Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I think it has become quite clear that this is a tough week for all of us. I have rarely seen so many feelings in this Parliament: So much anger, so much disappointment and so much real shock. But I believe we have shown that this attack, which is really aimed here at our democracy, at the credibility of our institutions, continues to challenge us beyond these emotions. We have taken the first steps in great unity today. And I would like to thank Commissioner Ylva Johansson for the clear words, because I believe that we, as institutions, must also work harder here to tackle such corruption, criminals. That is why it is right that we have proposed, for example, an independent ethics council for all the institutions. I am glad that the Commissioner and the Presidents of the Commission support this. We also need to get the advice. And we have to do our homework here in our house when it comes to lobbying third countries, companies, etc. That's what we're going to do. In the new year, we must immediately try to regain the confidence that we have lost here.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! Imagine this block here would be filled with children like the rest of the house. Then on this side, all the children from poor families sitting in cold apartments would get barren breakfasts, their shoes broken, their talents not encouraged. That would be the reality, because poverty is spreading to the middle of society. That's why it's so important that we don't have Sunday or Christmas speeches here. This week we have a chance to vote in favour of an amendment that will finally equip the child guarantee in a better way. We made it through the financial crisis with the Youth Guarantee. We can do the same with the child guarantee. But that means that the room will not be as empty as it is now, that we will talk to everyone in the political groups and make sure that this request is supported this week. This is your chance. This is our chance to make sure that we have sustainable investments in the children, because they are our future and because we can actually achieve a lot with relatively little money.

Mr President! I believe that, in the light of the debate here, it is good that we remember once again what the citizens of the Future Conference on Migration wrote to us in the home book. They said that we should act more decisively and finally achieve a common migration policy, and I believe that the migration pact is the proof of what we have to create in order to follow it. And they have told us once again that they want a reform of European asylum law based on the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities, and they recommend that we ensure common EU rules on procedures for examining applications for international protection, which are to be applied uniformly to all asylum seekers, and that they must take into account human dignity procedures and international law. They also want us to review the Dublin system – solidarity and a fair distribution of responsibilities across Member States. And if nothing fundamentally changes, populist actions such as those in Italy will continue to divide Europe, poison the climate and leave citizens in doubt; and also here: Acting instead of populist games.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Šefčovič! It is good to prepare for next winter, and many of the measures being discussed by the European Council will not take effect until next winter at the earliest. But it is also very daring to say that we are already well positioned, that everyone will come over this winter as well. Many people don't know how to pay their bills. Companies that are energy-intensive have registered short-time work, small companies stand with their backs to the wall. That is why energy prices must now go down and purchasing power must be strengthened, and that is why over-profits across Europe must indeed be sufficiently absorbed and used to support the weakest. This is not happening in Europe at the moment. And that's why citizens can't warm up this winter to be supported next winter. We now need immediate action in Europe, preferably a European solidarity package, as proposed by the S&D Group.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, One can get the impression that trivialization and normalization of right-wing extremists or post-fascists is always what the others do, what doesn't happen where we are. But that's not the case, and that's why we put it on the agenda. We simply see that in many Member States right-wing extremists, populists, post-fascists, parties with a Nazi past are winning and exploiting people's fears and concerns. We have seen it in Italy and Sweden, where they make it all the way to government participation – and in both cases only because they can count on the support of parties of the so-called political centre. At the same time, parts of these parties have adopted the discourses of these parties, and they also normalize them with them. We look at Italy, and there we can see that Silvio Berlusconi, who is Manfred Weber's close party friend, has entered into a coalition with the Italian post-fascist brothers. And how does the leader of the largest faction in the House react? He's just trivializing it. He asserts that Forza Italia and Berlusconi are only in this coalition so that it remains pro-European. You're not serious, Mr. Weber. Would you enter a government with the AfD in Germany to say that we want to ensure that it stays on the pro-European course? I mean, we've just seen the days through new tweets from Berlusconi, on whose side he's on: On Putin's side, where he reiterated that he wrote him a great letter and sent 20 bottles of vodka and he reacted just as nicely. Colleagues, these patterns of trivialisation are really dangerous. They are politically dangerous, and we have seen how long Orbán and his illiberal democracy have been downplayed here in this House in the largest group. Let's turn back, because that's a dangerous path. Back to a bulwark of democracy against right-wing extremists and post-fascists!

