Speeches

Mr President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had, of course, a huge and a direct impact on migratory migration flows to the EU. More than 11 million Ukrainians crossed the border of the European Union. A significant number have returned, indeed, but over 4 million of them have registered for temporary protection in the EU. And the EU delivered on this TPD. And we can be proud about how millions of refugees received a warm welcome all over Europe, particularly in countries bordering Ukraine – Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova. It has been really impressive to see all the efforts by citizens and communities to take care of vulnerable people. But the migration challenge is not restricted to migration flows directly from Ukraine. In the first nine months of this year, more than 228 000 migrants irregularly crossed the external borders of the EU, the highest number since 2016. For three consecutive months, there were more than 70 000 asylum applications per month in the EU. Again, the last time this happened was in 2016 – crisis time. On the Western Balkan routes, we see an increase of almost 200% compared to last year, mainly due also to the scandalous visa policy of Serbia, which I hope the Commission will address without delay. We are sleepwalking towards another migration crisis and we already see Member States reaching the limits of reception capacity. So we need to act. We can point fingers to Member States and agencies as much as we want, but we need to do our job as a parliament by making real progress on the pact on migration to make sure it is adopted as soon as possible. We cannot allow any further delays. Let’s get to work.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the timing of this debate was a bit spontaneous – I will try to make it work. But first of all, thanks a lot to OLAF for the very thorough work they have done in preparing this report. I think it goes without saying that the behaviour of the three persons concerned, as it is described in the OLAF report, is very concerning, and that they have seriously hurt the image of the agency. We need Frontex as an agency beyond any doubt because of its crucial role in the management of our external borders. I also believe that this report and the resignation of the Executive Director is in a way a very good moment for a fresh start, because the report also shows that the agency is full of brave men and women with integrity that dare to speak out with OLAF and help OLAF reach its conclusions. We need to build on all those men and women that are currently still active at Frontex. We had a very interesting meeting with the authors of the report in the joint CONT and LIBE meeting. They indicated that they did not investigate any allegations of pushbacks or fundamental rights violation and that it goes without saying any such allegations need to be investigated wherever and whenever they appear, but they were not part of the scope of this investigation. One of the other things that I read in the report, if you read between the lines, is that Frontex really also needs guidance from the European Commission about the difficult legal framework in which maritime surveillance takes place, about the difficult position that Frontex is in, about their role in working with, but also for, Member States. We need the new Executive Director to really make a change. We need more guidance from the Commission and we need to work with the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group in this House to help that. One last thing that I want to say as well – and this is to echo what the Commissioner said – we need to address the despicable behaviour of the Turkish authorities with the strongest and most convinced way, because the recent scandals again show in what kind of geopolitical circumstances the Greek authorities, but also Frontex, need to operate and it is hardly achievable.

Mr President, five years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated. The ultimate punishment for exposing the corruption at the highest level of the Maltese Government: a government that carries responsibility for her murder by creating a favourable climate for anyone who wanted to eliminate her. Whoever planned and carried out the assassination did so in the knowledge they would be protected. And they still feel protected today. Impunity is still the norm in Malta. The government has no real desire to find out who ordered and paid for the assassination. Too afraid of inconvenient truths. Just like nothing is done to address the corruption, fraud and criminality that Daphne exposed in the first place. It’s very concerning. Yes, indeed, this is not about party politics, but listening to this debate and looking at the speakers list, I have to wonder. The S&D has five speaking slots in this debate. Four of them are filled by Maltese MEPs. That’s the whole Maltese delegation. Is there really nobody else apart from Thijs Reuten, who did so very eloquently, who is concerned about this, who is committed to this? Is there nobody else who wants to join his call for justice for the family of Daphne? The rule of law cannot be a partisan issue. We need to show up together. We need to work together and we need to fight together.

Madam President, the EU has long been toothless in the fight to protect the rule of law in certain Member States. National leaders refuse to hold each other to account. And the other Article 7 procedures initiated by the Commission and Parliament failed to deliver real results. So last year, January was truly a historic moment. Finally some teeth; finally an instrument that makes an impact, both because the language of money apparently is the only language truly understood in Warsaw and Budapest, but also because the European Council can no longer hide behind one or two Member States. So we welcome these proposed measures as a real step in the right direction, even though we would have expected even stricter demands. We have known Mr Orbán for a long time now, and his past performance does nothing to reassure us about the future. There is a real risk of Hungary ticking the boxes as a paper reality only without really addressing the deficiencies. And this is why we insist on robust verification and monitoring. Only significant, tangible and lasting progress in rebuilding democratic and anti-corruption safeguards should enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Declarations, working groups, frameworks: they all sound nice, but they are not sufficient and risk being empty shelves. The Council cannot afford to buy another peacock dance of Mr Orbán. So two concrete questions to Commissioner Hahn. First, why are the agricultural funds not part of this ongoing process? And secondly, how does the Commission intend to proceed in the case of other countries, in particular Poland?

