Speeches

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.

Mr President! I listened very carefully to the debate, both the very positive feedback and the very critical comments. In a way, both are right. This system – if we adopt it, if we implement it – can only work if there is a rule of law and an independent judiciary throughout Europe. It can only exist if the Member States take a concrete stand against anti-democratic tendencies, if the Commission fulfils its role as guardian of the Treaties and if we actually work together to ensure that the rule of law and independent justice are secured in Europe. Our Europe – and this is the challenge – is a Europe that protects against crime, protects fundamental rights and defends our common values. That is what this is all about, and that is why everyone is called upon to do just that when implementing it. Once again, I would like to thank all those who have worked on this treaty, on this legislative work. And I hope that everyone will be equally involved in the implementation.

Mr President! The laws on electronic evidence in criminal proceedings represent a massive change in cross-border cooperation between the police, the judiciary and service providers. For the first time, national investigative authorities will have the possibility to directly request service providers in other Member States to produce data and secure electronic evidence – with clear deadlines and uniform rules across the EU. And it is only because of Parliament's relentless tenacity that it will at the same time ensure that fundamental rights are protected. For outsiders, it may sound like a lot of time has taken just over five years from the presentation of the proposals – March 2018 – to the adoption of the package – in June of this year. But it was worth every single day. Because we must not forget: Even beyond all debates on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, the judicial systems in the Member States are very different, right down to definitions. Nevertheless, had it been for the Commission, the authorities of the countries where service providers were requested to provide data would not have been aware of the order, let alone have been able to object to it. Nor did the Council position give the authorities of the Member State concerned any real scope for intervention. In fact, self-evident rights, such as the right to be informed of persons affected by orders, were attempting to dilute the Member States. And as a Parliament, despite fierce opposition from the Commission and the Council, we have been able to successfully push through urgently needed improvements together. It is only thanks to our pressure that when issuing orders for the most sensitive categories of data, traffic and content data, the authorities also have to inform the authorities of the country of the order at the same time as ordering the service provider. And it is only because of our pressure that the service provider will not release this data directly, but will store it first, so that the authorities have ten days to review the order and, if necessary, refuse to release it on the basis of a clear list of grounds for refusal, such as when the data is protected by immunities, privileges or rules on freedom of the press and expression, the release of the data would constitute a violation of fundamental rights or the criminal offence for which it is investigated is not a criminal offence in the Member State of the service provider. We were also able to enforce that service providers themselves can draw attention to critical orders. In addition, we have, of course, adapted the package to the applicable EU data protection law, with regard to information rights, but also to the categories of data used. And finally, we have successfully insisted on the introduction of a decentralized IT platform, because this is the only way to ensure that orders are actually genuine, originate from the ordinary authorities and that the sometimes highly sensitive data can then also be sent securely. Personally, I would have hoped for a little more. But this is a political compromise with which we can be absolutely satisfied. I would like to express my thanks to the colleagues of the other groups and all their teams behind it. With today's vote and the confirmation of the texts in the Council at the end of June, it is now up to the Commission and Member States to ensure the swift and comprehensive implementation of the package. There is still a lot to be done, especially with regard to the IT platform, and I call on the Commission and all those involved to do the right thing here. However, this is also not yet the end of the chapter on electronic evidence. As rapporteur for the EU-US negotiations on e-evidence and shadow rapporteur for a UN convention on such cooperation, I will take a particularly critical look at these texts together with my colleagues from the other political groups. Because the question of fundamental rights outside the EU is once again a completely different one. Therefore: I will not be satisfied with nice words and declarations of intent there either.

Mr President! Improved EU-US data protection – let's not fool ourselves! US surveillance laws still allow massive access to data of European citizens, acting in a way like a big data vacuum cleaner. And yes, the U.S. president's executive order shows improvements and still contains problems: the list of legitimate monitoring objectives that can be updated without public debate, different definitions such as proportionality, a court within the executive branch. This is not an independent judiciary, and an executive order can be changed, withdrawn at any time. Legal certainty is different and therefore I see the risk that this so-called adequacy decision will also fail. And here we miss a unique opportunity: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act runs out. Reforms here should be a condition for the adequacy decision.

Madam President, Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, in particular for the months of work we have been wrestling with the rapporteurs to develop a common position. And in all these months, ECR and ID MEPs shined above all with one thing: by absence. They then voted against the mandate in committee and still want to bring the mandate down today. I do not want to point out that negotiations with the Council will be pushed significantly backwards. But it becomes quite clear: ECR and ID are in no way interested in a European response to migration and asylum. Instead, they want to continue to vote with discrimination and fear-mongering. Incidentally, in this context, it is only marginally interesting to find praise here in plenary for Italy and Meloni, whose party is a member of the ECR. By confirming the LIBE mandate on the reports, including on screening and ECRIS-TCN, which are on the agenda today, we as Members can send a clear signal. Europe needs solutions for migration and asylum with clear rules for control and solidarity, based on our values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, we reject the idea of ECR and ID and give Parliament a strong position for negotiations with the Council!