Mr President! Many have said it here: This energy crisis threatens the very existence of millions of Europeans, and ordinary workers cannot cope with such price increases. The worst hits the poorest. 30% in Europe cannot make any reserves. That's why the first answer is: Wages up, prices down and solidarity with the strikers here in Europe. The excess profit tax has already been mentioned to finance this. But what really worries me is the skyrocketing energy prices that affect millions of jobs in energy-intensive industries. If you don't act faster here and if you just let this go, it breaks the industrial backbone of Europe. And what is the consequence of that? Not only the unemployed and impoverished regions, but also more global dependency and less strategic autonomy. That is why Europe now has to act faster and can no longer rely solely on the problem to be solved. Those who want good prospects for the future are now acting courageously.

Madam President, Minister Bek, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, for eleven long years, Romanians and Bulgarians here are waiting for the door to the Schengen area to finally open and for them to get this privilege that all Europeans want to enjoy. It has been said: There are 27 million people involved, tens of thousands of companies, and both Member States meet all the criteria. Now one wonders: Parliament has long since given the green light. The Commission has also reiterated that it has given the green light. But it is the Council that has not given the green light. And I want to say one more point about countries that block this: It is precisely the spiritual arsonists like this screamer here in this room that scares the governments that prevent this. And they have to take action against it, because to tolerate it, to take over, creates much more division in Europe. But I would like the Council to: I think it is a great opportunity for the Czech Presidency to open this door after eleven years. That is why it is important that we not only conjure up what an achievement this is, but do it. But let me also make a remark: It is once again the unanimity that makes it possible for a single country to prevent eleven years, that if all the criteria are met, the law still does not come into its own and that this can be prevented. We need to change that too. It has really been emphasized here: If we continue to have first-class and second-class freedom of movement in the long term, it will shake confidence in European law and also in the institutions. That is why my appeal, Mr Bek, is that you, as the Czech Presidency, make the change here, give courage so that the Council can really make this decision. It's been overdue for eleven years. 22 is the year for that.

Mr President, Minister Bek, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! When the AfD speaks of the need for objective debates in this House, I can only say: Take care! Mr. Beck is no longer there. But I would like to say again: It was indeed a mistake of many parties to trust Putin for so long. But it's his party, and it's his country chairman Höcke, who called in August this year to open Nord Stream 2. So much for the facts in the house. And which parties are now instrumentalizing people's fears and concerns, driving them onto the streets, trying to destabilize democracies? These are the right-wing populists. These are exactly those post-fascists, and they're doing Putin's business with it. He can rub his hands, because that's what he's trying to do. And he has an army of bots to support him, and a lot of useful idiots to spread it. And it was the US intelligence service that recently pointed out that right-wing populist parties and candidates received over 300 million francs in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea to destabilize our democracy, and we have to put a stop to that. That must not be possible. For this reason, however, those who now speak of Ukrainian refugees as welfare tourists or social tourists also set the fuse here in such a situation. Let's work together to prevent Putin from winning!

