Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, dear colleagues, I'm afraid, Commissioner McGuinness, that many of my colleagues in this Chamber believe in what in my primary school, in your primary school would have been called the Immaculate Energy Transition. They think that burying it all in renewables will be enough and we will just stop climate change. And so did Germany believe until a few months ago and now it is reopening coal plants. The reality is that as long as we do not have a viable large-scale storage technology, renewables will not be enough. And in the transition, we will need to use nuclear and gas for a very limited period of time. Nuclear is a useful transition technology because it doesn’t emit any CO2 and the taxonomy allows investments up to 2045. Also, gas is necessary in the transition, as this war has made - sadly - painfully clear. Gas emits have half as much CO2 as coal. That’s not ideal, but it’s the most reasonable temporary alternative. Moreover, it’s only given this label transitionally for seven years. Therefore, this recommendation is a balanced compromise and a key step towards a sensible transition. That is why I’m not going to vote for this objection and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr President, history teaches us that when inflation reaches these high levels, it takes discipline and patience to bring it under control. But the ECB is entering this battle against inflation with one hand tied behind its back. A decade after the euro crisis, our economic and monetary union is still deeply incomplete. First, we have not created the safe asset for the euro area. And as a result, money flees to safety from the south to the north, placing highly indebted states under more stress. Second, we still don’t have a single deposit insurance. The ministers a couple of weeks ago abandoned the road map to build one. Third, we still do not have an instrument for common borrowing. This places the ECB in the situation of having to support highly indebted Member States, which is not its job. Fourth, we lack an enforceable set of fiscal rules. Now the ECB announces an anti- fragmentation tool in order to be able to raise rates. And well, they have to know they shouldn’t be naive. They will be tested. And the truth of the matter is that they do not have any long term solution. This is a non-strategy of temporary fixes which is going to run out of road very soon. Out-of-control inflation is always a very hard problem to solve by continuing to neglect the structural problems there is a risk that European leaders will make these crises fatal for the euro.

Madam President, it’s good to see Mr Gentiloni. Two years ago, we had to shut down all our social and economic activity to fight this awful disease, and our workers and entrepreneurs wondered if they could make it through the shock. But this time, Europe rose to the task. It had long been considered unthinkable for the European Union to issue common joint debt. But it did this time. And many workers today have a job, thanks to the SURE programme financed by the European Union. And many businesses survived thanks to the liquidity provided by Europe. And many workers will go back to work thanks to this Recovery and Resilience Facility that we examine today. And it is precisely because issuing debt together is so unprecedented that we must succeed. The Commission must ensure, Mr Gentiloni, that the Recovery Facility is used to make our economies stronger and more resilient, and that our citizens are freer and our values are respected. Unfortunately, Mr Commissioner, the Commission has sometimes come up short in this task. Three examples: first, the Commission gave the highest grades to most recovery plans on exactly the same old criteria, the same one in all of them, and the lower grade in most plans to the exact same other criteria. I don’t know, I’ve graded lots of exams and I’ve never seen that. Second, amidst massive internal disagreement, the Commission just a couple of weeks ago approved the Polish recovery plan, taking at face value the promises – very deceptive promises, I’m afraid – of the Polish Government. And third, the Commission has approved a change in the Spanish pensions that reverses the reforms led by the European Commission 10 years ago to make them sustainable. Commissioner, we really understand the pressure that the Commission, that you all are under. But for this Recovery and Resilience Facility to succeed, the Commission must do its job. We must make future generations of Europeans proud of what we do here today.

