Committee on Foreign Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AFET European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDavid McAllister
Compromise amendment 14 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 15 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 16 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 17 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 18 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
This was the best voting list in the history of the European Parliament. We come to the final vote on the report. Is that correct? This is a roll-call vote. So, please, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. And this has been adopted, 51 in favor, three against, and nine abstentions. We now come to the second vote on the consent recommendation on the package of agreements with Switzerland. Is this a roll-call vote? This is also a roll-call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. And this has been adopted, 53 in favor, five against, six abstentions. Dear Christophe Grudler, congratulations to this report. Then we come to item number five.
This is the recommendation for the Council, the Commission, and the Vice-President of the Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on EU-China political relations. Our rapporteur is Hilde Vautmans. Hilde, I give you the floor.
Hilde Vautmans
Well, thank you very much, Chair, and dear colleagues. After almost a year of work, three shadow meetings, and several postponements, I'm very pleased that we can finally vote on this important recommendation. Our recent AFET mission, Chair, to China confirmed something important. China is an essential partner for Europe on climate change, multilateralism, global security, and many of the major challenges we face. We need dialogue, cooperation, and a constructive relationship wherever possible.
At the same time, we are at a critical juncture in EU-China relations. Developments from only this week illustrate this complexity. In Belgium, a new case of suspected Chinese espionage involving semiconductor technology has emerged. And in addition, we have seen new reports concerning the supply of Chinese components for Russian drones used against Ukraine. This is precisely why Europe needs to be clear about the kind of relationship we want with China and about the conditions for a sustainable partnership in the future.
From the beginning, my objective with this report has therefore been to go beyond labels and words. It sets out the principles we need for a sustainable long-term relationship with China: no spying, no dumping, a level playing field for our companies, and a common respect for human rights and international law. And politically, the timing of this report, colleagues, could not be better. Our plenary vote in October will come shortly after Xi Jinping's expected visit to the White House.
At the moment, when Washington and Beijing are defining their relationship at the highest political level, Europe must define its own strategic approach to China. At the same time, colleagues, the INTA committee will travel to China to further address the economic dimension of our relationship, including the EU trade deficit with China of around 1 billion euros every single day. And finally, our plenary vote will also take place just before the European Council in October, when China will again be high on the European agenda, and ahead of High Representative Kaja Kallas' strategic dialogue with Wang Yi this autumn. So, colleagues, this vote is not simply about completing a parliamentary procedure. It's about giving the Council, the Commission, and the High Representative a clear political direction at the moment when Europe is defining its future relationship with China.
Our message will be all the stronger if this House, if the Parliament, can speak with one voice. From the beginning, my aim has been to build the broadest possible support across political groups, and I sincerely hope that the compromises we have been made will be reflected in today's vote. After today, I also remain fully open to working with colleagues from all political groups and all national delegations as we move towards the plenary vote in October. But after almost a year of work, it's time for this House, for the European Parliament, to make its voice heard on China. I therefore hope I can count on your support, and many thanks for all the colleagues for the hard work we have been doing together.
Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot.
David McAllister
Thank you, dear Hilde Vautmans. Now, I have a bit of a problem here. On the one hand, we're all extremely busy, we have lots of votes ahead of us, but now other colleagues have requested to take the floor. May I ask you to be as brief as possible because we don't want to have a fully-fledged debate just before the votes. I first give the floor to Nacho Sánchez Amor.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Sí, voy a hablar en español. Gracias, David, por la flexibilidad. Expresar mi gratitud a Hilde, a Lucía, a todos los negociadores. Ha sido un año muy complejo de negociaciones. Quiero decir que como grupo estamos completamente en línea con el texto que se nos propone en relación con la protección de nuestra industria, en relación con las críticas a China por su apoyo a Rusia en el escenario de Ucrania y todo lo que tiene que ver con derechos humanos.
Pero nos parece que hay aún margen para la mejora del texto y queremos agotar esas posibilidades de mejora. Nosotros notamos un cierto desequilibrio entre los aspectos críticos, que nosotros apoyamos en su totalidad, y la perspectiva de una relación basada en principios pero inteligente con China. Este engagement approach con China es lo que nos parece que tiene una falta de desarrollo en el texto y querríamos completarlo, en línea, por cierto, con las continuas visitas de los líderes europeos de todos los colores a Pekín. Esta ha sido la línea permanente de nuestro grupo en este último año y por esta razón quiero anunciar que vamos a abstenernos en esta fase del proceso. Vamos a registrar una docena de enmiendas para el pleno con la esperanza de, al final, ser incluidos en el acuerdo de los grupos.
