Speeches

Madam President, With ever new measures, Orbán discriminates against or oppresses people in Hungary. At the same time, discrimination, hate speech and violence based on sex, sexual orientation, colour, religion, disability, age and poverty are on the rise across the EU. The fact that Ms von der Leyen wants to withdraw the Equal Treatment Directive right now is an attack on the fundamental rights of all people. Now she says she needs a ‘clear signal’ from the Council or Parliament to reconsider this withdrawal and hoped it would not happen. However, with the majority decision of the two responsible committees, there is this signal. Same with the letter from the Conference of Committee Chairs. And also in the Council – contradiction by a majority of Member States. So when the Commission claims that it did not receive a signal, it deliberately turns a deaf ear and falls into the backs of those who urgently need this directive. In doing so, the Commission is harming our democracy and fundamental rights in Europe.

Madam President, With ever new measures, Orbán discriminates against or oppresses people in Hungary. At the same time, discrimination, hate speech and violence based on sex, sexual orientation, colour, religion, disability, age and poverty are on the rise across the EU. The fact that Ms von der Leyen wants to withdraw the Equal Treatment Directive right now is an attack on the fundamental rights of all people. Now she says she needs a ‘clear signal’ from the Council or Parliament to reconsider this withdrawal and hoped it would not happen. However, with the majority decision of the two responsible committees, there is this signal. Same with the letter from the Conference of Committee Chairs. And also in the Council – contradiction by a majority of Member States. So when the Commission claims that it did not receive a signal, it deliberately turns a deaf ear and falls into the backs of those who urgently need this directive. In doing so, the Commission is harming our democracy and fundamental rights in Europe.

Madam President, An analysis of the rule of law situation in all Member States once a year is an important tool. But at the same time, the results of the 2024 report clearly show that: We need more than one report. The EU institutions – above all the Commission as guardian of the Treaties – must finally use all the means at their disposal to defend democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. We need more and much faster infringement procedures. The disbursement of funds must be much more closely linked to compliance with our values, through the conditionality mechanism and the MFF, and the horizontal equality directive must not be withdrawn. Example Hungary, in recent months alone: The Orbán regime has pushed laws through parliament that further restrict freedom of assembly, including by abusing facial recognition technologies targeting LGBTIQ+ people. The constitution was changed to put alleged child protection above other fundamental rights, and transgender people were de facto denied their identity. A new transparency law threatens to completely eliminate the remaining Hungarian civil society. Far too often I have had to ask this one question in plenary: What else has to happen? Therefore, once again: For me it is clear – the report is an important basis, but we need more concrete activities.

Madam President, 40 years of the Schengen Agreement – how did it come about and why is it still important today? After centuries of war, after the Second World War, another idea finally prevailed in Europe: talk to each other and yes, also argue with each other in order to find common interests and solutions; This is invaluable, especially in the face of current crises and wars. At the same time, this cooperation was the basis for the greatest achievement of our Union: the Schengen agreement, the abolition of percussion trees and controls at our internal borders. This has not only fueled the rapid exchange of goods and services and brought benefits. It simplifies people's cross-border encounters for work, exchange programs, leisure time, and concretely identifies common interests. We also want to achieve this for the Member States that are working to join the Schengen area, because these meetings and their consequences are an important prerequisite for a strong Europe that represents itself and its values with global self-confidence. But the increasing border controls in Member States are putting the axe to success so far. They are building new barriers and can ultimately destroy our common Europe. These controls do not solve any problems, on the contrary: They are a pretense of a solution based on hatred, exclusion, isolation, they are the end of good neighbourliness in Europe and cost us a lot of trust. Therefore, in view of this 40th anniversary, it is very clear: We must tackle the real challenges, reinvigorate the founding idea of Europe, oppose hatred and exclusion and finally end border controls. That would be the best contribution to the celebration of 40 years of Schengen.

