Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, from the outset, as a Romanian, as a member of the delegation for the Republic of Moldova, I support the resolution. I support everything that has been discussed here and the Commissioner has said about aid. But Commissioner, I was saddened by what you said. You said that you expected the Council to give you its opinion in order for these aids to be practical, not on paper. Moldova now needs, needs financial aid, needs technical assistance, needs security in front of Russia. That is why, Commissioner, I am addressing a public message to you now, through you and through the European Parliament, to the Council. The Council is not present here. I ask, first of all, the President of Romania to support the immediate release of money and the granting of money to the Republic of Moldova. Citizens of the Republic of Moldova are Europeans. I know well Moldova beyond the Prut which was historically separated from Moldova on the other side of the Prut. Therefore, help for Moldova from all points of view, European road and immediate support. Commissioner, I expect you to do this and ask the Council not to block, as always, everything we decide here. Political statements do not help Moldovan citizens.

Madam President, Mr Member, thank you for the question, I would propose that we have the debates on discharges separately: agencies, businesses, let us allocate some time, after which the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, because they are institutions that, in turn, control agencies, and let us have for each type of agency at which we discuss discharges a time of two hours, as we now have a total of two hours.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, President of the Court of Auditors, I will talk about principles, because in one minute you cannot talk about 53 discharges. That's why I'm making my first proposal. I think we need to spend more time. We need to have debates, views from several colleagues in the European Parliament. That's why I propose the following now. First, the Court of Auditors. Last year I proposed to you, Mr President, to think not only about whether accounting was spent correctly, but also about efficiency, and maybe in the future you put an efficiency indicator on how money is spent in all the institutions, because you see, in the member countries, we emphasize that European funds bring a benefit, not just to be spent correctly accounting. Secondly, we definitely need to solve the Frontex problem, because here it is, he resigned, but that does not mean that the problems are solved. And thirdly, the European Commission, in my view, and the Council are important institutions, as is the Court of Auditors, and we must fight for credibility. If these controlling institutions are not credible, they will not be listened to by anyone. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue card intervention)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I had high expectations in today's debate because the theme was the consequences for the European Union. Unfortunately, the President has not presented us with the consequences. I will speak on behalf of a country that has been on the front line, Romania. Citizens of Romania ask me: however, they were hospitable, generous, welcomed refugees and it is normal to stand in solidarity. The problem is, what do Romanians share? Do they share the lowest incomes in the European Union, share poverty with refugees? What's going on? Romania's budget is allocated, of course, to help refugees too. But what is the European Union doing? Did it concretely support the Member States, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czechia, which received the most refugees? No, no, no. What are the consequences for the European Union? The fact that economic growth is falling, the fact that SMEs are being shattered, the fact that SMEs are being decapitalised. Is it not appropriate for the Commission to rethink all the plans we have had? Sure, with ambitions, with responsibility, but now we are in a different context. Commissioner, if you ask a small entrepreneur, he changes his business plan when external factors influence. And the European Union, and we too, must change, because otherwise we will destroy the internal economy. All supply chains have been fractured. There's no point in having a reindustrialization strategy, there's no point in having plans on paper. If, in concrete terms, citizens are not helped, they are further impoverished and cannot increase their income, if companies, if small and medium-sized enterprises will not have a chance to recover from the double crisis, the pandemic crisis, and here is the crisis in the war. So on behalf of the Romanians I ask you, you know, they don't live, they don't warm up, they don't feed on our thanks. They expect concrete measures. And I am waiting, Commissioner, in your reply, for you to tell us what you are going to do concretely, in order, indeed, to mitigate the consequences of the war on the European Union.

