Speeches

I think you said something which is very right, and I absolutely agree. And that is why I’m wondering why we are talking about an ethics body. You said that we don’t want to moralise public life, but that is why I don’t understand. Why are we talking about an ethics body which has to do with moral standards? I agree with most things which have been said, even if I think the scandal wouldn’t have been prevented with a body like that because they were intentionally breaking criminal law and they took the risk to go to jail. But why do we call it ethics body?

Daniel Freund mentioned that we had within the last 10 years 25 cases and you mentioned in your speech that you are a member of this committee which is in charge. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit? What’s the reason that the enforcement mechanism is not functioning in the moment and why this committee did not or is not allowed to put sanctions on colleagues who infringed the internal rules?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Today's debate is certainly a good occasion to talk fundamentally about the role of interest representatives and lobbying in European politics. For the formation of political will, it is first of all essential that those affected raise their voices in legislative processes and contribute their perspective. This applies to companies as well as to trade unions, NGOs, etc. There are also not good and bad – Transparency and Greenpeace on the one hand good, economy and industry on the other hand bad. This is the worldview shared by some. But the democratic process is, of course, always about negotiating individual interests towards public policy, at least for us in the EPP. And that is why it is not objectionable at first that a company is committed – as in the case of Über – to liberalising certain sectors of the economy and is seeking talks with MEPs. What is already true, however, is that with these 124 000 documents of the so-called over-files, we now know that Über has invested considerable resources in lobbying. This in itself is not yet reprehensible, but the tonality in these company documents is already there. It's not just about a corporate culture. In any case, this is very strange in the social market economy. But it depends on us in the end. And if the point here is that political relations with favorable laws have been scrupulously exploited, this must be revealed, clarified. However, if it is now claimed that strong economic interests have bought European politics, that is not true. The substance is missing. There will be a directive on platform work with high standards of protection for workers. And in this area, as with many issues or what we are discussing here as a whole, we must always be a little careful not to scandalise things, to throw out the child with the bath, but to analyse calmly where we need to readjust. And, Commissioner, there is already a difference in transparency rules, whether the Commission acts, whether officials act or Members with a free mandate, which are based on it.

Mr President, colleagues, let me start by congratulating the Belgian authorities and our services on stopping this plot to undermine European democracy. The silver lining in this case is that our systems were tested and prevailed. But it is true, European democracy is under attack by countries who seek to undermine our decision-making processes. It is a shame that a few colleagues, former colleagues and staff went along with this. The vector of attack in this case appears to be an NGO. And for too long, we have turned a blind eye on the lobbying efforts of supposedly non-governmental actors. What we need is a foreign agents registration act modelled on the example in the United States. This means full transparency of who is funding which NGO, their governance structures, budgets and persons of significant control. Members who have taken money from NGOs have conflicts of interests – it’s not so important which NGO or lobby group. And they should recuse themselves immediately from working in respect of policy fields. As the European People’s Party, we want to restore trust in the functioning of our institutions and we need to act now, not with political games but with concrete actions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have seen in the House that there is a very broad consensus that the peoples of the Western Balkans deserve our honesty. They deserve us to keep our word. At its Thessaloniki Summit in June 2003, the Council gave the people of the six Balkan countries a prospect of accession. Over the past two decades, however, progress has been very arduous – a long time. So long that a vacuum has arisen that Moscow, Beijing and Ankara are all too fond of using for their purposes. That's the geostrategic scale we're talking about. That is why we Europeans need to restore credibility. That is why the enlargement package, Commissioner, is also a right step. But we must not leave it at that. There is a need for visa-free Kosovo, swift negotiations with North Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. The European Union must re-engage in the Western Balkans instead of responding only to global geopolitics and regional crises.