Madam President, Commissioner Jourová, ladies and gentlemen! As shadow rapporteur, I am pleased that we can set the course to strengthen political parties in Europe and also foundations. It has already been said: What we want is to make them a bit more visible, so that they don't just show up every five years just before the European elections. We are strengthening the democratic control of the European parties and their member parties, because we also want to strengthen the control that they adhere to European values, that they profess to them, as we have just enshrined them in the European treaties. We do not want European parties or foundations that do not respect the values of our Union to be financed with European funds, or perhaps even to use these funds for actions that contradict the values. It is important again – and this has already been said, my colleague Wieland has said it: We do not act here in the European elections as parties in a vacuum. That is why it is important to profess colour so that citizens know which party family you belong to, which programme is actually represented at European level, and to publish this prominently on the website, including the logo. An important point for us – and also for me – has always been that we strengthen gender equality here too, that European political parties have to show their colours here too, that they have to make public on their website the way they do in terms of gender equality and candidate list. Because one thing is also clear: We need much stronger measures to ensure that it does not remain the case that we have 37% women in this European Parliament, but that we manage to ensure that both genders are equally represented here.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The specter is about Europe, the specter of recession. We are in the race against time, but in the race of deeds, not in the race for beautiful words and symbolic politics. They have identified important concrete projects: price caps, Excess profit tax. That is a good thing, but you have again systematically neglected one issue, namely how to deal with the social consequences of this crisis. Because the fear goes all the way to the middle class, the fear of slipping into poverty, and the fear of not being able to pay the bills anymore. If we look at the gloomy perspectives, for example in the energy-intensive industries, then it is negligent that we are not already really equipping SURE 2.0, SURE + – whatever – at this point, so that we are prepared and do not still get mass unemployment. Therefore, my request: Upgrade socially! Social peace in Europe needs this.

Mr President! I would like to express my great thanks, firstly to the really experienced rapporteurs, secondly to the courageous Commissioner, but also to the French Presidency of the Council, which is not here, but which has conducted the negotiations very courageously and clearly. But I have a big request, a proposal to the Council, that tomorrow all the Member States compete on who can transpose this directive as soon as possible. In times of exploding prices for energy, but also for food, we need clear signals that we want to strengthen the purchasing power of the people who keep our store running here. And the Council has it in its hands. My request, my suggestion is also: Do not wait with the action plans to strengthen the tariff policy. Next week, get together with the social partners, with the associations nationally, and get it off the ground. We cannot afford the luxury of waiting two years to implement this directive. If you take it boldly, then, I believe, this is exactly the right signal in a politically difficult time.

Mr President! I have to respond to my previous speaker: When it comes to myths, it's about facts. What we find is that exactly 50 years after the Watergate scandal, we have eavesdropping scandals in the middle of Europe. And we have them in Greece, and we have them in Poland. I myself have met victims who have been intercepted: Opposition politicians in the middle of the election campaign. It was an internal election campaign. And if you are not afraid of it, then you can put all the facts on the table. But as Commissioner Reynders has said, it does not happen here that they say: Where is concrete and substantial evidence of anything? And that is why it is all the more important that we not only talk here, but that we have a complete education and that this House continues to contribute to ensuring that we do not have such a lopsided level in more and more countries, that the list of Member States that are trampling on democracy and fundamental rights and the rule of law is getting longer and longer. That is the responsibility of all of us. Let's perceive them!

Madam President, we are now voting on the amendment of the Rules of Procedure to allow for a hybrid committee working regime in the future. The working group on the Rules of Procedure has been mandated by our President to prepare a report to implement the decision of the CoP of 2 June, and this decision was supported by all the political groups. We have prepared this report under a lot of time pressure and at short notice. Our working method is based on consensus, and we achieved a consensus in this working group. On this basis, we proposed my report that is presented today for vote. On Monday, it was supported by a broad majority in the AFCO Committee. Dear colleagues, I now count on you also to support to amend Rule 216 of our Rules of Procedure and to respect the consensus that has been found first in the CoP, then in the AFCO working group, then in the AFCO, and I hope also here in the plenary.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič! Take a close look: This symbolizes the Council's attitude towards the House of Democracy here in Europe. We are no longer present in the debate on the European Council and we apologise for having had other commitments. And this is precisely the attitude towards the citizens who have worked hard, who have put forward proposals for the reform of Europe and who have written to us in the pedigree that there should be Treaty changes, and this requires a Convention. And Parliament triggered Rule 48, and the President of Parliament wrote this to the Council once again in the pedigree and said that they had to act. And what do they do? They are not even present at the debate. It is again and again the goalkeeper's fear of the penalty that threatens the future of Europe. That is why, Mr Michel, if you are still listening: It is important that the Council finally act and play its role at the next European Council and set up a Convention.

