémunérateurs.

Signer et ratifier cet accord avec le Mercosur, c’est dire aux parents qui voient déjà leurs enfants souffrir, voire mourir, de cancers liés à l’exposition aux produits toxiques que nous allons continuer, voire même aggraver, cette exposition.

Signer et ratifier l’accord du Mercosur, c’est dire aux citoyennes et aux citoyens européens que Javier Milei, la tronçonneuse à la main, qui sort de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et terrorise ses citoyens, est un partenaire fiable pour l’Union européenne. Voilà pourquoi nous nous opposons à cet accord du Mercosur. Et je vous en prie…

(La Présidente retire la parole à l’oratrice)

  Alexander Bernhuber (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielleicht möchte ich schon etwas Nachhilfe in Ackerbau und Viehzucht geben, was Landwirtschaft betrifft, weil Sie ja sagen, die Landwirtschaft profitiert. Die Landwirtschaft ist aber sehr vielseitig, und ein Bauer, der vielleicht gerade einen Stall gebaut hat, kann keinen Wein pflanzen und jetzt in Mercosur-Ländern Wein verkaufen.

Also, man muss hier genau schauen, welche landwirtschaftlichen Sektoren durch dieses Handelsabkommen benachteiligt werden. Ich verstehe nicht, warum nicht einfach die Landwirtschaft von diesem Abkommen ausgenommen worden ist – wo man genau weiß, das ist der kritische Sektor, da gibt es die größten Bedenken.

  Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, has the Commissioner been listening to the family farmers on both sides of the Atlantic that urge us not to sign this trade agreement? Or have you been listening to the big land‑owning oligarchs that are teaming up with the agrochemical multinationals that run thousands of hectares‑big farms, spreading pesticides that are banned in Europe with aeroplanes?

Have you been listening to the indigenous communities and Quilombo communities that came all the way to Brussels to report about their poisoned rivers, their poisoned wells, their burned‑down forests, the deforestation and the attacks on them. Have you been listening to the labour organisation that reports about child labour, about forced labour, but in very high numbers?

Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with Mercosur. Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with democracies. But as it stands, this trade agreement, in my point of view, is not fit for purpose. We still need to work on that and need to improve it. As it stands, this trade deal is toxic for the planet and the people.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la comunidad internacional se encuentra en una situación de fragmentación, creciente polarización, abundancia de conflictos y auge del proteccionismo. En este contexto es oportuno para la Unión Europea reforzar las relaciones políticas y económicas con los países del Mercosur, con los que tantos vínculos compartimos. Son aliados naturales nuestros.

No disponemos todavía de la versión final de la parte del diálogo político y cooperación del Acuerdo, señor comisario, pero entiendo que establece mecanismos institucionales que permitirán reforzar nuestras relaciones políticas y abordar de forma más coordinada los retos comunes y los retos globales, desde la lucha contra el narcotráfico hasta el cambio climático.

El Acuerdo con el Mercosur nos ayudará también a contener la importante presencia de China en la región. La dimensión económica y comercial del Acuerdo ofrece muchas oportunidades para las empresas europeas. En efecto, el Acuerdo supone el fin de la tradicional política proteccionista de economías tan grandes como la de Brasil y la de Argentina y facilitará así el acceso de los productos europeos y de nuestras compañías al Mercosur.

Necesitamos un diálogo permanente con los sectores que temen verse perjudicados, particularmente ganaderos y muchos agricultores. Hay que explicar el alcance real del Acuerdo, las cuotas, las cláusulas de salvaguarda, las posibles medidas compensatorias, y avanzar también, internamente en la Unión, en reformas que reduzcan la burocracia y simplifiquen la legislación, y facilitar así la labor y asegurar la competitividad de unos sectores víctimas estos años de una auténtica sobrerregulación.

Espero que la Brújula para la Competitividad, señor comisario, contribuya también a ello. Queda trabajo por hacer.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo con il Mercosur è un’intesa di grande rilevanza geopolitica e potrebbe ridefinire gli equilibri globali. Per l’Unione europea rappresenta un’opportunità strategica per rafforzare la propria presenza in America latina e contrastare l’influenza di altre superpotenze.

Tuttavia, per decidere se possiamo votarlo, è essenziale valutarne l’impatto su lavoratori, imprese, agricoltura e ambiente, assicurando che siano rispettate regole chiare e condivise. L’inserimento dell’accordo di Parigi e del capitolo su commercio e sviluppo sostenibile sono passi positivi, ma permangono nodi irrisolti che vanno approfonditi: il meccanismo di riequilibrio, la risoluzione delle controversie, l’efficacia delle misure contro la deforestazione, ma anche la necessità di rafforzare il sistema doganale per garantire la sicurezza del mercato interno e dei consumatori.

Come Socialisti e Democratici abbiamo avviato un dialogo con la Commissione, le parti sociali e le ONG per valutare ogni aspetto dell’accordo. Mi rivolgo in particolare alla Commissione: abbiamo un anno per dare risposte, come istituzioni, alle questioni sollevate dagli europei, per agire sulle criticità in modo convincente, con provvedimenti e azioni e poter quindi convincere anche questo Parlamento della bontà dell’accordo. Dobbiamo lavorare insieme e poi potremo decidere cosa fare.

  Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, apoiamos firmemente o comércio livre, reconhecendo os seus benefícios para o crescimento económico e a prosperidade das nações. Conhecemos bem a história dos anos 20 e 30 do século passado e não queremos repeti‑la. Acreditamos também que o Acordo da União Europeia‑Mercosul tem vantagens geopolíticas, como a contenção da influência crescente da China na América do Sul e o fortalecimento do eixo Atlântico da Europa. Mas, como sempre, definiremos as nossas posições em função dos nossos interesses nacionais, especialmente os dos nossos agricultores, pescadores, industriais e pequenos e médios comerciantes, que constituem a espinha dorsal da nossa economia. Estamos em contacto constante com os empresários e trabalhadores dos setores abrangidos pelo Acordo, pois ninguém conhece melhor a realidade do que eles. As suas preocupações são legítimas, especialmente face à concorrência de produtos de países terceiros que não cumprem os mesmos padrões de qualidade e segurança que exigimos aos nossos produtores. Temos a obrigação de garantir uma concorrência leal e justa, e de assegurar que os nossos setores produtivos são devidamente salvaguardados. Assim o faremos.

  Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, ik verwelkom het akkoord met Mercosur met open armen, want het is niet alleen het grootste handelsakkoord dat de EU ooit gesloten heeft, maar is ook belangrijk om drie redenen.

Op een moment dat de Amerikaanse president Trump tarieven oplegt aan ons staal en ons aluminium, is het de hoogste tijd om nieuwe markten aan te boren en bovendien dat terrein niet alleen over te laten aan China. Ten tweede bevestigt het ons geloof in vrije, op regels gebaseerde handel en geeft het zuurstof aan onze bedrijven. Ten slotte biedt het akkoord wel degelijk kansen op een verbetering van de arbeidsomstandigheden en wat betreft de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.

Maar ik begrijp ook de bezorgdheid van onze landbouwers wanneer het gaat over mogelijke toenemende concurrentie. Voor ons is het dan ook helder dat er daarvoor afspraken moeten zijn, dat er een voortdurende monitoring moet zijn, dat de Europese veiligheids- en gezondheidsnormen ook voor hun producten van tel moeten zijn en, finaal, dat er een steunpakket kan zijn indien dat nodig is. Op die manier geloven wij in dit akkoord met Mercosur.

  Benoit Cassart (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, à plusieurs reprises, nous avons tiré la sonnette d’alarme sur l’impact de l’accord avec le Mercosur à propos de la déforestation, de la perte de biodiversité et du risque sanitaire. Regardons maintenant l’impact de cet accord sur notre autonomie stratégique.

Le rapport Draghi a souligné l’efficacité de la Chine et des États-Unis par rapport à l’Europe. Pourtant, ces deux puissances ont toutes les deux décidé de protéger leurs marchés et leurs agriculteurs pour favoriser leur autonomie alimentaire. Pour rappel, la population mondiale a augmenté de 82 millions de bouches à nourrir en 2024. Être en mesure de produire son alimentation est un pilier fondamental de l’autonomie stratégique. Or, seulement 6 % des agriculteurs ont moins de 35 ans dans l’Union européenne.

Monsieur le Commissaire, est-il vraiment raisonnable d’ouvrir les portes aux produits moins durables d’Amérique du Sud, alors que rien ne motive déjà les jeunes Européens à reprendre nos fermes?

Cet accord n’a rien à voir avec le CETA, qui était un bon accord.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem Mercosur-Abkommen plant die EU zum ersten Mal ein Handelsabkommen mit einem Partner, dessen primäres Interesse natürlich der Export von Agrargütern ist.

Nicht, dass wir dort heute nicht einkaufen würden: Aus Brasilien kaufen wir im Jahr um 17 Mrd. EUR Lebensmittel, aus Argentinien um 5 Mrd. EUR – es sind also bereits wichtige Handelspartner. Aber, und das wurde heute auch gesagt, das Abkommen könnte natürlich einige Sektoren der Landwirtschaft treffen: Rindfleisch, Geflügelfleisch, Zucker, Bioethanol, Reis oder Zitrusfrüchte, um nur einige zu nennen.

Natürlich gibt es auch Chancen für andere Bereiche in der Landwirtschaft, das steht außer Zweifel. Und natürlich gibt es ein geopolitisches Interesse an diesem Abkommen, das unterstütze ich ausdrücklich. Die Europäische Union verliert derzeit schnell – und in den letzten Stunden noch schneller – Partner und Freunde in der gesamten Welt, und unsere fehlende Entscheidungsfreude – und 25 Jahre Abkommen und Reden über Mercosur sind vielleicht ein Symbol dafür – zeigt, dass wir es uns nicht erlauben können, Partnern, möglichen Partnern die Tür vor der Nase zuzuschlagen.

Aber wir brauchen eine Strategie für die Landwirtschaft, und die Strategie kann nicht nur einfach das Versprechen auf 1 Mrd. EUR sein. Wir brauchen ein Konzept, Sicherheiten für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Maßnahmen, um neue Märkte in der Welt zu erschließen. Und dann brauchen wir eine Finanzierung für dieses Konzept. Aber zuerst brauchen wir ein Konzept, und dann brauchen wir das notwendige Geld dazu.

Ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, sich zügig auf den Weg zu machen, um ein solches Konzept vorzulegen und die Bedenken, die es in der Landwirtschaft gibt, aus dem Weg zu räumen.

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, este acordo é bom para a União Europeia sob o ponto de vista político, sob o ponto de vista económico e sob o ponto de vista comercial. A União Europeia tem todo o interesse em reforçar as suas ligações com os países do Mercosul. Nós temos profundas afinidades históricas, culturais e políticas com essa região. Estamos a falar de um conjunto de democracias. Devemos aprofundar essas relações e nada melhor do que avançar com o tratado. Num tempo em que regressa em força o protecionismo e o mercantilismo, nós temos de manifestar sinais de abertura, um acordo de livre comércio e um acordo que visa regular de forma adequada as relações com outra região do mundo. Nós não queremos uma Europa fechada sobre si própria. Nós queremos uma Europa aberta. A Europa precisa de se relacionar com outras regiões do mundo. Precisamos de obter matérias‑primas que nós não temos no nosso continente. Precisamos de estabelecer relações comerciais que vão dinamizar as nossas economias e, por isso mesmo, é fundamental garantir finalmente a concretização deste acordo.

Mas há uma coisa que aqui quero dizer. É legítimo, naturalmente, estar contra este acordo, mas o que eu tenho verificado, infelizmente, acho que em alguma esquerda e muita direita, é que há um verdadeiro discurso trumpista contra este acordo, porque é um discurso assente na falsificação da realidade e um discurso assente na tentativa de produzir o medo junto das populações. Façamos um debate sério, um debate na base dos factos, um debate na base daquilo que efetivamente está no acordo e não naquilo que alguns querem fazer crer que está no acordo, mas efetivamente não está lá. Este acordo é um acordo que deve, pode e deve ser discutido. Nós estamos aqui a iniciar essa discussão democrática. Somos um espaço aberto e democrático, mas temos a obrigação de o fazer com rigor.

(O orador aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

  João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Francisco Assis, se este acordo é assim tão bom, porque é que a Comissão está a querer impedir os Estados‑Membros de fazerem o seu escrutínio nacional? Porque é que a Comissão está a querer dividir o acordo em dois, para impedir o escrutínio nacional pelos Estados-Membros que eventualmente possam impedir a entrada em vigor deste acordo? Não acha que isto é a confirmação dos prejuízos que podem resultar deste acordo em termos ambientais, em termos económicos, em termos sociais? As preocupações que têm sido colocadas pelos agricultores, relativamente à destruição da sua atividade económica por uma competição desleal, com produções a custos mais baixos, mas com riscos para os consumidores, são preocupações objetivas, Senhor Deputado. Não as ignore.

  Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, não desvalorize a importância democrática deste Parlamento Europeu. O acordo vai ser discutido e vai ser votado aqui no Parlamento Europeu; e este Parlamento é a expressão também da vontade dos vários países, dos vários povos, dos vários Estados europeus. O acordo é, do meu ponto de vista, um acordo bom, é um acordo que protege, no essencial, os interesses europeus. Haverá alguns setores que podem perder. Em todos os acordos há sempre esse risco. Então aí temos de encontrar mecanismos, cláusulas de salvaguarda, fundos de apoio e é isso que está previsto. Portanto, esse discurso, que é um discurso que visa criar medo na sociedade europeia, junto de determinados setores da sociedade europeia, é um discurso que não serve os interesses daqueles que supostamente os senhores estão a representar e a defender.

  Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Muito obrigado pela pergunta. O acordo, no essencial, como já tive oportunidade de dizer, é um acordo que garante e protege os vários setores económicos europeus. Nomeadamente no campo da agricultura, nós temos de fazer esse debate. Vamos ver quem ganha e, eventualmente, quem perde. Se houver alguns setores agrícolas europeus que venham a perder, evidentemente que nós temos, a nível europeu, de encontrar mecanismos de compensação, e é isso que temos feito ao longo dos anos. Se há um setor na União Europeia que tem beneficiado bastante dos apoios europeus é precisamente o setor da agricultura. É provavelmente o setor económico que mais tem beneficiado do apoio ao longo dos anos, ao longo das várias décadas de existência da União Europeia. Agora, o que também não é aceitável é o discurso que se faz em relação ao estado da agricultura naqueles países. Eu conheço esses países todos, visitei‑os várias vezes. Nesses países não vigora a lei da selva. São democracias, são democracias com Estados de direito e são democracias cada vez mais preocupadas em acompanhar as grandes agendas nas questões do combate às alterações climáticas, à desflorestação, etc. Também não façamos tão mau juízo dos países …

(a Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

  Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, vamos a decirles la verdad a los europeos. Ustedes no quieren agricultura, ustedes no quieren ganadería, ustedes no quieren pesca. Por eso, primero asfixian al sector primario con su tiranía verde y ahora vienen a rematarles con este Acuerdo con el Mercosur, un pacto que inundará Europa con carne hormonada, soja transgénica y otros productos que no estarán sometidos a ninguno de los estándares sanitarios y medioambientales que exigen a nuestros productores europeos.

¿Y cómo compite, señor comisario, un ganadero europeo que soporta el 15 % de costes regulatorios frente a una carne hormonada de Brasil que no cumple con ninguno de estos requisitos? Pues no compite, señor comisario, se arruina, y eso es precisamente lo que ustedes quieren. España ha perdido más de 70 000 explotaciones agrarias en la última década. Europa, más de cinco millones. Veo que no les parece suficiente. ¿Y saben qué es lo más indignante? Que vengan aquí a hablarnos de sostenibilidad, mientras destruyen el medio rural de los europeos; que nos hablen de competitividad, mientras condenan a nuestro sector primario a la ruina.

Este Acuerdo es un chollo para las grandes multinacionales y una sentencia de muerte para la producción familiar, para el medio ambiente y, sobre todo, para la seguridad alimentaria de los europeos. Mientras el Partido Popular y el Partido Socialista lo aplauden, nosotros decimos alto y claro que no vamos a ser el vertedero agrícola de sus intereses globalistas.

(La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

  Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, já rozumím obavám zemědělců ze snížení cel, které přinese obchodní dohoda s Mercosurem, a proto s nimi musíme intenzivně jednat a hledat pro ně přijatelná řešení.

Jsem ale hluboce přesvědčena, že volný obchod přináší zdravou konkurenci, snižuje ceny pro spotřebitele, vede k inovacím a investicím. Evropským firmám i zemědělcům nabízí dohoda nová stabilní odbytiště, přístup ke strategickým surovinám i levnější dovoz komodit, které neumíme sami vypěstovat. Dohoda navíc obsahuje evropské standardy pro bezpečnost potravin i kontrolní mechanismy. Dohoda s Mercosurem je také šancí pro evropské firmy v době, kdy hrozí obchodní válka s USA, kdy Putin svou agresí zablokoval obchod s Ruskem a Čína je bezpečnostně problematickým partnerem. Proto má dohoda mou podporu.

  Barry Cowen (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we face a new global reality today, with countries retreating from trade and turning to protectionism. Amidst this shift, it’s natural for the EU to seek new trading partners. In doing so, however, we must continue to uphold our principles by ensuring a level playing field.

As it stands, the Mercosur deal lacks key guarantees and imposes demands on Europe’s farmers not matched by Mercosur nations. On the whole, for example, Ireland’s agricultural industry has three strategic goals, all with EU competences: extending the nitrates derogation, an increased CAP budget and stopping a Mercosur deal that farmers believe threatens beef exports.

If the Commission were to provide meaningful assurances around the Mercosur deal and firm commitments on the derogations in the next CAP, I believe farmers’ views could shift. Our country, for example, presently enjoys an EUR 800 million trade surplus with Mercosur nations.

This deal has the potential to bring about further opportunities, but good politics is ultimately about compromise. Good politics! And the question now is whether the Commission will prove its political astuteness by strengthening the deal and providing strategic assurances on the CAP and the derogation – or not!

  Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, tarifas é o assunto do momento. Fiat, Volkswagen, Renault estão entre as dez marcas mais vendidas no Mercosul. Pagam taxas de 35 %, tanto quanto a nossa indústria da moda, e os nossos vinhos, mundialmente reconhecidos, 27 %. Reduzir ou eliminar tarifas não será uma boa notícia. As terras raras que estes países têm e que nós precisamos para a transição energética? Devem ter reparado que o sistema elétrico do Báltico foi integrado na rede europeia há três dias. O investimento na nossa indústria de defesa? Queremos lançar satélites de baixa órbita, queremos usar caças Eurofighter ou Super Rafale em vez dos F-35 americanos? Queremos que o sistema de defesa SAMP/T Mamba seja uma alternativa ao Patriot? Pois é, mas o Brasil processa 89 % do nióbio a nível mundial e a Argentina, 11 % do lítio. Será que podemos mesmo deitar fora um acordo com o Mercosul? Não, não podemos.

(A oradora aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

  Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE), domanda “cartellino blu”. – Onorevole Pereira, Lei ha citato delle case automobilistiche europee che, grazie a questo trattato, potrebbero finalmente vendere le loro auto in Sudamerica. Ma a Lei sfugge che oggi, grazie alle miopi politiche europee, queste aziende non vendono più un’auto in Europa. Stellantis nel 2024 ha registrato il -36 % di vendite di auto in Europa; 300 000 auto vendute: numeri da anni ’50. E questo perché, se nel 2025 non vengono eliminate le sanzioni, queste case automobilistiche, per rispettare i target, sa che cosa stanno già facendo? Stanno diminuendo la produzione di auto tradizionali. L’alternativa è acquistare certificati verdi da case che producono auto fuori dall’Europa. Quindi forse questi dazi anziché metterli, anzi…

(La Presidente toglie la parola all’oratrice)

  Lídia Pereira (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Deputada, agradeço a pergunta, apesar de ter vindo mesmo à última hora. Como deve saber, ou pelo menos eu espero que saiba, porque de facto há muita desinformação que vem da sua bancada, há quotas previstas para a importação de produtos agrícolas, há mecanismos de controlo sanitário. E, contas feitas, a quantidade de carne a importar corresponde a cerca de um bife de vaca e a um peito de frango por cada europeu. Portanto, eu não estaria tão preocupada, porque já falámos e já ouvimos o Senhor Comissário relativamente às garantias e às salvaguardas que estão previstas no acordo para o setor agrícola. Temos de perceber que estamos a falar de geopolítica, e estarmos completamente cerrados nas nossas fronteiras vai ter consequências para o crescimento económico da União Europeia.

  Eric Sargiacomo (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, beaucoup de choses ont été dites. Je vais me concentrer sur les conditions de la réciprocité et, question centrale, d’un juste échange, tant pour un aspect de concurrence déloyale que sur le plan de la santé publique, de la sauvegarde environnementale ou encore des droits sociaux.

En matière de sécurité sanitaire, si nous interdisons des produits sanitaires en Europe parce qu’ils sont CMR – cancérigènes, mutagènes, reprotoxiques – avérés par la science, alors il est de notre devoir de faire de cette interdiction une obligation absolue. Car la garantie de la santé est d’ordre public, ici et là-bas. Elle doit s’imposer à tout décideur, à tout traité, à tout accord. Cette exigence doit entraîner l’obligation de conformité des produits que nous importons, au-delà des contrôles douaniers aléatoires ou de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides, dont nous connaissons tous les failles.

Ces produits doivent faire l’objet d’un véritable certificat de conformité délivré de façon indépendante, selon un cahier des charges établi par l’Union européenne. En l’absence d’une telle garantie, l’Europe engagera sa responsabilité pour mise en danger de la vie d’autrui, ici et là-bas. La confiance n’exclut pas le contrôle. Pour l’instant, les conditions de la confiance ne sont pas là, même pour un milliard hypothétique.

PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS
Vicepresidente

  Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais vous parler d’un éleveur de poulets breton qui s’appelle Patrick.

Il travaille longuement toute la journée et, le soir, il consacre de nombreuses heures sur son ordinateur à gérer le tsunami de vos normes: les 160 pages de règles que l’Union européenne a imposées à la filière volaille. Il a vu ses coûts de production augmenter, ses revenus s’effondrer.

Il apprend un jour que Pedro, éleveur de poulets brésilien, va pouvoir vendre ses poulets chez lui, à des prix bradés. Il apprend que Pedro, lui, n’a pas de normes, ne respecte pas le bien-être animal, utilise même des produits phytosanitaires pour son maïs, alors que Patrick ne le peut pas, et que Pedro utilise des antibiotiques de croissance. Il n’a pas été écouté par la Commission.

Alors, Patrick m’a demandé de vous poser une question, Monsieur le Commissaire: «Quels intérêts servez-vous pour m’imposer une telle injustice?» Il a même ajouté: «Vous direz au commissaire européen que je ne crois plus en son Europe.»

  Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Umowa handlowa między Unią Europejską a Mercosurem przygotowana w tajemnicy przed rolnikami to nie szansa – mówię to z bólem – a wyrok na europejskie rolnictwo. Mercosur to czarna gradowa chmura, która zniszczy mikro, małe rodzinne gospodarstwa rolne już dziś z trudem stawiające czoła nieuczciwemu handlowi z krajów spoza Unii Europejskiej.

Polski rynek za poprzedniej władzy zalały już produkty rolne niskiej jakości spoza Unii, takie jak zboże techniczne. Taki mamy wschodni Mercosur, Szanowni Państwo. Dodatkowo polscy rolnicy są obłożeni najbardziej rygorystycznymi restrykcjami. Wprowadzanie zatem na nasze rynki takich produktów jak zboże, mięso, tytoń i cukier z krajów Mercosur o niskiej jakości i cenie zabije polskie i europejskie rolnictwo, zagraża bezpieczeństwu żywnościowemu i zdrowotnemu.

Szanowni Państwo, apeluję i proszę w imieniu polskich i europejskich rolników o solidarność całej wspólnoty w ochronie rynku rolnego, zdrowia konsumentów i bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” produktom niskiej jakości, mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” niebezpiecznej umowie …

(Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)

  Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, tras la patada que ha dado Trump al tablero comercial mundial es aún más evidente que tenemos que reforzar los lazos económicos y políticos con los países del Mercosur, con los que compartimos, además, valores, principios, intereses y cultura. Son y deben seguir siendo nuestros aliados y nunca el chivo expiatorio de las contradicciones de los populistas, como fue en su día el CETA.

Este Acuerdo ofrece inmensas oportunidades a los agricultores y responde a sus preocupaciones con largos períodos transitorios, con seguridad y con ayudas a los sectores y productos sensibles. Abre un mercado de doscientos sesenta millones de consumidores a nuestras empresas y, especialmente, a nuestras pymes. Diversifica nuestro acceso a las materias primas críticas y abre los mercados públicos a nuestras empresas. Por último, ofrece garantías medioambientales, sociales y sanitarias que ahora no existen en el comercio entre los dos bloques.

Por todo ello, los socialistas españoles creemos que es imprescindible aprobar este Acuerdo.

  Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, Europa lleva más de veinte años negociando este Acuerdo y eso deja en evidencia la complejidad y el esfuerzo extra que necesita en materia de transparencia y de trabajo con los sectores. Parece que vamos a tener beneficios para automoción, maquinaría, herramientas, aeronáutica, servicios avanzados a la industria, productores de vino, lácteos, quesos. Pero también tenemos a parte de una sociedad que está preocupada y a un sector primario que arrastra, además, problemas derivados de la última reforma de la PAC.

Hablemos claro: uso de hormonas, fitosanitarios y cumplimiento del Acuerdo de París, para garantizar un mercado justo, tienen que estar encima de la mesa. Y necesitamos claridad en torno a productos protegidos, productos cuya apertura va a ser gradual en cuanto al mercado y seguimiento que se va a hacer del impacto e incumplimientos que supondrían el fin del Acuerdo, así como medidas compensatorias y salvaguardas.

Hay que trabajar todos estos meses que tenemos por delante, con mesas mixtas de trabajo y con el sector, para que, cuando ese Acuerdo llegue a este Parlamento y toque votarlo, podamos hacerlo en consecuencia y esto no sea una guerra entre sectores, sino un espacio de oportunidades colectivas y sociales equilibradas.

  Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, en los Estados Unidos, aranceles; en China, competencia desleal; y, en Rusia, sencillamente la guerra. Este es el balance de las relaciones comerciales a las que nos enfrentamos actualmente. Para Europa el comercio siempre ha sido una herramienta económica, pero Trump, Xi Jinping y Putin lo han convertido en un arma política y con ello están poniendo en riesgo nuestra competitividad, nuestra prosperidad e, incluso, nuestra seguridad.

Por eso, necesitamos alternativas, necesitamos urgentemente nuevos mercados y el Mercosur supone una oportunidad para impulsar a nuestros exportadores y diversificar nuestras cadenas de suministro.

Pero no podemos cometer los mismos errores del pasado e ignorar las necesidades de nuestros agricultores y nuestros ganaderos. Tenemos la responsabilidad de darles garantías. Por eso, me parece buena noticia que el Acuerdo cuente con salvaguardas y medidas de reciprocidad sólida para proteger nuestro sector primario. Y todavía más importante es que la Comisión apueste esta legislatura por la reducción de la burocracia verde. Comercio, sí; simplificación, también.

