Speeches

The Schengen issue represents, for Romania and Bulgaria, not only a desideratum, part of the continuous integration into the EU, but also a statutory obligation that the other Member States have the duty to implement. For 11 years, Romania has met all the technical criteria for accession, but, together with Bulgaria, it is captive to the obsession, I would say, of some European states (fortunately, less and less), regarding the magnitude of corruption in the two countries. No one disputes that reality, but it was the case years ago; Currently, anti-corruption institutions in Romania are among the most functional and unanimously praised in Europe. As equal members of the European Union, with obligations and benefits, we cannot accept blackmail or abuse from colleagues who think they are more entitled in our common home. In these difficult times for the continent, Romania diligently and in good faith fulfills all its obligations, and even more. If we are further blocked from our rights, the viability of the European project will be called into question and the doors of anti-EU populism will be opened even more widely, especially in two eminently pro-European and pro-Euro-Atlantic states.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, very concisely, this year's report seems to me, like last year's, a balanced one, but this year's report takes a step forward, an important step forward. This important step is related to the fact that it suggests, in paragraph 36, the identification of new realistic formulas for strengthening relations between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey, understanding and emphasizing the fact that the Republic of Turkey's progress towards accession is small, even very small. Of course, this observation was necessary, and my obligation as a politician, unlike the diplomatic obligation of the Commissioner, is to say things more directly by name. There have been, and still are, heated debates in our political groups about whether this accession process should continue for so long and with so many sinuosities. The only thing we must not really lose sight of or lose sight of is the strategic, military, overall importance of this very important neighbour of the European Union.

Mr President, my intervention will be as short as possible and I will not fall into the derisory of doing internal politics, as some colleagues in Parliament have already tried here. The problem is a very simple one. Sure, it's an attack that fills a Romanian like me with indignation and annoyance. It is the same with our Bulgarian colleagues. It happens, therefore, with over 30 million citizens of the European Union. But the problem is different: The outrage should be on the part of the 500 million European citizens, because, in fact, this is a blatant attack on the basis, on the foundations, of the European institutions. It is a blatant attack on the solidarity, coherence and cohesion of European unity. The Commission cannot be indifferent. Parliament voted, voted clearly and definitely in a different way than a chancellor and a foreign minister.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I will not now repeat once again the atrocities that the Tehran regime is committing every day in Iran today. It is the continuation in an aberrant and sick form of realities that we have already known for a long time. But I will ask this honorable assembly why in this case we do not think of a concrete solution here, as we do in other cases? These days we have witnessed, with interest and not with restraint, a long debate about declaring Russia, the Russian Federation or the regime in Moscow, the Government of the Russian Federation as terrorist. In the case of Iran, this is obvious. The terrorist actions of this regime are very clear, almost many of their actions are approaching genocide. Why don't we discuss in the same terms these horrible things in Iran in the European Parliament?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is a medieval allegation which, I believe, is falsely attributed to Dante Alighieri, who says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think that's how we have to think about President Sayed's actions, decisions and movements in recent years. Think about it, Tunisia is where it all started, where the Arab Spring started. But Tunisia is, on the other hand, the country that has long been under an authoritarian regime, that of Ben Ali. And then the question for me is: what do we choose? Clearly, President Sayed is not a convinced Democrat. The techniques he uses to impose his authority are not democratic at all, even if they are sometimes sophisticatedly constitutionally justified. But there is something that still needs to be considered: Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and, unfortunately, Libya are Europe's neighbours. I'm beyond the Mediterranean. And anything that happens there can affect the political geostability of the area. I believe that the time has come for this Parliament, like all the other European institutions (the Commission is much closer to this kind of approach), to take into account both the situation and the geopolitical consequences of an attitude towards one state or another.

Madam President, I will speak in my native tongue. It’s easier for me when the subject is a very important one. Doamna președintă, trăim într-o lume extrem de bizară. Trăim într-o lume cu provocări enorme. Trăim într-o lume în care Europa se confruntă, după atâtea zeci de ani, cu un adevărat război. Iar guvernul de la Ankara știe să joace o carte politică și diplomatică, bazând-se în mod esențial pe argumentele sale militare, pe argumentele sale economice, dar mai ales pe argumentele sale diplomatice. Toate acestea însă, calitatea de aliat al Republicii Turcia, cu cele mai multe dintre țările noastre în calitate de membru al NATO, nu exonerează guvernul de la Ankara de responsabilitatea încălcării atât de flagrante, repetate și agresive a drepturilor omului și a tuturor principiilor statului de drept. Iar ceea ce în ultima vreme guvernul de la Ankara face în raport cu Republica Cipru și în raport cu Grecia, astăzi, zilele acestea, depășește cu totul imaginația cuiva care spera să trăiască într-o lume a păcii.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, about a month ago, we were discussing in this House the situation in Turkey in the context of the report on the Association Agreement covering the years 2019-2020, and then many of the things that the Government of Ankara is being criticised for today were set out in detail in that report. The conclusion of the Parliament, wise I believe, was that the Government in Ankara should be brought to its attention at this moment on the negotiation of the need for rapid changes in its attitude to many unpleasant aspects of Turkish society, first of all, to relations with civil society and opposition political parties. And now we are talking concretely today, and I think we need to talk absolutely concretely, about the relationship with the HDP, with the People’s Democratic Party in Turkey, and about aberrations such as the incarceration of the two leaders of this party, such as the so-called constitutional attempt to outlaw the party, such as the ban on about 600 politicians of any kind of electoral rights, such as the lifting of the immunity of 20 deputies, first from this party and then from the other opposition parties. All this has nothing to do with European values or a democratic regime. And there's something else. For me, the height of the aberration is the fact that this regime, which is to a large extent claimed by Atatürk, at least formally, and this we see everywhere on the street, for example in Istanbul, is today an obvious aggressor of the successor party to his ideas, the Republican People's Party. I believe that this Parliament must take a stand and this is what must happen today, not tomorrow.