Mr President, dear colleagues, six months ago Bulgarian opposition leader and former Prime Minister Boyko Borisov was arrested, house searched and detained for 24 hours – an opposition leader arrested upon the explicit request of the ruling Prime Minister, Mr Petkov, without the involvement of a single judge or prosecutor or any kind of due process. It’s a scandal. And it’s a scandal that it is now confirmed by the court in Sofia, which has ruled that the arrest of the former prime minister was factually unfounded, incompatible with the purpose of the law, and it did not meet the standards of lawfulness. In short, it was illegal. The independent judiciary in Bulgaria has done its work where the government failed spectacularly to uphold the rule of law and democracy. But it’s not only the Bulgarian Government that has failed. Where were the self-proclaimed rule of law defendants in this House in the past six months? Socialists, Liberals, Greens, the Left – nothing but silence. Which, let's be honest, is not exactly your default setting. Is this your idea of the rule of law – that only the people you politically sympathise with are worthy of its protection? The hypocrisy is truly staggering. Where was the Commission? Commissioner Reynders, Commissioner Jourová were always so outspoken on the rule of law, you have been hiding behind national competences and ongoing investigations in Bulgaria. And I’ve listened very carefully to your words, and I can’t help but wondering whether you’re sure you’re at the right debate. I mean, look at the title: illegal detention of the opposition leader in Bulgaria. And in the whole speech, you fail to even mention those words. (Applause) Thank you for proving the point about never being silent, Ms Daly. The investigations you were hiding behind are concluded, and the result is crystal clear. The house search and the detention were illegal. And are you serious telling us here today that the Commission does not care about the illegal detention of an opposition leader in Europe? You should be publicly condemning this and I’m asking you concretely to still do so when you come back to this platform.

Madam President, in June of this year, 70 000 people applied for asylum in the EU. It was the highest level recorded in a single month since 2016. Overall, asylum applications are up 68% compared to last year. Of course, we need to ensure that all migrants are treated humanely. This is what our European fundamental values are about. But at the same time, it is not hard to imagine that these numbers pose significant challenges to the capacity of the Member States in terms of reception facilities and procedures. And in the absence of a working European system, Member States will find it increasingly hard to predict, prepare for and manage migration flows. We need to get in control. If migration will forever remain something that simply happens to us, something that we have no influence whatsoever over, then we will see public support for our policies deteriorate even further. Because, yes, there is public support – I am convinced of that – in the whole of Europe, for welcoming and protecting people fleeing war and persecution. But that support is conditional on the expectation that we get our act together. We need a real European policy that allows us to defend our borders and our values at the same time – to screen the people that arrive and quickly distinguish between those in need of international protection and those who are not. Because two-thirds of asylum seekers are not in need of protection. Hundreds of thousands of people that have no right to stay in Europe but do so anyway; they need to be effectively returned so our resources can go to those in real need. We need to manage migration inside the EU on the basis of solidarity, like we agreed in the Treaties. And we need to cooperate much better with countries of origin and transit to tackle this common challenge and to fight harder against criminal gangs and human traffickers. The resilience of our asylum system depends on the successful adoption of an effective, predictable European system. The EPP welcomes the joint roadmap, which was already referred to as a significant step, and we call on everyone to help realise the progress we so urgently need. We are ready to do our part.

Mr President, it is not our first debate on spyware in Europe, and it probably will not be our last. We were absolutely right earlier this year to set up our committee of inquiry into this matter, because it goes without saying that illegal surveillance of members communications is unacceptable. As we have also said from the beginning, this is not about a particular Member State or a particular technology. It is about all Member States and all technologies. We have to investigate the full width and depth of the situation in Europe, and that’s what we are doing. So far, we have held 11 hearings, we heard from 43 persons from Commissioners to tech companies, from victims to academics, from cybersecurity experts to human rights defenders. We travelled to Israel, we will travel to Poland next week and we sent detailed questions to all Member States and it would be nice also if we can get an update – because I know these questions have been discussed in Council – on where we are with the answers to those questions. Parliament is doing its job, the PEGA Committee is doing its job and we should also let it do its job. As much as I understand the political appeal of debating specific cases in plenary, I really think the focus should be on our common work in the committee. We had an interesting hearing on Greece last Thursday with victims, journalists and representatives of the government. We will meet with even more people when we travel to Greece later this year and the Greek authorities have been cooperating with our committee, which is a whole lot more than can be said of many other Member States. We need to investigate before we draw conclusions and there is plenty of work still to do and we must continue our work in a thorough but also an objective manner.