  Dario Nardella (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è indubbio che il nuovo quadro geopolitico che nasce dalle elezioni americane e l’influenza sempre crescente cinese sul Sud America impongono all’Europa un cambio di schema.

Dobbiamo rafforzare il nostro impegno su tutti i mercati internazionali, giocare una leadership commerciale. L’Europa vive di export: il 30 % del GDP del nostro continente è legato all’esportazione, e questo vale ancor di più per un paese come l’Italia, il mio paese.

Per questo il Mercosur, in linea di principio, è uno strumento utile, soprattutto per i settori industriali, come la chimica, le auto, le macchine. Tuttavia, Commissario, possono esserci problemi seri per l’agricoltura.

Allora ci sono condizioni che la Commissione deve seguire. Primo: la reciprocità. Secondo: controlli con una dogana europea. Terzo: risorse per la promozione, perché non si può tagliare la PAC e poi promuovere il Mercosur. Quarto: questa compensazione di un miliardo di euro ci sarà o no? Quinto: il rispetto degli standard ambientali.

Un accordo importante deve diventare un buon accordo.

  Ton Diepeveen (PfE). – Voorzitter, de overeenkomst tussen de EU en Mercosur biedt kansen, maar brengt ook vooral risico’s met zich mee. Onze boeren worden uitgeknepen en geconfronteerd met strenge regels, terwijl goedkope import uit Zuid-Amerika zonder problemen binnenkomt.

Wat de voedselveiligheid betreft, blijkt uit het rapport van de Commissie dat Brazilië gebruik maakt van verboden groeihormonen. Toch blijft de Commissie beweren dat alles onder controle is. Dit vormt een gevaar voor de consument en is een dolksteek in de rug van onze boeren. Wat krijgen wij hiervoor terug? In Nederland een schamele 0,03 % economische groei, terwijl onze veehouders voor de bus worden gegooid.

Als klap op de vuurpijl pompt Brussel ook 1,8 miljard EUR belastinggeld in Mercosur, waarvan een deel naar boeren in Brazilië gaat, terwijl onze eigen boeren in de kou staan. Er is geen gelijk speelveld, geen eerlijke handel, maar wel nog meer bureaucratie en import uit landen die lak hebben aan onze regels. Dit is waanzin. Schrap dit akkoord. Schroef de Green Deal terug, zodat onze boeren eindelijk uit dit moeras van klimaatwaanzin kunnen ontsnappen.

  Ana Vasconcelos (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let us be clear about what’s really at stake with the Mercosur agreement. It’s not just Europe’s economic future. It’s our international credibility after stalling this deal for more than 20 years. It’s about where we stand in a world where the global balance of powers is shifting and Europe is struggling to defend its interests.

Some warn of threats to our industry and farmers. They’re missing the crucial point. Our economy doesn’t struggle because of international competition. It struggles under the weight of excessive regulatory burdens.

This agreement cuts tariffs on key European exports while maintaining environmental standards. It gives small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of our economy, access to new opportunities in a market of nearly 300 million consumers. Yet some prefer to walk away because of fair competition. Here’s a real threat: not competition, but risk aversion; not trade, but excessive bureaucracy. We burden our businesses with excessive regulations, and then we wonder why we struggle globally.

While we hesitate, China is acting fast. It has already replaced Europe as South America’s primary trading partner. The path to European competitiveness isn’t through isolation, it’s through strategic engagement.

  Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo commerciale Mercosur con i paesi dell’America latina, pur rappresentando un’opportunità strategica, perché mira a rafforzare la competitività europea, diversificando le catene di approvvigionamento e riducendo la dipendenza da altri mercati, presenta però alcuni rischi e criticità che, soprattutto per il settore agroalimentare, meritano la nostra attenzione prima di procedere alla sua definitiva approvazione.

Le nostre aziende agricole rispettano standard elevatissimi in termini di sicurezza, qualità, sostenibilità ambientale e benessere animale, a differenza di quelle dei paesi Mercosur. A fronte di ciò, dobbiamo prevedere controlli rigorosi per assicurare reciprocità nelle importazioni, prevenire concorrenza sleale a garanzia dei nostri agricoltori e dei nostri consumatori, così come dobbiamo rafforzare gli strumenti di tutela dei prodotti europei di indicazione geografica.

Un’Europa competitiva non si costruisce solo con l’apertura dei mercati, ma anche con la tutela delle proprie aziende e delle proprie eccellenze. Questo accordo potrà definirsi equo se saremo in grado di garantire nuove opportunità, senza però sacrificare la nostra sicurezza e la nostra identità alimentare e soprattutto il futuro delle nostre imprese.

  Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señor presidente, se ha dicho que el Acuerdo con el Mercosur es muy relevante en términos comerciales, pero es sobre todo muy relevante en términos geopolíticos. Llevamos meses hablando de la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea. ¿Y con quién nos vamos a aliar si no es con una región como América Latina, con la que compartimos valores, con la que hemos defendido en el ámbito multilateral el Acuerdo de París o la Agenda 2030?

Y, por supuesto, es importante que en este debate hablemos de lo que realmente contiene este Acuerdo, porque claro que somos sensibles a los elementos ambientales. Por eso, conviene decir que este Acuerdo incluye compromisos vinculantes para la protección de los bosques y de la naturaleza, que son fundamentales.

También somos sensibles —como no puede ser de otra manera— a los elementos sociales. Por eso, es importante dejar bien claro que este Acuerdo también recuerda de forma muy clara los derechos laborales, la igualdad de género o los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y de los pequeños productores de aquí y de allí.

Y somos también sensibles a los sectores agrícolas —los cítricos, por ejemplo—, pero queremos decirles que este Acuerdo recoge cláusulas y tenemos herramientas como el observatorio europeo o, por supuesto, las cláusulas de salvaguardia, que vamos a utilizar para defender un buen Acuerdo para los intereses de nuestros agricultores aquí y allí.

Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, I heard a lot of misinformation and lies when we were speaking about sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Colleagues, European sanitary and phytosanitary standards are not negotiable!

The EU has very stringent standards to protect human, animal and plant health, and any product sold in the EU must comply with the European Union standards. I have been Commissioner for food safety and health, I know very well that it is to remain unrelated and unaltered regardless of a trade agreement.

EU animal, plant and health and food safety import controls are very strict, and we can control all third countries. It doesn’t matter which agreement it is.

I welcome this Mercosur agreement because I was involved in 2019, of course Paris Agreement and trade and sustainable development inclusion is very well done, and we need to go forward and see it.

  Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, connaissez-vous l’œstradiol 17? C’est une hormone stéroïdienne produite par les follicules ovariens et le placenta. Elle a été synthétisée pour devenir une hormone de croissance, dans l’élevage, pour faire grossir et grandir les animaux. En 2013, il a été reconnu que les résidus de cette hormone de synthèse sont retrouvés dans notre corps, dans nos eaux de surface. C’est donc pour cela que, dans sa grande sagesse, notre institution a interdit son utilisation et l’importation de la viande en contenant.

L’œstradiol 17 favorise les cancers, en particulier le cancer du sein. C’est même la première cause de cancers chez les non-fumeuses. Le mois dernier, la Commission européenne nous a présenté un rapport indiquant que, premièrement, les pays du Mercosur utilisaient massivement l’œstradiol et, deuxièmement, les contrôles pharmacologiques y étaient défaillants.

Alors comment, en important 90 000 tonnes de viande du Mercosur, allez-vous nous garantir notre santé? Allez-vous aussi proposer un fonds de compensation? Mes chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, il n’existe pas, pour les femmes, de solution de remplacement. Il n’existe pas de solution de remplacement pour les enfants des mères endeuillées.

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, o acordo do Mercosul é bom e mau. É um acordo bom para as multinacionais do agronegócio, mas é um acordo mau para os pequenos e médios agricultores e para os consumidores. É um acordo bom para os grandes grupos industriais das potências da União Europeia que têm agora abertos os mercados da América Latina, mas é mau para os restantes países, que continuarão a não ter condições de desenvolver a sua produção industrial. O acordo do Mercosul é bom para os grandes grupos do setor dos serviços que têm agora aberto o mercado da contratação pública na América Latina. Mas é mau, em geral, para as micro, pequenas e médias empresas, para os pequenos e médios agricultores, para todos aqueles que, produzindo de acordo com regras e práticas tradicionais, se verão confrontados com uma concorrência desfavorável com a inundação dos mercados de produtos a mais baixo custos, porque produzidos em condições diferentes daquelas que lhes são impostas. Se este acordo é bom e mau, é óbvio que é bom para uma minoria e mau para uma imensa maioria. E é por isso que a Comissão não quer que os Estados façam o seu escrutínio nacional e está a procurar dividir o acordo em dois para impedir esse escrutínio. Essa é uma opção com a qual não concordamos e que não aceitaremos.

  Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o acordo com o Mercosul é um acordo justo, um acordo equilibrado e um bom acordo do ponto de vista geopolítico, económico e social. Não restam dúvidas que para a indústria é um bom acordo e que temos de incluir garantias do ponto de vista do setor agrícola. Estão previstas garantias adicionais, nesta última versão do acordo, que passam por: fases graduais de implementação, quotas, máximas e salvaguardas, em especial para a carne bovina, subvenções e apoio financeiro aos eventuais agricultores afetados, proteção para mais de 350 produtos europeus, condicionamento à entrada de produtos do Mercosul que não cumpram as regras ambientais e sanitárias, e respeito pelo Acordo de Paris e pelo combate ao desmatamento ilegal. Excelente trabalho feito pela Comissão Europeia. Já demorámos 20 anos a chegar aqui. Parem de mentiras, parem e vamos acelerar e assinar este acordo.

  Cristina Maestre (S&D). – Señor presidente, las preguntas que nos tenemos que hacer son: ¿queremos ser una potencia fuerte o aislarnos en un mundo competitivo? ¿Queremos fortalecer nuestra industria —que invierte más de 340 000 millones de euros— o regalarle el mercado a China, a la India o a los Estados Unidos? ¿Queremos que nuestros agricultores sigan pagando tasas del 28 %, del 35 %, o incluso más, o abrir un mercado libre de aranceles?

La ultraderecha está en un laberinto nocivo para la Unión Europea: apoya los aranceles de Trump, pero a la vez no quiere apoyar un comercio abierto con Latinoamérica. Yo creo que esto es un sindiós y tendrán que explicarlo también al tejido productivo.

Dicho esto, claro que tenemos que ser exigentes y garantistas con los sectores más sensibles, claro que sí. Por eso, yo le pido a la Comisión Europea que dé certidumbres y también transparencia por el bien de nuestros agricultores. Hay que fortalecer las medidas de salvaguardia para los sectores sensibles. Pedimos más controles en fronteras, para que se cumplan los contingentes establecidos, proteger la liberación parcial de esos productos sensibles, claro que sí, y, por supuesto, que nos diga de dónde va a salir ese fondo de compensación y si va a ser lo suficientemente fuerte, por si hubiera que hacer uso de ello.

  Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτές τις μέρες οι αγρότες στην Ελλάδα δίνουν διαρκή και δίκαιο αγώνα για την παραμονή στη γη τους, που γίνεται αφόρητη από την ευρωενωσιακή ΚΓΠ, το τσάκισμα του εισοδήματος από την κυβέρνηση, τις εξευτελιστικές τιμές στους μεγαλέμπορους, την ανύπαρκτη προστασία από καταστροφές, την υποστελέχωση κρατικών υπηρεσιών που είναι αποτέλεσμα της δημοσιονομικής σταθερότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Επιπλέον, δυσκολεύουν περαιτέρω την κατάσταση οι διακρατικές συμφωνίες τύπου Mercosur που θα αυξήσουν τις αθρόες εισαγωγές αγροτικών προϊόντων, τις ελληνοποιήσεις που πλήττουν το εισόδημα των παραγωγών. Κόντρα στην κυβερνητική πολιτική, κόντρα στις μειωμένες απαιτήσεις που καλλιεργεί η συμπολιτευόμενη αντιπολίτευση, οι βιοπαλαιστές αγρότες παλεύουν για την επιβίωσή τους διεκδικώντας μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής με κρατική παρέμβαση, αφορολόγητο πετρέλαιο στην αντλία, μείωση της τιμής του ρεύματος στα 7 λεπτά, 100% αποζημιώσεις, εγγυημένες τιμές πώλησης των προϊόντων τους που να εξασφαλίζουν το εισόδημά τους, πλήρη στελέχωση κρατικών, γεωπονικών και κτηνιατρικών υπηρεσιών.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, dezbaterea privind acordul Mercosur stârnește multe emoții și ridică întrebări la care încă nu s-au oferit răspunsuri clare. Realitatea este însă că, în timp ce fermierii europeni sunt supuși celor mai stricte norme de mediu, în alte părți ale lumii aceste reguli pur și simplu nu există. Europa are datoria să-și protejeze fermierii și să le ofere garanții solide pentru a-și putea continua activitatea. Aceștia nu trebuie să fie sacrificați pe altarul neputinței noastre de a le oferi certitudini într-o lume atât de incertă, generată de inflație, secetă, inundații sau războiul din Ucraina.

Ei nu cer privilegii sau tratament preferențial. Cer doar dreptul de a concura în mod corect. Compensațiile provizionate a fi acordate fermierilor trebuie să fie dublate de relaxarea condițiilor de producție în agricultură, domnule comisar, iar acordul trebuie să fie echitabil, să creeze oportunități reale de comerț și să nu distrugă agricultura europeană. Este datoria noastră de a găsi cele mai bune soluții atât pentru fermierii europeni, dar și pentru consumatori.

  Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, les dernières négociations ont-elles permis d’améliorer le projet d’accord commercial entre l’Europe et le Mercosur? La réponse est oui, mais aucun des efforts que nous pourrions faire pour continuer à l’améliorer ne changera ce fait: un accord de libre-échange, c’est parfois un mieux pour le consommateur, des secteurs gagnants, mais c’est toujours une kyrielle de perdants, dont aucun fonds de compensation ne répare jamais les vies brisées et les territoires déstabilisés.

Un accord de libre-échange, c’est une perte de souveraineté, comme viennent de nous le rappeler les décisions de Trump. Quand le temps des avantages réciproques s’estompe, vient le temps du chantage, auquel il est bien difficile de résister quand la dépendance à l’autre s’est installée. Le doux commerce, en réalité, n’existe pas.

Le libre-échange, c’est certes plus de liberté individuelle de commercer, mais moins de liberté collective, cette liberté de choisir, en Europe, d’être un continent qui met l’humain d’abord et pose la préservation du vivant comme un impératif. Alors oui pour un partenariat avec les pays du Mercosur, mais il existe 1 000 autres voies de coopération.

  Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kad raspravljamo o ovome sporazumu o MERCOSUR-u trebamo uzeti u obzir i specifičnosti manjih zemalja, kao što je Hrvatska, u kojoj kostur poljoprivrede čine zapravo mali poljoprivrednici i oni će biti najviše pogođeni ovim sporazumom – razni sektori, od stočarstva, ratarstva, peradarstva, pa i vinarstva, gdje sam svjestan toga da se otvara jedno veliko tržište, prvenstveno za vinarsku industriju velikih zemalja, dakle tržište MERCOSUR-a. Međutim, ono što mene brine jest mogućnost da ćemo biti preplavljeni jeftinim vinima upitne kvalitete iz Južne Amerike i na taj način – i u kombinaciji s onim s čime se suočava danas vinarski sektor, a to su, podsjetit ću vas, bolesti vinove loze, da Europska komisija opet najavljuje sheme grubbing up-a, odnosno krčenja vinograda – može stvoriti brojne opasnosti za vinarski sektor u manjim zemljama kao što je Hrvatska, ponavljam, koja nema problema s prekomjernom proizvodnjom, gdje mali vinari čine temelj te proizvodnje i koja želi štititi i razvijati svoje autohtone sorte.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, míle buíochas as ucht an t-urlár a thabhairt dúinn uilig. Mar a dúirt tú, tá an díospóireacht seo an-tábhachtach.

There are those who are against Mercosur, but they are against everything. But there are also many speakers here this morning who are pro-trade but say they cannot support Mercosur in its current form. That would reflect the position of the new Irish Government – made up of a coalition of Renew and EPP – and I think it needs to be addressed very strongly by the Commission.

There are issues like deforestation, sustainability, production standards – especially in Brazil – and then the effect, especially on beef farmers, who feel that they will be decimated if Mercosur goes ahead. So the Commission has a job to do to convince them otherwise, give them proper compensation, if that is needed, and also look at a package that might include other issues that they are concerned about, especially the reform of the CAP, etcetera.

Commissioner Šefčovič, you did a great job in relation to Brexit. Now is the chance for you to step up here. I am very confident you will!

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I was privileged to attend three very politically charged, very politically dynamic debates this week. And I want to thank many of you for highlighting that, in this geopolitical era, the free trade agreement with Mercosur, as Mr Lange has underlined, will greatly contribute to our social welfare state, it will create new jobs and open new opportunities for all sectors of our economy, including for our farmers and for our agri‑food sectors. Moreover, it’s also good for the environment and sustainability.

Let me underline that, in all aspects, we are much better off with the agreement than without it. This agreement binds the Mercosur countries to strong commitments on the fight against deforestation, and it gives us an important platform for cooperation on our climate ambition.

On top of this, the overall benefit of this agreement is also good for our farmers and agricultural community. As some of you know, I consulted widely with farmers, with small farmers, family farmers, organic farmers and also big farmers as well. And two weeks ago, I was with many of you, together with the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Hansen, in the discussion on this precise issue in the Agriculture Committee of this House.

I do all this because I have the utmost respect for our farmers, and I have the utmost respect for the debate we have in this House. And I know how crucial a role our farmers are playing in the area of our food security and our food sovereignty and, of course, for the welfare of our society.

Honourable Members, I was surprised that Ms Aubry asked me how did I dare to come here to defend this agreement? I came because you invited me. And I will always be here when you invite me, because I respect this House, I respect democratic debate and, despite all the charged debate we had here today, I am proud of this agreement. And I believe that, through discussion, through explaining, through presenting facts and figures, we can convince the majority, most of you, that we indeed are doing the right job.

In this debate, we unfortunately didn’t cover the fact that this agreement is actually the biggest free trade agreement the EU ever concluded. Just for your information, this FTA is four times bigger than our free trade agreement with Japan. We also overlooked the important signal we are sending out in this difficult time where the trade barriers are being erected again – and we discussed it on Tuesday – and also in the time where we are losing our privileged relationship with countries so close to us historically, culturally, economically, like the countries of Mercosur, to China.

Unfortunately, we didn’t mention, at all, the strategic importance of the supply of critical raw materials and opportunities these deals open for our businesses and the need to diversify our economic relations. The debate almost completely focused on agriculture, so let’s look at this again.

As you know, the EU is an agri‑food export superpower. Last year, our farmers exported products of the value of EUR 228 billion, and our farmers and our agri‑food exports have a trade surplus of EUR 70 billion. EUR 70 billion! Can you imagine how our farmers would do without these export opportunities? Do you believe that we would be able to be so strong in exports if the large network of our FTAs would not open these new markets for all of them, big farmers, small farmers, our agri‑food sector?

Into Mercosur itself, our farmers are already now exporting more than EUR 3.2 billion of products, and they managed to do it with import duties which are up to 35 % more than they should be and without any protection for our GIs. And this agreement is going to eliminate these import duties. It’s going to protect our GIs, so there will be no imitation of our famous cheeses, our wines and spirits. And I believe that this would greatly improve export opportunities for our farmers.

Mr Cowen and Mr Kelly have been asking and highlighting the importance of strategic discussion on agriculture, and the Commission is absolutely prepared for this. Commissioner Hansen is working on the new strategic vision on agriculture, and I can tell you that we do our utmost to look into all possible ways how to lower reporting obligations for our farmers, how to cut the red tape for our farmers, so the farmer whom one of the honourable Members was referring to as ‘Patrick’ would have an easier life.

But I’m also convinced that this debate we have right now, for the benefit of Patrick and all other farmers, should be based on true facts and figures. And I want to be very clear that the food products in the European Union being domestically produced or imported must comply with the EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including the EU’s strict policies on GMOs, and the Commission conducts regular audits in third countries and works closely with the Member States’ authorities that perform official controls and enforcement activities on imported food to ensure that non-compliant products cannot enter the EU market.

The Member States, of course, are looking in great detail into this agreement and are also carrying out their own audits and their own studies. And there were quite a few honourable Members from Ireland who intervened in this debate, and therefore I think that they should also look at the study which was commissioned by the Irish Government. It was done by the Independent Economic and Sustainability Impact Assessment on Ireland and the Mercosur agreement. This independent study forecast an increase in Ireland’s exports to Mercosur by 17 % and an increase of imports of 12 %. It will increase manufacturing export of Ireland by 1.4 billion and agri‑food exports by 10 to 20 million.

We will be very happy from the Commission’s side to have this discussion with every single Member State, because we have the figures, we have a convincing argument and we are open for this open, frank debate which would truly be based on the facts.

I would also kindly ask you not to spread information which is simply not true. And I totally agree with Ms Pereira who was calling for this. No import of hormone beef. No chlorinated chicken will ever be imported to the European Union. Mr Andriukaitis was working on that for five years and he was absolutely crystal clear on that. The problem Ms Sbai was referring to was spotted and immediately resolved. This type of beef has never entered the EU market and never will. We do inspections regularly and we also control at the import.

On the so-called non‑violation complaint instrument – which I explained many times, but I’m happy to do again – it’s not new. It’s fully compatible on the WTO framework. And this instrument is only forward‑looking and addresses effects that could not be foreseeable at the time of the conclusion. So it doesn’t concern the CBAM. It doesn’t concern any of the any of the laws, any of the acquis which are valid right now, which already entered into force. And I’m sure that Ms Bricmont knows about it. So under no circumstances is our regulatory freedom affected, nor will it be. So let’s not use this argument any more.

To conclude, Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate, and I’m ready to continue the discussion with you, with the farmers and with all stakeholders. At the same time, I believe that we would advance our debate and do better service to our citizens, to our farmers if we respect true facts, if we speak about real figures, and if we stay true to what was really agreed and not repeat in every debate the things which are simply not true.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. I am sorry for being so strict with time, and I insist that this debate should have had much more time.

The debate is closed.

  Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, dear colleagues, I want to first and foremost welcome this exchange today. Our mission is to improve Europe’s tech sovereignty, security and democracy in an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation.

A short glance at the news from Europe and beyond is enough to show how significant a task this is. Our own backyard, the Baltic Sea, experiences security challenges and hybrid attacks, including to the security and resilience of critical submarine infrastructures. This kind of threat offers an example of the pressing need to improve our preparedness.

Europe has put in place a robust legal framework to protect its critical infrastructure against physical and hybrid security threats. But today, the transposition and implementation of the critical entities’ resilience and the network and information security tool directives are still slow. We continue to support Member States and call on them to transpose both directives as soon as possible.

Moreover, the 2024 recommendation on secure and resilient submarine cable infrastructures provides a set of recommended actions at national and EU level aimed at improving submarine cable security and resilience. The European Union is also making substantial investments in cable infrastructures through the Connecting Europe Facility. Since 2021, over EUR 420 million has been allocated to 50 projects and more.

Looking ahead, we also earmarked another EUR 542 million, for a total investment of nearly EUR 1 billion, and the Commission is considering further measures not only to boost investment, but also to increase the security and resilience of these infrastructures.

The security of 5G and next-generation networks, the backbone of our economy, remains very high on the European Union’s agenda, but the current implementation by Member States of the 5G cybersecurity toolbox is still not satisfactory. New capacities have to be provided by existing or new actors to fill gaps left by high-risk vendors in the supply chains. The Commission will urgently explore ways to speed up its enforcement and implementation.

A particularly sensitive domain is that of critical communications used by public security and safety authorities, civil protection or medical emergency responders. We need to ensure that they cannot be interfered with, disrupted or compromised via components and devices from non-trusted third country suppliers. This is why increasing our strategic autonomy is one of the key objectives of the European critical communication system, which will connect the communication networks of first responders in all Member States and Schengen countries by 2030.

But the challenge is even broader than that. Europe must remain competitive and must have the technologies it needs in order to secure its digital infrastructure. We must close our innovation gap with global partners. Future applications, such as automated driving or telemedicine will run on advanced networks that look increasingly like a computing continuum, ranging from chips and high-speed processors to connectivity, cloud, edge, software, quantum technologies and AI. This is why we need to enhance and better coordinate research efforts and multidisciplinary cooperation, as well as why we need to improve access to finance by EU actors, including by coordinating public and private investments.

To reach this goal, the 2024 white paper on digital infrastructure needs envisaged the creation of a connected collaborative computing network to set up end-to-end integrated infrastructures and platforms for telco cloud and edge.

Colleagues, this debate is also an excellent opportunity to update you on the IRIS2 satellite constellation, a beacon of the EU’s commitment to deliver secure, resilient and sovereign connectivity, demonstrating the recent but high ambition of the European Union in the field of secure satellite connectivity with precursor governmental services provided by the GOVSATCOM programme.

IRIS2 was launched in 2023, paving the way for an operational state-of-the-art connectivity system. Thanks to this EU-owned infrastructure capability, enabling also commercial services based on private sector investments, the European Union will be able to maintain its competitive edge and shield its sovereignty.

Work has been ongoing on this since last December, with the signing of the concession contract with industry to develop the constellation and start the industrial supply chain in view of a timely delivery of the system. Full IRIS2 operational services are expected by 2030. This means that Member States, close partners and EU institutions will benefit from a broad set of reliable and secure applications, such as border and maritime surveillance, crisis management, critical infrastructure protection, and various security and defence operations.

There are, of course, competing non-EU solutions in the market. We remain, however, convinced that Europeans prefer guaranteed access to reliable connectivity without critical third-party dependencies, and as IRIS2 comes onto the scene, this will be a crucial selling point to all Member States as well as businesses.

The incidents that have become an all too frequent reality of heightened geopolitical tensions highlight the importance of such sovereign solutions. IRIS2 will also integrate the European quantum communication infrastructure. This pan-European initiative will help to strengthen the protection of our governmental institutions, their data centres, hospitals, energy grids and more.

Moreover, we are also supporting the development of quantum technologies to ensure that critical components use EU technologies. EuroQCI will help to counter the threat that quantum computers will pose to current encryption methods, but it will not be enough on its own. It will be complemented by our initiatives to advance and deploy post-quantum cryptography in the European Union. Last year, we issued the recommendation to coordinate the transition to PQC for public administrations and other critical infrastructures in the European Union.

Finally, let me stress that Europe can only respond to today’s challenges by acting together with our partners, especially with NATO. In a hybrid threat environment, close civilian and military cooperation is and remains essential. I can assure you that the European Commission is steadfast in its commitment to foster a secure, resilient, but also innovative digital environment, and we continue to count on your support in building this future together.

  Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of our Union is in its openness, the ability to trade, to innovate and to compete globally. However, in today’s reality, Europe’s communication infrastructure is heavily reliant on global actors, and Europe must be in a position where no country or individual company can dictate our digital future.

