Speeches

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, thank you for your presence and thank you also to the colleagues who remain in the Chamber. Many and sincere thanks also to my colleagues in the negotiating team of this bill: Sven Simon for the EPP, Guy Verhofstadt for Renew, Damian Boeselager for Verts/ALE, Leila Chaibi for The Left and Fabio Castaldo for the NI, for their excellent contributions and excellent cooperation. Because this proposal for a European electoral law has really been made by all of us, five democratic and pro-European political groups: Socialists, Christian Democrats, Liberals, Greens and the Left. The proposal comes to plenary today after ten months of hard work and difficult negotiations. I sincerely believe that we have drafted a bill that is certainly innovative and ambitious, but also balanced. All political groups have found some of their most important priorities reflected. Thus, a solution is proposed to reinforce the lead principle for presiding over the European Commission through a pan-European constituency of 28 additional seats. But it is a balanced solution. Citizens will be able to vote not only on national candidatures, but also on those submitted by European political parties, with the number one on that European list as a candidate to chair the Commission. This second ballot will be the same throughout Europe. The elector thus receives a new empowerment, since in addition to electing deputies he will be able to directly support a European political party, a common electoral programme and a candidate for President of the Commission, as is also the case in national parliamentary democracies. With the same mechanism, three objectives are achieved: the election campaign is Europeanised with 28 candidates, who must campaign across Europe and not just in one Member State and on national issues; European political parties are made visible and empowered, and the hitherto virtual top-of-the-line principle becomes real. This Parliament already approved the idea of a pan-European constituency in 2015 and, subsequently, there has been a political agreement from this house mid-term also to go in that direction. We believe that today's agreement reflects that half-mandate agreement faithfully. If we want to prevent the system of lead candidates for President of the Commission from being ignored again in 2024, this reform is absolutely necessary. Why is this proposal balanced? First, by the number. The forty-six seats available are not exhausted, space is left for future enlargements. The current national constituencies with their current number are respected. Two thirds of the list is reserved for medium-sized and small States, ensuring that eligible seats are not predominantly filled by candidates from the most populous States. We must also take into account a fact that I consider, colleagues, incontrovertible. Amendments have been tabled, separate votes have been requested, but no alternative to this proposal has been put forward. It is therefore clear that for those who do not accept the status quo, who understand that we need to move forward so that those 2024 elections are fully Europeanised, the bet has to be that of this report. There is no alternative but separate amendments or votes seeking to amputate this report. I therefore strongly and confidently encourage us all to move together towards a stronger and closer European democracy, supporting this report in its entirety in tomorrow's vote.

Mr President - dear Rainer - according to the OECD, the number of people suffering from anxiety and depression has increased substantially since March 2020, even, in the case of Spain, my country, for example, has doubled. This is something that many Members have already commented on: the impact of the pandemic, now the impact of the war. But I think that the question of mental health, the stigma of which, incidentally, we have to contribute to erase, is much earlier. I think we should go back to the beginning of the neoliberal era - the late 1970s, the early 1980s - with that lack of emphasis on social policy that we have had over the last 40 years. Therefore, this change of era in which we live must be the great opportunity to advance in that European mental health strategy that must be implemented, and also to promote emotional education from early childhood, investing in children from disadvantaged environments. In this regard, the Child Guarantee plays a key role.

Madam President, the violations of the right to seek asylum and the non-refoulement of refugees and migrants at various European borders are highly accredited by NGOs – many of them – investigative journalists, the UNHCR, OLAF itself and even by evidence held by Frontex itself and parliamentarians who have carried out different missions. However, Commissioner Dalli, I do not know how to tell you, but the Commission has so far not acted against the Member States. It is proven that forced returns, hot returns or push-backs As we want to call them, they are well established as a systematic practice, as an expression of their migration policy. This is very clear in the case of the Greek authorities and also in the case of the Polish authorities at the border with Belarus. Please open the infringement procedure at once.

