Speeches

Madam President, as I stated earlier, I will support the package, but I will do so without joy. Now, every one of us in this room has his or her own reasons for voting in favour or against. And I’d like to say to the EPP: no, Greens and Left are not on the same side of the far right if they vote against. I think that’s dishonest. And no, friends of the Greens and Left, those voting in favour, like me, are not on the same side of the far right or anti-European. I have concerns and doubt, and I too struggle with the dilemma. But that is why we are in politics. Because having an opinion is easy. Voting for something perfect is not very difficult, but to take responsibility for dilemmas and difficult decisions is our job. The pact definitely contains problematic elements, risks and weaknesses and it is dishonest to deny that. But it is equally dishonest to claim that this pact is the end of the right to asylum, or that, in itself, it will lead to more violence at the borders. The violence today is not the result of the existing law, but of national policies and the absence of enforcement. I can defend the new Reception Conditions Directive without any hesitation, and those standards (which I had the pleasure to negotiate) will apply across the package. And if I had written the pact, it would look very different. But there will not be any fresh proposals on the table or a better negotiation result. It is false to create that impression and our job does not end here. We have an even bigger task in overseeing implementation and enforcement, and the best guarantee for European values is a solid majority of European liberal democrats who stand tall for human rights. So let’s make it happen in June.

Madam President, whether it was an official reprimand or not, Mr Vandendriessche has been told that he cannot use Nazi terminology in this chamber and that he was not allowed to do so. So I expect the Presidency of this House to take the necessary steps.

Apart from the fact that your speech is full of mistakes and lies, I would like to know the following: Have I just heard you speak of ‘replacement’ and do you mean ‘population’, that Nazi term that you use constantly and for which you have already been reprimanded? Is that what you mean?

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, big majority of Europeans want a humane and controlled European migration policy, and that is why we have to end years of chaos and inhumane circumstances, because we will not be able to explain to our voters that we end this term in chaos. We’ve witnessed in recent years the total collapse of trust between the Member States. We’ve seen pushbacks and violence at the external borders, inhumane reception conditions and asylum seekers sleeping on the streets of the richest countries on this planet. Over the past eight years, we’ve worked tirelessly for a package that is in line with our values, while the political climate is getting chillier by the day. Compromises have been reached just before Christmas with great difficulty, and I find it tragic that this House found itself defending European values against the Council because, regretfully, many governments are not upholding those same values, and they will aim to deny as many asylum claims as possible and put as many people in indefinite detention as they can, including children. That is why the European Commission needs to be tough and enforce the law that we’re going to vote today. The European Commission will have to do a lot more to convince us that it will actually enforce the new pact, because in recent years it allowed human rights violations to happen and it didn’t lift a finger, I’m sorry to say. Dirty deals with Tunisia, colleagues, cannot be considered a confidence-building measure either, for that matter. But this House also has a responsibility. We will have to hold the European Commission to account, and we have not done so for the last five years. If we’re criticising the Commission – and I am criticising the Commission – we also have to acknowledge that we let the Commission get away with it for the past five years and we didn’t lift a finger. Today in the vote, the far right will be showing its true colours. It will vote against because it doesn’t really want solutions. It wants chaos and misery to continue because that’s what they feed on. There are also colleagues who will vote against for understandable and legitimate reasons, and I share many of their concerns. But I still think that we should endorse the package because we have a responsibility as politicians – because if we reject the pact, there will be nothing in its place. There’s not going to be a better alternative, but we’ll end up with a situation where no single rule will be respected anymore and we’ll end in a race to the bottom and the end to the right of asylum in Europe. We cannot, unfortunately, legislate away an ultra-right majority because even if you reject the package, that majority will still be there and it may actually be bigger in the next term. And are you going to entrust the next Parliament with the elaboration of our asylum policies? Well, not me, colleagues, not me. With regard to my own file – the Reception Conditions Directive – we’ve obtained many guarantees and safeguards for asylum seekers, especially for the most vulnerable. We have ensured a legal representative for all unaccompanied children from the day they arrive. We made sure that the detention of children is the absolute exception and only with judicial authorisation. We’ve guaranteed asylum seekers access to education and language courses and quicker access to the labour market. We ensured specific attention for vulnerable groups like women, children and LGBTIQ people, and the standards laid down in the Reception Conditions Directive will apply to the entire package, and upholding all of these elements in the implementation of the pact is crucial, because it can only work if it has the trust of everyone. The weakness lies not in the legal text, colleagues, that is quite clear. It lies in the implementation by the Member States and enforcement by the European Commission. So today we need to prove the cynics wrong and show that asylum is a European matter requiring a European response in line with our European values – and we take responsibility.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner colleagues, I very much welcome the special report by the European Ombudsman, but it is unfortunate that it had to come to this. I don’t know about you, but I have been here for 20 years now. I’m probably one of the MEPs doing most access to documents requests, and I think never once did I get my documents on time. Never once! If you can find me one instance where I got them on time, I’m going to buy you a drink. But that says everything, apart from all the official figures. The problem here is not just – as the European Ombudsman has flagged up – a lack of capacity, but there is a lack of political will. It is clear that the current Commission is not just disinterested, but actively reluctant to provide more transparency. But without transparency, there is no scrutiny. Without scrutiny, there are no checks on power. Without checks on power, there is no democracy. The Commission will have to do better, and this House will have to do better in holding the Commission to account. Soon there will be elections and we will get a new chance, and this should be one of our key issues.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, phobia, like in homophobia, transphobia, literally means fear. And indeed, it seems that some people are frantic about the idea that there are people in the world who are different from them. And I just heard the colleague who’s already left say, you insult biological women. Well, I don’t know. I don’t feel insulted, I’ve got better things to do with my life than making other people miserable. Last month, Greece adopted equal marriage. That is objectively a great step forward. But the real test for Greece is now. In 2018, the Zak Kostopoulos was attacked by a homophobic mob in Athens. He was also beaten by police officers and he died while in police custody, yet the police officers went free. Last week, two trans people were attacked on the streets of Athens by a transphobic mob. This time should be different. The first reactions of the authorities now seem to be more adequate in 2018, so let’s hope it will be better. But I would like to call on all political parties to firmly condemn the attacks and to make it clear that there is zero tolerance for hate crimes in Greece, and to visibly stand by the side of their LGBTI fellow citizens.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, unfortunately, the Council is not there. I think it is a very, uh, joyful moment that we are here to conclude this, uh, this process. But I would like to make one remark, because the effectiveness of this directive is going to depend entirely on its enforcement. And here we see a weak point – because free media are under pressure, not so much from external forces, but by governments – by governments because that is what the media do: they scrutinise governments. And there are lots of governments inside the European Union who do not like to be scrutinised. Therefore I would like to really, really ask the Commission for a very strict enforcement and not enforcement on the basis of, ‘oh, but, you know, it is for the national authorities to apply this’, because they will be the perpetrators. So this will only work if it’s backed up by very strong enforcement of the European Commission.