Mr President, Minister Bek, Commissioner Nicolas Schmit! We launched the Pillar of Social Rights when we had the painful experience of the financial and economic crisis and the social crisis in many Member States. But we didn't know that soon after that we would have much bigger crises that would affect everyone. We only saw this in the pandemic, and we have managed to develop good instruments such as SURE as the European Union. But I am afraid that this autumn and winter will be one of the biggest tests of solidarity in Europe. The question is whether we not only find beautiful words or whether, like Mr Radtke, we are trying to break this into national politics, but whether we have concepts, whether we have strategies at European level. And it is not just about energy poverty and security, it is also about the question that we have to take people's fear away, namely the fear that they will no longer be able to pay for their heating costs, the fear that the money they have in their pockets will become less every day because inflation simply explodes. That is why I think it is good that the Commission says that it will do everything it can to ensure a social summit. And my question also to the Council: Do we understand what lies ahead? Do we understand that if we can't do this now, the world and the EU will be different in the spring and that this is why we really need to take action? It has already been said: cut energy prices. It has been said: tax over-profits and that we really relieve the burden on people with small incomes, middle incomes and that we in Europe do not have a patchwork of measures – one country cuts down, the other takes other measures – but that we really also pool our resources. The different instruments have been mentioned, but I also have the impression here in the room that it has not yet been understood in what situation we are. Therefore: What are the Commission's answers? What does the Council do other than business as usual?

Mr President! There is war in Europe and it is the right message to give candidate status to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. And one must also communicate clearly and honestly that this will cause enormous efforts in these countries to actually get through this process, which takes a long time. But it is also important for the European Union to become capable of enlargement. And here the conclusions, the drafts we have seen, are lame and insufficient. The EU must also make enormous efforts, for example in terms of the capacity to act, the safeguarding of democracy and the rule of law – I will only mention Article 7 here – to carry out the reforms that citizens have written to you in the genealogical book, to us in the genealogical book. And that is why it is important that we now really get a clear signal from the Council, commitments to make the EU fit for enlargement and to ensure that we have a good future in a united Europe – here, democratically.

