Speeches

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, the reason for today’s debate was concerning and irritating signals that the Commission, Commissioner Hahn, was close to a deal with the Orbán government. However, I think we should make it very clear that there is no deal, because there are no negotiations. There is an assessment of the compliance with the criteria, which incidentally concern the rule of law and not accountancy. So let us stop spreading rumours and issuing signals that there is a deal forthcoming. With regard to the presidency, the Member States themselves decide on the Council Presidency, obviously, but as usual they have not dared to take any steps because the European Council is the place where the rule of law goes to die. But this House decides if and how to cooperate with the Council Presidency. I suggest that we strip the presidency to the bone. No glitter and glamour. We shall not provide Orbán with a podium for his propaganda. Instead, we should give a podium to those Hungarians who have been silenced by Orbán – NGOs, independent media and academics. Colleagues, let us make it the EU Presidency of the Hungarian people and not the Presidency of Orbán!

Mr President, well, Commissioner, of course you deserve 10/10 for trying. The problem is that I was here when Safe Harbor was defended by the European Commission with the same vigour. It was shot down by Schrems 1. Then came Privacy Shield, and the European Parliament said, “we don’t believe it’s watertight”. “No, no, no”, said the commission, this is watertight, it’s fantastic. And then came Schrems 2. Now we’re having the same debate and we’re absolutely certain we’re going to have Schrems 3, because I heard Mrs Düpont, who has left in the meantime, say, “well, why don’t we give it another try?” Well, I would tell you why we shouldn’t give it another try: this is about the protection of citizens, but also legal certainty for companies. We cannot play with the rights of citizens and companies like this. It’s not a game, Mrs Düpont. If it’s not legally sound, the Commission shouldn’t adopt an adequacy decision, no matter how desperately we want it politically, because the ECJ doesn’t do politics. The ECJ will just look, “okay, here we go again, third time, which part is it that you didn’t understand?” And it’s going to strike it down again because we know that it is not legally sound. So please, Commissioner, go back, close the loopholes and don’t adopt an adequacy decision because before it’s legally sound.

Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, corruption is a poison that sometimes kills quite literally. Like in one country, hospitals sold in a crooked deal. In another country, dozens of young people killed in a train crash despite the hundreds of millions of EU funds that were supposed to be spent on railroad security. Journalists that are exposing corruption are murdered. And, yes, also Qatargate. The anti-corruption package, I’m sure, will find a broad majority in this House and we will probably strengthen it. Let’s see how it will fare in the Council, given that some of the worst offenders are sitting in the Council and the European Council. Because the real weakness of your proposal, Commissioner, lies in the enforcement mechanisms, because it’s built on the presumption or rather the pretence of compliance by the Member States. But we know that some national governments are deeply corrupt. Indeed, in some cases, it seems to be their raison d'être. We need a strong enforcement mechanism, European enforcement mechanism, and therefore I hope that you will also put forward the proposal to further strengthen the powers of the European Public Prosecutor that has proven to be the best force against corruption in the entire Union.