Tonight's debate shows that, in fact, there is still much to be clarified and I think it is, in my view, now more unclear than it was at the beginning of the debate. And I'm gonna say a few things. Great arguments have been made here: Some are technical, some are political. First of all, it is necessary to answer, and perhaps the Commissioner gives the answer. What about Article 14 of the Treaty? You mean break it or not? We need to know what we're doing with this. Second: I'm from a country of 20 million. Citizens from an even smaller country, e.g. Croatia or another smaller country, do not have the opportunity to know the 27 places. And there are many candidates for the 28 seats in all states. How do we explain it to citizens? It was argued here that, well, the citizens' conference would have opted for this. My question is how many citizens participated in this debate? Aren't we more representative because we have millions of votes behind us, because now, when we speak, an entire country votes for us? And there is one more answer that should be given. I am part of a small party that is not part of a European family. Are small parties excluded or not? Yes, I support people with disabilities, I support equality. (The president interrupted the speaker)

I have a question. I appreciate the way it's been argued. It is indeed a lively debate, so to speak, but my question is: do you not think, Mr Durand, that we should first have approved European citizenship and then have lists, a European constituency? Because he's stuck at the Council. Why don't we have it now? That's what I was told when I came in, that's what I was told in my country: You will be a Romanian citizen, but you will also be a European citizen. The Council has blocked this. And this is why, in Spain, for example, Romanian citizens cannot receive Spanish citizenship and retain their citizenship. If it was European citizenship, everything would be solved.

Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today's debate makes it very clear that we must take this new step to strengthen consumer rights, and perhaps never more appropriate than now, in this crisis, in which citizens have become impoverished and who, of course, are - as has been said here, over 79% - eager to be able to repair a good. But for this we must hurry with the legislation and from the very beginning I ask you, Commissioner, to move forward, not to leave until the end of the year: the study has been done, the public consultation has been done... and maybe you can come up with the legislative proposal sooner. After all, we have to be very clear: it is not only the consumer who wins if we introduce the right to repair. Everyone wins: from the environment, from the amount of waste, from energy consumption... and I do not lose entrepreneurs, as some would like to say, because, behold, they can innovate by increasing the durability of products and they can make themselves a repair center, even that producer. However, we must make sure that this repair price does not demotivate the consumer, that he cannot buy because it is too expensive. That is why we must take care when legislating, to strike this balance between the repair price and the replacement price.

It is absolutely incredible for a woman to speak like that in the European Parliament. I don't know if you're a mother, but in any case, a woman who says she discriminates against others, when Roma children can't go to school, they can't eat, they can't dress, they have no access to anything. Do you consider this discrimination for those of us who have access? It is incredible and I think it is unfair for such a person to represent citizens of the European Union in this Parliament. Go, ma'am, see how these children suffer, how parents cannot give them. They have five, six children. They must have the same access as any child, regardless of colour, regardless of nationality. You should apologize!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over 40 days have passed and we all see that this massacre continues in Ukraine. I am from Romania, we are at the border, along with Poland, the Republic of Moldova. We don't know. Citizens of my country ask me: when does it stop? It can expand at any time. 500 million Europeans are looking at world leaders, at you, at the President of the European Council who, behold, is not here, is waiting for solutions. And I believe that if we have tried these sanctions three times - in management it is said that if three times you try and fail, you have to find other solutions. Dear High Commissioner, Commissioner, you must try, at the same time as the very tough and drastic and safe sanctions, to also negotiate. I don't like what the United States does. Mr. Biden sits there somewhere and says Putin is crazy. And we have to let him go if he's crazy? What does a doctor do when he has a madman in front of him? They try to stop him, negotiate with him, restrict him, and don't let him free to destroy. We are in enormous danger, because besides this massacre of people - and no one is allowed to take the life of a man, but God - we are in danger as a planet, we are in danger as Europe, from the point of view of poverty. People are impoverished and impoverished. We need to find solutions at the same time to bring the people of our states, the European members of the internal market, to be able to live their lives. We, the Romanians, have opened the doors to refugees, but it is not enough. The kids have to go to school. We need the distribution of funds, as the Polish colleague said, so that we can really help them, not plunge them into poverty, in our states. We urgently need negotiations to stop this massacre.

