Speeches

Madam President, People flee political persecution and war, destruction, violence, torture and death. But they don't want to be refugees in the long run. They want to build a new life, care for their families, participate in society, regardless of whether they can return at some point or not. And in the case of Ukrainian refugees, this is exactly what we recognise. We welcome people, we offer them education and work, and that is right and important. But other vulnerable people all too often have very different experiences. Many are imprisoned, discriminated against, kept out of the labour market, permanently separated from their families or even forcibly prevented from seeking protection. It is time to apply the positive experiences of temporary protection also to the asylum system in general and to offer comparable conditions to all refugees. But democracy and fundamental rights are under attack not only from the outside, but also from within. The Commission could be a strong and committed actor here, also to protect people fleeing. Instead, with the Schengen Borders Code and the Instrumentalisation Act, Ms von der Leyen proposes a dramatic reduction in the right to asylum. Even systematic and violent illegal deportations are not dealt with by the Commission, although they are sufficiently documented, not least by Frontex. The rule of law protects democracy and the fundamental rights of all people. This is Our European Way of Life. We must stand up for this, and for this we need a courageous Commission with a clear stance. I wish we'd still see this under Mrs. von der Leyen.

Madam President, The tragic loss of lives in front of Melilla on the Moroccan-Spanish border shows how urgently we need a migration policy based on solidarity. The EU is a union of values. Really? What I see is: There is currently a lack of solidarity with Member States at the external border, of solidarity with local authorities working for refugees. There is a lack of solidarity with people seeking protection who rely on a fundamental right of the EU. And beyond mere border controls, we finally need genuine cooperative partnerships with third countries. But instead of defending our values through concrete action, there is blame – everyone against everyone. And we are all jointly responsible. Our treaties call for a policy in a spirit of solidarity and shared responsibility. And the disregard of the treaties makes criminal gangs profiteers of this failure and at the same time refugees and our values their victims. But dealing with refugees from Ukraine shows: We can still take the wheel. We can still welcome, accommodate and integrate people in need of protection quickly and in a dignified manner. All that is needed is the political will of the Member States and the Commission.

Madam President, For years, the Polish PiS government has been harming democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in its own country. What about the Commission? Under Frans Timmermans, she seemed determined to stop the PiS. But since the launch of the Article 7 procedure in December 2017, nothing decisive has happened on the part of the Commission – despite clear ECJ rulings. The Commission could now have changed this with the Corona Recovery Funds, simply by respecting its own principle: Disbursement only if all conditions are met, i.e. reforms are implemented in practice. With which the ball lies in the field of the Polish government. It is up to the Commission whether or not funds are paid out – in fact. But with the recognition of Poland's reconstruction plan, Ms von der Leyen apparently wants to change the rules of the game, ignoring two no-votes from her Vizes; three other critical Commissioners were absent, as in practice, from the crucial vote in the College. Yes, Poland also needs financial support for the reception of refugees from Ukraine. And that's why Poland has received funding from the Refugee Fund and the Border Management Instrument. But now it's about more important things. It's about whether we take our core values, democracy and the rule of law seriously or not. And I wish this was a purely rhetorical question.

Mr President! Refugees – people fleeing war, hunger and violence, men, women and children. They all need security and stability, and they also need safe escape routes – especially children and their families. The war in Ukraine – a war right on our doorstep – requires us to make special efforts to welcome and integrate the refugees. We are witnessing an enormous solidarity and willingness to help from civil society, from cities and municipalities all over Europe. This outstanding commitment needs to be supported and recognised, including by the Commission giving them access to and accelerating access to EU funds. At the same time, I want to remind Member States that they must not leave the reception and support of people fleeing Ukraine to civil society alone. With regard to unaccompanied children in particular, clear state structures are needed to ensure the best interests of the child. In addition, the Commission and the Member States must swiftly organise a safe and coordinated transport of refugees to the different Member States, in particular for family reunification. For this purpose, the solidarity platform and the so-called index for the analysis of reception capacities are good first approaches, which must now be followed by concrete steps for the distribution of people seeking protection. I hope that the Member States, which unfortunately are not here today, will take steps – now that they have decided on temporary protection, they will take further steps – to provide people, and especially children, with the support and safety they need and deserve.

