Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! If you follow the debate here, then what usually takes place in this debate will take place again: Hungary defends the rights here in Parliament, says it's all political and so on and so forth. Corruption exists in all EU countries. Ten times as high, ten times as high as in other average countries, is the abuse of EU funds in Hungary! It is simply a matter – you want to hide this – of money being stolen from Hungarians and ending up in the pockets of Viktor Orbán’s friends. That is what this is about, and that is what the rights here in Parliament are trying to hide. At the same time - and you really have to listen to that, Commissioner - the right-wingers in Parliament praise the Commission's approach! This is what is happening in this mechanism. Because we know: In the end, no money will be withheld. And this will happen with great applause from the right and the enemies of the rule of law in Europe. The timetable you use as an excuse – where you say: We do not have the time after this mechanism, we have to decide now, and then we have to look at the measures at that time – that is an advanced argument. It's wrong. You could just as well withhold the seven and a half billion euros, in my view even more. And then, under this mechanism, Hungary would always have the opportunity to provide evidence that these laws, which are now being adopted – that's a good thing, we like to look at that, but we want to see it – that these laws, these changes, actually change something in practice, that money no longer seeps into the dark pockets, that corruption is combated. As long as this is not the case, you should withhold the funds. Madam President, I'll take these Blue card I love it, but I'm a little surprised why I don't have one on my display. Blue card I have been reported. That surprises me. I would also like to ask my colleagues questions. If now Blue card is possible – very gladly, then we will do that in the debate, and I will take a Blue card Of course, I love it! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure under Rule 171(8) of the Rules of Procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The report on the situation of fundamental rights in Europe is right and important, because we must be vigilant when it comes to defending citizens' rights in Europe. News is shaking us again: Surveillance scandals and Pegasus. In the committee of inquiry, we repeatedly deal with the fact that opposition figures and journalists are monitored with espionage software. But when we talk about the situation of fundamental rights here, we must also talk about a major threat to fundamental rights posed by the European Commission. The so-called chat control monitors the personal communication of all citizens in the European Union. The European Data Protection Board has just delivered a devastating verdict on this proposal from the European Commission. He says that the current form of the proposal would present more risks for individuals and thus for the general public as a whole than would actually present more risks for offenders. That is the wrong way forward and I therefore call on the European Commission to withdraw and revise this proposal.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to quote Viktor Orbán from the summer: We're not a mixed race, he said. I could not have imagined seeing such racist statements from a head of government again in Europe. Nevertheless, it must be said otherwise that this is a very good report which has been presented here. But there's nothing new in it. We are in this situation – the Commissioner has also described the situation in great detail. We know the situation. I no longer know how you are doing, ladies and gentlemen, how many times we have now reported on it here, how many times we have discussed it in Parliament – the same thing always happens. The right-wingers here in Parliament, who are otherwise always against European cooperation, are always very good at working together, defending Viktor Orbán, that would be all very evil, etc. – we all know that. We know the whole debate here. And they are not prepared to accept any arguments at all. But one thing is different today. One thing is different today. In a few days, the Commission, the European Commission, will be able to withhold money from Hungary for the first time under the rule of law mechanism. And I call on the European Commission to remain tough here, not to bend over, not to be involved in any negotiated solutions now, but to remain clear, to defend the rule of law in the European Union and also in Hungary, and I call on the Commission to do so.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, The DSA sets clear rules for the online world. And this quick agreement on this digital package shows: Europe can act. Europe can indeed move fast and also set rules in this world. That's a good sign. As the Liberal negotiator in the Committee on the Interior, however, digital civil rights were particularly close to my heart. We didn't achieve everything we wanted. But we have ensured that there is no general monitoring obligation, that upload filters will not be introduced by liability obligations in the future. This is a victory for digital civil rights at this point, and I believe it is also a very important sign for many young people who demonstrated against it a few years ago. But the next attack on digital civil rights is already being prepared. The chat control would be a general monitoring of all our chats. It would be a privatization of law enforcement. We shouldn't do that. The values that we share with the DSA Describe, we would break with it. We shouldn't go that way.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs President-in-Office of the Commission, what you have presented here seems to have sounded good at first sight. Clear three conditions that Poland, the Polish government must meet. But the conclusion you have drawn from approving the recovery plan is, in our view, the wrong conclusion. Conditions should have remained for this and not become milestones, where it is now in question whether money will eventually flow, even though these clear conditions have not been met. And if you follow the debate here, you get: The right-wingers here in the European Parliament celebrate this as a great victory and say that it would be the left-wing narrative that the rule of law in Poland and so on, and now the Commission would have shown that this would not be the case. And usually the right-wingers here in the European Parliament tell great nonsense and great untruth. But there seems to be a core here. Five of your Commissioners, including three Vice-Presidents and two Commissioners dealing with the issue, voted against your decision. You've split your commission. You also said: The decision of the European Court of Justice would, of course, remain in force and the penalties would continue to be applied. Yeah, what else?, I wonder. It would be even better if we changed that. Mrs von der Leyen, President of the Commission, I trust that you will remain tough and that you will remain consistent. I voted for you as President of the Commission, with the confidence that you will be the guardian of the Treaties. But that trust from me is finally when you're not. And the moment money is transferred to Poland without the rule of law being restored, my trust is over.

