Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, do you know what the greatest benefit of our membership of the European Union is for Bulgarians? This is the right of free movement, and the freedom to cross the continent without visas for us, the people who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, is perhaps the most visible and valuable asset of our membership of the European Union. However, this freedom for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens comes conditionally. For 11 years now, the Council has been unable to take a decision on the full application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. For more than 11 years, a project has been collecting dust – a draft decision, after all the checks, recommendations, evaluations of various working groups. For 11 years, the Commission and Parliament have regularly recognised the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania, and at the same time, for 11 years, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens have been held hostage to political games, in which new and new criteria are being set before both countries, in complete violation of Schengen law. And here I will not talk at all about the economic cost of this inaction of the Council. Any operational and investment costs for cross-border workers, tourists, road hauliers, freight, border queues, road accidents, including polluted air. There is a worse price, and it is the erosion of trust in the European Union and its institutions, the feeling that our citizens are second-hand, that there are some rules for the rich and others - for the poor. I believe that our Union can do more and must be fairer. It is time for the Council to take an immediate decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania on the abolition of checks at all, I stress all internal, land, sea and air borders. I'd like to address some of our clients in the room who might be sceptical about our goal. If you care about the future of our Union, support us, vote with us on a strong resolution during the next plenary.

Mr President, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) can reduce the life-cycle carbon footprint of aviation fuel up to 80%, but it currently makes up less than 0.1% of total aviation fuel consumption. By adopting this report, we will substantially increase the amount of SAF produced and uplifted, leading to aviation in the EU using at least 85% clean fuels by 2050. We will also increase the number of synthetic aviation fuels up to 22% more in 2050 compared to the Commission’s proposal. We will also send a very clear signal to the industry by introducing a binding mandate for synthetic aviation fuels already in 2025. So, the report adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) is a good base for future negotiations with the Council, which will deliver the European regulatory framework and foster innovation, production and deployment of sustainable fuels.

Mr President, Commissioner, just a few days ago, nine people died after a glacier collapsed in the Italian Alps. Record high temperatures have led to droughts unseen for centuries. In Sicily, thermometers showed 57°C, in some areas of Italy and France there is a water regime, and only in the last 24 hours in Greece there have been fifty-two forest fires. And what else needs to happen to realize that we are on the verge of an apocalypse that we ourselves have challenged? Greed, abuse of natural resources, overconsumption turned out to be deadly. Did we not understand that in our desire to have more, we doom our children to have nothing? And when disaster knocks on the door, emergency measures are mandatory. The only salvation is solidarity in giving up resources today so that there can be tomorrow. Only a radical change can chart the future and actually make it possible.

Madam President, Commissioner, Russia's war has led to record high food prices, and the ever-increasing price of fertilisers and energy, as well as Russia's internal export ban on cereals, is jeopardising the livelihoods of tens of millions of people, especially in North African countries that rely on wheat imports from Russia and Ukraine. And yes, Europe must counteract by all means the weaponisation of food and facilitate alternative transport routes in Ukrainian ports, be it through Constanta, through the Baltic ports, through railway corridors, including the Danube, in order to be able to release those 22-23 million tonnes of cereals destined for export. But at the same time, Europe must also think about European producers, especially in countries neighbouring Ukraine such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, because they can be seriously affected by cheap, extremely cheap imports of Ukrainian cereals, because in this case, if there is a bankruptcy of local producers, Europe faces two challenges: once - to help Ukraine and a second time - to help local European producers.

Mr President, Commissioner, the greenhouse gas emissions from road transport have significantly increased since 1990, and 70% of those emissions are coming from cars and vans. With Fit for 55 we have to show how the transport sector will reduce these emissions. Therefore we need to strengthen CO2 emission targets. Some of you may begin to debate if the market is ready. However, whether the market will shift to zero—emissions vehicles is no longer a question. This is a reality. And you can see that practically all automobile manufacturers are moving in this direction now. As legislators, we should support the markets’ choice of direction by providing clarity, certainty and predictability. Any delays might put the EU automotive industry at risk of losing technological leadership if it does not invest quickly enough, as well as losing market share in the EU market and failing to be a leader in the fast—growing new market of zero—emissions vehicles on global markets. Regarding the affordability, strengthened targets are the primary measures to effectively increase the investments in the supply of zero—emission vehicles and make them affordable for everyone. In the long run, consumers – both first— and second—hand vehicle owners – will benefit from a market reduction in the total cost of car ownership, as they will pay much less for fuelling and maintaining their vehicles. Therefore the sooner these vehicles become available on the second—hand market, the sooner the benefits for lower—income groups will materialise. In other words, if we keep the targets lower, these vehicles will not be sold on the second—hand market, so they will not be affordable for lower—income groups.

