Speeches

Mr President, Lebanon is screaming out for stability. Inflation has spiralled out of control, access to imports, fuel, machinery, food, education, medicine and health care is and has been at crisis level for a long time. And this is the country with the world’s largest refugee population per capita. For historical and geographical reasons, the Lebanese political system is set up so external players generally must form a consensus on which presidential candidates go forward for election. It’s encouraging, then, that there appears to be some tentative agreement about the candidacy of the Maronite Christian Suleiman Frangieh. Saudi Arabia, Syria and others in the region seem to be content, and even France. It looks like they might be backing them. Western media, on the other hand, is awash with stories about Hezbollah interference and the need for the steady hand of the IMF’s man at the wheel to subject the country to even more economic pain. It’s time for the US and our puppet states to stop their disastrous interference and let Lebanon have a modicum of stability, and let the refugees from Palestine go home as well to their proper home.

Madam President, the Commission’s proposal paper for the newly announced ethics body describes the new body in the following terms: ‘With the establishment of the Ethics Body there will, for the first time, be a formal mechanism for coordination and exchange of views between institutions and for the establishment of common standards for the ethical conduct of members’. Now the fact that the Commission appears satisfied that the new body is only geared up for coordination and exchange of views is a bit shocking. And to paraphrase the words of our Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, the current proposal will result in a toothless body and will in no way deliver any meaningful results in improving ethical standards and accountability and transparency within the EU institutions. If the Commission is truly serious about solving the problem about the lack of accountability within the European Union, it would be proposing an independent body with powers to initiate investigations and powers to sanction. Commissioner, you are citing legal reasons for leaving decisions on individual cases to each institution. Can you publish these legal reasons, please?

Mr President, the damage to Ukraine is devastating. Towns and cities that endured for hundreds of years do not exist anymore. We must recognise that these towns, cities and surrounding lands were long being stolen by local oligarchs colluding with global financial capital. This theft quickened with the onset of the war in 2014. The pro-Western government opened the doors wide for massive structural adjustment and privatisation programs spearheaded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the IMF and the World Bank. Zelenskyy used the current war to concentrate power and accelerate the carpet fire sale. He banned opposition parties that were resisting deeply unpopular reforms to the laws restricting the sale of land to foreign investors. Over 3 million hectares of agricultural land are now owned by companies based in Western tax havens. Ukraine’s mineral deposits alone are worth over USD 12 trillion. Western companies are licking their lips. What are the working class people... (The President cut off the speaker)

Madam President, the European Citizens’ Initiative, in theory, is a democratic, participatory instrument at EU level that has faced many hurdles in addressing the democratic deficits of the EU. Revisions of the initiative remove some of the bureaucratic obstacles which had been previously riddled with legal and practical issues. But the discretionary powers of the Commission are certainly a major challenge still. The Commission retains discretion as to the actions it intends to take, if any, according to the regulation. An unelected body with absolute authority over implementing initiatives isn’t too compatible with the idea of direct democracy, as promoted by the citizens’ initiatives. So how can European citizens initiatives address democratic deficit in the EU?

Madam President, the amendments are much stronger than the Commission’s proposals for a wider mandate on creating an EU drugs agency by extending the powers of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The 2022 European Drug Report highlights alarming trends in illicit drug use, which demands the need for better harm-reduction mechanisms. The development of this would be a step towards providing an evidence-based approach centred on human rights in the area of drug policy, which sadly we don’t have, especially in terms of coordinating with national authorities to collect data, establishing a network of toxicology laboratories and promoting best practice in the area of prevention, risk and harm reduction, treatment, care and rehabilitation. The question is, will there be an adequate budget with the new broadened mandate in the capacity for analysis, monitoring, developing awareness campaigns, and will there be proper resources to be able to complete this ambitious proposal?

Madam President, the report touches on the issue of the fund implementation and the EU control on large infrastructure projects. As good infrastructure is critical to regional development and transport networks, the funding of projects is critical to this development. But the text provides little detail as to whether there is adequate control over fund implementation and there is also a lack of detail about regulating private sector involvement in large infrastructure projects. As these types of projects are not defined as a separate category in the EU legal framework, budgetary rules are less fixed, with a wider scope for private sector exploitation. In our own country, Ireland, we have experienced a pattern of overspending in large infrastructure projects at the expense of the public’s pocket. Too often, the private sector is given a carte blanche, leading to a total absence of value for money.

