Speeches

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.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, In Budapest, posters are being hung again, with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen near a supposedly globalist world conspiracy – i.e. blunt lies with a decent portion of anti-Semitism, paid with taxpayers’ money. However, it must be said that Orbán is probably running out of ideas, because we all had these posters five years ago – at that time with Jean-Claude Juncker and the older Soros. So instead of finally reforming the rule of law and thus freeing up the 28 billion euros that the citizens in Hungary so urgently need, they are making false posters all over the country. I think this government is still not serious about the reforms. I do not consider Orbán to be a reliable negotiating partner. Ongoing vetoes, blackmail attempts – and I do not really understand why the Commission can be fooled by them. Why don't you suspend the preparatory talks for the Council Presidency? Why not freeze the money that is still flowing – this year alone, €3 billion of EU money that has gone to Hungary? And now it is being discussed whether the pre-financing for REPowerEU should not be paid after all. I really don't think that's a good idea. Please let us know that this will not happen. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, those colleagues that in this debate have spoken the most about sovereignty seem to have the least understood what sovereignty actually is. We had colleagues here, one of the friends of you, Nigel Farage, who said he is going to bring all that sovereignty back to the United Kingdom. It seems that the kind of sovereignty that he brought back to the UK is more the kind of sovereignty that a country like North Korea really has a lot of: nothing in the supermarkets; no gas at the gas station; no workers to keep the health sector going; the worst economic performance of any developed economy that we have seen since the moment that they left the Union. So, all of you on the right have abandoned that same dream that, when Nigel left, you were still saying, ‘well, my country is going to be the next that leaves.’ Now you’re not saying that anymore. Sovereignty on things like climate change, sovereignty on things like taxing large corporations, sovereignty to defend yourself against Russia. None of that sovereignty lies in any of our small Member States. None of us can do that alone. But there is a chance for sovereignty at EU level. If we work together, then we can act on these issues. So, the question whether abolishing the veto takes away sovereignty from small Member States, it’s the question of: do you want to have a veto in a system that looks like North Korea or do you want to have your democratic say, your votes, in a European democracy that can actually deliver? That’s the question. And I don’t want to go into a North Korea-style system that you guys keep dreaming about.

Mr President! The introduction of the global minimum tax – Viktor Orbán vetoes it. EU sanctions against Russia – Viktor Orbán vetoed. EU assistance to Ukraine – Viktor Orbán vetoes it. Veto, veto, veto. Ladies and gentlemen, we all know the game. In the meantime, every time a unanimous decision is taken, Viktor Orbán immediately vetoes it, either to free up EU funds or to paralyze the EU in the spirit of Vladimir Putin. A principle that was once written into the EU Treaties to protect individual Member States, especially small ones, is being reversed. It is enough for a head of state or government to be blackmailed, bribed, pushed, and Europe is already blocked. This veto is not only undemocratic, it is a security risk for Europeans, and that is why we must abolish it. The European Parliament is now taking a historic step. We are launching Treaty changes for the first time, and with it what Europe really needs, what citizens expect of us: more democracy, a strong democracy, a defensive democracy. We are breaking the shackles that hold Europe back. What we are deciding on here has the potential to really make Europe fit for a world in which a dictator who has gone wild in the Kremlin indiscriminately invades states and in which we have to fear every four years whether America stands as an ally. In a world of Trump and Putin, Europe can no longer afford to agree on the lowest common denominator. And yes, I know, right out here in the European Parliament, they, PiS and Fidesz, are foaming side by side. We would abolish the nations, we would install the Soviet dictatorship. What right-wing populist nonsense! It is no coincidence that it is precisely the barricades that have dismantled democracy at home with the sledgehammer that are now going on when we are expanding and strengthening democracy here in Europe; that those who are always concerned with money, but never with Europeans, now see the great danger to our existence: A democratic Europe that leads and defends its values. I know that when it comes to Treaty changes, many people here in the House say: This is impossible, it is difficult to get through in the end; At the end of the day, the Member States may not go along with it. But I've heard this over and over again since the beginning of the Future Conference. And tomorrow, with a large majority here in this European Parliament, we are launching this report: Abolish unanimity, strengthen this Parliament, reduce the size of the Commission, and finally ensure that we can truly defend Europe's values. 140 pages and almost every single proposal is a small revolution. Yes, we also need the Member States to take the next step. And yes, the Council has so far done far too little to take this reform process seriously. But remember the next time you sit in frustration with the representatives of the Orbán government who are presenting pamphlets to you about the globalist world conspiracy that governs the EU. With what we are presenting, there is a roadmap for real EU reforms, a roadmap that strengthens European democracy, a plan that abolishes vetoes and lets Europe speak with one voice in the world. And this plan, the report for a new European Union, we are now presenting here from the European Parliament, from the House of European Democracy. I think it was a big day – not just for this Parliament, but a big day for the European Union.