Mr President, I say to Madam President von der Leyen and Mr President Michel that we are very happy that the Council has agreed on an oil embargo. Congratulations. However, this agreement still has three shortcomings. As you said, Madame von der Leyen, there’s still no mention of gas. The agreement excludes oil coming through pipelines. If you allow me, the ‘Orbán-Putin’ pipeline is still open, and it will take six months to be implemented. In the mean time, Mr Putin continues receiving inflated oil and gas revenues to pay for his military aggression, and Mr Orbán continues receiving his oil, which comes mostly from this pipeline. This is unacceptable. We need to stop Mr Putin reducing these revenues, and we need to shorten this war, and we also need to restore the level playing field in the single market. How can we do that? We can accomplish both things by imposing a tariff on Russian oil imports. Madame von der Leyen, a 30% oil tariff would provide the European Union with around EUR 15 billion in additional revenue. As I have estimated elsewhere, Mr Michel, Russia would lose approximately twice as much from the reduction of the oil exports plus the direct cost of the tariffs. A key advantage of the tariff is that it doesn’t require unanimity, so a qualified majority of Member States in the Council, according to Article 31, is enough to get that tariff and recover the past and recover the level playing field. The tariff could be in force next week if the Council voted on it now. Let’s do it now. This war has already lasted too long.

Mr President, Europe leads humanity in its existential fight against climate change. However, we have left a loophole. By moving manufacturing out of Europe, firms can avoid paying the cost of polluting. This allows them to outcompete European firms who play by the rules, while at the same time damaging the environment. As a result, although we have reduced our domestic emissions by 21%, the emissions in our imports have risen by 28%. Today, with the carbon border adjustment mechanism, we close this loophole. The mechanism makes companies outside the European Union pay for the emissions through the products that they sell in the European Union. The message is plain: no firm shall be more competitive by damaging the environment. Choosing to cut European jobs to avoid European rules is not an option. In other words, if you want to trade with us, you need to fight climate change. In the past few months, Parliament has heightened the ambition of the mechanism, Mr President, by expanding its scope across the entire value chain, by including all emissions – embedded, direct and indirect emissions – and by designating the European authority to deliver it. Now we need the Commission to faithfully implement it.

Madam President, just a quick few reactions to your proposals, Ms von der Leyen. I was very happy to hear about the RRF2, this Recovery Reconstruction Fund using the lessons from what we learned for Ukraine. That’s good news. There was no news on how to finance it, so I hope that’s coming. Also, I think that spending on reconstruction is very good, but as you very well said, there are very urgent funding needs and we need to see how we’re going to address them. And thirdly, you mentioned the embargo on oil. This Parliament is really happy to hear that, congratulations and that’s great news that we are moving on the oil embargo. But as you know, this is far short of what this Parliament wants. We actually asked, a month ago, for a full embargo on gas and oil. While the debate goes on, the EU has sent EUR 50 billion to Russia since the start of the year, EUR 52 billion today. And by the time we get all this oil embargo set, etc., Putin will have received over EUR 100 billion more in revenues. We are now in the worst of all worlds. Consumers are paying higher prices, but these high prices are sufficiently high that Putin gets higher revenues than before, more than compensated for the loss of volume. And some say nothing else can be done, and this is false. There is a clear solution which will collapse Russian revenue, incentivise substitution, protect consumers and even, Ms von der Leyen, increase EU resources. What is this miracle? It is the oldest trick in the book: a tariff. A tariff on Russian energy would allow us to shift some of the extra revenues from higher gas and oil prices to us, the consumers from the Russian producers. With a tariff, the price that European consumers pay will go up a little bit. Some consumers will continue consuming. Some of them will stop. It depends on how much needs they have. But the gap between the price that the consumers pay and what the Russians receive is actually the revenue from the tariff that would flow to the European taxpayers, the European Union, and that could be given back to Europeans to compensate for the higher gas prices. And the suppliers would be the ones facing the trouble, since a lower quantity is going to be supplied, it will be supplied at a lower price. Don’t forget that Russian oil and gas suppliers are desperately dependent on European purchases. Between us and our allies, we purchase 80% of the oil and gas and they will be willing to supply at the lower price that the tariff will involve for them. Why? First, the EU and US are buying 80% of their fossil fuel exports and the infrastructure bottlenecks make it very hard to shift those exports to Asia. Second, production costs are low at USD 20 a barrel, so they will actually have to accept those lower revenues rather than shutting down the wells. In short, a tariff would allow us to shift Russian revenues to the European Union consumers, all while accelerating an end to European dependency on Moscow’s fuels. Even if a high tariff comes with a cost for the European Union, it is a more efficient way to stop Putin than any of the other sanctions that we already have in place before the embargo comes in as fast as possible. Let’s do it now. It must be a new tool in our armoury, enhancing our capacity to act.