Mr President, Europe is a rapidly aging continent: our working population is shrinking and will continue to shrink in the foreseeable future. And we already see today all over Europe that employers are faced with significant labour shortages. So it’s good that also at the European level, we look for innovative ways to increase the attractiveness of our Union to talent from third countries. And, yes, it could also help us creating effective partnerships with third countries on the external dimension of migration. And this is crucial, as we all know, in our wider efforts on the Pact of Migration. There are two principles that should be leading, in my opinion. First, that it is, and it should remain the sole competence of the individual Member State to decide on labour migration from third countries, taking into consideration the very specific circumstances of the different national labour markets. And at the European level we need to make sure that there are no loopholes to circumvent this principle. And I am particularly concerned about intra—EU posting of third country nationals in this regard. Second principle: focusing on attracting talents from third countries must never come at the expense of our efforts to activate our own citizens that are currently not in employment. Labour migration can be a part of the solution, but it can never be the only solution. Not when 14% of our European youth is still facing unemployment, not when people are over the age of 55 that want to work still have huge difficulties to find employment, not with the current labour shortages and not when we stumble at the moment, as in my country, from one scandal to the next, when it comes to housing or working conditions for labour migrants that are already in the EU. Yes, employers are in need of workers, and we need to help them. But they also need to make an effort themselves to go the extra mile to employ people that want to work but need a little bit of help. In a social market economy, we can’t only always focus on the quickest, the easiest or the cheapest solution; we need a long—term solution that puts human dignity in the centre.

Mr President, we cannot, and will not, allow our common values to be put at risk; the Commission will act. These were your words, Madam President, in this House in October last year during the debate on Poland. Those words were accompanied by clear demands, and you mentioned them today as well: the dismantling of the disciplinary chamber, ending the disciplinary regime for Polish judges and the reinstatement of dismissed judges. Now, more than six months have passed since our debate in October. Plenty of time for the Polish Government to show genuine commitment and implement the ECJ rulings; plenty of time to meet minimum standards as all Member States of the EU must. However, sadly, six months later, none of this has happened. Despite this, the Polish RRF plan has now officially been approved and this has simply been the wrong sequence. As much as there is something to say for jointly agreed milestones with strict deadlines, these conditions should have been fulfilled before the endorsement of the plan for Poland, which would have also given the Commission more time to evaluate the actual implementation of these commitments in practice. Fundamental values and the rule of law, much like ECJ rulings, cannot be the subject of negotiations. And we therefore expect a clear commitment today from the Commission that you will indeed act, that not a single euro will be transferred to the Polish Government until there is a genuine, complete and irreversible implementation of the milestones, execution of the ECJ rulings and full respect for the primacy of EU law. Nothing less will do.

Mr President, we have all witnessed the atrocities committed by the Russian armed forces against innocent Ukrainian men, women and children. These images speak for themselves, even when there are simply no words to describe the horror they depict. There can be no impunity for war crimes in Ukraine. The perpetrators must be held to account. For that we need evidence; evidence that is collected on the ground in Ukraine as we speak. And we need to make sure that this evidence is safely stored – something that is obviously not possible on the ground in Ukraine at the moment as the war is still ongoing. Therefore, we fully support the Commission’s proposal to give Europol, or Eurojust, a crucial role in the collection, preservation and the sharing of such evidence. We need this, and we need this fast. We cannot risk losing valuable evidence, and this is why our group will support the text as it stands now. We still believe it would be even better to also include the crime of aggression. But for now, speed is of the essence. So let’s get to work. Let’s make sure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Mr President, when we had a similar debate here about two months ago, I predicted that we had not yet discovered the full depths of the Pegasus spyware scandal and I think the revelations of recent weeks have certainly proven the point. It has also proven that it was a very good decision of this Parliament to set up a committee of inquiry and get to the bottom of this, because that is exactly what we should do now: get to work and leave no stone unturned. I am happy to report that the committee started two weeks ago and that we will have a full and ambitious agenda for the next 11 and a half months, because we cannot over-emphasise the severity of the scandal when this kind of spyware is used against innocent citizens – whether they’re journalists, activists, lawyers, businessmen or politicians. And regardless of where in the European Union, or even beyond, this happens, it’s first and foremost, of course, a horrible experience for the victims themselves, but it’s also a wider threat to the overall rule of law and democracy in Europe. And this is why it’s so important that the Parliament takes this very seriously. It’s also why I’m disappointed in the approach of the European Commission – refusing to investigate Pegasus spyware abuse in the Member States, hiding behind national security arguments. Because this scandal is not about using Pegasus to prevent terrorism or serious crime, but about using it to spy on innocent citizens; and that is not national security, that is about the rule of law, and the European Commission has a responsibility and it must take it. I mean, it was even reported that Commissioner Reynders was the target of such spyware himself. So unless the Commission believes that Mr Reynders is a national security risk, I am sure that this is a common responsibility that we need to address together. In any case, this Parliament will take its responsibility for fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law in the European Union. We are at the very beginning of our work, so it’s too early to draw any concrete conclusions yet, but it’s certainly not the last you’ve heard of us.