Madam President, The rule of law, fundamental values and European values are under pressure in Europe. That is why we must use the various instruments that we have consistently, coordinate them, and we must also further develop the Rule of Law Report. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Terry Reintke, for this very, very good report. But I also want to say at this point: When we talk about the attacks on the rule of law in individual Member States, I must also mention here a major attack by the European Commission on all the citizens' rights of the 440 million European citizens: With the chat surveillance proposed by the European Commission, digital letter secrecy would be dead. This would be a big brother agency that monitors citizens' private communications. In my view, this Stasi 2.0 must be rejected. It has nothing to do with European values. These are Chinese models. I appeal to the European Commission: Take this proposal back, otherwise you will no longer need to talk about civil rights in the future.

Madam, you misunderstood me. The translation may not have worked properly for you. I'm not talking about 4% in Poland, I'm talking about 4% in Hungary. And this is data from OLAF, the European Union Anti-Fraud Office. I made that clear. In Poland, however, the situation of the judiciary is still problematic, as many judgments of the European Court of Justice have shown. And since we have included the independence of the judiciary as part, as a criterion, also in the rule of law mechanism, the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland also jeopardises the decent use of EU funds.

There are no connections between the current German government and Putin. By the way: I have publicly criticised past ties, especially those of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, on several occasions. Nor did I establish a connection between Poland and Russia. But I find it interesting how you now turn the topic in this way and now show it with your finger. I expect to see clear rulings from the European Court of Justice and also clear reports from the European Anti-Fraud Office. I just did that in my speech. (The speaker agreed to reply to a question on the blue card procedure)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We have now heard the usual from the right again here in the debate. This is now the punishment for the election, it is about punishing right-wing and conservative politics, we would not like that, now Brussels would act and sanction here. This is not what the rule of law mechanism is all about. You don't like to talk about it. The issue is that funds are misused, that EU funds are stolen. In Poland, according to the EU's Anti-Fraud Office, four percent of all EU funds have gone into abusive use, corrupt channels. That's millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. Otherwise, you always want the EU budget to be as economical as possible. When it comes to money flowing to right-wing despots, you can't defend that passionately enough. When it comes to European cooperation, you are always skeptical. When it comes to cooperation between rights and despots in Europe, European cooperation works very, very well. It only works better if you work with Putin. That's the policy you're actually doing here. (The speaker agreed to reply to a question on the blue card procedure)

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Putin hates democracy. He hates liberal, free societies, and he hates European cooperation. So it goes without saying that he is supporting the very forces in Europe that are turning against all these points. It is embarrassing enough who has nevertheless been paid by Putin in the past, including from established political forces in Europe. It is bad enough that in the past, appeasement of Russia and Putin has been considered a tried and tested political means, and it should be ashamed of who has defended these positions. But anyone who still holds Putin's rod is complicit in the deaths in Ukraine. There are still plenty of left and right-wing Putin understanders in our parliaments, and they need to be confronted. They blame NATO for the killings in Ukraine, and that is simply harmful. They must all be confronted, and it must be clear: Those who sow populism in Europe will reap Putinism.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank our rapporteur Nicolae Ştefănuță for his great work. Of course, we are now discussing the budget in a changed situation. And it is all the more important that we stand up for a strong Europe and set the right priorities. People are worried about the economy. We see rising prices. And it is all the more important that we rely on a strong economy in order to be able to tackle the challenges together. And it is all the more important that we put a focus on the budget, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises – the start-ups – in order to achieve innovation and a strong economy. But we must also continue with the major transformation tasks, digitalisation and decarbonisation, which have become no less important, also in the current political situation. And we should focus on research, on innovation. Europe must achieve new things together. At the same time, I would like to call on the Commission to finally use the rule of law mechanism. Because every euro that ends up with corrupt opponents of the rule of law not only loses its value for the political priorities of the Union, but the Union also loses a bit of its values through each of these euros. And we should stop that.

