What Katarina spoke about.

EN The President. – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the Commission statement "The decision of the US Supreme Court to overturn the right to abortion in the United States and the need to preserve the right to abortion and protect the health of women in the EU" (2022/2742(RSP)). I would like to remind you that, with the exception of the first two rows, which are reserved for the chairmen of the political groups, there is a free choice of seats. After inserting your voting card into the voting machine, you can use your voting machine to request spontaneous interventions and blue cards. Please always carry your voting card with you. Instructions are available in the Chamber. If you would like to speak spontaneously, I would ask you to do so from now on and not to wait until the end of the debate. I would also like to point out that blue cards can also be held up for a short speech and that a follow-up question is allowed thereafter. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that interventions in the Chamber will continue to take place from the central pulpit, with the exception of spontaneous interventions, blue cards and comments on the application of the Rules of Procedure. I therefore ask you to keep an eye on the list of speeches and to go to the lectern shortly before the start of your speaking time. Now I hope I have spoken long enough so that all those who do not want to participate can leave the room. It is also clear that this is now an emotional debate. That is why I would like to remind you once again that this is a Parliament. "Parliament" comes from "parlare“, “speak”. We would therefore like to exchange words here and not with any signs, banners, T-shirts or the like – just in advance. And now that the atmosphere has calmed down, I can give the floor to Commissioner Dalli for the Commission and warmly welcome her here.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Laurence Farreng, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the implementation of integration measures under the Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020 (2021/2009(INI)) (A9-0158/2022).

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan and Dragoş Pîslaru, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (2021/2251(INI)) (A9-0171/2022).

I have to announce that the non-attached Members have sent the President decisions on changes to appointments to committees. These decisions will be published in the minutes of today's meeting and will enter into force on the day of this announcement.

I acknowledge very much the efforts that the Polish people are doing at the moment in relation to Ukrainian refugees. What Polish people are doing is heroic. This has nothing to do with the question of the rule of law, and it is entirely in your hands. It is entirely in the hands of the Polish Government to release the money. You only have to comply to the rule of law, it’s very easy. And I’ve always said I’m very much in favour of giving money to the Polish Government because of the refugees, because it costs a lot. It costs the government, it costs the state, it costs the people. We should give money to Poland to care for the refugees. But that is a completely different question. What Poland – the Polish Government I have to say, because I have the greatest respect for the Polish people – what the Polish Government is doing is destroying the independence of the judiciary, and that has been going on for five years now. So it is entirely in the hands of politicians like you to change this. And then, of course, the money will be released.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to answer this question. I have answered it about a million times and you all know it, because we have even had a written procedure over this. The answer is no. I have never said that. I used the word, but I used it in relation with corruption in Hungary. Maybe if you are aware of the situation in Hungary, and you know where the European money goes in Hungary, what I said was we should drain … Well, I can say it and I can say it in German: den Sumpf austrocknen. So this is what I said. I said nothing about Poland in relation to this word and you know it. Mr Legutko knows it and you keep repeating the same lie. I know that you will only put your own message on social media and not my reply. I’ve said that about a million times. You can even hear it if you repeat, it was a radio interview. You can even hear it.

Mr President, I say to the President of the Commission: the Commission is not even demanding the bare minimum from the Warsaw Government. The reforms the Commission asks for will not bring the Polish judiciary back in line with rule of law. And, most importantly, there are even no signs that Warsaw will make a serious attempt to fulfil the milestone. The currently pending reform of the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court will not be enough to comply with ECJ judgments. And we will see it, the problems that this government created go much deeper. The milestones leave major rule of law problems in Poland completely unaddressed. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has become a puppet of the PIS government. It delivers judgments at the order of the government. In two judgments already it has openly attacked the supremacy of EU law. The Polish National Council of the Judiciary again is a puppet of the government. It appoints judges at the orders of the government. And my question is: if you accept now a new disciplinary chamber, they will also be composed by illegally appointed judges, so-called ‘non judges’, so does the Commission now accept these judges as legal? Only today, the remaining and continuously fighting lawyers’ and judges’ associations in Poland have demanded again for the Commission to start infringement proceedings in relation to the National Council of the Judiciary. And I call on the Commissioner today to take up her duty as the guardian of the Treaties. (The speaker agreed to respond to two blue-card speeches)

