Speeches

Although more than 25 years have passed since the Barcelona Declaration, and more than 10 years since the events of the Arab Spring, the Mediterranean region is still facing a number of serious economic, environmental and security challenges. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) must serve the interest of the Union, its Member States and the ENP partners at the same time. We must help our partner countries in the Southern Neighbourhood, based on shared interests. We cannot let the ENP become an educational exercise: there needs to be equality, spirit of partnership and we must turn our common challenges into opportunities. The stability of the Mediterranean region has an outstanding importance for the stability of Europe. We need to invest in education, in research and development, and in creating jobs for the region’s growing population, while also committing to combating ‘brain drain’. Furthermore the European Union must acknowledge countries like Morocco, which serve as regional examples with their results and stability. The protection of persecuted Christians is of utmost importance as well: this is another area, where we need effective cooperation with out Southern Neighbourhood partners.

One of the proposals in the Bischoff report amending Parliament's Rules of Procedure is the deletion of Rule 197 of the Rules of Procedure. The possibility for one-twentieth of all Members of Parliament to initiate a vote to remove a debate from the agenda will be abolished. An article protecting smaller factions and independents, which aims to protect political diversity and the principle of democracy, has been removed from the House Rules. Without it, Members sitting in an independent and smaller political group will not be able to propose, even in the event of a serious legal error, that items supported by larger groups be removed from the agenda, even though the situation of these Members is fundamentally more difficult due to the rules restricting political diversity. Meanwhile, legal concerns about the functioning of the EP were also raised during the pandemic situation. Although I suggested that the Court examine the validity of the December amendment to the Rules of Procedure due to the pandemic situation, it was rejected. Parliament switched to digital remote voting without a legal basis in February 2020 and, due to its own omission, only adopted new rules to remedy the situation 10 months after the start of the pandemic situation. However, it still amended its Rules of Procedure by remote voting, although it could only have been amended by a vote in person. It also failed to comply with the contractual provisions on the number of plenary part-sessions in Strasbourg, limiting the rights of Members by reference to the pandemic situation. There has been a clear increase in the democratic deficit during the pandemic.

Dear Mr President, Dear Members, When we read through the proposals for the amendment of the Treaties made by four German and Verhofstadt MEPs, the spirit of 2005 appears in post-Laeken. France and the Netherlands voted against the Constitutional Treaty. Today, the European Parliament wants a new constitution enshrined in a treaty. There would be a president, ministers and deputy ministers of the European Union, there would be a European issue with a referendum, there would be new powers, new procedural rules. What is this if not a constitution? I repeat, Laeken has failed once. Moreover, the new provisions would increase the powers of the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, and reduce the interests and powers of small and medium-sized countries in particular. We believe in the success of European integration, which acts under the authority and control of all the Member States of the Union, and not vice versa. The citizens of the Member States want strong states and a strong Europe. If we reduce the powers of the Member States, we will also weaken Europe. War, migration, Europe's competitiveness. These are the issues that need to be decided. Enlargement in the Western Balkans is important, but it cannot be used as an excuse to call into question the equality of Member States.