Madam President, Thank you for allowing the debate here. I was in the Polish election campaign last week and spoke to several journalists from TV stations and newspapers in Poland who were very worried about whether their job still exists after this election, whether their medium still has a license or whether they are being forced out of the market. I think that shows, ladies and gentlemen, that even six years after the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, we are still not doing enough in Europe to really protect the work of journalists. Journalists who investigate corruption – especially when it comes to the politically powerful – are often the only ones who can bring things to the public. If journalists have to die for this, then something really goes wrong. We have now launched a first reaction with the European Media Freedom Act, and yet I am concerned when a number of Member States say that we are introducing a general exception for national security, so that, for example, the interception of journalists can continue without control. I believe that we must finally be serious about protecting journalists, otherwise we will not make progress in the fight against corruption in Europe.

Thank you, Paulo. That was a strong speech in defence of journalistic freedom. I wanted to ask you: often the attacks on journalists don’t start with bombs or murder, but the first step is often that journalists are spied on. A number of governments that have used Pegasus, for example, against journalists – particularly those critical – many of them are EPP-led governments. Do you condemn that with the same verve that you have just used to criticise the Maltese Government? We’d like to hear from you on that.

Mr President! Dear Tony Murphy, thanks for the good report. Commissioner, now the Court of Auditors has given you the worst report in many, many years. The error rate is significantly higher, especially for cohesion and structural funds. I have now understood your answer a little bit in such a way that the testimony you give yourself is much better. But then I don't really read out that you are really tackling the listed problems now. What really worries me is: Particularly with regard to cohesion and structural funds, this is the first time we have the situation where these are currently on hold in the two Member States, where the main problems are the rule of law and corruption. One hears, however, that in Hungary a significant part of the cohesion funds is now to be released, that it is said that the conditions are somehow fulfilled. However, one also hears that this is supposed to happen, because Viktor Orbán is blocking elsewhere with the veto. It would be really good if you could clarify: In the end, who exactly makes the decision, and can you assure us here today that this decision does not take place in the Commission before we have discussed it in detail and have been informed in the responsible committees?

It’s a human duty, I think, that people that are shipwrecked, people that are drowning in the Mediterranean are taken out from the water and don’t have to suffer the same fate as the 28 000 people that have drowned in the Mediterranean, fleeing from war, from persecution, from hunger and seeking shelter. It is proven time and again there are enough studies that say none of this encourages people to flee. What makes people flee is the slavery, the rape, the war that they are suffering at home. So dragging those people out of the sea I think is a human duty. You don’t let anyone drown at sea and making that an attack now on these NGOs, really, I don’t know what to say.

Mr President! There is an EU government that incites unrestrainedly against migrants and at the same time sells Schengen visas on an industrial scale against bribes. Yes, with what is happening in Poland, you can only hold your head. Once again, it becomes clear that there are always hate speeches from the outside right, which then succumb to corruption. On the one hand, one's own worldview is shouted out loud – as we have seen here in plenary today – and on the other hand, one enriches oneself thousands of times, millions of times at the expense of the entire European Union. It is no coincidence that this is happening in Poland: The PiS government has systematically dismantled the rule of law in recent years. EU law is no longer being implemented and anyone who tries to do so in the judiciary will be punished. There is no longer any independent judiciary that could investigate these misconducts now. They say almost 200 cases, but if there is no longer an independent judiciary to investigate or investigate the government's misconduct, then nothing can come of it. This makes it clear to the Commission: It must not only look at this specific case, but also take even more decisive action against the attacks on the rule of law, otherwise this problem will probably not be solved in Poland. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

