Speeches

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, assured us at the beginning of her mandate that she would lead a political committee. If you are a political commission, please listen more carefully to the voice of the citizens and let us not deepen the fault lines that risk further alienating them from the European project! I am sure that the European Commission's guidelines on inclusive language were written with the best possible intentions. The result, however, was contrary to expectations, as you can see from the reactions here. We are going through a pandemic, the price of energy has risen, inflation is rising, a war is smoldering on the border of Ukraine. These are the issues that concern people now and are waiting for answers. At a time when anxiety and anger are peaking, let's not give extremists an opportunity to fuel them even more with this kind of artificial subjects! Even if it is an internal document, the approach was one that ignored religious and political sensitivities and it is a pity that from this negligence we end up keeping the European agenda in most Member States. The founding fathers of the Union advocated the need for a sense of belonging to a common European spirit, the need to strengthen a sense of European identity, and Christianity is part of our common cultural heritage. It's not one religion against another, it's simply part of our heritage. It is an integral part of this identity and this is what we need to bring to light, what unites us as Europeans, remaining faithful to our local and national specificities and not to establish rules that amputate our values! Obviously we want the integration of minorities in Europe and obviously we want to respect the rights of all our citizens, regardless of their religion and beliefs, but I do not need the European Commission to tell me what to wish my loved ones for Christmas. Such approaches risk further alienating citizens from Europe and its founding values. As a liberal, I will never be able to agree to impose on people a way of thinking or speaking through rules or norms. I prefer a Europe of debate, rather than a Europe of common thinking, a Europe of diversity, understood as the sum of our common identity and not as a fearful position, in which we are afraid to assert ourselves as individuals, a Europe of openness of mind and curiosity to always discover new cultures. Europe united in diversity does not mean levelling language and reducing forms of addressing to the lowest common denominator. This Europe united in diversity means diversity of beliefs and diversity in the manifestation of traditions. The coming Christmas celebration marked my childhood, it is part of my identity, both as a Romanian and as a European. It is a part that I cherish and am proud of, and I don't think anyone can be bothered by the fact that I believe in God, that I believe in Christmas, and that I live this feeling and express it in this way, and I am glad that we had the opportunity to have this discussion that I hope clarifies things and doesn't inflame them any more.

Madam President, it is the end of a complicated year. We are all used to the measures taken to fight the Covid pandemic, the long process of approval of the recovery and resilience plans or the problems of non-compliance with fundamental freedoms in some parts of Europe. However, the developments on Ukraine's border with Russia should not be ignored, because that problem is not just a Ukraine problem, but one that concerns the whole of Europe. The fact that the Russian Federation has substantially increased its military presence in recent months on the eastern and northern border with Ukraine, in occupied Crimea and in the Black Sea region, where Russia is very active lately, plus the bellicose statements of Russian leaders, is also a challenge for the security of the European Union and certainly of the states in the eastern and south-eastern neighbourhood of the European Union, including Romania. Comparisons with 1939 have become commonplace lately, but we must not forget the main lesson of that period: that we must not abdicate solidarity. The only way we can convince Putin's Russia that it must back down is the European Union's solidarity in the face of this phenomenon.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are at the end of three and a half years of negotiating this reform package. It is a reform that gives more room for manoeuvre to the Member States, but I count on you, Commissioner, for the European Commission to ensure that the agricultural policy remains a common one. We have endowed the new Common Agricultural Policy again with a good budget, but also with a few elements that bring it closer to society. The future Common Agricultural Policy will be, first and foremost, fairer, it will better support small and medium-sized farmers through the redistributive payment which, this time, is mandatory. By introducing the mandatory definition of active farmer this time, money will end up in the pockets of real farmers and not golf course owners. In addition, and this is an element that I care about a lot and that I supported in the previous reform of the common agricultural policy, the process of convergence of subsidies between Member States continues, of balancing the support that is given to farmers who now receive lower subsidies compared to farmers in other Member States. I know that this is good news and long-awaited both in Romania, in the country where I speak, but also in other European countries and regions. The future Common Agricultural Policy will be even greener. We have managed to establish an ambitious budget for eco-schemes, for agri-environmental measures that will help farmers in the transition to a more environmentally and biodiversity-friendly agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy will be even more forward-looking. We have foreseen more support for young farmers, measures for the digitalisation of agriculture, but also for disadvantaged areas. We now need to ensure that this reform enters into force in 2023 and that farmers know what to expect and that national strategic plans are drawn up by involving farmers and professional organisations. Even if it is not perfect, this reform is still a step forward from the reform that I negotiated as Commissioner in 2013 and that is why I will vote for it, support it and ask you to do the same.

Madam President, you heard the speakers at the meeting: you have, it is true, the right words. What we are waiting for now is deeds and I am fully aware that we must do this together. You will have the full support of the Renew Group and I am sure you will have a majority here in Parliament to implement as soon as possible what is already on the table. It is true that you still have about three years in office, so in my opinion there is still one more year to put on the table the new proposals you will have, and then to implement things. Of course, I also heard your message about the Rule of Law Mechanism and I thank you for that. I think this is the signal that many people are waiting for because it is true that the economy matters, money matters, employment matters and people expect a lot of it. But we need to build that on a solid foundation. One last word: Don’t forget the Conference on the Future of Europe. Together, we have committed ourselves to follow up on the conclusions that will emerge. Here too, we stand by your side and expect that once these conclusions are on the table, the Commission will come forward with proposals. Thank you very much, I know you are aware that people are waiting for you to leave a better European Union than the one you found.

