Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's topic: the energy crisis and its effects, war, security, transatlantic relations, all have effects on the citizen. But I admit that I am surprised that this issue, which has been dragging on for 11 years, does not appear on the agenda of the Council on 15 December, namely the discussion about the absolutely aberrant and non-legally covering vote of Austria, in fact of the Chancellor, not of the citizens of Austria. That is why I ask you, Commissioner, you, the Czech Presidency, to insist on resuming this vote that is not legally covered, and I thank the colleagues and the Chair of the LIBE Committee and all the colleagues who signed a letter that we wanted to send to the European Commission as a signal that you need to speed up the procedures for amending the Treaty, to get rid of this unanimity that is blocking everything that we are working on here in the European Parliament. I hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join Schengen as soon as possible and that means as soon as we start next year, because it is their right and the single market is not a single market, it is a fragmented market and, in this context, we cannot have competitiveness.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, what I have been listening to today, I have been listening to for 11 years. Thank you, Commissioner and Minister, for supporting us. The problem is the result. It was not Romania and Bulgaria that were defied by Austria's vote, but the European institutions, because today you said that we meet all the conditions. Commissioner, the College of Commissioners also voted, Parliament voted and I thank my colleagues. I've never received 547 votes before. The problem is what we do when a member country violates a regulation and has no legal basis. It's a lie in court. That's how I understand it: When you lie, you are punished. Commissioner, in this respect, I, as a Romanian citizen, on behalf of the citizens I represent, have sent two letters to the European Commission. One: what measures are you taking to sanction a country blocking the internal market? We celebrate 30 years of the domestic market, but here we are, two markets: Schengen and non-Schengen. And if you start the Treaty change procedures for unanimity voting, because in my view, it's not specific to a democracy. (The president interrupted the speaker)

Commissioner, I wanted to ask: do not think that investments from China or from another third country, if they meet environmental, social, quality standards, we could accept them, because we still have a global economy and those investments might go, look, to America or elsewhere and we become, to be in a competition, to say, unequal. Do you not think that if we imposed in product quality standards, environmental, social and so on, we could keep certain investments from China and other third countries?

Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for the answers you have given so far. Of course, you said there are 11 strategic sectors. Obviously you don't answer everything, but my question was related to what you said: that there must be a risk assessment. Now, when we speak for the 11 sectors, do you know if there is an impact assessment? Is Europe ready to protect all its strategic infrastructure without China or any other third country as an investor? Because it's important to know. Yes, we defend ourselves, say, from China's infrastructure and investments, but we are able, we have complete competition on this, we have innovation, we have what we need, technology so that we can not remain with that infrastructure behind the other countries, because we are no longer competitive then.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think that anyone disputes the need, the need to have this Renewable Energy Directive, the energy efficiency of buildings, but, especially in the context of the global energy crisis, we need a balanced energy system. Every country has a different energy mix and we have to think about how to get the bills to the citizens. That's what interests me: Lower bills to pay, that's what citizens are interested in. And I think it is necessary, as has been said here, to simplify bureaucracy. They are extremely expensive, after all, all the permits and all the bureaucracy. Then there needs to be more dialogue for the right understanding of the advantage of renewable energy and, of course, we need to see how urgent the permits are, because in the end, from regulation to enforcement to effect, the road is too long. That is why I very much believe that much needs to be done in the implementation of this directive, but it is necessary.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am also nervous now because I am talking about our colleague, we are talking about people with disabilities. We have studies, we have research done, what impact there is in society on these people, the UN Convention. But in practice, in every country, the first problem for these people is accessibility, and we have seen that even in the European Parliament colleagues do not have access to the room. Is that possible? Our colleague spoke for the first time here in front of Parliament. Commissioner and colleagues, I believe that we must, however, put an end to this dictatorship of the Council. I have heard here that for 14 years we have been trying to have a legislation for people with disabilities, for 14 years! For 11 years, in 8 years, the entrance of two states was blocked. I came to Strasbourg today, Commissioner. Do you know how to get down stairs for people who are not in Schengen? There is no possibility for a disabled person to get to passport control, because they have to come down some stairs. It is unacceptable what is happening with the Council and I believe that we, Parliament, must unite and succeed in putting our work that we are doing here into practice. Without concrete measures, which we are voting on here and the Council is blocking, we will not solve the problem of persons with disabilities either.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are debating this subject and this issue, digitalisation. Of course, we know that the proverb exists in all situations: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It is very important and I am glad that you spoke, Commissioner, that not only investments in technology are enough, but we also need to increase skills, because now, when we speak, there are entire geographical areas, especially in rural areas, where we do not have any infrastructure, is there no signal for the phone about which digitalisation to talk about? And skills need to be increased at the same time as investments, because otherwise it would be a loss if we invest in digitalisation, but we do not have the skills to access it. I also believe in the positive effects of digitalisation, in the good effects to integrate people with disabilities, but to the same extent I believe very much that investments must be targeted towards geographical areas, towards areas where we still have problems related to skills and infrastructure. That is why I believe that digitalisation goes hand in hand with investment and goes hand in hand with education and increasing the digital skills of all citizens in the internal market area.