Mr President! The European Court of Justice has clearly ruled: Golden passports are a mere marketing of EU citizenship status and are therefore incompatible with the basic concept of EU citizenship laid down in our Treaties. And I add: Golden passports and golden visas are simply special rights for the rich. All too often they are linked to corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, and they endanger democracy and security in Europe. That is why we have been campaigning for years for the end of the golden passports and for clearer and stricter controls on golden visas across the EU, for example in the new anti-money laundering package. The ECJ ruling now is important, also as a signal to all Member States. The Maltese government has declared that it respects the court ruling. This must be permanent and also apply to similar systems throughout the EU.

Mr President! In 2020, the Commission presented its last Internal Security Strategy. At that time, we were still at the very beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, the Russian war of aggression on the entire Ukraine seemed unthinkable, the extent of hybrid threats, targeted misinformation and manipulation was hardly conceivable, the destruction of democracy as a result of Donald Trump's second term was at best evil utopia. Much has happened and the new internal security strategy is therefore coming at an important time. Rarely has people's need for security been so strong, uncertainty so comprehensive, amplified by social exclusion and financial insecurity. And yet: We must not let ourselves be driven by fear, uncertainty and seemingly simple ideas, because they do not help, quite the contrary. We had to learn this when, around 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rightly invalidated the Data Retention Directive at the time. Now we need to create sustainable, fundamental rights-compliant solutions, and to do so, we need to track down the actual security gaps and rationally analyse challenges. These include the fight against increasingly professional organised crime as well as protection against attacks on sensitive infrastructure, protection against natural and environmental disasters, the fight against extremism and terrorism. Even if some people don't like to hear it: In Germany, most politically motivated crimes were committed on the right-wing spectrum in 2023. Also important: the protection against hate crimes and hate violence, the protection of women from femicide, the protection of democracy and the rule of law. All of this must be aimed at a strategy for internal security, because only in this way can we sustainably strengthen people's trust and sense of security.

Madam President, The return of people to their countries of origin is part of a functioning asylum system and here we need to become more effective – I agree with Commissioner Brunner. However, in view of the proposal presented today, this may seem to me to be the only point on which we agree: Restrictions on legal remedies, in part possibly contrary to our fundamental rights, the massive extension of detentions to two years, including for unaccompanied minors, and the possibility of setting up deportation centres in third countries without clearing what should happen to the people there and what minimum standards apply there, not to mention controls. And despite the far-reaching impact on fundamental rights, the Commission has once again failed to analyse the possible impact of its proposal – there is again no impact assessment. All this fits seamlessly into the Commission's narrative under Ms von der Leyen that migrants are potentially a threat. I reject this narrative. And Mr Brunner, we will have to incorporate some improvements to your proposal to make it work.

Madam President, Anyone who is persecuted in their home country has a legal right to asylum in Europe and is therefore not illegal upon arrival in Europe. And I'm tired of listening again and again, people use smugglers to come to Europe. As if this was a free decision in the morning: "Oh yes, I don't buy a ticket, I use the smuggler to come to Europe. I love being beaten up, persecuted, blackmailed and raped." It's not like that! But people are not only made false promises, but the safe way to Europe for vulnerable people is increasingly made impossible by pushbacks, rejections, border closures and much more. And therefore: Yes, safe escape routes are a way to deprive criminal smugglers, brutal traffickers of business. And we should consider the many possibilities of ResettlementTake advantage of programmes of family reunification and safe arrival in Europe and do not limit ourselves to criminal law alone.