I believe in a strong and resilient Europe, one that competes globally without excessive state interventions, but through strategic interventions, free markets and international cooperation. By that way, individuals and businesses can choose between multiple actors and alternatives.

To go forward in this situation, I think the Union must do a lot of things, but let me mention three of them.

Firstly, we need to encourage private investments in new communication infrastructure, not through subsidies or state control, but through reducing red tape and creating smart incentives.

Secondly, we need to deepen our partnership with trusted partners to ensure openness works in Europe’s favour rather than making us dependent.

Lastly, as the Commissioner started his intervention with, we need to safeguard Europe’s connectivity by taking coordinated action to protect submarine cables. This state terrorism has to end and we have to work together, coordinatedly, to make that sure – we have to reinforce our cable security, our repair capabilities, but also invest in the expansion of new submarine cables to enhance our redundancy and ensure resilience in our communication infrastructure.

  Csaba Dömötör, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa lemaradása a digitális iparágak terén egyre látványosabb és hozzáteszem egyre zavaróbb. Ez szuverenitási kérdés és stratégiai cél, hogy ezt a lemaradást leküzdjük.

A digitális színtérnek azonban van egy másik fontos terepe, ez pedig a véleményszabadság. Miközben Amerikában elzavarják a Facebookos cenzorokat, az uniós intézmények azon törik a fejüket, hogy tovább erősítsék a cinikus módon tényellenőrzésnek nevezett rendszert. Mindezt a DSA-rendelet köntösében. Növelik az ezen ügyködő bürokráciát, és a Facebook után most már az X-et és a TikTokot is célba vették.

Tudjuk, hogy miért van ez. Egyre nagyobb a szakadék az itteni politikai elit szándékai és a választók akarata között. Erre az itteni többség és a Bizottság nem irányváltással válaszol, hanem azzal, hogy el akarja hallgattatni a kritikus hangokat.

Ez nem fog menni. A digitális szuverenitás nem csupán technológiák kérdése, hanem a szabadságé is. Nincsen szuverenitás szabad véleménynyilvánítás nélkül. Legyenek benne biztosak, hogy a patrióták minden eszközzel küzdenek majd a cenzúra ellen.

  Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Do budowania niezależności infrastrukturalnej, w tym niezależności technologicznej, potrzebne są środki finansowe. Unia Europejska powinna zdecydować, na co te środki z własnego budżetu chce przeznaczać. Są trzy takie duże polityki, które w tym samym czasie prowadzimy: jest to polityka bezpieczeństwa, w tym bezpieczeństwa technologicznego, polityka społeczna, która pozwala żyć obywatelom na odpowiednio wysokim poziomie, i niestety polityka Zielonego Ładu, która powoduje, że te koszty życia się zwiększają oraz że generowane są różnego rodzaju wydatki w tej polityce.

Jeżeli chcemy być faktycznie niezależni technologicznie, to powinniśmy przeznaczać dodatkowe środki finansowe na ten obszar. Ale żeby to było możliwe, musimy zrezygnować z jednej z tych trzech polityk, które wymieniłem, i powinniśmy zrezygnować z polityki Zielonego Ładu, która w tej chwili ogranicza rozwój i niezależność Europy. Druga rzecz, powinniśmy przestać obrażać się na swoich partnerów technologicznych z różnych kontynentów na świecie i z nimi współpracować po to, aby również w Europie powstawały odpowiednie technologie.

  Michał Kobosko, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, let me start with thanking you, on behalf of the Renew Europe Group, for the Commission’s immediate reaction to the security threats related to the Baltic submarine cables and the ongoing work to increase security of our critical infrastructure. We also need to look for more synergies between digital and energy networks, while working on detection, prevention and repairing of the undersea infrastructure that is nowadays, especially in the Baltic Sea, under constant and real threat.

Going above sea level, I can strongly encourage the Commission to do the utmost to invest in the European critical communication infrastructure. Europe cannot allow itself to be dependent on third countries when it comes to comes to strategic elements of communication infrastructure.

So I welcome the IRIS2 planned constellation, with its 290 satellites. It is a huge step forward for Europe and we should appreciate it. But we should also keep in mind that it won’t be enough. We will need to do much more beyond 2030.

In order to achieve Europe’s tech sovereignty, we need to have everyone on board. All Member States need to join the efforts, instead of making constant deals to secure military and government communications with third-country providers, which can put EU security in jeopardy.

Prime Minister Meloni, please join us, and let’s keep Europe great and secure together. Do not waste the money of Italian taxpayers on senseless deals with global oligarchs.

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much. As every morning during the past weeks, we are waking up to a new reality. Now, it’s the biggest push against Europe’s security interests by Trump. But frankly, we had known it all along. In this marriage, we have over-relied on one partner. In strategic communications, it’s not even a country: it’s one unelected, unaccountable man, driven by personal whims. Today, Musk can decide if, at a time of war, we can continue talking to each other, or not.

Our biggest strategic risk on this side of a potential frontline of a future war is communication failure. Low-Earth orbit satellites revolutionise global communication in times of crisis, but their infrastructure is in the hands of a few private non-Europeans: Starlink today, Amazon or OneWeb tomorrow. So this is not the way to go.

IRIS² will only be valid and will be functioning in 2030. It is good that the US Space Act is part of a Commission working programme. We have seen this. But we need clear strategic goals: equitable division of use of space; common standards for compatibility of systems; enforced cybersecurity, which closes the gaps of NIS 2; massive investment in efficient launchers, in reusable satellites, in an independent space supply chain. It is not about science fiction; it is about our survival!

  Pernando Barrena Arza, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, reducir la dependencia estratégica en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación es crucial para avanzar con paso decidido en el concepto de soberanía europea. Un sistema de telecomunicaciones tecnológicamente soberano y seguro y de obediencia europea es una herramienta imprescindible no solo en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación, sino en todas las infraestructuras de comunicación en general. Europa no puede estar a merced de grandes compañías que representan intereses geopolíticos ajenos a los europeos.

En estos momentos otras potencias y particularmente los Estados Unidos están utilizando su posición avanzada en este tema como herramienta de hard power, que, como todos sabemos, no se limita únicamente a la amenaza del poder militar, sino también a la presión económica y tecnológica.

Que los Estados europeos sean dependientes de Starlink, como acaba de hacer Italia, es un desastre porque deja un ámbito tan delicado como es el de las comunicaciones críticas en manos de una visión del mundo que solo piensa en cómo segar la hierba bajo los pies a Europa y dejarla sin opciones en el concierto internacional.

Apostar por la soberanía de Europa exige disponer de medios soberanos y asegurarnos de que el despliegue de tecnología necesario compense su huella de carbono y permita también el acceso del público a las redes de forma universal.

  Sarah Knafo, au nom du groupe ESN. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous sommes devant deux grands mouvements historiques: l’un est technologique, l’intelligence artificielle, l’autre est politique, le vent de liberté qui souffle sur l’Occident. Or, nos règlements, comme le règlement sur les services numériques, le règlement sur les marchés numériques et le règlement MiCA contre le bitcoin, sont à contretemps de ces mouvements. Vous renvoyez au monde une image à la fois technosceptique et liberticide de notre continent.

Si vous ne voyez le progrès technique que comme une menace, alors l’innovation se fera sans l’Europe et même contre l’Europe. Faisons les choses dans l’ordre. L’innovation doit précéder sa régulation. Sans innovation, nous n’aurons ni prospérité ni souveraineté. Sans innovation, nous aurons toujours des Emmanuel Macron pour offrir nos données de santé sur un plateau à Microsoft.

Nous ne voulons plus d’un système absurde où la puissance publique saupoudre nos entreprises de subventions tout en les accablant des taxes les plus élevées du monde et tout en offrant nos marchés publics les plus stratégiques à des entreprises américaines.

Montrons à notre jeunesse qu’elle n’a pas besoin de partir aux États-Unis ou en Asie pour écrire l’histoire. Nous voulons de la liberté, de l’énergie, des marchés, moins d’impôts, des capitaux et des cerveaux. Osons la liberté! Ayons confiance dans le génie des nations européennes.

  Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Kommunikation ist nicht nur ein zutiefst menschliches Bedürfnis mit gesellschaftlicher Wirkung. Kommunikationsfähigkeit in Krisenzeiten ist wesentlich für die Aufrechterhaltung staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. Dafür braucht es verlässliche Strukturen und Mittel. Das gilt im Kontext nationaler Sicherheit ebenso wie im europäischen. Informations- und Kommunikationsflüsse gewährleisten zu können, Lagebilder herzustellen und Führungsfähigkeit bereitstellen zu können, hat entscheidenden Einfluss auf den Verlauf unterschiedlicher Szenarien und auf unsere Fähigkeit, sie zu bewältigen.

Der Niinistö-Bericht zur Preparedness Union schreibt uns nicht ohne Grund viele Dinge ins Stammbuch, unter anderem auch den beschleunigten Roll-out eines sicheren, autonomen, interoperablen Systems für Kommunikation und Informationsaustausch; die Beschleunigung und den Ausbau des European Critical Communication System auf der zivilen und der militärischen Seite; die Abhängigkeiten in Lieferketten zu vermeiden; Forschung, Entwicklung, Produktion sicherheitsrelevanter Produkte in Europa; Komponenten und Dienstleistungen so attraktiv zu machen, dass wir sie nutzen können.

Preparedness, liebe Kollegen, braucht einen umfassenden Ansatz, der aus den üblichen Silos auch ein Stück weit rausgeht. Deswegen werden ITRE, SEDE, LIBE, IMCO, TRAN, INTA, SANT – wir alle werden unseren Beitrag leisten müssen. Und deswegen schließe ich vielleicht mit der, neben der Priorisierung von Haushaltsmitteln, wichtigsten Forderung von Niinistö: Sicherheitsvorbehalte und Auswirkungsüberprüfung in allen Gesetzgebungsverfahren, die wir hier im Haus haben.

  Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, l-infrastruttura diġitali saret importanti daqs l-infrastruttura tradizzjonali bħall-pontijiet u t-toroq tagħna. U jiena li ġej minn Malta, Stat Membru żgħir, gżira, nagħraf aktar l-importanza ta’ din l-infrastruttura, speċjalment għall-cables tal-internet taħt il-baħar, li huma daqstant kruċjali għall-funzjonament tal-ħajja taċ-ċittadini tagħna u tal-infrastruttura kritika f’kull Stat Membru.

U allura naħseb wasal iż-żmien sabiex l-esperiment li għamilna bit-twaqqif tal-aġenzija ENISA, li tara li jkollna koordinament fejn tidħol iċ-ċibersigurtà, cybersecurity, tkun estiża wkoll għal din l-infrastruttura kritika billi jew titwaqqaf aġenzija separata, jew inkella l-ENISA tingħata aktar u aktar kompetenza sabiex naraw li jkollna aktar koordinazzjoni, aktar protezzjoni, fejn tidħol din l-infrastruttura.

Barra minn hekk, għandna bżonn inkomplu nsaħħu r-reżiljenza u għalhekk, li hu Digital Sovereignty Fund għandu jitwaqqaf mill-aktar fis possibbli.

  Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, bez infrastruktury, která bude bezpečná, nebudou fungovat digitální technologie, na kterých závisí naše ekonomika a společnost. Jsem rád, že Česká republika je v této oblasti průkopníkem. Tzv. Pražské návrhy na budování 5G sítí z roku 2019 předcházely souboru 5G Toolbox v následujícím roce.

5G Toolbox je třeba důsledně aplikovat napříč celou Evropskou unií, ale musíme také dále snižovat strategickou závislost na zemích, které nejsou našimi důvěryhodnými partnery. Potřebujeme mít v EU regulatorní prostředí, které bude usnadňovat život našim firmám. Musíme více podpořit výzkum a vývoj a taky nám chybí funkční systém certifikace kybernetické bezpečnosti. A v téhle souvislosti, pane komisaři, ptal jsem se na to i na výboru, stále ještě od vás nemáme hodnotící zprávu týkající se aktu o kybernetické bezpečnosti. Tak ji prosím dodejte.

  Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni’s close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – ‘IRIS square’, not ‘IRIS two’, Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster.

Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It’s true that Italy is not supporting Europe’s commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme.

If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things!

  David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, l’Europe est pieds et poings liés: 92 % de nos données sont stockées à l’étranger, nos infrastructures livrées aux GAFAM et aux fournisseurs chinois. Et que fait l’Europe? Elle parle de souveraineté, mais en réalité elle se soumet. L’extrême droite se dit patriote, mais laisse l’Europe devenir un territoire vassalisé, incapable de protéger ses citoyens et ses entreprises face aux lois extraterritoriales américaines et à la dépendance à l’égard des fournisseurs chinois.

Pendant ce temps, le numérique avale 10 % de l’électricité mondiale et la tendance explose. Et que fait-on? On laisse les GAFAM dicter leurs règles pendant que Bruxelles dérégule, retire des lois et plie face aux lobbys. À force de reculer, elle abandonne la bataille sans même l’avoir livrée.

Il est temps de dire stop! L’Europe doit investir dans ses propres réseaux, développer un cloud souverain, sécuriser ses infrastructures et imposer des règles strictes, à l’image de nos valeurs démocratiques. Car une Europe qui dépend, c’est une Europe qui subit, et une Europe qui subit, c’est une Europe qui s’efface. Nous devons reprendre le contrôle. Pas demain, pas plus tard, maintenant.