Madam President, as an economist, you know I usually speak of numbers. Not today. Today the fall of Bucha compels us to speak of something else: of our guilt, of our obligations. In life, the brave Ukrainians remind us what it means to be European. In death, they demand that they are the last victims of our appeasement. Citizens of Europe, our energy addiction, our money, allowed the killing of Ukrainians – the killing of fellow Europeans whose only crime was to believe in our freedoms. Is it not clear that our gas is tainted with blood? That the guilty are we who financed this monster? The package announced today by the Commission and Ms von der Leyen means that Europe will continue funding Putin’s armies. President von der Leyen announced today that the banned coal exports are worth EUR 4 billion a year. But she did not mention that the gas and oil that we are allowing in are worth 25 times more. Today, this Parliament demands in its resolution that the ban also include oil and gas. Some say that the gas ban is not possible. I tell you that we have not even tried. Three examples: the Groningen gas field, the largest on the continent, is still set to close this year. Is that Europe trying? Germany is still set to close three nuclear plants this year after it closed three just a few months ago. They could be turned on tomorrow, but there is not even a discussion on that. Is that Europe trying? Spain, instead of increasing its interconnection with Europe, is trying to turn itself into an energy island. Is that Europe trying? We could be doing so much more. We could pay a price for freedom. Instead, we pay for the bullets used in Bucha. If Europe does not do enough, history will not see us as a bystander; history will know we were complicit.

Madam President, the purpose of the financial sanctions that we placed on Russia was to crush the financial system. This was our key contribution to the war effort. Sadly, we have failed in this mission. In the first ten days of the war, the rouble crashed 17%. Since then, it has basically recovered most of that fall. Is the financial system in meltdown? No, by no means. Why did it fail? Why did we fail? The answer is very simple – our sanctions have more holes than a Gruyère cheese. Two key facts: first, we have only blocked some banks from SWIFT. The rest of the financial system is enough to channel all the payments. Second, even as we blocked the existing reserves of the Russian Central Bank, we are adding EUR 1 billion more in hard currency every day. To borrow a saying from my Dutch friends – this is like mopping the floor with the tap on. It cannot work. Mr Minister, Mr Vice-President, there is no such thing as a cheap victory. Sanctions with holes are no sanctions at all. Freedom is worth much, much more than we have been willing to pay for it until now.

Madam President, Madam Prime Minister, Mr Borrell, thanks very much, both of you, for your leadership. But let me ask the question, dear colleagues, are we doing enough to help Ukrainians? The sad answer is no. True, we are arming the Ukrainians, Madam Prime Minister, you talked about the half a billion euros peace facility. But the truth is that we’re spending many more resources arming Putin. Today, every day, we’re sending EUR 1 billion to pay for our oil and gas, etc. to Putin. Why? Our leaders tell us that we might fall in a recession if we stop doing that. Come on, dear colleagues, that hypocrisy has to stop. The moral and strategic arguments of not arming our enemies are obvious, but so are the economic arguments. Our economies will suffer much more as a result of a slowly escalating and long-lasting war than if we bankrupt Putin now if we make it impossible for him to pay wages, pensions and the salaries of his military. Prime Minister Kallas, Mr Borrell, let’s bite the bullet now. Not buying Russian gas is bearable for our economies. What is unbearable is continuing to pay for Putin’s murders.