Mr President, this year’s report focuses on market competition and the fostering of competitiveness, competitiveness in the European industry and consumer welfare. However, it leaves many concerns about workers and the challenges faced under existing competition policy. With the cost of living crisis rampant across Europe, the statements within the text on market concentrations and market interventions to address the abuse of market power and price hikes are not ambitious enough. The monopoly of corporate power enables companies to hike prices to maximise profits, yet keep down working conditions and wages. The impacts of ‘greedflation’ have been felt by most ordinary citizens right across Europe. A report by the European Trade Union Confederation identifies how EU competition policy neglects workers through enforcement issues, anti-trust guidelines and market dominance. Ultimately, the report lacks a vision of the fundamental issues in EU competition policy, especially in regards to the cost of living crisis. There is a clear need for a more proactive approach centred on workers’ rights and we certainly need a much more positive approach to trying to develop dialogue and diplomacy with a view to bringing the war to an end, which is having a massive impact on the less well-off all across Europe.

Mr President, the people who have lost their lives due to extreme weather events are the victims of climate inaction – decades of climate inaction by the richer nations of the Global North. Too many people in Europe have died, and we should remember them, but any memorial day must also remember those in the Global South who have died as a result of Europe’s climate colonialism. The EU has consistently opposed a loss and damage fund at the COP for the poorest nations who have done the least to contribute to the climate crisis and who are the most affected by it. The EU’s broad donor-based proposal at COP27 was an attempt to shift the blame for its own historic responsibility. It is 2023, and global greenhouse gases have never been as high. There will be countless more victims of the climate crisis. We are not doing enough to address the climate crisis.

Mr President, this proposal for an e-evidence regulation in criminal matters in European production and preservation orders does not provide adequate respect for fundamental rights. The existing system of judicial cooperation would be effectively bypassed through this proposal, undermining criminal procedure laws and the sovereignty of the targeted countries. Direct legal cooperation with the private telecommunications service provider companies would be a blatant undermining of media freedom and freedom of expression, effectively violating human rights law. The European Data Protection Supervisor expressed fear that this system will lead to abuses through violation of personal data and the infringement of data protection laws in criminal procedures, in the electronic evidence related to text, emails or other in-app correspondence. This new system is a very slippery slope to an eroding of fundamental rights, data protection and judicial trust, as Europe already faces a rule of law crisis.

Madam President, we talk an awful lot about foreign interference in this place. But do you know something? How come we never talk about the actual influence of the US empire on the European Union? They have invested heavily in our media. They’re invested heavily in our universities. They’re trying to influence the curriculum in the universities. How can we say we have democracy when the Americans are actually buying our media and interfering in our educational system? Our idea that foreign interference only comes from the Russians is comic book stuff, and it’s about time the people in here copped on to themselves.

Madam President, the rule of law should be the rule of law and not a weapon to trouble countries when someone deems them to have stepped out of order. The rule of law issue is only used when it suits the Commission. People like Orbán will get away with anything as long as he’s doing the bidding of the EU, but then when it doesn’t suit will have a go at him. His position on the war is not suiting everybody at the moment, so it is easy enough to throw stones at him. In June last year we gave candidate status to Ukraine, but we didn’t give it to Georgia. Now, if there’s anyone in here thinks that the rule of law is better in Ukraine than it is in Georgia, then you’re living in cuckoo land. The European Court of Auditors report just before the war wrote off Ukraine as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, and the place was a basket case. And yet, because Georgia are not anti-Russian enough, we have an issue with the rule of law. The hypocrisy is desperate.

Madam President, the directive has arrived decades late, after so much exploitation, environmental degradation and abuse by European companies has occurred with zero or inadequate consequences for those responsible. The text agreed by the European Justice Ministers in December was watered down and toothless. Now we have a chance to make this important directive fit for purpose. And the same groups that are trying to crush the natural restoration law proposal are tabling a raft of amendments designed to protect company directors from the responsibility to implement the directive. That being said, there are some improvements on the Council’s approach and the Commission’s proposals. If it passes in its current state, more companies will be subject to regulation. Yet that will still be less than 2% of EU companies. The financial sector is still getting off lightly and the fossil fuel companies are basically off the hook for being the main drivers of mass extinction. How regressive is this place that MEPs are trying to weaken an already inadequate text?

Madam President, we are exceptional in both our victimhood and in the righteousness of our actions. When the EU backs military and right—wing coups in Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and Sudan, this is not interference in democratic processes; it’s a defence of democracy. When the Council imposes crushing sanctions on disobedient countries, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children and displacing more, somehow this isn’t foreign interference, this is about protecting human rights. This is a lie. To quote High Representative Josep Borrell, our sanctions are a means of ‘coercive capacity’. The report highlights the need to turn this coercive capacity against people in the EU suspected of engaging in this new and vaguely defined crime of foreign interference. Who will judge if someone is guilty? The Council? They don’t even adhere to basic standards of due process. They are an unaccountable political body who operate in secret. It’s about time people started to look and see and focus on the growing threat to basic civil liberties coming from Brussels.