There is basically no newspaper, no television, no radio outside of Budapest, which is not controlled by Orbán and does not spread his propaganda. Nowhere in the EU is the situation as bad as in Hungary, but there are more and more imitators, also in other countries. Unfortunately, there are too many in our Union, especially on the outside right, who only want to read praises and no more criticism in the press. The law to protect media diversity and freedom in the EU is now exactly the right thing to do. It's probably almost too late. Yes, much of what we have agreed on here takes us further: It protects journalists from wiretapping, it brings more transparency about ownership and how much money governments give to the media they like when it comes to reporting. But we also have to be honest about one thing: This law, as it is now proposed, cannot change the situation in Hungary. Here it is more necessary than anywhere else that if national control fails, the EU can intervene, that we really do something for media diversity, that we can end the total control Orbán has over the media. Therefore, Mrs Verheyen, Mrs Kammerevert: Concerned letters from Brussels will not stop Orbán at the end, but we must have the opportunity to crush this control. Viktor Orbán must be stopped, KESMA must be dismantled, that is why you are voting in favour of our proposal! Because otherwise, I fear, this law unfortunately cannot deliver what is in the name and ensure real media diversity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I have sent 437 short messages so far in this plenary session: SMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Slack. Of course, this is how politics is coordinated today. You talk about the vote, you keep in touch with the members of the federal government in Berlin. This is how politics is made. I may have written a few e-mails, and maybe there was a letter this week. But I think everyone here is doing politics now, mostly through short news. The only exception to this rule seems to be Ursula von der Leyen. This is because the Commission says: The Commission President's news brief, there is no policy being made. They have no information content at all and should therefore not be made public when asked about it. That's nonsense! It cannot be that one completely exempts one type of communication from the transparency rules and that it is now up to the New York Times It is up to the court to make sure that this is finally changing. I would highly recommend, Commissioner, that you proactively ensure transparency and not wait for the CJEU to force you to do so.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this is the fourth time now that we have a Rule of Law Report, the fourth time that there is a bad assessment of the rule of law in Hungary. It was the pressure in this House that finally got us to do something about this. So now we have almost EUR 28 billion of EU funds that are earmarked for Hungary that are frozen. But we also have to say that since that decision was made in the Council last December, there has been zero progress on the situation in Hungary, not a single milestone has been fulfilled since then. And I think a good indication of where the rule of law stands in the European Union is that, as things stand now, it’s still foreseen that Hungary takes the rotating presidency on the first day after the European elections and actually, well, Spanish Presidency, congrats for starting off your presidency now. You’re part of the same trio with Belgium and Hungary. So can you explain to me how this is going to go once Hungary takes over, for example, on the Article 7 hearings? Is there going to be a moderation by Hungary where they ask themselves, how is the improvement of rule of law going? Well, we think that the rule of law is a Soros ideology that just searches to bring illegal migrants to the country. Okay, well then, have some more EU money. Is that how this is going to go? I think you really need to reflect. I don’t think that the Council or the EU can actually deal with an autocrat taking over the EU presidency. So please do something about that if you’re serious about the rule of law.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I don’t know how this is for you, but one of the main criticisms I hear when I speak with citizens out there about the European Union still having room to improve its democracy is that the Commission President was not on the ballot during the last European election. And all the lead candidates that ran were only on the ballot in one small constituency, either a country or even just a part of one of the 27 Member States. So we here in Parliament made a proposal to change that, to allow the lead candidates to run in a European constituency, to be on the ballot everywhere so that every voter in Europe can see who they might elect to the Commission Presidency. I find it quite puzzling, really, that a proposal on how to elect the European Parliament, made by the European Parliament with a large majority, is now being held up in the Council, and that we don’t even start a debate on this. So please, Council Presidency, at least start talking with us about it. We’re not doing it for the 2024 election, but maybe at least for the 2029 election, there’s still something that we can do.

Madam President, dear colleagues, a former EU Commissioner has joined Uber as a lobbyist despite the Commission having signalled that it would not have approved it. Another former EU Commissioner started his own lobbying firm registered on the lobby register during the cooling—off period, together with six other activities for registered lobby organisations. Yet another former EU Commissioner started working for an organisation that was also not on the lobby register and later turned out to be connected to the Qatargate scandal. Again, this was approved by the Commission’s current ethics regime. This is quite a long list that could go on, where we see that the self-policing of the institutions that we currently have in the EU simply does not work. So now we finally have a proposal from the Commission – four years delay, six months after Qatar, but we have a proposal for an ethics body. The disappointing truth now is that the ethics body as it is now proposed by the Commission would not have been able to deal with any of the above cases. And indeed, I think this proposal misses the point. We have reasonably good ethics rules in the EU institutions. The real problem is, these rules are not enforced. So now proposing that we discuss harmonisation, that we discuss improving those rules, well, we can have the very best rules in the world, but if they aren’t enforced, we aren’t improving anything. So that’s why we here in the Parliament have already, almost two years ago, suggested a real ethics body and we really need to now go into that direction when we start negotiating because this talk about harmonisation is not really gaining us back the citizens’ trust that we lost with Qatargate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear young parents! I was faced with a difficult decision in April. We voted here in Parliament on the extension of emissions trading, one of the most important climate laws that this House has ever passed. I had to decide: Do I either come here to Strasbourg, or do I stay at home with my wife, the three children and, above all, my newborn daughter, who was only a few days old? And we just heard it: Many colleagues have had this experience in recent years, and it is quite honestly absurd that we have to make this decision, that we have to go here to Strasbourg to press a button here to participate electronically in a vote, instead of being able to make this electronic signal from our hometown or where our families are. We did that two years ago, during Corona, which worked wonderfully. And why the young parents shouldn’t be made possible at least in those 14 weeks after birth – really, I just can’t understand. Just as we allow all Europeans to exercise this maternity/paternity protection, we should also allow MEPs to participate electronically in important votes.

