Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The Rule of Law Report is an important step, and it is again a good report that presents the situation in the Member States, which could make it even clearer. But we are looking closely at the rule of law in all Member States. This is always the great reproach of Poland and Hungary, of the right: Oh, it's always just looking at individual countries. No, it looks at each individual Member State with this rule of law report. And then today we saw the next big argument: Ah, we are now looking at all the Member States, and we can no longer use that as an argument. So now: Oh, it wasn't even looked at Brussels in the Qatargate scandal and so on and so forth. I can reassure everyone, enough has been discussed here, and this has also been elucidated accordingly. And by the way, the difference is that corruption here in the European Parliament leads to investigations taking place. This is the difference between Hungary and Poland, where this is not the case. But we have to look now: What do we do with the report? What happens to the concrete recommendations and where is this discussed? And here I ask the Council: Should the rule of law report be passed through Hungary next year or then through Poland? What follows would really be like turning the buck into a gardener. It can't be. We need a consequence, including on the rule of law in the Council.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What we have on our mobile phone, what we look at, what data we have, what private messages we write, that's very, very personal data. What a creepy thought it is when this phone is hacked by a spyware like Pegasus and everything can be read at any time, because you have the phone with you at any time! But that is exactly what has happened to opposition politicians and journalists in Europe. This surveillance scandal is a disgrace to Europe, and we in the Committee of Inquiry have worked hard in recent months to clarify this. A lot of work, a lot of information, a lot of pages of committee of inquiry, little no, actually no cooperation with the Member States in this case. It was really unbearable. It must be clear: We finally need – and these are our recommendations – clear rules for spyware in Europe, a moratorium. That must finally be the consequence. We call on the Member States and the Commission to take action here at last.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and also the shadow rapporteurs for the really tough negotiations in this case over many years. With this law, we are setting new standards in the fight against cross-border crime. I would like to thank the Member States in the Council and also the other political groups for responding to my calls for greater protection of fundamental rights in these long and tough negotiations. E-evidenceIn concrete terms, this means better European cooperation, faster investigations. This is what it is about, but – and this is the difference – it is about: e-evidence Always a very specific suspicion. There is always a judicial authority that is investigating and that can now investigate more quickly in Europe. But it is not about mass surveillance without cause, as is planned in another proposal of the European Commission, namely the so-called chat control. It's about checking our communication. Here, too, we should finally focus on the goals. We are also concerned with protecting children, protecting fundamental rights and putting criminals behind bars. All this cannot be done by chat control, and therefore it has to be withdrawn and completely reworked. It must be clear: As in the case of e-evidence only surveillance of real suspects may take place, not general mass surveillance. Encryption must be protected and anonymous internet use must be preserved. Network locking and client-side scanning must not become mandatory. Very, very important is: European cooperation, better equipment of the authorities, that is how we actually put the criminals behind bars, no more mass surveillance in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In the past few days I have read The Moscow Connection, a very worth reading book about Russian influence, especially in Germany on the SPD. And when I hear my colleague Daly's understanding of Putin here, I sometimes wonder what influence is behind it. Yes, we have to clarify this, we have to investigate what Russian influence there was. But this commission in Poland is not a committee of inquiry. It's not about education, it's about a mock court. For years, opposition leader Tusk was portrayed by the PiS as a Nazi, now he is said to have been a Russian collaborator. So you have to decide in your accusations. The absurdity is actually obvious. It is also about other candidates. It must be clear: Any attempt by the Polish ruling parties to use this commission to exclude candidates from the elections without due process will cast doubt on the Polish election results. And we cannot allow this danger to our European democracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, Today is Viktor Orbán's birthday, but we don't give him a gift of money. The Commissioners have just made it very clear: The corresponding milestones have not been reached, and therefore no money can flow yet. But we have also pointed out in our resolution – and frankly I am appalled that we as Parliament must point out, and not the institution itself, the Council – that a Member State subject to Article 7 proceedings is subject to a rule of law procedure in which the funds are withheld, that this country is not fit to actually take over the Council presidency next year. In fact, it would be like choosing the schoolyard racket as the school director. It can't be. Of course, the Council must find a solution here. It may also be the case, for example, that the rule of law issues are taken out of the Council Presidency. This is legally possible, this is the minimum that can actually be expected. Because if Viktor Orbán were to negotiate fundamental rights with us – I do not want to negotiate with this autocrat – if Viktor Orbán were to negotiate fundamental rights with us in Europe, then we would really make the goat a gardener, ladies and gentlemen! But I also want to make it very clear that the Council must recognise: It is about finally seeing that we are no longer dealing with a normal Member State and a democratic state. In any case, we as a Parliament will not accept this. We will take the appropriate measures if the Council is unwilling to change this accordingly. We will not, in fact, negotiate fundamental rights with Viktor Orbán.