Madam President, The time of excuses and distractions is over today. You've fulfilled your dirty deal from the EU summit. They illegally waited to use this mechanism, but with today's verdict, that's over. The grace period for Orbán and Kaczyński has finally expired and the Commission must now fulfil its legal role. Finalizing guidelines isn't enough, take action! And then to all the rights here in the European Parliament: LGBTI law? That's not what it's about. More power for Brussels? That's not what it's about. It's not about Putin either. Why do you use these ridiculous arguments? I can tell you: Because you want to cover up what it's really about, that EU money is stolen, that it leaks into dark channels. You want to hide it! They want to hide the fact that the hard-earned money of the European taxpayers should be stolen further. Everyone needs to know that. That's what you're all about. You want to hide it! You do not want to do this by doing nothing, dear Commission. Take action at last! It is not the time for guidelines. It's not the time for penpals. It is time to actually act now and protect the rule of law in Europe. Otherwise, you will engage with these forces – those forces that do not feel committed to common values, but want to further hide the fact that European tax money is being stolen in these Member States – or you will engage with these forces.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, When I ran for the European Parliament, there was almost no discussion with pupils or students about upload filters and young people's concerns about the free internet. And that is why today I am proud of this compromise that lies ahead of us. Yes, we will delete illegal content more consistently. But we're not making the mistake of making the platforms liable for what's going on. Overblocking and more uploadingFiltering would lead. We find a good compromise, and we are not curtailing freedom of expression. That's very, very important to me. I know that from colleagues who seem to have still not understood the Internet correctly, there are amendments that want to reintroduce it. As the negotiator of the Liberal Group in the Committee on the Internal Affairs, it was particularly important to me that we uploading-Filters have that we do not have an encryption ban, that we do not have a clear name obligation and also not the obligation to retain data. We have reached these specific points for civil rights. But we also create more transparency in algorithms. We control the power of Big techWe want to create a rules-based internet. And I am very proud of the quick work we have done in the European Parliament. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the other colleagues, because we have come to an agreement quickly here and perhaps also quickly to an agreement with the Council under the French Presidency. This is important for us to participate in this global debate. Big techHow do we deal with the Internet? – actually setting a European standard, and we are successfully implementing that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In a parliamentary question to the Commission, I asked whether the non-nomination of prosecutors is not a reason for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to trigger the rule of law mechanism under the Regulation. The Commission replied to me that non-cooperation with OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor's Office would indeed be such a reason. But, of course, we haven't seen actual action in recent months and the rule of law mechanism being used, and that's a longer trend. We see that people are watching, and we see that first Hungary, then Poland, now also a little bit more and more Slovenia is being used as a model. That is why we finally need decisive action on the issue of the rule of law in Europe. But I am also confident today because today I am proud of the coalition agreement of the new federal government, which has set a clearer line in the rule of law. We must fight together more decisively for European values in Europe, otherwise they will continue to try to undermine European values.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr Prime Minister! Here you have used the European Parliament as a stage for a complicated debate on the legal hierarchy and for gains in domestic politics. But it's actually a very simple question: As a European partner of Poland, can we be sure that the jointly agreed rules are respected in Poland and that the legal community applies in Poland, or not? And the answer is: No, we can't be sure. For years, you have been dragging the law in Poland, putting independent judges under pressure. You deliberately ignore the court rulings of the European Court of Justice, and now you want to decide, as you please, when European law applies and when it does not. Mr Morawiecki, stop firing! This is not a game. You sleepwalk towards leaving the EU – against the will of your European friends and, above all, against the will of the Polish people. The EU is not a self-service shop. Anyone who wants to comply with EU law only at will cannot remain a member of the EU. That would be a disaster for Poland. (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What do the sanctions show us? They show that our geopolitical commission is so geopolitical that it seems to be doing insufficient homework in its own area within the European Union. The US is taking action against corruption in the EU, we as the European Union are not or not enough. The United States takes action against corruption, we write reports. And it is a good step that the European Commission announced yesterday that it intends to propose concrete recommendations in the Rule of Law Report in the near future – but it is an overdue step, also at this point. We must finally apply the rule of law mechanism in Europe. And if the Commission were to invest a little bit of the effort it invests to legally argue with the European Parliament when it should use this mechanism now, to actually do something and actually tackle corruption and misuse of EU funds, then we would be a good deal further ahead. At the same time, we need to strengthen the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It cannot be that we now have to fight every year as the European Parliament to ensure that once again the additional posts, the additional posts at EPPO They actually get there too. And that we, as the European Parliament, have to help EPPO once again every time, so that we can finally equip this authority properly. Corruption destroys trust. We have just seen this from the French right, which has already said that we cannot be sure what will happen to these funds, which are leaking somewhere, so we would rather invest these funds directly in France. This is exactly what will happen if we continue to commit this corruption, if we continue to abuse EU funds. It will destroy confidence in the European project. And that's why: Mrs von der Leyen said a lot of right words yesterday, but without concrete addressees and concrete measures, these words remain toothless. And one last thought: It is also the Council, it is also the Member States among themselves that do not want to step on their feet. And that is why the Merkel era must also end the era in which the heads of government still protect each other and do not take concrete action against abuse and corruption.