Madam President, Commissioner, tomorrow we are about to have perhaps the most important vote in this mandate. The most important vote on how we will implement the transformation of the European economy so that we achieve the climate goals set. But while we are talking about climate neutrality and reducing emissions, many of the poorest citizens of the Member States are asking themselves whether they will have a job tomorrow, how they will pay their electricity bills and how they will meet their basic living costs. For these people, the Green Deal is synonymous with uncertainty, a vague change that will make them poorer than they are. They are not considering buying an electric car and solar panels because even the thermal insulation of their homes is an investment that they have to save for years. Let us not forget these people when today we are paving the way for change, shaping the laws by which it will happen. Let's not let the poor get poorer. And I am convinced that achieving climate goals must not come at the expense of the most vulnerable, their incomes and their jobs. I also hope that the Social Climate Fund will be the guarantor of this. It must allow all European citizens to benefit from the funds that climate policies will generate. Emissions trading funds, which are currently spent in a non-transparent manner, can become an effective tool against energy poverty. As a Social Democrat, I am pleased that we have managed to reach a compromise with which a large part of these revenues will be directed towards energy efficiency measures, investment in mobility, zero emissions and reducing the number of vulnerable households. And as a representative of Eastern Europe, I call on our governments to step up their actions in the direction that will not only accelerate the energy transition, but also make it effective and fair for all.

Mr President, in today’s unprecedented crisis, transport is a strategic tool for the EU to provide solidarity and support to Ukraine and its suffering people, in terms of logistics, humanitarian aid and refugees’ evacuation and mobility. Moreover, the rising fuel prices following the pandemic have been further exacerbated by the economic sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation. Higher prices for fuels and products will impact households and possibly lead to increased energy and transport poverty, but they will also have an impact on transport workers. And our reaction needs to show solidarity between all EU Member States, to our citizens, workers, families and vulnerable groups. Proactive and preventive measures are crucially needed to support our citizens through the transition, including key incentives or direct support to keep their jobs, change their vehicles, make their homes efficient, and their fuels affordable. Our transition to climate neutrality is our transition to energy independence, which is now needed more than ever. However, the transition can be called sustainable only if it shields the humble and vulnerable.

Mr President, Commissioner, one of the biggest achievements of EU integration and one of the most valued by EU citizens, is the free movement within the Schengen Area. However, over the last years, the Schengen Area has been under a lot of pressure: the increased arrival of migrants and asylum seekers, terrorist attacks, the epidemic, and the continuation by several Member States to prolong internal border controls for some years. Yet, there have been no consequences for them. The current evaluation and monitoring mechanism has been too slow and ineffective – this is true. But there has also been a clear lack of political will from the Commission to enforce the rules. I would also like to use the opportunity to remind you that, at the same time, the maintenance of internal border controls for Bulgaria and Romania has had a significant negative impact, both economic and social, despite the fact that the two countries had already met all the necessary conditions for the full application of the Schengen acquis in 2011. All the best evaluation mechanisms in the world will not help us if there is no political will to make Schengen truly work for all the European citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, a great feat has been made by the European citizens of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and not only by those who share a border with Ukraine, but also by my country, Bulgaria, which also hosts 40,000 people. Two million people in 12 days sheltered, fed, clothed. And this is an example of great, great solidarity. Although the best help for refugees is to stop the war, because caring for refugees is a reaction, and we need real action. However, one question torments me and I think it is aimed at all of us. Why some refugees are better than others, why for some we tend to give away the keys to our own homes, and others we keep imprisoned in camps outside the border of the European Union. Our solidarity with those fleeing war cannot and must not depend on the colour of our skin or on our religion.

Mr President, first I would like to congratulate my colleague Mr Ferrandino for being so patient, because after almost 4 years of complicated negotiations, we are at the verge of adopting the EU road-charging legislative framework, and this framework is one of the main instruments and turning points in road transport decarbonisation. I cannot agree with Ms Thaler, because we used to have 27 different approaches and now this is a clear step in the right direction towards a European integrity. And phasing out of time—based charges for trucks on the core trans—European network and the shift to distance—based charging is a clear step forward. Varying road charges based on the CO2 emissions and the environmental performance of the vehicle, together with mandatory external cost-charging for trucks, will be a major incentive for the take-up of low- and zero-emission trucks and the renewal in the fleet. It shows that the provisional agreement will make the user-pays and polluter-pays principle applicable to road charging, which is one of the main principles of our European Green Deal. And the other very important element for the European Parliament, which was very, very difficult to achieve, is the mandatory earmarking of the revenues of the congestion charges to be spent on sustainable transport. And with all I’ve said I want to encourage all of you not to support any amendments and support the provisional agreement because today we do not need to be part of the problem, but we need to be part of the solution and a solution is towards more sustainable, fairer road transport.

