Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Lagarde, I come from a more recent country in the European Union, Romania. The main task of the bank, as has been said here, is price stability. The fantastic loss has reached the citizens. We have a lot of poor citizens, Mrs. Lagarde, who can't even buy bread. Inflation has not been curbed. We have to go from results. "It means that the policies you have applied have not been good," the colleague said before. SMEs do not have access to finance. You, in your report, have not specifically stated how you want to achieve 2% inflation in 2026. You may answer us, because if you take care of everything and do not remain in the mandate of the bank you run, we certainly do not achieve our goal, because there were crises after crises, and monetary policy was not adapted at all to crises and poverty increased in the European Union. I'm asking for an answer, Mrs. Lagarde, if you've come here: Tell us how, because we also have to tell the citizens when we go home.

Madam President, Mr President, dear Minister and the whole team, at first I want to thank you for describing my country so beautifully. That is so and I would like, dear colleagues, those who today have tried to blame her, to understand Romania. Visit her first, talk to the people there and understand her. Mr. President, I will be objective. I want to raise the issues that I have raised before all Heads of State and Government and ask you: Do you really like what Europe looks like now? Do you think more could have been done? Is there really social cohesion? Is there equity? I am the Vice-Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and I refuse to use the term ‘single market’ that you have used, as has Commissioner Breton. I don't think it's a single market and that's what we have to fight for, Mr President. I end my second term with a bitter taste that Romania is not in the internal market, that we are not in Schengen and it is unfair, and my colleagues from all political groups have said it. Next, do you think the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is fair? Why haven't we had this equity for so long? Farmers in all states, if we have a single internal market in all states, be equally rewarded. I think there are things that could have been solved during this period and I do not think that you should not, even at the last hundred meters, insist, Mr President, because, we know well, in the Council it is finally decided how Europe should go and where.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have a priority debate with farmers on the street and the Commissioner for Agriculture is not here. How can we debate priority issues for agriculture without the Commissioner who has the job description to deal with it? Thank you, Mr Vice-President, Commissioner, for being here. Neither is the President, nor does she participate in priority debates. Colleagues, we need solutions here. Yes, we are proud of the agricultural sector, but are they proud of us, of what we do for them? Commissioner, did you say that we need to find solutions? Well, the solutions are clear. Now, in the crisis, we need to increase the budget for the crisis. We urgently need to change the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). What fairness are we talking about when there are no equal subsidies in all Member States? What fairness are we talking about when 8,000 grams per hectare of pesticides are consumed in the Netherlands and 600 in my country? That's what farmers want. What equity are we talking about when we take their land and lay them fallow and make butter out of fly and eat locusts and cricket flour? Farmers want natural agriculture, consumers want natural agriculture. Let's give them action, not stories.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will speak from a consumer perspective. I am the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Consumer Protection in the European Parliament. Of course, I am not a specialist, but I am an engineer and I support research and innovation, but it is absurd to apply the result of the research without making an impact analysis. We are talking here about people's health and if the argument we heard today that we want to apply this and make a regulation, it means that there is no longer freedom of decision in every state and the citizen does not know if he has the right to choose what he consumes. If the argument is that we import such products from elsewhere, the argument is zero. Because we can ban trade agreements from importing what we don't know is good for health. I would vote very broadly on this regulation if, before and not after, you bring us all the evidence that there is no impact on health. I didn't hear this, several colleagues asked for it and that's why I have a big doubt. Citizens ask us: Do we still have the right to choose something in our lives? Where do we go, how do we go, what do we eat, what do we wear? So I think this regulation is absolutely unprepared. We don't have all the data at hand and we know what happened to the vaccines.