Mr President, last June, the EU refused candidate status to Georgia, not because it didn’t meet the criteria, but because they weren’t anti-Russia enough. We’ve had MEPs calling for the release of Saakashvili as a condition of EU entry. This is a man who oversaw a reign of terror in Georgia. He was their Pinochet. Over 300 000 opponents were imprisoned. Many were tortured. Several were murdered. Meanwhile, the West are funding NGOs that have sown division in Georgia. When the government tried to introduce a law to hold NGOs to account, the EU attacked them despite the fact that the US has had the same law for years, and the EU are about to bring in the same one themselves. Georgia is not interested in war. Georgia wants peace. It wants to have good relationship with everyone, especially its neighbours. Must they abandon all sovereignty to gain entry to the EU? Do they have to promote war rather than peace? Give Georgia candidate status and let the people decide, without foreign interference, if they want to join the EU or not.

Madam President, how many debates this week has Parliament played a destructive role in? Both the Nature Restoration Law and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Regulation are being attacked by the big groups in here so as to ensure that biodiversity is destroyed and fossil fuel companies continue to get a free hand to cause global warming. Yes, we say we’re concerned about the people and the farmers of Italia, because they’re suffering from global warming and biodiversity loss. Last year, over 70% of the rice crop in Italy was destroyed because there wasn’t enough rain. This year the crops will be destroyed because there’s too much of it and the soil is not able to actually deal with the water because it has deteriorated so far from artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And yet the EPP walked out of the Nature Restoration Law negotiations today. They walked out! You say you care about the people and the farmers of Italia. Well, if you do, you can start by voting for the Nature Restoration Law.

Madam President, production of algae in Europe in 2019 accounted for less than 1% of global production. So the EU algae sector has huge potential. The algae strategy is especially important for my own Member State, Ireland. Ireland is one of the top three countries in the EU in terms of turnover, employment and numbers of algae companies. There are some fantastic seaweed companies in Ireland: Pure Ocean Algae in Cork, Wild Irish Seaweed in Clare, and Mary Meyler’s Ocean Leaves in Killinick in Wexford, which produces seaweed fertilisers and plant—care products. But it’s also crucial that the algae sector develops in such a way that it does not affect the balance of marine ecosystems and that it avoids repeating the same environmental mistakes that were previously made on land. We need to establish what the limit of the resource is for each type of algae and we need solid information on sustainable levels of exploitation.

Madam President, the resolution is rightfully critical of the Data Privacy Framework. It rightly concludes that, as happened with the Schrems I and II cases, the Framework would not survive the criminal justice of the EU. The problem, of course, for the CJEU in the Schrems case, as revealed by Edward Snowden, was the mass surveillance of non—US citizens by the US intelligence services. However, given Parliament’s very obvious awareness of this mass surveillance of EU citizens by the US, as evidenced in the resolution, one has to wonder why the recent clamour to restrict the use of TikTok on corporate devices in the Parliament wasn’t also accompanied by a call to do the same for US social media platforms and why such mass media hysteria in relation to TikTok and complete silence on the biggest players in the game? We have zero evidence of Chinese surveillance of EU citizens via TikTok – though I’m sure they’re surveilling their own. Banning TikTok is a geopolitical decision, pandering to the US empire and rooted in anti—China racism.

Madam President, the Commission proposals for the Green Claims Directive and the Carbon Removal Certification Framework Regulation were both very disappointing. The Green Claims Directive had a chance to ban climate neutrality claims and failed to do so. The carbon removal certification framework proposal has absolutely nothing to say in terms of how the certificates that would be generated can or should be used. These certs should not be permitted to be used for carbon offsetting. So the outcome of the IMCO Committee vote in terms of banning climate neutrality claims based on offsets gives us some hope that Parliament might be able to do likewise: amend both the Green Claims Directive and the Carbon Removal certification framework.

Madam President, the welfare of farmed animals is a key part of the farm to fork strategy, improving food quality and ensuring better biodiversity, central to the EU Green Deal. But the mass killing of day-old chicks and ducks in the millions is not carried out by small farmers, but by big agri-producers. This agricultural industry lobbying power has resulted in an unambitious report passed by this Parliament last year on animal welfare that completely missed the mark in politically supporting a transition to more sustainable and animal—friendly farming. This lobbying industry has been systematically undermining the farm to fork strategy since its creation, and only yesterday we had the big groups in here bound to the big agri—lobbyists looking to kill off the new pesticide regulation and the nature restoration law. If an EU-wide ban on male chicks culling is implemented into legislation, what scope will be in place to ensure it cannot be watered down by exemptions lobbied by the big agri-industry as well?

