Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, consumer credit is not for the rich. Consumer loans are for people who need, as the name says, small amounts for consumption, but who need to be protected, and it surprises me that there were colleagues here who said that they would not need to be protected. It's a first step, but it's not enough. There's still a lot of work to be done. I am glad that the advertisement was included in the text. It's fake advertising. They are attracted to those who need to take a sum of money on untrue advertising and obviously wake up after that that their conditions change during the contract, look, I do not know how we can protect them, because they exist. Now, when we talk about this, there are no contracts that go through with the same conditions. Then, of course, we need to expand the scope, as has been said, buy now, pay later and do not know what is happening, go into insolvency and very seriously it is that there are discriminations. And, Commissioner, you said very well: There are no personalized loans. Very good that a first step has been taken for cancer patients, but there are still many other categories that are discriminated against...

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, sure, renewable energy and renewable energy sources are necessary to protect the environment. What we must emphasise, however, is that there must be flexibility and it is good that it is a directive and not a regulation, because, I mean for colleagues who argued that biomass should not be included and that it should be only wind energy, not in all Member States we have the same resources. The wind does not blow the same in Romania as in the Netherlands, we do not have the same solar energy, so it is good that they have engulfed, that the renewable energy sphere has widened. It is also very important how we can make permits more flexible, so that small and medium-sized enterprises have access, so that the costs are not so high that small and medium-sized enterprises do not have access. And I want to propose one more thing: while focusing on innovation, why can't citizens, innovators in Member States that already have patents, be able to access directly from the European Commission the European Union budget in order to stop going through national procedures?

Mr President, Commissioner, I appreciated you, you were a Member of the European Parliament, you were in the bank with us and you were extremely practical in speaking. I agree with many things that you have said, equal opportunities, that we need to implement this directive in all Member States, but it surprised me that in your speech you did not talk about SMEs. You have complained about the pity of multinationals, lest there be too much transparency, lest it be an obstacle to an investment by a multinational in a Member State. I don't think you can talk in the same speech about equal opportunities and at the same time not talk about SMEs. Transparency is absolutely necessary. We know well that the biggest evasions in the European Union were not done by SMEs, they were done by multinationals. If we managed two years ago, with the support of all parliamentary groups, to have such a directive, I do not understand why you need to make recommendations to reduce transparency. I do not think this is a fair road, Commissioner, and I hope you will also give us an explanation for this.

Mr President, Commissioner, I will tell you that not as an MEP, but as a former SME entrepreneur and former minister in my country for SMEs. Commissioner, to make it more plastic, I tell you that for SMEs now we have regulations, just like we would put in a one-ton car, ten tons of load. SMEs did not benefit from the reduction. All the rules we have are formal. Ten years ago, when I was minister for SMEs, it was the directive for late payments. Ten years to wait to change something that doesn't work? Meanwhile, SMEs are dying. We give them crowns, we boast, they are the most, you know they are also the most disciplined. If we don't do something concrete, how can an SME have the same regulation as a large company? How to have capital for internationalization? The European Investment Bank has the same procedures as for large companies. No way, Commissioner. We clearly need to have SME-specific regulations if we want them to live and if we want them to develop and be sustainable.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since 2014, when I have been in the European Parliament, I have been raising the issue of Romania's and Bulgaria's entry into Schengen and we are not begging, Commissioner. It is our right, we have signed the same treaty and we cannot remain - we Romania and Bulgaria - only with obligations and without rights. With what right does Austria - one state, one man - oppose? What democracy is this? Commissioner, tell the President that when Romania has not resolved a clause in a regulation in time, it has entered into infrigement. All countries were punished if they did not comply with a regulation. Why do you allow Austria to violate a regulation? Destroy the European project, Commissioner, and I ask you if you would be Romanian like me, what would you answer the Romanians at home to the question: Why is the treaty not respected? Why is the regulation not being followed? I ask, Commissioner, and I ask you to convey to the President, that Austria enter into infringement and to demand that you pay the compensation and economic losses that Romania has incurred in these years. Then it will be a real European project.