Madam President, alarm bells are ringing as we speak in the markets. The markets, I think, believe that Putin’s war might mark the start of the third European recession in a row. How should we react to that? Monetary policy has its hands full. We cannot rely, like before, on the European Central Bank. We need to have a serious fiscal response. We need to welcome several million refugees. We need to accelerate the energy transition and cushion the blow to our households. We need to invest in our defence. All of those things need fiscal space that our countries do not have right now. So what can we do? I think that it has to be Europe acting together like we did against COVID. We needed to act together against the pandemic. We need to start a new recovery fund, similar to the one we put together against COVID, to fund together all of those investments that Europe needs to undertake. Now the problem, as some of my colleagues have remarked, is that the debt trajectories are probably not sustainable, particularly given where our welfare states and the demographic change that is driving their increase are going. So what we need to do is to condition access to this new European fund on a path of fiscal consolidation in the medium term that should be made sure to be followed by a new European fiscal agency. A European independent fiscal agency that ensures that access to this new fund comes in exchange for a credible fiscal consolidation path. I think that this can be done, and I hope that this can be accomplished.

Mr President, let me congratulate you, Executive Vice-President Vestager, Commissioner Breton, on the great effort and hard work you have done to end abuses in digital markets. When we passed the Digital Markets Act recently, we ensured competition in these markets and today, with the Digital Services Act, we are creating a safe space for consumers, also guaranteeing the fundamental rights of our citizens. But let's not fool ourselves: the European Union is a leader in legal standards, it is true, but we are still lagging behind in the digital transformation; only 3% of the main platforms, 3%, Madam Executive Vice-President, Commissioner, are European. European companies innovate less and grow less, what can we do? Two things are missing. First, we invest little in innovation: the European Union has invested almost 1% less of GDP over the last decade than the United States, and it is impossible to maintain leadership when less is invested in research and development; China has just reached our investment levels. And the second and most important thing is that we do not have a competitive university system: We can't be the best at innovation if the best universities are in the United States and Asia, and that's what happens now. Our work to adapt the European Union to the digital age has therefore only just begun: It's a good start with these two laws, but we still have a lot of work to do.

Madam President, I would like to say the following to President Macron. Mr President, as you said, Europe needs new fiscal rules. You argued this very persuasively with Mr Draghi in the Financial Times. The existing rules are neither credible nor counter—cyclical. Moreover, as you have just argued, the new rules must allow for increased investment in climate, so we need to invest an additional 1% of our GDP to fight climate change. How do we do this? My proposal is to sidestep the existing system and build a parallel one. After all, as the German Finance Minister, Mr Lindner, said recently, the existing rules have shown that they can be flexible. An opinion by the Commission could entrench that flexibility. The new system would have two pillars. The first would be a climate investment fund that would provide new loans and grants to Member States that comply with a new counter—cyclical expenditure rule. The second pillar would be a new European independent fiscal agency which would ensure that only countries that comply with those counter—cyclical expenditure rules have access to the fund. Mr President, as you can see, this is inspired by our historic Recovery and Resilience Facility, which we approved last year. I hope we can make history together.