Mr President, I’ll be brief, because this is a fairly consensual file. Two last remarks. One very important aspect that has just been highlighted by the Commissioner is that this law will also enable us to confiscate assets which have been frozen, because now there will be a criminal act, which will allow us to confiscate those assets – which I think is just and fair. But the second aspect is – of course I’m very grateful for the European Commission to put forward this legislative proposal – but we also know that one of the reasons that the sanctions can be violated so easily in some places is that national authorities are maybe slightly less ambitious than we would like – and I’m being very diplomatic here, it’s Monday evening – in applying the law. So here I do count on the European Commission to not hold back, and enforce very, very, very strictly. That’s not just a legal obligation. It is a moral duty.

Mr President, colleagues, let me start by, first of all, saying thanks to the Commission for putting on the table a very good proposal and being extremely helpful throughout the trilogues and also thanking my colleagues, the shadows, because I think it was an exceptionally good cooperation, a very strong consensus. I would also like to express my commiserations to the poor Spanish Presidency who had to put up with us – well, me – at the very end of their presidency when they were already worn out. Let me give a few examples illustrating why we need this legislation. Since the start of the Russian invasion and the ensuing EU sanctions, export of goods from the EU to Russia dropped by 47%, but exports from the EU to Armenia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan grew by 48% in the same period. That is not a coincidence. Second example, I quote the Irish head of the Department of Finance Anti-Money Laundering Unit. She says, ‘authorities could be aware of cases where Russian money was moving through funds based in the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin, but it cannot actually do anything about it’. Third example, while Ukrainian soldiers are fighting on the muddy battlefields, we witness a huge increase of car exports from Germany to Russia via Kyrgyzstan, oligarchs holidaying at the Cote d’Azur and their kids attending posh European schools, and we see nodal modes like Cyprus being far behind in freezing assets of Russian oligarchs. Now, since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU has adopted 13 packages of sanctions, and that includes putting asset freezes and travel restrictions for no less than 1 718 individuals in 419 entities such as banks, companies and media organisations. They prohibit the imports of Russian oil, diamonds and other raw materials. They prohibit the exports of military technology and dual-use goods to Russia and luxury goods. It restricts Russia’s access to the EU’s capital and financial markets, and prohibits the provision of all sorts of services like advertising, brokering services and legal advice. However, in the real world, laws can and will be broken because crooks make enormous amounts of money with it, and this, of course, benefits the Russian invasion. Therefore, it needs to stop. But the huge divergences in legislation and enforcement allow them to go forum shopping, searching for the weakest spots, the lowest chance to get caught and facing the lowest possible sentences and fines. So, therefore, this directive is supposed to bring an end to those practices and make the sanctions more effective. Now, Parliament and the Council had a different approach and ambitions. The Council wanted to limit the scope exclusively to the simple fact of criminalising the violation of Union restrictive measures, and they were unwilling to change a jot to their national criminal law systems; whereas Parliament focused on harmonisation and enforcement, because it’s not good enough to have sanctions or even criminalise the violation of sanctions when there is no proper enforcement, and when Member States pretty much do what they like. The problem is, of course, that the Member States know that the European Commission is not enforcing very strictly, looking the other way, and there are no serious consequences. Therefore, Parliament wanted to close all the loopholes. So, due to the reluctance of the Council and the enormous time pressure, we did not manage to close all the holes. However, there is progress compared to the current situation. First of all, violation and circumvention of sanctions will be criminalised in all Member States. No escape. A modest degree of harmonisation of penalties has been achieved and the enforcement cooperation between the Member States, the Commission and EPPO will be structured, not ad hoc. I regret that the Council was unwilling to go further and to close all the loopholes and to make sure that Putin’s friends have nowhere to hide any more. But for us, it was also important to conclude the file and give a strong signal to our friends in Ukraine. Therefore, we accepted this outcome, even if it’s less ambitious. It is very important that we say to our Ukrainian friends, we stand with you and do whatever we can.