Mr President! The 2022 Rule of Law Report was the third of its kind with improvements over its predecessors, in particular the country-specific recommendations that we as Parliament have long advocated. But country-specific recommendations do not help if they remain far too vague when there are no deadlines. And country-specific recommendations certainly won't help if there are no consequences for Member States in the absence or inadequacy of implementation. And even if criticisms of the annual report are finally corrected, it remains a paper tiger if no links are drawn to the proceedings under Article 7 or the rule of law mechanism that have been stuck for years. We have these protective tools. And what happens? The Commission hides behind the annual report and one or the other infringement procedure. In the Council was the last hearing under Article 7 - oh yes! – last year, and the Swedish Presidency does not seem to care. She is not even present for today's debate. Instead, the Council conducts an annual rule of law dialogue with a changing group of Member States, with no consequences. Meanwhile, however, the situation of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights seems to continue to deteriorate, day by day, in front of all of us. And that is unacceptable. It is, excuse me, Mr President, puking!

Mr President! Special Summit on Migration and Asylum: The European Union is happy to commit itself to democracy and fundamental rights, to the fundamental right to asylum and to respect for human rights. This is also the basis of all decisions taken by all Member States, but their practice is all too often different. And now conservative parts of this House are popping up old-fashioned ideas from the mothbox of migration policy. Mr Weber thinks that fences must be conceivable. But it is precisely our German history that shows: Fences and walls are not a solution. And the EU, based on shared values as a peace project, cannot finance walls. And is it not a proof of poverty for the strong European Union to talk about outsourcing asylum procedures to third countries? Colleagues, we must find a solution that strengthens our common values, respects and protects European and international law. That's our job, and I'm ready to tackle it.

. – Mr President. Today we are talking about the criminalization of humanitarian aid. It's about people who courageously stand up for our values, for ours, who save people from drowning. It is about people who show civil courage and take on a task that is actually the responsibility of all Member States. This effort deserves support. Instead, we are witnessing the Italian government harassing sea rescuers by decree. Instead of the next port, long detours are arranged, approvingly accepting the loss of human life. Significant administrative hurdles are also intended to hinder the work. Or the trial of Seán Binder, Sarah Mardini and 22 other human rights defenders in Greece. They are accused, among other things, of membership in a criminal organisation. Membership in a criminal organisation – serious? It may be more criminal how Member States systematically prevent access to the asylum system, including by using force against vulnerable people. Where is the Commission as guardian of the Treaties? Let me conclude by repeating a call I made here in July 2019: Saving lives is not a crime. It is our duty and must never be criminalized.

Madam President, Digitalisation and artificial intelligence: Motor for more innovation and opportunities in Europe. However, respect for digital fundamental rights must be borne in mind from the outset. But after reading the Swedish Presidency's work programme, I must say once again: The digital agenda is not particularly prominent. The e-privacy regulation finds only an almost stepmotherly mention on the sidelines. And it is high time that e-privacy It becomes a real priority. Because we need an agreement so that we can rely on the confidentiality of our communications. We need legal certainty for businesses in Europe and for people who want to communicate without fear of spying on their messages and browse the Internet without profiling. And therefore my urgent appeal: Let us take seriously the commitment to the protection of digital fundamental rights and the e—privacyFinally complete the regulation.

Mr President! Common solidarity solutions for asylum and maritime rescue – let me quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries from persecution.” This principle should be the guiding principle of our debates. Border controls in line with fundamental and human rights are also part of a functioning Schengen area as well as mandatory for Member States. Our contracts are clear. Policies on border controls, asylum and immigration must follow the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities. For me, this means specifically: Especially when it comes to rescue at sea, we need a reliable distribution mechanism, clear rules with which Member States support each other rather than accusing each other. A voluntary expression of solidarity obviously does not achieve this. Legislation is needed, the implementation of which is called for and controlled by a strong Commission. The Presidency assures that it is working on a concept of solidarity. The Council can now show that it not only respects fundamental and human rights, but also carries them forward in a positive way. And I hope this will be the basis for joint solidarity decisions on asylum and sea rescue.

Mr President! Borderless travel in the Schengen area – one of our greatest achievements is at risk. This is because, quite independently of the corona patchwork in spring 2020, there are problems. There are the years of internal border controls that some Member States have introduced and seem to be prolonging forever. We Socialists and Democrats have for years described these arbitrarily prolonged border controls as what they are now from the point of view of the European Court of Justice: Simply illegal. Internal border controls must be limited in time. The ECJ has set out clear limits that must be complied with. And if necessary, there must finally be consequences. Member States and the Commission need to do more to effectively protect this one of our greatest achievements. Because we want people in the European Union to be able to move freely and meet each other.

Mr President! Frontex has been under criticism for years. mismanagement, lack of transparency, misunderstood knowledge of human rights violations at the external borders, possibly even participation in pushbacks. Leggeri was proud of his new equipment. However, the statutory staff was not recruited. Why? He was apparently of the opinion that border management was not possible in compliance with fundamental rights. The list of misconduct is long and some of the misconduct is well documented, not only since the OLAF report. Yet these transgressions were denied again and again, ignorance was hypocritical or even brazenly lied to. The OLAF report relentlessly reveals all this and, incidentally, confirms that Frontex knew about pushbacks, was involved in them, deliberately and deliberately prevented the recording of such actions. The former Executive Director Leggeri was protected by Member States on the Management Board, conservative parts of the Commission, but also members here in the House. But his resignation now is not a free pass. At the latest with the findings of the OLAF report, it is clear: A new director or new representative on the Board of Directors is not sufficient. New structures are needed, trust must be completely rebuilt. We also need a new approach to transparency. This is exemplified by the fact that OLAF's report has only been made available to a limited extent here in the House and has now also not been published by an official body, but by a news magazine. The sheer scale of the problems must be clearly recognised and new structures must be created. This is necessary precisely because Frontex is such an important agency. But the changes are not yet clear. It's time!

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.