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It did not protect the civil rights of our citizens. That's why I fought for him to get away. It's also good that he got away, because we really need an exchange of data that actually protects our civil rights, and that's not the case. This is what the ECJ has said for the second time. If you have failed twice, I would honestly be very, very careful. The third time, the attempt really has to sit. Mr. Schrems has already announced that he will complain again, because it is not yet Schrems-proof This is because it is not yet the case that we can actually assume that this agreement can also hold before the European Court of Justice. Let's finally protect our civil rights, our data! But above all, we are finally creating legal certainty for companies! I am frankly horrified to hear what the EPP is saying here and how it will come back tomorrow with amendments and say: It's not all that bad. I urge you to: But then also take responsibility when this fails the third time before the European Court of Justice, when small companies stand there again and say: But now we have the legal uncertainty, because we can start all over again. This has already happened twice, now it should come back for the third time. That's what this is all about. Talk to small and medium-sized companies and not only with Business Europe, who do not have good arguments in the matter, but want to have such an agreement as quickly as possible here. Let's actually create legal certainty for our companies, who can rely on data being transferred safely to the US, and let's secure our civil rights! That's what it's about. The US must stop spying on us, and we finally need a legally secure agreement. This is what tomorrow's vote is about.

I would doubt that this was solely due to the recovery fund, because at the time when we stretched it and the funds actually flowed, we were already a bit further. We now see that the funds from the recovery fund are flowing very poorly. Most Member States are not in a position to spend all the money. I have not been against this crisis instrument in principle, I have supported it here as well. But I've always warned that we don't just put the money into a nationalization program. Unfortunately, this has become a major part of the recovery fund. They are recovery programmes, they are addressed to the individual Member States. I could have imagined saying: Let's really invest it in European common priorities in this crisis. I already proposed a programme, for example, for European energy infrastructure at that time. I think it would have been a more correct step with regard to Ukraine than this recovery programme.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Now we actually notice: Debt costs something. There have been many colleagues who have said that this is how debt can be made, interest rates are low, and the solution has been more and more debt. All of a sudden we see inflation, and all of a sudden debt costs something. That's why we have to be clear: A policy that makes sure that not too much debt is made is just right, because in the end NextGenerationEU must not mean that the next generation pays for it. We have to hold on to that. Of course, we need sufficient funding for the EU budget, and it is precisely for our common priorities in the future that we also need the right funding. But we also have to ask the question here: Where are the priorities in our budget? Maybe at some point we can ask as MEPs: Where can we save? Instead, a huge amount of new taxes is being demanded here again. That's always the solution. Now, when debt is no longer the solution, it's new taxes. This means that we cannot organise competitiveness and sound finances in Europe, ladies and gentlemen. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. If I lived in Uganda today, I'd probably already be in prison, and I'd probably expect the death penalty because I'm the person I am and I love who I love. This is all the incredible bewilderment that this law is making a reality in Uganda. I feel an incredible sympathy today with the people who are now victims of this incredible criminal law there. I feel great gratitude today for being able to live in the European Union, where sexual orientation is protected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But I see that we have to fight for these universal rights all over the world. And we cannot take them for granted in the European Union either, because the rights in this House today are even too cowardly or too lazy to take part in this debate at all, but otherwise they want to speak for the traditional family in every way possible and take away our rights. Everyone should be able to live as they love and as they live, and not have to fear the death penalty for it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The rule of law is the basis of European cooperation, because only common rules actually enable us to enforce law and also the civil rights of all Europeans. And that is why it is right that we look neutrally at the rule of law in every member country. The accusations that we only deal with individual states today show exactly that with the Rule of Law Report: That is wrong, we are looking everywhere, and it is right that the Commission has also developed this rule of law report further with recommendations, which we also praise very much. But because precisely the Pegasus, the Cyber, the Spyware has been mentioned, Commissioner, it is not enough to write this here only in the report. Do something about it in a very concrete way and work for us to put an end to these injustices. And one last point: We will also be voting on this report today. And when you look at the voting list, the right-wingers here in Parliament basically remove everything from this report - the