What Daniel spoke about.

Mr President, colleagues, I'm a numbers guy and I love the annual report of the European Court of Auditors because it's full of numbers and in these numbers there are really quite interesting stories about fraud and corruption in the European Union. Bear with me, I think it will be interesting indeed. So on page 375 of the report, and I quote, 2023, the European prosecutor had 206 active investigations related to RRF funds and estimated potential damages of over EUR 1.8 billion. And now, careful, 75 % of these cases are coming from Italy, 75 %! And now a quiz: Who has been the minister in charge of these funds in Italy during the time of the report? So hint, it is the same person that is now being designated to be the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for two thirds of the EU budget: Mr Fitto, from the Italian extreme right. So the guy who messed it up in Italy is now supposed to take over the responsibility for the entire EU. Dear colleagues, I think that's not a good idea and I'm not sure we can afford Mr Fitto in this role. So thank you, and now I'm looking forward to getting a blue card from the Fidesz colleagues, because I didn't even have the time to talk about corruption in Hungary yet, but I'm not sure there's anyone there.

Madam President, I have obviously never received a cent from anyone for anything that I have done in this Parliament other than my MEP's salary. I understand that for Mr Orbán, little happens without a bribe, but in this House, everything we do on corruption in Hungary is motivated solely by conviction. (Loud applause)

Madam President, I wanted to reply to the false accusations that were made against me in this Chamber yesterday. Viktor Orbán said that I was corrupt and was paid for my reports by George Soros. I have obviously… (Loud heckling)

Mr President, thanks Madam Commissioner for the work of you and your colleagues on the rule of law. You have spoken about all the progress that has been made and that's all good. Unfortunately, we see that in a number of Member States there's also regress. Two things that I would like to point out: one is I think we clearly need to link the recommendations in the Rule of law report to actual consequences. And I also think that those countries, like in Slovakia, where the anti-corruption prosecution has been severely attacked now, we should not wait until all the damage is done and we can no longer repair anything. But there is a number of tools, like the conditionality mechanism, that is actually pre-emptive – so let's use it before it is too late. As we see in the second case in Hungary, where now for two years we have money frozen, we see not a single reform. And I would really like to know, when are you going to reinforce those sanctions so that we finally see an effect, because nothing is happening, and we've seen the colleague has mentioned the lies here this morning.

I do not know if you have noticed, my colleague, that we are here in the European Parliament and one of our main tasks here in this Parliament is to ensure that EU funds are spent properly. I myself sit on the Committee on Budgetary Control, and the country where EU funds have been spent the worst in years is your home country. If you want to see a few examples, I can recommend you: In front of the canteen hangs a wonderful photo exhibition with the worst corruption projects carried out in recent years by the government to which you belong – the same party family. I think you need to explain to your citizens and, above all, to Hungarians: Where did all this money go? The EU has given €54 billion to Hungary since Viktor Orbán became prime minister. Where's the money?

Madam President, dear colleagues, dictator, the European Parliament is the beating heart of European democracy. And this Parliament is the arch enemy of autocrats like you. Mr Orbán, you're the most corrupt politician in the European Union. You and your cronies, you stole money on an insane scale. At least EUR 14 billion that went to your country during your premiership have been lost. Who has ever stolen over 10 000 money transporters' worth of EU funds? And the biggest trick you have played is that you distract people from your heist with hate against minorities, with propaganda about gender, with so-called peace initiatives. But this money was meant to fix roads, schools and to benefit the Hungarians. But instead you build a football stadium in your backyard, you build palaces, and you have made your childhood friend Mészáros the richest man in Hungary. Mr Orbán, we want our money back. And to all of us, we have to stop this steal. No more EU funds for Hungary. Let's take his veto away and let's stop inviting him here to this Parliament. Instead, there should be a European arrest warrant.