Mr President, colleagues, the rule of law has sadly been reduced to tribal mud—slinging between the political parties, political party interests over principles. But the rule of law has no party affiliation, dear friends: if the rule of law is undermined, all citizens pay the price. The EPP has drawn absolutely no lessons from 12 years of Orbán in your midst, and you are still passionately defending the attacks on democracy in Greece – don’t smile, it’s not funny. The S&D should also be more critical to some of its own Members, and it is a mystery to me how the membership of Mr Fico sits with your social democratic values. But my own family – yes, also my own family – should be a lot more rigorous. Now, on Malta, despite several reforms, there has been no change in the political culture: journalists still under pressure; crimes from years ago are still going unpunished; justice is still weak and golden passports are still on sale. And yes, colleagues, the rule of law in Greece is in the danger zone: a weak judiciary; state capture; spyware abuse for political purposes; corruption; pushbacks; journalists harassed and even killed; organised crime infiltrating the police. Railroads are a disaster in Greece; the sell-out of hospitals in Malta. Corruption is poison and it flourishes if the rule of law is weak. And finally, Madam Commissioner, I welcome your words, but frankly, words are cheap: polite letters to governments and action plans bring no change. The Commission has the powers and the duty to act in the interest of the people, not the politicians.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Madam or Mr Absent Council, I can see the Member States are very interested in this debate. Not. Today, we are talking about lack of sincere cooperation, which is essentially euro-speak for stonewalling or even omertà, as I would call it. Don’t be fooled by all the nice words that the Council and the Commission speak about European values, because they are all complicit and guilty of defending a very sick system: a system which is made for the destruction of democracy and an attack on fundamental rights. Not only do they refuse to cooperate, they are actually actively seeking to silence the European Parliament, including its rapporteur. But I have bad news for them: I am not susceptible to pressure. Sorry. The European Commission has acted in times of crisis with determination: the financial crisis, pandemic war, inflation, what have you. But when we are facing a full blown crisis of the rule of law and democracy, the European Commission is silent and looks the other way. It allows gross violations of fundamental rights and of EU legislation, such as export rules or the ePrivacy Regulation. So the European Commission does have the power to launch infringement proceedings, and if it doesn’t, it amounts to a failure to act. The Commission stubbornly works on the pretence of compliance, colleagues. Not the presumption of compliance, the pretence of compliance by the Member State. It knows full well that the Member States are breaking the rules. When I hear the Commission say that it condemns the illegitimate use of spyware, I think, ‘Oh dear, now that is going to frighten the perpetrators.’ You put forward action plans for democracy and what have you. That’s all fine and dandy, but it is pretty useless against deliberate attacks on democracy by EU governments and government parties. So it is up to us, to the European Parliament colleagues, to keep this point on the agenda and make sure that the attacks on democracy end.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Madam Minister, we’ve been waiting for almost 15 years. I fear Godot is going to get here before the directive does. I hear the Council strongly supports the principle of equal treatment. Well, apparently not. I know that Sweden does, so I’m not looking at you. But clearly the Council does not, because it’s all a matter of priorities. It says, ‘Oh, difficult, difficult. Unanimity. We can’t overcome this.’ But the Council has decided in recent years on the purchase of vaccines, weapons, the issuance of Eurobonds, a hundreds-of-billions recovery fund. But it cannot decide on something as basic as equal treatment of all EU citizens. It’s in the Treaties. Friends, how are we going to unblock the file in the European Council? Well, maybe we should play hardball. Let’s start by freezing the budget for the European Council altogether. (Laughter in the Chamber.) This is not funny. That will get them going, I assure you. Two more things; additional proposals. Let’s finally follow the Renew proposal for a Council formation for equality. It cannot be that difficult. If there are ministers for equality, we should have a Council formation. And finally, I call on all Member States to show their colours and join the court case against Hungary in defence of LGBTI rights.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her words. I think that, as a Parliament, we should endorse your line of action. You said, Commissioner, ‘imagine you are one of those people’. I think this is where the problem begins: we have dehumanised those people. We cannot imagine anymore what it feels like because we have dehumanised them. It always strikes me how we are talking about an amount of migrants, rather than a number of migrants. A number of migrants is about individuals. Let’s start and go back to our humanity and think of them as people. I entirely agree with my EPP colleague who said there should be no oversimplification of complex problems. That is why I have a bit of difficulty understanding why the EPP is always coming up with fake, simplified solutions like walls around Europe. It doesn’t work. OK? It may work in an electoral campaign, but it doesn’t work at all in solving the problem. The Renew Group has written to the European Council and called for swift action because we do think that the JHA Council now has to move. Yes, we are working on the pact. It’s very difficult, but we hope we will get there. But that is not going to solve the problem today. The people who are getting on boats today need to be helped and that is why we need sufficient and adequate rescue capacity organised by the Member States and the European Union.