Madam President, Our response to Putin's war is unity and far-reaching sanctions. At the same time, we must help the people fleeing Russian aggression from Ukraine. Refugees need security and stability. Now the joint decision on temporary protection is the right basis. The great solidarity, the willingness to help, which we see everywhere from civil society, cities and municipalities, must be the guiding principle in the national implementation of the Council decision. What does that mean? To interpret the decision generously in order to help many people, to allow all displaced persons to enter for humanitarian reasons, to ensure that racial discrimination does not occur at the external borders, to organise aid also for internally displaced persons and to support civil society and municipalities. This decision is a first step towards meeting this challenge together. More must follow now.

Mr President! The patchwork of border controls and border closures in the pandemic is now celebrating its second anniversary. Are Member States still looking for a coordinated approach? Uniform rules would be particularly easy right now, as the EU-Corona map currently shows only one colour: dark red. And it is precisely this map that has been the basis for coordinated action since October 2020. However, it is still not the case to this day, despite uniform colouring. First attempts in the Schengen Borders Code to establish binding rules for travel during pandemic periods are therefore generally welcome. Unfortunately, too many thoughts are being wasted on how to extend border closures in order to mitigate their impact on trade in goods, with exceptions. Let's not forget: Freedom of movement in the Schengen area was first and foremost intended for citizens, for daily encounters, especially in local border traffic. So instead of just thinking about exceptions for certain sectors, we have to think about the principle of free movement, the original idea behind the opening of internal borders. A daily borderless, a European coexistence of people – that must continue to be our ambition.

Madam President, “What to do in view of Lukashenka’s instrumentalisation of people? Our response to the unscrupulous actions of the Belarusian regime will be relentless." With this introduction, Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President for Promoting our European Way of Life, presented emergency measures. And yes, I condemn the abuse of people by the Belarusian regime and support the extension of sanctions. However, the contingency measures referred to in Article 78(3) presented by the Vice-President are not relentless towards Belarus. The proposal is not aimed at Belarus at all and does not actually provide assistance to affected Member States. The proposals are, above all, one thing: Relentless towards vulnerable people who are now, among other things, arbitrarily detained at the border for a maximum of 16 weeks or whose rights are to be suspended during deportations. In view of the declining numbers of asylum seekers at the EU border with Belarus, there is no need for such emergency measures, for such a restrictive handling of European and international obligations on asylum law. Instead, emergency measures would be needed to counter the humanitarian crisis, guarantee press freedom in the border regions, and save lives. Overall, these Commission proposals are neither appropriate nor proportionate and are not even clearly time-limited in part. We hear from the Council that some Member States want to suspend the asylum system because it has become annoying for them to help people in need. And that's why it's very clear: Applying for asylum is a fundamental right and part of our European way of life, and we will defend that right.

Mr President! Strong sanctions remain necessary in dealing with Belarus. At the same time, however, the humanitarian catastrophe persists, particularly on the Polish-Belarusian border, where people are mercilessly abused for political purposes and forced out by force. There are no legal spaces at external borders. International obligations, EU law and humanitarian responsibility also apply there. However, none of this is respected by the Polish Government and therefore the Commission has to open infringement proceedings. Aid organizations need to gain quick access to the border region in order to save people from starvation and freezing. There would be support for Poland to deal with the current challenges, through our agencies, through relocation. And it is high time that this support is demanded and accepted, high time to end this destructive and violent path.

