Speeches

Mr President, dear colleagues, today is the anniversary of the victory over Nazism in World War Two. In the calendar of the European Parliament for this year, on page 18, we see that only three Member States – France, the Czech Republic and Slovakia – celebrate the day that Nazi Germany signed its surrender act. And this is very surprising. If it was not for 8 May 1945, there would not be Europe Day on 9 May. There would be no Schuman Declaration, no European Union. In the vicinity of Strasbourg there are many graves of soldiers as well as civilian deportees from various European countries between 1941 and 1945. In the south cemetery of Strasbourg, on a granite slab, is an inscription in French: «Ici reposent 518 soldats soviétiques morts pour la France dans la lutte contre les nazis.» Today, I went and laid flowers on these graves. Eternal memory to the fighters against Nazism is very important. And Nazism, as it was told, as well as fascism, is an absolute evil which should not be reborn.

Madam President, dear Mr Bettel, you told in your speech about the rule of law in the European Union. But do you agree that the rule of law toolbox, recently introduced, is not working? By my opinion, just the disappearance of the resolutions of rule of law in Spain, Malta and Greece in this plenary is approval of this fact. We commemorate today the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. My grandparents were thrown into the Riga Ghetto – I am from Latvia – and then killed. Therefore, for me, a problem of big concern is the growing number of political prisoners in the Baltic states. In my statelet, the series of trials of 14 journalists started last week. They are accused of violating EU sanctions and facing up to four years in prison. In neighbouring Lithuania, another journalist, is imprisoned for six years. The same happens in Estonia ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, our Parliament was fighting long and hard to launch the rule of law toolbox in the EU in sight. When reading the country report on 2022, I am posing myself the question, ‘Was all this fight for nothing?’. It is evident that the method of desk research used by the Commission for country reports is completely ineffective. When we discussed in February the wiretapping scandal in Greece, I paid the attention of the Commission that five recommendations given to Greece in country report are too general to react. But the report on my country, Latvia, has no recommendations at all. Nothing about the criminal prosecution of 14 journalists just for working for so-called wrong media. Nothing about anti-minority hate speech. Nothing about problems with political party financing. I think the Commission should upgrade the reporting methodology and in particular to devote more time to country visits and to engage better with national stakeholders, especially those who should follow the authorities, their position, their critics.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, in this crisis situation, people and only people may be at the forefront. The employment report calls on the Member States to rapidly implement the provisions established in the minimum wage Directive, saying that decent wages are an essential tool in helping households keep up with rising energy prices. Let's take some examples of how these ideas are implemented. Concerning my country, the Commission launched the opinion that Latvia has made limited progress with regards to the structural part of the fiscal recommendations. How does this limited progress look like? The minimum wage in Latvia in 2023 was raised by 24% while remaining the quite low EUR 620. Meanwhile, the salary of the chairman of Parliament has been raised by 75%, Minister President by 53%, Members of Parliament by 34%. The salary of chairmen, therefore, is 13 times bigger than the minimum salary. Really decent wages for the few and unworthy for the many. I think that the semester process needs a more thorough look at the elements of dispersion of wages and the just effective fight against poverty in general with a special focus on in-work poverty, direct support of most vulnerable groups. This is the solution which we need.

Mr President, to my regret, I have continued to speak about political prisoners in my country, Latvia, since the wheel of repressions is not stopping. Now, one month ago, it has captured the young student girl, Tatjana Andreyevs. Her guilt is just activities to defend minority schools and to oppose the destruction of the monuments for the liberators of Latvia from Nazi occupiers. Our state security service has an intention to show its necessity, especially before accepting the new state budget. They managed to receive a doubled budget for their activities with respect to the previous year. I think money has to be spent just for young, talented students like Tatjana to integrate them into society, to give them social lifts, not to repress them.

Madam President, I am from Latvia, our president, when addressing this Chamber yesterday, said that our values, our legal system, make the European way of life attractive for us and for others. Today’s debate shows that these words are very far from reality, not only in Greece, Spain and Poland but in my country, Latvia, as well. Life in Latvian prison, where student Tatiana Andriets was thrown some days ago just for her beliefs, is it an attractive way of life, Mr Levits? We know that the parliamentary inquiry committee for Pegasus has prepared a very good report and, well, thank you for this and we will vote, I am sure. But what about what about another permanent mechanism which is already in force? I am speaking about just the rule of law mechanism and country reports produced by the Commission. Madam McGuinness, I do not agree with you that these five recommendations given to Greece you have cited will bring something fruitful. They are too general. In fact, these words are empty, for example, I repeat, ‘take into account European standards of judicial appointments’ or ‘improve the physical safety and working environment of journalists’, these recommendations too general to react.