Madam President, colleagues, I think before we are going into the substance of the matter, let’s just remind ourselves briefly of the official role of the European Council as defined by the Treaties. It is neither a legislator nor a budget authority, and giving instructions to the European Commission constitutes nothing less than a grave violation of the Treaties. Just saying. Meanwhile, all the populist rhetoric of government leaders cannot hide the fact they themselves have been blocking a common policy for seven years, and walls are not the answer to their failure. If the graveyards in the Mediterranean, the quasi concentration camps in Libya, the horrors of Moria and the forests on the Polish-Belarusian border have not deterred migrants, then walls will not stop them either. Walls are a fake solution, even if the word walls is neatly wrapped up in euphemism and bureaucracies. On the basis of the roadmap, Parliament and the Council – the legislator – have been diligently and constructively working on the completion of a coherent and effective asylum and migration policy. We will deliver real results for citizens: realistic policies that allow us to handle migration in an effective manner and also in line with our much-proclaimed values. The great achievement of European integration is that it has broken down walls. Let’s not turn Europe into a gated community.

Mr President, a mushrooming political spying scandal touching even some of the colleagues present here. Systematic, illegal pushbacks of migrants. The murder of journalist Karaivaz still unresolved after two years. The Novartis scandal. Allegations of Mafia infiltration in the police. And today, the fresh, very alarming revelations on Team Jorge, a hack—for—hire firm in Israel, making money out of manipulating elections and claiming to be present also in Greece. And on and on and on. It’s a highly alarming picture. And more alarming still is the reflex of secrecy and denial in government circles, instead of transparency and investigation. I salute the brave forces in Greece who are determined to investigate, uncover and prosecute crime. They provide the very essence of democracy, public scrutiny, and holding power to account. These people must be allowed to do their work freely, unhampered and safely. Instead of getting support, however, they become the target of attacks, harassment and intimidation. HDPA, the Data Protection Authority, investigative journalists, diligent prosecutors. And in this context, I am pleased with the recent exoneration of prosecutor Touloupaki. The issues of predator spyware and Team Jorge must be fully clarified without delay. There should not be the slightest shadow of doubt over the Greek elections in spring. The democratic rule of law is severely under threat in Greece. It is code orange. This affects democracy in the EU as a whole. Yet the Commission stubbornly clings to the pretence of compliance myth. Your inaction, Commission, is a dereliction of duty. Finally, colleagues, we are all loyal to our respective political families, and that’s a good thing. But that loyalty shall not take precedence over something bigger: the democratic rule of law. Η δουλειά μας δεν είναι να προστατεύουμε το ένα πολιτικό κόμμα ή το άλλο. Η δουλειά μας είναι να προστατεύουμε τη δημοκρατία για όλους. Όλοι μαζί.

Madam President, it’s always a joy to hear the EPP reproaching the rest of us for being hypocrites. Just to frame the issue a little bit, I think we should have a debate and remind the European Council of the fact that their conclusions are actually a political statement; the European Council is neither a legislator nor the budgetary authority, contrary to the European Parliament. The migration issue requires not grand statements and posturing and fake solutions – it requires real solutions. That is what we as a legislator and the budgetary authority are working on, very diligently, and that is why my group would like to propose a debate with the title ‘Referring to the EUCO conclusions and the need for a speedy finalisation of the roadmap’. Because we do serious work here, we work on real solutions, and I think that is what we want to debate with the European Council.