– Mr President, Commissioner. I will very rapidly respond to some points and cover some countries. First of all on Hungary, there is no need to say very much; it’s in a league of its own. I think that President von der Leyen’s decision to release the EUR 10 billion was spectacularly misguided, but I’m glad to hear that no payments have been made yet. Greece and Slovakia are, as far as I’m concerned, the two most worrying situations at the moment. With regard to Spain, the report states very clearly that the amnesty law merits an independent assessment, and we are happy that the Spanish Senate has requested an opinion by the Venice Commission. The stalemate with regard to the General Council of the Judiciary must be resolved urgently, but I would also like to underline that the underlying problem in Spain, in my view, is not a legal one, but a profoundly political one, and it has to be resolved through political dialogue. Malta still merits our attention, and Italy is getting into the danger zone. I am referring specifically to freedom of the media and equal rights. Poland, Slovenia and Bulgaria seem to be positive examples, but extremely complex and fragile. Poland, in particular, shows us how rebuilding the rule of law from rubble is extremely difficult. There are also specific, but not systemic issues in other countries, such as excessive police violence or the maltreatment of migrants. As regards spyware, this is a huge threat to democracy, and the Commission’s refusal to act has turned Europe into a spyware Wild West. I am very worried by the lack of response from this House to last week’s highly alarming revelations that Pegasus spyware had once again been found on the phones of MEPs, and we treat it as if that is normal. As a final remark, I would like to clarify to some colleagues, in particular those with close ties to the Kremlin, if you think that you can offend me by calling me a liberal, you’re wrong. I’m actually proud to be a liberal.

Mr President, Commissioner, it’s a pity, actually, that the Council is absent. It would have been a very educational debate for them, I suppose. First of all, I would like to start by welcoming the annual report – the edition that we are discussing today. I think the next one is already in the making. And having been one of the driving forces behind it – the author actually of the legislative initiative proposal at the time for the annual report – I am very pleased to see that it is year on year developing into a very useful instrument, not least in connection with the Conditionality Regulation. However, if everything were fine, then we would have a very short debate. So I would like to express a couple of recommendations and concerns, nevertheless. First, on horizontal remarks, on the method – and we’ve had this exchange many times before so you are aware of the position of the European Parliament – we consider that further changes are needed. We need this report to become even more independent from the Member States. If we read the report of the European Commission, it is still fairly mild in describing situations which in reality are actually extremely worrying. I mean, if you read the report of the Commission, you think, okay, there are some concerns in the European Union, but it’s all under control. Whereas if you look at the overall picture, I’m a lot more worried than that. And I think if you use the sources outside your national interlocutors, the government interlocutors, then the picture is somewhat more grim. We have also repeatedly called for this report to be part of an interinstitutional agreement. And I find it very disappointing that the proposal of the European Parliament and the Commission to have cooperation with the Council on this topic – even in the shape of a pilot project – is being rejected by the Member States. I mean, that tells you something about the spirit in which they see this annual rule of law cycle. And finally, we also feel that the report would gain in strength and credibility if it’s drawn up by a panel of independent experts. Just this week, the European Court of Auditors has issued a report on the rule of law toolkit. It also includes some remarks on this report. And I think some of the remarks underline what I’ve just said. Secondly, in implementing or upholding the rule of law, neutrality vis-à-vis the Member States is key. And that was actually the reason behind this whole report – that all Member States will be measured by the same yardstick. And here I see a risk. I think that, contrary to what some people in Hungary might claim, any decision of the European Commission to intervene is not politically motivated. However, I sometimes detect some political motivation behind the decision not to intervene because there are some countries that would definitely justify an intervention. Finally, I think there are a couple of horizontal issues that we’ve addressed: independence of the judiciary, safety and freedom of journalists, the fight against corruption, the creation of equality bodies and such issues. But I would like to conclude with one issue that is particularly topical today. Today we are remembering the train crash at Tempe in Greece one year ago, which is very closely connected to corruption: a rail safety system that was not put in place because of reasons of fraud and corruption, which had been detected by the European Public Prosecutor, but not by the national authorities and not by the Commission. So you can see how corruption and fraud can literally cost lives. And therefore I think we should step up the fight against corruption even more.

