Speeches

Dear Colleagues, since the Treaty of Lisbon, we have witnessed an increasing number of citizens directly interacting with the Union. Which is great. But how do we meet them? Many of our Member States have rules to provide legal certainty and protect citizens interacting with national public administrations. However, as of now, no such rules exist for the European Union. Our House has already addressed these issues in: the resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union; and in the resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient, and independent European Union administration and the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council for an open, efficient, and independent European Union administration. Only to be dismissed by the European Commission. We desperately need regulations for an open, efficient, and independent EU administration, outlining principles for the digitization of administrative procedures and the development and implementation of digital solutions. The call for rules at the level of EU bodies is rooted in the understanding that such regulations are necessary for good administration. It is emphasized that these rules should include special provisions related to digitalization, ensuring that European citizens can enjoy easy and efficient access to digital services and solutions, aligning with the principles of the rule of law and citizen rights. The Commission wants to - again - claim that the existing rules are sufficient and dismiss the need for additional regulations. Public administrations and digitalisation was highlighting by annual meeting European Ombudsmen this year. We must include aspects of digitalisation in the citizens’ rights when they faced with administrations. Therefore, our endeavour is also to incorporate new digital solutions to meet the needs of efficient administrations, while ensuring the full rights of citizens. With this vote that we are about to cast now, I urge the Parliament to maintain our strong signal to the Commission against their inability and reluctance to address these issues. The same signal that was displayed when the file was unanimously adopted across the entire political spectrum of groups in the JURI Committee on 24 October 2023. The time for action is now – and the Commission ought to listen this time.

Madam President, this is an extremely important resolution we just voted. However, we do not know if employees that we hire in our offices, or even in this Parliament, have a security record that declares them unfit to receive classified or secure information. We cannot share information with our employees if we do not know that they do not have a background that declares them unfit. However, no security agencies within the European Union at a Member State level or within the institutions are able to assist Members of Parliament in making sure that they hire the right staff. This is something that this House must address before the next mandate.

Mr President! We adopted a historic legal instrument today. We decided to ban violence against women because they are women. This is prohibited both online and offline. Because women are not second-class people. We are not children incapable of giving consent, incapable of determining our own body and our own lives. The Istanbul Convention recommends the adoption of a consent law defining what rape is. Because, unfortunately, it is still the case that there are many in certain Member States and in our society who believe that women are unable to make a decision and that they regret the next morning. But that is not the case. Women are adults and whole people, just like men, are able to make decisions about our own body. The fight against women has been going on for years, and that is why we should not stop the fight with the compromise that we adopted today. We must continue, and continue to improve, the legislation that exists in Europe so that everyone in our societies in our Member States understands that 'no' means 'no'.

Mr President! We don't have rules if we don't want to use them. We have in the Treaty a defence of the rule of law in all our Member States. But the Council does not dare to use the rules that we have to protect the rule of law and democracy in Europe. During this mandate, we have agreed that you cannot get EU funds, EU money, if you do not respect EU values. However, we still need to ensure that the Commission is actually required to comply with the rules and the tools that we have. I look forward to improving this mechanism in the next mandate. But I'm disappointed at how little we've used the tools we've had in this one.

Mr President, thank you very much to the Commission and the two rapporteurs for their work on this piece of legislation. We have actually been extending our borders to the airports of other countries with the system that we have in place. The current update is an improvement on the data rights of all of the passengers coming into Europe. But we cannot look away from the fact that we talk about having legal pathways for legal migrants and asylum seekers. But we have stopped the most effective, safest and modern ways of transport for these people, because we are asking the airlines to stop people that do not have a visa to come into the EU. And you do not get a visa if an embassy, an EU embassy, fears that you will seek asylum. So therefore, with the great work that has been done with adopting the asylum and migration package two weeks ago, we need to make sure that this system that we’ve adopted, which is an improvement on the existing system, does not hinder the protection of refugees across the world.

Dear colleague, you mentioned that there is flexibility between the definition of men and women. This is a scientific fact. Biology is not bipolar. There is no just women and just men. We all have chromosomes. We all have hormones. And they define how we look, how we appear, and if we’re capable of having men and women and therefore men can be pregnant and women are women, even if they were appointed as boys and men when they were born, because trans women are women.