I don't think there's any damage. The German Federal Government is implementing the judgments of the European Court of Justice and, perhaps you have seen this, has not even been sentenced to a penalty. This means that there is no financial damage to the EU budget. However, the Hungarian Government has been condemned: There are 200 million euros on the cover, and they have to be paid now.

I propose that the Hungarian Government abide by EU law, that it abide by the EU Treaties, that it implement the judgments of the European Court of Justice as they were delivered. If the Hungarian government is sentenced to a penalty, then it should pay that penalty. In the European Union, we have a rule of law. It also works pretty well in most places, with the exception of Hungary, where we have significant problems with it. It has just been mentioned, this question of numbers. Well, not everyone who comes from Russia is the same. For those countries that do reasonable audits and, for example, allow people who fight for human rights in Russia into the country, that's fine. But it's not okay to let people like the zoo killer or saboteurs and spies into the country. I have my doubts as to whether the Hungarian Government is carrying out this examination properly.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! Many of you may not have noticed it yet, but Viktor Orbán has still not paid; Last night at midnight, the payment deadline expired. The Hungarian government owes the European Union 200 million euros, and every day it is now 1 million more, because the Hungarian government breaks the law, because it disregards EU law and the judgment of the ECJ, because it systematically denies such protection to those seeking protection from war and persecution. Viktor Orbán often likes to act as the strong man who protects the borders, but there are just two Viktor Orbáns. There is the border-tight-barbed-wire Orbán, and there is the warm-welcome-in-Hungary Orbán. Because with a kind of migration it seems to be very open, so when it comes to people who come from Russia or Belarus, and with this national map it opens the door for spies and saboteurs to the European Union. It undermines the unity of the EU vis-à-vis the war criminals in the Kremlin, and it threatens the security of all of us by making common cause with Putin – here on visas, but we see it in many other places as well. He abuses his veto for Putin, and they steal money together. What welds together better than stealing money together? Orbán is actually always about money, preferably, of course, about our EU money. We probably can't do much about his Putin love; We should, however, press ahead with withdrawing his veto, with Article 7. We have even more room for manoeuvre when it comes to money. The Commission should finally start to freeze not only parts of EU funds, but all EU funds because everyone is at risk of corruption. We should no longer write anxious letters, but really act until the rule of law works again, until EU law is enforced again in Hungary, and until we can be sure that no Russian spies or saboteurs come to the European Union via Hungary.