Oh, I've been fighting for so long that we can talk from the lectern, and now we're starting again with this weird stuff. Mr Bourgeois, you mentioned, and that is what I still do not quite get together: We need a common border guard and we need to be stronger. And we need to be stronger when it comes to concluding trade agreements. But that is precisely the point for which we would need Treaty amendments, because we are simply not strong enough in common European terms, because the European Union has almost no competence in joint border management. In the case of trade agreements, in order to become strong together, in order to represent our interests, in order to set our European standards in the world, we cannot always wait for the slowest, just because some small interest group in Austria does not want to have a trade agreement. That's why we need treaty changes. I don't quite understand the argument.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, This is a sad picture this morning. The whole event actually serves to call on the French Presidency of the Council to convene a treaty amendment convention later this month. And she's obviously so ambitious that she doesn't even manage to be there on time for the meeting. That's a disgrace. We agree that the European Union must become more capable of acting. We need a paradigm shift from protecting one another to protecting one another in the world. We need to be able to act in the area of trade and investment protection, security and defence – a global actor. We need more common ground in research and development. We want an Energy Union without de-industrialising the European continent, but without making it climate-neutral. We are talking about a framework. That is why it is wrong to impose political ideologies. Those who make maximum demands, who want to transform the European Union into a socialist project, will lose. And anyone who excludes colleagues from this House from the outset when it comes to the question of Treaty amendments and Article 48 – where the aim is to transfer more competences to the European Union or to transfer competences back to the Member States – will also fail. This is not the spirit of Schuman, De Gasperi and Helmut Kohl. I have had great doubts in recent days as to whether the actors in this House have really internalised the spirit of commonality that we need in order to be able to act in order to change the Treaties. The demand for Macron is clear: Not just talking, but being concrete. What the EPP wants is not a socialist project. That is why it has not signed this resolution, but it will largely vote in favour. What we want is to transform Europe, to be able to act in the world and to be united in diversity in Europe.

Mr President! Allow me to make two preliminary remarks: Firstly, I would like to support Mr Rangel in saying that it is worthy of criticism that this debate should once again take place in empty places. This Parliament must now finally succeed in having debates where colleagues are present in order for there to be an exchange. Secondly, Mr President, I would like to ask you to speak in the Bureau about the fact that the Commission and the Council cannot always extend speaking time in this way. Today, this has only been relatively short, but this means that we do not allow interim interventions, and we need that for a lively debate; The Council and the Commission often override this. This was not so strong today, but at least in principle. On the file, satisfied, I would like to thank Paulo Rangel, as the rapporteur, for an excellent report that is up for a vote here tomorrow. The European Parliament definitely needs a right of initiative. But my experience, satisfied, is that we don’t need it so much, mainly, to initiate new legislation; We rather need it to amend and revoke existing legislation, because when I am in my constituency and citizens tell me that the regulation has gone too far, or that a citizen is potentially disproportionately affected by one or two provisions, then the only thing that we can do as Members of Parliament is to write a letter to the Commission. And for that reason, I think the most important argument for having a right of initiative is that we can amend and revoke legislation.

Madam President, on behalf of the EPP, I would request at least to postpone the vote on the resolution. Colleagues need time to discuss. So please postpone at least the vote on the resolution. It is such an important issue that we should not lose the historic moment.

Madam President, the PPE Group has asked that the debate and the resolution on the Council and Commission statements on the call for a convention for the revision of the treaties taking place on Thursday morning be postponed to the second June part—session. Europe will not be made at once. With those famous words, Robert Schuman started his famous speech 70 years ago, and it is still true today. In a democracy, people and colleagues want to have time to discuss the things in which they want to be involved. In particular, when we are talking about such an important issue like establishing a convention, for which I am deeply fighting. Most colleagues did not even have the time to read the resolution. We did not even finish negotiating it, so I really ask you to postpone it for two weeks. Colleagues, we are talking about two weeks. In European history, it’s nothing. In a democracy and a democratic process, it means a lot.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Domènec, I would like to thank Guy Verhofstadt for a very delicious red wine from his own vineyard, I would like to thank those colleagues who cannot support this file for a really challenging debate, and I am very happy that I didn’t lose friendships over this file. Domènec said that this file is innovative and balanced. Well, I would perhaps even go one step further: the law in front of us today is a historic draft. For over 45 years, no reform of European electoral law has succeeded. But in those 45 years, our Union has changed dramatically. It has become a functioning single market, a currency Union, a political Union, and it is set to become a geopolitical project. But the increase in competences has not been met with a reform of the democratic legitimation of its institutions. Citizens have no direct say on how to choose leading figures of the Commission and the policies they stand for. The idea behind a European—wide constituency is to allow citizens to directly express a preference for a European political family with a second vote at the ballot. We want to spark a European public debate. Colleagues, remember the situation in 2019, when everybody was so disappointed because we had the lead candidate, and in the end the European Council proposed somebody who we didn’t campaign for. We want to put lead candidates on the ballot. With that move we won’t change the Treaty, that is true. But we want to make European parties directly electable for voters. This is a historic chance and a window of opportunity. Let’s use it now.