Madam President, Digital platforms, protecting democracy – this is where we see a dangerous alliance: the return of imperialists on the one hand and tech oligarchs on the other, who together want to ruthlessly increase their profit, their power. But how free, open and diverse can a society be when people are unilaterally overwhelmed with opinions or fake news, while others are increasingly confronted with discrimination, hatred or even threats of violence? So-called echo chambers avoid the diversity of perspectives, solidify existing prejudices, which are often scattered unreflected with sometimes fatal consequences, especially for young people. The platforms accept that this constant chase for likes, after recognition by other psychological stresses amplifies. In addition, permanent tracking and profiling destroys the confidentiality of communications – for less profit. It is time to ban personalised advertising. Conclusion: The Commission must now consistently implement our digital legislation – DSA, GDPR, AI, ePrivacy – and also apply competition law in a targeted manner. We stand for democracy and fair competition, against hatred and exclusion. Those who do not respect this have no place with us.

Madam President, What are the effects of so-called social media? They help us connect with others, find information in an incredibly short time. They create spaces for debate, civic participation and engagement and play an increasingly important role in public discourse and also in elections. Unfortunately, it is not only the recent presidential elections in Romania that have shown how our constant and all too often uncritical use of social media can also be turned against us by individual actors. Unclear or one-sided filtering of information, non-transparent political advertising, coordinated disinformation campaigns, even non-recognition of election results are just a few points. So: Banning social media, excluding it from the EU? Well, first of all, our task is to secure fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of expression, while protecting democratic processes and societies as a whole. To do this, platforms must accept their responsibilities. Those providing services in the EU must comply with applicable EU law and they must be held accountable if they ignore it. The Commission and Member States are called upon to effectively enforce compliance with rules with all the means at their disposal, including beyond data protection; DSA, DMA, and we must always be ready to tackle new challenges proactively. Excluding platforms from the EU market is always an option. But in addition, we need cooperation with stakeholders, civil society, independent watchdogs, in order to maintain confidence in public debates and political and democratic processes. Finally, and ultimately, it is also our responsibility to use social media responsibly, critically questioning so-called information. We need to teach media literacy to everyone, from the youngest to the oldest.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! No one falls in love with the supposedly wrong sex just for fun and risks discrimination and violence. No newborn is born willingly with intersex characteristics. None of these children are sick or in need of therapy. Article 21 of our Charter is very clear: Discrimination on grounds of sex or sexual orientation is prohibited – and yet: Prohibitions on the depiction of supposedly false forms of relationships or gender identities in Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria, hate politics in Italy; More and more violent attacks on LGBTIQ+ people across the EU, more and more hatred and hate speech online, especially on X. The new EU Commission must now take a position on the protection of LGBTIQ+ people, and the Council must finally adopt the Anti-Discrimination Directive and add hate speech and violence to the list of EU crimes.

Madam President, Europol's warning is clear: An increasing number of criminal gangs are targeting minors in order to abuse them for the purpose of carrying out crimes and even to avoid prosecution. What is new is how many countries are strategically using this procedure to recruit minors for increasingly serious crimes, including murder, and what tactics are used to do so, via social media in youth language and with crimes trivialised as a game. It is not new who are usually the victims of this tactic: young people living in poverty, with poorer access to good education and thus fewer opportunities for good work, young people in search of belonging and recognition. We need to focus on these young people. They need recognition and real opportunities to thrive in our society, regardless of their social, financial or other background, free from discrimination.

Madam President, Since February 2022, Russia has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine. As the EU, we have responded with many sanctions, including a directive on sanctions violations. And there are calls to put Russia on the list of third countries at high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. It's about close financial and military ties with high-risk countries like North Korea and Iran, financing private militias like the Wagner Group, a questionable use of cryptocurrencies, and more. It was not until the end of October that such an attempt failed internationally due to resistance from countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. But we as the EU must not hesitate: Economic relations, transactions and sanctions avoidance undermine our democratic Europe and are unacceptable. By classifying Russia as a high-risk country, we are sending a clear signal.