recommendations, the neutral reports. In principle, they do not want a common rule of law in Europe. Citizens need to know that. The rule of law and common values are not defended here by them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! I have just heard a lot here in the debate: This is a national debate, there is no regulation, back and forth and what not all arguments. The question we are discussing here tonight is the following: How is a child? What is best for a child? And best for a child is when they have parents who love and care for them. And these parents should have the security and the child should have the security that these parents can take care of it. After all, what happens now to a child who may grow up with two lesbian parents, where the other mother is no longer accepted as a mother? In the case in which something happens to the biological mother, for example, the other mother has no options at all, has no rights at all to take care of the child. I think, yes, it is laughing now, it is unbelievable that such a question is laughing now. This shows the absurdity of this debate. It's not really about the child. It is not about this child then being sure that the second parent can take care of it. You are concerned about your ideology, because it must not be in your spirit – Mr President, I have to finish this now – that this child lives in this family. That's what you're all about. That's why you laugh at this point, because it must not be that two same-sex parents raise a child. And because you'd rather take away this child's rights than take care of it! That's what it's all about! That's why they're so upset at this point! (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Sometimes I cannot explain what is happening here in the European Parliament and in Europe at all. If I were to go home or if I were to explain to the visitor groups here in Parliament that hundreds of opposition politicians, journalists have been spied on in Europe with a software where everything could be closely monitored, that there has been interference in the deepest privacy, that it is known that these are facts, and if I were to explain that we have a committee in the European Parliament that is supposed to clarify this all over Europe and that has been working very intensively for a year, then people would say: Yeah, great, good that you're doing this, that you're going after it. If I were to tell you that not a single Member State really cooperates with this committee of inquiry and the Commission looks away and does not act, people would ask me: Hey, how's that gonna go? Why is this so in Europe? Why can't you protect civil rights more consistently? Why are Member States simply looking away and ignoring this? I can't explain it to anyone, nor can anyone understand it. That is why it is a groundless impudence of the Member States and the European Commission, and they must finally stop this blockade and answer the Committee of Inquiry.

Madam President, The business model of organised crime makes excellent use of our internal market, it makes use of our freedoms, and therefore Europe must act in a coordinated manner. Clan crime, organized crime, does not respect our rule of law; She uses every opportunity, she uses our freedoms. But the rule of law must be consistently enforced throughout Europe, and Europe is the solution: better investigations through Europol cooperation, but also a strengthening of Eurojust, our judicial cooperation, because it is also about the fact that criminal prosecutors can really condemn criminals and put them behind bars. We need to do more, more exchange of information. This is really difficult to create more resources here, to actually create better information exchange. That's really difficult. It is easier to just pass more and more mass surveillance and new laws. But it is not new laws or surveillance that catch criminals, but better equipped police officers and more European cooperation. This is the path we should take to fight consistently organised crime in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Of course, the events in Greece are worrying, the spying on the press and journalists. But let's also look at the bigger picture. Today, international media reports under the title Story Killers that a secret company manipulates elections in various countries, that it is openly offered that spyware is used to manipulate elections. That's the picture we have internationally. We have dealt intensively with spyware in the Pegasus Committee, which can not only spy on our smartphones, what is there, but can also use the cameras, listen and much more, even sending your own messages seems to be partly possible. And then we see that this is apparently being used in Europe and also worldwide to attack elections. So it is no longer just about our privacy – that would be worth protecting – but it is also at its core about our democracy. And then I hear this debate here, and I really have to ask, ladies and gentlemen: Aren't you a little ashamed of this debate, how is pure party politics done here again? Wie der Kollegin In 't Veld, die als Berichterstatterin auftritt und hier wirklich aufklärt, vorgeworfen wird, sie mache das rein aus parteipolitischen Gründen, wo es überhaupt keine liberale Partei in Griechenland gibt, die sie da verteidigen könnte? How many elections still need to be manipulated? How many situations must there be before we realize that it is not about party politics, but about our European democracy. That is what I am asking myself, and that should have been the debate here in this House today.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Especially in the debate, the whole absurdity has been noticed. The rights and conservatives who usually talk about the family that needs to be protected, about the nucleus of society – the children need to be protected. Orbán has even proposed a law to protect children. It's always about the kids, it's about the family. And here we see all the absurdity: What does it have to do with the protection of the family, with the special protection for children, when you make a child stateless? What good is it for the protection of the family to force parents to fight bureaucracy in front of authorities, even to have to go to court, instead of spending time educating their child? Nothing. Entirely absurd ideology, because you believe that what cannot be must not be. This becomes clear at this point. Family is where children are, where people take responsibility for each other. Parents in one country are also parents in the other.