Mr President, thank you very much for your good pronunciation. I also thank the Commissioner and the colleagues that have intervened, some of whom are still with us now, Ms Cicurel, Mr Ademov, Mr Polčák. I thank them for having expanded on the ideas in the report and around this report. I couldn’t elaborate on all of them in my introduction. Ms Cicurel reminded us of the importance of transforming the Solidarity Corps into a true European civic service. We can say that that kind civic volunteering is the practical side of citizenship education, it’s very important. Mr Ademov reminded us of the importance of the ambassador schools. They are reflected as well. In the report we indeed call for expanding this programme. Other colleagues mentioned the importance of environmental education, this is also reflected because it is a great challenge that we have to address. But as a conclusion, just to remind you that we have five political groups in this House: from the left to the Christian Democrats going through the Greens, the Liberals and the Social Democrats calling for more action in this field. It is good to remind people of the Jean Monnet programme for schools and the exchange of best practices, but this exchange of best practices is a tape we have heard now for 20 years. So we can do more, we can do better. The idea of the curriculum, for instance – many colleagues also supported it – is something that we are proposing to do in respect of Member States’ competences because it will be demonstrative and it will be for voluntary adoption by Member States. Or including citizenship education modules in mobility programmes like Erasmus+ and the Solidarity Corps. So I encourage the Commission to be far-sighted and proactive in this field.

Mr President, thank you to Commissioner Dalli, although we obviously thought that the police station responsible for the sector, Mariya Gabriel, would come. But we are equally happy with his presence. And, of course, thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for this report, Mr Fourlas, Mr Cicurel, Mr Salima Yenbou and Mr Pernando Barrena, because they have made a decisive contribution to the report, as have I, as rapporteur. This implementation report is based on the premise that, as Europeans, we face a number of challenges with transnational implications, from climate change to the digital transition. But also, as we have seen, the pandemic and the war. All these challenges must also be addressed from the perspective of active and committed citizenship in our educational systems, so that that citizenship has the tools that allow an informed analysis and a civic and political action necessary to address them and overcome them also in a context, unfortunately, of manipulation and disinformation. With the introduction of European citizenship in the Maastricht Treaty, citizens also have rights at European level. It's like that. Citizenship is now – and has been for a long time – multilevel: It is local, it is regional, it is national and it is also European and global. Someone once said that you cannot love what you do not know and, without knowing how Europe works, its institutions, its history, its values, the modes of participation available to it, its rights and opportunities, it is difficult for the citizens of Europe to exercise that active citizenship. If we deprive young Europeans of citizenship education, including European citizenship education, we are depriving them of a fundamental right: the right to be civically and politically active citizens. In the framework of this report, an analysis has been carried out of the actions taken so far by the Union and the Member States in this area. Unfortunately, this analysis shows that the space devoted to this subject is generally marginal in the curricula of most Member States. In addition, there are large imbalances between countries and, in general, there is also no support for teachers on how to teach and evaluate this subject. There is also a big difference between what is proclaimed in political documents and what is effectively implemented within the framework of public policies. That is why we have allowed ourselves to make a series of recommendations. Firstly, we need a European strategy for education for European citizenship and a Directorate in the Commission responsible for this matter. We need a competence framework at European level for this key competence, citizenship, as key as mathematics or language or history. We also need a common European citizenship education curriculum, to be promoted by the Commission, which has so far resisted like a belly-up cat. But here we have a large majority, 80% of this House, in favour of this idea, in full respect, of course, of the competences of the Member States. Finally, I would like to recall that this is also a demand of the citizens' panels at the Conference on the Future of Europe and that there too a reflection has been opened on the need for there to also be a space for sharing competences in education, at least as regards education for European citizenship.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, thank you for your presence and for your intervention. More than one million Ukrainian children are in the European Union. We do not know how long the conflict will last and their right to education must be guaranteed, in any case. But it is also important to note that this education is deserved by all refugee children fleeing wars, whether they are Ukrainians, Syrians, Afghans or of any nationality. It is therefore not acceptable that African students living in Ukraine, who are also fleeing the war, have been transferred to detention centres in Poland and are therefore unable to continue their lives and studies in that country or in the European Union. We are also aware of cases of entire families of Syrians with young children, with young people, also detained in some EU countries, on the border with Belarus and with Ukraine. We cannot have a system in Europe based on discrimination at two levels of action. We need to guarantee the rights of all refugees; of children, of course, but in general of all age groups. For that we also need a European assistance plan to cater for these millions of refugees we have in Europe, but also to deal with the crisis of energy prices and investments, which are inevitable also in our defence union to help free Ukraine in its heroic defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Madam President Charonzová, Commissioner Gabriel, congratulations to the rapporteur Salima Yenbou, who has made a magnificent report, because, indeed, we need to do much more from Europe in the fight against racism. We can see racism as the worst form of border, worse than a physical border: a mental frontier which we have to break down with the same energy with which we in Europe have, fortunately, long ago broken down physical frontiers. And for that, from the Socialist Group we propose two fundamental elements. First, a common European citizenship education curriculum that contains a very strong component in the fight against racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia. Secondly, that at the Conference on the Future of Europe we ask to include in the Treaties of the European Union the fight against all these scourges as a sign of the identity of the European Union, as a concrete task to be developed from the very constitutional framework of the European Union.

