Speeches

Mr President, in accordance with Rule 59(4), I would like to request that the matter be referred back to committee, for interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, I cannot overemphasise the relevance and importance of this file in the current political context. With tomorrow's vote, we need to have a very strong position, with a very large majority of the European Parliament, to start trilogues well, and we have no time to waste if we want these new rules to be implemented before the next European elections – Pablo Arias Echeverría rightly pointed out this. I am convinced that once this text is in force, the elections in the European Union will be more transparent and resilient – as all colleagues in my group, Renew, have pointed out. Of course there is no risk to independent media and journalism – this was also very well explained by Ms Verheyen. Colleagues, the record is clear: you are well aware that platforms simply need to check the existence of political sponsors, and whether the information they provide about them is complete. We will not introduce any general monitoring obligations, let alone any form of censorship. But, as Paul Tang said, in the end it is the voters who have to decide, not the digital platforms. Daniel Freund and Alexandra Geese pointed this out: more transparency is needed to protect our democracies – and Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques is right: the European database that we will introduce with our proposal will no doubt help in this. Last point, Madam President: in response to Angelika Niebler, I do not believe that the proposal adds disproportionate obligations. It is unlikely that our candidates or elected representatives will be made more difficult to live in local elections; I therefore see no danger from this point of view, given the proportionality of the obligations that we are going to introduce. We are therefore giving a very important and long-awaited answer. Let us go, ladies and gentlemen: What we do is common sense.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear: There is too much manipulation and abuse in our elections and in our democracies. Foreign interference has become a real scourge. Cambridge Analytica, ‘Qatargate’, and I could go on – the context in which we find ourselves speaks for itself. As political decision-makers, we must take all our responsibilities, provide appropriate solutions and responses to fight more effectively against all forms of disinformation and interference in our democracies while preserving the openness that must always characterise European public debate. This regulation was a first response to the increased demand for political transparency, a question which is obviously linked to the actions that our Assembly has been taking, against interference, for several months in the INGE Special Committee of Inquiry on Disinformation and fake news. We are at a time in our history when we must send a very strong message to our fellow citizens. We want more transparency, we want better protection against disinformation and foreign interference, we want to build a genuine single market for services in political advertising – especially for our European small and medium-sized enterprises – we want more legal certainty and fewer barriers, obstacles and bureaucracy for providers of political advertising services. European political parties will no longer be blocked by 27 different regimes, but will have the opportunity to carry out genuine transnational campaigns more easily. More market liberalisation, therefore, and more protection for our freedoms. We have all denounced the attacks on our democracies, the manipulations on social networks, the dangers of fake news. We have to ask ourselves if we are serious with these intentions or if we are just pretending. We have worked really well with all the groups in this Parliament in the Committee on the Internal Market. All have shown a sense of responsibility and cooperation, and I really hope that this work will be rewarded and supported by a very broad consensus tomorrow in plenary. As regards the use of personal data for the targeting of political advertising and the lively debates surrounding it – I refer, of course, to Article 12 – I would like to quote Mark Twain: "The rumors about the death of political advertising are vastly exaggerated." Sorry, I should say: "are widely amplified" by some large platforms, very active, with their propaganda, lately, against our initiative. We will always fight for everyone’s freedom of expression, but not necessarily for the unregulatory and unconsented amplification power of large digital platforms. It seems to me that this is the aim of the compromise on which my colleague Anna Donáth worked in the Committee on Civil Liberties. In Cambridge Analytica, 87 million personal data were used without consent. The rules we want to introduce will ensure that no other Cambridge Analytica can happen. At the same time, these rules neither block personal political discourse nor the freedom of each of us, nor do they interfere with them. They only regulate content related to the paid services of political advertisements. I would like to thank all my colleagues, who have contributed a lot for having this text on the table today. Thank you for your cooperation and thank you for your political will to work together. Colleagues, we have a unique opportunity to work for a better democracy and a better European market; Let's grab her.

Mr President, the single market is Europe's greatest success, a real multiplier of freedom and opportunity for all of us. However, in times of crisis, the latter is too often the victim of national reflexes and selfishness. The evidence? In the face of the energy crisis, rather than pooling all our efforts and creating a European sovereign wealth fund that would give us greater strategic autonomy and protect all our citizens, some argue only for national aid. But only national responses risk exacerbating market divisions and fragmentation. It is utterly illusory to think that with everyone for themselves we can make up for the gigantic crises that lie ahead. In 2022, the cost of national barriers in our market was 300 billion, a loss of 2% of GDP. In 1988, Mr Cecchini had written a report on the cost of the non-market; I think we should write a new report on the cost of the non-single market. We also need to be more effective in enforcing market rules by taking the example of competition policy. That is another good reason to amend the Treaties and to reform our Union.