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Sabotage on Nord Stream, attack on the rail network in Northern Germany – we must not be naïve when it comes to critical infrastructure. And it is precisely a European vote on this question, what constitutes critical infrastructure for us, how we protect it together, that is important. And that is why it is important that we have the debate and that we also move forward with a corresponding directive now, today, together. But we also need to look at which authoritarian states influence our critical infrastructure, which ports are bought by which states or which shareholdings there are, how we need to better protect our digital world by protecting encryption and not harming it yet. We have to look at it together. We need to look critically at critical infrastructure – this is what the new directive does. Thank you to the rapporteur. This is the right step to better protect our critical infrastructure.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! A few months ago, news came that the European Commission was proposing to actually withhold €7.5 billion from Hungary. And I heard in my conversations with citizens: Finally, something is happening. Something's finally happening. Finally, action is being taken against the dismantling of the rule of law in Europe. But then what happened? We have seen that the way the mechanism was applied was far too small: The regulation would allow for much more – not only cohesion funds, but also other funds. These measures negotiated by the Commission with Hungary did not concern the rule of law at all. It was not about the rule of law, about the independence of the judiciary, but only about the fight against corruption. And even this small part – if you look at the 17 measures – is not consistently brought to an end. It is already clear: Most of the 17 measures that should have been implemented by the weekend have not been implemented. What happens now? Will the European Commission no longer hold back the €7.5 billion? I say quite clearly: If the European Commission releases the EU funds now, Ursula von der Leyen will take personal responsibility for irretrievably turning Hungary into a corruption swamp. And then you have to be so honest as the European Commission: Then this rule of law mechanism will no longer be used, then it will be dead. This honesty must then also be clear; This is why our appeal is once again clear: The money must not be released, the rule of law in Europe must finally be defended.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we had some talks with the other groups on the title because right now it states: negotiations between the Commission and Hungary. To be very honest, it’s what happens right now but it should not be this way. The rule of law in Europe should not be negotiable. That is very clear from our side. We call on the Commission not to negotiate, but to assess, and that’s why I would propose a new wording, President: ‘assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the conditionality mechanism and state of play of the Hungarian RRP’. Let’s make clear it’s about assessing, it’s about the guardianship of the Treaties, and it’s not about negotiating about the rule of law. Be very clear about that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We have a difficult annual budget ahead of us. We see the energy crisis, we see inflation, and we know that our possibilities under the Multiannual Financial Framework are limited. That is why there are three priorities in this budget. On the one hand: We must do everything we can to fight inflation, we must support citizens. At the same time, we must not forget the right projects for the future. Because that would be a mistake not to actually prepare for the future in a crisis. Now we have just heard a big speech from the AfD, the ID faction. These are all the wrong priorities and they would not help the citizens at all. We just heard that here. That is why I want to take a look here, because we are doing far too little: What was specifically requested by the ID Group? I can tell you this: delete all appropriations for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office without justification. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has identified €5.7 billion in damage to the EU budget and Member States’ budgets in its first seven months of work alone. 576 investigations in just seven months. You don't want that, you want to cut it off, cut it off. They are not concerned with the taxpayers' money of ordinary citizens. They are not about helping citizens. You're still playing your games. We can see that too. You are making these requests. That's ridiculous. Just leave that alone.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Today we commemorate the murder of Daphne. This horrific murder was an attack on Daphne, but above all an attack on press freedom in Europe. With an attack on freedom of the press, it was also an attack on democracy, because freedom of the press is the air that democracy needs to breathe. But I have to be honest at the end of this debate: I'm shocked. Shocked on the one hand by those who still defend the backers and reject a debate here for political reasons, and shocked on the other hand by those who have the intellectual audacity to talk about double standards in this debate, about the fact that the problems in Malta with the rule of law are not talked about and only always about Poland and Hungary. This audacity of talking about not doing so in a debate that addresses precisely these issues is already shocking. This Parliament, even if you do not like it, will always look at the need to defend the rule of law when democracy is under attack, and we will also look at the restrictions on press freedom and the fear of journalists. That is our task in this Parliament.