Mr President, the debate on migration at the next Council summit is most necessary and not a day too soon, because after seven years of complete stagnation on the asylum and migration package in the Council, it’s time for action. Seven years sur place, no summit on massive illegal pushbacks, on thousands of deaths as a result. No summit on dramatic reception conditions in Moria, Calais, Ter Apel, Brussels. No summit when local communities became overburdened as national governments are cutting budgets for reception capacity or are busy blaming migrants for the failure of their own policies. Government leaders have indeed agreed a very timid, voluntary relocation mechanism. But as President von der Leyen pointed out, so far it has resulted in no fewer than 8 000 pledges and 400 actual relocations – hardly impressive. We need effective and credible policies, but always in line with our values. I hear colleague Weber say ‘Yeah, human rights, sure, but ...’. I say ‘human rights’. Full stop. No buts. As to walls, colleagues, many have been built throughout history. None of them were successful. None. It’s a distraction and not a solution as Ms Bischoff also said. Council and Parliament are currently working in a spirit of good cooperation following the joint roadmap towards the common goal of adopting the entire asylum and migration package by 2024 at the latest. And I therefore call on the government leaders to not disrupt or derail the process, but to throw their weight behind the roadmap.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I think the importance of the decision to finally apply the rule—of—law conditionality cannot be overestimated, and I’ll be a bit out of character, but I’ll pay compliments to the European Commission here for doing the right thing and sticking to its guns. I also welcome the decision of the Council, and compliments to the Czech Presidency to largely endorse that decision. It was long overdue, because for over a decade kleptocrats could build their empires unhindered. But those days are over. Europe has entered a new era. This European Parliament will be very closely monitoring the full and sustainable implementation of the milestones. And finally, colleagues, I would like to state here for the record that I believe the government of my country made a strategic mistake and committed a grave injustice by blocking the Schengen accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr President, colleagues – shock, disbelief, anger: I believe we all went through the roller coaster last weekend as, bit by bit, we learned about the corruption scandal that took place in our midst. And we are still reeling – or at least that’s the way I feel. We are all devastated to see how the criminal acts of Members, former Members and staff of the European Parliament have deeply damaged the image of this House, and it is our task to restore and even strengthen trust. We have a saying in Dutch. Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. In other words, it takes a long time to build trust, but it’s broken very rapidly. Taking influence on political decision-making is in itself a normal and healthy part of democracy, let us not forget that – as a matter of fact, it is democracy, and MEPs must be accessible and open to arguments and debate. They must be able to freely and independently be the voice of their constituents and vote in line with their own views and beliefs. But it is a very different matter if actors are trying to get influence with undue pressures or even bribes. And the ugly facts that have emerged are not a mere breach of ethics, colleagues, but criminal acts. And we can fortunately conclude that the criminal justice system works. Now let’s use this momentum and revise and strengthen the rules on ethics and transparency nevertheless. There is already a number of proposals on the table, like finally setting up an ethics body with teeth and expanding the transparency register to include third—country representatives, and much more. And we can learn from the best practices from other parliaments. This House, colleagues, must and can become the gold standard for integrity and transparency. And it is our joint cross-party task to restore trust.

Mr President, just very briefly, in this Hemicycle we do not tolerate racist statements, anti-Semitic statements, sexist statements. And I would just like to say for the record that we should not tolerate homophobic statements either. The remark made just now by our French EPP colleague is profoundly homophobic. I find it regrettable to hear that kind of language in this Hemicycle. And I would really like the leadership of this House to take its distance. And we’re also going to ask for clarification whether our colleague here represents the views of the EPP Group.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I don’t think that we are here today to try and convince you of the rights of LGBTI people and rainbow families, because we know that you are convinced. However, we are talking here about applying the law. And I have to say, I find that the Commission is too timid in enforcing case—law. The von der Leyen Commission generally, but certainly in these kinds of cases, puts the burden of litigating on the shoulders of individuals and civil society. There are two rulings by the European Court of Justice, the baby Sara case and the Coman case. The Coman case is four and a half years old. I mean, you say the Commission is monitoring, the Commission may start infringement proceedings if necessary, but how much longer will the Commission wait? Because, you know, there isn’t limitless time. Baby Sara is growing up. Will she be 18 before this is settled? Will she have voting rights by then? So I really, really urge the European Commission to start an infringement proceeding and impose sanctions on those countries and make sure that citizens can count on the Commission.