Otros comités van a trabajar el dossier de China, como INTA, pero este es el papel general de la relación de la Unión Europea con China y debería ser tan inclusivo como fuera posible y por eso le pido a los grupos flexibilidad con las enmiendas que vamos a proponer para el pleno. Gracias.
Hermann Tertsch
Sí, yo voy a hablar en español también, voy a también hablar en español. No, simplemente a mí me ha sorprendido un poco la intervención de la señora ponente, de la señora Vautmans.
Nosotros pensamos que el informe tiene muchos avances. Nosotros somos en principio favorables, pero creemos que el tono quizá no es acorde a lo que es el contenido actual de este informe, que en este sentido sí tiene nuestro apoyo. Creemos que China es realmente un rival sistémico nuestro, que ha sido y está siendo en este momento enormemente agresivo respecto a Europa. Y creemos que hay una serie de peligros manifiestos que además se exponen dentro de este informe, que no han sido reflejados en la intervención de la reportera y que por eso yo quería insistir en ello. Muchas gracias.
David McAllister
Okay. Right, no further requests to take the floor. I think we should now vote. We will have many opportunities to discuss EU-China relations in different formats. So, your attention please.
We begin with the votes. Compromise amendment one, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move to amendment 191, in favor, against, abstentions. Sorry, we'll have to check this one. This is amendment 191, this is a roll call vote.
And what is the position of my group? 191. The vote is closed and this has been clearly rejected. Compromise amendment two, in favor. Oh, it's a roll call vote.
Oh dear, okay. Compromise amendment two, it's a roll call vote. The vote is open. It's closed and this has been adopted. We move on to amendment 223.
Who's in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment three, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to amendment 382, that is Mr. Della Valle, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Compromise amendment four, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment five, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment six, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to amendment 304. Who's in favor, against, abstentions. We'll check this one. This is 304, Kaminski and others.
The vote is open. The vote is closed and this has been clearly rejected. Compromise amendment seven, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to 324, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Then we go to 326, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Compromise amendment eight, this is a roll call vote. The vote is open. It's closed, clearly adopted. 346 is the next amendment, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Compromise amendment nine, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Then we go to 367, Madame Barishal, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Then we go to 320, in favor, against, abstentions. So we check 320. The vote is closed. This has been adopted.
So we check 320. The vote is closed. This has been rejected. 321 in favor, against, abstentions, I guess also rejected. Seems so.
Is that a yes or a no? It's a yes, okay. Then we go to 243 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 302 has been withdrawn. We move on to compromise amendment 10 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment 11 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 12 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 13 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to compromise amendment 20 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. After 20 logically compromise amendment 14 is now on the vote in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Then we move on to 19, what else, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go on to compromise amendment 16 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 15 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 17 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 18 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
This has been adopted, so we can move on to the final vote. This is a roll-call vote. The vote is open. And the vote is closed and this has been voted 44 in favor, nine against, 12 abstentions. Congratulations, dear Hilde Vautmans.
We move on to item number six. This is a vote on the draft report on the Pact for the Mediterranean for which Nicola Zingaretti is the rapporteur. Would the rapporteur like to take the floor? That is the case, please.
Nicola Zingaretti
Yeah, just, yes, thank you, President. Just to thank all colleagues, their staff and assistant from all political groups. We have worked hard on sensitive issues, each with their own idea, but I believe in positive spirits. I believe it's in everyone's interest to open a new chapter in this important area of the world and the Parliament can provide, give a good direction in this new times. Thank you very much all again.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, dear colleague Zingaretti. Would somebody else like to take the floor? That is not the case, then we begin with the votes. Compromise amendment one in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment two in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment three in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment four in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment five in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment six in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment seven in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment eight in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
The final vote we now come to, and this is a roll call vote, and the vote is open. Vote is closed, and this has been adopted, 43 in favor, 11 against, 11 abstentions. Congratulations, dear colleagues, and Garetti. Our final vote, and this is a little more complicated than the others, is the vote on the draft opinion for the 2027 budget, for which Matjaž Nemec is the rapporteur. Colleague Nemec, is he present?