Madam President, Just over a year ago, a very high turnout in Poland helped Donald Tusk to change power, in particular through the participation of young people and many women. These women went to the ballot box for the end of PiS rule, but also for the election promise to make abortions safe and legally accessible within 100 days. After almost 400 days, almost nothing has changed. Worse: Tusk has dropped the issue for this term of office, and thus an abortion law continues to prevail in Poland. Autonomous decisions about their own bodies are denied to women and left to doctors and prosecutors, mostly males. All this is disrespectful. It incapacitates women, and it forces women to secretly abort while risking their lives. You, Mr Tusk, are responsible for these women's lives and the many disappointed hopes for change. You could still change that.

Madam President, Viktor Orbán has the Presidency of the Council – what a joke! More than six years ago, with Article 7, we called on the Council to identify the risk of a serious breach of EU values in Hungary. Nothing has changed – on the contrary. Among you, Viktor Orbán, Hungary is moving ever further away from democracy and the rule of law. Only last year, with the ‘Sovereignty Defence Act’, you made it possible to spy on government critics. In April, you had your puppet parliament adopt the Omnibus Act and can now influence court decisions in your favour. We don't hear from the Council. Mr. Weber called Article 7 an atomic bomb at the time. But the damage to our community of values is not caused by Article 7, but by its disregard and lack of reactions. It's time: No more EU money for anti-democrats, finally clear edge! And I really hope that Hungary will find its way back to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

Madam President, Open internal borders are one of Europe’s greatest success stories, and the reintroduction of border controls, especially when this happens indefinitely, is a danger – a danger not only for our economy, for jobs, but for European cohesion, for the daily cross-border encounters that strengthen us as the EU. Although a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls is possible in exceptional cases, where necessary, Member States should use other measures, such as border checks or joint police checks, to combat organised crime. In order to protect our freedom of movement and cohesion, the Schengen area – and, incidentally, also at the external borders – does not need border closures and national unilateralism, as has been repeatedly called for recently, but more trust and cooperation among the Member States.

Madam President, It is about Orbán again – but not today for a change, because we are discussing Hungary’s breaches of the rule of law, and not because the European Court of Justice has once again condemned Orbán’s government for its illegal migration policy. No, today we are talking about the fact that Europe's self-declared migrant enemy number one wants to enable and facilitate immigration. Sounds weird? However, Hungary, like many other Member States, appears to be in need of immigration, and even in increasing numbers, which is why legal immigration opportunities have been created for people from different countries. But is it really just about that? Apparently, it is important for Orbán to facilitate legal immigration opportunities for Russian and Belarusian nationals, and 14 such residence permits have been issued since July, according to the Hungarian government. Remarkable is the closeness of time to his unscheduled visit to Moscow right at the beginning of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council – pure coincidence, says his Minister for Europe. In view of this visit, but more so because of Orbán's attitude towards the Russian war of aggression, the question is allowed as to what benefits he hopes to gain from this extension of legal migration routes to Russian and Belarusian people. It must already be exceptional circumstances that it should be necessary, despite the geopolitical situation and without special security checks, to extend the immigration programme to precisely these two nations and thus treat them in the same way as, for example, six EU candidate countries. But in the end: Despite all the criticism of Orbán – Europe must consider how long we still want to watch this going on and what further steps are necessary.

