Speeches

Mr President, of course, those who are older in Parliament know that they have been discussing for years: zero tolerance for harassment, sexual harassment. The problem is not that we are going to vote, because I am convinced that this resolution will be voted on, but what about the resolution? How many resolutions have we voted on and nothing happened? Nothing's changed. Here we need to answer: how do we identify the harassers, what happens to them, what are the punishments? Let's start with the definition. I am convinced that now the concept of sexual harassment is understood differently by many people here. How do we not have victims? What about statistics (which, you know, are far from reality)? Because if a woman doesn't admit to being harassed, of course the statistics show half the women. I'm sure more. I believe that we need to get to the facts and we need to see concrete measures. On the one hand, here, in the European institutions, obviously, after that, let us expand the problem in order to have a diminishing once. I'm not... I'm realistic. I don't think we're going to eliminate it altogether, but at least let's reduce the harassment, because it's now an extremely serious situation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course, algae has been scientifically proven, they are also used in medicine, and in cosmetics, and yes, and alternatively, in food. I think there is a need for more funding for research, but also for good communication to the citizens, because we know what happened when we discussed and debated and there was also a resolution on alternative protein from insects, cockroaches, crickets and so on. We cannot dictate from Brussels or Strasbourg what the citizens should eat. Each country has, of course, a range of traditional foods, but information can be provided and then the growth of algae with such wide use will be done according to market demand. But it has to be regulated, it has to be certified, we have to have standards, because now, of course, we rely on imports from third countries. That is why I believe, Commissioner, that it is very important that we communicate to citizens that they do not understand again that we are forcing them to eat algae as an alternative to animal protein.

Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the importance of fishing and the quality of water in the oceans, seas and rivers has emerged from today's debate. But one more thing came out, Commissioner: that a balance must be struck here between the situation of fishermen and biodiversity, and the preservation of clean waters. It is not fishers and fishing that destroy biodiversity the most, but waste that is thrown uncontrollably into the oceans and seas. I think the health of the oceans is important, because it's also about people's health. But what do we do if you do not take into account the situation of fishing? There are countries, regions where people live by fishing. If you do not take this into account, there will surely be people who can no longer earn the income with which to live. And I think it's important to keep in mind that fish are still going to be eaten, and what are we going to do? We will import from third countries uncontrolled, where they do not take into account any biodiversity and product quality. So also take into account the lives of fishermen when regulating. We need to regulate after discussing with all stakeholders.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we do not have the Commissioner for Agriculture here shows only the lack of interest in farmers, the lack of interest in such an important sector. We want to change things. Commissioner, you have said some very good things. One of them is: Farmers are getting older. There are no more young farmers. I wrote to the Commissioner and proposed a centre of excellence for young farmers. It works in Romania. There are 300 young people who have completed this course and are returning to the countryside to work. Why don't we do anything concrete? Yes, we place the load as if on a two-ton bridge we pass by 10 tons and of course I can't stand the farmers anymore. Farmers need clarity, you said, in what we do here, but what do we do here? Without putting something in its place, a mechanism to help them, the CAP is a disaster. There are differences between what we give, subsidies to farmers, between countries in the East and countries in the West. We didn't do this, we didn't do anything, and what else do we do? We are giving an increase in quantity, a decrease in pesticides, but again it is uneven in the Member States. Farmers need a support mechanism. Grain coming in from Ukraine... (The president interrupted the speaker.)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that on Europe Day we are giving a gift to consumers, to those who listen to us. Of course, this proposal for a directive is very welcome, even if over time we have amended directives and had regulations that went in the direction of increasing consumer protection against unfair practices. We find that we are in a world where we have false information in all areas. We have in the online trade, we also have in the offline trade. Yes, we have a directive on the sale of goods that promotes the durability of goods and that two-year guarantee, but with this proposal of ours we want to increase transparency, the correctness of information to consumers, but we will also stimulate producers. Producers can give guarantees in two years' time and that is very good, but it will do something else on the market, Commissioner. Producers will have fair and fair competition, because the one who misinforms that he has a product that is eco sure saves on expenses compared to another who actually has an eco product. That is why I believe we are also helping to ensure fair competition in the market.