Madam President, No one wants to build a wall. The wall came, Europe was divided. Today we are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe on the Polish-Belarusian border. On the one hand, people are repressed by force, on the other hand, they are abused for political purposes. I condemn this abuse by the Belarusian regime and call for an extension of sanctions. But at the same time, we must defend and secure the rule of law and our fundamental values, the principles of the EU, at the external borders. Access to asylum must be granted and breaches of the principle of non-refoulement are illegal. Just yesterday we remembered the fall of the Berlin Wall. Have all those who are now demanding EU funds for walls and fences forgotten the lessons of that time? Instead of foreclosure, there is a need for more solidarity among the Member States, legal access routes, so that people are not dependent on smugglers for a chance of protection. We need to expand the resettlement. We have the tools to counter the cynical abuse of people and the division of Europe. The question to the Council is: Do you have the political will to use all these means?

Madam President, Let me begin with a short story that exemplifies the way Frontex works and the relationship with the public that it has under its current leadership. In 2019, the transparency organization FragDenStaat sued Frontex for the release of documents in connection with the Mediterranean operation Triton. This lawsuit was rejected by the court, and that is to be accepted. Frontex then charged the non-governmental organisation lawyers and court costs of EUR 23 000, including costs for an external lawyer, although Frontex naturally has its own legal department. Frontex wanted to claim this reimbursement in court. However, the court then declared the costs to be unreasonably high and reduced the amount by more than half to EUR 10 000. Among other things, travel expenses were eliminated, for which there was no need at all, according to the judgment. In April 2021, during the first vote on the very report on which we are discussing and voting today, this House called on Frontex to withdraw this request for reimbursement. This request was reiterated by our Frontex working group in July. But what this House, the representation of European citizens, demands, Frontex under Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri does not seem to care. By 4 October, FragDenStaat should have paid; Otherwise, it was threatened with foreclosure. The punch line: When AskDenStaat wanted to hand over the money to Frontex in Brussels, no one could be found. Nevertheless, this process is not laughable, as it exemplifies how Frontex tries to evade public control, intimidate critics and, incidentally, ignore decisions of this House. Just recently, the European Court of Auditors found that Frontex did not sufficiently implement the 2016 mandate and will also have difficulties in fulfilling the 2019 mandate. Again, just one example: Until the 5th. On 1 December 2020, Frontex was required by regulation to recruit 40 Fundamental Rights Officers. To date, only about half have been hired and 15 of them are at the wrong administrative level. Our Frontex Working Group also found that Frontex did not respond effectively to its well-known violations of human rights at the external border. Violations were not remedied, evidence ignored. I haven't even talked about a dinner for almost 100 000 euros from taxpayers' money, secret meetings with the gun lobby or ongoing OLAF investigations. Frontex aims to ensure safe and functioning border controls, in line with high ethical standards and always striving for excellence. That's what it says on the agency's website. However, the reality is very different. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you: What else needs to happen so that we can finally show Frontex clear boundaries? I think we have more than enough. So join me today and reject this discharge! That would be a good step towards a European Border Guard Agency that deserves this name and that also deserves our full support.

Madam President, Countless media reports show a frightening picture of the state of human rights at our external borders. Images of violence against people are a disgrace to our European Union. Because these are not individual cases, as some would like us to believe. It is a systematic attack on the right to asylum, on the Geneva Convention on Refugees, in order to then rewrite the rules for international protection, yes, the European values themselves. And all this on the backs of people who seek protection and work with us in Europe and are instead beaten up and kidnapped. Therefore, media and non-governmental organisations must have access to border regions, especially at the Polish-Belarusian border, where the Polish government is trying to establish a law-free area. That is why I would like to make a very clear request to the Commission: Initiate infringement procedures and stop the use of EU funds where: Push-backs take place.