Madam President, indeed, the Commission has made a proposal for an independent EU ethics body, after the promise was made four years ago. The proposal that is now on the table from the Commission side is very different from what we have adopted in this House almost two years ago. So, I think it’s good that we have a debate tomorrow, but I think it would be good as well to react in writing and to have a resolution in July to reply to the Commission proposal so that we can have independent oversight of the existing rules, because that’s the main point of what we need to change, not further debates on harmonising the rules but actually enforcing the ones we have.

Mr President! Dear colleagues! We visited Hungary again a week and a half ago with a mission of the Committee on Budgetary Control. We looked at it on the spot and talked to a lot of people about it: What is the situation now? For nine months there has been a big package, 27 super milestones identified between the Hungarian government and the European Commission. And what's the status now? What moved? And you, Mr Hahn, were with us in committee last week and said that there has been no progress since December. There has been no notification from the Hungarian Government and thus no further milestone has been met in this whole period. And that is also the picture we have seen on the ground, that it is not developing in the right direction, that in some areas we even see the situation getting worse. Now, in this situation, Viktor Orbán is to take over the presidency of the Council the day after the European elections. And I have to ask: How is that supposed to work? How, then, is a country governed by decree, where there is no time to approach Parliament and govern in the normal democratic process, how are they to make the Council Presidency additional at such a decisive stage? This cannot be the case, and the Council has to deal with this.

Madam President, Commissioner! You talked about the damage that corruption does. Unfortunately, the Commission's figures are now more than 10 years old. More recent estimates are more likely to amount to 1200 billion euros. EUR 1200 billion lost by Europeans every year – in mismanagement, corruption, bribery. I believe that we in Europe must take a more decisive stance against this money not being lost; This is clear to everyone. I am very pleased that Ursula von der Leyen is now following up on her speech last September and making a proposal regarding the fight against corruption. The proposals are good, but I think they are not the big shot we need now to really tackle this enormous damage that corruption is causing. I believe that it is also important that if we want to be truly credible towards the Member States, including the rest of the world, then the EU institutions themselves must also deliver. Last December we had the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the EU here. Even after that, Ursula von der Leyen has once again made her commitment that we must establish an independent ethics authority. I can only describe the proposal that your colleague Jourová wants to make as a label fraud. And I certainly cannot agree with you to say that this is now to become the great example for the Member States. Because only a body that holds on to the harmonization of rules between the EU institutions is not what we need. We need a body that finally enforces the rules we already have. Because this culture of impunity, where you violate these rules and nothing happens, that's what we need to address. And for this, we need an ethics body that also deals with individual cases. I very much hope that we will revise the proposal before it comes, hopefully, in the next few days.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What do Le Pen, Panzeri and Nigel Farage have in common? All three are in the so-called voluntary pension fund of the European Parliament. In the 1990s, a pyramid scheme was created with quasi-criminal energy: few years of contributions, lush pensions, all in addition to the existing entitlements from the regular pensions for members of parliament. The bad thing is: It was not changed or abolished even when a single EU pension was introduced in 2019, and this pension has not even been offset. If you look now at the list of 900 alumni who are still in this fund, then this is relatively uncomfortable. There are, Mr Hahn, for example, four of your current fellow Commissioners, there are still 21 Members from this House, a number of British Lords and also Farage, Le Pen and Panzeri. And the European Union, this Parliament should now pay its enemies and those who could not leave the EU fast enough a luxury special pension for their regular pension. Chère Madame Le Pen, vous avez cotisé pendant cinq ans, vous recevez pour cela plus de 1 400 euros par mois en plus de votre pension, et cela à vie. Pour votre père, c’est plus de 7 000 euros par mois en plus de sa pension. Il Faut Vraiment mesurer ces chiffres. La pension moyenne en France est de 1 272 euros. Pour cela, les Françaises et les Français ont travaillé toute leur vie. Et vous, Madame Le Pen, vous comptez sur une retraite complémentaire pour cinq ans de travail au Parlement européen, payé avec l’argent qui était prévu pour le bureau de circonscription. Votre auto-proclamation en tant qu’avocate des petites gens est une blague. A politician who does not miss an opportunity to attack the European Union and whose people, i.e. MEPs here in Parliament, want to destroy the EU, now wants Parliament to save this fund from bankruptcy with 300 million euros of taxpayers. Ladies and gentlemen, we must not allow this to happen. We must ensure that every individual case is examined now, and where MEPs already have sufficient public pension rights, no further euro of taxpayers should go into this pension fund.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It is thanks to pressure from this Parliament that 140 billion euros were frozen for Poland and Hungary at the end of last year for blatant breaches of the rule of law, for disregarding fundamental values of EU citizens, for corruption on an industrial scale. This is a huge success for this European Parliament. But freezing money is not an end in itself. We want to see reforms. Now it's been over three months, I can't really see any reforms so far. And yet, unfortunately, Commissioner Reynders says that the reform of the judiciary in Poland, for example, is a step in the right direction. Dear colleagues, I have just been to Hungary and Poland. I spoke on the ground with civil society, with judges, with the opposition. And it's pretty clear that they're saying that the reforms that are on the table aren't helping. Some of the reforms make things even worse. Now the last half-functioning supreme court in Poland is to be paralyzed with a flood of disciplinary proceedings. Independent TV stations in Poland will not renew their licenses. And entrepreneurs from Hungary, from all sorts of European countries that have invested in Hungary, tell me that mafia methods have even increased in recent months. In both countries, however, I also hear that the freezing of funds is the absolutely correct answer, that the European Union is finally no longer standing by when the rule of law is attacked and democracy is dismantled. Dear Commission, our promise must be: We keep the money frozen until there are real reforms, until you can see that something is happening, until the end of corruption. And if the measures taken so far do not seem to be sufficient to bring about change – well, then we need to freeze even more money until Orbán and Kaczyński understand: We don't give EU money to autocrats, and for us the fundamental values are the rule of law is non-negotiable!