Madam President, it’s fair to say that this year’s ECA discharge was quite eventful. At the end of this procedure, I would like to draw two main conclusions. First, that the Court has spent its budget in full compliance with the applicable rules, as was also confirmed by independent external auditors. Secondly, that some of these rules are in need of an update to improve the functioning of the Court and to avoid any potential issues in the future. The Court, to its credit, has shown great commitment in cooperating with Parliament on such recommendations and has already proactively implemented the bulk of them. However, these two objective conclusions are hardly reflected in the discharge resolution or the proposed decision to postpone. This is worrying because discharges should be about fact-based assessments and not about political considerations. We should lead by example and avoid suggestive statements that even contradict the opinions of our own Legal Service. So I count on your support, colleagues, for the factual corrections that I have tabled to the resolution and to support the granting of discharge to the European Court of Auditors.

Mr President, Europeans rightly expect a high level of security in the European Union, and this is why a strong Europol has always been and will always be a key priority for our group. And this is also why this new mandate is such a good thing, because the threats of today and tomorrow are not the same as those of yesterday, and so must be our response. Crime is becoming ever more digital, and we need to ensure that law enforcement can rely on the right tools to take on these criminals. The mandate that we are voting on tomorrow does exactly that. First, through direct cooperation with private parties, by being able to receive data from them directly, the agency can tap into an important source of relevant information, and it can make sure that that information gets to the right authority in the right Member State. Law enforcement in the EU as a whole will be better equipped to fight sexual abuse, terrorism and serious crime. Second, through its improved capacity to process large and complex data sets, Europol was already the expert in this field and will become even more so. And thirdly, through research and innovation, Europol is perfectly placed to monitor emerging technologies and to develop ways of using them to keep our citizens better protected. These very important steps amend the central role of Europol in the European security architecture, and it does so in a very European way by also matching it with increased safeguards. So the only thing I would like to add is to add my congratulations to rapporteur Zarzalejos for this excellent work.