Mr President, I begin by thanking you and congratulating you on your work as President for so many years. However, I must say, in my capacity as Vice-President for the Internal Market and on behalf of the SME Intergroup, that I would like to see more money allocated to SMEs next year, compared to the report we are currently analysing. You are of particular importance in InvestEU. I recently wrote to Commissioner Breton and yes, he nominated you that the Investment Bank, of course, has an important role to play in financing SMEs. I also certainly welcome you for engaging and supporting the Republic of Moldova and also engaging in the Western Balkans to support them. What I would like to see is more transparency. It is very important to see how projects are selected and you have said a magic word here, to make targeted investments, and I think this is needed in order not to concentrate money in the same areas and actually, instead of increasing cohesion, to increase regional differences. That's why I have hope. You are the biggest lender, we need the Investment Bank, you are important for the internal market and beyond. And I wish you good health and many years ahead in the EIB.

Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, of course, the functioning of the rule of law is very important. After all, it is perhaps the most important thing in democracy. But, Commissioner, also reading this report, I ask you, do you think that measuring the functioning of the rule of law is the same in all Member States? And I'll justify my question. I have written many letters to the Commission, even to you. I have noticed that in many Member States, such as Germany, Denmark, Finland, Austria, children are taken away, the right of the child is not respected, they are taken directly from school and institutionalised without even notifying the parents. Nothing happened. In Austria, we have reported discrimination in child benefits for children of other nationalities. Austria, thank you, was not notified at all by the Commission. So if this rule of law is not measured in the same way in all states, you are only inducing Euroscepticism. And I ask you, what should I say to my citizens in Romania when the 19 million citizens' right is violated because Austria, for example, does not allow us to enter Schengen? So we don't circulate the same way. After all, the rule of law must not be a phrase, it must be something practical.

I think you need to put your headphones on. Okay, okay. I am convinced that you and everyone here want to protect nature. You said that the Commission's proposal and the proposal we are debating today do not add value. I know you're familiar with agriculture. Could you say what proposal brings added value so as to ensure a good life for farmers and the development of agriculture and farmers, but also to protect nature? What would be your proposal?

Madam President, I am glad that we are discussing this subject, because I believe that nothing is more important than human health and it is very good to focus on research and innovation, because yes, of course, we need new antibiotics, new medicines that can put an end to these cases. It was said here: 35,000 deaths for microbial infections. The problem that I want to raise, Commissioner, is that the result of the research reaches all Member States. Yes, health is a national competence, but I believe that the free movement of citizens makes it necessary to have a health policy and to give the result of research. After all, you allocate some budgets to all the Member States, and I hope that it doesn't happen like with Pfizer, that we deliver money there for research and that we have negative results. I hope for a fair health policy for all citizens, who must be able to buy these medicines or be provided free of charge, depending on their illness.

Madam President, of course, we are debating a very important thing, especially since it is a year before the elections. Clearly, disinformation leads to a wrong choice, it leads citizens a different way. The problem is: how do we do it? We have defined very clearly what foreign interference means, because we see, now a conflict has arisen in Serbia and Kosovo, the conflict in Ukraine, we receive wrong information and I believe that disinformation is the most serious thing, which leads to wrong elections and interference in the democratic act in a Member State. The problem that I am putting here now – and I want to be understood correctly – is that we need to see foreign interference from all sides, because Mr Soros is running in all the Member States and in my country and is funding certain NGOs, certain people who obviously are misinforming. How do we stop disinformation? Yes, we are regulating here, but the problem is of application in the Member States and I believe that the Member States too have an extremely high obligation, together with the European Union, to stop disinformation once and no longer be foreign interference in the democratic act. Let the citizens decide.

Mr President, I have been in the European Parliament since 2014 and ever since I have been advocating for fairness, for the application of treaties and regulations equally in the 27 states, so as not to create inequities and, ultimately, discrimination. I am glad, Commissioner, that you are on duty today, because one of the inequities and discriminations made for the citizens of my country, who sent me here, is the fact that Austria, your country, opposes Romania's entry into Schengen without any argument. I am in the Committee on Civil Liberties, I know the Schengen regulation, we do not violate any articles there. The second inequity, Commissioner, and perhaps you pass it on to the President, also for the Romanians in my country, is that Romanians cannot go to the United States without a visa. Why not reciprocate? And I would ask you to listen to me, Commissioner, because I speak for you. I think you need to have a little respect for the Members of the European Parliament. You have to give me more to repeat now, Mr. President. So it was the second inequity, Commissioner, related to Romanian citizens who are not allowed to go to the United States except on a visa. You have the treaty: apply reciprocity and solve these inequities, because in Romania there is a Euroscepticism... (The president interrupted the speaker) Yes, Mr President, the Commissioner did not listen to me. I don't stay until 10 p.m. to talk here in an empty room and the commissioner won't listen. This is absolutely inappropriate... (The Chair withdrew the floor of the speaker)