Madam President, Commissioners, Minister, we are debating discharge and I must say that I am disappointed with the final form of the Commission discharge report. I want to thank the Court of Auditors for always presenting in CONT extremely correctly all the things that are not good and we have to recognise them when they are not good. Why am I disappointed? Because in the negotiations made for compromises it was very difficult to reach a text that was as close to reality as possible. There is a lot of subjectivity on the part of the EPP. You know the double language: “we criticise the Commission, we criticise the Commission Presidency, but when to pass, let’s pass”. In my view, the Commission should have remained rigorous. Personally, I wanted a postponement of the discharge, because we have to be firm once and for all. I understand that 2021 was a complicated year for everyone, but the lack of transparency and the fact that the President of the Commission did not answer any of our questions, did not come to the committee about the procurement contracts, left an impression across the European Union with extreme, extreme distrust of the Commission. It also did not reply to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman made a negative report. So why do we have to rush into a discharge? I'm sad that this is so, and I think we don't have to formally do the discharges, and I think we need to learn from this. The European Commission must understand that all the instruments and all the projects, programmes, measures that it brings... yes, it's good to be innovative. The spending of public money must be subject to the control of the Court of Auditors. I also said this in CONT and I repeat it: money does not belong to the European Commission and we, the European Parliament, need to have control, because we represent citizens and citizens are wondering, since the pandemic (in all countries, not only in my country), I think they are wondering who made the contracts, why they made them with those prices, why there is no transparency, why we were not given the contracts. That is why I am saddened to say that this report is worth postponing. Regarding the European Development Fund, I was also here rapporteur on behalf of my group and I want to thank this time the way of collaboration and the compromises we have reached. Obviously, I have put emphasis here on developing poor areas, on supporting small farmers, because we have this main task to ensure cohesion in the European Union market, in the internal market. I regret to say and end with this: authority is extremely eroded if we do not have transparency and if we do not have communication. The Commission’s authority is important for the European project. We cannot respond to the citizens and then of course we lose credibility.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, first of all, happy Europe Day and happy Romania too, that today is Independence Day. It is good that we are discussing the Stability Pact on Europe Day and yes, we need changes to the Stability Pact. But have you also thought, Minister, Commissioner, of a solidarity pact? How do we establish this Stability Pact if we do not think about the fact that social cohesion has not increased, that we still have poor regions, that we still have children in poverty. We can't make Procust's Bed, because different countries are developed. I also want to tell you that now, on Europe Day, the European Union is registering a great failure, namely: We have a fragmented market and yes, Romania is not in Schengen. We let Austria fly like a wild horse in the European Union and destroy the European Union project, creating these injustices for European citizens. When we make a Stability Pact, we have to think about how we make a single market, how we make it possible for Member States to lift themselves out of poverty in poor areas, and above all think, Commissioner, that there is subsidiarity for fiscal policy.

Mr President, I have chosen to speak today about disinformation and human rights. They may seem unrelated, but they do, because on false information, careers were destroyed, families were destroyed, even people who ended their lives because of false information. That is why the responsibility of the European and national institutions is to find solutions to stop this wave of disinformation. How could he? By personal example, because the lack of transparency and bad communication shown, if you will, by both the European Commission and the WHO during the pandemic, information that has led to debates and to many, many fake news and citizens' mistrust sure make citizens no longer know how to choose which is the right information and which is the wrong one. I believe that the responsibility of the European institutions, but also of the national ones, is to regulate, but not only to regulate, to follow and not only to follow implementation, to take action against those who misinform because it affects people's lives and, after all, the democratic principles in our states. Now, especially in the situation of the war on the border with the European Union, we know well how many Fake news -URI There is also a lot of false information, which obviously leads to different attitudes, different behaviors and wrong decisions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the future of Europe and the future of every country are children, and I am pleased that we are discussing the programme for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk in schools. I want to congratulate you on such a well-documented, well-argued report, and I think that tomorrow we will all vote on this report, but I would be happy for the Commission to take into account the recommendations in our report, because yes, we need a bigger budget. We don't have to compromise on quality, we don't have to buy with little money what is cheaper for children, and I think we also need a food education program, because I had the opportunity to go to a school where children didn't eat bananas because they had never eaten and didn't know what those were. At the same time with the school food distribution program, we also need to do a food education and yes, I agree that we need to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, small farmers to be the main suppliers for the products distributed in schools.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, of course the media is very important in every respect. Informing citizens, to a large extent, is done not institutionally, through national or European institutions, but through the media. That is why we must ensure that the Media Directive is uniformly implemented in all Member States. I have to say that here too, in the media, we have to make sure that there is gender equality. In my country today, gender equality is celebrated and I want to mention this because very often there have been cases of harassment of women in the media or even exclusion from certain posts, in order to have a good information of the citizens. We must have regulations, but not only regulations: we need to see the implementation and track the effects as well. That is why I believe, Commissioner, and I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the media must play their part, but we must take care of platforms. Now we have more information online, we need to see how these platforms work and how they work online, just like offline. I believe that we need a deontological media and we need to support it, because only it can inform the citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard the debate and I have also heard the Commissioner's presentation. However, nothing has been said about the efficiency of spending money. Because, Commissioner, as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I also discussed last week with the Court of Auditors. There are always, new instruments are being created, new programmes that are outside the budget and cannot even be controlled by the Court of Auditors. I would have liked to see how we can make spending this money more efficient. Of course we need more money, but I will never support an additional tax on citizens, an additional tax on SMEs, in order to be able to do what? The Commission did not predict how the interest rate would rise. When those contracts were concluded, the interest was not fixed, how much is the interest? This is what happens in a contract. That's what happened with spending money on vaccines. Again, we don't know how much was given, how it was given. Lack of transparency leads to mistrust, Commissioner, and I think that's where it starts: transparency and scrutiny of the European Parliament over all financial instruments.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we debated a very clear question, Commissioner, on State aid and the de minimis scheme. I was surprised that you came and told us directly that the Commission does not intend to change the de minimis rules, but you could see now that, regardless of the political group, everyone has asked for these state aids and de minimis rules to be granted with concrete situations, with more remote regions, poorer regions, with less developed states, because otherwise we will not reach cohesion, disparities will increase. Let me give you one example, Commissioner: The Commission is now, when we speak, also for years, granting different subsidies to farmers, different majors; higher subsidies to more developed countries and lower subsidies to less developed countries. How then will we be able to reach a single market, an internal market, with the same possibilities? How do we achieve social cohesion? That is why I want you to answer us just as directly, Commissioner, after today's debate, are you going to change the rules?