Madam President, before I go into the content of my contribution here today, I do have to say that I find it disappointing that we are having this debate today only with Commissioner Reynders. This is nothing personal against Commissioner Reynders obviously, but the fact that we’re talking about the ongoing Article 7 procedures and there is an empty chair on my left, even though we all know that the main challenge, when it comes to Article 7 procedures, lies with the Council – it is very disappointing that the Council is not present here today for this debate. In the plenary session in March or April, we already discussed the ongoing procedures for Hungary and Poland in detail and the lack of any progress when it comes to protection of the rule of law. So today it is also good to look at the procedural issues that we have in this European Union. For the EPP, the European Union is, first and foremost, a community of values. A shared commitment to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights is the glue that holds our Union together. We can make all the progress we want on the internal market, on trade policy, in any other policy field, whatever we want, but, without a joint commitment to our founding values, none of that progress will ever be sustainable for the future. Because how can we create a single area of freedom, justice and security if we cannot rely on the impartiality and independence of judges in all Member States? How can we expect to have a level playing field for our SMEs if we cannot rely on the fact that Member States will actually follow the rules that we have set together? And how can we count on the democratic legitimacy of the decision—making process when national elections are marred by the absence of a level playing field? When the rule of law is undermined in one Member State, it affects the whole of the European Union. This is precisely why we have always been very strict with countries that want to join the European Union. The rule of law and the Copenhagen criteria are the main focal points of the whole accession procedure and for good reasons. But, when we look back, it’s also fair to say that, as soon as an accession treaty is signed, that scrutiny seems to somehow disappear. This is a situation that we can no longer accept. The rule of law is so important and so crucial that it requires a constant and full commitment from all European institutions. It’s not that no progress has been made. The annual rule of law reporting that the Commissioner referred to is a very welcome and important step because it also shows that the rule of law and the debates we have here in this Parliament are not directed towards only one or two countries, but it’s something that all Member States need to work on. But, even more importantly, with the conditionality mechanism, we took the historic step of linking values to the European budget, making sure that European taxpayers’ money is not used to further undermine and weaken the rule of law and democracy, but instead to strengthen it. We welcome the Commission’s decision to send a formal notification to Hungary, and we look forward to seeing the concrete follow—up. We call on the Council, in that context, to show full political commitment to bringing this procedure to a successful conclusion without delay. As much as the annual rule of law report and the conditionality mechanisms are necessary and welcome supplements to the Article 7 procedure, just as with the Article 7 procedure, without real political commitment in the Council, added value will always remain limited. For a long time, it seemed that, in the Council, the rule of law was, like Voldemort in Harry Potter, something that should not be mentioned by name. Even though we now see Article 7 hearings resume in the Council – and we welcome this resumption under the French Presidency – actions speak much louder than words, and it’s actions that we need. We need concrete recommendations with strict deadlines. EU leaders cannot just talk about the rule of law every now and again and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done, tick off the box on the to-do list and continue work as usual. We need concrete recommendations. If nothing concrete comes out of these hearings, there is little point in having them at all. So concrete recommendations with strict deadlines and, if these deadlines are not met, we need to look at all the other possibilities that the Article 7 procedures offer us. We cannot allow our common values to be put at risk. This is also our main call to the Council in the resolution we will adopt this week: show genuine commitment in defending our founding values and make real and meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7 procedures. I know there are people who argue that, with the terrible war in Ukraine ongoing, now is not the time to focus on rule of law issues at home, and that it would not be fair to bother Member States like Hungary and Poland with procedures or conditionality at a time when the Polish and Hungarian people are making such great efforts to welcome Ukrainian refugees. But let me be absolutely clear and repeat what I said last week. Yes, we need solidarity in the EU. We need to help the Member States most affected in hosting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. This is why we are together in one union. But let me also be clear: helping Member States deal with an unprecedented crisis should not come at the expense of being silent about rule of law issues at home. It would be cynical, while Ukrainians are fighting – are dying – for freedom, democracy and the rule of law, to turn a blind eye to the attack of those very same values at home. If anything, Putin’s Russia should be a stark warning to all of us about the dangers of a system where checks and balances, democracy and the rule of law have ceased to exist. It should embolden us to fight for those values even more passionately at home.

Madam President, now, Poland is not Hungary, and Hungary is not Poland, and both countries merit very much their own assessment and individual evaluation. On Hungary, we welcome the announcement yesterday that a notification has been sent under the Rule of Law Conditionality. It’s an important step, and it means the Commission is now convinced there is a clear case of rule of law violations that endanger the Union’s financial interest. We look forward to hearing more about the details. Rule of Law Conditionality is a crucial tool in our toolbox, and it should be used effectively. Also in Poland, patience is wearing thin. The Polish Government has had every opportunity to fulfil the requirements set out by President von der Leyen and Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) judgments – dismantling the disciplinary chamber, ending the disciplinary regime for Polish judges and reinstalling judges that have been unlawfully dismissed. We have seen little progress, despite Prime Minister Morawiecki’s promises from last autumn. In the absence of such progress, the European Commission must stand firm. I know there are people who argue that, with the terrible war ongoing in Ukraine, now is not the time to focus on rule of law issues, it would not be fair to bother Member States like Hungary and Poland with these issues, with procedures, with conditionality, at a time when the Polish and Hungarian people are making such great efforts to welcome Ukrainian refugees. Let me be absolutely clear: we need solidarity in the EU; we need to help the Member States most affected by this crisis, and we equally share the responsibility to take care of millions of Ukrainian refugees. This is why we are together in one Union. But let me be equally clear: helping Member States deal with an unprecedented crisis should never come at the cost of being silent about rule of law issues at home, simply because that would be cynical. At a moment when Ukrainians are fighting and dying for values like freedom, rule of law and democracy, it would be cynical to turn a blind eye to the attack on those very same values at home. If anything, Putin’s Russia should be a stark warning to all of us about the dangers of a system where checks and balances, democracy and rule of law have ceased to exist.