I do not think I need to comment here on any statements made by Mrs Baerbock out of context. But I did not speak in any way at any point in my speech about democracy and whether Viktor Orbán won the election – the OSCE says the election was free, but not fair. The fact that they are going back to democracy and elections shows that you don't really want to talk about what this is about, namely projects where money flows endlessly into the pockets of Viktor Orbán's friends, where the European Anti-Fraud Office says: "4% of all EU funds are misused." You don't want to talk about stealing EU funds, about stealing taxpayers' money. That's why always this evasion, and you just proved it again.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! If you follow the debate here, then what usually takes place in this debate will take place again: Hungary defends the rights here in Parliament, says it's all political and so on and so forth. Corruption exists in all EU countries. Ten times as high, ten times as high as in other average countries, is the abuse of EU funds in Hungary! It is simply a matter – you want to hide this – of money being stolen from Hungarians and ending up in the pockets of Viktor Orbán’s friends. That is what this is about, and that is what the rights here in Parliament are trying to hide. At the same time - and you really have to listen to that, Commissioner - the right-wingers in Parliament praise the Commission's approach! This is what is happening in this mechanism. Because we know: In the end, no money will be withheld. And this will happen with great applause from the right and the enemies of the rule of law in Europe. The timetable you use as an excuse – where you say: We do not have the time after this mechanism, we have to decide now, and then we have to look at the measures at that time – that is an advanced argument. It's wrong. You could just as well withhold the seven and a half billion euros, in my view even more. And then, under this mechanism, Hungary would always have the opportunity to provide evidence that these laws, which are now being adopted – that's a good thing, we like to look at that, but we want to see it – that these laws, these changes, actually change something in practice, that money no longer seeps into the dark pockets, that corruption is combated. As long as this is not the case, you should withhold the funds. Madam President, I'll take these Blue card I love it, but I'm a little surprised why I don't have one on my display. Blue card I have been reported. That surprises me. I would also like to ask my colleagues questions. If now Blue card is possible – very gladly, then we will do that in the debate, and I will take a Blue card Of course, I love it! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure under Rule 171(8) of the Rules of Procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The report on the situation of fundamental rights in Europe is right and important, because we must be vigilant when it comes to defending citizens' rights in Europe. News is shaking us again: Surveillance scandals and Pegasus. In the committee of inquiry, we repeatedly deal with the fact that opposition figures and journalists are monitored with espionage software. But when we talk about the situation of fundamental rights here, we must also talk about a major threat to fundamental rights posed by the European Commission. The so-called chat control monitors the personal communication of all citizens in the European Union. The European Data Protection Board has just delivered a devastating verdict on this proposal from the European Commission. He says that the current form of the proposal would present more risks for individuals and thus for the general public as a whole than would actually present more risks for offenders. That is the wrong way forward and I therefore call on the European Commission to withdraw and revise this proposal.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to quote Viktor Orbán from the summer: We're not a mixed race, he said. I could not have imagined seeing such racist statements from a head of government again in Europe. Nevertheless, it must be said otherwise that this is a very good report which has been presented here. But there's nothing new in it. We are in this situation – the Commissioner has also described the situation in great detail. We know the situation. I no longer know how you are doing, ladies and gentlemen, how many times we have now reported on it here, how many times we have discussed it in Parliament – the same thing always happens. The right-wingers here in Parliament, who are otherwise always against European cooperation, are always very good at working together, defending Viktor Orbán, that would be all very evil, etc. – we all know that. We know the whole debate here. And they are not prepared to accept any arguments at all. But one thing is different today. One thing is different today. In a few days, the Commission, the European Commission, will be able to withhold money from Hungary for the first time under the rule of law mechanism. And I call on the European Commission to remain tough here, not to bend over, not to be involved in any negotiated solutions now, but to remain clear, to defend the rule of law in the European Union and also in Hungary, and I call on the Commission to do so.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, The DSA sets clear rules for the online world. And this quick agreement on this digital package shows: Europe can act. Europe can indeed move fast and also set rules in this world. That's a good sign. As the Liberal negotiator in the Committee on the Interior, however, digital civil rights were particularly close to my heart. We didn't achieve everything we wanted. But we have ensured that there is no general monitoring obligation, that upload filters will not be introduced by liability obligations in the future. This is a victory for digital civil rights at this point, and I believe it is also a very important sign for many young people who demonstrated against it a few years ago. But the next attack on digital civil rights is already being prepared. The chat control would be a general monitoring of all our chats. It would be a privatization of law enforcement. We shouldn't do that. The values that we share with the DSA Describe, we would break with it. We shouldn't go that way.