Mr President, Commissioner, of course, I believe that the climate crisis must be recognised by everyone, but my point of view (and my point of view is that of the citizens I represent here) is that it must be dealt with globally. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone. That is why, at COP 28 in Dubai, the European institutions must clearly support, like the other continents, a strategy to mitigate the climate crisis, and it is obvious that we need to see here how we can better manage forests, water and soil. Here, perhaps, additional measures are needed, because deforestation, we know well, has led to natural disasters; but, Commissioner, we cannot deal with the climate crisis with tougher measures as you have said, unless we also deal with the social crisis. So, here we have to take a package, find measures to support less developed states, poorer regions, so that citizens can support these measures that mitigate the climate crisis, because everyone will want to have a roof, as a colleague said here, with solar energy, but will it? Does it come from where? So here we have to deal with the package and certainly this is the good way.

Commissioner, President, colleagues, of course, the energy market is very important for every citizen. After all, the life of every citizen depends on the cost of energy, and we know that these successive crises have led to an increase in the price of each individual bill. Commissioner, when we regulate, I think we need to take into account the impact on people and yes, we also need stock. But in management it is said that the stock costs and we have to see how we calculate it, that optimal stock, so that we do not add costs that obviously go to the pocket of the citizen. I believe that the pace at which we regulate must keep pace with the possibility of implementation, so as not to lead to an increase in regional disparities instead of cohesion. That is why, I think, Commissioner, you also need to think about how we are making sure that the costs of investing in infrastructure (because we know we lack it), in networks, the costs of stock (how much stock costs us, how much stock we do) do not ultimately increase the cost of the bill. I think we must keep in mind that until we reach the amount of renewable energy that we have proposed, we must still have access to gas and nuclear energy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it seems that today we are debating and voting on normality. But, frankly, I was surprised by the views of some colleagues in which they consider that there is no need to have this law, that everything is regulated between employers and unions, that it will create bureaucracy for SMEs. I come from the private sector. It's aberrant what our colleagues support. It is clear that we now have a difference in wages, in the same work performed by women and men. And if in a democratic society there is no voluntary compliance, we must intervene to regulate. That is why I believe this is necessary and I believe that everyone must understand that there must be no pay gap. Not like my colleague used to say about cleaning women. We are talking about the same job, the same responsibility, the same workload. So, at the same work, the same pay for women and men. And I will vote for this directive with all my heart, but enforcement is the responsibility of the Member States. We all need to see if this directive applies in our Member State.