Mr President, last week, at the EPP’s party conference in Munich, the party passed a resolution to kill the sustainable use of pesticides regulation and the nature restoration law. We talk a lot about disinformation in here. The EPP thinks that the nature restoration law has the aim of taking 10 % of agricultural land out of production. We wish it had. That’s what scientists are begging us to do. But that’s not what’s happening. Please read the text. There is not a single serious scientist in Europe who would argue that the new pesticides regulation or the nature restoration law would pose a risk to European food security. Looking at the EPP resolution, one can only assume that you represent the interest of the pesticide giants and big agriculture, and not the interest of the small farmer. And what are you proposing instead? New breeding techniques? No GMOs? And who will benefit from that? The chemical industry. Come on. How about saving small farmers? Because that’s not what you are doing.

Madam President, Serbia entered the new century in ruins. The GDP was half what it was in 1989. Civilian industrial capacity and public works were devastated and an estimated 600 000 jobs lost. NATO’s bombing had been brutal. Economic reforms and privatisation in the early 2000s saw the riches of the country go into the hands of a small group of corrupt war profiteers and international investors. With tactic support from Brussels and Washington, the 2012 elections brought some bad figures to power. They went on to inflict crushing neoliberal reforms on the public sector and changing labour laws to expand precarious work. Once again, foreign investors were cleaning up. Sick of waiting for the promise of Europe, the country hollowed out by neoliberalism, hundreds of thousands of young Serbs have left for a better life. Commissioner, the EU has a problem with the fact that Serbia has taken a neutral position, when they have condemned the war. They’re not taking Russia’s side, even though they’re a long—time partner. They’re staying neutral, but so are 80% of the world’s population. The EU should stop the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ scenario and start respecting people who want peace and who want to stay neutral.

Madam President, when Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in April 2019, the democracy that the people were calling for was replaced by the continuation of military rule by two key members of Bashir’s regime: Burhan and Hemedti have been murdering pro-democracy protesters ever since. The opposition to Burhan and Hemedti is widespread, well organised, and their demands are clear: they want civilian rule and nothing to do with the military junta. But this didn’t stop the international community – mainly the UN, the US and UK – from supporting renewed talks between the junta and the right wing Forces for Freedom and Change coalition. The West were happy to legitimise a de facto military dictatorship because this is the arrangement that has served our financial interests and the interests of the IMF and the World Bank for many years. The green light given to the military takeover is what led to the recent conflict, and they know that whoever comes out on top will be the next golden boy for the West.

Madam President, there are a number of EU institutions and bodies not covered by the Parliament’s discharge process. However, what’s particularly concerning, but not surprising, is that the three agencies related to defence – the European Defence Agency, the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies and the European Union Satellite Centre – are not covered. These agencies are audited by independent external auditors and do not depend on the European Parliament’s discharge procedure. In their 2014 report, the Court of Auditors noted ‘although their source of revenue is not the EU budget, the revenue of these entities arises from the exercise of public authority at the EU level and their use of resources has the same public nature as other EU funds’. There is therefore no compelling reason for this different treatment. Yet, nine years on, the different treatment continues. And at a time when defence spend is going off the Richter scale in Europe and promoting war has become a lot more fashionable than promoting peace, it’s about time that these were brought under the remit of the Parliament and the Court of Auditors.

Mr President, the EU Commission’s redesign of the EU fiscal rules is very disappointing. The new fiscal rules, if agreed, allow more leeway to individual Member States in how to spend their national budget. But there is a serious price to be paid. It’s worrying to read in the Commission’s proposed document, delivered to Parliament in November 2022, that one of the reasons for the easing of the rules is due to the fact that Member States should be allowed to build up their defence spend. The proposal states as follows on page four: ‘The green and digital transitions, the need to ensure energy security as well as social and economic resilience, and to build up defence capabilities, will require sustained high levels of investment in the years to come.’ It seems the hawks and Brussels have used the war in Ukraine to incorporate defence spending into the new fiscal rules. This is shameful and should be called out for what it is: it’s called warmongering.

Mr President, independent media is almost non-existent in Europe today. How can we claim to have a functioning democracy if we don’t have an independent media? We have a mainstream media that protects the status quo, that protects vested interests – morning, noon and night. And speaking of the state of our democracy, in Denmark if you are not part of an established party, you need over 70 000 digital signatures or official paper forms collected within a three-year period in order to be allowed to stand for the EU elections. So the rules for standing in EU elections in Denmark effectively keep out non-establishment voices. Is this our idea of democracy? How can they get away with it? Why is this tolerated? Is anything ever going to change if so much effort is put into making sure that it doesn’t?