Speeches

Madam President, cryptocurrencies themselves are just a technology, but I always have to get a bit careful when I see how excited the far right gets about a certain technology. It reminds me of a saying that I've heard recently, which is that 'not all crypto traders are gangsters, but all gangsters are in crypto'. And now with Trump also launching his meme coin – which I think had a value of USD 40 billion market cap at some point – we really have to ask ourselves how we can get better. The good thing is we already have great standards with MiCA here in Europe, which enables the innovation that we need and fights the misuse and the risks that we can see with people trying to agglomerate power and money without end. So what we need to do now is to really set up global standards. We need to transfer MiCA into global standards so that we can have the innovation that cryptocurrencies can unleash, but fight the risks that are there.

Mr President, I'm always amazed by the far right of this House. There was a mentioning of the new sun of democracy rising across the ocean, and I was wondering that maybe some of the colleagues got a bit too much sun already when I look at what they're saying. They're saying it's amazing that we have this expansionist person now there, but then I hear a Danish far-right guy saying: 'Yeah, but maybe don't take Greenland. You know, that's not so good.' So when it goes against your own interest, then suddenly you realise that maybe if there's an expansionist on the other side, it's not so good to be a patriot and in favour of that. There are three main implications of Trump taking power. The first one is about the economy, the second one is about security, and the third one is about democracy. When it comes to economy, we need to work closer together. We need to go into free trade agreements to diversify trade. We need to really unleash innovation in Europe and build the interior market. When it comes to security, we need to understand that 17 different tank systems for the same category in Europe doesn't make sense. We need to be able to support Ukraine and defend ourselves. And when it comes to democracy, I can only ask all citizens of the European Union to get active in politics now, because we really need you in the centre and not in these false patriotic parties.

Dear colleague, you used your one minute to speak about the evil von der Leyen not doing the right things in Poland. And sometimes I wonder, we're here talking about a situation where Putin is heavily influencing elections in our continent, actually also within your proximity. So, I'm just wondering, why did you choose to rather focus on Ursula von der Leyen and potential situations in Poland, rather than on our common big enemy, Putin, who is influencing right now elections in Europe? Can you answer that question?

Thank you, Fidias, I have a couple of questions because, as you said, you have a lot of experience in this field. The first one is, do you really believe the quality of politics has improved with all these extreme things? I mean, the videos you make, they need to have a hook, they need to be somehow engaging, but it feels like they're also often quite limiting and simplistic. And when I listen to what the colleague, Mrs Disinformation here, has been saying, I have heard that von der Leyen is blackmailing politicians, that she has ordered somehow the courts in Romania to act a certain way, that we smell like sulphide – I don't know where that came from – that the LGBTQI community has been weaponised, that we are in an Orwellian State – this all seems to be disinformation. So how would you improve the quality of information on social media?

Mr President, I have the firm belief that Europe can unfold a huge potential. We are probably only at 10 % of where we could actually be when it comes to innovation. But I'm with my colleague from Renew, Anna Stürgkh, on the fact that we have exhausted our vocabulary for innovation. And the question is: didn't the politicians in the past also want to be innovative? And why are we not there yet? The truth is that there are a couple of reasons. One is – and I think it's the most important one – that all politicians face a dilemma. Do we give cash to existing big businesses who, together with their unions, say, 'hey, we really need some money to survive this next innovation'? Or do we give some money to new industries and use it to actually save innovators? It's far too easy to save existing jobs, and it's very difficult to build those that can't scream for your attention yet. So when you talk about access to capital, idea generation, when you talk about regulatory burden, when you talk about all these things, it's great to put that in an Innovation Act. But the actual place where it should be is the clean industrial act, the main programme of the European Commission. So I was very happy about your nomination as a start-up Commissioner, but please make sure this is not just one side element of the European Commission's programme, but the actual core piece – that the innovation pact is the core piece of the Clean Industrial Deal. And then we will be successful if we also break national egos.