(Start of speech when the microphone is switched off) ... spend more time with this device than with your partner or with your children. You have it right on your body, in your handbag. Some even take it to the toilet. Pegasus and other spy software make this device a spy in your pocket. Camera on, microphone on, all data can be removed and much more. It is clearly an attack on the privacy of potentially each of us. It affects journalists, politicians, priests, many people who use this device professionally and who either have professional secrets or, like us, have to work confidentially. And that is why this software is not only an attack on every person affected by it, but also on democracy, on the rule of law, on the separation of powers. And that is why we owe enlightenment to all these people who are affected by it, but above all also to democracy and the rule of law. And that is why we have to fight for it – as parliamentarians, but please also you as a Commission and above all the nation states and the Council.

Madam President, my only question would be, if you think that listening to citizens is so important – and I totally agree, why did you not accept any – I think it was three or four blue cards – that citizens gave you in the Conference plenary?

Thank you for the question. It also gives me the opportunity to say that there were also people with very different points of view, also someone who defended the Russian aggression against Ukraine, by the way. And yes, I absolutely think that this is something that we should carry on doing to listen to the citizens. With this kind of exercise or a different one. I don’t know exactly which format we should choose, but I am very convinced that it should be one where we come together, where it’s not only digital, but where we come together. Because they gave us lessons too. I don’t know how many of you participated. They sent us a letter, by the way, saying, look, the way you discuss is odd. You come, you give your speech of a minute and then you disappear. And look, I mean, I addressed a few colleagues, none of them are there anymore. This is not how you make a debate. It’s not only that, you know, they contribute something from a content point of view. They can also, I think, make us better parliamentarians.

Madam President, so the citizens have spoken and they have spoken very clearly. They want a more social, more sustainable, more democratic Union. Now, there are some in this House who don’t like the results and I understand your frustration. I understand your frustration that there were not as many homophobic, nationalist, chauvinist people within these 800 as you would maybe like to have seen there. But now you were drawing a picture of these people that is simply not correct – and those few of you who were there should know better. I’ll just give you one example. We had a very strongly discussing Democracy Working Group, and we had a very prominent leader of this group who presented the results, who is the leader of the EPP Group. And these citizens said, no, we don’t feel our proposals are reflected in this, please, let’s do it again. So they were very confident. They were not at all kind of shying away of conflict with the big MEPs or national parliamentarians. They were very confident and they spoke out very clearly. And I actually wanted to give credit to my colleague, Gunnar Beck, which I don’t very often do, because he was there and he was confronted by the citizens – I think he got about four blue cards. Colleague Mara Bizzotto was also there but she didn’t take any blue cards unfortunately; she didn’t confront herself to what they had to say. But Mr Beck did. So look it up on YouTube and you see what happens to a far—right wing politician who gets confronted by normal citizens. It’s really extraordinary. So the result of this was not only an exercise for them, it was an exercise .... (The speaker was cut-off by the Chair) (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card speech)