  Bruno Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, há cinco anos, com a pandemia, ficou claro que não podemos depender da China para bens de saúde. Dissemos que aprenderíamos com o erro. Depois, há três anos, foi a vez de perceber que depender da Rússia para energia barata era também um erro. Voltámos a dizer que aprenderíamos. E hoje, apesar de Trump nos ameaçar quase diariamente, há quem queira depender mais dos Estados Unidos da América, seja para armamento, energia ou plataformas digitais. Se a Europa quer menos vulnerabilidade, é agora que devemos evitá‑la. A nova infraestrutura de comunicações, desde cabos submarinos à rede 5G, é fundamental para a nossa autonomia e deve ser construída pelos europeus. A criação de novas redes sociais e de informação é também crucial para a nossa soberania. Por isso, em vez de aprendermos com os velhos erros, evitemos cometê‑los.

  Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, on l’a vu à Mayotte, où la France s’est tournée vers le réseau américain Starlink de Musk. L’accès à Internet par satellite est un véritable enjeu de souveraineté. En ce sens, Iris2 est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais ce n’est qu’un petit pas, au moment où les Américains font des bonds de géant.

D’abord sur le nombre de satellites déployés: 290 prévus côté européen, contre 7 000 prévus côté américain. Ensuite, concernant le calendrier, nous prévoyons au mieux un lancement en 2030, alors que la constellation Starlink compte déjà 6 300 satellites en orbite basse.

Ce n’est pas un problème de budget: 10,6 milliards d’euros prévus, cela nous permet de rivaliser avec les budgets quasi équivalents de SpaceX et d’Amazon. Mais il faut voir comment on l’utilise, ce budget. Lancer un satellite européen coûterait 35 millions d’euros. Pour ce prix, les Américains peuvent en lancer 200. Et, pendant que nous blablatons, eux le font.

Pour résumer, nos satellites, aussi technologiques soient-ils, seront lancés trop tard et pour trop cher. Nous avons les cerveaux, les technologies et les budgets. Finalement, le problème c’est vous. Vivement qu’on vous remplace!

  Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, abbiamo un tema, riguarda i bisogni e il tempo. I bisogni sono evidenti, è un bisogno di sicurezza ora, immediato. E quello del tempo è che non abbiamo tempo.

IRIS2 resta un programma di grande rilevanza e va sostenuto in ogni condizione, ma non è pronto. Sarà pronto nel 2030, secondo le previsioni, ma sappiamo che le previsioni spesso vanno oltre.

Ma il tema del bisogno è evidente e in tante occasioni qui ne abbiamo trattato. La preoccupazione – e rispondo ai colleghi di Renew, che sembrano essere così interessati a ciò che accade in Italia – è esattamente questa: l’Italia e il governo Meloni hanno ben chiaro che cosa significa avere bisogni di sicurezza per l’Italia, per l’Europa, per le imprese italiane ed europee.

E, dall’altra, quello che accade rispetto alla tempistica: noi siamo aperti a ogni confronto, con al centro sempre la sovranità e l’indipendenza, in questo tema così delicato che è quello della sicurezza delle comunicazioni.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, a Choimisnéir agus a chairde, the security and resilience of our digital networks are more vital now than ever, and the European Union’s ability to reduce these dependencies is under close scrutiny. I have raised the issue of Ireland’s vital role in global communication infrastructure before. Ireland’s waters serve as the gateway for over 75 % of the northern hemispheres undersea cables, making us a strategic hub for transatlantic data traffic. This makes us uniquely vulnerable to disruptions in this infrastructure.

We cannot underestimate the importance of safeguarding these undersea cables, which are essential not just for Ireland’s connectivity, but for the economic stability and security of the entire EU. The protection of our communication infrastructure is not just a national issue; it is a European one. We cannot afford to be over-reliant on external providers, particularly in such an uncertain geopolitical climate. We need a coordinated EU approach to ensure the security of our undersea cables and to invest in the resilience of our satellite infrastructure.

I welcome the Commission’s commitment to investing EUR 865 million to improve digital connectivity, including quantum communication networks and undersea cables. But as we implement the Commission’s work plan for 2025, we must prioritise the protection of these strategic assets.

Bímis ar an airdeall, níl aon am le cailliúint, go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin.

  Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, tra i ritardi tecnologici accumulati dall’Europa spicca quello delle infrastrutture di comunicazione satellitare.

Se tutto va bene, i 290 satelliti della costellazione IRIS2 saranno disponibili nel 2030. Nel frattempo, gli oltre 6 000 satelliti Starlink già in orbita e altri 30 000 in via di autorizzazione sono un dato di fatto. Il gap competitivo è macroscopico e va colmato.

Si possono immaginare nel frattempo soluzioni ponte, però con due chiare condizioni. La prima è relativa alla protezione e sicurezza dei dati di comunicazione, che devono rimanere in capo agli Stati membri. La seconda è che ogni accordo industriale sia iscritto in una cornice istituzionale, che coinvolga la dimensione europea.

È urgente un piano di investimento europeo che combini politiche industriali, di difesa, investimenti in ricerca, oltre che un maggiore coordinamento della spesa pubblica. La debolezza strutturale in questo settore ci rende vulnerabili e dipendenti e mette a rischio la sovranità tecnologica e democratica dell’Unione europea.

  Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, години наред отсъстваше стратегическият поглед за технологическото развитие на Съюза. И едва сега, когато глобалната политика се промени и конкурентите ни започнаха да предприемат радикални политики в областта на търговията, Европейската комисия се сети, че съществуват такива стратегически зависимости, които застрашават сигурността и конкурентоспособността на европейските икономики. Комисар Виркунен го каза — 42% от 5G комуникациите минават през т. нар. високорискови доставчици, разбирайте през Китай, защото основните оператори са китайски — Huawei и ZTE. В същото време изостава Европейският съюз и в сателитната свързаност. Там водещи са САЩ и Starlink. Разбирам, че отговорът на Комисията за всички предизвикателства и проблеми е създаването на нови регулации. Обаче аз смятам, че за да гарантираме сигурността, конкурентоспособността и суверенитета на Европейския съюз, е нужно да изграждаме инфраструктура, капацитет, диверсификация на доставчиците и търсене на надеждни партньори.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, když jde o naší bezpečnost, Evropa nemůže být závislá na cizí zemi. Je přeci naprosto hloupé, pokud některé členské státy chtějí používat pro utajenou vládní komunikaci Starlink. Přitom Evropa má řešení. Máme tady náš GOVSATCOM a IRIS2, což jsou spolehlivé platformy, které nejsou ohrožovány cizími zájmy a máme skrze ně nezávislost a autonomii, která nebude ohrožovat nás uvnitř členských států.

Dámy a pánové, je naprosto nezbytné, aby Evropská unie urychlila nasazení GOVSATCOM a IRIS2 a nabídla členským státům bezpečnou alternativu. Všechny evropské bezpečnostní složky, včetně agentury Frontex, musí povinně využívat Galileo a GOVSATCOM pro šifrovanou komunikaci.

A za třetí, masivně musíme podpořit členské státy, aby investovaly do evropské infrastruktury místo spoléhání na neevropské dodavatele. Naše bezpečnost nesmí být v rukou cizích firem, které nám mohou jediným tlačítkem naši komunikaci vypnout.

  Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señor presidente, estamos debatiendo mucho esta semana sobre la reordenación del orden mundial y la necesidad de garantizar la autonomía estratégica tecnológica para la Unión Europea, para la supervivencia de nuestras democracias y, en definitiva, del propio proyecto europeo y debemos conseguirla para garantizar realmente el desarrollo de nuestra propia inteligencia artificial, la resiliencia económica y, como digo, el propio proyecto europeo.

El potencial acuerdo del Gobierno de Italia con Starlink —el servicio de comunicaciones por satélite de Elon Musk— es paradigmático y debemos saber que la conexión entre la política, los negocios y las amistades no es inocua y tiene implicaciones muy directas en sectores estratégicos de nuestra economía y en nuestra seguridad, en nuestras libertades de toda Europa, no solo de Italia.

Por eso, debemos acelerar y financiar proyectos como el Iris2, porque, frente a actores divisorios, lo que necesitamos es más Europa y más democracia.

  Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, it is a textbook reality that when an unfriendly state prepares for military aggression, it begins with disinformation, cyber‑attacks and disruption of communication infrastructure. This strategy has been evident for decades and we have witnessed it when Russia attacked Ukraine.

The same tactics to disrupt communication networks are being observed in various parts of the European Union itself – for example, the recent undersea cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Our sovereignty is only as strong as our resilience, including the resilience of our strategic infrastructure.

Information is power, and the ability to control and protect our communication networks is a fundamental pillar of security. Yet the EU remains dangerously exposed to external dependencies in this domain.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recently disconnected from the BRELL electricity grid. For years, the Baltic states relied on an energy system that could be manipulated externally. For years, we invested in infrastructure to finally break free.

This example must serve as a broader lesson for the EU. We must extend this thinking to our communication networks, ensuring that they remain secure, autonomous and resilient against external threats.

A Europe that cannot safeguard its own communications infrastructure is a Europe at risk.

  Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, recent events have proven once again that technology is power. The digital infrastructure, such as submarine cables, 5G networks, satellites and AI, are critical for our economy, security, health care and daily lives. And yet, almost 50 % of 5G communications rely on foreign communication infrastructure. Dependency on non-EU providers limits our autonomy and exposes us to risks that are beyond our control.

We must increase the investment in EU technology. Prioritising secure and EU home-grown technology will safeguard us, strengthen our cybersecurity, drive innovation and guarantee long-term competitiveness. The time to act is now. True sovereignty can only be achieved by investing and ensuring that the EU tech sector can survive and remain competitive in this global digital race.

  Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A kommunikációs infrastruktúráink rendszere biztosítja a modern társadalom működéséhez szükséges feltételeket, ezért ellenőrzése és védelme stratégiai jelentőségű.

A kommunikációs infrastruktúrák jó része külső szereplőktől függ, ami súlyos biztonsági és gazdasági kockázatokat rejt magában. Gondoljunk csak bele. Az 5G-hálózataink, a felhőszolgáltatásaink jelentős része nem európai kézben van. Ez nem csupán technológiai függőség, hanem egyben biztonsági kérdés is.

Amikor kritikus adataink külső szervereken utaznak, amikor stratégiai döntéseink más hatalmak infrastruktúráján keresztül születnek, valójában feladjuk a szuverenitásunk egy részét. Éppen ezért a külső befolyás csökkentésére van szükség.

Az EU-nak sürgősen cselekednie kell. Be kell fektetnünk saját technológiai megoldásainkba. Fejlesztenünk kell az európai alternatívákat, és meg kell erősítenünk a kibervédelmünket. Csak így biztosíthatjuk, hogy Európa továbbra is független, erős és versenyképes szereplő maradjon a világpolitika színpadán. Kezünkbe kell vennünk a digitális jövőnk irányítását, vagy elfogadjuk, hogy mások írják számunkra a szabályokat. Az idő pedig sürget.

  José Cepeda (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, Europa ¿está o no está en guerra? Yo creo que estamos en guerra. Estamos en una guerra híbrida y, por primera vez en muchísimas décadas, no somos lo suficientemente conscientes de la situación que estamos atravesando. Tenemos que invertir en nuestra seguridad y en nuestra defensa, en nuestras infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones.

Y para ser realmente soberanos solamente tenemos que hacer dos cosas: invertir de una forma importante en tecnología, pero no en cualquier tecnología, en nuestro desarrollo tecnológico, e invertir también en una mayor cooperación de nuestros sistemas de inteligencia, para precisamente proteger de una forma eficiente todas las infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones. En este caso hay numerosísimos trabajos que desarrollan institutos de investigación, como por ejemplo Max Planck; tenemos que esforzarnos para que se visualicen mucho más. Y tenemos que generar nuestros propios recursos si realmente queremos ser soberanos y protegernos de lo que nos está hoy invadiendo de una forma directa.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito su Starlink in Italia ci ha posto un doppio interrogativo: possiamo affidarci per comunicazioni del governo e degli apparati di intelligence e di difesa ad aziende fondate e guidate da chi oggi pubblicamente supporta forze filo-Putin e anti-UE, con l’uso di potenti mezzi di comunicazione e di risorse illimitate? E, qualora adottassimo sistemi come Starlink, possiamo rischiare che il governo americano ne interrompa le funzionalità, come è accaduto in una occasione in Ucraina?

Io credo serva equilibrio e approfondimento. Vale per l’Italia, che ho usato come esempio, e vale per l’Europa. Non possiamo precluderci nessuna soluzione tecnologica, ma quando si tratta della sicurezza nazionale ed europea dobbiamo essere certi di mantenere il controllo e la riservatezza necessaria.

In ogni caso, dobbiamo portare avanti i nostri progetti. L’Unione ha già lanciato il progetto IRIS2 per una connettività satellitare sicura. È in ritardo questo progetto. La Commissione deve impegnarsi a realizzarlo più velocemente insieme agli Stati membri.

E poi le crescenti tensioni geopolitiche. La dipendenza da fornitori esterni per infrastrutture cruciali è un tema non solo rispetto ai satelliti, ma anche per i cavi sottomarini, le tecnologie mobili. Si mette a rischio, se non si lavora su questo, l’autonomia strategica dell’Europa.

Dobbiamo fare di più, adesso e insieme. Non perdiamo altro tempo, perché ne va della nostra libertà.

(Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes)

IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
Vice-President

(The sitting resumed at 12:30)

  Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’article 10 de notre règlement intérieur exige des députés qu’ils préservent la dignité du Parlement, et l’article 17 dispose que les députés sont responsables des actes de leurs assistants.

Ces règles ont été piétinées hier soir. Sous la direction et en présence de Mme Manon Aubry, présidente de groupe, un attroupement de députés et d’assistants français d’extrême gauche ont tenté d’empêcher la tenue d’une conférence ici même, au Parlement européen, en vociférant des injures et des slogans diffamatoires à l’entrée de la salle de conférence.