Madam President, first of all, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for your five years of service: we will spend another five years in this Chamber, but you are free to go. I think the problem awareness is there. We all know that we don't have enough VC capital, and this has been said, I'm very happy that Draghi put it in a new report so we can all see it very clearly again. But then, I wonder, why don't we do anything? The reason that currently nothing is happening – and that Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, all these companies are basically being established in the US – is because of our national egos. We had this conversation recently, the Capital Markets Union is in everyone's ears, but nobody is actually committing because they all want their nations to prevail. That is weakness and that is the perspective of cross-border rather than interior market. So I think we really need to do a couple of things now: we need to unlock the Capital Markets Union. We need to ensure that we really work with the 28th regime, wherever we can, to establish an 'EU Inc', at least to make it easier to invest and scale. We need to make it easier to leverage mezzanine funds and EIB and EIF investments, and we need to make it easier for institutional investors to invest in VCs.

Madam President, dear colleagues, even a failed German Government started with a happy photo at the beginning. But when I look around here, I see that the coalition is already fuming. And that is because, Mr Weber, you chose to strong-arm the social democrats and the liberals into a coalition with Meloni, and because you decided on reforestation and budget votes with the German AfD. What a great start. Why are you so afraid to accept the Greens into a formal coalition? Why are you so afraid? I can tell you, I sit with them for five years now: they don't bite. Mr Weber, stop choosing the far right over the Greens and Volt. Dear Commission President, looking at the US, Ukraine, Germany and France now, and even Romania, we really need a strong European government. We at Volt will therefore stay pragmatic, and we have asked for the group to stay pragmatic, because we need this government to be strong. But please, don't accept the Union as it is. Advance it, reform it, so that European citizens and this House can nominate and vote for the European government.

Mr President, Minister, you updated us on what national leaders will discuss. And I have to say, even more than Bas and my previous speaker right now, I don't think that these words only lack ambition, I think they are inconsistent. First, they will talk about migration and say, 'Oh, how bad this is!' and congratulate Chancellor Scholz for bringing up borders within the European Union again and undermining Schengen. And then they will talk about competitiveness, saying, 'Oh, it's so important, we really need it!' and 'Yeah, let's endorse Draghi!' But what they don't do is connect the two. And migration and competitiveness are intrinsically, inherently, connected. So my main message to the national leaders is: you cannot have competitiveness without migration. We are in an ageing continent. You can reskill an upskill as much as you like, but you need to allow for intra-eu mobility and hiring people across EU borders within the European Union and you need to attract talent. If you don't do that, you will never become competitive. And this is the big hole in the Draghi report and this is because we are following the right's agenda, the right's narrative, and we need to fight that. We need migration.

Thank you for your intervention. I have two quick questions. The first one is, what do you say to these people, like the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, 'we have to retract all the arms, and then suddenly, peace will fall from heavens'? And the second question is, do you think that we should allow Ukraine to attack targets on Russian soil if they're strategically dangerous for Ukraine?

Mr President, diverging to our German colleague from the FDP, Volt does believe that we need to have a climate neutral economy. But we also believe that we need to unleash the full potential of our entrepreneurs. And here it also needs to be said that the state government cannot foresee what kind of innovation will actually work, but that the state should set the framework for our innovation to thrive. So that means when you look at innovation, new ideas, we need to invest more in Horizon in our education systems. We need to triple the budget of Horizon to actually unleash new ideas. We also need to be more optimistic about the future. Entrepreneurs are only going to invest their time and energy into new businesses if there’s optimism. They need funds. And yes, that is public funds to guarantee, for example, large Capex investments . But we also need to unleash the institutional investors. 5% of institutional investors should go into new businesses. We also need talent. If you want talent, you also need to look at upskilling and attracting international talent. So we need to unleash the full potential of the European labour market to actually attract talent. We need to harmonise our rules across Europe. It’s much too complicated that you have, you know, compliance in one Member State, but you can’t actually then, you know, scale to the next Member State easily. That needs to be much easier. And if you do all of these things, and if we also implement competition law and State-aid rules so that we invest on the European level together and not nationally, only, then we will be successful.