Mr President, I do not know whether for us it will be like the works of Heracles, to which Raphaël Glucksmann referred. What is certain is that I agree with him: Interference and corruption are the cancers of our democracies. Parliament, together with Qatargate, is paying for it today. Yes, this House has done a huge job since 2019 – I am thinking for example of the Digital Services Act – but this scandal shows that we need to do much more and much better to preserve the integrity of our liberal democracies in the face of any form of interference, whether from Russia, China or the Gulf countries. In the immediate term, it is essential to introduce new measures to ensure the transparency of our institution and to better defend our democratic processes. Promptly adopting, for example, the regulation on political advertising would probably go in that direction. However, we also need to look at where our vulnerabilities really are, because sometimes they are where we don't think they are. Sport, for example, has become a place of interference, political influence, corruption and violation of European law. Qatargate is an example of this, and here too it is time for the EU to fully assume all its responsibilities.

I am not sure I have seen a question here, but I will try to give an answer. I never said that the Council, the European Council or the Council of Ministers is less legitimate than the European Parliament, I said the European Parliament plays a role, but no, I didn’t say that. But I don’t understand why we should not apply the Treaty. And at the moment we are not applying the Treaty because this shift, that push towards the European Council, prevents the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament from doing their job according to the letter of the Treaty. That is the first question. The second question I mean, who did say that deciding by majority is less democratic than deciding by unanimity? Who said the opposite?

Mr President, Commissioner, the Europe of vetoes is the Europe of inaction, delays, blackmail and disappointment. This is grotesque. Until recently, at the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens called for European defence, an energy union and global power. All this is now denied by the vetoes of some and the hypocrisy of others. Orbán’s Hungary is the stark example of this, of course – Budapest is using and abusing – but it is not the only one. The problem is much deeper, because the practice of the veto pollutes minds and disrupts systems. This drift is played out in particular in the European Council, which absorbs all important decisions and de facto extends the practice of consensus, and therefore the veto, far beyond the letter of the Treaties. Immigration is a stark example of this. We could take a lot of decisions by a majority, but we have been stuck for several years. Less efficiency, less democracy and less transparency. If you read the Treaties, ladies and gentlemen, the role of ministers – it is not there – is considerable. If you look at the practice, since the President of the European Council is permanent, it is the "sherpacratie" that has it. They're the sherpas, not the ministers. This should therefore also be a problem for the Council of Ministers. This year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Single Market. Well, if we had kept the vetoes, we would still be waiting for the first decision on freedom of movement. I told the Council: you ignore all our requests; you ignore the request on the European electoral law; you are ignoring the request to amend the Treaties; you ignore the request on the activation of passerelle clauses; you ignore the request on the revision of the principle of European political parties. You must learn to respect the European Parliament a little more and have the courage to say yes or no to our demands. (the speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Madam President, Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, dear rapporteur Agius Saliba, thank you for your excellent work. Finally common sense, finally coherence, finally a concrete solution! This is proof that when the EU wants, it can. First of all, the common charger is clearly a common sense choice: 84% of consumers have problems with phone chargers, and the cost of this mess and confusion is huge – not to mention e-waste, from 11,000 to 13,000 tonnes of e-waste produced per year. Then, our choice is a coherent choice: consistent with our drive to create a sustainable single market for consumers and producers, consistent with our circular economy strategy, consistent also with our drive and effort to assert genuine freedom of choice for consumers. We make our products more sustainable, we encourage reuse, we save resources and CO2 while enabling technological innovation, we ensure more transparency and better information, and thus make life easier for consumers. Finally, the Europe we want is that Europe, a Europe of concrete solutions, which increases the opportunities for all European citizens. These rules on common chargers represent a clear victory for all of us.