Dear colleague, you have used "reason" several times, let us use reason! You have also used the expression ‘the sanctions we have imposed are not enough’. I would be interested in what concrete measures you think we have not yet taken, because, after all, this debate must bring forward proposals to the Commission and the Council, to do something more, but I have only understood from you that we need to be more rational. You can tell us specifically: What should we do to stop the war, stop the death of people and help these people?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the citizens of my country, Romania, but also the citizens of Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and the other states that have welcomed these refugees. We are discussing a very important issue. We also debated it last night at the LIBE and DEVE committees. Commissioner, I couldn't ask you the question last night, but I'm going to ask you now. Of course, children are the future of every nation and we must defend them regardless of nationality. I've heard here that only Ukrainian children. No, no, no. We must have an equidistant and not double standard behavior for children in Afghanistan, in Africa, in Syria, wherever they are. Children are the future of nations. Therefore, I believe that we must defend them all and not make distinctions by nationality. Another thing I have to say to you, Commissioner, is that, as you have also presented to our committee, the states that now have the most pressure have their own problems and you need to intervene with the proper budget. My country has children in poverty, its own children in poverty and of course we must welcome these children who come from Ukraine, but it is unfair not to be able to provide them with conditions. And I believe that, in addition to organisation, in addition to platforms, solidarity must also be supported with budgets. And I want to ask you, Commissioner, because I have also witnessed the debate this day and I have not seen that the third option, to stop, to stop the fire, to stop this terrible death of thousands of citizens, would also be called into question. Sanctions for Russia and aid for refugees. The diplomatic route, Commissioner, are you still using it? The European institutions, besides the United States, the UN, NATO have a historic responsibility to do the best diplomacy to stop the fire and to stop this misfortune that is not only for Ukraine. You know, my citizens ask me: When will the war stop? The danger is for enlargement and that is why I believe that you must also take the diplomatic route and give us an answer, to know what to answer to our citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, the crisis we are in was foreseeable not only in war, when the European Union depends on the supplier in a very large percentage, every businessman knows that there is a risk. I am glad that you have introduced between the three pillars and more affordable prices, but Commissioner, what is accessible to Luxembourg is not accessible to the citizens of my country, and we must clearly see here how no one is left behind, because that is our slogan, right? And then I think we should learn from the mistakes made because, here in my country, you have pressed the country to stop coal mining, instead we import coal from Russia. We need to have an Energy Union, Commissioner, and an Energy Union that can be accessible to all European citizens regardless of the region and country in which they live. That is why I call for energy prices to have a system in place to control them. I am a former businessman, I understand what a market economy means, but I understand that in a crisis we cannot allow to get rich some who put prices 10-15 times higher.