Madam President, you guys decide whether you want to postpone this, but this is one of the main replies of this House to the scandals that we have seen, including in this House and in this mandate. What Sven Simon from the EPP has just said is just not true. There is no such thing. Yes, maybe you listen or you read the Agreement and then you understand what we are actually voting on. This is not giving the Council any power over our rules or their implementation. There is a joint decision by eight institutions on setting common standards, where the European Parliament has a veto on each decision. So the Council cannot impose anything. And the question of whether there is some sort of secret takeover of the Commission by the secretariat: again, the secretariat of this ethics body is composed of one member from each of the participating institutions. They jointly decide and the first rotating chairmanship of the institutions goes to the European Parliament, so saying there is a power grab is not true.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, thank you to my co-rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs who have followed this work in this way, to Gilles Boyer, Gaby Bischoff, others who have worked very constructively to make this a success. It is a pity to see how the EPP, especially the CDU/CSU, positions itself in this matter. Because you don't really have arguments against this body, you come up with a whole series of half-truths and lies, but also some real misunderstandings. If, for example, you are talking about the separation of powers, then a principle of the separation of powers is that one does not judge oneself. But that is exactly what has happened so far, that deputies judge deputies, that again and again the political colour, the party affiliation plays the main role and then in the end leads to the fact that no one is sanctioned. Now at least to get a recommendation independently - and that's all it is - to call it somehow that we give up complete control in a body of eight institutions, where Parliament can block all decisions just as equally at the end or unanimously agree that there is a common standard, because now to say that other institutions would control Parliament, quite honestly, that's nonsense. It is strange to see: Manfred Weber promised to set up such a body in the last election campaign, your CDU colleague Ursula von der Leyen promised to set up such a body, your party colleague Roberta Metsola promised to set up such a body as one of the main answers to Qatargate. Now, as a group, you are going against your own top staff, and I can only suspect that you are doing so because you are afraid that in the end, of course, EPP MEPs will end up in front of this body. No faction has as many side incomes as you, with no faction there are so many advisers and lawyers where you have no idea where the money actually comes from in the end. Your Commissioner Oettinger from the last legislature had more lobbying jobs during the cooling-off period than anyone else. There is, of course, a certain concern that the panel could recommend in the future that there be a sanction at one point or another.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Politics should not be for sale. It must not be possible to buy political decisions in this Parliament with a lot of money. Whether Qatar, whether Russia, whether China – especially with the extreme right, which shines through absence this morning, with the AfD, there are now almost daily revelations and arrests. Even below the threshold of criminal law, below bribery, there have been scandals in recent years: Conflicts of interest, undeclared side jobs, revolving doors, unfair interference by lobbyists and third countries who donate luxury travel to MEPs and Commissioners. The reputation of this House, the reputation of the European Union, it has suffered. Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to most of us: This must finally end. What is also clear to most is that the rules are less of a problem. The existing rules are quite good, better than in most EU Member States. Lobby meetings and assets must be declared, side jobs in the lobby are prohibited, revolving doors of the commissioners must be approved, travel and gifts must be reported. The problem in Brussels is enforcement. After dozens of violations here in Parliament, there has been a sanction for the very first time this week, after dozens of times no punishment has always been imposed, there has not even been a reprimand. The existing system of self-control has failed, and it has led to a culture of impunity here in the house. This self-control doesn't work, and that's why we're putting it in the hands of independent experts in the future. A few weeks before the European elections, it is our promise to voters: We want the rules to finally be enforced. No longer must a few black sheep ruin the reputation of all of us. We want to regain trust in the EU institutions. It is – and this must be said at this point – the result of many years of hard political work. In 2020, I proposed to this Parliament the creation of an independent ethics body. Unfortunately, it only took Qatargate for the Commission to make a proposal at the end. The proposal then had relatively little to do with the position of this Parliament. But it must be said that Katarina Barley, Salvatore De Meo and I were able to achieve substantial improvements in the negotiations. The committee can now also deal with individual cases under our pressure. Although the proposal is weaker than what Parliament has called for, the fact that the Council has decided to stay completely out of common standards is completely incomprehensible to me. Nevertheless, I consider the text now before us to be a step in the right direction. I promised independent control, and it's coming now. Ladies and gentlemen, today we can show that we have learned from the scandals of recent years, including Qatargate. We can show that it is not just going on as before, and today we can take a big step towards more transparency and really good rules of conduct, which will then be enforced. I know this compromise doesn't make everyone happy. I would have liked to see other, better rules in many places. That's how it is in democracy. But as a parliament, I do not think we can explain to the voters in the coming weeks that we are now rejecting this progress. I therefore ask you to agree to this agreement with seven other institutions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There were officially three selection criteria for the position of SME representative of the EU Commission: Qualification, origin and gender. Today, however, we know that there was a fourth criterion that outstripped all the others, and that seems to have been party affiliation. There is no other explanation for the fact that the second highest endowed item in the whole Commission was awarded in this way. Markus Pieper completed the final selection process in last place, by far, and yet he got the job. How did he do that? Well, he's like Ursula von der Leyen in the CDU. Ms von der Leyen therefore heads an authority with 35,000 civil servants. It has access to the brightest minds on our continent. Unfortunately, she is now making the EU's SME representative a supply post because the NRW-CDU has a women's problem. This is sad, this is unworthy, and I can understand that some people in the Commission find this quite frustrating. I can only encourage you, Commissioner, to re-open this procedure and choose the best candidate for the job in the future. Anything else can't be explained to voters.