Mr President, thank you colleagues for coming to this important debate about constitutional affairs. I’m very happy that you made this a priority in your busy days. But I have to tell you, this is a priority. This is about our right, our right of inquiry. And about – many, many years now – we haven’t been given the right to summon people here. This is a crucial right of a parliament, to be able to ask people to come here, to ask company CEOs, but also ministers and national governments, to come here and to explain themselves. We have cases amongst ourselves where we have team members taking bribes from Russia, where we hire, apparently, Chinese spies. All of these topics, we need to be able to follow up with a commission of inquiry. And this is what this is about. We are being denied a crucial right: the right of inquiry. And so I think next mandate, we need to sue the Council for inactivity, for not providing this right of inquiry, for not working on our electoral law and for not opening the Treaties as they should under our treaty obligations.

Mr President, to the colleague from the AfD, I would also just invite him to maybe get on a plane from Brussels to Warsaw, take the bus across Poland and then take the night train and get to Kyiv, because then he will understand how close this war is to us, and that it is at our doorstep. Then, when you actually listen to the people there, you understand what it means to lose a brother or a father, and when you listen to Putin, really you also understand that, for him, Ukraine is just the beginning. He’s talking about the lost lands of the Baltics and in Poland. So this for him is just the beginning. Therefore, I’m very proud that we have agreed on the Ukraine Facility – EUR 50 billion – which is, I think, a huge sign of support, so that Ukraine can pay its soldiers. I’m also happy that we have an SME quota in there to ensure that the rather centralised post-Soviet war economy can be further decentralised. But it’s also clear this is just the beginning. We need to send all the weapons that we can send, including Taurus rockets. We need to ensure that our own house is cleaned up. We need to take the veto away from Orban and suspend the Hungarian Presidency. And we need to work towards common procurement and a common European Army under the control of this House.

Madam President, Mr President, thank you, President Iohannis, for sharing your perspectives on our common European future. Very often this House is used for national debates, even from prime ministers and presidents, so I am very thankful that you shared your vision for what Europe should look like. So let me ask you quite concretely, when do you think can we have an improved decision-making in the Council? When will we move to qualified majority? When can we actually change the Treaties? I would love to hear an answer on that. And then second, we have a great moment of European democracy coming up with the European elections. But looking at the different countries and also at Romania, I do see inhibiting factors to democracy, such as the amount of signatures you need to collect to be able to run as a party, such as the fact that you have, I think, to be 23 to be able to be a candidate. These are all things that could potentially slow down our democratic participation. So maybe the last question on this: will you advance the European electoral law act that we proposed here in 2020, with the second vote for transnational lists to strengthen our European democracy?

Madam President, dear Commissioner, President Michel, colleagues, yesterday night we concluded the Ukraine facility and I’m very proud to have been part of the negotiating team. EUR 50 billion for Ukraine – what a strong signal of support. Europe will do what it takes to support Ukraine. We will be there until the end. Slava Ukraini! But colleagues, let’s also be honest. This is not a recovery package, it’s budget support. It’s just enough to cover the deficits. We will need more investment into Ukraine from Europe. And President Michel, the capitals almost didn’t make it. The body of the 27 heads of state and government almost failed to agree, almost managed to block funds for Ukraine, almost became a huge security risk for Ukraine, but also for us European citizens. And all of this because of one rogue member. If I had to do a post mortem about the European Union, I would say it failed because of the European Council and its decision-making procedures. So I really ask you, please suspend the Hungarian Presidency of the Council, trigger the Article 7 procedure to take away Orbán’s veto and also prepare the Treaty change vote so we can get away from unanimity.