He's not, so I can't give him the floor, so we then begin with our voting list. Just a moment, I have an extra copy here. So bear with me, and we now begin. Compromise amendment one in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Then we go to compromise amendment two in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
We move on to compromise amendment three in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment four in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment five in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment six in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment seven in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Then we move on to amendment number 43, presented by Mr. Terheş, in favor, against, abstentions, that has been rejected. Compromise amendment eight in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. And then we can already vote on the final vote. The vote is now open, this is a roll call vote. Don't leave yet, don't leave yet, important announcement.
So the vote is closed, and this has been adopted, 43 in favor, 12 against, 8 abstentions. Now, now, now, we had a technical issue. Marty, what is it?
Yeah, we had a technical issue with the roll call votes. Please take the floor. Sorry, dear members, we had a technical issue with the roll call votes on the two first Swiss reports, so we would unfortunately need to retake the two final votes because we don't have the names of the members who voted how. Our sincere apologies for that. It was the first vote and the second vote on Mr. Grudler report and the consent file.
Okay, so we had two votes on the Switzerland report. We will not go through all the detailed votes, it's just the final vote. So the first vote, the Grudler report, who's in favor, against, abstentions, this is a roll call vote, the vote is now open. Hope you still remember how you voted. Switzerland number one.
The vote is closed, and this has been adopted, 53 in favor, 3 against, 9 abstentions. And now we come to Switzerland number two, the other vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and this has also been adopted, 53 in favor, 3 against, 9 abstentions. So thank you for your cooperation.
We now continue with item number eight, and our vice president, Mr. Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, will chair the meeting. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Ioan-Rareş Bogdan
Good morning. Good morning. I speak in Romanian today. Stimați colegi, stimați invitați. Să începem acum audierea publică de astăzi dedicată Albaniei și Muntenegru, cele două țări aflate în fruntea procesului de extindere din Balcanii de Vest.
În cadrul acestei audieri vom analiza lecțiile învățate din cele două procese de extindere și vom examina modul în care procesul de extindere poate fi susținut în general. Comisia AFET a comandat de asemenea un studiu extern pe aceeași temă. Aș dori să le urez bun venit experților care ni s-au alăturat astăzi, doctor Matteo Bonomi, coautor al studiului, doamna Krisela Hackaj, care ne va oferi informații din Albania și doamna Jovana Marović, care ne va prezenta perspectiva muntenegreană. Vă mulțumim foarte mult că ați venit astăzi aici. Balcanii de Vest reprezintă o regiune de importanță strategică pentru Uniunea Europeană, întruchipând valorile noastre comune și jucând un rol crucial în procesul nostru de extindere.
Albania și Muntenegru au fost recunoscute ca fiind în fruntea acestui proces. Albania a deschis toate grupurile de negocieri și a închis provizoriu trei capitole de negocieri, în timp ce Muntenegru este țara care a avansat cel mai mult pe calea aderării, având 18 capitole din 33 închise provizoriu. Comisia AFET a efectuat o vizită în Albania și Muntenegru în luna februarie a acestui an, ocazie cu care ne-am reafirmat sprijinul față de acești doi parteneri de încredere și față de eforturile lor. Astăzi vom analiza lecțiile învățate din experiențele lor, provocările pe care le-au depășit și domeniile în care sunt necesare progrese suplimentare.
Vom discuta, de asemenea, despre cea mai bună modalitate de a sprijini regiunea în menținerea acestui elan, asigurându-ne că procesul de extindere rămâne, în primul rând, un instrument bazat pe merite, credibil și eficient pentru atingerea obiectivelor de stabilitate și prosperitate. Această discuție este deosebit de oportună, întrucât comisia noastră se pregătește să lucreze la rapoartele de țară privind următorul pachet de extindere, care va fi prezentat de Comisie în această toamnă. Fiecare dintre vorbitorii noștri va susține o prezentare de zece minute, după care vom deschide sesiunea de întrebări adresate de către colegii eurodeputați. În primul rând, îi dau cuvântul domnului profesor doctor Matteo Bonomi, șeful programului pentru Europa la Institutul Afaceri Internaționale, IAI, pentru a ne împărtăși principalele concluzii ale cercetătorilor care au lucrat la studiul comandat de comisia noastră. Secretariatul a transmis membrilor prima versiune a studiului săptămâna trecută.