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk about the internal market, consumer protection and the protection of the internal market. We talk a lot, we debate a lot, the Commission makes cosmetics, but here we are, to serious violations of consumers' rights to know what they consume. Behold, we have farmers on the street all over Europe, because, yes, horsemeat is imported from Uruguay without knowing the quality of the meat. We import products and cereals, finished products from third countries, making unfair competition to farmers and we are not able to cover the words we say with facts. The trust of citizens and farmers has been lost and we need to find a solution. I think the solution, Commissioner, is the following: the common agricultural policy must be amended, trade agreements that finally protect the internal market and protect consumers must be reviewed and made safe, they must be quality standards, product standards, we must not import products in which the labour force is exploited, so that we really ensure fair conditions for both consumers and producers in the internal market.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive that we are debating today, relating to driving disqualifications, has only one purpose: to save lives, to reduce road accidents. Of course, we have road accidents not only because of drivers who may be drunk, use drugs, have excessive speed, but also because of infrastructure, which is another subject, as in all Member States, to manage to have a proper road infrastructure. But yes, I agree that those who violate road traffic rules should be treated the same, because life has the same value, no matter in which country the accident happens. Prevention is very important, the rigors of the law too. Sure, we have the right to move, it is a fundamental right, but we also have a responsibility not to endanger the lives of children, of the elderly. Accidents are mostly in cities, but also on highways. That is why I agree and I support that this directive should apply in the European area, that we should have security in all the Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have strayed very far from the title of the debate because we had to talk, in fact, about the situation of solar energy in the context of unfair competition. There was more talk about the energy mix, about what contributions solar energy made. The problem is, Commissioner, if you can tell us, how we are fighting unfair competition. We have a policy, an industrial strategy, a policy of reindustrialisation of the European Union. We don't just have problems with solar panels, we have problems with other areas as well. I believe that the internal market of the European Union is the least protected from unfair competition and I believe that here, if we really want to increase the value chain and all the components that contribute to solar energy, we must take a serious look at this plan of reindustrialization. How do we support this? Then you said that solar energy contributed 8% and replaced the import of Russian gas. That's right, but we have to see that the Sun is not the same in all Member States and we cannot impose a project ... (The president interrupted the speaker)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this regulation has long been awaited. We all have to understand. I'm surprised at the position of some of my colleagues. This regulation actually helps everyone: it helps the consumer, the citizen, it helps SMEs, it helps safety, of course. It also helps the time, the cost. Let's be serious, very often it happens to us that we pay for a commodity, the money leaves us, does not reach the suppliers and is kept by the bank. Cashflow and cash are in the bank. This regulation will allow banks to stop making this instant payment service optional and in return for payment. That is why I think it must be very well explained to the citizens what the advantage is. It has nothing to do with cash. You can't pay from Germany to France in cash. You have to make these instant payments and I hope that this regulation will apply as soon as possible, which, as I was saying, in addition to the free protection of IBAN, checks and protects it. We make cashflow to SMEs, especially, but also cash to arrive on time and not to be stored at banks.

Madam President, it is good that we are looking at the situation of respect for human rights in the European Union. The problem is not only to analyze, the problem is to implement, to function, not to be just a slogan, because if we look now and take a photo of how respect for human rights works in the European Union, we can see ... and I have countless petitions, and at the Committee on Petitions there are examples coming from the Member States where children are taken without reasons and institutionalized, freedom of movement is restricted, as is the case for Romanians, because we are not in the Schengen area. What human rights are we talking about? I believe that this resolution must continue with pressure on the Commission to verify respect for human rights. And I have another problem: We have Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova that we want here, in our country, in the European Union, but Romanians in Ukraine have no rights, Madam President. Many times we have taken steps to respect the right of the Romanian minority to the Romanian language, to use the Romanian language and it is not respected. So, but from my point of view, it doesn't just help to regulate and debate, we must aim to implement.