Madam President, the European Year of Youth must be a success. We are therefore on the side of this demographic group that is calling on us to put an end to labour exploitation through unpaid traineeships, as so many honourable Members have already said. Success also means giving this European Year of Youth a lasting legacy. That is why, together with 86 MEPs from the main pro-European groups, we have proposed the launch of a European festival of youth, culture and ideas, as also called for by several youth organisations, which we would hold every year around 9 May, starting in 2023. We can also consider giving more importance, more space, more opportunity to the European Youth Parliament, for example by inviting them to hold a plenary session this year in this very room of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative Josep Borrell, thank you not only for the report you have conveyed to us, but for the line you have been following towards Russia for more than a year: a line of firmness, clarity, always open to dialogue, but from a clearly uncomplex position. In that sense, much has already been said in this debate about how we have used that double path of deterrence and dialogue that, in the light of the latest news, could be working, although it should not be trusted. Therefore, I will not repeat anything else in that regard. What I would like to raise is how we can take advantage of this situation to further strengthen the process of European integration and transatlantic cooperation. Clearly, we have strengthened our unity in the West in the face of this challenge. Let us therefore use it to activate the provisions of Article 42 of the Treaty, setting in motion the common defence system, and also to strengthen the transatlantic relationship, convening the summit with the United States and, why not, adopting a new Atlantic Charter.

Mr President, this is a very quick point of order. I would just like to remind the honourable Members that today, 15 December, marks the 20th anniversary of the Laeken Declaration. It was a very important statement that I want to briefly recall because it paved the way, as you will recall, for the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon. The Honourable Member, who cannot be present today, Guy Verhofstadt, co-chair of the current Conference on the Future of Europe, had a special role to play and I would like to point out that surely the path opened by the Laeken Declaration has not been completed. The Laeken Declaration already spoke of the European Constitution and also of the pan-European constituency. I encourage all colleagues – and Parliament, the first – to continue to follow the path of the Laeken Declaration.

Mr President, thank you to Commissioner Mariya Gabriel for being with us today and for having negotiated with Parliament the proposal for the European Year of Youth, and thank you to the rapporteur, Sabine Verheyen. The truth is that we would have liked to have received the proposal a little earlier. In this way, we should not have had to launch this accelerated procedure. We agree with the idea. We want the European Year of Youth to be in 2022, but it might have been more convenient to have thought about it a little earlier. I just wanted to say this. And secondly, it is true that our group has also proposed that within the framework of this European Year of Youth we launch a major European festival of cultures, because we believe that festivals are a useful tool for bringing people closer together. Obviously, we are still in a pandemic context, with which the necessary measures should be taken, and it could be articulated around 9 May, which is Europe Day, but which has perhaps been too much associated with an institutional celebration. Therefore, we propose a more cultural and more popular celebration. And, although this proposal has not entered as such into the report, we would like it to be considered.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President Jourová, thank you very much, first of all, to the honourable Members, and friends, Rainer Wieland and Charles Goerens, for this magnificent own-initiative report, which seems to me to be very politically sound and which should help the Commission to prepare its legislative proposal. I believe that the Socialist Group, very well represented by Gabriele Bischoff, has also made important contributions to this report. We believe that this should not only be the occasion to take an administrative approach to political parties, but also to strengthen their visibility – hence the question of linking or articulating the funding of European political parties also on the basis of the use of the logos of European political parties and their names – and I also think it is essential to make the contribution of having to respect the values of Article 2. I would like to touch one last point very quickly: I also do not agree with the vote-based funding system. That is very complicated because we have 27 different electoral systems, and votes are not worth the same or counted in the same way in all countries; However, if we had a pan-European constituency where lists of political parties were presented, then such a system would make sense.

Mr President, thank you very much, Mr High Representative, for your statements. I wanted to add a few brief considerations. We all agree that what Lukashenka is doing is instrumentalizing migration flows. But I am really surprised by the unwavering adherence that we are hearing from some Members of the Polish Government today. I do not know if you remember that very recently we had the Polish Prime Minister here and that practically the whole House subjected him to a very harsh criticism for his attack on the legal order of the European Union. And secondly, we agree that Lukashenka acts on Putin's orders, but don't you think that this panic attack, these nerves for 5,000, 10,000 people on the Polish-Belarusian border is precisely what makes us weak in the face of Putin? Don't you realize that this is not the way to negotiate with Putin, putting ourselves in a position of extreme weakness? Think about it.