Vă reamintesc că acest document se află în curs de revizuire de către serviciile Parlamentului, așa că vă rog să nu-l difuzați mai departe. Documentul final ar trebui să fie publicat spre sfârșitul lunii octombrie. Domnule doctor Bonomi, aveți cuvântul timp de zece minute.
Matteo Bonomi
Thank you, chair. Honorable member, thank you for this opportunity to present this study. My name is Matteo Bonomi. I'm head of Europe program at Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome. And we have prepared this study, Sustaining EU Enlargement: Lessons from Albania and Montenegro, the Western Balkan Frontrunners.
I have prepared for this committee under request of TEPSA and with a team of four person. And I will present this also on behalf of my co-authors, Professor Nikoleta Djukanovic, Danijela Jacimovic, and Gencian Elezi. Our purpose for this study was to assess, to understand whether this renewed momentum for enlargement can be sustained and what does the experience of Montenegro and Albania means for the today's functioning of EU enlargement policy and which are the implication of this for the other candidate countries and for the European Union itself. To do so, we combined an historical analysis of previous enlargement round with detailed examine, examination of current candidate country, especially Albania and Montenegro, through various quantitative indicator, through the Commission on assessment, through the enlargement package, and twelve interview with member of the European Union, of the member states, and practitioner and expert. Let me start from the historical picture that emerge from the study.
The EU has always combined geopolitical and merit-based enlargement. This is not really a novelty. And we look at the past from, from the northern enlargement to the southern enlargement to the enlargement to Central Eastern Europe, the EU has always moved to adapt to external, to changing external condition and always also had a merit-based approach. It was always the European Union asking to candidate country to adapt and to apply its own acquis and never on the other way around. So the history of enlargement policy has been really a, a history of how this model has adapted to changing condition.
And this changing condition that emerge from our comparative study are mainly three.
First, the changing profile of candidate countries that has become over time more complex and heterogeneous. The nature of the European integration that became more complex and probably less permissive towards further enlargement. And third contextual element is the international situation that became more and more complex and probably also more antagonistic. And the story of EU enlargement has been exactly the story of an adaptation of this policy through these changing contextual factors. And our comparative analysis shows how basically enlargement adapted to these changing conditions becoming longer, with more steps, with more gradual phases before accession.
If at the beginning enlargement was basically a procedure where the candidate country adapted EU law after accession, over the years to adapt to these changing conditions it became much, much longer process as we can see for instance Central Eastern Europe where it became a fully-fledged policy requiring a lot of steps before accession. Our assessment in this study is that probably this trajectory for the Western Balkan over the last 20 years went a bit too long. And this graduality and a lot of different pre-enlargement steps that were implied in the several pre-accession framework applied to the region somehow came at the loss of the credibility of the enlargement policy and at the credibility of the prospect of membership. And this is exactly the background against which we try to evaluate the impact of the relaunch of EU enlargement after the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After that fact, the enlargement came back as a geostrategic imperative and it meant basically two different things for the European Union.
On the one hand, the European Union has tried to invest again on the credibility of enlargement that it was a new move after at least 10 years of enlargement fatigue after the accession of Croatia. But at the same time invested on new instrument of gradual integration to somehow to strengthen cooperation with all candidate countries, not only in the Balkans, to somehow respond to the also the geopolitical urgency of the moment. And these two things of course we try to assess especially how they play out in Albania and Montenegro. And there our assessment was that the main factor was really the credibility of membership perspective that made the difference in the last few years that really allowed for rapid progress in negotiations after many years of stagnation. And we have seen how I mean suddenly chapters and clusters were open and that corresponds to real legislative alignment of these countries that suddenly became possible in a very short time.
And this of course it's not about the credibility only, but it was probably the trigger given probably the foreign policy alignment of these two countries that were already in NATO for instance so probably are easier than others. And also another element that highlights the study was this strong domestic ownership. Despite all the trouble that domestic policies in both countries went through, there was a strong commitment towards the enlargement and there was a strong social support for that among the population.