Madam President, on behalf of the PPE, I would like to ask to put a new initiative on the agenda, a motion for a resolution calling for the submission of a legislative proposal on a European lend-lease regulation.

Madam President, Madam President, first of all, thank you very much for asking the questions. I believe that the last hour was a stellar moment for European parliamentary democracy. I originally wanted to ask in the direction of Mrs Bischoff. But there's another issue on my nails. You now see that we need reliable partnerships in other democracies in the world at this time of this cruel war. We are not making any progress on the trade agreements we wanted to conclude. There has been little progress lately. But we need them not only for the economy, prosperity and jobs, but also more and more to set our European standards in the world. We need them to be like-minded. To bind democracies more closely to us, especially for such crisis situations as we are now experiencing. Is the Commission now planning to use this caesura of this terrible Ukraine war for a new offensive to negotiate the trade agreements with New Zealand and Australia and ratify the agreement with the Mercosur states?

Madam President Regner, Madam President Lagarde, Commissioner Gentiloni! I think that this debate today also shows very clearly how important it is for the European Central Bank to be politically independent. I would like to address two aspects of this report: First of all, of course, inflation. In fact, we have to talk very seriously about the serious consequences of the low interest rate policy, because the high inflation and the constantly high inflation expectation are of course dangerous for the upswing and, above all, for social peace in Europe. And it is not just energy prices, as has sometimes been suggested here. Core inflation, i.e. inflation excluding energy and food, was also 3.7 percent in December. And now it's good that the ECB is independent. And that is why policymakers should restrain themselves from evaluating low-interest-rate policies. I also fully trust the European Central Bank and its experts, but it is important, Madam President - and you mentioned this - that you communicate in public and explain why you come to this conclusion and now pursue interest rate policy as you do. I think this is very important for the acceptance of our currency. And then again it is important: The main mandate of the ECB is monetary stability. If the left and the green side demand that climate policy should be pursued, that is wrong. The European Central Bank is not a climate investment bank. Therefore, what the European Central Bank does – to change the risk assessment in the context of climate change – is exactly right, but what the report also calls for – that the European Central Bank actively pursues climate policy – is wrong, because it is outside its mandate. And finally: Monetary policy cannot be a substitute for sound economic policy in the Member States. It is in this clarity that I miss this in the report, but I am very pleased that I know you, Madam President, and your institution, on this aspect too, by my side.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I apologise for my delay. Madam President, I would like to thank you for the elegant introduction here. We have a very good resolution on the 12th. Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Together, we want to restore the functioning of the law enforcement mechanism, reduce subsidies for overfishing and illegal fishing, and create common rules for online trade. All in all, therefore, a good resolution that can make the multilateral framework and the World Trade Organisation fit for the future. Unfortunately, the left-wing side of this House once again decides to value the temporary suspension of intellectual property rights as a priority so as to jeopardise this good resolution. And when it is said here that the abolition of patent protection would vaccinate even a single person, then that is simply not true. It would not contribute to vaccine progress at all. However, it threatens future European research. I don't know if you've ever considered the cost of developing an mRNA vaccine like this: between 50 and 100 billion euros. And how many miscarriages? There are 200 models produced, and one can only be taken. That is why it is a pity – I had the impression here in the House for a while that even the Greens and the left side are returning a bit to the path of the World Trade Organisation, under the impression of Donald Trump’s policy against multilateralism that he has pursued. We oppose the suspension of intellectual property rights, but we stand by WTO reform for multilateral rules- and values-based global trade. The EPP is committed to this and that is why we stand with the Commission and Commissioner Dombrovskis.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, This debate makes you feel a bit despaired. We are discussing the European Union's relations with the United States of America against the backdrop of emerging powers like China, which want to influence our norms and our value system. A systemic rival has emerged. The US is back on the world stage, the Europeans are not. This debate also shows this very clearly today. We are not an attractive partner. In this resolution, too, I ask myself a bit of the question: What should be taken from it as a partner? It's a hodgepodge of everything. We raise the bar, want to see exactly one on one the standards that we Europeans have in climate protection, in socio-political issues, also from others, especially from the USA. But I wonder: Why doesn't today send a clear message: We want to renew a trade and defense agreement and a trade agreement and the defense agreement with the Americans! Why don't we say that so clearly? I don't understand it either. The left and the green side of this house raises the bar so high that I sometimes ask myself the question: The Chinese are a billion, not even half of us. Do you seriously believe that as Europe alone we can preserve our liberal democracy, our values? We need a trade deal with the Americans. Why don't you commit to it today?