Madam President, so here we are again speaking about the situation in Poland and in Hungary. And I do come across people who say, well why do we actually bother? I mean, it’s their countries, and what does that have to do with us if democracy and rule of law is declining in some Member States? Well, last debate that we just heard, with Mario Draghi, was called This is Europe. And it’s all about that. It’s about the question, who are we as a European Union? Who do we want to be? And why do so many people all over the world actually look at us as a place where you can turn to when you are in need, in distress? That is because we have a very clear fundament of values. It is laid down in Article 2 that all Member States signed and it is worth having a look at it. What are the values in there? Respect for human dignity. Freedom. Democracy. Equality. Rule of law. Respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. And this is one of the things that some people really get wrong. They think they have obtained a majority in an election and then they can do whatever they want. Democracy is exactly not that. Democracy is exactly that, of course, as a majority you set the rules, but you have to respect the rights of those who are different to yourself, who think differently, who look differently, who believe differently, who live differently. That is exactly what the European Union is all about. Most of the Member States adhere to those values and some don’t. And it’s not the people – I really want to make this clear – it’s not the people in Poland and in Hungary, who are at the moment doing such an excellent job welcoming these refugees, giving them shelter, it’s the governments. And it’s the governments that we really have to address at this point. In Hungary, we haven’t seen fair elections for the last nine years – the OSCE said so. The media and the judiciary are under the control of the government. LGBTI people are being deprived of their rights. Corruption – I mean, look at Hungary, corruption everywhere. In Poland, the situation is different, but not less worrying. It has been seven years since the Polish Government abolished the independence of the judiciary, the constitutional tribunal, Commissioner Reynders talked about it, and it negates now the founding primacy of EU law. The facts are clearly established. We do not have to discuss any more about that. The European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have found persistent violations, systematic violations on these rights and values. And this has to stop. Not only we demand this, it is also the people of Europe who demand this. In the Conference on the Future of Europe this aspect is one of the most important ones; representing almost 450 million European citizens, they sent us a very clear message. They demand that we all ensure the protection of EU values as they are laid down in the treaties that I just quoted. And the EU has the means at its disposal. One of them being the Article 7 procedure. Article 7 sends a strong signal. It’s not only about protecting the people in Poland and Hungary, it’s about protecting all of us, protecting our internal values, our data, our individual rights, our taxpayers’ money also. And it is high time to do so to protect all of this. Now, the Commission and the Parliament have sent their cases to the Council and the Council has to act. The French Presidency has promised to protect the rule of law in the European Union. Where are they? Where are they to protect the rule of law now that we discuss this very important topic? The European Union will ask three things at least from the Council. First, be transparent about the proceedings. The citizens have a right to know and they, in fact, demand this knowledge. Second, follow up the pointless hearings with recommendations to the Member States in question. And let me remind you, there is no unanimity necessary for this step. Third, consider the facts that are already there. If you look at the Commission’s letters to Poland and Hungary, under the rule of law conditionality regulation, the annual rule of law report, the rulings of the European Court of Justice, of the European Court of Human Rights, the OLAF reports, you will have it all on the table. Today we send a strong message to the Council. You, the Council, the governments of the Member States, you owe this to 450 million EU citizens and to the many more people who look at us because of our values, who fight and give their lives to defend just those same values.

Madam President, Right now, the European Union is fighting almost unanimously against an aggressor from Russia, against unspeakable suffering in Ukraine. A small minority does exactly the opposite. They blame Ukraine, they downplay the war and Putin's crimes. In Germany, this destructive force is the so-called AfD. Their deputies constantly travel to Russia, wave Russian flags in parliaments, travel to annexed Crimea or to the separatist areas in eastern Ukraine. They do not approach Russia in the spirit of peace and democracy as others do. They are approaching Russia to undermine democracy here. That is the crucial point. Unfortunately, there is not only the AfD in this Parliament and in the Member States. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán has sent Putin propaganda around the clock during the election campaign. In France, Marine Le Pen is a politician who makes no secret of her contempt for democracy. That's why I'm saying this today. Chers citoyens français, soyez conscients que Marine Le Pen est protégée et financée par Poutine. Prenez votre décision le 10 avril au vu de cette relation toxique et, s’il vous plaît, avec votre vote, défendez la France, défendez l’Europe et défendez la démocratie.

In accordance with Rule 136(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a motion for a resolution has been tabled*. The debate is closed. The vote will take place today, Wednesday 6 April 2022. _______________ * See Minutes. Written declarations (Rule 171)

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the global approach to research and innovation: Europe’s strategy for international cooperation in a changing world by Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (O-000013/2022 – B9-0011/22) (2021/3001(RSP)).