Mr President, although we have been living in a pandemic for two years now, there are still many uncertainties. We are witnessing almost continuous changes in travel measures, and the nature of the pandemic is such that by the time travel bans are in place, the virus has already spread and the effect of the restrictions is minimal and the economic and social cost too high. The Commission and the Member States must make efforts to fully harmonise the rules for the European Digital Certificate, especially as regards its validity and the removal of additional barriers for travellers. Further uncertainty and chaos are caused by the national measures that a number of countries have taken in terms of access to restaurants, cultural sites and others, such as the fact that the rules for the validity of these certificates differ drastically between Member States. You may have a certificate that is valid for visiting a theater in France, but with it you can not go to a restaurant in Bulgaria. Chaos and different rules are not just an annoying hindrance to tourism, and the price is not measured only by lost money from airlines or restaurants. This is a huge image problem for the European Union and for free movement between Member States, which is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. The lack of harmonisation of measures has been successfully used to undermine trust in the European institutions and in the European project as a whole. If the Commission and the Council are serious and responsible in their work, they must take urgent measures.

Mr President, it’s been two years since COVID—19 was discovered and if there is one single lesson that we should all have learned, it is that coordination is everything. We need coordination among us, as no country can handle this pandemic alone. Some countries were hit at the beginning and others later on, but we all faced it. When we hear that healthcare is strictly a national competence, let us not forget how we transferred patients across borders when hospitals were overwhelmed. The joint procurement for vaccines proved to be a huge success, but the closing of internal borders proved to be a huge failure. The COVID Green Pass was also an effective tool, as it gave additional motivation to people to get vaccinated and it was a prerequisite for the partial recovery of tourism and the economy. I hope that national authorities will not undermine it by putting additional restrictions on vaccinated people. This will only bring problems, especially on a long-term basis. Finally, let us not forget that, while we are lucky to have vaccines and even boosters here, big developing countries have barely begun vaccinating their populations.

Mr President, Vice-President, Glasgow will go down in history as the first meeting to openly talk about the harm of fossil fuels and that they should no longer be subsidised. More than 100 countries, national governments, cities, states and major automotive companies have signed the declaration on zero-emission cars and vans. And India, China and Russia, the biggest polluters, have pledged to go down the path of carbon neutrality. However, the battle against climate change cannot be effective as long as we allow the richest to pollute the most and the poorest to pay the bill. Inequality can and should also be addressed through environmental policies. Change should not happen on both sides of the abyss - between developing and developed countries. Critical financial support to vulnerable countries was lost in the final hours of the Glasgow negotiations, and without it, green policies would once again divide the world in two: privileged and disenfranchised.

(beginning of speech not heard) ... to be decided. But before we talk about the problems, I'll tell you where there are no problems. There are no problems in the language or identity of North Macedonia, this issue is regulated in the 2018 Neighbourhood Treaty. There are problems in our common history, in discrimination, in human rights, in the use of hate speech. To understand me, I'll just say: on both sides of the controversy are two political parties of the same name fighting to divide our common heritage. The only solution is a constructive, meaningful and intensive dialogue between the two countries, without pressure from the European Union, because it creates anti-European sentiments. We are well aware that this dispute harms both North Macedonia, the region, the European Union, but also Bulgaria.