Mr President, of course, those who are older in Parliament know that they have been discussing for years: zero tolerance for harassment, sexual harassment. The problem is not that we are going to vote, because I am convinced that this resolution will be voted on, but what about the resolution? How many resolutions have we voted on and nothing happened? Nothing's changed. Here we need to answer: how do we identify the harassers, what happens to them, what are the punishments? Let's start with the definition. I am convinced that now the concept of sexual harassment is understood differently by many people here. How do we not have victims? What about statistics (which, you know, are far from reality)? Because if a woman doesn't admit to being harassed, of course the statistics show half the women. I'm sure more. I believe that we need to get to the facts and we need to see concrete measures. On the one hand, here, in the European institutions, obviously, after that, let us expand the problem in order to have a diminishing once. I'm not... I'm realistic. I don't think we're going to eliminate it altogether, but at least let's reduce the harassment, because it's now an extremely serious situation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course, algae has been scientifically proven, they are also used in medicine, and in cosmetics, and yes, and alternatively, in food. I think there is a need for more funding for research, but also for good communication to the citizens, because we know what happened when we discussed and debated and there was also a resolution on alternative protein from insects, cockroaches, crickets and so on. We cannot dictate from Brussels or Strasbourg what the citizens should eat. Each country has, of course, a range of traditional foods, but information can be provided and then the growth of algae with such wide use will be done according to market demand. But it has to be regulated, it has to be certified, we have to have standards, because now, of course, we rely on imports from third countries. That is why I believe, Commissioner, that it is very important that we communicate to citizens that they do not understand again that we are forcing them to eat algae as an alternative to animal protein.

Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the importance of fishing and the quality of water in the oceans, seas and rivers has emerged from today's debate. But one more thing came out, Commissioner: that a balance must be struck here between the situation of fishermen and biodiversity, and the preservation of clean waters. It is not fishers and fishing that destroy biodiversity the most, but waste that is thrown uncontrollably into the oceans and seas. I think the health of the oceans is important, because it's also about people's health. But what do we do if you do not take into account the situation of fishing? There are countries, regions where people live by fishing. If you do not take this into account, there will surely be people who can no longer earn the income with which to live. And I think it's important to keep in mind that fish are still going to be eaten, and what are we going to do? We will import from third countries uncontrolled, where they do not take into account any biodiversity and product quality. So also take into account the lives of fishermen when regulating. We need to regulate after discussing with all stakeholders.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we do not have the Commissioner for Agriculture here shows only the lack of interest in farmers, the lack of interest in such an important sector. We want to change things. Commissioner, you have said some very good things. One of them is: Farmers are getting older. There are no more young farmers. I wrote to the Commissioner and proposed a centre of excellence for young farmers. It works in Romania. There are 300 young people who have completed this course and are returning to the countryside to work. Why don't we do anything concrete? Yes, we place the load as if on a two-ton bridge we pass by 10 tons and of course I can't stand the farmers anymore. Farmers need clarity, you said, in what we do here, but what do we do here? Without putting something in its place, a mechanism to help them, the CAP is a disaster. There are differences between what we give, subsidies to farmers, between countries in the East and countries in the West. We didn't do this, we didn't do anything, and what else do we do? We are giving an increase in quantity, a decrease in pesticides, but again it is uneven in the Member States. Farmers need a support mechanism. Grain coming in from Ukraine... (The president interrupted the speaker.)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that on Europe Day we are giving a gift to consumers, to those who listen to us. Of course, this proposal for a directive is very welcome, even if over time we have amended directives and had regulations that went in the direction of increasing consumer protection against unfair practices. We find that we are in a world where we have false information in all areas. We have in the online trade, we also have in the offline trade. Yes, we have a directive on the sale of goods that promotes the durability of goods and that two-year guarantee, but with this proposal of ours we want to increase transparency, the correctness of information to consumers, but we will also stimulate producers. Producers can give guarantees in two years' time and that is very good, but it will do something else on the market, Commissioner. Producers will have fair and fair competition, because the one who misinforms that he has a product that is eco sure saves on expenses compared to another who actually has an eco product. That is why I believe we are also helping to ensure fair competition in the market.