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, In fact, one might think here for the first time that a revision of the Financial Regulation is a rather dry matter. But it's just about the canned. It is a question of what rules actually apply to how we spend more than 180 billion euros a year in the European Union. And I just have to say: The debate we have had here and, above all, the position of the Member States in this debate has been very strange. One would actually assume that if we spend this money on behalf of the citizens, that then everyone knows who actually gets this money, that you can see how much money goes, for example, to family members of Viktor Orbán or to the former Prime Minister Babiš, who actually gets the most EU money. We have now gained a little more transparency on all these issues – in four years’ time. Why does this only come into effect in 2028? This, too, was more of a strange phenomenon. The fact that governments have long refused in the negotiations, that Member States warn each other that if a certain company, a certain organisation has already been convicted of corruption by a final judgment, you will then tell the other countries that you might even look at them extra or exclude them from public tenders - this is also to come now, but also only in four years. I think that could have gone much faster. But the most strange thing in the end is the absolute refusal of the Member States, if there has been fraud or mismanagement in a project, to commit themselves to getting the money back. And quite honestly, that cannot be explained to anyone outside, and I fear that we will have to go back to the Financial Regulation in time to correct these errors.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We are now voting tomorrow on the European Media Freedom Act, and it is, of course, right and important that we do so – a step forward. But I also fear that this law alone is not enough to really protect journalists in the EU. It is once again Viktor Orbán who presents the proof that we have so far done too little to protect journalism in order to fend off attacks on fundamental rights and European values. In December, he passed the Sovereignty Act. the aim could also have come from Putin – and I quote the President of the Fidesz Group here: “target left-wing journalists who serve the interests of US dollar billionaires or multinational companies in Brussels”. You have to be clear: Whoever speaks in this way has nothing else in mind but the end of the freedom of the press, who wants absolute control and state-organised propaganda on all channels and that just then under our EU supervision – it is unbearable. Yes, we prohibit spying on journalist phones, that's right. But against what is happening in Hungary, one would have to take a much more decisive approach and smash the media empire of Orbán.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The EU Commission is using the rule of law conditionality too cautiously. It is guided by political considerations, not facts, and the EU Commission does not properly assess whether the reforms in Hungary were actually implemented before €10 billion was released to Orbán. The Commission is making insufficient use of staff to protect the rule of law. Dear Mr Reynders, this is, for once, not the opinion of us MEPs here in the European Parliament, but it is the assessment of the European Court of Auditors, which has just issued a rather bad testimony to your monitoring of the rule of law in the European Union: Too late, too little, too opaque. I have to say – you are now, I believe, presenting the rule of law in the European Union in the fifth version – that in many places the situation is not getting any better. But if we do not use the tools that the European Union has in conditionality to protect the rule of law, then things will not get better. Only documenting the descent cannot be the goal, but we must really decisively defend the rule of law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The best time in a politician's life will soon start again: The election campaign. And while most of us will try to convince citizens and get them to vote in the next three months with our ideas, our visions for the European Union, there are of course also increasingly black sheep in these elections – those who, with a lot of money, are trying in dubious ways to manipulate the opinions of Europeans who want to put their individual interests forward in a capital-strong way: Oil multinationals, disguised but rich Nazis and, of course, anti-European governments outside the European Union. In particular, the hate speeches from the far right are particularly well versed in using the money of those in the election campaign who want to destroy the European Union. Of course, this must end. And here we are now creating more transparency, at least with a large database. Where there is political advertising on it, it must also be clear whose money is actually in it. We don't want dubious donors for bizarre anti-EU campaigns. We want open debates. That's what we're doing a bit with this law.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If you want to get an idea of the current situation in the European Union with regard to fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, I think you can well imagine when Viktor Orbán sits in front of this chair here in six months for the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and manages the affairs of the Council. I believe that says everything about the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in our Union. And some say now, well, but after the European elections, that is not so important, there is not so much legislative activity directly, you can let him do that. I think we all know in this House that this is not true, that this is a particularly bad idea. It is precisely at this time, when we are setting the work programme for the European Commission for the next five years, when the top positions in the EU institutions will be awarded, and in a half-year, when the US is elected and at the moment everything looks like Donald Trump could come back into office, that we have at the head of the European Union the biggest fan of Donald Trump, of Vladimir Putin, of the autocrats of this world, who speaks for the EU. And I have to say that the Belgian Presidency of the Council was here this morning, and has always said that the rule of law is the absolute top priority. Nevertheless, this Presidency is currently being prepared, and the Commission is also preparing this Presidency. I would like to hear how, for example, the hearings on Article 7 should actually run if Hungary itself conducts its own hearing to itself? I'd like you to explain this to us.

