Speeches

There is a city where extreme-right parties lie together and where the Russia-led International Investment Bank has recently moved its headquarters. This city is Budapest. Marine Le Pen, Éric Zemmour, VOX Party leaders and others have often taken pilgrimages there. In March 2021, Viktor Orbán called for the creation of a new European right-wing force for his type of people. Those who he says want to protect their families and homelands. There is a country where Zelinskyy is portrayed as an enemy, where doubts are publicly voiced about Russian responsibility in the invasion of Ukraine and where Ukraine’s suffering does not evoke that much empathy. This country is Hungary, and there is a government who does not protect European and national information from Western spying. Indeed, Hungarian diplomacy has practically become an open book for Moscow through the hacking of the Fidesz Ministry of Foreign Affairs network, which the government had direct knowledge of, but failed to alert their European counterparts. Budapest could become the entry point for Russian disinformation, Russian money and the connecting thread between extreme-right organisations.

Mr President, the lack of equality between women and men, the lack of gender equality, is still a problem in our societies, in our Member States, in our economies, in our institutions, but also in our mental and structural patterns. Equality is still a struggle in certain professional fields, specifically for certain women and in certain families, and it remains unfinished everywhere. In political representation and places of power, in the way we design our public policies and their concrete consequences on the lives of European citizens, in companies, with the wage gap, in access to health, etc. However, in this Parliament, which was a precursor with the creation of the Committee on Women’s Rights in 1979, a mandate that has only expanded and a role that has become essential in the work of this institution, one would think that, in the end, almost everything is done. 39% of the members of this Parliament are women, Irene said, this is more than the 30% of national parliaments in the Member States and much more than the 25% of parliaments in the world. But should we remember that women make up half of the European population and could therefore be represented here at the same level? In senior posts, too, there has been significant progress, such as parity in the Bureau of Parliament, but only 8 out of 25 committees currently have a female head and 15 out of 43 delegations are chaired by a female head. Above all, this lack of parity is a major concern in the way it impacts our daily legislative work, in the composition of committees, in the appointment of coordinators, in the choice of persons responsible for reports, in the allocation of speaking time. Major issues, the most strategic, those at the heart of power, are mainly designed, studied and debated between men. Climate, agriculture, economy, constitutional: The great structural laws have been in the hands of men. It is therefore a matter of representation and a matter of content. The gender dimension must be reflected in the legislative texts produced by our institutions. There are currently some misconceptions about equality on issues such as the Green Deal, the common agricultural policy, the drawing up of budgets, the recent recovery and support plans following the health crisis. Without having been designed with an inclusive vision and putting those concerned around the table, our public policies will sometimes even increase existing inequalities and public money mainly benefits male employment sectors, leaving out women, and in particular women from minorities. Therefore, in political representation, it is necessary to push Member States to elect as many women as men in elections, but taking into account women in all their diversity, in all decision-making places. This has to be taken into account in our teams and in the administration, of course. The more one climbs into the pyramid, the more dominant is the male representation. So, there are rules to change and some provisions concern our rules of procedure. But it is also in our practices, in our political groups, that we can make a difference. And this concerns all of us here – all of us too, since we are mainly women working on this issue. There is a need to integrate a gender perspective into all decisions, including internal ones, in our functioning and in the way we work collectively. And no group is virtuous. My group has long had special rules in terms of sharing between women and men, yet it is almost always women who deal with gender issues. We often arouse polite, respectful interest, but no more. All men and women must be involved in these matters. All the other important recommendations contained in this report are essential: recruitment, training, parental leave, work-life balance, anti-discrimination. There remains a very important point: we need an audit, we need data; data is essential to be able to make a roadmap. We need to know where we are leaving from. We cannot correct problems that we do not see. Committees have started reporting – this is what has allowed us to see that, for example, the Committee on Agriculture has only 20% of experts coming to speak, compared to 80% of men – but we need more information. The report we are presenting today is the result of patient, methodical and collaborative work. This is a continuation of work already done by the FEMM Committee for a long time. This is the result of work carried out in the framework of the Gender Mainstreaming Network, progress achieved in Parliament’s High Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity, and it is above all the work of several women in several groups. It is our joint work, which we can welcome here and which is a real step forward for this Parliament. We often do not have reasons to be satisfied; today, I believe, is one.