Madam President, it has become a mantra in Europe: "Think small first". How many times have we recalled that SMEs are the bedrock of our economy. And then there is a reality, very hard: yesterday COVID, today the energy crisis, a reality that requires further action. That is why we, Renew Europe, wanted this debate at the initiative of Martina Dlabajová, whom I would like to thank on behalf of my group. This is the moment for Act Small First: In the face of crises, a plan to support SMEs and for our strategic autonomy as Europeans is a top priority. I also welcome the Commission’s commitment to review the Late Payment Directive. This is an intolerable scandal that can no longer last. Bankruptcy due to government delays is totally unacceptable, even more so in times of crisis. Reform is urgently needed to do justice to our entrepreneurs. Finally, with the green and digital transitions, we need to clarify what is expected of SMEs, make clear, effective, consistent and fit-for-purpose choices for our entrepreneurs.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, a democracy cannot function without functioning political parties and movements. European democracy cannot be limited to 27 separate political spaces; it must be based on genuine European political parties, it must be strengthened in a transnational political space. To this end, European political parties must become real parties and be able to do real politics. That is why we need to change the rules. It is absurd, for example, that a European party cannot participate in a debate in a national referendum that concerns the future of the EU, as happened on the occasion of Brexit. It is necessary to strengthen their budgetary autonomy. It is imperative to impose more transparency. These are questions of credibility and they are questions of political responsibility. This is also in line with citizens’ demands at the Conference on the Future of Europe. The objectives of this report, for which I warmly thank the two co-rapporteurs, Charles Goerens and Rainer Wieland, are also part of a broader strategy of democracy and politics, because we must be able to vote directly for European parties through the transnational list in order to strengthen their democratic legitimacy and we must combat disinformation and foreign interference, in particular, but not only, with new rules on political advertising to protect our democracies. And we have to move fast. In the 2024 European elections, thanks to these reforms, we must increase citizens' power of choice in a new democratic area that is more efficient, more transparent and, above all, more European.

Madam President, Commissioner, during the COVID crisis, border regions wanted to cooperate more. They could not, due to bureaucratic obstacles. In the face of natural disasters and the energy crisis, integration between border regions is needed. They face too many obstacles. Cross-border workers request services in their workplace that local authorities cannot offer. President Omarjee's report denounces all this. The legislative solution, as we know it, is on the Council table. It is called the European Border Mechanism, but negotiations are stalled. We want to relaunch this file taking into account the main concerns of the Council and in full cooperation with the Commission. To this end, ladies and gentlemen, we must adopt a legislative own-initiative resolution, indicate the necessary legislative changes and promote a new agreement with the Council. Because our Europe is Europe of concrete and transnational solutions, solutions that we want to multiply for our regions and for our citizens.

Mr President, with this digital package, we have achieved the impossible. I would therefore like to thank Margrethe Vestager, Thierry Breton, all colleagues and the French Presidency of the Council. A more open and competitive market, more protection for our citizens, more instruments against illegality and disinformation, more transparency of algorithms: This is great. In the face of the digital transition, we take full responsibility as the Union. We act as global standard-setters and strengthen our digital sovereignty and rule of law. Now, two main priorities: ensure the full and effective implementation of all new rules as soon as possible and put our model at the centre of our relations with all our global partners – starting with the United States of America –, explain and promote it. This is the whole point of our commitment and I am sure we will be there again.

Mr President, the outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe is very clear: Europe will be democratic and powerful or it will not be. We wanted this citizens' debate, launched, I want to remind you, in 2019 by President Macron. We need to live up to our commitments and now we need to start revising the Treaties. It is therefore very strange for me this morning to hear the criticisms of Manon Aubry and also, I am surprised, of Paulo Rangel, because if there has been a government in recent years that has been constantly committed to the reform of the European Union, it is the French government. In this age of global empires and powers, we have to decide whether we want to exist or disappear. And unanimity is the best guarantee of our disappearance. We need more efficiency, more power and more democracy. On this point, dear Sven Simon, President Macron has always been very clear. There is an urgent need to revise the treaties in order to free ourselves from national vetoes. We have said so, of course, but the urgency of saying does not dispense with the obligation to do so. Let's do it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a parliament proposes and adopts laws and controls the executive, otherwise it is not a parliament. Europe too often pretends. We pretend to have a foreign policy: we don’t have it. We are pretending to elect a full-fledged Parliament and we do not have it. This assembly must become a Parliament in its own right, with a wider power of initiative, as citizens called for at the Conference on the Future of Europe. This is necessary and urgent, especially at a time when we want to build a Europe of power. It is an even more indispensable question of democratic legitimacy at a time when we need to regain control, through our Union, over areas that were once the preserve of states: defence, borders, security, rule of law. Finally, it is the answer to the need to strengthen the bonds of trust and political responsibility between citizens and the Union. We want a more democratic European Union, and therefore we want a European Union with Parliament’s concurrent power of initiative. This power will also rebalance the gradual de facto erosion of the Commission’s right of initiative by the European Council, which we have been witnessing, helpless, in recent years. I would like to say, ladies and gentlemen: we need more democracy and less 'sherpacratie' in our Union. Here too, let's stop pretending. The European Council must provide political guidance to the Union, not regularly encroach on the legislative prerogatives of the Parliament and the Council. We need to stop distorting our system. The Commission’s de facto monopoly of legislative initiative no longer exists, dear Maroš, and is no longer justified. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Paulo Rangel, for his excellent work on this dossier, which sends a strong signal. The time has come to amend the Treaties and give Parliament a general and direct right of initiative. At a time of great transformation, a European democratic refoundation is needed. This is the meaning of our fight, and we will win it together.