Mr President, I read somewhere that climate change is the biggest crisis multiplier: raising the arrow of the thermometer leads not only to an increase in natural cataclysms, but also to inequality, more emigration, political instability. It is clear that the European Union must lead by example not only with its climate neutrality objectives, but also with the bearable social cost of meeting them. But the real fight against climate change can come when global security problems are solved. Because nobody thinks about climate and pollution when they're fighting a war or preparing for a war. Did you know that a military aircraft spends 10,000 litres of kerosene per hour – the same as the entire life cycle of a family car? Or did you know that 10-15 % of America’s emissions during the Cold War came from the military? So let's not be hypocrites at COP26. The European Union can help the climate fight if it actively participates in the de-escalation of tensions between the United States, Russia and China.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, flying energy prices have shocked businesses and made many families wonder if they will be able to pay their bills this winter. This is about to turn them into energy slaves, and the European Union cannot guarantee its citizens one of the most basic and important public services at an affordable price. And this applies most strongly to my country, Bulgaria, where people still have serious difficulties to pay their bills and energy poverty is five times higher than the average in Europe. Obviously, the market itself is not in a position to regulate itself. In the framework of the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, such shocks will be more than expected. For the energy transition to be successful, it needs an institutional and common Union energy policy that ensures a level playing field when contracting with third countries. But most of all, the European Union needs to change its attitude towards nuclear energy and see it as a green baseload that contributes to its energy independence.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the subject of tourism is extremely important for the European Union because it accounts for over 10% of the Union's gross domestic product and is a major source of revenue for almost every Member State, and the damage that the tourism sector has suffered in the face of the pandemic is unprecedented in nature and size and cannot yet be compensated for. The European Digital Certificate has somewhat eased travel within the European Union and managed to contribute to overcoming the initial chaos caused and provoked by the various unilateral decisions of the member states, but it cannot solve all the problems. Therefore, I believe that it is time for a serious assessment and a.aliz. of the measures taken so far by the Commission. We need to know what we have achieved so far so that we can design the right recovery policies and fully address the consequences and insure ourselves against future risks. A similar assessment should be made by each member state. Only in this way will we know how effective we have been in our travel facilitation measures and financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises and employees in the sector, because we need to know where we are going and where we can go.

Mr President, I am also happy with this debate, because we agree on two things: the benefits of AI in law enforcement on one hand, and, of course, every single colleague here mentioned human rights, fundamental rights. Well, of course, there are divisions. There are definitely two groups. The first one, to which I belong, says that we keep fundamental rights by not letting the use of the unreliable application of AI in order to keep the fundamental rights, and the other group says, and they are convincing us about the conditions of the use of the same unreliable applications in their intentions to protect the unconditional human rights. Of course, it’s a political choice. My choice is simple. I urge you not to reject all of the amendments tabled, because they will significantly alter the spirit of this report. But of course, if you prefer the second option, please try to convince that single mother that works 12 hours a day in a poor neighbourhood because she cannot afford to live in a better neighbourhood, in a fancy neighbourhood, raising her own children, that her children are potential criminals, or try to convince the poor, the coloured, the immigrants, the foreigners that they are potential criminals only because the AI says so. Is this the world that we want to live in? Is this the world that we want for our children? Will we be able to sleep freely at night? To be honest, I cannot.

Mr President, the EU regulatory framework needs to catch up with the technical developments. The use of AI has been growing exponentially and this brings the question as to what we, as co-legislators, are doing to safeguard the fundamental rights of European citizens. AI is not a product in itself, but it’s a method, it’s a tool, and, as such, it needs to be conditioned to the overarching goal of improving the well-being of our citizens. The technology holds great promise if it’s developed and used in an ethical and trustworthy manner, but at the same time, it implies considerable risks for fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law. As co-legislators, we bear enormous responsibility towards European citizens. We need to draw clear red lines for AI—based systems that violate fundamental rights. If we are serious about safeguarding people’s safety and well-being, we need to include in the future legislation that can possibly ban or prohibit applications of AI that are incompatible with fundamental rights. Technical progress should never come at the expense of people’s fundamental rights. It’s not a question of whether the AI systems have the potential to result in racially biased and discriminatory outcomes. We actually know for sure that this is the case. We see the confirmation of this in the data provided by multiple NGOs. We saw it during the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) mission to Washington last year, and, just a couple of weeks ago, we heard it from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. And no, AI is not dangerous only when used by autocratic governments. Where the technology is flawed, it is flawed no matter who uses it and for what purposes. The good intention does not justify the means. There have been numerous cases of people being treated unjustly because of AI, such as being denied social security benefits because of faulty AI tools, or even being arrested because of flawed facial recognition, and somehow I’m not surprised that the victims are always the poor, the immigrants, the coloured or the Eastern Europeans. The American Civil Liberties Union demonstrated to the US Congress in May 2019 that the error rate with facial recognition of coloured people is higher, basically leading to de facto discrimination. They described facial recognition technology as unregulated, dangerous, racially biased and often untested. Using facial recognition in public areas may interfere with a person’s freedom of opinion and expression simply because of the fact that the protection of group anonymity no longer exists if everyone in the group could potentially be recognised. This could lead to those individuals changing their behaviour, for example by no longer participating in peaceful strikes or demonstrations. Predictive, profiling and risk-assessment AI and ultimate decision—making systems target individuals and profile them as criminals, resulting in serious criminal justice and civil outcomes and punishments before they have carried out the alleged action for which they are being profiled. I always thought that this could only happen in the movies! In essence, the very purpose of the systems is to undermine the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. Colleagues, I really hope that we can have a serious debate and I’m looking forward to it, but I’m pretty confident that we will place fundamental rights before technological progress, and even before security, because there cannot be any security without freedom.