Mr President, Commissioner, Commissioner, we have been debating this issue of a single solution in the European Union on the issue of migration for seven years. I'm skeptical and have reason to be. We have talked here about a united Europe, solidarity, humanity, rights, but we have a service blocker that is the Council. And I'm setting an example to be well understood. If my 11-year-old country is being held at the gates of the Schengen area, what unity, what solidarity are we talking about? If we have a regulation voted by Parliament, voted by the Commission and it is not applied because the Council is the blocker. Because a Member State or two, on petty, national interests, raise various reasons unrelated to the Regulation. How can I believe that we will have a migration pact agreed by all Member States? And yes, I think very well that my country, my citizens, have accumulated frustration, anger, economic loss. Yes, the European Union is growing in scepticism. And from here I ask the Council to make Romania's entry into Schengen.

Mr President, Commissioners, of course, when we make a legislative change, we also think about the impact. It is very good that you also explained to the answers you gave, that you wanted to leave a greater ease for the fiscal space, depending on the degree of indebtedness of each state. My question is: Did you think that at the same time we have to implement a new strategy for the reindustrialisation of the European Union, a new strategy for SMEs? You have calculated an impact if with this legislative reform of the common governance in the 27 states we have a positive impact, after all, this is important, how we go through the crises, how we manage not to affect the weakest, i.e. SMEs, micro-enterprises and how we can bring added value, that in the end the European Union also borrowed from the capital market and we have to give back the money by 2058. So I'm interested in whether you have a calculated impact.

Dear colleague, after what you have presented to us, I think you have not read at all the document that we are debating now or you do not understand anything. You say that 40% would be the percentage, that it would be discrimination for the population, which is over 50%. Where is the discrimination? That's a problem. Second, how do you see the problem of women having competence on boards of directors resolved - that competence on boards of directors is not excluded? We don't play, we don't lift weights, we don't lift bags and we don't do physical work, we think. And if we have 60% trained females with tertiary education, don't you think that a competence is lost in these boardrooms?

It is inexplicable to me what you are saying here and I ask you: Have you ever read an anthropological study? Do you know what native qualities women have? Credeți că dacă se pune această cotă, nu se mai ține cont de criteriile de calitate, de competență? Or what were you thinking? Mathematically, there are 60% of university graduates, it is clear that there can be only 8% on the boards of directors. So we're losing skills.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we often speak very technically and perhaps less intelligible to citizens. In fact, what does the resilience of critical entities mean? It means that we are now thinking, through this directive, to increase the resilience of some sectors that ultimately have to do with their quality of life, their lives. Energy, health, food, space... 11 areas, as has been said, are covered by this directive, and it is clear that less resistance by a sector, by a critical entity in a given Member State will cascading effects throughout the space, throughout the internal market. That is why I very much believe that it is necessary for this directive to be well adopted in national law. But I also believe that the infrastructures in the areas I have mentioned here must be of the same quality and quality, in order to be a fair competition in the market and to have equal resistance in the market. That is why I very much believe that we must have one space, Commissioner, and I appeal to you again. I know that it was voted in the Council of Commissioners to enter the three states Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia into the Schengen area and to be able to work on increasing the quality of infrastructure in the 11 areas.