Madam President, Commissioner, Ombudsman, I would like to congratulate you from the outset. You showed professionalism and courage, you had the courage to write correctly about the things that are incorrect in the European institutions and this is your role, that we are talking about the Commission, that we are talking about Parliament or the Council. What is unpleasant, however, is that we still do not have the answer to what you have tried to find out, namely from the President of the Commission. I am the rapporteur on the Commission discharge and believe me that I have a dilemma: what to do with the 2021 Commission discharge? We have not been answered to the questions, as the Committee on Budgetary Control, why are we still specialised committees in Parliament? I think you have to keep it that way. This is what European citizens want, because if the European institutions do not show transparency, citizens cannot trust the European Union and you must continue. In my opinion, Parliament supports you, a majority of Parliament, obviously, but if the Commission does not understand, and Parliament does not understand, that we have had cases of colleagues in Parliament, now, recently, do these European officials not understand that they must be examples in the lives of citizens? We cannot have a united European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all want energy efficiency, we all want the citizens of our country to pay a lower bill. I come from the private sector and I know that before you make an efficiency, you have a cost. Before you can achieve efficiency, you need to make an investment. That's the way it is here. And I think of the citizens of my country, especially those in the countryside. 60% of Romanian citizens will not be able to bear the costs. That is why, Commissioner, if the financial sector is also involved in supporting change, yes, we will be able to do so. If we don't, we'll impoverish people instead of helping them. And I think we need to take into account the cost-benefit ratio and adjust our ambition to the possibility of applying. Because if you are too ambitious in business and do not take into account the cost-benefit relationship, you go bankrupt. That is why I think it is good to find support mechanisms if we want to implement this directive.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to congratulate the Commission on the fact that we can discuss this subject today. Since recent years, we can see that there is a great need to involve the civilian population in the results of natural or man-made disasters. That is why I believe that we need to increase the number of volunteers in each Member State, whether we are talking about volunteers in the field of firefighters or we are talking about volunteers in the field of health. The problem I see is, Commissioner, that we should... (The president interrupted the speaker). Commissioner, I am trying to repeat, I am glad that we are debating this and I am glad that the European Commission has also thought about the importance of volunteering, the fact that in recent years we have natural disasters, floods, droughts, here are earthquakes or disasters caused by people. It is clear that we need to increase volunteering in the European Union, in all Member States, whether we are talking about volunteering in the field of health or in the field of firefighters. But, Commissioner, I think we need to make some common rules, to train these volunteers according to the same rules, because, you see now, the case with the Turks, volunteers went, specialised teams went, but also volunteers from several Member States. And if every state has different rules on volunteering, I think we can't have the results we expect. Then, I think we need to motivate, to find levers through which to motivate the civilian population, the youth to do this volunteering in one field or another. Obviously, let's prepare them, because yes, I think that in other areas as well, not only in the ones you mentioned, we would need involvement as volunteers. In my country there is a law for volunteers and I think we could take examples of good practice from certain states where, in fact, through legislation, we motivate these volunteers: seniority is passed for this voluntary work and, of course, he accumulates for the pension period the necessary points to have an adequate pension. In a word, I would like to repeat, from my point of view, volunteering now is somewhat different in the 27 states. I think we need common rules, very good training and especially motivational factors for the civilian population to get involved in voluntary activities. Because we cannot foresee all natural catastrophes, we cannot foresee man-made catastrophes either. We need urgent intervention and then, with the help of volunteers, together with specialized teams, we can save lives, we can shorten the time to recover from the damage created by these disasters.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the situation of farmers is deteriorating from day to day. The answers you gave, Commissioner, to the questions asked, do not encourage farmers. And I'll explain why. And you know that. The Commission itself showed the dramatic increase in gas prices. The Commission itself points out that we do not now have the capacity to cover the needs of fertilisers in the whole range of fertilisers. What should farmers do? What should farmers do in my country, in Romania, Commissioner, if we cannot answer them why there is a different subsidy? We don't have two Europes, we have one Europe. Romania has a very good soil for agriculture, but if the conditions for using this soil are not at the level of the other states, obviously the farmers cannot use it. And I believe that food security, in addition to security, must be put first. I ask you directly, Commissioner: the measures ... you said you had no other measures - do you plan to rethink the CAP with a bigger budget halfway through the financial framework? Do you find alternative financing solutions? Because with that 50 euros a farmer can't do anything and we risk leaving the land uncultivated.