Madam President, When people are brutally torn out of life or seriously injured, we are all shaken and our thoughts are with the victims and their families. But today I am also shocked by how the suffering of the people in Solingen is instrumentalized. Some are discussing border closures, a general rejection of people seeking protection at our borders or the blanket condemnation of people only on the basis of their nationality. All this stirs up fear, it divides our society. Some claims are illegal: They endanger our Schengen area, fuel criminal smugglers and undermine the European cohesion that we urgently need, especially on migration issues. And we need clear rules: ad hoc border controls only if absolutely necessary, the registration and reception of asylum seekers to check their entitlement to asylum in the responsible Member State and also agreements with countries of origin – agreements on the one hand for the withdrawal of their citizens who are obliged to leave our country and on the other hand for targeted simplification and expansion of legal labour migration, not least in view of the labour shortage in many Member States. In order to combat crime and radicalisation, it is also necessary to strengthen cross-border cooperation between the police and the judiciary and also to offer more preventive services and contact points for relatives of radicalising people. And all this also requires measures for integration from the outset in the interplay of all levels and especially with the strengthening of municipalities for sustainable success. It would be good if all democratic forces worked together to shape these challenges instead of using populism to lay the axe to the foundations of our European Union. (The speaker rejected a question about Jacek Ozdoba's "blue card" procedure.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think this debate has shown that the compromise at hand is certainly not an easy one. However, some speeches have also made it very clear why it was so difficult to come up with an appropriate solution in the face of a very complex challenge. Nevertheless: Despite distant starting positions, we managed to reach a comprehensive agreement in just a few months, after eight years. This shows the determination, the commitment of many stakeholders, and it also shows the willingness to take responsibility for such a challenge. And that is why – and despite some justified criticism – today we have the opportunity to finally decide on much-needed common solutions for our handling of flight and migration: Rules for control, responsibility and solidarity. And so, after years of standstill, we can also demonstrate the EU's ability to act on migration issues and ensure that European law is upheld everywhere in Europe by ensuring that the Member States that voted in favour of the reform by qualified majority implement it quickly and on the basis of fundamental rights. And yes, it also means that the Commission is punishing violations by Member States so that systematic human rights violations at our external borders are not only consistently punished, but actually finally eliminated. And I say it again: Our commitment to a solidarity-based migration policy does not end today. Further measures are needed in the next legislature, especially with regard to legal immigration. And we will monitor the implementation and compliance with the law so that this reform becomes a difficult but nevertheless a step in the right direction.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The European migration policy of recent years is unsustainable. We are witnessing systematic violations of human rights at our borders, pushbacks that often go unpunished, and a Dublin system that does not work for Member States or for those seeking protection. Therefore, it is clear: Europe needs effective solutions to migration and asylum, clear rules for control and solidarity based on our values of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including the right to asylum in Europe. The reform of the Common European Asylum System can play a part in this, but it is also just a piece of the puzzle for a comprehensive migration policy. What is currently missing are, among other things, a stronger role for municipalities and civil society, cooperation with countries of origin on an equal footing, without outsourcing our humanitarian responsibilities, and, last but not least, easier and expanded possibilities for legal entry into the EU, also in order to meet the increasing demand of our economy for labour. Only if we also address these challenges will we be able to make migration sustainable and in the interest of all parties involved in the future. There is still a lot of work ahead of us in the coming years. Today, however, we are talking about the present legislative package, which contains proposals, some of which can only be concluded after eight years. The fact that we had to wait so long for a reform because of the blockade of the Member States is shameful. Shameful but also the circumstances in which the negotiations with the Council took place: Instead of a contractually agreed loyal cooperation between the institutions, there was a council that refused to compromise many times, often without clear arguments. We are therefore not voting today on a perfect legislative package – it is not even a very good one – and I will not hide any criticisms: Mandatory border procedures without exception for families, inadmissibility decisions for allegedly safe third countries and instrumentalisation are highly problematic elements whose necessity the Council could not even explain. This needs to be monitored particularly critically during implementation. Also in my report, the screening, we had to make concessions – for example, the screening of people already present in the territory. There are even considerable doubts as to whether the present legal basis permits this measure. Nevertheless, there are also positive elements in the package: screening, such as important safeguards and uniform standards, or a significantly strengthened independent monitoring mechanism for fundamental rights, which will also be extended to border procedures. Moreover, for the first time, solidarity between Member States will become mandatory – an important first step towards shared responsibility – and a resettlement framework will also be introduced. In addition to an individual classification of the various texts, the overall picture is also important for our decision, and this shows: After years of stalemate in the Council, we have finally reached an agreement on asylum reform. This will allow us to ensure that European law is upheld everywhere in Europe and that Member States – with qualified majority consent – also implement it. We also expect the Commission to return to its role as guardian of the Treaties, which it has neglected or ignored for far too long, especially under Commission President von der Leyen. Our commitment to a solidarity-based and progressive migration policy does not end today. Rather, in addition to the missing elements mentioned above, one of our core tasks in the coming legislature will be to monitor that the new law is fully implemented – in all Member States and yes, respecting our fundamental rights, including the right to asylum. Then this reform can also be a step in the right direction.