Madam President, Commissioners, Minister, we are debating discharge and I must say that I am disappointed with the final form of the Commission discharge report. I want to thank the Court of Auditors for always presenting in CONT extremely correctly all the things that are not good and we have to recognise them when they are not good. Why am I disappointed? Because in the negotiations made for compromises it was very difficult to reach a text that was as close to reality as possible. There is a lot of subjectivity on the part of the EPP. You know the double language: “we criticise the Commission, we criticise the Commission Presidency, but when to pass, let’s pass”. In my view, the Commission should have remained rigorous. Personally, I wanted a postponement of the discharge, because we have to be firm once and for all. I understand that 2021 was a complicated year for everyone, but the lack of transparency and the fact that the President of the Commission did not answer any of our questions, did not come to the committee about the procurement contracts, left an impression across the European Union with extreme, extreme distrust of the Commission. It also did not reply to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman made a negative report. So why do we have to rush into a discharge? I'm sad that this is so, and I think we don't have to formally do the discharges, and I think we need to learn from this. The European Commission must understand that all the instruments and all the projects, programmes, measures that it brings... yes, it's good to be innovative. The spending of public money must be subject to the control of the Court of Auditors. I also said this in CONT and I repeat it: money does not belong to the European Commission and we, the European Parliament, need to have control, because we represent citizens and citizens are wondering, since the pandemic (in all countries, not only in my country), I think they are wondering who made the contracts, why they made them with those prices, why there is no transparency, why we were not given the contracts. That is why I am saddened to say that this report is worth postponing. Regarding the European Development Fund, I was also here rapporteur on behalf of my group and I want to thank this time the way of collaboration and the compromises we have reached. Obviously, I have put emphasis here on developing poor areas, on supporting small farmers, because we have this main task to ensure cohesion in the European Union market, in the internal market. I regret to say and end with this: authority is extremely eroded if we do not have transparency and if we do not have communication. The Commission’s authority is important for the European project. We cannot respond to the citizens and then of course we lose credibility.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, first of all, happy Europe Day and happy Romania too, that today is Independence Day. It is good that we are discussing the Stability Pact on Europe Day and yes, we need changes to the Stability Pact. But have you also thought, Minister, Commissioner, of a solidarity pact? How do we establish this Stability Pact if we do not think about the fact that social cohesion has not increased, that we still have poor regions, that we still have children in poverty. We can't make Procust's Bed, because different countries are developed. I also want to tell you that now, on Europe Day, the European Union is registering a great failure, namely: We have a fragmented market and yes, Romania is not in Schengen. We let Austria fly like a wild horse in the European Union and destroy the European Union project, creating these injustices for European citizens. When we make a Stability Pact, we have to think about how we make a single market, how we make it possible for Member States to lift themselves out of poverty in poor areas, and above all think, Commissioner, that there is subsidiarity for fiscal policy.