Mr President, it seems that the right to freedom of expression and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of political opinion is not more protected in the EU. My country, Latvia, is often formally praised for including citizens’ initiatives in the legislative process. But what if initiators are proposing to deprive a large number of citizens of the rights guaranteed in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? The Latvian Parliament begins a new legislative year by moving forward an initiative to deprive so-called Kremlin-minded people of the right to stand for elections, to take posts in the state and self-government institutions. In addition to political prisoners, whose number is constantly growing in Latvia, almost all of them are journalists. The politically disqualified will appear in the country. How shall the people whom the petitioners call harmful or not loyal to the State be appointed? Most likely, as happened in Latvia in the times of deportations, on the basis of denunciation. Shall we allow those times to return?

Madam President, during this summer and autumn, more than 70 monuments to the liberators of Latvia from German Nazi occupiers were dismantled, despite the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee urging Latvia to refrain from demolition. I was among those who addressed the committee. It appeared that the land on which one of the monuments was staying belonged to my ancestors, victims of the Holocaust. The fight against monuments of the past continues with the repressions of people living in Latvia nowadays. After dissolution of the USSR, one third of Latvian residents became so-called ‘aliens’. Most of them are local natives. Some are still preserving this status, but some, mostly elderly people, acquired the citizenship of Russia. The new retroactive law norm requires annulation of their permanent residence permit in case of weak knowledge of Latvian language. Thousands will soon face being made illegal in their homes in Latvia and, therefore, in the EU. Shame.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the Commission is putting forward the document like only the existing challenges are to be solved: gender pay gap, tackling undeclared work, youth employment, etc. But being previously the Rapporteur on guidelines, I agree that these are certainly important issues, but these are not the main challenges the employment market will face in the upcoming period. In—work poverty: this will become a real disaster and not only for poorer EU Member States like mine, Latvia, but also for western and central European countries. The problem of uncontrolled employment of third—country nationals will become screaming very soon. And finally, of course, drastic job loss. We have to look for new solutions. We may come up with an ambitious proposal for a minimum income directive, not only the Minimum Wage Directive. We also have to start discussions about unconditional basic income. One thing is absolutely clear: in an unusual situation, the usual solutions will not work.

Mr President, as usual, when speaking about the situation on fundamental rights in the EU, we avoid to name concrete Member States – it’s the difference with a similar report on non-EU. I’ll try to fill in a bit the gap but not with the example of Hungary. When we are concerned about the schooling of children from minority backgrounds, we have to mention three Baltic States, especially my country, in Latvia, erasing all minority languages from the schooling system and public sphere. When we speak about politically motivated arrests, we have to mention three Baltic States again. In what concerns the fight against certain forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law in order to combat pre-existing Afrophobia, anti-Gypsyism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, we certainly have to add Russophobia. The president of Latvia has recently declared that the part of our citizens, mostly Russians, must be isolated by reason of their opinions and beliefs. Mr Reynders, is that not a hate speech to be punished, as you promised?

President. Commissioner, Colleagues, I welcome the adoption of the directive on minimum wages, but we must recognise that this is only a small first step towards social justice in all Member States. This directive in itself will not help to bridge the huge gap between rich and poor, and in all respects to unbalance wage levels in rich and poor European countries. For example, in my country, Latvia, almost a quarter of all working families will not be able to pay all their bills this winter and will face the risk of bankruptcy. But we must not forget that pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed are even worse off. We must therefore continue our work and consider, Commissioner, that the next step is the adoption of the minimum income directive, as provided for in the guidelines on employment and social affairs in the European Union, on which we are currently working.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, political prosecutions in the Baltic States are going on. Six years for investigative journalism – this was the verdict of the Lithuanian Appeal Court against Algirdas Paleckis at the beginning of May. In my country, Latvia, a number of politically motivated arrests of political activists and even people being far from politics, took place during the last two months. Recently, Vladimir Linderman, a well-known journalist and politician, was arrested in Riga. The effects of degrading attitudes against him are known – a 60-year-old man with a number of chronic diseases who was not allowed to use life-saving medicines, which needed to be taken constantly. More than 40 criminal cases were initiated on the basis of a recently added section of the criminal law: ‘assistance to a foreign state in action directed against the Republic of Latvia’. This phenomenon cannot be called an obsession on the search for enemies of the state or spies. This, on the contrary, is an artificial labelling of people as Kremlin agents in order to intimidate the entire Russian-speaking part of the population.