Mr President, colleagues, the joint Parliament and Council roadmap gives reason for cautious optimism. It gives us a chance to move forward together. And this Parliament, as always, will do everything within its power to deliver before the end of term. But it can only fly if the Council takes its responsibility and agrees on an instrument for a truly common European policy. But colleagues it’s not only about policies, it’s also about language. Can we please, when we talk about migration, have a bit more temperate and less apocalyptic language, because xenophobic rhetoric has not brought the solution any closer. Dehumanising migrants has done nothing to deflect migration flows. It has mainly served to sow division in society and it has created tragedies unworthy of our common values. Migration has always existed and it will always exist, and there is a degree of irony in this debate because many of us here in this room, and other colleagues who are elsewhere in the building, have a family history of migration. Their parents or grandparents migrated within, to or from Europe. Let’s keep that in mind. The Ukraine refugee crisis has shown that Europe is capable of managing big challenges. So let’s draw the lessons from that. Be pragmatic. Adopt real solutions. Because Europe can do it.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear absent Council, the Commission is assessing Hungary’s compliance with the 17 very weak conditions for the release of funds. A child can see that they have not remotely been met. So the conclusion can be fairly simple: no compliance, no money. Now, this is the view of the vast majority of this House. But Orbán wields massive power because the European Council – absent – has failed disgracefully for many years to suspend his voting rights under Article 7. And Viktor has been using his veto power as a tool to blackmail and extort the European Union at every turn in the road. After 12 years of Orbán, government leaders still naively or opportunistically believe they can buy him off. They should know better. He will not back down but, on the contrary, step up his game, encouraged by his success. The rule of law conditionality mechanism was explicitly designed to overcome this stalemate. But again, we see horse trading with our values instead of the Commission and the Council standing up to defend our common European values. It’s time for the Commission and the European Council to show some backbone. Giving in to blackmail by a kleptocrat will be a historic failure. Commissioner, don’t miss your appointment with history; the European Council has already missed it.

Madam President, colleagues, today we honour Daphne Caruana Galizia. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the family. They have lost a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister. Yesterday, many people in Malta gathered to commemorate Daphne. That is heart—warming because it is a moment for national unity. At such moments, there is no place for partisan divisions, and it is for political leadership to lead by example and to publicly display their unity. That applies to this House as well, because democracy is a common value. Daphne died because she exposed wrongdoing, corruption and crime, and nearly everything she wrote about turned out to be true. Yet hardly any of those cases have been adequately investigated, let alone brought to trial. Justice must be done and the rule of law must prevail. Impunity must end – really and truly. Not just for Daphne, but for all people of Malta and of Europe. In these turbulent and insecure times, Europeans are entitled to stable, reliable, honest government, and journalists are vital for keeping governments honest. They are the oxygen of democracy. Journalists must be able to do their jobs in safety. I salute you, Daphne Caruana Galizia. We will continue to work tirelessly for justice and the rule of law. And oh yeah, a little P.S. message to Mr Joseph Muscat: I believe you need your lawyers for more urgent matters than writing letters to MEPs, telling them what they can and cannot say.

Madam President, dear colleagues. As we have heard, the assessment that Bulgaria and Romania are ready for accession to Schengen has been made a long time ago by the experts and by the Commission already back in 2011. It is now 2022, 11 years later and, colleagues, I feel ashamed. I feel ashamed towards the Bulgarian and the Romanian citizens who rightly feel that they are not treated equally and that they didn’t get the same right to borderless travel. I feel ashamed for the Council to have stalled this long for not honouring its commitment. We have established common procedures and evaluation mechanisms, and we should respect the outcome. No moving goalposts, and the Schengen process should not become a proxy battlefield for other political issues. And last but not least, colleagues, I am ashamed for the Dutch Government because it’s the Dutch Government that has been one of the main obstacles here, and largely for political reasons, domestic political reasons. Respect for European rules is not a one-way street. There cannot be double standards. So from this position, I would like to call on Prime Minister Rutte to respect the rules and support the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen zone. Because I think in these times we have to put European unity before national politics. Bulgaria and Romania belong in Schengen.

You just asked, dear colleague, whoever decided on these European values. Well, my question to you is: do you know which country was the first country to ratify the Lisbon Treaty? It was Hungary. And I think all the values were laid down in the Treaties. So don’t you think that Hungary was one of those who decided on the values?