Madam President, we are becoming more and more concerned about foreign interference in our electoral process. We now fear the destructive capacity of fake news on security issues, health matters, our political leaders. But for years and years, there has been disinformation targeting one very specific topic, women’s rights. And it is a mistake that this has not been considered to be a serious problem, because gendered disinformation not only has the power to severely harm women’s lives, but it is also a clear and constant attack on the foundations of our societies. Russia is today spreading lies about the Ukrainian people, the war, Europe’s involvement, but Russia has long taken an active role in promoting dangerous disinformation based on so-called ‘traditional’ narratives. This is meant to fuel hate against women, minorities, LGBTI people, both online and offline. These mobilisations against us, all across Europe. We see financing from anti-gender groups within the EU, from US Christian right—wing groups and Russian oligarchs, and do not be mistaken, this is part of a broader political strategy to undermine equal participation in our democracy, the European Union itself, the world we want to live in; a world of emancipation, gender equality, freedom and fundamental rights. It is a strategy to put each and every one of us in a box where we are to stay for all our lives and accept an authoritarian, ultraconservative way of life. They first attack women, LGBTI people, Muslims, people of colour, all minorities. But in the end, once they have created threats that silence all of these people, they come for the others.

Mr President, for the past week Malta has decided to suspend the granting of its golden passports to Russian and Belarusian nationals. For the past week, therefore, oligarchs, corrupt people, men whose fortunes are often the result of criminal activities, have no longer been able to buy themselves European citizenship and the protection that goes with it, access to the Schengen area and other privileges. But all the others, immensely rich, from Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, will be able to continue to invest in a few square meters and thus become Europeans in Malta or Cyprus, without ever really residing there. It took a war for the Maltese government to finally take partial action against this outrageous system that benefits these elites. Do we have so little respect for European citizenship and what it embodies as history, as a project, as values, to sell it off in this way? And what a contradiction with our great speeches against money laundering, our promises to fight against trafficking of all kinds and, above all, our regular refusal to give asylum to the most vulnerable.

Madam President, fourteen months ago, the conditionality mechanism was adopted. Fourteen months. Since then, in December 2020, the Hungarian government has amended the Constitution for the umpteenth time and this has allowed it to exempt many public funds from any obligation of budgetary transparency. For 14 months also, the majority of Hungarian universities have been ceded by the state to foundations of general interest, opaque legal structures, without budgetary control and all run by Fidesz relatives. In 2021, a judge was forced to leave office; it had simply referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. We have had concrete evidence for years, a decade, that the Hungarian government does not have transparent financial management, and that the judiciary is not independent. But the seizure of public money and the capture of all administrative floors of the state has worsened alarmingly in these 14 months. However, the Commission is still not going to apply the existing law. So is it voluntary for the Commission to give valuable time to autocrats to better seize power and money?

Madam President, we do not want our online experiences to be dictated by the unfair practices of a handful of big tech companies. Their current dominance means that what we see online, who we interact with, and how our data is or isn’t protected is mostly controlled by a group of profit—driven companies, many being bigger in size than European countries. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) could have gone further but still, as it stands, this report will allow us to take back control and strive for more democracy online. We will be able to choose which apps we install on our devices, but mostly it will stop gatekeepers from secretly reusing people’s data across their different services. We Greens/EFA /Pirates have called for the protection of users throughout the process. Fundamental rights must continue to be the priority.

Madam President, yes, an overview of gender inequalities in the European Union is essential, as these inequalities are still very numerous and unbearable. A woman earns on average 14% less per hour than a man in the European Union, part-time work is mostly female, women’s pensions are ridiculous, many live in immense precariousness, and those from minorities, those with disabilities and those who are migrants live in even worse situations. When will there be a clear and defined path to go to court anywhere in the European Union, when for the same job a woman earns less than a man? When will there be public policies and public budgets designed for women too, and not just to help massively, mainly male trades? On the sexual and reproductive rights side, six Member States still refuse to ratify the Istanbul Convention, when will there be an effective right to contraception throughout the European Union, easy to access and free of charge? When will there be a sex education worthy of the name? When will Malta follow Ireland’s path and make its cultural revolution? When will there be a Maltese politician who dares to say that abortion must be possible on this island as in the rest of the European Union? On the representation side, the share of women in national parliaments increased from 24% in 2010 to 32% in 2020, only 32%. And in culture and in the economy, why are the great resistance fighters, the great explorers, the great scientists everywhere still men? Why have women been systematically erased from history books? When will a little girl learn in school or see on the streets that there are female role models, that women have dared and succeeded all over history and all over the world?