I don't understand the question. But your political friends in Poland have just lost the election. I believe that many of you are flourishing in Europe. You make false promises, you tell lies and above all you steal billions of euros from European citizens. And they will notice that, and they will also democratically remove you from your office. And then we can once again enjoy the rule of law, democracy and free elections in Europe, if the haunting is also over in Hungary at some point.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Ursula von der Leyen has always repeated: One could not help but release the billions to Viktor Orbán, because he would have fulfilled all the demands of the European Commission. Mrs. von der Leyen, that's not true! They released 10 billion euros in an urgent procedure a few hours before the summit because it vetoed Ukraine's accession to the EU. So you've been blackmailed. They have paid the biggest bribe in the history of the European Union. And now you can argue that it was worth it: What do we care about Orbán if we clear the historic path for Ukraine into the European Union? But I am afraid that we will end up harming both the rule of law in the European Union and Ukraine's accession process. If you spend €10 billion on the autocrat’s veto, Orbán is unlikely to do it cheaper in the future. And he still has 72 options to veto until the moment Ukraine becomes a member. The policy you are making against Viktor Orbán is wrong. They only make the problem bigger. The rule of law in Hungary – it remains broken. Orbán did not meet the milestones, and he even showed you the maximum. Because in the decision of these sham reforms to the judiciary, he has at the same time launched the next attack on the rule of law and democracy, with the Sovereignty Act. He shouldn't have gotten $10 billion. And that is why we are now going to the European Court of Justice and will sue you. See you in court. (The speaker agreed to ask a question about the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. A member of the CDU presents a report for more transparency. We don't see it here every day. But you, Mr. Pieper, want to have identified who were now the real culprits behind Qatargate: It was the NGOs. I think transparency is great and have looked at how many meetings with NGOs you have published last year: one. And how many NGOs have you talked to about this report? Not at all – at least according to your publications. If you were to talk to NGOs from time to time, you might know that NGOs are the first to be involved in creating more transparency. But I get the impression that this is not what you really care about, but that you actually want to harass organisations whose political opinion does not suit you. They would like to have some kind of attitude police for civil society. Because if you were really interested in transparency, then you and the EPP would have been able to contribute and vote for transparency in recent years whenever we have discussed transparency here, including from NGOs. But when it came to the disclosure of lobby meetings, including with NGOs, when it came to creating more transparency for the final recipients of EU funds, including NGOs, on so many transparency issues that we have discussed here in recent years, the EPP had great concerns – the free mandate. Again and again they weakened, delayed and voted against it in the end. You tried this five years ago. Now try again under the guise of Qatargate. It probably helped that you were not present in the negotiations. Nevertheless, in the end, this report remains a crude attempt to defame civil society. And that is why we are going to vote against it here. I can tell you that I am looking forward to the election campaign, to the many appointments at Caritas, at the volunteer fire brigade, at the chambers of commerce, at all the associations and associations to which you can then explain why you place them under general suspicion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I have a little déjà-vu. Populist and Putin friend comes to power, and first he dismantles the independent judiciary and eliminates the fight against corruption. And no, we are not talking about Viktor Orbán here, but about his neighbor Robert Fico. But he is using this to dismantle the rule of law in Slovakia in exactly the same manner as Viktor Orbán – and this is probably followed by corruption with EU funds. We could now react in the same way that we did not in Hungary for ten years: worried speeches of the Commission, then letters are written, then one observes very carefully