Yes, I will answer in Italian, so I hope she will understand better. Sono convinto che ci sia un'identità europea. Sono convinto che come cittadini europei noi possiamo esercitare i nostri diritti in qualsiasi posto dell'Unione europea. È per questo che da italiano ho deciso di candidarmi in Francia e l'ho fatto esattamente per portare avanti questa idea di politica transnazionale, di democrazia transnazionale, che noi porteremo avanti insieme. Sono sicuro, caro Damian, attraverso le liste transnazionali, perché questa è l'Europa, questa è la democrazia che vogliamo.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we defended this conference proposed by Emmanuel Macron in March 2019 from the very beginning and forcefully. And for good reason! For a year, we have done Europe differently, with a completely new democratic exercise. Citizens are calling for radical change because the world has changed, war has returned to our continent, empires threaten our lives and values. And I would like to tell our far-right colleagues to be a little more respectful. Mickey Mouse, a circus! You make me feel like children who, when they play football... (some reactions and applause) ... Absolutely, you are from the far right, you are from the Ligua, so you are from the far right. You make me feel like these kids playing football, but when they lose, they stop the game, take the ball and get off the field. Your attitude is exactly this one! Citizens have done serious work, respectful work, we must respect them, and now Parliament is expected at the turn. We wanted this citizens' debate. We must live up to our commitments and follow up on the conference. We did it this morning with the transnational lists, and again you are in bad faith, and again you are lying, because they were clearly requested by citizens, and we must do it now by activating the revision of the Treaties without reluctance, without taboos, in full transparency. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Thank you, colleague. No, colleague, I want to reassure you: I am Italian, elected in France, but I don’t think I will be a candidate also in Sweden. But let me say that we don’t take anything away from the Swedish system. Nothing will change for Sweden. Your voters will elect you, or others, exactly in the same way, only they will have an additional democratic choice, an additional democratic power. They will be able also to vote directly for the European People’s Party. I don’t think that today your voters can directly elect your European party. So we only increase democracy, nothing else.

Dear Paulo, I am sure that we are now debating in good faith. And if we have a debate in good faith, you can remind our dear colleagues that, in the citizens' panels, the citizens had asked outright to elect half of the members of this plenary by voting directly for European political parties. You can't say otherwise because it's in citizens' panels, and you could be denied easily. The second point is that the conclusions of the conference clearly indicate the citizens' wish to elect some of the members of this parliament on transnational lists. So when I said and reminded people that they are asking us to do that, I told exactly the truth and I believe that this Parliament should live up to its commitment and act on it. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