Mr President, millions of people have fled Ukraine, fleeing from Putin's bombs and war crimes. We have seen in recent days – in Bucha – where these people have fled and what the terrible fate is for those who have been left behind. Those images will remain burned on our retinas forever. 90% of refugees are women and children, children who must first and foremost be able to be children, who must be able to play freely and go to school, and who must be able to carry out mischief free from worries about war and violence. We've said it here before: It is heartwarming to see how organisations, volunteers and communities across Europe are ready for these refugees, how young children share their hugs and toys with Ukrainian peers, how empty prams are ready at stations for fleeing mothers with small children and how schools are doing everything they can to provide a warm environment for fleeing children. I am proud of the solidarity and mercy that Europe shows unitedly these days. But action is needed to hold on to that, because the challenge is big and will only get bigger. We must ensure that responsibility for the reception of refugees is taken up throughout Europe, that the released budgets are quickly and efficiently put in the right place, that children have access to healthcare, psychosocial assistance and education. We must protect vulnerable refugees from abuse and exploitation by criminal traffickers, who are always lurking to cynically benefit from the misery of others. Safe and protected places at the border where initial reception and information is possible, where extra attention is paid to the most vulnerable refugees and a good registration of refugees, so that no one is lost. While we bring our children warm and well dressed and well fed to school, Ukrainian mothers write emergency information on the backs of their children in case the parents would not survive. It simply cannot be described with words, so let's do everything in our power to ensure that these children can be just children again.

Madam President, this is a debate I never imagined having in my lifetime. A horrific war is ongoing on our continent, and thanks to the courageous work of many journalists we can see what is happening and the images are heart-breaking. We see death, destruction, families ripped apart, children running away from missiles and tanks instead of running behind a football, grandparents fleeing, in some cases again with whatever belongings they could take. Unimaginable suffering and already over two million refugees have crossed into neighbouring countries, and more will follow. This is more than the total population of some of our Member States. Two million individual stories of separation, loss and pain. And when talking about refugees, we often speak about reception and protection in the region. Well, this is our region. This is our continent and it’s our duty to step up. And Europe is stepping up, and it’s heart-warming to see the warm welcome provided all over Europe. The outpouring of solidarity in support of refugees, so many volunteers becoming active, so many donations being made, so many accommodation offers, and particularly in countries bordering Ukraine, like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, it is really impressive to see all the efforts by citizens and communities to take care of refugees, and we must help them not only in the short term, but structurally. We need to be prepared for any scenario. We called on the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, and it’s a strong signal that the Commission and the Council acted so quickly. It’s a strong signal that Europe is united and that we stand with all Ukrainians, because it’s an extraordinary moment and it calls for extraordinary measures, and our agencies should be deployed in the border to help in any way they can. And indeed, we should find the flexibility in our funding to help these Member States take care of so many refugees. And you can count on the EPP to do whatever is necessary. In the face of Putin’s brutality, Europe must continue to show humanity.

Mr President, for many, many years, we have been warning the Commission and the Member States about the risks and dangers of golden passports. We’ve been sharing our concerns about security, money laundering, tax evasion, corruption and organised crime in connection with these schemes, even arguing why EU citizenship should never be for sale, as it goes against the very values of the European Union and even has the potential to undermine those values. But for many, many years, our warnings have fallen on deaf ears. And now, with Russia invading Ukraine and starting a horrific war on our continent, it seems that Member States – apart from Malta obviously – have finally woken up and realised that it might not be the best idea to offer a backdoor into Europe for each and every individual with loaded pockets, and God knows what intentions, especially given the fact that 50% of these passports end up in Russian hands. Both Commissioners today said it’s time to act. I say, better late than never, because those words need to be put into action now and not only temporarily or for the short term, we need a long-term solution. In that regard, the call of Roberta Metsola, our President, directly on the leaders of Europe to close these loopholes and end the dangerous phenomenon of golden passports was very important. We must ban the sale of EU passports and stop the flow of dirty Russian money into the European Union. As we are facing Putin’s aggression, we must take decisive action at the European level. The legislative initiative we’re discussing today is the best long-term possibility to eradicate golden passports and to ensure that any residence for money scheme in the EU goes hand-in-hand with watertight security checks and thorough vetting of high risk individuals. Let us be absolutely clear: the so-called Russian elite with links to the Kremlin and dubious self-serving investments cannot be welcome in the EU.

Madam President, today’s court ruling is a victory for all Europeans that care about the rule of law, and I am grateful that the ECJ explicitly mentioned solidarity and the rule of law as values that define the very identity of the European Union. If you don’t comply with these values, you cannot expect to simply continue to enjoy all the rights and benefits that come with EU membership. The EU must be able to defend those values, but being able to defend them is only the start. If you are not going to use the instruments at your disposal, the ability itself is useless. So our call to the Commission is very clear today: use the regulation, defend the rule of law and do it without delay. At the same time, let’s not forget what the purpose of this regulation is: not to initiate interinstitutional quarrels between Parliament and the Commission, but to join forces in the defence of our fundamental European values. Today showed again how important that is. Let’s take the Hungarian response by Minister Varga accusing the court of political decision-making and using the rule of law as a façade just because she didn’t like the result. Straight from the autocrat’s playbook: you yourself bring a very poorly argued case before the court, if the court rules in your favour, you shout victory; if they rule against you, you question immediately the legitimacy of the court that you found legitimate enough in the first place to bring a case. And this constant undermining of the rule of law and of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, both in words and actions, requires an effective response. Theodore Roosevelt once said: ‘In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing’. So I am glad President von der Leyen today announced that the Commission will act with determination. We expect to see that determination without delay.