Mr President, High Representative, I would like to begin by congratulating you, Mr Borrell, for having made this extraordinary statement in your speech, namely to pronounce the word peace. I do not agree with what my colleague said before, that if we say peace we help Putin. No, we help stop people dying. And yes, you have to do this at the UN. Putin has killed enough people in Ukraine. I don't agree with what's been said, that guns don't help, they don't kill people. Guns kill people. That's why, Mr. Borrell, you're going down this path. We keep in touch, as the European Union, and with NATO, because we know well, Moldova is now supervised by Putin and we must also give importance to Moldova. My country is on the border with Ukraine. We helped Ukraine, Romania helped Ukraine, the European Union helped the citizens there, but we need to find a way to stop this disaster and the deaths of thousands of people.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, of course, we have all now seen that, in fact, Tunisia has taken steps backwards, through everything that has happened there, but that does not mean that we must abandon. This is where diplomacy comes in, Commissioner, Minister, let's see how we do not abandon the citizens, that it is not the dictators who are interesting to us and important, but the citizens. And yes, Tunisia is a partner, we have an agreement with Tunisia, we cannot abandon it. The important issue is to find the mechanisms by which, indeed, human rights are restored, the Constitution works in favour of the citizens and not in favour of a dictator. And yes, of course we must continue, through the levers we have, because we cannot do anything in a third country, but through the levers we have, to go to be close to the Tunisians and to return Tunisia to the path of democracy, as it started very well and, behold, the citizens had to endure such measures taken, from my point of view, by a dictator.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, we have been discussing in the European Parliament for almost four years about the need to have a body that analyses, ethically, behaviourally, implications. But, Commissioner, do you think it is a coincidence that the President of the Commission, having promised, when she took office, that she would come up with a proposal, stopped, because even because, or because, a suspicion of conflict of interest hangs over her? Today, I learned that an American publication has sued the Commissioner for refusing to give the conversation with Pfizer's contracts. Maybe that is why the Commission did not come up with the proposal and maybe that is why we need to urgently amend the regulation so that Parliament can have the right of legislative initiative. It cannot be that unelected people are superior to Parliament, with people elected by us. And I'll say one more thing: if we do not define the conflict of interest uniformly - in my country I was both a minister and a parliamentarian, there is that integrity agency and we make declarations and assets, not only of interests - if we have 27 models of conflict of interest, there will be nothing here in the European Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course, the European Union is a leader in environmental protection and we must stick to it. Every step towards human health is welcome. But listening to today's debate, I thought about what two important people in Romania were saying a long time ago: What can a historian learn from an engineer? And the answer of the politician of that time was: measure. We must think that here we are not regulating for ourselves, but we are regulating for the citizens, and we must understand how we can strike this balance, because today's regulation is not over with the vote we are giving this week, but we are going to have, Commissioner, policies, to transform European industry, to implement industrial policy, the reindustrialisation of the European Union, and obviously we have to think about how we protect citizens, not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view, because it is clear, the financial capacity of citizens and Member States is different.

Madam President, Commissioner, since 2014, since I have been here, I have spoken several times about the rights of the child, the rights of Romanian children, who live in various states and who have been taken, simply brutally abducted, from their families, that they have been to Denmark, Norway, Finland. Now we have the case of a boy terrorized in Israel, although the court also proved that the father can take care of the child. From the age of 7 - and now he is 13 - five years old, practically, the father wants to recover his child. What can we do for the rights of the child? People are no longer trusting us. We have the 2021 social services report, we also have the 2022 medical expertise made, which recommends the immediate return of Ben's child to his father. What can we, the European Commission, do? What can we do, the European institutions? Because they are our children, Europeans, who live in one of the Member States or in third countries.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course, if it wasn't for this case of corruption that I think people of good faith regret, we regret it because it brings a stain on the institution we represent, I don't know if we had a debate. And I think we need to periodically propose, both the Commission and us, to analyze the work of NGOs as well. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to say that all NGOs are corrupt. The problem is that we have to have transparency, Commissioner, and you were talking about those rotten apples. How do you find them? You just said you must, you must, you must... but you didn't even give us an idea: how to identify those rotten apples that spoil the others. Then we have to start... In Romania, there is a proverb: The fish in the head is spoiled. The Commission itself does not have transparency on certain contracts. How do you conclude contracts, as was the case in the pandemic? How do you conclude contracts for certain studies? How are these auctions done? We don't know anything, we don't know, members of Parliament. That is why I believe and propose at the same time to have a regular analysis of the activity of NGOs working with European money, transparency, traceability of those who finance NGOs.