Madam President, President Biden once said: Don't tell me what you value. Tell me what your budget is and I'll know what you value. And indeed, it's something I believe in, too. This Parliament aspires to a budget that is precisely in line with our values and with our rules. For this reason, I am pleased that we have reached an agreement to introduce a reserve for Frontex of EUR 90 million with conditions regarding the appointment of human rights observers, a clear procedure for the suspension of operations in the event of serious or systematic violations of human rights and the appointment of Deputy Directors. I believe that Parliament should strongly support this position and also provide EASO with the necessary resources and staff to fulfil its mandate.

Mr President, Madam President von der Leyen, Prime Minister, I am not going to comment - if I may say so - on the nationalist coven you gave us in the morning, but I will go to the question of the primacy of Community law. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, what kind of club you think you've gotten yourself into. I am sure that you should at some point, at the time of Poland's accession, have read the Schuman Declaration of the year 50, which says that the European Coal and Steel Community is the first step in establishing a federation in Europe. And I am sure you have also read the Treaty of Rome, which spoke of ever closer union; and that the case-law of the Court of Justice on the primacy of Community law (e.g. the famous judgment in Costa v ENEL) has been read, and that, consequently, our union is integrated by law. Imagine what would happen if all the constitutional courts of the Union did the same as that of your country. There would be no integration by law and there would be no European Union. What can we do about this? The president said so. He's right: We must take that judgment from your court to the Court of Justice of the European Union, to which, incidentally, this European Parliament has not appointed it. Mrs von der Leyen has not named him. No one else has named him but you. Because you appoint one of the members of the Court of Justice, together with the other 26 governments of the European Union. (Applause)

Mr President, the cultural sector and its workers were already starting from a very precarious situation before the COVID-19 crisis, but the necessary containment measures have, as other colleagues have already said, generated a real catastrophe. In some sectors the destruction has been almost complete, with losses of up to 90% in the performing arts sector in 2020, or 75% in the cultural sector. There is therefore an urgent need for bold measures. The Commission should encourage the channelling of Recovery and Resilience Facility funds by at least 2% in order to ensure a balanced recovery at European level, including culturally. We do not want to return to a general situation of precariousness for the sector. We must guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all workers in the sector. It is not acceptable that competition policy should apply to self-employed workers who, organised, propose setting minimum tariffs for certain services. It is therefore important that the Commission adopts a comprehensive approach in the review of competition law. We also call, without delay, for a proposal on the European status of artists, including all cultural workers and guaranteeing minimum standards in terms of social and labour protection and, of course, recognising the right to collective bargaining.

Madam President, Ahmadreza Djalali is a dual Swedish—Iranian citizen, therefore a European citizen, who is planned to be executed after an unfair trial after fake accusations of espionage. Arbitrary detentions of foreign nationals by Iran and other regimes is becoming common and we need also, I think, international action against arbitrary detention of foreign nationals. In this particular case, Europe cannot allow the execution of Professor Djalali, a scholar who has devoted his life to advanced emergency medicine for the benefit of all. So I would like to join in everyone’s demand for the immediate release of Professor Djalali. Europe is the world beacon of human rights. We have a duty to mobilise all our political capital to save Professor Djalali. Europe has the tools, with the Navalny Act. The assets of all Iranian officials and entities involved in this arbitrary detention should be frozen. I want to tell the Iranian authorities and the newly—elected president that political executions are never a sign of strength, but the opposite. Professor Djalali, we are doing everything it takes to bring justice to you and to bring you home. Free Djalali!

Madam President, let me start by congratulating my colleague Tanja Fajon on the successful outcome of the negotiations on these reports, which are indispensable for supporting people in need of international protection. But the situation in the Mediterranean, Commissioner, is going from bad to worse. Deaths this year have tripled and we still don't have a plan to deal with the surge in arrivals, which we know happens every year. In the meantime, the EPP Group in this House seems hostage to the discourse of the far right. Gentlemen of the far right, I look at you. They have just published a statement on the future of Europe in which they claim that it is founded on Christian values. Well, let's see what the Pope says about Christian values, shall we? Some authority I say you will have in the matter. He says that migration is not a threat to Christianity, that rejecting an immigrant in difficulty, regardless of religious denomination, is a grotesque falsification of Christianity. I conclude with a quote from the Gospel. Jesus said: "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (Matthew 25:35).