Nous demandons que des sanctions soient prises. Ce sont des violations inacceptables de notre règlement intérieur. Nous n’allons pas nous laisser intimider par des apprentis révolutionnaires islamo-gauchistes et antisémites.

Ces actes sont graves. Il vous faut, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente Metsola, prendre des sanctions et éviter ainsi les prochaines actions que ces gens-là préparent. C’est votre responsabilité, Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen. Nous attendons les mesures que vous prendrez pour préserver l’exercice de la démocratie.

  Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, l’événement qui était organisé hier par le groupe ESN portait sur la remigration. La remigration, c’est la déportation de personnes qui sont européennes en dehors de l’Union européenne.

Monsieur Garraud, en prenant la défense de cet événement, vous montrez le vrai visage de l’extrême droite, qui est celui aujourd’hui d’un projet raciste et xénophobe.

Alors oui, Monsieur Garraud, nous avons protesté pacifiquement. Oui, Monsieur Garraud, vous nous trouverez à chaque fois – à chaque fois! – sur votre chemin. À chaque fois que vous organiserez des événements racistes dans les locaux de notre Parlement européen, vous nous trouverez ici pour protester, parce que le racisme n’a pas sa place, ni ici au sein du Parlement européen, ni à l’extérieur.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, thank you for your patience, and thank you, colleagues. On behalf of my group – and I hope many more – I would like to ask our President to convey our deepest concerns about yesterday’s statements by President Trump and his government. We all want peace for Ukraine, but the terms and conditions emerging are bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe and bad for the rules-based order. Just good for Putin!

The EU and other European allies are not part of the discussion. That is unacceptable and risky. An emergency Council meeting before the weekend should be on the table, ensuring a united message to our US friends that we are not going to do it like this.

Not about Ukraine, without Ukraine; not about Europe, without Europe!

(Applause)

  President. – This being said, based on the recommendations of the services we will move directly to the vote.

  President. – The next vote is on the repression by the Ortega‑Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (see minutes, item 6.2).

  President. – The next vote is on the continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (see minutes, item 6.3).

  President. – The next vote is on the further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (see minutes, item 6.4).

(The vote closed)

(The sitting was suspended at 12:47)

IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
Vice-President

(The sitting resumed at 15:01)

  President. – The minutes of yesterday’s sitting and the texts adopted are available. Are there any comments? No. The minutes are approved.

  Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for proposing a debate on the recognition of civil status documents of same‑sex couples and their children within the Union.

Families, in particular rainbow families, can currently face difficulties in having their marriage or partnership or the parenthood of their children recognised in another Member State, for example, when they move to another Member State or returned to their Member State of origin. The recognition in a Member State of civil status documents on marriage, partnerships and parenthood issued in another Member State is at the basis of the right to free movement and an essential element of the construction of a Union of equality.

The Court of Justice ruled in its 2018 judgment in the Coman case that already today Union law on free movement requires Member States to recognise, for certain purposes, civil status documents on marriage or partnerships issued in another Member State, irrespective of the sex of the spouses or partners.

This recognition obligation aims to enable Union citizens and their spouses or partners, including same‑sex couples, to benefit from rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, or to be treated equally in a host Member State in respect of all matters within the scope of the Treaty, even if that host Member State does not provide for same‑sex marriage or same‑sex partnerships. But let me be clear: this does not require Member States to provide, in their national law, for the institution of same‑sex marriage.

Similarly, the Court of Justice confirmed in its 2021 judgment in the VMA case that the Member States are already required under Union law free movement to recognise a civil status document on the parenthood of a child issued in another Member State. This recognition obligation aims to enable all children and their parents, including children with same‑sex parents, to benefit from their rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, and in their right to travel documentation even if the host Member State does not allow parenthood by same‑sex couples.

The Commission considered that the protection of children’s rights in cross‑border situations should be extended, and in 2022, it adopted a proposal for a regulation that would require Member States to recognise civil status documents on parenthood issued in another Member State for all purposes.

The regulation would require Member States to recognise parenthood to enable all children to also benefit from their rights under national law, such as the right to inherit from either parent in another Member State, the right to receive financial support from either parent in another Member State, or the right to be represented by either parent in another Member State on matters such as their schooling and health. This recognition obligation would apply irrespective of how that child was conceived or born, and irrespective of the child’s type of family, therefore also applying to children with same‑sex parents.

The proposal would facilitate the recognition of parenthood by harmonising the Member States’ rules on private international law, that is, rules that determine which Member State’s court would be competent to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, which national law would apply to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, and how judgments and public documents on parenthood issued in one Member State should be recognised in another Member State.

The proposal also provides for the creation of a European certificate on parenthood – a certificate that children or their parents could use to prove children’s parenthood in another Member State.

As the proposal concerns rights going beyond rights for which recognition is already granted under Union law, the proposal had to be adopted under the Union’s competence to adopt measures on family law with cross‑border implications, pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Such measures must be adopted by the Council by a unanimous vote, after having consulted Parliament. Parliament gave a large support to the proposal in December 2023. In the Council, the Member States are discussing the proposal’s provisions constructively, and progress is gradually being made.

  Seán Kelly, thar ceann an Ghrúpa PPE. – Go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin agus go raibh maith agat a Choimisinéir, aontaím leat sa mhéid a dúirt tú.

We are faced with a very important question. Should same sex couples and their children receive the same recognition and protection of their civil status across all EU Member States? The answer is clear: yes.

This is about ensuring equality and fairness for all families across Europe. This is not a question of ideology, but simply a question of fundamental human rights.

The European Union is founded on the principles of equality, dignity and freedom. When a same-sex couple legally marries in one Member State, or when their child is legally recognised as theirs, that legal status should not dissolve at a border. A family is a family, whether they live in Dublin, Warsaw, Madrid or Budapest.

Yet today, many same-sex couples and their children find themselves in legal limbo simply because they move between Member States. A child recognised as the legal offspring of two parents in one country may suddenly find themselves without legal guardianship in another. This is not just an inconvenience. It is a violation of their rights, creating insecurity, fear and unnecessary suffering. Worse still, this legal uncertainty directly infringes on one of the fundamental pillars of the EU: the right to free movement.

What freedom is there if crossing a border can strip away a person’s legal relationship with their child? No EU citizen should have to choose between their right to live and work anywhere in the Union and the legal security of their family. Yet that is precisely the choice some families are forced to make.

This Parliament has a duty to defend all families. EU law must guarantee that civil status documents – marriages, partnerships, birth certificates – are recognised across borders, regardless of the gender of the parents or spouses.

The European Court of Justice has already affirmed that all EU citizens, including same sex families, must be able to move freely without discrimination. Now we need our legislation to reflect this. We must ensure that legal rights are already granted by one country, are not stripped away by another. This is about legal certainty, respect for human dignity and the freedom of movement that is the heart of the of the European project.

Families should not have to fear crossing a border. Children should not lose their legal parents overnight. We have a responsibility to ensure that love, commitment and parental care are recognised and respected no matter where in the EU they exist. Let us choose the path of equality, dignity and fundamental rights.

Tugaimis, agus seasaimis suas dár gclann i ngach áit san Aontas agus aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh i ngach aon Bhallstát.

  Krzysztof Śmiszek, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zasada wzajemnego uznawania dokumentów między państwami członkowskimi. Zasada wzajemnego zaufania. Zasada równości bez względu na orientację seksualną. Zasada swobodnego przepływu osób. Zasada zakazu dyskryminacji. To są podstawy funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej.

Dzisiaj powiem Państwu o sytuacjach, prawdziwych sytuacjach, w których te zasady w Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązują. Prawo Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązuje, jeżeli po spędzeniu 15 pięknych lat ze swoim partnerem w Polsce, umiera on we Włoszech i musisz sprowadzić jego ciało do kraju, jak w przypadku Polaków – Krzysztofa i Łukasza. Te zasady nie istnieją kiedy zawierasz związek małżeński z miłością swojego życia w Danii albo w Portugalii. W Polsce ten związek nie ma żadnego znaczenia. Twoja miłość w świetle prawa nie istnieje, tak jak miłość polskiej pisarki Renaty i jej partnerki. Tak jak miłość aktywistów Dawida i Jakuba. Tysiące polskich, słowackich czy rumuńskich par jednopłciowych zawiera związki małżeńskie i wychowuje dzieci w Niemczech, w Portugalii, Holandii, Szwecji czy Hiszpanii. Kiedy podróżują do Polski, Bułgarii czy Słowacji, ich związki małżeńskie już nie istnieją i ich rodzicielstwo w świetle prawa zostaje odrzucone. Ich życia są unieważnione. Stają się niewidzialni. Stają się dla siebie obcymi osobami.

Podstawą Unii Europejskiej jest wolność poruszania się po jej terytorium. W jaki sposób ta wolność jest respektowana, jeżeli w jednym kraju jestem mężem i ojcem, a w drugim nikim. Jeżeli odbiera się mi moją tożsamość, moją miłość i moją rodzinę w momencie, kiedy wsiadam do pociągu w Berlinie, a wysiadam we Wrocławiu czy Warszawie. Artykuł 21 Karty Praw Podstawowych zakazuje dyskryminacji ze względu na orientację seksualną. Czy na pewno tak jest w Unii Europejskiej? Panie Komisarzu, czas zakończyć tę jawną dyskryminację. Czas na działanie Unii Europejskiej i Komisji Europejskiej.

  Paolo Inselvini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, i bambini, la parte più fragile, coloro che hanno bisogno di protezione più di tutti, devono avere la priorità. Questo in generale, ma anche e soprattutto per il dibattito odierno. Siamo tutti d’accordo, credo e spero, su questo aspetto.

E allora perché qualcuno vuole sacrificare i diritti dei più piccoli sull’altare dell’ideologia? Perché si vuole esaudire a tutti i costi i desideri, più o meno legittimi, degli adulti? I bambini hanno il diritto ad avere un padre e una madre. Non perché lo decidiamo noi, brutti e cattivi, non perché lo decide uno Stato, ma perché così è, senza alcuna possibilità di smentita.

Avere dei bambini, invece, non è un diritto. Avere dei figli non è un diritto che può essere esaudito a tutti i costi. Questo semplicemente, perché le persone non sono delle cose.

Ecco perché mi sorge un dubbio. Evidentemente, la discussione di oggi è fatta per ingannare. È un inganno: un inganno da parte di chi vuole legittimare la barbara pratica dell’utero in affitto, ossia la mercificazione della donna, dei bambini e della vita.

E se questo è il vostro obiettivo, bene, sappiate che ci troverete pronti alle barricate. Saremo l’argine che fermerà la vostra furiosa marea ideologica. Non smetteremo mai di ribadirlo: i bambini possono nascere solo da un padre e una madre, solo da un uomo e da una donna. Ed è assurdo dover sempre ricordare ciò che è ovvio. Ma se ci costringerete, noi lo riaffermeremo ogni giorno con coraggio. Non arretreremo un centimetro nella difesa della famiglia, della donna e dei bambini.

  Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire Micallef, chers collègues, la montée de l’extrême droite en Europe représente une menace grandissante pour tout le monde, et plus particulièrement pour la communauté LGBTI. En témoigne la récente mesure du gouvernement Meloni, qui vise à annuler les enregistrements des actes d’état civil des enfants des couples de même sexe. En Italie, plus de 20 000 enfants élevés par des couples de même sexe sont ainsi menacés par la remise en cause de leur filiation légale.

Aujourd’hui, dans l’Union européenne, ce sont plus de 2 millions d’enfants qui pourraient faire face à une situation dans laquelle ce lien avec leurs parents n’est pas reconnu. Il est donc urgent d’agir maintenant, d’autant plus que, Monsieur le Commissaire, la solution, nous l’avons déjà trouvée, vous l’avez rappelé.

La Commission européenne a proposé, il y a deux ans déjà, un règlement pour harmoniser cette reconnaissance et introduire un certificat européen. Cette reconnaissance ne permettrait pas simplement de mettre fin à l’incertitude, mais elle offrirait également une garantie réelle de protection des droits et l’égalité pour les familles.

Alors, chers collègues, qu’attendons-nous pour la mettre en œuvre? Avec mon groupe Renew Europe, nous portons haut et fort les valeurs européennes d’égalité. J’appelle donc les États membres à faire avancer cette proposition, essentielle pour la sécurité juridique pour tous, pour l’égalité, pour la protection des enfants dans l’Union européenne. Nous devons cela à tous les enfants européens.

  Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, this summer I am getting married and I honestly can’t wait to call my beautiful fiancée my wife. I can’t wait to celebrate with all our friends and family and use our legal rights to be recognised as partners for life.

And two weeks later, one of my best friends is also getting married and I know he is as excited as me to tie the knot with his girlfriend. But the sad reality is that within our union of equality, my friend and I aren’t equal, because there are still Member States that disavow a marriage between me and my girlfriend. They are allowed to prevent us from accessing our social security or our claims to residency and they can disregard the other if we have to make unthinkable medical choices. They are still allowed to hinder us in our right to free movement. Some marriage certificates are apparently more meaningful than others.

And this is definitely not about me. It is about baby Sara, who is a toddler by now, and her mums, who have been fighting for their child not to grow up stateless. This is about Adrian Coman, whose partner was prevented from living with him in his home country of Romania. It is about Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi not having to fight for the legal gender recognition he already obtained, especially when the possibilities are limited and dehumanising.

The courts are clear: freedom of movement means that if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country. If you are a spouse in one country, you are a spouse in every country. If you obtain legal gender recognition in one country, you obtain legal gender recognition in every country.

Commission, I’m looking forward to you putting this into law and I’m especially looking forward to seeing that happen within the new LGBTIQ equality strategy.