And this is a crucial factor, of course. Of course, not everything is gold and we see how this and I think we can fairly say that now these two countries have shown that they have the technical ability to align to EU acquis. But of course, having fully functioning institutions is a much more difficult story and of course requires much more time, probably. But still, I think this is the right direction and it's not through the exclusion that you can that you can help this process to consolidate. If we look at the broader region, of course, the picture is less rosy, probably.
They are still in a very much in a wait-and-see mode as they I mean the EU accession perspective have been missing some credibility for so long that many of the leaders in the region probably are still betting in the fact that this process will not deliver at the end and that they can play a multi-vectoral policy to do something with the European Union, something with with others that I mean but it's really I think now up to the European Union show that the the political calculation that probably was a winning one for the last decade is is not has changed, the math has changed. And of course, even if Albania and Montenegro succeed to become the next member, of course, a positive spillover effect for the rest of the region cannot take for granted neither. I mean, we have seen how the accession of Croatia created a pause effect to the rest of the region. So we have have to be extremely careful also to do not give the idea that once maybe one country enter, the other are have lost their opportunity. And of course, this is difficult, especially in the Western Balkans, because for many years, all the EU has been doing there has been very much framed in with this regional cooperation approach.
And of course, some country moving steadily towards the European Union required changes also in this kind of approach and how maybe these measures that were first imagined as a main driver of the integration can be used maybe for mitigate the shortcoming of some country entering and some others not. Having said this, I'm reaching my conclusion. I mean, we reached some I mean some recommendation for the for the Parliament. In the study, there are there are much more details, so if you are interested, please look at the study. But now I will try to synthesize mainly in four points.
First, I think the Parliament can play an important role in in protect the merit-based approach of enlargement that require the Parliament to really be able to signal where progress are are are obtained or not obtained and because of whom. I mean, if it's up to the so it's a fault of a candidate country that do not deliver reform, it should be stated clearly. But if it's because of European Union own issue, it's also it should be stated quite clearly. Second, gradual integration it's a useful tool, but cannot in any way substitute a credible membership perspective that is the only real incentive for tough reform that are needed and that we want to see in this country. So for the rule of law, media freedom and all these things.
Nothing can substitute this and I think the Parliament can play an important role in ensuring that these connections do not get lost and maybe also to move towards maybe involving more the parliamentary of these country and to somehow to open as much as possible as much the current legislation allow their participation to committee and to the debate in this house. Third, one other things that clear emerge from the study is that despite all this gradual integration, what is really missing in the pre-accession framework is the ability to drive economic convergence. This has missing and because simply the resource provided to candidate country and to member state are so hugely different that the main driver of economic catch-up of new member state is simply missing. How to solve this it's not easy. I mean, I would just say put money, but I know how much is difficult the discussion, but I think in the discussion for the next multiannual financial framework it will be important of course to have this merit-based approach, but also to somehow protect the predictability of funds.
That this is very important and that has been a little bit outside of the discussion and I think is crucial to plan especially long-term investment that can drive development and development in this country is should be a key goal despite also all the rest. And fourth point is that of course the Parliament can have much more proactive role in preparing the Union for enlargement. This is the big elephant of the room coming out also from the from the study. I mean, of course keeping the silence of this debate within this house, but also cooperating probably with with national parliament and probably also having a much more tailored approach to different national sensitivities because we know how much different are these debate in different EU capitals. And in doing so maybe a good way also to frame this could be have proactively engage with EU Council presidency and and to try to shape this next year with the in some windows of opportunity.
Thank you.
Ioan-Rareş Bogdan
Grazie, grazie signor Bonomi, la presentazione è stata molto interessante e complesso. Voi invita acum pe următoarea noastră vorbitoare, doamna Krisela Hackaj, director executiv al Institutului pentru Cooperare și Dezvoltare din Albania să ne ofere mai multe detalii despre procesul de aderare al Albaniei. Doamna Hackaj este de asemenea membră a Consiliului Național al Albaniei pentru Integrare Europeană și a îndeplinit funcția de consilier al Comitetului Economic și Social European în cadrul elaborării avizelor acestuia privind mecanismul de reformă și creștere economică pentru Balcanii de Vest. Doamna Hackaj aveți cuvântul pentru zece minute. You have the floor.
Krisela Hackaj
Thank you chair. Thank you for the invitation and the possibility to contribute to this today's public hearing, distinguished members of the AFET committee and participants of this event. For my country Albania, EU membership