Madam President, Commission data show that different countries combine money from European cooperation funds with national money in very different ways; Countries such as France and Italy complement European money with a very important national investment: in the case of Italy, four points of national GDP for each point of European money GDP. In other countries, as in the case of Spain, they do the opposite: trust the full recovery of European funds and do not complement it with national funds. In fact, in Spain only 0.15 points of GDP is added to each point of European money invested; this may seem responsible, but it is not: While the pandemic lasts, the responsible thing is to spend everything necessary to maintain economic activity, protect families and maintain investment, and at the same time, and this is key to avoid a debt crisis, it is important to have sustainable accounts in the medium term that allow us to assure the markets that any debt we incur will be only temporary. That is what Mario Draghi is trying to do in Italy, with a major pension reform that eliminates the so-called "Quota 100" and, at the same time, a huge fiscal stimulus in 2022. And it is the opposite of what Spain is doing, where the own fiscal impulse is minimal and, at the same time, a pension reform is made that increases the structural deficit by four points of GDP; that is, the mix of fiscal policies is completely absurd, more debt and less momentum: the worst of both worlds. Commissioner, Mr Executive Vice-President of the Commission, Europe must ensure that European money is spent well and does not lead us to a new euro crisis: Please make sure this is so.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after almost two years of the pandemic, I would like to do two things: firstly, to thank our citizens who have had so much to endure and endure and, secondly, to promise them that we will do what is necessary to put an end to this nightmare. Thank you to all of you who have complied with the endless restrictions; thanks to those who have stayed at home to take care of your families; thanks to the workers who have prevented our lives from being stopped, particularly doctors, nurses and healthcare workers; thanks to the entrepreneurs and self-employed who have also carried out their business despite all the obstacles, and thanks to those who have been vaccinated, especially; Thank you if you have not fallen into the lies of the anti-vaccines. But, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President of the Commission, Mr Minister, all that is not enough: Our citizens are tired and they don't just want to live, they want to be able to enjoy their lives again, and our job is to give them the tools to do that, and I think it takes two things, fundamentally. The first, they have been named many times, are vaccines, vaccines stop the infection, but above all they decrease the severity of the disease: We have to vaccinate everyone with the third dose, we have to keep fighting the anti-vaccines and we have to vaccinate the world. Ladies and gentlemen, we will not be safe until we are all safe, but, secondly, this is very important, we have to have enough medical, hospital, nursing capacity, general situation of the health sector to not have to confine again, we have to be able to withstand wave after wave, if unfortunately more come, without restricting the freedoms of our citizens again. In short, more vaccines and more investment in health. At this time of year it is important that we recover the illusion of enjoying life, and, in that sense, happy Christmas to all and happy year 2022!

Madam President, Mrs Vestager, you know better than anyone that the European Union has been trying for two decades to stop the abuses of technology companies and we really do not have the tools to do so. Think, for example, ladies and gentlemen, about the situation of the merger of WhatsApp and Facebook: At the time Europe did not have those tools, it had to let it go, and now Facebook decides to merge the data of the two platforms to better sell its ads, endangering the privacy of a billion users. The Digital Markets Act is here to tackle these problems: protecting consumer privacy, improving competition, ending murderous mergers... In addition to, most importantly, introducing interoperability. I think that's really the big step forward in legislation: enable interoperability between social platforms, enable interoperability between messaging networks; I think that's what can really change this market for consumers. In short, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Vestager, we have heard the call from many small and medium-sized enterprises that need the European Union to stop the abuses of the tech giants and now we must use these tools.

Madam President, it is great that with the Commissioner and Minister we are able to have this occasion to think about how to vaccinate the world, which must be a big priority for all of us. Today, the European Parliament can celebrate that we managed to get Europe to spend EUR 1.4 billion extra to vaccinate the world. That’s a good conquest, but almost two years after the pandemic, we still cannot promise families that they will spend Christmas together. We still cannot promise workers that they will be able to have work all winter – and we will not be able to promise that while the virus is going all around the planet infecting people. It’s important for moral reasons, important for health reasons, important for ethical reasons and political reasons: Europe must take the lead in vaccinating the world. But so far the Member States have only delivered 23% of the doses that they have promised the world. We cannot accept that our countries continue to promise this, to write these nice pieces of paper with nice promises, and not deliver. So that’s why, together with Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, our rapporteur, we ask you, the Member States and the Commission, to accelerate the delivery of the doses, to get the logistics in place, the syringes, etc. – it’s crucial – and to make the information transparent and to fight disinformation. But it’s not only in the world that we need to act, we also need to act at home. While the citizens of the world are clamouring for the vaccines, in Europe we have a lot of people who have access to vaccines but choose not to vaccinate themselves. We must also be stronger on that. If we don’t have the vaccines, we cannot win this fight. That’s why we need a stronger approach. We must fight with all our means against those who spread hoaxes, also in Europe, and in the world. We must encourage everyone to get vaccinated. Those who did get vaccinated should not have to stay at home to protect those who chose not to get vaccinated. So we must modify the European passport to make it a vaccination passport, and we must require the passport throughout Europe to travel and to go to public places. Finally, we have to get the booster shots, the third vaccinations, into everybody and, as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) said this morning, the Commission must make all the necessary doses available. Ultimately, the Union must aspire to universal vaccination of the entire planet, starting with our citizens. We must return to normal pre—COVID as soon as possible, and we have it at our fingertips.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Glasgow Climate Summit has resulted in a set of declarations, of good intentions on the importance of keeping global warming below one and a half degrees. All right, but the nice words are no longer worth it to keep the planet sustainable and habitable. We need to move forward - Europe needs to move forward - without waiting for others. How? The European Union must set up a "climate club" made up of countries that agree to put a price on carbon: countries that are part of the "club" will be able to trade freely with Europe, because their companies will be making an effort to fight climate change; non-club countries will have to pay a tariff – our Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism – in order to trade with Europe. And in that way we achieve two things: first, we give incentives to other countries to join in this effort; and, secondly, we prevent European companies from relocating to other countries in order not to pay the price of carbon. In short, Commissioner, the global consensus will not come in time. We must use the commercial power of Spain and Europe so that the rest of the countries of the world join our fight for a more sustainable and more humane planet.