  Siegbert Frank Droese, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Verehrte Kollegen! Ich wundere mich schon, dass wir heute die Tagesordnung nicht geändert haben. Sie haben es wahrscheinlich mitbekommen: Ein Weltereignis von Weltrang hat sich gestern ereignet. Die Präsidenten Trump und Putin werden einen Friedensprozess in Gang setzen, was die Ukraine betrifft. Die Kommission, das Parlament, die EU spielen dabei keine Rolle. Da hätte ich mir ehrlich gesagt gewünscht, dass wir heute über dieses Thema reden. Nun ist es so. Wir reden jetzt heute über das Problem gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.

Die Kommission propagiert jeden Tag pausenlos ihre EU-Werte und will sie möglichst global durchsetzen. Was für eine Vermessenheit! Dass dadurch Abkommen verhindert werden, oft die Wirtschaft der EU Schaden nimmt, ist der Kommission dabei vollkommen egal. Dabei scheint die Kommission nicht zu interessieren, dass die Mehrheit der Länder auf der Welt andere Werte als diese EU hat. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Bereich Familie. Sechs Länder haben nicht der Idee von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen zugestimmt, darunter Bulgarien, Rumänien und Polen. Diese Länder haben andere Traditionen. Warum kann man das nicht respektieren? Diese EU macht doch immer Reklame für Einheit in Vielfalt. Gilt das normale und traditionelle Familienbild aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern, das in Europa seit Anbeginn der Zeit herrscht, nicht als schützenswerter Teil einer Vielfalt? Warum werden hier Länder wie Rumänien bedroht, die ihre Verfassung verändern müssen? Das finden wir übergriffig, das ist widerlich, das ist abzulehnen.

Um es klar zu sagen: Niemand soll diskriminiert werden. Es soll aber auch niemand bevorzugt werden. Gleichbehandlung für jedermann. Diese EU will nun grenzüberschreitend, dass alle privaten Lebensformen überall in der EU anerkannt werden. Nein, das soll jedes Land selbst entscheiden. Das ist eine nationale Aufgabe der Mitgliedsländer. Diese EU, solange sie noch besteht, soll sich auf ihre Kernkompetenzen, wenn sie die denn hat, konzentrieren und sich nicht in das Privatleben der Bürger einmischen. Wir respektieren das Privatleben aller Bürger. Wir stehen aber auch für Familie aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern.

Die Souveränität einer Nation heißt auch Souveränität in den Familienfragen und Respekt vor Privatangelegenheiten seiner Bürger. Und von dieser Stelle aus möchte ich meinen Landsleuten zurufen: Wenn Sie Freiheit, Frieden und Souveränität große Beachtung schenken, haben Sie nächste Woche am Sonntag die Gelegenheit. Wir sagen dazu: Von den Alpen bis zur See wählen alle AfD. Oder in einfacher Sprache: Sei schlau, wähl blau!

  Lucia Yar (Renew). – Dnes tu stojím s víziou Európy, ktorá je spravodlivá, láskavá a verná svojim spoločným hodnotám, pán predrečník. Európy postavenej na tolerancii, kde o vzťahu dvoch dospelých ľudí rozhodujú ich city, ich vzájomné city, a nie povolenia politikov, kde každé dieťa, bez ohľadu na orientáciu alebo pohlavie svojich rodičov, má právo na stabilitu, bezpečie a rodinu. Verím v Európsku úniu, ktorá spája, nie rozdeľuje. Takú, ktorá nedovolí, aby prekročenie hranice znamenalo stratu rodiča. Aj Európsky súdny dvor, už sme o tom počuli, tvrdí, že ak je právny vzťah uznaný v jednej krajine, musí ho rešpektovať aj iná krajina. Kvôli princípu spravodlivosti a ochrany tých najzraniteľnejších, to je ten dôvod. A predsa, napríklad u nás na Slovensku, vidíme opak. Populistické vlády predkladajú návrhy, ktoré práva rodín nerozširujú, ale ich obmedzujú, zraňujú ich. My ale máme naviac. Vyberme si cestu, ktorá je cestou rešpektu. A skúsme aj v tejto dobe povedať jasné áno spravodlivosti. Postavme sa za Európu, v ktorej každé dieťa, každá rodina a každý človek má svoje bezpečné miesto.

  Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte, dass alle Europäerinnen und Europäer die gleichen Rechte haben, unabhängig davon, wo sie leben und wen sie lieben.

Niemand hat Hass und Hetze verdient; alle haben Respekt und gleiche Rechte verdient. Es ist doch absurd, dass Menschen sich in der EU zwar frei bewegen können, aber sie selbst und ihre Familien nicht überall anerkannt werden. Es hat in der Vergangenheit mehrere Fälle gegeben, wo gleichgeschlechtliche Paare ihre Rechte vor Gericht einklagen mussten. Zwei polnische Frauen, die in Wien ein Kind bekommen haben, aber zu Hause damit nicht anerkannt wurden. Homosexuelle Männer, die nach ihrem Umzug in einen anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat ihre Ehe nicht anerkannt bekommen haben.

Es ist untragbar, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Paare in der Europäischen Union 2025 immer noch diskriminiert werden. Es ist unsere Pflicht, die Grundrechte von allen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern zu schützen. Dafür brauchen wir europäische Gesetze, mit denen die Freiheit der Menschen geschützt und Regenbogenfamilien EU-weit anerkannt werden. Gegen Staaten wie Rumänien, die das systematisch untergraben, muss die EU-Kommission mit Sanktionen vorgehen.

Ich möchte Sie auch ganz herzlich auffordern, hier nicht nachzulassen, sondern nachzulegen, auch wenn die politische Stimmung in einigen Mitgliedstaaten vielleicht kompliziert ist. Aber Sie haben hier gemeinsam mit uns eine Verantwortung. Der müssen Sie gerecht werden.

  Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jutro Walentynki, 14 lutego. Niestety nie wszyscy w tej Unii Równości będą mogli świętować to święto. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej obywateli lepszego i gorszego sortu. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej rodziny, które nie mają równych praw. Nadal mamy 2 miliony dzieci w Unii Europejskiej, które nie są objęte ochroną. Europejski certyfikat rodzicielstwa chce to zmienić, to dobry kierunek i dlatego dziwię się, naprawdę dziwię się prawicy, że z taką nienawiścią podchodzi do czegoś, co Wy zawsze popieraliście – ochrony rodziny i ochrony dzieci. Przecież tu chodzi o bezpieczeństwo tego dziecka. Chodzi o to, że kiedy jego rodzice znajdują się w sytuacji, która nie jest uregulowana prawnie, to by dziecko po prostu najnormalniej w świecie było bezpieczne. Nic więcej i nic mniej.

(Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

  Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mam pytanie do Pana Posła. Nie rozumiem tego lamentu, który tutaj Pan Poseł przedstawia wraz ze swoim partnerem. Od ponad roku rządzicie państwo w Polsce – Pana formacja z Donaldem Tuskiem. Rządzicie w Polsce od 14 miesięcy. Macie większość, możecie tak zmienić prawo w Polsce, jak chcecie i nie umiecie tego zrobić. No i powiedzcie dlaczego?

Poza tym, Panie Pośle, Unia Europejska jest organizacją prawną – artykuł 5 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej mówi bardzo wyraźnie, że kompetencje nieprzyznane innym są kompetencjami krajowymi. Więc także tu macie większość w tym Parlamencie, możecie robić, co chcecie i nie robicie tego. Więc krótko mówiąc, ja jestem za prawem naturalnym, mam trochę inne zdanie niz Pan, ale niech Pan nie ma pretensji do Kaczyńskiego, do Prawicy o to, że jesteście mniejszością, bo jesteście …

(Przewodnicząca odebrała mówcy głos)

  Robert Biedroń (S&D), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja chciałem podziękować panu posłowi, że on tak pełen emocji podchodzi do tej sprawy i tutaj podpowiada, jak to zmienić. Proszę się przyłączyć. Ja myślę, że tutaj warto, żebyśmy wszyscy ponad podziałami chronili każdego obywatela i każdą obywatelkę. Jeśli chodzi o prawo unijne, Panie Pośle, to warto doczytać – Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości wydawał wyroki w tej sprawie. Brak takiej regulacji to nie tylko jest pogwałcenie traktatów, ale pogwałcenie także podstawowych praw człowieka. Dlatego, Panie Komisarzu, dziękuję za tę inicjatywę, którą, jak rozumiem, pan Rzońca będzie popierał.

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, of course, no child should be discriminated against because of the way they were born or the type of family they were born into. It is crucial. It is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 2. Please read this article. We are all obliged to fulfil the requirements of human rights. All.

It’s not a question of religion. Those who are mentioning Christianity, please read the Bible. Abraham and his first son and, of course, Saint Mary’s story. It would be good to listen and to understand about what you are speaking. Of course, you know that all families, including rainbow families, should have the same rights in the EU. This includes, for instance, the right to maintenance and schooling, education and others.

But it is a pity we see that such a trend is growing, especially in those countries where the far right are trying to violate human rights. Of course, the parenthood regulation is still blocked in the Council. It is also a shame that the Council still, until now, has no chance to solve this problem. It is our duty to implement all human rights.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (PfE). – Señora presidente, señorías, el Derecho de familia es competencia de los Estados miembros. La Declaración de los Derechos del Niño es clara: todo niño tiene un padre y una madre y tiene derecho a conocerlos y a ser cuidado por ellos en la medida de lo posible. Los vínculos naturales entre padres e hijos deben ser respetados, pues trascienden la propia existencia: ¿quién soy?; ¿de dónde vengo?; el inicio de nuestra vida en el vientre materno; el vínculo con nuestros padres… Otras formas de paternidad interfieren en esta realidad y exponen al niño y a las personas implicadas no solo a graves dilemas éticos y legales, sino también a situaciones donde se agrede su propia dignidad.

Garantizar la seguridad jurídica de las familias es legítimo; sin embargo, vemos cómo este principio está siendo instrumentalizado para dar una nueva forma a las relaciones entre padres e hijos transformándolas en contractuales, a veces incluso en mercantiles, como es la gestación subrogada. El ser humano deja de ser tratado como un sujeto de derechos y pasa a considerarse un objeto de transacción, un bien de consumo, a través de la explotación de las mujeres, causando un doloroso desgarro con el hijo y normalizando la ruptura de los lazos naturales.

La difícil situación en la que se puedan encontrar estos niños debe ser resuelta caso a caso a nivel nacional, no por un mecanismo general europeo como es el certificado de filiación: esto alentaría estas prácticas exponiendo a más personas a esta…

(la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the gender-neutral right to free movement is a cornerstone of our citizens’ Union. The gender-neutral Union family law, the right to love and the right to be loved is an essential block to build a union of equality.

By requiring or facilitating the recognition of civil status documents, including for same sex couples, Union law on free movement and Union family law aim to protect the rights of couples and also of children in cross-border situations, without leaving behind any spouse or partner due to their sexual orientation and without leaving behind any child because of the way in which he was conceived or born, or because she has the same sex parents.

In facilitating the recognition of civil status documents also for same sex families, Union law does not interfere with the Member States’ substantive family law, such as their rules on the definition of family or their rules on surrogacy, which fall within the competence of Member States.

However, with the recognition of civil status documents for all spouses or partners and for all children, Union law will ensure that same sex couples and their children can benefit from all their rights in any Member State.

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

  President. – The next item is the explanation of votes.

  Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážení voliči, mám čtyři důvody, proč jsem dnes hlasoval proti rezoluci o Gruzii. Důvod první, Evropský parlament by se měl věnovat potížím Evropy, ne usnesením o cizích zemích. Je to neuctivé a neužitečné. Oni mají své problémy, my máme dost vlastních. Důvod druhý, kritika gruzínských voleb je dezinformace. Zásadní výhrady proti nim neměla ani mise OSCE, ani mise Evropského parlamentu. Gruzínci si jasně zvolili Gruzínský sen. Evropský parlament nemá žádnou pravomoc určovat, kdo bude v Gruzii premiérem či prezidentem. Důvod třetí, rezoluce vyzývá k puči a k financování nepokojů z peněz evropských občanů. Vyzývá, abychom se dopustili stejného zahraničního vměšování, které tady soustavně kritizujeme. Exprezidentce Zurabišviliové skončil mandát. Nechť odejde. Exprezident Saakašvili byl v řádném procesu trestně odsouzen za zneužití moci. Nechť svůj trest vykoná. Důvod čtvrtý, politika, kterou rezoluce Gruzii vnucuje, by jí připravila podobný osud, jaký stihl Ukrajinu. Gruzie tu není proto, aby dělala pěšáka Západu v boji s Ruskem. Tímto se Gruzii omlouvám za pokus o destabilizaci ze strany Parlamentu. Přeji jí rozumnou vládu, mír a prosperitu.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Maith thú a Uachtaráin arís, bhí mé an-sásta, cosúil le mo ghrúpa an EPP, vótáil ar son na tuarascála seo.

The ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is both heartbreaking and unjustifiable. The escalation of conflict, including the occupation of Goma by M23 forces, has led to severe violations of human rights, including the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and recruitment of child soldiers. These actions are not only a violation of international law, but are also catastrophic for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

The resolution calls for concrete actions to bring peace to the region, including imposing sanctions, halting arms transfers and demanding that Rwanda ceases its support for M23.

I believe this resolution sends a clear message that we will not tolerate further human suffering and that we stand in solidarity with the people of the DRC in their fight for peace and justice.

Sin a bhfuil uaimse a Uachtaráin, míle buíochas agus go dté tú slán abhaile.

  President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of the next sitting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today’s sitting to the persons and bodies named in the resolutions.

  President. – The next part‑session will take place from 10 to 13 March 2025, in Strasbourg.

(The sitting closed at 15:40)

  President. – The session of the European Parliament is adjourned.