Madam President, colleagues, we are today 22 June, the day Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union 91 years ago. In one week they were already in Riga. I sounded, one month ago, the alarm about the decision of Riga City Council to demolish the monument to the liberators of Riga and Latvia from Nazi occupation. But last Thursday, the Parliament of Latvia passed the law that provides for the dismantling in the whole territory of Latvia of about 300 of this kind of monuments by 15 November. I see this decision as a provocation on both the short—term and long—term scales. Society is sharply divided on the issue. According to a recent public opinion poll, only 70% are supporting ‘dismantle’, while 40% are against and 30% undecided. The demolition of monuments will turn on historical time, and the insult will remain for decades in the memory of generations of children and grandchildren of the soldiers who defeated Nazism. It will split Latvian society further and it’s very dangerous.

Madam President, sadly, a great propaganda campaign was launched in my country, Latvia, to advocate for the demolition of memorial sites and beautiful places of soldiers of the World War II, accompanied by numerous acts of vandalism. Last Friday, the Riga City Council decided to demolish the biggest memorial monument to the liberators of Riga and Latvia from Nazi occupation. The protest action against this decision was forbidden, and two organisers and myself were detained by the police. The Latvian authorities, in their decisions, hide behind the events in Ukraine, while in Kyiv itself, on the day of 9 May, an official ceremony was held at the Eternal Flame in memory of those killed during World War II. In Riga thousands of residents brought flowers to our monument on 9 May, but the city authorities defiantly destroyed the flower carpet by tractor on the same night. It is unacceptable.

Mr President, six years in a Lithuanian prison for investigative journalism. Yes, that is sentence of the first instance court sentence to Algirdas Paleckis, an outstanding journalist and politician. His guilt was to make his investigation into the events of 1991 in Vilnius when Soviet troops clashed with civilians since he doubted the official version of them. The Court of Appeal verdict had to be announced today, but was suddenly postponed until Friday. I have personally observed several court hearings. The journalist is accused of gathering and passing information about Lithuanian judges to Russia. However, no documents or files or any other type of information that was allegedly gathered by Paleckis was presented to the court. No link to any foreign services was established. The prosecutor claims that Paleckis was in contact with an unidentified foreign agent. It is clear political prosecution in the European Union Member State of Lithuania.

Mr President, today we are discussing the EU citizenship report. Let’s ask the following question: which notion describes the situation that is the opposite to the possession of citizenship? Your answer would be ‘statelessness’. But this is not a complete answer because some stateless people are not actually stateless, while at the same time they are not citizens of any state. This interesting special status was invented in two Member States, Latvia and Estonia. The people are not stateless since the state issues them ‘non-citizen’ passports, granting protection abroad and the right to free return to the country. In fact, these people are being deprived of a number of political and social rights, and are second-class citizens of the country. In 2004 the European Parliament resolution on the state of preparedness of Latvia for EU membership recommended that the authorities envisage the possibility of allowing non-citizens to take part in local government elections. It was a citation. Our non-citizens, making up 10% of the population, can now take part in municipal and European elections. In the Petitions Committee we are trying to do our best. Petitions tabled by Latvian and Estonian non-citizens have been examined; we are implementing the recommendations on voting rights in our deliberation reports; special debates took place in this very same hemicycle in 2009, etc. The Commission has to react, finally, and the declaration approximating the equality of non-citizens with EU citizens in the whole sphere of EU competence is a solution. Such a solution will give a much bigger weight to this same notion of EU citizenship.

Madam President, we have to admit that the European Union is in a deep global crisis, or even recession. It’s not just COVID-19 shock, as written in the Commission paper on the annual sustainable growth survey 2022. In such a crisis situation, people and only people can be at the forefront as the saviour and engine of development. The Commission paper refers to the four mutually reinforcing dimensions of competitive sustainability, but their mutual influence is non-linear, and we cannot give equal weight to these four aspects. We must choose those that are a priority and subordinate the rest of them, and just fairness must be the condition under which the other three dimensions – that is environmental sustainability, productivity and macroeconomic stability – are to be examined. Fairness is about people. Broad social guarantees, an effective fight against poverty in general, with a special focus on in-work poverty, direct support for the most vulnerable groups: that is a solution which is needed now. We would like to thank Mr Gueking for our common work done on this report, and we hope that after the votes on the amendments, we will be able to change our position – that is abstention at committee level – and support the report.