Mr President, Minister, Commission, let me react to some of the statements that have been made in this House today. So, first of all, the Commission President called this ‘the hour of democracy’ and I fully agree. But I just wonder why we start this hour of democracy with a wrapped Christmas present and billions of euros for Viktor Orbán, an autocrat. Second, I hear from Mr Zanni from the far right, that the far right is just filling a void. I also agree. It’s filling a void that we don’t want to go into – a place where basically you walk away from content, from policy proposals, towards populism, towards undermining judges and elections, towards a nativist propaganda. We are not afraid of your policy proposals. They are mostly thin and boring. What we are concerned about is the autocratic tendencies that we see happening in Hungary at this point, and that we also see in this House, sadly, presented from time to time. So, I ask the Commission to wake up, to pick a side; to take away with us, together, Orbán’s veto; to suspend the Hungarian Presidency; and, of course, to unblock the funds for Ukraine.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council, it has been a year since QatarGate and it was quite a shock, to be honest, also for me personally, that colleagues in our House would actually be that corrupt. And since then we have tried a lot to improve our rules, and I think that was very necessary to win at least some of the trust back that we lost because of QatarGate. But I’m not sure it’s going to be enough. And I also want to bring us to the title of today’s debate, which is about EU institutions. It’s not only about Parliament, and I think an equally big scandal, if not even bigger, is that tomorrow and the day after, we will have a foreign agent sitting in a very opaque body, the 27 heads of state and government actually representing Russia’s interests when we decide about Ukraine’s future. For me, it’s really crucial that we understand that we have a new gate happening, RussiaGate, if you want, when roubles from Russia roll into Budapest for blocking our support for Ukraine. This can’t continue and we have to work on it. So let’s win back trust by reforming all bodies of the European Union.

Madam President, Prime Minister, this has been quite a national debate, so I want to bring it back to the European level. We have the EUCO coming, and I do want to ask you the question that we asked the President of the Commission this morning, what are you going to do to make sure that Orbán is reined in, that we don’t give in to his blackmailing when it comes to our support for Ukraine, for the formal accession talks? Are you going to take away the Council Presidency? Are you going to push forward the Article 7 procedures? Please let us know your plan about that.

Madam President, dear Mr Glucksmann, thanks a lot for this strong intervention in favour of support for Ukraine. I just wanted to ask, what would you do if you were Commission President now and you had the choice to act and rein Orban in? What would you do?

Madam President, dear colleagues, the rule of law is non-negotiable. Our laws and values are not worth the paper they are written on if they are systematically broken. And I want to be very clear with our colleagues from the far right: this is not about political differences. It is not about having different opinions on certain issues. It is about undermining the exact stage where democracy is happening. And this is not sacred. This is dirty. It is dirty to steal public money and to give it to your friends. It is dirty if you shake the hands of a dictator that is currently bombing in Ukraine. It is dirty if you have unfair elections where you manipulate your citizens to vote for you. This is dirty and this is not politics, this is not democracy – it is the undermining of democracy. And therefore, I want to thank the Commissioners for being quite strong and upholding the rule of law by cutting the funds and making sure that this also stays the same until Orbán decides to actually be positive for his own people, for the Hungarian people, who are not the same and unlock these funds by following simply our rule of law. It is not so complicated. And I would also ask our dear countries to review their bilateral relationships also economically, also in Germany, to see whether we have to be even stricter with the Hungarian Government now.

I’m very happy that maybe soon the blaming of Poland can end. I think that’s a very positive development. From my perspective, the question is really of how we can ensure that we are able to act on a European Union level. There might be examples when other Member States have also been blocking and vetoing things that are in the common interest of the European Union. But I think what’s core is that we have to make sure that we are able to act on the European Union level. This is not about disempowering national parliaments; it’s making sure that the things we decide on the European level are decided by a European government that is backed by a European Parliament, and this is where we have to go.