the situation on the ground. Will it help? I dare to doubt it. And of course you have to say that if you let Viktor Orbán blackmail you like that and pay out 10 billion euros to Viktor Orbán without any need, basically the biggest bribe ever paid with EU money, basically minutes before the EU summit, then I'm already very worried about what kind of signal this sends to someone like Robert Fico. He can only draw the message from it now: Full can continue without stopping for a moment. It is a disaster for the rule of law in the European Union. It is a disaster for Slovakia, for Hungary, for all of us here if we deal with the rule of law in the European Union in this way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The parliament was probably as rare in the spotlight in the days after Eva Kaili and others were arrested. Everyone in Europe has seen the pockets full of cash. In the days that followed, we adopted a strong resolution here in Parliament, with a long list of proposals on how to prevent this from happening again in the future. Now, a year later, we see that relatively little of what we all almost unanimously demanded last December has really been implemented. Yes, we must now disclose all our lobby meetings. Yes, we have improved whistleblower protection a bit and yes, we have introduced asset declarations, even if this really starts with the next parliamentary term. But we have not forbidden, for example, that hundreds of thousands of euros be paid by Qatar or other states. You don't say it's corruption, you call it an advisory contract – then everything is wonderfully fine. But more importantly, of course, the best rules don't help in the end if they aren't enforced. I must confess that the negotiations, Mrs Jourová, are somewhat slow. I hope we get a body that can also deal with individual cases, otherwise I fear that the mere setting of rule standards will not take us as far as we need it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In a few months, we will all go to the election campaign, spend a lot of time on podiums, at election stands and in conversation with the citizens. I can tell you that we will probably hear one question very often – especially colleagues from the Conservatives: Why isn't the name of Ursula von der Leyen, the woman who is running for the most powerful office in the European Union, on the ballot? And I and many of you probably have to say: We don't really know, it's a bit incomprehensible. So four years ago, as Mr von der Leyen pointed out, the heads of government pulled Ms von der Leyen out of her hat, and she was then elected very narrowly with the votes of PiS and Fidesz. You can turn a blind eye again. Probably, Mrs von der Leyen herself did not know before the election that she should become Commission President, because Frans Timmermans and Manfred Weber have gone too hard with Viktor Orbán in the court. But this time it would be a conscious decision against democracy – in a party where all the elected Chancellors of the CDU have always competed. Of course, Ursula von der Leyen’s father always won his constituency – 1978, 1982, 1986 – three times before becoming Prime Minister in Lower Saxony. Dear colleagues, in the next election campaign we will hear it often, especially from the screaming necks from the right: The European Union is undemocratic, Brussels is far away, none of us are elected. And it is precisely to these populists that Ursula von der Leyen would, of course, give water to the mills if she were not on the ballot. Member States prevent European lists, but of course von der Leyen can compete in Lower Saxony – all lead candidates should compete. Of course, the basic principle of democracy is that candidates introduce themselves, that they explain their electoral programme and that, of course, after that, we go into coalition negotiations about who leads the Commission. That would be a strong sign of democracy if you really stood for election.

I don't know if you know where we are. We are here in the European Parliament. We are making policy for the whole of Europe. If I wanted to deal with the German federal government, I would have run for the German Bundestag – I do not have that. I am here in the European Parliament, and that is why I am concerned with what we are doing in the European Union. Otherwise, I can only say: You can find my CV online. I have never worked for the Soros Foundation. I am very proud to have worked at Transparency International for five years – this is a different organisation, but that seems to be all one for you somehow. But you can read on the internet.