Madam President, Commissioner, social cohesion is one of the objectives of the European Union. Social cohesion in the internal market in the 27 countries. But how can there be social cohesion when the market is fragmented? When do we have a double measure? When I see that my 11-year-old country is not in the Schengen area. We have two Europes, Schengen and Non-Schengen. And today we were discussing how to apply the regulation. We have a Schengen regulation, the regulation applies, it is not discussed, it is not negotiated. Why do we have this problem with the Schengen Regulation, that one country, two, want to control the other, and a Pandora's box opens. Is that how the regulations apply? I knew that the European Commission was the guardian of the application of the Treaties and regulations. I rightly ask that my country, like my citizens, no longer be treated second-hand and, as explained here, of course it will be an efficiency for the entire internal market. But, Commissioner, there is an enormous danger of developing Euroscepticism, citizens' mistrust and, of course, what is happening with the European project. That is why I am asking the Council to vote on the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. Not because we are asking for this support, but because it is our right, the right of the citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, an extremely important subject. The biggest mistake in private management is that when there's a crisis, you cut funding from research, from innovation. Unfortunately, in the public space, and here too, the European Commission has even considered this programme to stop it. We cannot promote, first of all, the disappointment of the companies that waited and believed in this project. Secondly, without innovation money we cannot have start-ups, we cannot have small, medium or even very large companies with modern technology. It is absolutely incomprehensible why this very program had to be blocked and I certainly appeal because I work with the private sector. I am Vice-Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market, Vice-Chair of the SME Intergroup, and I know what it means to invest in innovation. So the key is with you, Commissioner. As a member of parliament, we support it. I do not think that there is any MEP who does not understand why precisely in the crisis we need money for innovation, for research, for refurbishment.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that we are debating this report on the borrowing strategy for financing Next Generation, a necessary project, because yes, it is a crisis. But what we have to say to the citizens, because we don't talk in the abstract like that, we borrow 2 billion, 2000 billion, 450 billion. The citizen wants to know how he can influence this budget, his life, to be able to live better. And we know well that there are geographical areas where we have a lack of social cohesion and a hard life for citizens, winter is coming, we have the bills. How do we use this money? Efficiency! We need to focus on efficiency here. And yes, who knows how much interest will be until we repay in 2058? At the same time with the loan, those own sources of income had to be automatically found in order to be able to counteract the expenses with these large loans. And it's a black ball for the Council, which is blocking, and always lately, or at least since I've been here, the Council stands out as blocking everything. That is why, Commissioner, please insist that we go on our own resources so that we can be sure that we are not indebted to three generations after us.

Madam President, Commissioner, I agree with what you have presented here. Now, 30 years after we celebrate the Single Market, I will speak from the perspective of the Single Market, but also of the citizen. Of course, there is no safe single market unless we also have a cyber defence policy. The problem that I see now that we have, is that the 27 states are at different stages of digitization, because we cannot detach the cyber defence policy from digitization, and how can we apply this slogan, no one is left behind, in practice? How can we help Member States that do not yet have digitalisation to the level they need to be able to intervene in this cyber defence chain? And I think that here we need to think about directing the targeted funds, so that we can really have the complete chain, because one link, if it is missing, obviously this cyber-attack occurs that leads to insecurity both for the citizen, and for companies and, as a whole, for the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the subject is extremely important for humanity: hate, racism. From my point of view, being part of a humanist, social-liberal party in my country, I believe that man must be put at the centre of every action of us, of the Council, of the Commission, of Parliament, of everyone. But I wonder, does the European Council not discriminate against my country, a whole nation, that Romania does not enter Schengen, even though it meets the conditions, even though Parliament voted? What example can the European Council give when using a double measure? What example can the Commission give when using a double measure? And what example can Parliament give when there are MEPs who, even in today's debate, have stigmatised an entire country by not setting a positive example? I belong to a majority, but I feel discriminated against alongside the citizens of my country, even the European Council. Therefore, policies of discrimination, elimination of racism and hatred must be started from here in order to set an example to the citizens and to consider that everyone is important, regardless of religion, nation, color.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, listening to today's debate, I am thinking about what a citizen would understand if he had listened to the debate. The President of the Council blames the Commission for not coming up with legislative proposals. Did the council find out now that winter is coming in three weeks? Why didn't he send the 9 measures that Mr. President was talking about sooner? On the other hand, the very strange President of the Commission says that we are very prepared for winter, that gas prices have fallen by two thirds, but nothing has happened on the bills. Mr Vice-President of the Commission, however, can we go back home and say something concrete about this critical situation? They are citizens, they are SMEs, they are small and medium-sized enterprises that close their doors, and citizens are in the cold, hospitals are in the cold, children are in the cold. What to say at home? Let us be serious and give citizens concrete measures and answers.

Mr President, dear colleague, I have seen that you praise the work of the Council and the decisions taken at the last Council. That's the theme, too. And you said yes, the gas price went down. Are you aware that the bill for the citizen has also decreased? Because from the information I have, at least in my country, but maybe you tell me in Italy what is happening, the citizens' bills are exactly the same price. There is no effect yet on the measures taken by the Council. How can we solve this equation that you, behold, have shown to be already solved?