Mr President, I have chosen to speak today about disinformation and human rights. They may seem unrelated, but they do, because on false information, careers were destroyed, families were destroyed, even people who ended their lives because of false information. That is why the responsibility of the European and national institutions is to find solutions to stop this wave of disinformation. How could he? By personal example, because the lack of transparency and bad communication shown, if you will, by both the European Commission and the WHO during the pandemic, information that has led to debates and to many, many fake news and citizens' mistrust sure make citizens no longer know how to choose which is the right information and which is the wrong one. I believe that the responsibility of the European institutions, but also of the national ones, is to regulate, but not only to regulate, to follow and not only to follow implementation, to take action against those who misinform because it affects people's lives and, after all, the democratic principles in our states. Now, especially in the situation of the war on the border with the European Union, we know well how many Fake news -URI There is also a lot of false information, which obviously leads to different attitudes, different behaviors and wrong decisions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the future of Europe and the future of every country are children, and I am pleased that we are discussing the programme for the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk in schools. I want to congratulate you on such a well-documented, well-argued report, and I think that tomorrow we will all vote on this report, but I would be happy for the Commission to take into account the recommendations in our report, because yes, we need a bigger budget. We don't have to compromise on quality, we don't have to buy with little money what is cheaper for children, and I think we also need a food education program, because I had the opportunity to go to a school where children didn't eat bananas because they had never eaten and didn't know what those were. At the same time with the school food distribution program, we also need to do a food education and yes, I agree that we need to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, small farmers to be the main suppliers for the products distributed in schools.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, of course the media is very important in every respect. Informing citizens, to a large extent, is done not institutionally, through national or European institutions, but through the media. That is why we must ensure that the Media Directive is uniformly implemented in all Member States. I have to say that here too, in the media, we have to make sure that there is gender equality. In my country today, gender equality is celebrated and I want to mention this because very often there have been cases of harassment of women in the media or even exclusion from certain posts, in order to have a good information of the citizens. We must have regulations, but not only regulations: we need to see the implementation and track the effects as well. That is why I believe, Commissioner, and I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the media must play their part, but we must take care of platforms. Now we have more information online, we need to see how these platforms work and how they work online, just like offline. I believe that we need a deontological media and we need to support it, because only it can inform the citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard the debate and I have also heard the Commissioner's presentation. However, nothing has been said about the efficiency of spending money. Because, Commissioner, as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I also discussed last week with the Court of Auditors. There are always, new instruments are being created, new programmes that are outside the budget and cannot even be controlled by the Court of Auditors. I would have liked to see how we can make spending this money more efficient. Of course we need more money, but I will never support an additional tax on citizens, an additional tax on SMEs, in order to be able to do what? The Commission did not predict how the interest rate would rise. When those contracts were concluded, the interest was not fixed, how much is the interest? This is what happens in a contract. That's what happened with spending money on vaccines. Again, we don't know how much was given, how it was given. Lack of transparency leads to mistrust, Commissioner, and I think that's where it starts: transparency and scrutiny of the European Parliament over all financial instruments.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we debated a very clear question, Commissioner, on State aid and the de minimis scheme. I was surprised that you came and told us directly that the Commission does not intend to change the de minimis rules, but you could see now that, regardless of the political group, everyone has asked for these state aids and de minimis rules to be granted with concrete situations, with more remote regions, poorer regions, with less developed states, because otherwise we will not reach cohesion, disparities will increase. Let me give you one example, Commissioner: The Commission is now, when we speak, also for years, granting different subsidies to farmers, different majors; higher subsidies to more developed countries and lower subsidies to less developed countries. How then will we be able to reach a single market, an internal market, with the same possibilities? How do we achieve social cohesion? That is why I want you to answer us just as directly, Commissioner, after today's debate, are you going to change the rules?

Mr President, Commissioner, of course, I believe that the climate crisis must be recognised by everyone, but my point of view (and my point of view is that of the citizens I represent here) is that it must be dealt with globally. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone. That is why, at COP 28 in Dubai, the European institutions must clearly support, like the other continents, a strategy to mitigate the climate crisis, and it is obvious that we need to see here how we can better manage forests, water and soil. Here, perhaps, additional measures are needed, because deforestation, we know well, has led to natural disasters; but, Commissioner, we cannot deal with the climate crisis with tougher measures as you have said, unless we also deal with the social crisis. So, here we have to take a package, find measures to support less developed states, poorer regions, so that citizens can support these measures that mitigate the climate crisis, because everyone will want to have a roof, as a colleague said here, with solar energy, but will it? Does it come from where? So here we have to deal with the package and certainly this is the good way.

Commissioner, President, colleagues, of course, the energy market is very important for every citizen. After all, the life of every citizen depends on the cost of energy, and we know that these successive crises have led to an increase in the price of each individual bill. Commissioner, when we regulate, I think we need to take into account the impact on people and yes, we also need stock. But in management it is said that the stock costs and we have to see how we calculate it, that optimal stock, so that we do not add costs that obviously go to the pocket of the citizen. I believe that the pace at which we regulate must keep pace with the possibility of implementation, so as not to lead to an increase in regional disparities instead of cohesion. That is why, I think, Commissioner, you also need to think about how we are making sure that the costs of investing in infrastructure (because we know we lack it), in networks, the costs of stock (how much stock costs us, how much stock we do) do not ultimately increase the cost of the bill. I think we must keep in mind that until we reach the amount of renewable energy that we have proposed, we must still have access to gas and nuclear energy.