I would like to ask Mrs Laporte: You have to decide. We have now involved the citizens – 800 randomly selected citizens. You see this approach as one that does not involve citizens, but that is not true of reality. And now that we have involved the citizens, if we say: No, we do not like the result and therefore we do not want to take this into account, do exactly what you are accusing the European Union of: They don't take citizens seriously. I would like your answer to that.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. We have met here today and are discussing a historic decision, namely that indeed the European Parliament is clearly assuming the responsibility that Mrs Šuica also referred to: The responsibility to say, now we have to commission a convention, and we have to start it. Not because we have nothing else to do, but because we see what serious times we are in. And we promised the citizens we called together, who worked for months, one thing: that we take their proposals seriously and that we do not say: Well, we invite them, let them make some suggestions, and then we make business as usual. And that is why it is important that we also clearly identify the areas that are important and that are also important to citizens: A Health Union, an Energy Union. But they also want a stronger social and democratic Europe. And those who equate social Europe with socialism have understood nothing and should perhaps invite Jean-Claude Juncker to join the Group - one of those who have really pushed social Europe forward in the last decade and who have understood the importance of this element of a European unification process. But today we are talking about responsibility. And indeed, this means that we did not decorate a Christmas tree with all the wishes you can imagine, but listened to what the citizens said, who clearly wrote us in the pedigree. One point is essential: With unanimity, we are destroying this European project because we are unable to act, because we cannot react. And that is why we have also focused on this in this resolution, together. And that actually means that something like this, which happened to Hungary once again in the European Council, cannot happen in the future. This is also why we said: The issue of sanctions is important here to ensure that in the future we will really manage to decide by qualified majority in the main policy areas. And I believe it is important that this time, with a large majority, we actually carry this resolution with the amendments over the threshold here, because only if we send a clear, strong signal to the European Council, to the Council, to the Member States, will we be successful here too. And that is why it is a pity that the French Presidency is not there. But I hope that you will message, which is given here, catches on. And that's why I can only ask you all: Take this responsibility, this historic opportunity: A large majority in favour of this resolution.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We negotiated this resolution last week and all weekend, and all the political groups in this House have approached the EPP. We have reduced a lot both in form and in content in order to have the EPP on board, as I said; I would like to make it clear once again: This is not an EPP resolution, but a resolution of the political groups in this House. And I would like to point out once again, Mr Weber, that on 30 April you once again stressed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung that citizens expect a clear message that the EU must become stronger, more efficient, more democratic and more ambitious. We see it the same way – the other political groups, the S&A/D group, I am speaking for Renew, greens And also the left. We now have the opportunity to send a signal so that the French Presidency can take up this, for the European Council. In the history of Europe it has always been this way: There's a moment when you have to jump. We have here clear and really reduced to the minimum demands that are important. In this sense, I would ask you not to accept the request.

Madam President, Colleagues! We have heard here that the situation in Belarus is getting worse and worse, that the KGB is brutally attacking, trade unionists imprisoning the leadership, threatening the people whose tools are being collected and thus trying to break up the trade union movement, in particular to intimidate the members so that they leave this federation, which is relatively small compared to the state unions – with its 12,000 members compared to four million. It is so important that we give the signal here that we support the detainees here. They need our protection, they need our solidarity, but also concrete support. That is why, I believe, it is very, very important that we say once again very clearly: All political prisoners must be released, but also genuine freedom of assembly and trade union rights must be protected – in Belarus and everywhere. I want to conclude with a quote from the International Secretary of this Federation of Free Trade Unions, Maryja Taradzetskaya, who said: "I believe in the universe and in the trade unions, and I believe in Europe's solidarity and ability to act."