Mr President, first of all, I note that we are having this debate with the Budget Commissioner, Commissioner Hahn, instead of President von der Leyen, despite the fact that in my view the rule of law is . It is not a budget matter. I’m sorry, Commissioner, I disagree with you. This is not about protecting the budget of the European Union: it is about protecting our common values. That’s what the regulation is about. I recommend that you look at the history of the regulation. Now, we welcome the fact that the Commission proposes to freeze EUR 7 billion for Hungary. It’s a good step, but it’s way too small, Commissioner – I see you’re very busy. They are Austrian friends. Yes. Thank you. Lovely country, Austria! – It’s a good step, the EUR 7 billion, but it’s far too small. And the escape clauses are already built in. And it turns out that the rule of law, after all, is negotiable for the European Commission, because we have here 17 criteria which are clearly falling short of what is needed, allowing Mr Orbán to make mere cosmetic changes. You’re proposing a freeze of – not 65%, Commissioner – 15% of the money due to Hungary, let alone the 100% that should be frozen if we look at the state or the record of Viktor Orbán. So again, the rule of law is being negotiated because Mr Orbán gets extra time. Now, can we trust the Commission to be tough in its assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the already weak criteria? I’ll be very honest with you, Commissioner Hahn: I am not 100% reassured if I look at the track record of this Commission and indeed that of Mr Orbán for the last 12 years. You are showing a lot of reluctance, to be honest, to apply this strictly. The Commission has been ducking the application of the regulation for two years, almost. And now that you have to apply it, you’re trying to reduce the scope to the bare minimum. For me, this is the key question. We gave you our vote of confidence in 2019. Your core duty is to uphold the Treaties and enforce the law. And if the Commission bows to kleptocrats, you no longer deserve our confidence. Please, Commissioner, prove me wrong.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, now imagine that you’re a Greek journalist or indeed an opposition leader, or you’re a Hungarian NGO, or you’re a Polish lawyer or a Catalan politician, and you’re listening to this debate and you say, ‘I’m so reassured, Europe is going to protect me.’ I do not think so. Because I believe you when you’re personally saying that you’re committed to privacy and data protection. But when I also hear both of you say, ‘but it is the national authorities who are in charge’, this is where the problem is. Yes, the national authorities are in charge, but they are the perpetrators. They are the perpetrators! It is national governments spying on citizens for political reasons. That has no place in a democracy! They are breaking democracy. And I would expect the European institutions – well, I’m sorry, but I can’t count the Council because as I said, the perpetrators are actually in the Council – but I count on the European Commission, and on this House, but also on Europol to do their job: not to protect the governments, but to protect the citizens of Europe and to protect the democracy of Europe.

Madam President, I have three points for the Prime Minister. First of all, on migration, the Council for years now has aimed for a minimal and incomplete package that is best summarised as ‘Fortress Europe’, whereas the European Parliament wants a coherent package that will allow us to actually manage migration. We have asked the Council to commit, together with the European Parliament, to take the entire package across the finish line before the European elections. But the Council is hesitating. Will you here commit, together with the European Parliament, to finalising this package before the election? Secondly, I agree with Guy Verhofstadt. You said on treaty change ‘oh, we need to go slowly, slowly’. But the world is changing at a dizzying speed and Europe is lagging behind. Intergovernmental Europe is spectacularly ill—equipped to deal with crises or to have a coherent vision for the future. This European governance system is dangerously weak and outdated, and the European Council is becoming a threat to the future of the European Union if you keep blocking reforms. You have a responsibility to the citizens and not to national governments. I expect you to act in the interests of the future of Europe.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I note that, as usual, the Council is absent, apparently it doesn’t care. Twenty-three people dead or 37 people dead, we don’t know, but, as so often before, we are all horrified. And then I ask myself, how many more times are we going to have this debate? Because we’ve had it many times before, and then we say the policy is failing and oh, it’s people smugglers. No, colleagues. This is the policy, because the Member State governments want deterrents. They think that this is going to scare people away. So let’s go back in time a little bit. Little Alan Kurdi, do you remember him ? The little two-year-old boy washed up on the shores of Turkey. Do you remember the people who died in the freezing forests on the border of Poland and Belarus not so long ago? Do you remember the thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who are at the bottom of a mass grave in the Mediterranean? Do we remember the people who died when they were pushed back from Greece to Turkey? Do we remember the slave markets in Libya? Do we remember the people who have died in the desert? That, colleagues, is the policy. It’s not a failure of the policy, it is the policy. Yes, Madam President, I'm coming to my conclusion. I would just like to say one thing to the absent Council. I think it’s a scandal that they are not here because they are actually the biggest obstacle to finding a solution to this situation, to finding a coherent asylum and migration policy. And I can tell you that, for me, screening, Eurodac and building walls is not a policy.