Mr President! Whether a sports club or a European Union - those who want to play must abide by existing rules. But, Mr Morawiecki, with the judgment you have made possible in a constitutional tribunal filled with puppets of your party, the Polish government is trampling the rules of the EU treaties and thus the core of our community. Yes, justice systems are not fully harmonised within the EU. But the independence of the judiciary is an indispensable part of our common democratic values. Therefore, Mrs. von der Leyen, make a clear statement: The benefits of the EU can only be enjoyed by those who respect the rules. If you continue to hold back the funds from the recovery fund, finally apply the rule of law mechanism. To the Heads of State and Government: How can it be that this verdict, with all its possible consequences, is not on the agenda of the EU summit? What do debates bring about digitalisation, trade and much more, while at the same time attacking the EU at its core? You must now make a clear commitment to the principles of our EU. For the thousands of people who are protesting in Poland for their country's return to democracy and the rule of law, and for the millions who are supporting our democratic Europe, both in Poland and across Europe. Otherwise, the Polexit could approach us unintentionally.

Madam President, On the Pegasus scandal one thing in advance: Surveillance with clear rules is part of our law enforcement, but we're not talking about that here. Not even in isolated cases of abuse. It is about systematic contempt for democracy and the rule of law. Under the guise of fighting crime, governments have stocked up on espionage software to use against critics and unwelcome individuals. And this scandal makes it clear once again: Without data protection and privacy, people cannot freely assemble and express their opinions. On the contrary: People are persecuted, pressured, imprisoned or even murdered. Comprehensive surveillance is a real danger to democracy and freedom, to life and limb. It is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law. Four points are important now. Firstly, clarification: Where and for what purpose was this spyware used in the EU? On what legal basis? And what did Orbán know about this surveillance? The Commission is once again called for. Secondly, transparency and oversight of the espionage companies. Here, too, our governments are responsible for drawing a common line against the use of espionage software. Third, more engagement from the big digital companies. They must protect their users from spying software and give them the opportunity to check for themselves whether their devices have been compromised. And fourthly: More and better encryption, because any softening endangers fundamental rights. Pegasus shows once again how quickly democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law can be undermined. And that is why all Democrats must act now.

Madam President, The situation in Afghanistan is dramatic. We have given people hope for a democratic Afghanistan. And now many fear for their lives. And this gives rise to a special responsibility. However, only one ‘best of’ foreclosure policy comes from the Council: Preventing illegal migration, not creating incentives, deportation to transit countries. Nor does it help if, after all, it is recognised that the right to asylum is mandatory or that voluntary resettlement could be a measure. Member States must now take responsibility. And in addition to humanitarian aid in Afghanistan for evacuations and cooperation with neighbouring countries, they must also enable reception and integration in Europe, create safe routes, resettlement use. Our society is quite ready to welcome people seeking protection. There are concrete offers for this, and we should use them.

Mr President! Since last week, the digital COVID certificates have been in place to facilitate freedom of movement in the pandemic. This is a good sign at first. But despite certificates, despite new advice for more uniform travel rules, a new patchwork of restrictions is emerging in dealing with the virus variants. People from the same region have to be quarantined in Member State A and there are no restrictions in Member State B. This uncoordinated and non-transparent approach leads to uncertainty and anger among our citizens. It impairs the acceptance and ease of use of certificates, and it weakens trust in European decisions. Therefore, to the Council: What do you do specifically to ensure that more uniform rules apply everywhere? In addition to common mandatory criteria, free tests would also make it easier to start the certificates, especially for those who could not or did not want to be vaccinated yet. 100 million euros are available for rapid tests, the Commission had promised further funding. However, this is probably no longer part of Commissioner Reynders' plans, despite reports that poorer groups in particular have not yet been vaccinated very well. A question therefore also to the Commission: How do you want to ensure that the facilitation of freedom of movement does not become a mere question of money?

Madam President, Border-free travel in the Schengen area is one of our greatest achievements and yet highly endangered. I do not want to go into COVID and Schengen at this minute, because there are enough other problems, starting with years of illegal border controls, the lack of consistency on the part of the Commission, and the countless reports of serious human rights violations at our external borders. Yes, a border-free EU needs a functioning border management system. And that is precisely why a legal framework is needed that is binding on the Member States and does not allow for backdoors. The European Border and Coast Guard needs a management level that protects fundamental rights and human rights instead of: pushbacks Tolerate and silence. The Commission must now rectify the sometimes serious shortcomings and weaknesses as quickly as possible so that we can draw a more positive conclusion next year.