Madam President, we are approaching half of the mandate that European voters gave us in 2019 and I must confess my impatience. Of course, you are right to remind us of the EU’s progress, the progress that the EU made during the pandemic – a historic recovery plan, it must be recognised, a new role for the EU in the field of health... But these advances have often been dictated by events, and on subjects that are solely of the will, and I hardly see you at the maneuver. Too often you engage in diplomacy with the Council instead of politics with MEPs. Take European values, for example, which are the basis of our Union. Across Europe, there are growing hotbeds of illiberalism. The independence of judges is curtailed, journalists are murdered and minorities are discriminated against. These foci of illiberalism must be extinguished, Madam President, before the fire spreads. This is your responsibility, and you have the means to do so. However, for now, I hear you, but I do not yet see the effects. I do not see you using, for example, the rule of law mechanism requested by the European Parliament to protect our budget and stop funding illiberal abuses in Europe. You have to find the political courage to use this mechanism, because that is why we decided to do it. It has been in force for almost a year and is still not being implemented. If you do not find this courage, we simply remind you of your obligation to enforce European law before the Court of Justice. Madam President, you are diplomacy with the Council instead of politics with us and I think that is a mistake. On the green agenda and the implementation of the climate package that we discussed at length yesterday, but also on the negotiations on the migration package or on the digital agenda, you will need us to get the Council moving. Your role is not just to make proposals, but also to deliver results. Only in this way will trust in Europe become a natural thing. Finally, I look forward to you also giving substance to the slogan of the ‘Geopolitical Commission’. This ambition, which you presented at the beginning of your term of office, has been highly and lengthily welcomed, and we look forward to seeing that happen. The events in Afghanistan remind us how much we need a true vision on defence in all its complexity of the 21st century, as you mentioned well in your intervention. They also remind us of the extent to which our strategic autonomy and, dare we say it too, our sovereignty, must be asserted so that we are never again at the mercy of decisions taken in Washington, Beijing or Moscow. Charles Michel has grasped the extent of this issue, I am not sure that this is the case, again, of the "geopolitical Commission". One way to give some substance to this slogan, Madam President, would be to take command of the battle for the vaccination of the part of the world that cannot cope on its own. We welcome, of course, the vaccination rate of 70% of the adult population in Europe when, in Africa, only 3% of the population received at least one dose. We wrote to you last week to explain how our budget could accelerate vaccination in the poorest countries. That, Madam President, could be an objective of the 'Geopolitical Commission'. To conclude, last week, our Renew Europe group proposed to the pro-European political forces of this house to enter into a coalition contract. A coalition contract to renew Europe, for a Europe of values, for a Europe that is strong in an unstable world and for a Europe of results. My question is simple, Madam President: Do you want to be part of this coalition?

Madam President, last week we, the Members of the Renew Group, sent you a letter calling for the suspension of the adoption of the recovery plan for Viktor Orbán. In this letter, we explained that today we have no guarantee that the money from the European recovery will benefit honest and deserving Hungarian citizens. And we were also telling you that, as things stand, there is a good chance that this money will simply be diverted by the Orbán regime. Yesterday we heard from the German press that you accept this request and that you intend to suspend the adoption of the plan for the time being. One of the conditions that a state must meet in order to access the recovery plan is to have a reliable and robust anti-corruption system in place, which we have provided for in the legislation on this recovery plan. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. Moreover, in 2019, the Commission observed an increase in corruption and favouritism in Hungary. In 2020, you saw a further weakening of the anti-fraud mechanism. In 2021, you also observed that the corruption of the Orbán regime is ‘systemic’. These are observations of the Commission that we are now waiting to find in the Commission’s assessment of this plan. It is therefore time to act. By suspending the adoption of the plan proposed by Orbán, you have taken a step in the right direction. But the idea is not to delay to delay. Strong guarantees must be obtained from this government, as indeed from all governments, that these rules are respected. In our letter of 27 June, we proposed to you three of these guarantees which, in our opinion, on the basis of the Commission’s analysis, should be included in what the Hungarian Government proposes. First, that Orbán legally commits to provide all data on the beneficiaries of the recovery plan. This is not the case today. Even if we have OLAF, Hungary is not part of the EPPO. But even OLAF does not always have all the data to analyse how European money is used. Second, Orbán needs to put in place a legal framework to prevent people already involved in fraud cases from having access to recovery money. This would prevent his son-in-law, for example, who was repeatedly singled out by OLAF but never punished by the Hungarian courts, from continuing to pocket European money. In addition, Orbán should commit to repeal all laws impeding the access of civil society and investigative journalists to public information. Madam President, not approving the Hungarian recovery plan at this stage is not punishing Hungary, but punishing Orbán and those who use European money to hit Europe. Hungarian citizens are not fooled, because more than 80% of them think the regime is corrupt, so they are very aware of what is happening in their country. Budapest is on the rise and European money cannot sustain this problem.