Mr President, a woman threatened online is in danger. If she’s a journalist, a politician, an activist, the consequences could be terrible. Young girls can be assaulted for days and weeks without an end in sight, and this is true for all victims of gender-based online violence. This is why some women, LGBTI+ people and minority people have ultimately left the online space to flee this discrimination. But this is not a solution. We cannot expect people to leave so that the problem no longer exists. It would be dangerous to put control in the hands of just a few big tech companies. This would let them define what we mean by ‘hate’. It would let them decide on the meaning of freedom of speech, who are the most vulnerable users and who are the ones to be silenced. What we need to happen has already taken place in the past. I am referring to the establishment of ground rules to make up a comprehensive system, a set of legal, governmental and societal tools, for a completely new space. In only the last 10 years, the online space has completely transformed many aspects of our societies. To meet these challenges, we need clearly defined laws, including pragmatic concrete measures, as well as education and training for law enforcement and better implementation. We need police and justice to know what they are dealing with. We need culture and society to be involved. This will require a lot of resources. But this money, it exists – it’s already there in these big companies. It just needs to be redirected to better support and protect users online. Big companies cannot be allowed to continue using this business model, which reserves limited resources for these important measures. If we cannot address this, we run the risk of leaving machines and non-transparent algorithms with the implicit bias to continue censoring some people, while targeting others.

Mr President, when an increasing number of countries decide to attack the Istanbul Convention and to use disinformation in order to undermine the protection of women and LGBTI people, the EU and its institutions must more than ever be exemplary and ambitious, not only by reaffirming our shared values on equality and fundamental rights but also by using the tools that we have to react when they are under attack, and that we under-use systematically on these sorts of topics. In May 2020, the Hungarian Parliament rejected the ratification of the Istanbul Convention under the pretext that it promotes destructive gender ideologies and illegal migration. At the same moment, civil society organisations reported an alarming increase of reports of domestic violence during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Today it is not even possible to understand the extent of gender-based violence in Hungary, as the government simply does not collect data on this issue. Instead of properly funding services for victims of gender-based violence and enacting adequate legislation to eradicate gender-based violence, the Hungarian Government spends its energy in rejecting any international or EU text excluding the word gender. Every time people talk about not ratifying the Istanbul Convention but fighting anyway, every time they want to protect some women but not others, every time they avoid the word ‘gender’, the word ‘intersectionality’, the word ‘minorities’, they do not really want to act. They are just using this. And every time they use also the word ‘ideology’, they are just using the combat of women to use their own purpose, and they’re not doing anything.

Mr President, we are disappointed with the outcome of the Western Balkans Summit, but we also continue to be disappointed by the repeated lack of action on rule of law failings in the region. In Serbia, for example, the Commission is not just turning a blind eye, but pushing their candidacy forward and upgrading to a country-specific assessment in spite of the clear lack of progress in that state and in spite of the authoritarian actions of its government. Just a few weeks ago, Politico called Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi ‘the Voldemort of enlargement’, describing his actions as having a long-term damaging impact on the EU-Western Balkans relationship. In the mean time, media freedom in Serbia continues to nosedive. The authorities attempted to discreetly push through a draft law permitting the use of biometric mass surveillance, and there is still a dangerously high level of air pollution caused by coal plants in the region, and when people protest, they are repressed. Serbia’s leadership does not want to respect EU values and fundamental rights for citizens. They have made this very clear in their candidacy process. So, once they become a Member State, they will just follow the path of the Hungarian and Polish governments. We do not want the Serbian citizens to be second-rung European citizens; we want them to be full European citizens and we can do that if we make our conditions stronger when we talk to the Serbian Government. With new elections next year in Serbia, there is a chance for change. Now is also the time for us to engage in dialogue with citizens, civil society and independent media in the region. While this summit may not have provided the hope needed for citizens in these neighbourhood countries, we are now at a crossroads in the EU-Western Balkans relationship. If EU leaders are really committed to the European perspective in the region, when can we expect the Commission to do something about the rule of law and democratic backsliding in these countries?

Madam President, women activists in Poland who are mobilising for the right to abortion are being beaten, gassed, harassed and threatened with death, putting their lives at risk. What they are experiencing is unheard of brutality, brutality of another time. Women in general are presented as enemies in Poland today by the government. This incites extremist groups to target them unscrupulously. In addition, they also suffer from institutional violence, such as prison sometimes. This desire to silence women demonstrates the strategy of the Polish government. Again in history, women’s bodies are used as one tool of repression among others, in an authoritarian trajectory. Because these violations of fundamental rights are not isolated. It is not just the prohibition of abortion: the Polish government has also severely restricted access to gynaecological services; opposes sex education for young people; there is, of course, immense discrimination against transgender people and global attacks on LGBTI+ rights. In Poland, some are building a reactionary society project that wants to lock women in a reproductive role and oppose any challenge to the patriarchal model. This social project has no place in the European Union with our treaties and charters.