Mr. President, please. In the European Parliament, you are very fond of dealing with Hungary and Poland. A few minutes ago Hungary and now Poland. They criticise a country that has for centuries set an example for Europe in defending its freedom and independence. Poland's sovereignty is sacred and inviolable, and it is up to the Polish government to protect it. The European Parliament cannot withdraw this right from the Polish people and the Polish Government. Today's Polish debate convinces us that you are like the Bourbons: They don't learn from history. It would be better if, instead of accusing a strong and courageous government that loves its country, the European Parliament dealt with its own problems or with competitiveness. Poland and Hungary are committed to the unity of Europe, but we want to see a European community that protects, not one that acts as a brigade towards the Member States.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Human rights have become an international issue in the last 75 years, permeating national, international politics and legislation. The adoption of a general report on this subject for the countries of the world presupposes a great deal of caution and responsibility. In contrast to meaning, human rights do not exist in general, but always develop and gain meaning in the culture of a given human community. Human rights are universal, but not uniform. They think differently in some parts of the world about the relationship between the individual and the community, about gender roles, about the relationship between the state and the church, and about the functions and boundaries of other fundamental rights. We must be careful that when we talk about the universality of human rights, it is not a means of spreading ideological preferences. What I regret in particular is that, in the report we are discussing today, the word 'subsidiarity' is not once used.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The reform of the regulation of European political parties is, in some respects, unacceptable to us and constitutes another kind of Trojan horse. Political parties play a decisive role in the formation and expression of the will of the people. The rules governing them at both European and national level must be such as to ensure the free choice of values by the parties. The regulation before us, however, seeks to achieve ideological control over the free choice of values by the parties at both European and national level. Thus, anyone who criticises the prevailing winds may be accused of not respecting European values. We can only support a rule that only applies to the free functioning of European political parties and does not want to covertly intrude into an area, such as national referenda, where it has no place. We can only agree with the rules of the report that are in line with the requirements of regulation at European level.

Madam President, I have a question: The basis of democracy is the independence of the judiciary, as we know very well. But how is it possible for the European Parliament, or its LIBE or AFCO committees, to remain silent in the face of the phenomenon of the politicisation of justice in Western countries? Let me give you an example: the Constitutional Council in France. Who's the president? Laurent Fabius, former Prime Minister and former leader of the Socialist Party, or Juppé... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Dear Mr President, The European Parliament, arguing that its members are directly elected, would demand more rights for itself than is currently granted by the Treaties adopted by the Member States. I admit that there is no institution that does not require more powers, this is inherent in the nature of the institutions. It cannot be disputed that the bearer of sovereignty is the national parliaments and not the European Parliament. It would therefore be a mistake and a mistake to draw a parallel between European and national parliaments. Giving the European Parliament a general power of legislative initiative would impair the powers of the European Commission. On the other hand, it would anticipate harm to the interests of the Member States. This would upset the institutional balance, which runs counter to the purpose and spirit of the Treaties currently in force. Finally, I would like to ask what the issue of the rule of law in Hungary is looking for in this report. As we Hungarians say, what are the boots doing on the table. Instead of unnecessary ideological debates, it would be better to focus on real problems.

Madam President, Commissioner, Political parties are an integral part of democratic culture. Democracy should be about representing people and their communities, not ideologically. In the European Parliament, we must reflect the diversity of the peoples of Europe. National political parties form the basis for the organisation of European political parties. As stipulated in the Charter, it is therefore essential that they enjoy broad freedom in shaping their agenda and political identity. The unstable ideological control of values at European level over them violates the genuine democratic exercise of power. Therefore, any attempt to define the European political party map from the top to the bottom, contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, tends towards a European federalist system. Especially when the introduction of a transnational electoral system is also presented. I am concerned that an authority has powers over political parties that act as guardians over national parties playing a role at European level. There is no such authority at national level. We cannot agree with ideological control, but we can, of course, coexist with and co-operate with the audit of the legality of the use of EU funds.

Mr President, we are speaking today in a hierarchical dialogue between the European institutions and the institutions of the Member States. However, for me, dialogue is always between equal partners. I also call for a balanced dialogue between courts. I would find it appropriate for the Court of Justice to also consult, for example, national constitutional courts when it comes to identity or the national constitution. EU law applies as a matter of priority, but does not enjoy absolute primacy. The founding treaties do not provide for such primacy. You see a very real problem, but several national constitutional courts have already ruled to set limits on the primacy and priority application of EU law. This is what the Constitutional Court of Poland has just done. As this is a legal debate, I would advise against making it a political debate as well. If national constitutional institutions were respected rather than threatened by the European institutions, all these cross-referencing issues could finally be resolved, not by force, but by common sense.