Speeches

Mr President, the problem is that in European elections the abstention rate is always higher than in national or local elections. There are several possible explanations for this, but I believe there is a fundamental reason: despite the strengthening of the European Parliament, many citizens are still convinced today that these elections are less important than the others. Therefore, as the June 2024 elections approach, it is the duty of the European institutions to conduct a major educational and information campaign in favour of electoral participation, explaining that these elections are indeed very important, because they decide who will govern Europe and decide how Europe will be governed. But there is more to do: measures to make voting easier and more accessible; measures to make European parties more visible in the electoral campaign; and measures to strengthen the role of the European Parliament in building the political solution that will determine the presidency of the European Commission. This is what is proposed in this important report, which deserves the support of this Parliament for greater electoral participation of citizens in the European elections and for a strengthened parliamentary democracy at European level.

The next item is the joint debate on judicial cooperation, with the reports by Mr Radev and Mr Kaljurand: on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation with cross-border implications (A9-0062/2023) and on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation with cross-border implications (amending certain directives and framework decisions) (A9 0063/2023).

Mr President, a few years ago many thought that Brexit would have a terrible domino effect, capable of jeopardising the very existence of the European Union. The reality today is very different. No Member State is showing signs of wanting to leave and, on the contrary, we now have ten countries wanting to enter, nine of which already have candidate status. More and more people are realising that belonging to the European Union is an asset. As this Parliament's co-rapporteur for the enlargement and deepening of the Union, I must remind you that the Copenhagen criteria are accession requirements and that there can be no compromise in respect for European values and the principles of the rule of law. Therefore, each application will be assessed on its merits in the light of the concrete reforms carried out. But if the candidate countries have to reform, the European Union too has to reform itself institutionally and financially in order to be able to absorb new Member States. There is no point in deceiving problems, we must do our homework if enlargement is to be a success.

Mr President, we all know that the reform of the treaties of the European Union is always a difficult exercise, an exercise that cannot be done against the will of the Member States, but requires unanimity in the Council, which is, of course, only possible on the basis of political commitments, which by their nature are difficult to achieve. The European Parliament is not unaware of these difficulties, but we have a political obligation to follow up on the calls made to us by the citizens at the Conference on the Future of Europe and to put on the Council's table concrete proposals to start a serious discussion with a view, as soon as appropriate, to convening a convention to discuss possible changes in the Treaties. This is only the beginning of a long conversation, but it is a conversation that we must have, and even more so when we know that enlargement requires reforms not only of the candidate countries, but also institutional and financial reforms, at European level, so that the European Union is in a position to absorb new Member States. In the meantime, we must not forget that the Treaty of Lisbon has flexibility mechanisms whose potential is far from being exploited. In recent years, this flexibility has made it possible to respond to crises with measures that many said were impossible. Let us therefore take advantage of these flexibility mechanisms, which may be part of the solution for differentiated integration within the enlargement process, but let us also start a serious debate on a possible revision of the Treaties.

Madam President, the Socialist Group has fought for many years for a real change in the European Union's trade policy, and it is true to say that today we have finally succeeded. The Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand is the most ambitious and progressive trade agreement ever concluded by the Union. And above all for one reason: this is the first agreement providing for sanctions for non-compliance with commitments to sustainable development, notably the Paris Agreement and the International Labour Organisation Conventions. Sustainable development chapters are thus no longer the poor relative in trade agreements. New Zealand is an important strategic partner and this agreement is worth more than the trade volumes involved. Massive support from this Parliament, with an unprecedented majority, will help to make the European Union's agreement with New Zealand a reference for the future of trade agreements, for new generation trade agreements truly worthy of the name.

Madam President, speaking as co-rapporteur of the European Parliament on enlargement, let me welcome today’s European Commission recommendation to grant candidate status to Georgia and to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. I also welcome efforts made by other candidate countries and as progress in the Western Balkans has stalled, I urge them to pursue their reforms agenda to meet the requirements for accession. In fact, accession to the EU is a merit-based procedure with no shortcuts, no fast tracks and no counterproductive fixed deadlines. But as we are moving forward towards enlargement, it is time to recall that also European institutional and financial reforms are needed to ensure the EU’s capacity to absorb new members. Simplify decision-making, re-composition of EU institutions, flexible solutions for differentiated integration and additional fiscal capacity – all those are prerequisites for enlargement. So let’s make our own homework. Candidate countries must make reforms, but so do we at European level.

Follow-up questions are only in the first round, I’m sorry, and you had the chance to ask two questions in the first round. Those are the rules of the debate.

– Just before giving the floor to Commissioner Schinas, I would like to make reminder that the showing of pictures is not allowed, according to our Rules.

– The next item is Question Time with the Commission. The topic for today is European measures to prevent and to fight the rise of organised crime. I very much welcome Vice-President Schinas. You know the rules. I have a note with all the explanations, but will just recall that we will have follow-up questions in the first round only, with the second question linked to the first one. I would ask you, of course, to stick to the allocated times.