Madam President, I could not imagine until today that the Nazi slogan, the slogan of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, would be pronounced from this tribune so many times and echoed in the Hemicycle. We are living in the time of information wars, and one of the instruments is, of course, the slogan. One of the instruments is disinformation, and we are giving an example of it now by having the title of the debate: Russia’s military threat against Ukraine. It is not proved. It was repeated – it was even mentioned today – that Ukrainian diplomats are denying this elsewhere in the European Union because it’s damaging Ukraine. I will speak about facts: facts registered by the United Nations, OSCE and other bodies. These are children killed in Donbas. In the last eight years, 152 children were killed and 146 injured. The latest case is the case of Vladik Dmitriyev, the four—year—old boy killed by a drone... (The President cut off the speaker who was displaying a poster)

Mr President, it will take a lot of time to investigate deeply the events of January 2022 in Kazakhstan but, nevertheless, our Parliament has once more assumed the role of judge. I have several questions in connection with the proposed resolution. When urging the Kazakhstan authorities to refrain from applying charges of terrorism too broadly, is our Parliament not applying too broadly such definitions as ‘activist’ or ‘religious organisation’? Do we properly distinguish between peaceful protesters and those who used violence and committed crimes? Why, when saying that a number of international journalists’ offices came under attack by the state forces, did we turn a blind eye to the effects of the burning down of the buildings of major Kazakh TV channels and the international channel MIR by armed groups of well-trained men? Are we not selective when mentioning the names of several political prisoners, but forgetting cases no less famous? As a member of the Central Asia Region Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (PCC) and a former vice—chair of this delegation, I ask for respectful dialogue with Kazakhstan.

Mr President, I quote from this deliberations report, ‘Calls on the Commission to play a more active role in the Committee on Petitions to ensure the citizens receive a detailed and understandable response’. But has this call has appeared in the deliberations report for the first time? Not at all. It is becoming a bad tradition just to mention in the annual report of the Committee on Petitions (PETI) the need for better cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the Commission. In order to get rid of this tradition, we have to elaborate clear rules on the handling of petitions by the Commission, and now the current Interinstitutional Agreement does not cover petitions. Therefore, our proposal is to have a more binding agreement. We regret that this suggestion was rejected during the vote in the committee, and we also did not receive approval from the Vice-President’s side, when we spoke beforehand on this. But we are sure that, without such a binding agreement, in future deliberations reports we will just copy and paste the very same problem for many years. Such a binding agreement would improve the transparency of the system and its effectiveness towards resolving the issues raised by European citizens in their petitions. The price of ineffectiveness is very big, as we know from Brexit, and using this opportunity, I also want to repeat that in this report we speak about the famous Article 51, and ask the Commission to accept it as broadly as possible.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate Lina Gálvez Muñoz for this very balanced report, highlighting the new challenges in the employment and social area. The new reality we faced during the last year and a half brought a number of new employment arrangements. Home offices became part of everyday life for millions of people. It caused not only technical issues and very important income problems for many workers, but also negatively influenced the already unstable work—life balance. It also again challenged the gender equality issue and, of course, hit the most vulnerable. Therefore, I very much appreciate the mainstreaming, equal opportunities and non—discrimination policies in the report. An important part of it is the correspondence with the anti-poverty strategy and the EU framework for national homelessness strategies with the target to end homelessness by 2030. The report also calls for effective work-life balance policies in order to further safeguard people’s private and family lives, which have now become an essential point since many important new reality challenges could not have been foreseen in the 2019 Work—Life Balance Directive that I was rapporteur for. In general, we would certainly prefer to have a stronger text on the 2021 employment and social policies, but we hope tomorrow’s vote will make it as ambitious as possible.

Mr President, yes, to be honest, we were hoping for a more ambitious text of this Blue Card Directive, especially in what concerns social protection of card-holders and their families. Nevertheless, the compromise is a compromise, and we have to mention now positive changes in what concerns equal treatment. Cardholders have equal treatment with nationals as regards working conditions, education, social security and recognition of diplomas. Also, family life is more protected. Family members of card-holders have immediate access to the labour market, and residence permits for family members will be issued at the same time as the Blue Card itself. Regarding the scope of the Directive, it now fully and immediately applies to refugees and no longer excludes seasonal workers. But unfortunately, asylum seekers still remain outside the scope of the directive. We are also concerned that Member States remain permitted to adopt parallel national schemes. However, several safeguard clauses were introduced to ensure equality between the EU and national schemes.