Madam President, if we want to live in democracy, if we want to live in countries where we’re equal before the courts, where we all have the same rights, where it’s not who has the most money who gets the most rights, then we need to become defenders of democracy, defenders of the rule of law. We need to believe what autocrats are saying when they run for election, and we need to respond quickly, because delayed protection of the rule of law is no protection of the rule of law and democracy. We have no choice but to defend the democracy and rule of law of Europe. And that is why we need to respond swiftly by using the measures that we do have within the European Union, and by sending strong political messages that undermining the rule of law, dismantling free media is not acceptable if you are an EU Member State. We have no choice if we want to live in democracy, if we want to live without the interference of third countries, such as Russia.

Mr President, the right to decide over our own bodies is fundamental. We cannot have equality without women being able to decide over their own bodies. We cannot have equality without the right to abortion, the right to full health care, the right to decide over our own bodies. It is not only a question of equality; it is also a question of healthcare. Abortion should be a question that is decided between a woman and her doctor. And healthcare is a European issue when it suits the Member States. So that’s why I regret that the Council is not here today, because the Member States should unite in a coalition for the women of Europe, because we should provide full healthcare to all women. For the women of Malta, ‘Aħna magħkom’. We see you. We are with you. We need abortion as a right for all women. We need access to medical abortion across borders. I ask for right to abortion to be enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also for the Member States to take action and provide healthcare to women in Europe for abortion in their Member States, in excess of what is required by the European Union.

Mr President, there is no LGBTQ without T. The two people attacked in Thessaloniki were trans. This was not a coincidence. Because to the right, when they cannot stop equal marriage, when you cannot stop the freedom to love whoever you want to love, you attack the trans community who just want to be who they are. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. And trans lives matter. Trans men and trans women have the right to be loved and to live the lives they want to live and do the sports they want to do. To the silent majority, now is the time to speak up because the very vocal hateful minority is already shouting. Start speaking up for trans rights.

Mr President, is the EU just empty words? Or are we defender of rights? Because in Afghanistan right now, girls are robbed of their dreams, women are caged in their houses and a generation is suffering under Taliban rule. So, we must keep talking about Afghanistan. As the world watches, transactional and silent, as a young girl’s basic right to education becomes a dangerous act of defiance. For Hazara women, their ethnicity adds another layer of repression to the already brutal reality they face just by being women. We must not normalise this gender apartheid. History will judge us by our actions, not our words. Will we be the generation that turned a blind eye? Or are we the generation that fought for Afghan women’s right to learn, right to work, or simply the right to exist?

Mr President! What we are discussing here today is mass famine. A population held hostage by a terrorist organisation, Hamas, for almost 20 years. Border crossings that have been closed for years. Children, pregnant women and old grandparents who have either made a doll like this or are playing with it. They are not Hamas. They need border crossings to be opened and they need the food they need. We are talking about a mass famine that kills children, pregnant women and old grandparents.

Mr President, colleagues, you may remember that, in December 2021, Daria Navalnaya was received in this Parliament to receive the Sakharov Prize on behalf of her father. Together with her, she had Leonid Volkov, the chief of staff of Alexei Navalny. Yesterday evening, you may have heard that he was brutally attacked by a thug outside his house with a hammer, trying to break his leg and break his arm. Fortunately, Leonid Volkov is unrestricted by fear and is continuing his work. We cannot allow Russian thugs to threaten and attack opposition politicians in Europe. Europe must be a place of freedom and protection for opposition politicians and activists from the world. Our Member States must up the protection of activists and political refugees in Europe against Russian interference and Russian attacks. We will not be made afraid! (Loud applause)

Madam President! We must support democracies in our neighbourhood. We must oppose politicisation, immigration and refugees when Putin and Lukashenko push refugees across our borders. But what do we do ourselves? What does the European Commission do when the Council misuses the Commission as a cheque booklet to issue blank cheques? For budget support, this is not sectoral policy. It is not support for migration policy. This is support for the state. It is support for the illegitimate president of Tunisia. And what does the Commission do when we ask them questions about it? They're ignoring us. We asked priority questions this summer to Várhelyi, whom he took 8 weeks to answer. He should have used a maximum of three! When we ask you an oral question this evening, the Commissioner will not show up. Should we really bring the Commission before the Court of Justice to ensure that they take us seriously? We decided to take the Commission to the Court of Justice for payment of money to Orbán last night. Should we do the same for the payment of money to Tunisia? Unfortunately, I think it will be necessary.