Mr President, the questions raised by the Committee are all very pertinent, and we will be very curious – I’ll be very curious, of course – to hear all the answers to them. Because the requests for more transparency, for access to the full details of vaccine contracts, do not stem from some conspiracy or scepticism. Transparency is vital for public trust. In this age in which disinformation and propaganda is flooding social media, the only antidote is clear information and transparency. People have the right to information, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like health. Without this access, there can be no accountability and, without this, we have fertile ground for misinformation and even lies. Not long ago, we were debating in this room the difficult start of the EU vaccination campaign, when a certain company was failing to deliver the doses it said it would provide in its contract. Those doses never arrived. The Commission went to court for them. And while we’re all relaxed now, because it seems that the EU has more vaccines than it needs, we were not so relaxed some months ago. It may be easy to forget that we are still missing some of these doses, even though they have already been paid for with EU citizens’ money. We need to learn our lesson from this very unfortunate contract. What happened? Did someone make a mistake? What went wrong? Why was there a problem with this contract and not with the others? Because it’s clear that there was a problem with this contract, and it was not as tight and clear as it should have been. The Commission had to reach a settlement with the company. Nevertheless, the joint public procurement of the vaccines undoubtedly turned out to be a success, as the EU managed to provide enough doses to its citizens. If we want to repeat that success in the future, we need to learn our lessons now, and this can only happen if the Commission is open about its work and the contracts it signs. Trade secrets cannot be an excuse.

Madam President, Commissioner, these individuals were sanctioned by the US government on grounds of engaging in corruption. And this is a dire testimony for the complete failure of the Bulgarian state in fighting corruption over the last 12 years. And since we are talking about a EU Member State, this failure is also a European one. Even more worrying is the fact that Bulgaria has been under direct monitoring by the Commission since its accession in 2007 with regard to the fight with the corruption and organised crime, and just two years ago the Commission concluded optimistically that Bulgaria has been successfully fighting corruption and has shown real progress on all the benchmarks in the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). Now, one of these simply cannot be true. Either the US Treasury is terribly misinformed about the real situation in Bulgaria, or the Commission has kept its eyes wide closed for many years now. And there is no doubt that the Bulgarian citizens know the truth about what is happening in Bulgaria. For years, the Commission has published joyful reports filled with bureaucratic clichés about the state of the rule of law and corruption in Bulgaria, and this has caused two things. Firstly, it cemented the corrupt Borissov’s government in power, as he kept bragging about the great support he had in Brussels, how close he was with important people here, and how much money Brussels was giving to his government. But also, it fuelled the desperation and the Euroscepticism of the Bulgarian citizens, because they kept asking themselves: why is Brussels silent? Don’t they see what is happening here? The oligarchy is getting richer and fatter with the European money. How could the Commission let that happen? So my question is: how can the corruption be spotted all the way from Washington but somehow be missed from Brussels? And how can we claim that the EU is a global player if we cannot clean our own house?

Madam President, we cannot keep using security and fighting terrorism as a regular excuse for surveillance. Twenty years ago, after 9/11, the whole world was scared and terrified and was in desperate need to feel safe and secure again. But the revelations in the last year, of which the Pegasus scandal is only the most recent one, show us once again the ugly consequences of this. Journalists, NGO activists and politicians are being placed illegally under surveillance. Not only are democracies at risk, but also our personal freedom, because anyone in this room could fall victim. Very soon, we will have a similar debate about the use of AI for security reasons, and there will be again people who will say that we need this tool because we will fight for security reasons or fight with terrorism, or another noble goal. Let’s face the reality: it is not being used for these purposes; it is used for undermining democracy, targeting people who do not agree with the government and scaring journalists, and we must never let that happen again.

Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, colleagues, the climate is changing and we need to change in order to be able to mitigate the damage and ensure the survival of our own children. The Fit for 55 proposal marks the start of a radical economic transformation. Economic, because the main culprit for the state of the climate is the market as we know it today, namely overproduction, overconsumption, oversupply, which led to fatal consequences, and proof of them is the failure of the current economic model, and unfortunately, the cost of this failure is paid by the ordinary person. In Germany, floods cost 30 billion euros, in Greece, fires 500 million euros, and dozens of people paid the price with their lives. In this House, we must support the Commission in its efforts to reduce harmful emissions, but we must also address our own governments, especially those who have no desire and no strategy for change, because otherwise ... I am ending, inequality will crush us.