Speeches

Mr President! I believe that the debate has shown several points. On the one hand, it was precisely the colleagues from the technical committees who defended the priorities of the Council Presidency and also want to stand up for them and also want to finance them. I think that's a very good message. The second is: I believe that it has also arrived that Parliament is in great agreement here, that we are, of course, discussing one or the other issue, such as the Palestinian textbooks, vividly, but are absolutely united on the major points and are also closed here as a Parliament. And the third is: I have noticed that both Commissioner Hahn and Deputy Minister Georgiev have been following the whole debate – this lively debate – all the time. This means that they have the requisite tenacity to ensure that we also achieve a good result in the negotiations. I'm looking forward to it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The colleague rightly criticised the fact that this must not be a budget like any other – that it must also be remembered. If we look at heading 7, you quickly get the idea that it could be a household like any other. But I would like to remind you that at the beginning of this procedure, as a Committee on Budgets, we have already reduced a sum compared to the draft budget of our Bureau, which was 33 million times larger than ever before. So we also know very well in this House that we have a lot to do and that in these difficult times Parliament and all the institutions must also take the lead. But I also believe that on 24 February hardly anyone would have objected if we had said that we have to strengthen our resilience here, we have to be prepared for hybrid warfare, we have to make cybersecurity a real focus. Ladies and gentlemen, we really have to. This is the only real focus we are putting on staff in this budget: Cybersecurity. I am glad that we are united here across all factions and that we will enforce this. I also say this: I would like to thank you for the constructive atmosphere, including the Presidency of the Council, because I know that, of course, we are all in one boat here. With CERT-EU, we already have an instrument that coordinates, that can lead and that we can strengthen. I very much believe that together as a Parliament, if there is a constructive will, we will find a way together in the negotiations here to find a good way for all to benefit all institutions. But – I say that too – it is not an option that we do not act here and simply let the risks be risks. We need to be defensive. We need to strengthen our resilience, my dear friends. The other institutions are also counting on us. Of course, it is our role as Parliament to strengthen the other institutions as well. I call it the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors. Because it is precisely at a time when, as Parliament, we should also say this with confidence, when the Community method is increasingly marginalised and intergovernmental action is being taken, that we also need monitoring instruments. It is precisely when Article 122 is always at the heart of action that we must strengthen the institutions that really control it, such as the Court of Auditors. Here too, as a Parliament, we should not allow ourselves to be divided and take a very clear view: When it comes to 800 billion euros, then a few places at this point are really not the wrong investment. There is enough to control, especially with this amount. I believe that, unlike in previous years, we should, of course, not participate in these jealousies between institutions. The situation is too serious for that. We have many major tasks, and I also see my task in my area in the fact that the broad lines that Mr Ştefănuță has just described do not fade into the background and that we are exhausting ourselves in small-scale discussions between the institutions, but are working together to find solutions that are really appropriate to this budgetary situation – and I also ask all those involved to do so. We are supposed to be frugal, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I am now giving the House 57 seconds as a sign that we can hopefully achieve good results in the negotiations.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The budgetary challenges have been sufficiently described, and it is also true, as the Commissioner has said, that we must also set an example as an institution. I would like to point out that, as a Committee on Budgets, we had cut the ideas of our Bureau by an amount like never before. So we are fully aware of the responsibility. However, we cannot ignore some challenges and legal obligations. Responsibility also means that we do not participate in this small-scale institutional struggle, which unfortunately has happened so often here in the past. And I understand that, just as you have said, the itemisation issue is a particular issue. And that is why, as a Parliament, we have really focused on a single area, a single area. And this is the issue of cybersecurity, which has already been mentioned. And I say it very clearly, because, as Mr Ștefănuță said, Without Putin Even without its hackers. And we have to show resilience, we have to show resilience. And just because many have become accustomed to the threat situation, including the perceived threat situation, does not mean that we as a Parliament can allow this. And yes, it is true, we also need to look for synergies. As rapporteur responsible, we are absolutely ready to give CERT-EU a