Madam President, this report is expected in many Member States because, as many colleagues in the European Parliament would say, there is - and statistical data show - a gender difference. Women, of course, are, at least in my country, the majority population, but if we look at the percentage of women in well-paid positions, in leadership positions, even here in the European Parliament, we see that they are minority. Of course, all the successive crises have brought, if you will, a greater effect on women. Domestic violence is often not fought properly and I am glad that this report - and I voted for it - also indicates the tasks of the Member States, because it cannot be done only at the level of the European Union. Member States have the power to resolve and include gender equality in all its policies. After all, in a workplace we must all have equality, both men and women, and I tell my colleague who disagreed with this report that I, as a woman, faced this problem at the beginning of my career. So I voted for this report.

Madam President, incitement to hatred, we are seeing it increasingly in the global space, but also in the space of the European Union. And although the Commission presented almost two years ago to the Council a communication entitled ‘A more inclusive Europe’, the Council did not take any decision. I believe that we are all confronted in our countries with incitement to hatred and it is extremely dangerous. It went from verbal violence to physical violence. I voted for this report because I believe that we need to take steps to regulate, to delineate what incitement to hatred means and what freedom of expression means. We do not want to restrict freedom of expression, but neither can we accept - and I have many examples to give, in many states, where even politicians and people from non-governmental organizations funded by I do not know who incites hatred. This is not the goal of mankind, the goal of mankind is love, not hatred.

Madam President, Commissioner, today's topic is extremely important and I am sorry that it comes at the end of the plenary session in Strasbourg. People's health is extremely important, at the same time, fair competition on the domestic market, because now we are talking about importing horse meat from Argentina, from Uruguay, but we also had situations of importing beef from Great Britain, which entered the European Union market infested. You said, Commissioner, that you had a timetable. The problem is that this calendar does not respond to the speed at which it is consumed. Why should we end up importing horsemeat, as has been said here, from animals that have been injected, unchecked? Why don't we apply the standards? Farmers are finished, and stockbreeders, and farmers. So if we don't regulate that in the internal market ... there must be competition, but there must be fair competition and we must protect consumers. That is why, Commissioner, you must make this timetable very quickly and answer why the standards for meat imports have not been met so far.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests, as you know, is voted on every year. I want to thank CONT from the outset, which in a large majority voted our position, and also thank the shadow rapporteurs. That doesn't mean we haven't found things to write in this report. Here is the increase in fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities in the revenue and expenditure sections in 2022, and certainly also an increase in the detection rate. Unfortunately, the European Commission did not intervene in the revision of the EUR 10 million threshold for transnational VAT fraud, as it should have been, to reduce it, in order to allow the European Public Prosecutor's Office to investigate. It means that there must be changes in the next period. I would also like to thank the Court of Auditors, OLAF, Eurojust, Europol, who have worked together to detect and prevent fraud risks. At the same time, I would like to stress, and I stressed in this report, as rapporteur, that we must monitor the proper spending of money in the European Union, which belongs to citizens, not only in the Member States, but also in the European institutions. As regards the anti-fraud architecture in the EU, in the report I recommend good cooperation and coordination between all its compartments and, of course, a holistic and result-oriented approach to the fight against fraud, more exigency, more transparency, because we have faced a lack of transparency from all the institutions. Thank you and I hope you will vote, as CONT has voted on this report, very important for the protection of financial interests.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course we must have a common policy, as we do for industrial policy, for agrarian policy, but I hope it is not as bad as agricultural policy, because protecting the oceans should not lead to a ban on fishing. There are areas where people live only by fishing and then we, the consumers, must benefit from the products of the internal market of the European Union and not import from third countries less controlled products. That is why I believe that the common fisheries policy and future prospects must take into account, first of all, the protection of fishermen and what they know how to do, and only through dialogue with them can we take action at European level. Too often it is decided at European level, without discussing with those who know well what needs to be done. Yes, I agree that we need to reduce plastic pollution, but this is not a matter for fishermen, and we need to protect fishermen.