Mr President, this is not a regular debate. This is not a regular proposal that we are making. This is a very foundational proposal that is happening. And I am very proud and happy that I can actually live in this moment where we, as the European Parliament, trying to change the European Union. And we really have to fix the European Union because it is under attack. We might not see the cracks in the wall, but I can definitely hear the hammering and the banging of the far right, really trying to undermine this Union as we speak. And if we look beyond this place where we already hear this and we look outside and we see, for example, in foreign policy, Viktor Orbán shaking hands with Putin, while Putin is at the same time attacking Ukraine and killing Ukrainian citizens, it is becoming very obvious. When we look west and we see the US again in the grip of the far-right populists, we know that we have to really do something. So I appeal to you, colleagues, to live up to this responsibility, to understand the history, the historic moment that we currently live in and vote in favour of changing the European Union, of fixing the European Union so that it is able to act and live for the next 50, 100, 200 years. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President! Many here seem to want to throw the decades-old regulatory measures overboard. Innovation and competition are increasingly being thought of from ministerial offices in the EU, and the idea is spreading that the state is indeed able to shape new markets and products. The Commission is working hard to help. Of the 60 State aid applications submitted, 58 were approved. But this cannot be our approach to a successful industrial policy in Europe. Firstly, it is often a national approach. If we look at this, the chip factory in Germany with almost 10 billion euros, a smaller EU country simply cannot afford it. We have to be careful. The single market must stick together. The second is that as the founder of an innovation-driven start-up in politics, I can tell you that it is very difficult to actually predict what the future will look like from ministerial offices. And it is also the case that we simply have to trust more that our entrepreneurs can function, that our internal market can function if we invest in research and development, if we invest in actually bringing together and harmonising the capital markets in Europe, and if we also correctly enforce competition law again. So let's not just think in terms of investment policy from a ministerial office point of view, but let's actually think in terms of regulatory policy again.

Mr President, wasted government spending has a similar effect as tax avoidance or tax evasion. It reduces the positive impact of the EU budget and it erodes the trust that we as a European Union are a guarantor for transparency. So, the work of the Court of Auditors is really very recommendable and important to keep this trust, and it should be the pro-Europeans of this House who point out the issues with the budget. Now to the COVID-19 recovery fund. One thing has to be clear. The fund has already been a huge success because it created stability in a financial market situation which was complex, and we have been basically saying that no country will be left alone facing the COVID-19 crisis. So, that doesn’t mean that there are also some issues. When we look, for example, at the repayment, it’s absolutely clear that we need European own resources, a plastic tax, a minimum corporate tax to be able to finance the debts that we had to incur at this crucial time of our European history. I also want to make it very clear, Commissioner, that it would be very important that you look at your processes to see where there are issues that the Court found, so that when we set up the next permanent fiscal capacity, we do it with these learnings in mind.

Mr President, I am sometimes thankful for the speeches from the far right, because then when I think of the exact opposite, I know what I have to say. This is true for the budget as it is for everything else. A colleague from the far right in this debate said that we should cut funds because we give too much money to Ukraine. The opposite is obviously true, and it makes me absolutely sick to see a Prime Minister of an EU country currently shaking hands with Putin, who is at the same time attacking and killing Ukrainians. Another one said that we need to cut funds because the corona recovery money is flowing at the same time. That reminds me of the beautiful fact that we had Polish elections, and hopefully soon the justice system will be reinstated in Poland, and then EUR 35 billion can actually flow to the Polish citizens in the dual transition – the green and digital transition. Another one said that we should increase cohesion funds. We should not fall into this trap. We need common investment in Europe for the big strategic priorities of the European Union. For that, I will support the rapporteur in his negotiations with the Council so that we get a strong Europe, a strong budget to fight for our future.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the Ukraine facility is a sign of historic support for Ukraine and I’m proud to be part of the negotiation team. It’s historic because we sent two strong messages. The first one is that our commitment to Ukraine is long and long term. The Ukraine facility is an institutional design for a long-term tool, that is why it’s so important not only how much we spend, but also how we spend the money. And I’m happy that some of our ideas were taken up here, especially when it comes to defining a minimum share for SMEs, because we do need Ukraine to build new businesses, introduce innovations and push forward the green transition instead of just putting helicopter money on state-owned enterprises. And the second important message – and I think that’s also key to underline – is that good institutions matter. We’ve learned from the Marshall Fund that good governance, checks and balances and transparency matter, especially in a country that hopefully sooner rather than later will join the EU. We have therefore strengthened institutions such as the Rada Verkhovna, where we have involved local actors, civil society, and we asked for a list of final beneficiaries to be able to follow the money. Colleagues, I also want to say that reconstruction will need many additional funds. Let’s face it, 50 billion over four years will not be sufficient to support Ukraine until the end of the war and for the reconstruction. But we started by setting this programme up long term, and I am happy that we do that, because in the end – I mean, some colleagues and I, we went to Ukraine recently – what Ukrainians are enduring for democracy is really hard and I think giving some support here is the least we can do.