Madam President, Mr Comín is indeed seriously insulting my country and I must respond. These days the whole Parliament has condemned the lack of respect for the rule of law and democracy that is happening in a European country. Minority rights are being violated and the separation of powers is being violated. That's exactly what happened in Catalonia in 2017. The Catalan Government and a Parliament representing less than half of the Catalans passed legislation that submitted the Catalan Supreme Court, the Judiciary, to the decision of the Catalan Government. In fact, that president of the Supreme Court was appointed by the president of the Catalan Government exactly as it has been tried to do in Poland, first point. Second, the rights of minorities were violated. In fact, half of the Catalans. Their rights to the protection of public spaces were violated, their linguistic rights were violated, as has been done systematically. The reality is that Europe knows a lot about nationalism and that is why, Mr Comín, you sit in the Unregistered Group, because no one loves you.

Madam President, what an unfortunate speech by Mr Comín i Oliveres. You have not yet realized that what is at stake in Poland is the rule of law, and that is what you broke in Catalonia when you ruled. That, the rule of law, the ability of a society to live together, is fundamental, and that is what is at stake in Poland. Yesterday, President von der Leyen arranged the debate on the rule of law with a pretty shocking comment. Instead of proposing bold action, she opened the door for Poland’s recovery plan to be approved, and the condition she set was simply that the Polish Government committed to a country-specific recommendation on reforming the judiciary. That would be a terrible mistake. The Polish plan cannot be approved until Poland recognises the primacy of European Union law. Let me just read out loud, Mr Šefčovič, from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) regulation. We agreed on a regulation that states that the plans to be approved must include Member States’ systems to prevent, detect and correct corruption, fraud and conflict of interests when using the funds in the Facility. Mr Commissioner and Mr Minister, how can a country claim to have comprehensive controls against corruption if its judiciary is not independent? How can we legally – how can you legally – argue that varying the European Court of Justice is compatible with the requirements of this RRF regulation? You cannot, because, without a functioning judiciary, we cannot be sure that there is no corruption and that Poland will fight corruption. For decades, we Europeans have fought for the rule of law, and the key to that fight is the existence of a judiciary and of a European Court of Justice that defends the Treaties. Dear colleagues, we should not concede an inch on that fight, and that is why we from Renew Europe call on you, the Commission, and you, the Council, to reject the Polish Government’s recovery and reconstruction plan until the primacy of EU laws is proven. European money should not be at risk of being used to perpetuate the Polish ruling parties in absolute power.

