Speeches

Madam President, at the beginning, the RRF was presented as an equal partner of the cohesion policy. We were told that they would both live alongside each other in harmony and a balanced relationship. What is the current status quo, though? We have 26 national plans submitted, 22 approved. We have three partnership agreements submitted, one approved. We have EUR 56 billion disbursed out of the RRF, we have zero from the cohesion policy. So something went wrong. I don’t like this to be the last programming period of the cohesion policy. I don’t like to participate in a Parliament that killed our policy. So what we need now from the Commission is a flight plan for each Member State of where to land in order not to lose precious European funding. Not a single euro should be lost. I think it is possible because these are the same governments that have to conclude the last programming period, the same governments that have to start the new one and to deal with the RRF, so they need some help. Please help them not to lose our European funding.

Madam President, only three Member States submitted their partnership agreements to the European Commission. It means one thing and one thing only. There is a very high probability that this year it will be a zero when it comes to the budget. A zero 2021 means additional stress on the budgets of 2022, 2023 and 2024. It means that we have a really high risk of losing EU money for our Member States, our regions and constituencies. This is much more important than the arguments over a million here or over a million there, and I think a lot of work has been done to reach that agreement. I believe that we should support the compromise that has been reached and not create any additional delays on the budget procedure because we have already lost one year for the new programming period and this is a great paradox. This economy, the European economy, needs European funds to be invested immediately in order to recover, so we cannot play games with this important issue. Please vote in favour of the report that has already been proposed.

Mr President, on my way to work this morning, I crossed the River Rhine on the Europabrücke. It’s a project that is co—financed by Interreg, using our European funds. If our Cross—Border Mechanism had been in place, it would have been open much earlier because, according to the expectations of local authorities and the European institutions, the Cross—Border Mechanism would cut 50% of the administrative burden that the authorities are facing at the moment. I have had no explanation, neither for myself nor for my voters, as to why this crucial regulation is taking the Council so long. So I call on the Slovenian Presidency to reopen the negotiations because, exactly two years ago, we voted to start negotiations, and nothing has happened. Two years. Two years in which many projects could have been started, finished and already in place to be used by our citizens. The reason for all regulations and funds are to serve people. When we achieve that, we do not need many arguments to convince our voters that Europe is the future. So let’s reopen the negotiations and close them as soon as possible.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, perhaps 90% of the debate so far has focused on the fact that several countries that have submitted their recovery and resilience plans are likely not to be approved. In this regard, I would like to say a few things. First, these are means not for given governments, but for given peoples to deal with the consequences that the coronary crisis has inflicted on them. Secondly, this is the smaller problem, because there are still countries that have not submitted their plans at all. As we have already seen, one of these countries is the Netherlands and the second is Bulgaria. In this regard, because I love my country, especially when it is managed in a way that is alarming, let me ask the Commissioner: firstly, is there a way for countries that have not submitted recovery and resilience plans to be at risk of losing European funds? Secondly, is there a way for the countries currently governed by governments that are unable to submit a recovery and resilience plan to receive any help from the European Commission so that the peoples of these two countries do not lose access to European funding, which is so important in this case? Finally, is there a mechanism for the European Commission, in such situations, to make countries comply with deadlines even when they are managed by caretaker governments that cannot be held responsible for meeting these deadlines? Finally, is the submission of the recovery and resilience plans conditional on the approval of operational programmes, do the two relate, put at risk the lack of plan approval and of operational programmes?

Madam President, we have to be clear on two things, when it comes to Turkey and the refugee crisis. The first one is that we are disbursing EU funds to Turkey not only because Turkey is in need, but because the Union is in need as well. We have to be clear about the following thing: there are more than four million refugees in Turkey, who, if the authorities stop taking care of them, probably will not try to go back to their homes in Syria and in Afghanistan, but will probably try to reach the European Union and – why not – Strasbourg, where we are at the moment. That is one of the things. The second one, for sure, is that we need bulletproof control of the EU funds that are going to be invested in Turkey. We have to be clear that – in front of our taxpayers, our voters – everything that is in our power to implement budgetary control over those funds has to be on grounds. Not a single cent from the European budget has to be invested to chase somebody’s short—term political goals. Finally, now it is time for calm and wise decisions, not for firework speeches here.

Mr President, colleagues, I was 11 years old when my family managed to raise money for a car for the first time. Of course, it was second-hand. Of course, it was from Germany, and this was the only option for personal transportation. The situation was similar in the families of my peers, it is similar now and in more countries in the European Union than you might think. We have often said that human life has no price. Cars do, however, and it is often unbearable for many people. Often, the only option to have personal transportation is to have a second-hand car, and that's why I want to talk about a scam that has a colossal scale. According to independent reports, 50% of second-hand cars have manipulated mileage, one in two. Take a look the next time you go out on the street. Some time ago, I proposed to the European Commission a pilot project that tackles precisely this fraud – it has been approved and funded. And yet there are still countries that do not share the real mileage of their cars: the one that gathers during the annual technical inspections and I do not understand why. There's no reason for that. When you sell a car a million miles away and claim it's 100,000 miles away, you're not just stealing money from the most vulnerable, you're stealing safety from all of us. Let's put an end to this, let's get all countries involved in this pilot project, let's put an end to this fraud, and finally let's eliminate at least one of the factors for many of the catastrophes in the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to begin my speech by paying tribute to all the men and women who are fighting the elements and risking their lives to save other people's lives. Unfortunately, in the last 20 years almost every European Union country has been in a situation to seek help from the European Union, whether after an earthquake, whether after a fire, whether after a landslide or after a flood, and unfortunately, things do not seem to improve over time. €5 billion from the Solidarity Fund went to such disasters. However, there is much more hope than money in the Solidarity Fund. And we have to say that before we take care of the protection of the environment, we have to take care of the protection of people. There are a few things we should be honest with ourselves and with the people who look at us from the outside. The Solidarity Fund needs more money and faster disbursement. People expect us to react immediately and then, when the disaster happens, the European Union will be there for them. Otherwise, they will tend to believe all kinds of fake news and misinformation that someone thousands of miles away is helping them more than their own country thanks to the Union. More money in the Solidarity Fund, faster disbursement and better communication to be there for people when they need us.