Madam President, if anything became clear in these past weeks, it is that we have yet to discover the full depths of this Pegasus spyware scandal, so it’s very good and important that we have this debate here today. There are three points that I would like to make. First, that we cannot overemphasise the severity of this scandal. I think it’s important for all of us to put ourselves in the place of the victim, to try and imagine that every message you send to your loved ones is being read by the government, that every video you watch on your phone is being watched with you, that people who do not have your best interests at heart know your exact whereabouts at any given moment. This should already immensely scare you. It does scare me, but my fear is nothing compared with the fear of journalists scrutinising not-so-democratic governments, of opposition politicians, activists, NGOs, lawyers, all those who are considered an inconvenience by the powers that be in their countries. That is why it is important that this European Parliament will always stand behind and fight alongside the victims of these attacks, and that we do so with strength and vigour. Because the effects of such attacks are wider than the direct victims. It has a chilling effect on anybody that wants to speak out, scrutinise governments and defend democracy and rule of law and that once enjoyed the democratic freedom of fighting an election in a free and fair manner. It directly undermines democracy and the rule of law, and it cannot go unchallenged. And this is why the inquiry committee that will be set up in this House is a very timely and important step. Second point that I’d like to make is that this is not about national security; it is about rule of law. It is not about whether countries are allowed or not to use technology to fight organised crime and terrorism – because technological innovation can and must play an important role in keeping us all safe. We already see that criminals and terrorists deploy increasingly advanced technology, and law enforcement needs to be able to fight them at least on a level playing field. But that, once again, is not what this is about. This is about the abuse of technology for political gain and about the complete absence of proper checks and balances. Thirdly, this is not only a Polish or a Hungarian issue, it is a European issue and in fact, it’s a global issue. And we had a very interesting hearing from the EPP Group last week with experts and victims of the Pegasus scandal. What struck me most was a comment by a Polish lawyer, Roman Giertych, himself a victim of the Polish government’s abuse of Pegasus, and he said that this was not about the victims. The victims, in his words, are the canary in the coalmine. They are the first symptom. They are the warning of a much wider problem. They are an alarm that rings loudly for everyone to hear, and the EU must now show that we have heard this alarm. We must act upon the warning we have received and defend democracy and the rule of law whenever and wherever necessary.

Madam President, in recent months, the EU has been confronted with an unprecedented situation at our external border, confronted with a hybrid attack from a wicked dictator instrumentalising migrants in an attempt to blackmail our European Union. Even though his actions are directed against the whole of the European Union, the consequences are most severely felt in our Member States at the eastern border. They have been confronted with an exceptionally high influx of migrants, with enormous pressure on their border management organisation and a heavy burden on the capacity of their asylum systems. Yes, this is an emergency situation, and it is important that those countries do not stand alone in the face of this emergency. Europe needs to show solidarity, and we have. Emergency, financial and operational support has been delivered swiftly and effectively, thanks to the diplomatic Team Europe efforts of Vice-President Schinas with countries of departure, we managed to prevent more migrants from falling victim to Lukashenko, and we showed the Belarusian regime that attempts to divide and destabilise Europe will fail, that we will not be blackmailed into recognising an illegal regime and that, in contrast, the only thing he can expect from Europe is tough and new sanctions until he stops repressing his own people. Our response has been timely and effective, but more is needed. The unprecedented nature of this hybrid attack calls for extraordinary measures, and our legislation was simply not designed to deal with situations where our integrity and our security is under attack as a result of the instrumentalisation of migrants. And while the proposals on the Pact and the Schengen Borders Code offer the opportunity to legislate for emergency situations in the future, we cannot wait for their adoption to respond to a crisis that is happening now. So, yes, let us use Article 78(3) of the Treaty. Let us use this article that was put in the Treaty for this very specific purpose. It is there to allow us to help Member States when they need help and if the project of Europe is about one thing, it is about helping each other when it is needed. So let us put that into practice right now.