Mr President, the European Union has chosen to lead the world’s fight against global warming, and events such as the recent floods in Germany or the wildfires in Greece remind us of the urgency of this challenge, but our Union has decided that the effort in this fight falls mainly on the shoulders of the Member States, and not those of the European Union. This creates an important challenge: how to preserve the integrity of the single market. If we weaken state aid rules to allow Member States to help without limits their businesses with a green transition, we will pit one Member State against another. This will have the obvious results. All European taxpayers will lose and all European businesses will move to the richer states. The purpose of this resolution we discuss today is to help the European Commission find an equilibrium between supporting the green transition of our businesses and preserving the single market, because that flight of businesses to the richest Member States, that end of the level playing field, would be the end of that single market. Our message is that Europe today needs to confront the challenge of climate change courageously, but it must find ways to do it in a way that is economically and socially sustainable. To ensure that this is the case, you the European Commission, Ms Vestager, must continue to enforce our common rules. You must ensure that all businesses in our Union, small and large, east and west, north and south, have the same support for the green transition. Avoidance of the collapse of the single market is in your hands.

Mr President, it’s not usual to say this, but I agree very much with everything that my two colleagues from the People’s Party and from S&D said before, Mr Mureşan and Ms Gardiazabal. Turning now to the Commissioner; Mr Gentiloni, in July you delayed Viktor Orbán’s recovery plans, citing concerns over the risk of corruption, and two months later the plans are still not approved. And we would like to know, this House would like to know, what progress are we making and what guarantees have you obtained? I think there are at least three questions, and probably some more, as my colleagues mentioned, that need to be answered. First, has Viktor Orbán fixed Hungary’s broken public procurement system? Second, will Viktor Orbán pass a law preventing people with a proven record of irregularities and conflicts of interest – we have plenty – from gobbling up more EU funds? Third, has Viktor Orbán repealed laws which prevent investigative journalists and NGOs from accessing documents and properly scrutinising the use of public money? Hungary needs deep reforms when it comes to corruption. National laws must be changed and this must be changed now, before the recovery money goes to Mr Orbán. Mr Orbán has a parliamentary majority big enough to change even the Hungarian Constitution, so please don’t let him tell us that he can’t pass laws on corruption. Commissioner Gentiloni, having a solid anti—corruption mechanism is something that those in this room negotiated with you and with the Council. It’s a legal requirement in the RRF Regulation; it’s not something nice to have, it’s a ‘must pass’ criterion. It’s pass or fail, it’s yes or no: either you have solid anti—corruption mechanisms or we cannot approve those plans; there’s no middle ground here. And when you give a pass, just an easy pass, to Mr Orbán now, if you do, on corruption, you go against the body of evidence of your services and against the potential further legal actions that we are taking against Hungary. Commissioner Gentiloni, I want to be clear: not a single MEP in this House wants to punish Hungarians or Hungary. We want to make sure, in fact, that the recovery money will go to honest Hungarians and deserving Hungarians, and not just to the politically connected and powerful. So stay firm, don’t give these seven billion dollars to Orbán to feed his corrupt clients, and not a single euro from European taxpayers must end up in the pocket of crooks and corrupt politicians. And honestly, I think what we wanted when we made these regulations is that – precisely to give this leverage to the Commission. And the Commission now has the leverage to force Orbán to fix Hungary’s most egregious corruption problems. The moment is now: the Commission has the leverage, Europe has this power, and we need to do it before we are swamped by corruption scandals, and the use of all this European money.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, what do Tony Blair, the Camorra boss Rafael Amato and Pep Guardiola have in common? That, according to the recent leak of Pandora's papers, they have all used opaque corporations to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately this is not the first time this has happened. Today, as my colleagues have commented, they are the Pandora papers, yesterday they were the Panama papers, LuxLeaks, the Falciani list, the Paradise papers, etc. The reality is that they are the same people committing the same crimes over and over again. Our leaders become outraged, but nothing changes. Words are carried away by the wind. Commissioner, you asked why nothing changes after every wave of indignation. And I think the papers we're looking at contain a certain clue to the answer. No wonder nothing changes if so many of those who should work to change it are in turn among the beneficiaries of these shell societies. What to do? Money does not understand borders and criminals will always find the weakest link to get money moved by screen societies to the countries that welcome them in this way. The governments of the European Union and this Parliament will work with the Commission to create a European agency against money laundering and terrorist financing in legislation on which I will be rapporteur. The agency will monitor the most risky financial institutions and ensure that countries do not turn a blind eye to the influx of black money. Europe cannot miss this opportunity. I undertake, Commissioner, and before all of you, to work together to create a strong, well-funded and independent agency, so that this is the last time we have to come and be outraged by a similar scandal.