special position. We are ready to work together because we are all at risk. And when one institution is attacked, it is also a consequence for the other institutions. And that's why it's very clear: We are open to all options. But not for one option, that is, for the option that we do nothing or do too little. We have to act here, and we are absolutely convinced that we can enforce it. We, of course, see ourselves as a parliament and as advocates for the other institutions. We continue to be. And that is why I believe that the horizontal approach, which is traditionally adopted by both the Commission and the Council, is difficult in this situation, because we see that the other institutions have also made an effort and have in many respects also gone ahead. We should take a very close look at this. And in this sense, I would also like to point out that, of course, we cannot always give new tasks to the other institutions and also to the decentralised agencies, which can be mentioned there, without presenting the financial envelope. Then we have to say elsewhere: We may want to be a little more economical in the challenges, in the tasks, then we can also save on staff accordingly. Ladies and gentlemen, we as a Parliament are constructive. We want to enter into negotiations with the self-confidence that distinguishes us as a Parliament. We are not only self-confident, we are also responsible. I am sure that we can leave trampled paths, that we do not have to repeat the mistakes of the past and that together, all institutions, we can pull together. We as a Parliament are ready to do so, confidently and responsibly.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Many thanks to the rapporteur and also to the Commissioner. I would like to use the short time given to me to point out an important point in my view. This is the fact that the Brexit Adjustment Reserve is intended to help a narrow group of people, namely the fishing establishments that are particularly affected, in a very limited period of time. Particularly against this background, it is, in my view, problematic for the Commission to set the funding rate of the EMFAF or the EMFF for competition reasons, so that in individual cases the full envisaged amount of the reserve cannot be used for the adjustment to Brexit. This is a problem, as is the time frame. We have a lot of supply chain issues right now. Larger projects in particular cannot be initiated. Here, too, an adjustment should be considered. Especially against the background of the extremely high fuel prices, we need maximum flexibility to save our operations. I ask the Commission to reconsider this and wish those who are fighting for it in the Commission every success.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Union must be more than a money-distribution machine. That is why it is our task here in Parliament to argue for European added value, and our committee chairman has said a lot about it, and we have succeeded. I would like to thank all those who fought for it: EU4Health, Horizon In particular, rescEU and Erasmus+ were mentioned. And the other side of this medal is control, because not only the added value is important, but also the commitment. We are in the area Heading 7, for example. European Court of Auditors to strengthen, including the European Public Prosecutor. This is the other side of the coin, which is very, very important. But this applies to all institutions, including us. We also have a special task here, and we can confidently say this: This must also be reflected in the budget. All in all, it has become clear that the other institutions also need a strong parliament and obviously want it and also challenge us. We will be able to fulfil this wish again next year in the next negotiations as a self-confident Parliament.

Madam President, a lot of wise words have already been spoken during this debate so I would like to seize the opportunity and draw your attention to some examples which might bring us to more general points. These are, for us as budgetary politicians, especially clarity and control. We can see that significant funds from financing programmes are transferred, for example, to decentralised agencies. I can give you two examples. The EU4Health programme, which we fought for quite strongly in this Parliament, goes to the Organisation for Economic Co—operation and Development (OECD) Agency and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). I support these fields of policy because they are very important. The pandemic has shown this very clearly. Another example is border management and the visa instrument, money transferred to Europol. I strongly support this strengthening of Europol, but the way it is done contradicts the need for clarity that we, as parliamentarians, should fight for. The real questions that we should ask ourselves are: is it necessary not only to understand the movements, but the underlying reasons, and are agencies taking over tasks that would otherwise have been financed under the programme? It is important to have control as well. In the fields of other sections, we talk about supporting the European Court of Auditors, and let me say that, if we, as a parliament, have literally no control over NextGenerationEU and the vast amounts that go along with this programme, we should at least strengthen the European Court of Auditors. Bearing this in mind, I think we should agree that we, as a parliament, should talk more about clarity and more about control. We will strengthen the whole Parliament.