Madam President, while we support having a debate on this topic, the Commission has indicated that they are willing to look into changing the rules, so I think it would be good for us, as Parliament, to also take a position in writing – in a resolution – to indicate how we want to see those rules changed beyond just having the debate. So I would invite colleagues that we in March II, not this week, but that, with a bit of debate, we also approve a resolution on this topic.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When this Parliament rejected two Commissioners for conflicts of interest in 2019, we proposed setting up an independent ethics authority. Four years later, they don't exist yet. Then, when Commissioners such as Günther Oettinger accepted dozens of lobbying jobs during the cooling-off period, we again called for the establishment of an ethics authority here in Parliament, but it does not exist any further. And now that Parliament is shaken by the biggest corruption scandal in its history, many here wonder: Why is there still no independent ethics body? I made a proposal to this Parliament two years ago. We voted in favour of the report by a large majority here in plenary a year and a half ago, and nothing has really happened since then. Violations of the rules continue. Every unreported gift, every luxury trip that goes unreported, continues to destroy citizens' trust in European democracy. And it is a sad fact that the rules of conduct in the EU institutions are not enforced or are not enforced sufficiently. But if there is no punishment for violations, then impunity becomes a culture. We shouldn't be surprised if many people don't follow the rules. What happens if Ursula von der Leyen breaks the rules? What happens if there are violations of the rules by the President of the Parliament here? Should they then sanction themselves, punish themselves for their own violations of the rules? This system of self-control cannot work. And if EU politicians control each other or themselves, it is no wonder that not a single sanction has ever been imposed on 25 violations that we have had here in the House over the last ten years. Beautiful rules on paper are not enough, but we urgently need this independent control. Now, of course, an independent ethics body is no guarantee that no one will accept suitcases full of money. But a proper application of the existing rules would have shown much earlier that Panzeri’s organisation ‘Fight Impunity’ is funded by Morocco and Qatar. Ex-Commissioner Avramopoulos should not have received €60,000 from Fight Impunity. Fight Impunity should never have testified in committee in the European Parliament because they were not in the lobby register at all. In all this, independent control and enforcement of the rules would have shown much earlier what networks are here in the European Parliament. That is why, dear Ms Jourová: An independent ethics committee was Ursula von der Leyen's central promise. You have it in your mission letter stand. The resolution has now been passed in Parliament for 17 months. Can you tell us exactly when we are going to start the negotiations? Can you promise us that the demand that this applies to all institutions is not just an excuse that we will not do anything in the end? And can you promise us that we will definitely have this body in place before the European elections, so that the next generation of Commissioners and Members can be properly controlled?