Madam President, I send my congratulations to the rapporteur. To protect the rule of law is so essential, not only outside the EU, but especially inside the EU. I can’t resist answering this colleague from ECR. The simple fact in Europe is, if you want to become a member, if you want to stay a member in the European Union, you have to guarantee rule of law and democracy. It’s not a ‘nice to have’, and therefore it is very important that we have the right instruments here at hand to make sure that it happens and that citizens trust us that we can deliver on this essential value of the EU. Here indeed, Commissioner, we see room for improvement in the reports, especially, on the one hand, regarding the scope. I think that we really have to extend it to cover democracy and fundamental rights, especially also including women’s rights, migrants’ rights and LGBTIQ rights. Also, and it was mentioned here already, it doesn’t help to treat all Member States the same way, because we cannot step away from the fact that we have Member States – in the plural – in the European Union with systematic and severe attacks and violations of rule of law. We have to address it. We have to make it stronger to keep the trust of the citizens and hopefully also of the rapporteur.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wished so much that all Members of Parliament had had the opportunity to participate in this future conference and to experience the citizens. They got together, and they really shared ownership of their proposals. The ambassadors they have appointed have also felt committed to these results. I hope that as Parliament, which has always been the driving force behind this process, we will assume just as much responsibility and ownership as the citizens. It has been said here – many proposals in many policy areas. But you can now have discussions – if you are in favour of treaty changes, you are against them; Here in the house, we know about how this divides up. If we take citizens' proposals seriously, we have to make Treaty changes because a large number of the proposals they have made require them. Of course, we can now say: Pah, after the conference everything is different again, we don't take this so seriously. But it would be a slap in the face for citizens who trust it. And I have to say one thing: If one thing really excites me, it is that these citizens have not lost confidence in the European project. They want change, they want Europe to be better positioned, more able to act, more democratic, more social. And that is why, I believe, it is so important for us, as a Parliament, to take this first step. We cannot ask the Council to do that. They have delayed this process, tried again and again to put stones in the way, so that this dynamic does not develop at all. We, as Parliament, are giving this signal together on 9 May that we say that taking the proposals seriously also means launching Treaty amendments, as well as for the Commission to take this into account in the next work programme. In this sense, a strong vote is also a strong signal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, This week, as a Parliament, we really have a great opportunity. We have the chance to write European history and to carry the European project a little further forward. The vote on this EU right to vote is about a few really central issues. Do we here in the House have the courage for more Europe? Do we have the courage for truly European elections for the European Parliament? For so far, we have largely 27 very often nationally oriented European themes that dominate the election campaign. European parties – ask local citizens – hardly play a role. But it is also about the question: Do we want to give Europeans a second vote in the elections in order to really decide who and which lead candidate, which lead candidate will become the President of the European Commission after the election? This is not a question of any top position, but of centralising European policy. At the Future Conference, which ended last weekend, the citizens gave us a very clear mandate on this issue: They want us to have a right to vote in Europe that is not only in Europe's name. And that is why they have also proposed as one of the central demands of this future conference and supported the change of this right to vote. Domènec Ruiz Devesa has done a really good job as rapporteur. He took the doubters with him – he tried. He has spoken to everyone, to everyone, to really develop a model where the little ones do not have to fear that they will fall short, where they think that only the big countries are represented; and, together with the shadow rapporteurs, found a smart solution. But this is not just about transnational lists and top candidates. There is also a lot to do in terms of gender equality – take a look around the house – and you will find this in the proposal as well. Or when it comes to accessibility: Here, too, we still have a leap forward to make. Therefore: Nothing was broken over the knee. They really took the time to come up with solutions. This will be put to the vote tomorrow. All those – I am looking at them – who still have doubts or who say that I am also a little afraid of such a solution – give yourself a jolt here! It is Parliament's third attempt at transnational lists, clear rules for lead candidates, more democracy in Europe and real Europeanisation. Let's have the courage to take this step together!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I believe – as Mrs Jourová has already said – that the previous debate on Russia funding extremist parties in Europe shows that it has an interest in destabilising Europe. If we continue to weaken our values of democracy and the rule of law, that would play into Putin's hands. That is why it is all the more important that we really defend with all our strength the values of the EU – the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights – which are coming under increasing pressure, including in Europe. Parliament has always made its position very clear here. We also think that we need a sharper sword here to actually defend fundamental rights, to defend the rule of law. That is why we, as the Committee on Citizens' Rights, together with the Constitutional Committee, recently made a joint delegation trip to Poland and once again made our own impression of the erosion of the rule of law. Therefore, all eyes are on you as a commission. We have written two letters to President von der Leyen, from the Committee Chair, as well as a joint letter from the S&A/D Group with the Renew, Greens and The Left groups. Our message is very clear: Do not approve the Polish recovery plan with the reconstruction funds until the conditions are really met – independence of the judiciary and the requirements set by the European Court of Justice to ensure the independence of judges and the judiciary. And I can tell you one thing from many conversations on the ground: Polish civil society is hoping for Europe, and we must not disappoint them on this issue. That is why, dear Commission, here in the House of European Democracy, tell us, confirm to us that you will not give in here. We will continue to defend these rights together.

Thank you very much! May I take another look and ask: If the citizens are committed to this and if at the end it comes out that certain Treaty changes are needed, especially in the area of strengthening democracy and parliamentarism, what would, in your view, be three key points that we would then have to address and would you then also support accordingly?