First of all, the age of sixteen is not an obligation dear colleague, it is an option. In some Member States, the right to vote is from the age of 16 and in others it is at the age of 18. If there are states that want to choose this possibility of granting the right to vote at sixteen for the European elections, thanks to this electoral law, they will be able to do so. Member States that do not wish to do so will be able to retain the right to vote at 18 years of age or at another age. So, as long as we leave free choice and given that there are states in which we can already vote at sixteen, I really do not see where the problem is. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Mr President, first of all it is a nice debate, I think we can be satisfied. The idea of transnational lists was endorsed at the Conference on the Future of Europe and this Parliament is committed to responding to citizens’ requests. Indeed, citizens are right, they see further than we do, I think, because European democracy can no longer be trapped in a strictly national logic and only in the 27 national debates. The lists do not take anything away from anyone, but they double the democratic choice of citizens who will be able to vote on two lists: one national, the other transnational. They will also be able to choose the Presidency of the Commission. On this point, our position is clear: There can only be a lead candidate for President of the Commission if we can vote on the lists. No lists, no head of lists. This is elementary, my dear Paulo Rangel. As in 2019, national lists are a necessary step, they are also a test. During the election of President Metsola, a mid-term agreement was signed and lists are a priority. The groups have committed to respect them: pacta sunt servanda. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Madam President, 77% of Europeans would rather repair their property than change it. Yet three quarters of them are forced to throw away without repairing. It is impossible to talk about a circular economy without the right to repair. It is unacceptable to deny consumers freedom of choice. We must ban planned obsolescence practices and the reparable choice must become the default choice. The challenge is twofold: creating a sustainable single market and increasing the purchasing power of Europeans. Right to repair and innovation can perfectly coexist, innovation should not be used as an excuse for not recognising the right to repair. We talk about our daily life and we talk about the planet, so let me conclude with a biological metaphor: The human body is the most beautiful machine. When you break a limb or have a health problem, what do you do? We're fixing it. So why should not what is obvious to man also be obvious to what man makes?

Madam President, an innovative and sovereign Europe is entering the world stage. As such, the Data Governance Act appears to be the most sustainable and relevant solution to harness the enormous potential of data. Indeed, we must promote and secure data sharing without anyone being forced to do so. This is how we will multiply transnational opportunities, for our citizens, for our businesses and for altruistic organisations, which do the common good. With the DGA, we will offer a European model and alternative to the data processing practices of major US platforms or the Chinese government. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will take back control and create a safer space, which will finally allow European actors to access a large amount of data. This final agreement is the result of great teamwork, and here I would like to thank our colleague Angelika Niebler and Commissioner Thierry Breton. It is up to us now to build a market for non-personal data and set benchmarks that will, I am sure, spread all over the world.

Madam President, I would like to talk to you about ICTs. These four letters were until recently the pride of our democracies. Yes, the new information and communication technologies made it possible for as many of our citizens as possible to learn, exchange and live. I say ‘permitted’ because these four letters are now twisted, damaged by democrats such as China, Venezuela and, of course, Russia. These countries manipulate, falsify, rig the truth. These countries are interfering in our democratic processes – as we saw with the Brexit referendum, the Italian referendum in 2016, the French presidential elections in 2017. They would even use it to finance political forces present here in this Parliament. Investigations are ongoing. After that, if recent events push these forces – as we heard this morning – to sudden conversions, all the better. The modern-day dragon’s heads are called Xi Jinping, Nicolas Maduro or Vladimir Putin. They want our democracies dead. For our elections, for political advertising, we must impose new rules, Madam President, dear Eva, firmly. Let's join forces to defeat these multi-headed dragons.

Madam President, what does it mean to be European? While we are different in our languages and cultures, we share strong values: the rule of law and democracy are among them. The judgment of the Court of Justice reaffirms once again that our Union has a solid foundation. This is our European identity. The Polish and Hungarian governments have tried everything; They failed. We are on the side of Polish citizens, Hungarian citizens and all EU citizens, Mr Bellamy, yes, all EU citizens. The EU is not a supermarket where we buy only what suits us best. We cannot play Europeans when it comes to receiving European money and be nationalists when it comes to respecting our European values. So there is no invasion, I told ECR colleagues. Let us take action, Commissioner. Don't hide behind directions. The Regulation has never been suspended; activate it without delay, as it is a democratic emergency.

Mr President, Commissioner, the single market is the best European achievement, opening up a huge number of possibilities. This is a huge asset, which we must now make full use of and put at the service of our new priorities: strengthening our strategic autonomy and positioning Europe as a role model in the green and digital transition. Yet we are trampling. Barriers have been present for years, and the observation is clear: this weakening of the market penalises us, we waste time, we lose money. We saw this especially during the COVID-19 crisis. The reasons, we also know them: poor implementation of EU legislation, too much bureaucracy, insufficient access to information and too much protectionism from too many Member States. These barriers deprive consumers of better choice and hinder the potential of our businesses, especially SMEs. It is urgent, we need to break this deadlock. It is high time to achieve a fully single and efficient market, adapted to new challenges.