Madam President, Vice-President of the European Commission, the work programme of the European Commission for 2024 will be the last of this Commission before the June European elections. Faced with growing challenges, it is time to respond to emergencies while preparing for the future. It is imperative to review the Multiannual Financial Framework, to provide the European Union with new own resources, but also to learn from previous crises and to complete the Banking Union by establishing a European deposit guarantee scheme, and to create a permanent countercyclical stabilisation mechanism, instead of always looking for last-minute solutions. But the European Commission must, above all, strengthen its commitment to the European Pillar of Social Rights in order to respond to people's concrete problems. And two priorities should not be missing: increased investment in vocational training to prepare workers for the changes brought about by the green and digital transitions; and a European initiative for affordable housing to tackle one of the most serious social problems in many European cities, now exacerbated by inflation and rising interest rates. The European Commission will be judged on the ambition of its social agenda.

Mr President, I am also participating in this debate on the 2024 budget of the European Union as Vice-President responsible for the budget of the European Parliament. And in that capacity, I have to say that it is time for the European Commission to understand that Parliament is a co-legislator and budgetary authority and that we must preserve the conditions of respect and good cooperation between the European institutions. That is why we must support the firm position of the rapporteurs who reject the budget cuts proposed by the Commission for Parliament's budget and restore the budget appropriations originally foreseen. Parliament’s budget evolves in a restrained and responsible manner to ensure its smooth functioning and to respond to the increased costs caused by inflation, cybersecurity challenges and the need to improve communication with citizens in view of the upcoming European elections. At a time of enormous challenges for the European Union, we need an ambitious revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework and a 2024 budget commensurate with the circumstances and challenges of the European project.

Madam President, trade policy is one of the most powerful instruments of the European Union for its external affirmation, for the defence of its autonomy and its geostrategic and economic interests, but also for the promotion of fair trade and sustainable development. To achieve this, trade agreements must increasingly be new-generation agreements, which do not only deal with trade liberalisation, but deal with the protection of human rights, workers' and consumers' rights, environmental protection and the fight against climate change, and which contain strong and effective sustainable development chapters to take seriously. The trade agreement with New Zealand is a good example, with progressive solutions like those that socialists have long advocated. This constitutes a new standard of trade agreements commensurate with our commitments to sustainability. The remaining agreements under negotiation with Australia, Chile, Mexico, Mercosur and India are other excellent opportunities for European trade policy. International trade is an important front for the European Union's strategic autonomy, but also for the defence of sustainable development.

Madam President, even with the amendments that have been negotiated, the Energy Charter Treaty no longer serves any purpose. It serves neither the objectives of the European Green Deal nor the design of a sustainable global energy policy. And there are two main reasons. First, the revised Energy Charter continues to protect new investments in fossil fuels, which is obviously on a head-on collision course with the European strategy to decarbonise the economy. Second, the new version of the Charter continues to maintain the old system of investor-state dispute settlement, known as ISDS, which poses a permanent threat to the public interest, even if the European Union were to be left out of its application. After the unilateral withdrawal of several European states, the only solution is a coordinated exit of the European Union itself from the Energy Charter, as the European Parliament proposed in November and the European Commission recommended in June. A mixed solution, of course, can be studied. But apart from being of dubious political viability, it would not be good for European unity. It is time for the Council to finally accept the solution of a coordinated exit from the Energy Charter, the only one that ensures that our energy policy is consistent with the objectives of the European Green Deal.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Let me say that, according to my instructions, last minute requests for a minute of silence are not in accordance with the rules, but I am sure the strong applause from the Chamber is a clear sign of the deep solidarity of the European Parliament with the victims of these tragedies and their families. We have another request for the floor as a point of order by our colleague Anja Hazekamp.

Good afternoon, colleagues. Let’s proceed with our session. Before our voting session, I am aware that we have a few points of order. I will begin by giving the floor to our colleague Mr Ros Sempere.

Mr President, there are few decisions as urgent on the European political agenda as the adoption of the European Pact on Migration and Asylum. The tragedy that occurs every day in the Mediterranean, where more than 2 500 people have died since the beginning of this year alone, calls for an urgent response commensurate with the circumstances. For a problem that is European, the answer must be European, and that answer can only be based on solidarity. Solidarity, first, with Lampedusa and the European countries most exposed on the maritime frontline, made up of burden-sharing mechanisms and responsibilities in border management and in the reception of migrants and refugees. Solidarity also with the countries of origin of migration flows to address the causes of migration and to promote a more effective fight against criminal networks trafficking in human beings. And finally, solidarity with the migrants and refugees themselves, ensuring rescue and rescue missions, providing legal pathways for migration and strengthening the conditions for reception and integration. The Spanish Presidency has done very well to make this a key priority. It is very important that it succeeds, because, no one is mistaken, the struggle between solidarity and populist selfishness is a life-and-death struggle for the European project.

Before the blue-card question, let me say that I have made several general warnings, and I have to make an individual one to our colleague Mr Saryusz-Wolski: you are not respecting the rules, so this is an individual warning so that the rules can be respected.

Thank you very much, colleague. I take note of the fact that there were some blue-card requests, but as the speaker spoke longer than allocated, I will not grant the blue cards.