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It is not the first debate we have on this question, but I must say that I am always amazed by some of the statements made by colleagues here. It was about attacks, we would attack Poland here. One statement, I think, was even liked: We want to destroy Poland. I would like to unequivocally reject this scandalous statement by one of my colleagues here. Honestly, we are talking about the opposite. Our sole concern is to ensure the rule of law in Europe. So let's get back to the facts. What is the situation? There is a judgment of the European Court of Justice. Poland does not comply with this judgment. Consequently, the European Commission has applied for fines. This is a very normal process – not really a very normal process, because it has not actually come so far. Actually, this has been the red line so far, that we have adhered to court rulings of the European Court of Justice. Therefore: There have already been fines applied for against Poland. At that time, it was a matter of illegal logging of a forest. 100 000 Euros were allocated per day. I think that when it comes to deforestation of the European rule of law, I leave the decision of the European Court of Justice ... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Journalism is not a crime. And yet journalists have been spied on like criminals in the middle of Europe – this is a scandal! And we all rightly complain about it here today. But the right consequences do not follow. The same people who are complaining about this scandal today are working again tomorrow on ways to carry out more surveillance. There are no security gaps just for good purposes, where you say: ‘Surveillance is now good’, or for bad purposes, where a foreign intelligence service does it. There are security flaws that can be used in both directions. Secure, confidential communication exists only for all of us or for no one. And that's why the consequence of the Pegasus scandal must be clear: Member States must finally close security gaps in Europe consistently, instead of deliberately keeping them open in order to be able to monitor them themselves. We need more civil rights in the digital age. We need a right to encryption in the digital age. We need to rethink security policy. Only in this way can we protect the foundations of our democracy, namely freedom of the press and privacy.

Mr President! Because here some argue that it is only about the parental right, I want to talk again about the contents, which are also to be banned. This could be read in Hungarian newspapers close to the government. There's talk of gay propaganda on Netflix: ‘Glee’ is a particularly dangerous series. Or: In Game of Thrones on HBO, there are far too many gay characters. This is also against it. Ladies and gentlemen, I say very clearly here: Anyone who thinks you're going to get gay from watching Netflix hasn't understood anything at all, dear colleagues! And that would only be ridiculous, that would only be ridiculous if it were not so serious, if it were not about the future existence of associations, of aid organizations, of the public, of the LGBT community in Hungary as a whole. This is the Putinization of Hungary that we are witnessing. Tolerance is not something Western or liberal, it is something human. And the protection of sexual minorities is also not something that is brought here from Brussels via the Member States. It is something that all Member States have committed themselves to in Article 2. And damn it, I expect that now we will react and that we will finally see action on this question! I can no longer explain standing here, and I can no longer explain to any gay or lesbian woman in Europe that this is not finally happening.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. As Parliament, we have worked constructively on this report, advocating transparency, clear rules, the protection of final recipients and also a link and clarification with regard to the Rule of Law Report. I would also like to express my thanks to the two rapporteurs. But I have to be honest: I can't explain to anyone why I'm actually standing here in Parliament all the time, telling them anything. And honestly: I also feel a little sorry for Commissioner Hahn for having to say the same thing over and over again. Because this is what it's all about: These guidelines are not necessary. They are a diversionary manoeuvre, they are the biggest diversionary manoeuvre to cover up the fact that the European Council, the European Summit, has broken EU treaties. It is not for the European Council to legislate. Legislators have adopted a regulation. This is in force, and with these guidelines and with the creation of these guidelines attempts to postpone and postpone the use of this instrument, this Regulation. And this is a huge distraction, it is a mess, and we, as the European Parliament, will not accept that. And if there are any coming again – I know that Mr Kuhs always likes to quote these conclusions. I think these conclusions of the summit are a clear violation. This should be brought before the European Court of Justice. And that's why I can only say: Let's finally act! I am almost sorry for the Commission, or at least Mr Hahn, because he always has to say the same thing here. But the von der Leyen Commission must finally decide: Will it continue to follow this dirty deal made at the summit with Hungary and Poland or the democracy, the rule of law in Europe, for which the European Parliament is fighting?