Madam President, for more than a decade now, honourable Member, the electricity bill in Spain has been among the highest in Europe. Why? The Spaniards know well problem: The People's Party and the Socialist Party allow a few electricity companies to carve up the market and abuse consumers. Then, the electricians return the favor with positions on the boards of directors. This week, former socialist leader Antonio Miguel Carmona, with no experience in the sector, has signed Iberdrola as vice president to improve his institutional relations. An example of this manipulation: Iberdrola stopped its hydraulic power plants in 2013, artificially increasing the electricity bill of all Spaniards by 100 million. Yes, MEP, 100 million. And they were caught, but the punishment imposed was a measly 25 million fine. Why don't the regulators defend the Spaniards? Because the PP and the PSOE are not interested in losing their chairs on the boards of directors. So, Commissioner, I was very happy to hear you say that you are going to demand compliance with European rules, and I ask you that the Commission insist on the proper functioning of the internal market and on the respect of competition rules by Spanish regulators.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, the state of our Union today is robust, and it is astonishing to be able to say so when we are still in the midst of a brutal pandemic that has cost us so many lives and so many jobs. Citizens have done their part: They have been confined to save the lives of others, they have continued to work so that our societies do not stop and they have been vaccinated. From the European institutions this time we have been up to the task; We have shown that Europe is useful for its citizens, providing a determined and effective response to the worst health crisis in a hundred years. Thanks to this response, and despite the bad omens of some, we lead the world in vaccination with almost three-quarters of our vaccinated population, which is more than in the United States and the United Kingdom. We also lead the world in economic recovery. All European countries have fought the economic crisis with the same tools funded by the European Union: TENs to protect workers, guaranteed loans and direct aid to save SMEs. Finally, we have launched together an ambitious Recovery Plan that will allow us to relaunch our economies on a greener, more sustainable and more humane path. In short, in Spain, today, there are many people who are alive thanks to vaccines purchased by the European Union and, in Spain, today, there are many people who retain their employment thanks to ERTE financed by the European Union. And, in Spain, tomorrow, many will find work thanks to the Recovery Plan that we have launched together. Citizens can feel very fortunate to be Europeans and most importantly we have shown that our model of open and tolerant democracy protects us better from any crisis than an authoritarian, populist or nationalist drift. But, Mrs von der Leyen, from Renew Europe we are not satisfied: we must continue to take firm steps against the pandemic. Europe has the opportunity to vaccinate the world. Let's do it, claim our global leadership. Let us Europeans be even more proud to be so.

Mr President, Mr Dombrovskis, Mr Hoyer, the European Investment Bank that you run is essential for the European economy, and it has demonstrated this once again during the pandemic. And it is essential because it is credible and effective. And that credibility, Mr Hoyer, must be protected like gold in cloth. It is therefore inexplicable that a vice-president of the Bank went directly through a revolving door from the Board of Directors of the Bank to that of Iberdrola with, apparently, the approval of the European Investment Bank itself. The conflict of interest, ladies and gentlemen, is clear: the Vice-President was in charge of loans to Spain and, in particular, loans to Iberdrola, which is one of the Bank’s main customers. One thousand four hundred million euros had been lent since 2019 to this company. In the press conferences in which these loans are announced, Mrs. Navarro appears shoulder to shoulder with the president of Iberdrola, for whom she is currently working. Mr Hoyer, the institutions have to be clean and look like that. That is why, in this Parliament's assessment of your activity, we ask you to explain the permissiveness of your Ethics Committee on these revolving door scandals and also to review the rules that allow these scandals to occur. Finally, we remind you that the European Ombudsman described a similar decision by the European Banking Authority as maladministration, and we therefore ask you, Mr Hoyer, that the European Investment Bank do what is necessary to avoid these situations in the future.