Madam President! This legislation does not introduce new rules, we have just so pulled down from the air. In the past, it has been the responsibility of consumers to ensure that they buy products that have been produced responsibly. It has been the responsibility of the countries to prosecute the companies that produce in China, in Vietnam, in Bangladesh, on the other side of the world. But it has never been the responsibility of companies. Why is it that companies with global production chains can ensure quality control, but they cannot control basic environmental, health and labour standards where their products are produced? I can't understand that. Why is it that the Commission appointed by the governments of our Member States five years ago, and approved by us, does not trust the legislation they put in place? Why are the Member States in the Council undermining the Commission's proposals? I think we should adopt that legislation, because we need it! We need to ensure that it is not just consumers and countries very far from Europe who have to comply with the rules.

Mr. President! Tomorrow we will vote on the first comprehensive regulation of artificial intelligence in the world. As shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, I feel a particular pride in what we have achieved together in this House and with the Commission. A regulation that balances innovation and the protection of fundamental rights, keeping citizens safe while giving companies space to innovate and grow big. The AI Act is a true European success. In fact, the regulation is so successful that the Danish Government also wants one. Just a few weeks ago, they held an AI press conference, where they announced, among other things, that Denmark needs to create, for example, "a regulatory legal sandbox" for artificial intelligence. It sounds remarkably much like the Regulation's "Regulatory Framework and sandboxes". Is the government in Denmark happily unaware of what we have done here in Brussels? Or maybe they've been looking over our shoulders while they've been negotiating with us for the last 3 years? Either way, this has to change. The governments of the Member States cannot continue to make European successes their own, while at the same time blaming the EU for everything they do not like.

Mr President, colleagues and Commissioner, thank you for a wonderful result on the Cyber Resilience Act. This result has actually enabled us to ensure that we have consistency across numerous pieces of legislation, especially a piece of legislation, the Product Liability Directive, which we are also voting this week. Because of the definition of open source software in the Cyber Resilience Act, we were able to include open source software in the Product Liability Directive. I think this underlines the importance of ensuring consistency in the different pieces of legislation that we have. This piece of legislation on the Cyber Resilience Act will allow us to ensure resilience on cyber security across our products and across the production chain, but it also allows us to make sure that software is secure and we take into account the specificities of free and open software. So I would like to thank colleagues for your work, and also other colleagues on the product liability directive that have included the results from the CRA.

Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the floor. It’s a point of order regarding the entry into the room of the children of MEPs. We had a colleague that was barred entrance into the plenary room for the vote because he had his child with him. To make a change of the rules of entry into the plenary with short notice and stopping a parent with his child at the doors of the plenary – having a discussion with the parent across the head of the child – is not acceptable. I missed votes. Our colleague missed votes because of the change of rules. We should have a Parliament that allows people to be parents and politicians at the same time.

Madam President! This is about the protection of whistle-blowers, which we have EU legislation to ensure, because whistle-blowers provide the foundation and the emergency brake in our democracy. But freedom of expression and our security must also be balanced. Illegality must be prosecuted and EU law, as I said, protects our whistle-blowers. That is what we have the courts to ensure. But we must also be aware that we have a geopolitical need for better protection of whistle-blowers in the EU. We cannot live with whistle-blowers who act in the interests of our democracy, of justice and of the truth, fleeing to Putin's Russia. We need to provide better protection for whistle-blowers in Europe. And we need to protect them better after they have been in the courts and after they have gone to the press, so that they do not, like the Danish whistleblower, Anders Kærsgård, commit suicide after they have been heroes for our democracy and for the truth.

Mrs Joron, thank you very much for your fight against surveillance. But how are you going to fight surveillance in the other directives, in our legislation? Are you going to say no to biometric surveillance at Europe's borders or during the Olympic Games? Will you fight for the freedom of all citizens in Europe, be they migrants or refugees, be they Danish or French?