Madam President, of course, the fight against oligarchic structures and the protection of European funds, but also of national funds, must be the concern, on the one hand, of the European Commission, of Parliament, but also of the Member States, because, in the end, this money, whether European or national, must reach the citizen. Unfortunately, I have to say that now, when we speak, we do not have a real situation of fraud because the reporting system in the 27 states is different. This is why some states report both suspected fraud and fraud. Other states only report fraud, as, in fact, OLAF presents in its report. As it happened with my country, Romania, which, behold, appears in this report as leading, but actually reported the suspicion of fraud together. I believe, Commissioner, that this own-initiative report can help the Commission to come up with measures, on the one hand, to increase transparency, on the other hand, to ensure uniform reporting, so as not to compare apples with pears. And, obviously, all the indicators that we use must be quantifiable, because this money must reach the beneficiaries.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank the citizens of the Republic of Moldova for the proof of solidarity they have given, as have the citizens of my country, Romania, Poland, Hungary. It is clear that macro-financial assistance must be made but, Commissioner, it resulted from today's debates that these amounts were established before the war and obviously now the Republic of Moldova needs a bigger and more consistent aid, especially in the grants part, because yes, the credits will have to be given back. That's why I'd like to ask you two things. Firstly, to discuss in the Commission the possibility of increasing grants and, secondly, to bring forward the first tranche to go faster, maybe in May, because now the citizens who have opened their homes, after all, need help, and we know well that the Republic of Moldova had a problem anyway in terms of jobs, in terms of income per capita. So my call is to help the Republic of Moldova, but to help it as much as we have to and when we have to.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, any non-tariff barrier affects and strikes the smallest, in fact, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Any non-tariff barrier in any Member State affects the entire internal market. That is why, of course, I agree, Commissioner, yes, we have a new reindustrialisation strategy, we have a new strategy for SMEs, but it is essential to identify these barriers which, in fact, do not bring money to the budget, neither to the budget of the European Union nor to national budgets because, indirectly, they undermine the activity of businesses. And yes, I am glad that you have identified 24 restrictions in 13 sectors. There are still sectors where you can identify concrete restrictions, because this is how we have to go. It is good that we have a task force, SMET, but I believe that it must not only identify, but also come up with solutions when it identifies something in the market. And in the end, we have a few things that I really care about. I come from the private sector. For example, recognition of qualifications is an impediment to labour mobility. Cross-border procurement for SMEs is a problem and we must recognise it. I hope that with this change and with this proposal of ours we will be able to have a better Single Market.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course, we have a directive on the safety of toys, but it turns out that we need to change it, Commissioner, and you will get a very good text. Congratulations to all the colleagues who contributed to this proposal! The safety of toys, of course, for children is extremely important and it is hilarious that in the current directive we have a limit: there are no chemicals in toys for children up to 36 months, as if at 37 months they could not become intoxicated. And then, of course, it has been said here, we have problems with endocrine disruptors, which are not even covered by the current directive, and yes, if a study were to be carried out, we might find that we have children who have endocrine disorders, perhaps also because of toys, and we must, Commissioner, think very carefully about how we can achieve the same quality standard for toys entering the internal market from third countries. I was a customs reporter. We have a new customs union since last year. We need to have the same reporting model, the same process of checking toys. And yes, last but not least, we also have a grey market, a black market for toys, and here solutions must be found and the solution must be for all 27 states. I hope we will vote on this tomorrow!

Madam President, Commissioner, in the context in which we live, when, in many cities in Europe, citizens are on the streets, I could only choose the subject of human rights, and yes, also the rights of the child. Commissioner, I do not think that the European institutions can be happy and I do not think that they can be satisfied with the level of compliance with what we regulate. We have regulations related to human rights, we have regulations related to children's rights, but they are blatantly violated and here we are! Commissioner, I think this is a time when we all need to reflect on how we can implement what we are regulating, and I will give you one example. During the pandemic - and colleagues have spoken here - many states have disproportionately restricted, violated the regulation we voted here, and from the point of view of children's rights, children have started to be abducted by state institutions, as happened with children from Romania, Finland, Sweden, now Denmark, arrested parents. I don't think there's more love than motherly love, and I think you need to review, see what happens to these institutions and what happens to human rights. I had a minister of justice in my country who said this: ‘Human rights are a luxury’. I hope that the European Union does not adopt this dictum.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tonight's debate shows that regulations have lagged behind technology and it was time to come up with a regulation of the online environment, and I congratulate you, Commissioner, on your proposal. Congratulations to the coordinator of this report. There are hundreds of amendments. We have to think here that it's not just about money. It's about people's lives. It is about the fact that through illegal content, through false identity, it leads to the misappropriation of fair trials, criminal trials. It's about children's lives. That's why I think voting on this new regulation for sure is a step. Not everything is solved, but we can greatly improve consumer protection from illegal content, we can also protect the right and access, because very often we are blocked without being justified why. We do not want this report to actually deprive citizens of the right to expression, but we want it to be a correctness in the content that is put. And very little has been said about copyright and related rights. With this report we can also protect copyright because very often they are used without rewarding the real authors. I want to tell you that as Vice-President I have talked to a lot of consumers and this is the result, I have to .... (The Chair interrupted the speaker).