Mr President, Polish citizens want to stay in the European Union and comply with the European project without any ambiguity. They demonstrate this vigorously when they respond positively to 90% of a poll, when they demonstrate in numbers and when they have been taking risks for years to defend European values and laws. Judges are now punished by their superiors, isolated, demoted in the performance of their duties for simply wanting to respect the primacy of European law when it is legitimate. But you, the Council and the Commission, continue to engage only with the government. What more do you expect from these citizens to take the legal and efficient measures that fall within your remit? In Hungary, in a poll, citizens said they understood the introduction of conditionality for EU payments. But will you, the Commission and the Council, nevertheless unblock the recovery plans at the risk that the Polish and Hungarian governments will capture even more European money and the powers at their disposal? Will there be hearings of these governments during the Slovenian Presidency, under the procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union? Will there be any recommendations under the French Presidency? Concrete actions every time there is an infringement? Or are you going to let these citizens always act alone?

Mr President, on 27 April 2021, a new law was adopted in Hungary. It created a legal framework for public interest trusts performing public duties. More and more public services are being transferred. The boards of these trusts include current ministers and state secretaries. Public assets are being donated to private entities, and opacity will prevent any scrutiny on the use of the budget in these foundations. These trusts do not need to apply rules of public procurement. This is happening in a context where access to public information in Hungary has become near to impossible and in a Member State which has a hugely sad record of corruption in the European Union. We fail to understand why this is not raising concern about how European money will be channelled into these structures. Is this a conscious strategy from the Hungarian Government to transform public institutions into opaque structures? If the European Commission approves the Hungarian Recovery and Resilience Plan, billions of euros could disappear into this opaque system.

Mr President, when a woman dies under the blows of her partner, when any woman is harassed on a daily basis in public spaces or at work, when a homosexual boy is massacred during a lynching, it is no coincidence. This is not the result of isolated acts of anger, deviant individual behaviour. Gender-based violence has a structural cause. Our European societies are historically and globally built by male domination, and if we do not take that into account, we will never be able to really fight them. This is why gender-based violence must be part of European crime so that it is obvious everywhere that these crimes have the same cause and that we have common levers to combat them, so that there is an effective and functional change in our patterns, cultures, structures, mentalities and that there is collective ownership of equality.

Madam President, Pegasus is a European subject. The Israeli company NSO, which designed and sells this monitoring software, said that at least 30% of its customers were in Europe. It would be quite comfortable to consider the problem solely and exclusively as Chinese espionage, Russian espionage, foreign interference by authoritarian states, beyond the seas. But the reality is quite different and the lack of reaction from our leaders has been terrifying. The President of the French Republic himself supervised, public figures in Germany, Spain, Belgium, a government directly involved, that of Hungary. What a silence! And why? How many secret services, European police, ministries of the interior have considered using this tool? How many purchases were made? How many have made attempts to acquire? And how many of our journalists, activists, political opponents are monitored by their own government in the European Union?

Mr President, I think this will follow on well after Guy Verhofstadt’s speaking time. I really fail to understand how it is possible that the situation in Hungary cannot be dealt with in a calm, straightforward, consistent and legitimate way with the tools we have, and they are efficient. The Article 7 procedure needs to be pursued. It needs a new set of hearings during the Slovenian Presidency, and it needs recommendations during the French Presidency. Then, if at the end of 2022, rule of law is not back in Hungary, we will need to follow up and to think about sanctions and maybe we will need to think about withdrawing voting rights, because that is what happens when a Member steps out of democracy. It cannot still have a say in an overall democratic, crucial organisation. We need Hungary’s recovery plan to be scrutinised more than the others; not because we want to punish the Hungarian Government by this means for all the outrageous laws that they’ve been making for a decade. No, simply because we know we have a huge problem of corruption in Hungary. I’m not inventing it. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), academic research and your own internal assessment in the Commission are saying it. The public procurements are fake. There’s no transparency on how the EU money is used, and we know that there is a risk that the final beneficiary will not get the funds. So it’s simple. Then we will need to activate the EU rule of law mechanism regulation about all the other European money that goes to Hungary because, there again, we have serious doubts. (Applause)

Madam President, sometimes states dream of a Europe where goods move as freely as possible, without taxes, without environmental constraints, without social rules, but where human beings have the greatest difficulty in crossing borders. A European Union where one is wary of one’s neighbour and where one refuses to welcome one who comes from further afield. From 2015, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden reintroduced border controls, and France has done so on a permanent and constant basis. With the pandemic, it was an escalation. The first instinct of states was to isolate themselves from each other instead of trying to coordinate to find together the best medical and health solutions to face this unprecedented crisis. These refusals to cross borders are accompanied by unbearable physical violence, as in Croatia, or administrative hassle, legal obstacles, judicial harassment, as between France and Italy. The Member States, when they do this, are not only most often illegal, but they are flouting the very essence of the European Union project, this area of freedom for French and European citizens and this ideal, this hope of a strengthened friendship between the peoples embodied in the Schengen area. It has to stop. Open borders need to become normal again. Fundamental rights must be respected systematically and unambiguously. And any border abuse, permitted or ordered by a state, must immediately be thoroughly and independently investigated.