Madam President, the European Digital Identity Law is finally at the finish line. A European Digital Identity will give our citizens an easy and convenient way to interact with public administrations, cutting paperwork and making all of our lives easier. As Renew negotiator in the Committee on Legal Affairs, I fought to ensure that the law respects citizens’ privacy, guarantees the security of the internet, and protects encryption. I’m glad to say that we achieved this. The final text is unequivocal. Together with the European Commission’s declaration, it says that governments should not be able to upend the security architecture of the internet. End—to—end encryption should be protected, and citizens’ privacy should be guaranteed, both online and when using the wallet. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your work during the negotiations and for ensuring this written declaration. Thank you to the negotiation teams, and in particular to my colleagues, Alin Mituța and Andrus Ansip, for hearing our concerns for the best deal for European citizens.

Madam President! I have to say hello from Alexander Holm, a Danish biologist specializing in nature conservation, who sends these words. The wolf debate is a strange thing. From the wolf critics we have to hear again and again about how the wolf in Europe is dangerous. Despite the fact that there has not been a single predater attack on humans since 1974, regardless of problem wolves; the wolves who can climb a wolf-stained fence, those who have lost their shyness towards people, those who pose a threat to dogs, they must already be shot! Why do you need more than that? Why do you call wolves that aren't a problem a problem? We have a huge success in Europe with a model where predators at the top of the food chain can coexist with humans and their livestock. After 50 successful years, it will be a tremendous self-goal to destroy the model. The way agriculture treats nature so far has given us a biodiversity crisis. Maybe it's time to listen to someone other than the farmers and the pony owners. Time has run out for solutions and agriculture that will not be compatible with great nature and wild animals. Then put up a fence, put the wolves and aim greener.

Mr Lacapelle, you have put so much emphasis on the Christian cultures of Europe, and I regret that because cultural diversity in Europe goes far beyond Christian culture. But an EU partnership must not only be based on gas or migration interests, but also on values and human rights. It is a partnership in which requirements are formulated. Therefore, Turkey, which is going in the wrong direction in terms of democracy and support for minorities, will not be able to become a member of the European Union in the current state of government. And if a country does not support democracy, press freedom and the rule of law in Europe, this will also pose problems for European countries. So I hope you will support democracy in France for the next elections.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, these days we celebrate that both Finland and Sweden have joined NATO. This is a celebration because they have joined a security collaboration within Europe. Azerbaijan’s recent aggression poses a threat not to just the territorial integrity of Armenia, but also challenges the very existence of Armenia. Armenia’s decision last week to freeze its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation brings to light a reality that I’ve long emphasised – that Russia is not a reliable ally of Armenia. Russia is not a friend of Armenia; Europe is a friend of Armenia. We must prove that we are a strong friend of Armenia and support Armenia and the Armenian population, and also Armenian minorities in other countries. By doing that, we need to support them with security promises and continuous allyship and cooperation. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Madam President, thank you very much, Commissioner Lenarčič, for being here for this important debate. We’ve spoken a lot of words about this conflict for years. Now we must stop just speaking and actually show some action. Ahmad al-Ghuferi lost 103 family members in a military attack hitting two of his family’s houses. Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl, was killed when she was trying to shelter in a car being attacked by Israeli military. We need to stop this conflict. We need a ceasefire right this moment in order to save human lives. This is a humanitarian crisis that is caused by war, which is why the ceasefire is so urgent. But once we have the ceasefire, we need to apply the necessary pressure to Netanyahu. Netanyahu, I am afraid, will try and continue this conflict in order to stay out of prison, because as long as he’s prime minister, he can stay out of prison, and we may not allow this to happen. We must have a two-state solution as soon as possible.

Thank you very much, Ms in ‘t Veld. You mentioned the right-wing Government of Israel, led by Netanyahu, has been in power in Israel for many years. What has the EU failed to do to actually apply pressure to different Israeli governments that have failed to support a two-state solution? What should we be doing now to actually ensure that we find not only a ceasefire, but a permanent peace for both Israel and Palestine?