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we look at the title of the debate, we see, in fact, that it is a great hypocrisy. The Council is not present, but why did we choose this topic? Because Europe is boiling, because farmers are on the street. The Commissioner has not presented us with any solution, although the title is the Commission's statement on improving the economic and social situation of farmers. Commissioner, did a party colleague praise you, please say, in your answers, what are the concrete measures to improve the situation of farmers? We're all going home, I'm going to my country. What do I say to farmers who have been on the street for a week, in cold and hunger? What do we tell them? You said that you can no longer make a reservation that the crisis reserve is over, that you can no longer make derogations. So you've only said what you can't. I want to go home with a clear answer from the Commission, because we have, and I have asked you once again, Commissioner, to amend the common agricultural policy. It is not a common agricultural policy, as long as the subsidies are different. Please give us concrete answers so that we can tell the people at home what the Commission is going to do in the field of agriculture.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, if the citizens had listened to this debate, which is also called a priority, they would not only be disappointed, they would also be outraged. Nothing was said. What will the Council actually do on 1 February? What is the balance sheet? To the disgrace of Mrs. President, she left and around the end of her mandate, she did not stay for the joint debate, the priority debate. What do citizens understand? That we are interested in federalization, in putting into practice Mr. Macron's plan, the two-speed Europe? In fact, let's legalize it, that we have a two-speed Europe, because the Belgian presidency has said nothing about what will happen to Schengen. Is Romania's entry into Schengen and Bulgaria completed or not? Because the Commission's track record is disastrous: the market is divided, the population is impoverished, the population is polarised, farmers are on the street, transporters are on the street. Nothing was said: help farmers, change the common agricultural policy, help research, help the poor? Nothing. So this debate is a disaster, and this is my message, which I will convey to all citizens: We don't care about people's lives.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we are now discussing the help that we continue to give to Ukraine, with the war going on for so long, means that American diplomacy and European diplomacy have been a failure, because people are dying every day, both in Ukraine and in Russia. The most important thing is people's lives. Of course we have to help Ukraine, but we have to see how we help it. Is there a plan? Do we know what's going on? Until we supply weapons? Until we give money? What is the finality? You don't know... The citizens are asking us. Then there is another problem, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we know well that we still have problems with Ukraine with respect for certain things. The rights of citizens and minorities in Ukraine are not respected. Romanians do not have the right to speak Romanian. It's a failure the way we wanted to help Ukraine with crossing the internal market of the European Union with grain to other third areas, it's a failure and the farmers are on the street. We need to look at these things as a package. We cannot answer our citizens what we do with fairness in the internal market.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, respect for European Union law I believe that we must no longer invent it, it is clearly laid down in the Treaty. The important thing is to look at the application and it is surprising, Commissioner, to say that when there are individual petitions, we do not take them into account, because I believe that no one should – this is how we have the slogan – no one should be left behind. Every citizen is important and I will give you one example: if there are individual petitions, for example from several Member States, but on the same subject, such as the abduction, that I cannot name it otherwise, of children from school on certain grounds not yet verified and for years families are judging to recover their children, could not then the European Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, the superior right of the child, intervene? I believe that trust in the European institutions is lost when these petitions and, to top it all, European citizens' initiatives are the same way of acting on the part of the Commission, and then citizens will no longer trust either Parliament's Committee on Petitions or the European Commission. That is why I believe that every case is important and you must treat it as such.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is good that we are analysing, because if we are honest, we can now make it clear that the Solidarity Lanes did not work properly, and so is the title of the debate, we need to make sure that it does. Commissioner, I would invite colleagues who say it worked to come to Romania to talk to farmers. I met with thousands of farmers in Romania, in my country. Everyone complained about exactly what was happening. These grains and products from Ukraine, in fact, did not cross the solidarity lanes, but remained on the market, as you said, Commissioner. They remained and made an incorrect competition, because, let's not forget, it was also adopted that the grain from Ukraine should be exempted from phytosanitary analyses. Therefore, I invite you, Commissioner, to make a fair analysis, because we are destroying Romanian farmers. Solidarity does not mean spoiling what we have in the internal market. I very much believe that farmers have lost to them because of poor organisation, and it is our duty, the Commission, the Council, Parliament, to help farmers in the countries of the European Union.