Mr President, to be honest I wasn’t sure about the necessity of this debate on the late nomination of the EPPO prosecutors today, but I have to admit, the colleagues who insisted on it do have impeccable timing, because this morning the two Slovenian prosecutors were indeed appointed by the College of the EPPO and the EPPO is now finally fully operational. So this debate comes at the right moment to send our congratulations to these prosecutors, to the EPPO, and to the Slovenian Government for doing the necessary, for doing exactly what this House has always called for. Just like this Parliament has always called on the Slovenian Government to ensure the proper functioning of the Slovenian press agency, which in the meantime has also signed a new contract securing normal funding, and we count on all parties to solve any outstanding issues for the future. These two issues have featured prominently in our debates on Slovenia and I’m happy today that we can at least establish that both issues are addressed. That leaves us with the wider debate on the rule of law. This is a crucial debate because without rule of law, ultimately, democracy ceases to exist and it is up to all of us, whether at the European or the national level, to wherever and whenever it is under attack, defend the rule of law in a fair, objective and indiscriminate way. Because when we stop being objective about the rule of law and we start using it for political purposes, we ourselves contribute to the erosion of it. Looking at the recent developments also in this House, there is also reason for concern. Reports were leaked to the Slovenian press before shared with Members. The Office of the Slovenian Opposition Leader edits reports of missions that she didn’t participate in. Is that really the way we want to work on the rule of law? Sometimes a good look in the mirror is necessary so what we ask of the Slovenian Government in order to further improve the rule of law situation in the country based on the recommendations also by the Commission, is what we should ask of ourselves as well.

Mr President, what’s happening at our eastern borders is not just a migration crisis, it is hybrid warfare from a wicked dictator in Minsk, and it demands a determined European response. And we’ve seen that determination in the past weeks, with Vice-President Schinas building partnerships with third countries to make sure their airports are no longer exploited by smugglers colluding with the Belarusian regime. And these partnerships are crucial to stop the weaponization of human suffering by Lukashenko. And we’d like to congratulate you, Vice-President, on the impressive results so far, because thanks to these efforts, ultimately less migrants will end up in the cold, the mud and the despair of the Belarusian border. Less people will fall victim to the abuse of Lukashenko, and less people will die. This is an important result, but we can’t stop there. We need to keep showing Lukashenko that his attempts to divide and to destabilise Europe will fail, that we will not be blackmailed into recognising his illegal regime, and that in contrast, the only thing he can expect from Europe is new and tough sanctions until he stops repressing his own people.

Mr President, thank you Commissioner. Next month we will be celebrating the fifth anniversary of the Commission’s proposal for the revision of social security coordination. It is not exactly a reason to pop the champagne, however, because after five years we still haven’t found an agreement on the topic. So luckily, the work on this oral question and the resolution went a lot faster, which shows, I think, the great unity, at least, there is in this House to work on the issue of social security coordination and to see also the added value of digital tools and solutions in the field of that coordination, because it simply makes a lot of sense. Digitalised procedures will improve enforcement, combat abuse and fraud and make cross-border operations easier and less burdensome for workers and employers. We want to facilitate free movement in a fair European labour market, and in that light I welcome the Commission’s pilot project on an ESSP. It’s an innovative idea that needs to be looked at carefully and has great potential, but especially for those colleagues in this House who already want to be more ambitious compared to the Commission, it’s something that we really need to look at carefully. The technical feasibility and the costs are one aspect, but we also need to look at the wider data protection implications, the principle of non-discrimination, proportionality and the legal EU framework for all this. So the pilot project, together with the targeted impact assessment on the ESSN that the Commission finally made public today, is very important, and I really echo what the Commissioner said: we really need more Member States to join the pilot project. The more Member States join, the more representative it becomes, the better it will help us to feed this into a well-designed legislative proposal, which is really necessary.

Madam President, what we are witnessing at the eastern borders of the European Union is not only a humanitarian or a migration crisis; it is hybrid warfare, unleashed by a cynical dictator because the EU will rightfully not recognise his unelected regime. We can never give in to this kind of blackmail. We need to make it very clear to Lukashenko that he will never be the one to decide who enters the European Union. We managed to show this to Mr Erdoğan before. We must now do the same. We must listen to the needs of the Member States at the border. This is an unprecedented crisis and it requires extraordinary measures, and all options must be on the table. The political choice of the European Commission to categorically refuse to consider financing physical border infrastructure is naive. It is does not reflect the gravity of the situation and it should be reconsidered. But that alone will not do. We need to talk to the countries of departure of these migrants. We need to talk to the airlines transporting them, and we need to talk to the social media platforms advertising and recruiting for Lukashenko’s travel agency. We must use all instruments at our disposal to make them take their responsibility. Last but certainly not least, we have to make sure that those vulnerable people stuck at the border receive the help that they need. These are also victims, and with the winter conditions worsening, human tragedies should be avoided at all costs. We need as the EU to defend our borders, but we also need to defend our values.