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today I believe that we are voting on a very important report and I want to thank the Committee on Budgetary Control for entrusting me with this report. This is the resolution amending the regulation on the financial rules applicable to the budget of the European Union. In private life, we have learned that it is not enough to have a budget, it is very important how we spend it and, behold, the report started from the existing situation and from the audit that the Committee on Budgetary Control carried out in September 2021. What's going on? We currently have reporting and control and audit systems in different Member States, more than 250 systems. It is very important to synchronize them, to have the same reporting system. It is very important to increase transparency, because everything started from the idea of knowing the final beneficiary of European funds. On several occasions, we, the European Parliament, have asked the European Commission to tell us which are the top 50 final beneficiaries for all European funds, from the CAP to regional development funds, and this has not been achieved. With this proposal of ours with 41 points, I succeeded and I want to thank all the parliamentary groups for accepting the points I put forward as rapporteur. We have no amendments, but I urge you to vote on this report. Why? We ask the Commission, first of all, to amend the regulation and come up with concrete proposals through which we can find out how European funds go to the final beneficiary, because there is now in all Member States, through intermediaries, money that reaches and concentrates on certain very large companies and we are widowing small and medium-sized enterprises. We made a very clear statement there, that whoever owns at least 15% of a large company should submit to this control. Of course, it is incomprehensible why, when OLAF discovers at a company that it is not spending European money properly, why it is not blacklisted. We ask the Commission to think about this, not to be able to access other European funds. I believe that it is very important for today's vote to lead, and we ask the Commission as soon as possible after today's vote, to think about how it amends this regulation because for us and for the citizens, after all, it is very important to spend European money efficiently, and we will not be able to know this if there is no transparency.

Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that no one questions the need for an agreement between the European Union and the United States. I had a failure, from my point of view, with TTIP, I hope we don't get to the same point and I hope we learn from what happened in the TTIP negotiation. In fact, what I still see as unclear today is the harmonisation of standards, the abandonment of the principle to which the United States is very fond, ‘Buy America’. Basically, we, the European Union market, as vice-president of the internal market, say that we need the agreement with the United States. At the same time, we need fairness, we need similarity, we need the support of SMEs, and I am glad that it has been said here that you will take this into account. But I want to know what the next steps are and how you see the work with the European Parliament, because I believe that we cannot just rely on what you are discussing there not taking decisions and when, what the deadline is and what are the steps we are taking to reach such an agreement.

Mr President, Commissioner, the pandemic crisis of almost two years, of course, has done a lot of damage to the economy, but the worst is that it has caused a lot of human casualties and could have saved a lot of people, at least, I know and know very well, in my country, in Romania. There's no coherent strategy, we don't have drugs. It is not right and it is not right and it is not humane for chronic patients not to have access to hospitals, not to exist for cancer, for oncological treatment. And yet, even now, after the second year, we don't have antiviral drugs, we don't have prevention, we don't have testing, we don't have isolation. It's all on the vaccine. Do we still have a single market? No, it's fragmented. Do workers still have the right to work? No, because, directly or indirectly, they are forbidden to be present at the workplace, although the regulation we voted here clearly says: Member States should not use this Regulation as a mandatory vaccine. The Commission is going - and I am asking in this way - to carry out a country-by-country investigation. What about citizens' rights, workers' rights, free movement of citizens?