Mr President! European taxpayers' money for Orbán? It is good that there are finally financial consequences for Orbán's constant disregard for European values. And the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, has a special responsibility. Release of funds frozen due to the violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is absolutely wrong. ‘Respect for the Charter is a horizontal condition’ means: Money is only given to those who respect fundamental rights. However, as long as homophobic laws apply in Hungary or the right to asylum is disregarded, this condition is not met and the Commission's decision is not comprehensible. It contributes to citizens losing confidence in a democratic Europe. However, we must not make ourselves blackmailable, but must collectively – Commission, Council, Parliament – defend our values, democracy and the rule of law loud and clear against attacks by rights and anti-democrats. That is the task for the future.

Mr President! In the coming months, we could complete years of work on asylum reform. We are working intensively on this, and that is necessary. Because what exactly this reform should look like, the positions of Parliament and Council are still far apart. My Socialist Group is prepared for difficult negotiations. Manfred Weber from the EPP seems to see it differently. Ignoring Parliament's position, he probably simply wants to wave through the Council's position. Many Member States seem to see it that way and, sorry, like Mr Weber, reveal a desolate understanding of the importance of this Parliament as an equal co-legislator and a lack of democratic self-image. Neither institution can decide on the migration package on its own. Both have to make compromises. However, there is so far no willingness on the part of some Member States and probably Mr Weber. Migration is both a challenge and an opportunity, the tasks involved are manifold, and an agreement on asylum could be a solid cornerstone. In addition to a European asylum package, we also need new rules for labour migration, more intensive cooperation with municipalities and countries of origin as well as targeted support, i.e. good prospects for our citizens and for refugees. We have that chance. Let's get it ready!

Mr President! The Tunisia agreement of the self-proclaimed Team Europe raises serious questions. In July, the UN raised concerns about the situation of migrants in Tunisia. However, reports of ill-treatment and the catastrophic situation of children and pregnant women at the Tunisian-Libyan border have not prevented Commission President von der Leyen and her team from making promises to the Tunisian regime. But what is the legal basis? Who approved the money? What for? How should the EU support and train Tunisian border guards? What does this mean for people seeking protection at the border with or in Tunisia? Do we outsource pushbacks? This deal is spongy, not very meaningful, many things do not seem to have been worked out yet and should still be a blueprint for further agreements. Ms von der Leyen has to explain in detail what are the concrete foundations and goals for such deals and how we ensure compliance with our values and international rights when using taxpayers' money. Questions about Tunisia are on the agenda. It's time for answers.

Madam President, We have been discussing a European migration and asylum policy and the many related aspects for years. But today, in this debate, it's all about one thing: saving people from drowning. And this is not some political decision, it is a humane and legal obligation. I do not know how many times I and many others have discussed this in this House for years or how many times it still needs to be repeated. But we will not let up until the Council, the Member States and the Commission finally tackle this challenge with the commitment that is appropriate to the urgency. And the task is not particularly complicated. Ensure that there is a European coordinated maritime rescue mission implemented by Member States, supported by Frontex – take Mare Nostrum as inspiration. Unfortunately, however, this idea that we need to save lives is again not reflected in the Council conclusions. But there are repeated reports, as recently in the wake of the disaster off the Greek coast, that Member States are looking the other way, delaying or refusing assistance, and at the same time that civil society is hampered or criminalised by these Member States when they save lives. Finally, face up to your humane and legal responsibilities. That would be a good basis for any further discussions.