Madam President, Commissioner, today we are also debating something that we have been asking for for months. What the President of the Commission has presented to us, the citizens have heard before. We have also heard many times: proposals, proposals, proposals. The Council does not take any decision. Now, when we speak, the citizens of my country and other states have their bills regularized, prices come 4 to 10 times higher and there is no decision. What are we talking about here? Do we or do we not put people at the centre? And the President told us that she would create a joint purchasing platform. Will it be as non-transparent as vaccines? We won't know what prices are, we won't know how to divide? Everything was totally non-transparent in the pandemic and we do not want it to be this anymore, to cover the profits of some companies, as were the profits of health companies. So, Commissioner, the citizens ask me. I speak, but what answers do I get? And I tell them I'm not getting it. Perhaps today, however, you give an answer: when are concrete measures being taken to end this energy crisis?

Mr President, Commissioner, health, we all say that it is a priority. Mental health is also a priority. But you yourself, Commissioner, have said that during the pandemic, during the COVID period, the number of cases has increased, and yes, it has increased because, or because, you have taken measures that are not justified, and even the WHO has said so. Is anyone in charge of these cases? Now people are pressured by energy costs, by the cost of living. Again, we will have an increase in cases, is anyone responsible for not taking action? You can't wash your hands and say: health is a national competence, as long as you have taken action at European Union level during the pandemic or if it was a pandemic. Commissioner, health must not only be spoken of, words must be covered by deeds, and that is why I am waiting for a concrete answer. I also asked at the other debate: Do we have solutions or not to solve the costs of the invoices? Do we now have unified solutions, at European Union level, related to mental health? Yes, these people are marginalized. These people cannot afford, and their families cannot afford, to provide care for them as they should.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are talking about stopping the increase in bills, with social and economic consequences, but now that we are discussing, in very many Member States, bills are being regularised, bills are being raised, 10 times the cost of energy. And here, not only in my country, where citizens have notified me that electricity prices have increased 10 times, here, and in Belgium I received right now, when it is the debate, a letter from a citizen to whom the bill has been increased from 35 euros to 450 euros per month and a regularization bill of over 3 700 euros. What are the concrete measures? Because we can't stay in the cold season and discuss for eight months how we can lower our bills? I come from a meeting with SME Connect, in my capacity as Vice-President of the SME Intergroup, and the concrete question of entrepreneurs in Germany, in Austria, where did they come from, in Slovakia, how do we lower energy bills? And this must be the answer that we must give to both citizens and SMEs if we are not to have social and economic consequences.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know if you can understand me, but I have a feeling of frustration. And that's not just me, but all the citizens of my country. How many times have we debated? How many times have we voted in the European Parliament? This is the second time the Commission has written to the Council, to the 27 Heads of State and Government, which, here, is what democracy teaches us: A president or head of government matters more than tens of millions of citizens! Is this European democracy? Could he tell us - and I am now addressing the 27 heads of state and government, including the president of my country - what point of the treaty, what point of the Schengen Regulation Romania or Bulgaria does not meet? And I do not know if these heads of state have ever been in a concrete business, not of the other types, to understand what it means to waste time if you have a transport company, as a citizen. I don't know if they would understand, but I ask them as a former businessman: If we were to calculate the 11-year moral and financial damage caused to millions of citizens in my country, how could they pay? I urge Romania and the citizens of my country to enjoy the same... (The Chair withdrew the floor of the speaker).

Mr President, Commissioner, I want to ask you a question about what the President of the European Commission has said. The conflict in Ukraine is exacerbating the energy crisis. He said here, Madam President, that gas prices need to be capped, and I think everyone agrees. But I want to ask you what did the President mean by a ‘homogeneous level’ in the European Union market? What does a homogeneous level mean? There are countries where per capita consumption is four times lower than the average in the European Union, as is the consumption in my country. The one who consumes the least, can he still bear a discount? I believe that here we must be careful and the Commission must propose a mechanism that does not disadvantage the European citizens who currently have the lowest consumption, and these citizens are the ones in my country.

Dear colleagues, this is certainly not the first time we are debating the situation of the Roma in the European Union. We also have a plan, but, Commissioner, I want to draw attention to something that has also resulted from this debate. I have seen that the rapporteur and other colleagues have also nominated the countries of the East as being those that discriminate against the Roma. My country has been mentioned here several times, along with Slovakia, along with Bulgaria. Don't you think that Roma citizens are also European citizens and are allowed to live where they want - freedom of movement? I ask, and I don't ask the first time: why does France take Roma citizens on board and send them to Romania or Bulgaria? Why don't they integrate them? Why are they sending these people, who have their right to choose where to live, to the poorer countries of the East, and not giving budgets to integrate them into the country where these citizens chose to go? Because if we continue this way, with this segregation, to send all the Roma to the countries of the East, obviously, we will never succeed, because these people have the same rights as the citizens of each country.