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the Spanish Presidency. We negotiated a trilogue on a very important directive, the gas and hydrogen market, and I congratulate you on all the work that, Prime Minister, you had as Spanish Presidency. I've been back from your country for two days, I've been to Madrid, I've visited a city hall in the Madrid area. Thank you for accepting over 1 million Romanians who work there. They have all said that they are respected in Spain and for this I want to thank you on their behalf and I want, Prime Minister, to tell you that nothing is more important than social cohesion and, of course, freedom of movement. That is why, please, you insist on ending the Presidency with the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. Romanians there want to come home and be treated the same as other European citizens. We want to go to Spain and be treated the same. Therefore, I would like to ask you once again, at the end, to insist on Romania's entry into the Schengen area and to wish you all the best.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a very important package on protecting democracy. Nothing is more important. On 10 December we celebrated human rights and without democracy we cannot protect human rights. But do we have something to protect? We must not first correct the things that do not work now, because we have, as has been said here, cyber attacks, citizen insecurity, street attacks on the citizen. Basically, I think, Commissioners, that we must first correct the democratic system and then protect it, because I now see citizens in the European Union, not only in my country, and I receive letters from all the Member States how justice still does not work, how children are taken away and institutionalised, and years later it is considered that there were no arguments. So the suggestion is yes, to have a package to protect democracy, but first to define it very well and to be able for everyone to follow the same rules.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must say that teleworking arose in a context of crisis, but not all activities could be done from home and not all activities can be done from home even now. That is why I believe that the first thing we need to take into account is to have the same working conditions for those who work physically, and for those who still can or want to work, but it is essential to understand the social partners with employers. If they didn't agree, of course the government in that country still exists in subsidiarity and, ultimately, of course, the European Commission to come as an arbiter if these things are not respected, because, after all, it is also important for the employer to have healthy people, not to replace those who get sick. The life of the citizen and the right to privacy must be ensured. The last thing I want to say is that, unfortunately, there are still, you know, workers (maybe you have also discussed it) who want to work from home, but if they want to work from home, then they must have these rights assured.

Dear colleague, in fact, you did not answer my question. Of course I'm not skeptical. Of course, the specific question I asked you didn't answer me. You told me I didn't read the report. I read the report very well. I ask you once again, how can we ensure through this document that no data is transmitted if the patient does not request it?

Madam President, dear colleague, I agree with what you said. You gave an example, and I want to relate to the example you gave. If a patient goes and, of course, if what we want now (data transmission) would work, shouldn't data transmission always be done only at the patient's request? How do we ensure that no personal data is transmitted about us, about the diseases we have and, for example, at the request of an employer or an institution? How can we ensure that this data transfer is only requested at the request of the patient?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think that anyone can dispute the need to have critical raw materials in the European Union, to produce, to no longer depend on third countries, to have raw materials for important sectors: agriculture, health, construction and even defence. Commissioner, in addition to increasing demand for raw materials, there is a problem with specialists. We have a shortage of specialists, by 2030, in the field of electromobility alone of 1,200,000. We need to invest here, make the specialty of critical raw materials attractive. Urgent action is still needed to create this value chain here in the European Union. This regulation will certainly also help the reindustrialisation strategy that we launched a long time ago. We need to improve recycling and yes, we need to stop being directly or indirectly dependent on third countries. We must not criticise the third countries that produce - let us do it too, and it is good that it has been proposed to set up this European Critical Materials Committee, but it is not enough. It is important that it works and I would have liked the European Parliament not to be an observer but to be a member of this committee. I appreciate that it is a subgroup that focuses on the involvement of SMEs, but, Commissioner, it is not the case with the procurement directive that SMEs are only theoretically involved. This is where we need to act to support SMEs.