Madam President, 70 years of the Geneva Convention on Refugees – it is almost a lifesaver, an international agreement that protects millions of people and makes the right to asylum a fundamental right in our Union. The circumstances that led to this milestone in human rights were different than they are today. However, with over 82 million people currently displaced worldwide, the Convention has lost none of its significance. 70 years ago, many Europeans were on the run. Today we are able to take in refugees. That's a reason to be proud. Nevertheless, the principles of the Convention are increasingly being called into question. Let us remember the universal values, humanitarian principles and solidarity that underlie this Convention. 70 years of protection for refugees – let us now ensure that this convention remains the foundation, including for our asylum and migration policies!

Mr President! Sexual abuse is a terrible crime, a massive violation of our children's fundamental and human rights. This applies to the real world, but also when images of abuse are shared online again and again. And in both worlds, we need to be better at preventing, prosecuting perpetrators, but also helping survivors. Online measures are an addition, for example to covert investigations or the generally better equipping of law enforcement and counselling centres. But we also have to face the debate about how much surveillance online is compatible with our free democratic fundamental rights and where we run the risk of installing a comprehensive surveillance system that knows the most intimate details of the communication of all people, including our children, whom we want to protect in particular. Already today, various providers voluntarily scan private messages to detect child abuse. However, this threatened to become impossible due to a change in the electronic communication code. And so, in September last year, the Commission tabled the law on which we will vote tomorrow. An exception to the current ePrivacy-Rules that continue to allow scanning of private messages for child abuse even without consent. The law allows for different technologies. The so-called hashing has been used for many years. It makes it possible to identify abuse depictions by matching videos and images with a predefined set of digital fingerprints, the so-called hashes. And as rapporteur, I underlined early on that I do not want to stop this practice, but I have pushed for additional safeguards. Clearly more controversial was and is the use of artificial intelligence to read news for the detection of unknown material and possible cyber grooming. For a long time, the Commission had failed to address the impact of the already ongoing scanning on child abuse. It would have been a lot of time to find a good, sustainable solution to the legal challenges surrounding scanning private communications on the Internet. However, when the Commission finally recognised its failure, it did not even bother to present an impact assessment on the impact of fundamental rights, even though it would have been its duty. Instead, massive pressure was put on the negotiators to reach any agreement quickly. But as legislators, we always have the duty to examine all facts and act in accordance with fundamental rights and the rule of law. I have said this many times and I repeat it today. Of course, we can disagree on political decisions and particularly on such sensitive issues, but that never relieves us of the responsibility of a critical, comprehensive debate. The agreement reached between the Council and Parliament is a compromise between detecting child sexual abuse online and protecting the privacy of users. It may not be perfect, but it is a viable transitional solution for the next three years. The compromise allows for the temporary continuation of certain voluntary measures to detect sexual abuse, images and possible cyber-grooming. As Parliament, we have fought hard to improve the proposal and bring it into line with existing data protection standards. We have added safeguards, such as better informing users or introducing a 12-month data retention period. We want more direct information to European authorities and have achieved the need for service providers to work closely with national data protection authorities. These can prohibit technologies that are hostile to fundamental rights. Data protection and the protection of confidentiality are not the protection of perpetrators, but the basis of democracy. We must also protect the confidentiality of communications in the interests of our children. This applies all the more to sensitive communications, such as between victims of abuse and their doctors and lawyers. This law is a temporary solution for three years. The Commission had promised to propose a new, permanent framework for the detection of child abuse before the summer break. It will take until September or October. I expect a much better proposal for this. The long-term solution must at least be based on the data protection guarantees of the temporary solution. It must find solutions for more targeted scanning of private communications, otherwise it will have little effect before national and European courts. And yes, we expect a comprehensive impact assessment this time. And that is why you, dear Ylva Johansson, and also you, President of the Commission von der Leyen – because I know that you are interested in this law – are on the move again.