Madam President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to congratulate you on your ambition and your work. That is why I hope that this report of ours, which has been waiting for five years and, in fact, it is not us who are waiting, but the citizens, because, in the end, the money that is taken to tax havens impoverishes millions of citizens; Few become rich and many become poor. And yes, this country-by-country reporting solves. It's a first step. We solve transparency from a profit point of view: where the profit is made, there to pay tax. Obviously, it was said and I support, we still have steps to take, but I think that now, if we manage to carry it out, we will solve a good part of the inequity that now exists in the internal market of the European Union regarding the way in which the tax is paid by large companies, multinationals in relation to SMEs. The little ones pay right, the big ones don't. That is why I want to thank all the colleagues who participated in this report and to ask you, Commissioner, to support the move forward. We still have steps to take. There are still tax havens that are not yet resolved by this report.

Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that tonight's topic has been discussed before. Without freedom of the press and freedom of expression, we cannot say that we have a democracy. But we all know that in the crisis the pressure on the press is even greater, and here we are, two years ago, since we are in this crisis of the pandemic, if you analyze state by state, you will see that many journalists have suffered. They are not allowed to express, for example, and show to the citizens - because in the end the press informs the citizens - cases of illness or certain documentaries, documentary films from specialists coming from other states. It is an example from my country and we have to say, yes, there is subsidiarity, the Member States have regulated the functioning of the press through institutions like we have the National Audiovisual Council, but fines are given every day, every week, to abandon. That means "fist in the mouth" and I believe, Commissioner, that we, Parliament, have now done our duty. I think it is appropriate to come up with a proposal for a unitary regulation at European Union level because, after all, journalism is done cross-border.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are, I think, in a first-of-its-kind situation: a member state - and here we are not talking about the internal policy of Poland, but we must talk about the policy of the European Union -, a member state of the European Union now has on its border a human war, after all. We know, not since yesterday, that Lukashenko has a certain policy. We must take, Commissioner, and I would like you, in your reply, to tell us what steps have been taken. European citizens are worried. Security is the responsibility of the European institutions. We have a health crisis, we have an economic crisis, now there's a crisis - no, I wouldn't call it a migration crisis, it's a war with a human shield. Commissioner, I have learned that prevention is more important and faster and has no effect than repair. What did I do to prevent this fire from appearing? He couldn't have come at once. How did these people get there? I, as a diplomat and MEP, am connected and corrected and controlled at all borders. I have now entered Germany, and although I did boardingThey once again checked all my documents. How did these people get to the Polish border? The number one priority, Commissioner, is to defend the borders of the European Union, and therefore not only of Poland, of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, today's debate is of particular importance for the citizens of the European Union, because, after all, it has a great deal to do with citizens' lives. Of course, it has been a long way, it has been said here, to debate the amendment of Directive 2009/103 on its efficiency and coherence. The European Commission itself has identified four points that we, in the work done and in the outcome of the trialogue, have covered. These are the minimum amounts insured, the compensation of the injured parties following an accident in case of insolvency. There are many cases, I have even recently a case, in my country, of an insolvent insurance company and citizens cannot recover their money. It is also about consumer protection. Obviously, the use of claims history statements - it is very important that when a company becomes insolvent, with the help of this data history, it can be taken over by another company and not suffer, in the end, the injured party or the citizen who was involved in an accident. Of course, I want, in addition to these four areas, liability in the event of an accident involving a trailer towed by a vehicle to be included in the future directive by way of amendment. There are many accidents in such cases. It is obvious that for the functioning of the insurance system it is necessary to have a transmission of data, an integrated system in the European Union, in order for the Member States to be able to transmit their information. The same checks should be carried out on all vehicles, without discrimination, because, after all, they must have the same driving conditions. Of course, it is important to ensure that people involved, injured or involved in an accident get their money back quickly. Insurance undertakings should treat an attestation from another Member State in the same way as they treat a domestic attestation, foreigners should not be treated differently. That is why, Commissioner, I hope that, nevertheless, the directive will build on the work done here in Parliament and on the outcome of the trilogue, and we will have a directive that serves ... (The Chair withdrew the floor of the speaker)