Mr President, I have to confess I feel a little bit like in the twilight zone. In my fairly outdated idea of democracy, it would be a scandal if Members of Parliament are being hacked and spied upon. Yet, in contrast to Qatargate, when third countries were trying to take influence on the decisions of this House, we’re having a late-night debate. The Commissioner, sorry to say so, is not in charge, the Council is gloriously absent and a handful of Members are here. Members of Parliament... I wasn’t talking to you. Members of Parliament... can I, please? Can you have a minimum of respect, maybe? Members of Parliament being spied upon is a scandal and it is not the first time. This time it’s members of the Defence Committee. But also the President of this House has been the target, the President of the Fisheries Committee, our colleagues Androulakis and Kyrtsos, our Catalan colleagues have been targeted. So who is next? It means that none of us can do their job knowing that they’re completely safe. I’m sorry to say, Madam Commissioner, that you’ve just been given a note to read out and it was all rubbish, sorry. The Commission has done absolutely nothing. You know why? Because the Commission was reluctant to take the toys away from the national governments who are using spyware to spy on political opponents, journalists, NGOs, lawyers and what have you. I don’t know what to say anymore. The Commission has done nothing. The Council is not even here. Members of Parliament are being spied upon. I mean, what can I say? The responsible Commissioner isn’t even here. What kind of debate is this? Colleagues, I think we’re having a big problem here in the European Union, a problem of democracy. I hope that this situation will finally drive the message home that something will need to be done, we need to regulate the use. It is not enough to stand here, Commissioner, and say, ‘oh, you know, it’s very unpleasant if people spy on politicians’. You have to act.

Well, where to start? First of all, we haven’t seen much action from the side of the European Union – probably none – in order to, let’s say, rein in the extreme actions of the government. I have seen no action, or hardly any action, to aim for a two-state solution. I mean, virtually nothing has been done. And at the moment, there is support for the two-state solution and the Palestinians, but it’s all very, very limited. Some Member States have actually withdrawn their support for UNRWA. That’s why we’re here today. So, the first steps haven’t even been taken, so it’s about time that we do so.

Madam President, every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – Palestinian people no less than Israelis. That is the principle that we should all defend, including the right, which is now absent. Europe is an ally of Israel, but that does not mean unconditional support to a far-right government, because what we see today is not self-defence, but vengeance – and for some, even the stated objective of ethnic cleansing. Removing aid from the Palestinian people at this point is a certain and horrible death. Funds for UNRWA have been withdrawn on the basis of allegations which have not been proven. But even if they were, punishing innocent people cannot possibly be just. Thousands of children killed, maimed, traumatised – how can that be just and proportional? An allegation of atrocities committed by Israeli forces has not led to withdrawal of support to Israel, including the continued arms supply. Resuming funding for UNRWA, immediate and permanent ceasefire, the return of the hostages, and a two-state solution are the only way out of this horror. The only way. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr Ruissen, I hear you say that even if all Hamas fighters are defeated, taken out of the field, the spirit of Hamas lives on. That almost sounds like you're saying that some kind of endless violence by Israel against the people of Gaza is legitimized. Could you explain that to me? Where is the border for you? When is violence no longer legitimate? And do you not agree with me that this limit has long been crossed?

Dear colleague, indeed, we’ve been discussing the rule of law in Greece several times. Each time, you dismiss all the criticism and accuse those who are asking questions of being partisan and motivated by elections and campaigns. I would like to ask you: can you imagine that politicians would actually do something because they believe in something, because they stand for something? Is that something that you can imagine?

Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, this debate is long overdue, as the rule of law in Greece is in steep decline and press freedom is in dire straits. Rule of law corrosion and political capture pervade all government sectors. Independent oversight bodies are being neutered. EU funding is conditional on serious efforts to prevent and detect corruption, which is evidently not the case in Greece. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is trampled upon systematically. Yes – another breach of the funding criteria. The statement of the Commissioner here leaves no room for doubt: Greece does not meet the conditions for EU funding. An unbiased reassessment is essential. And finally, I would like to say to the widow of Giorgos Karaivaz, to the parents of the victims of the Tempi train crash, to the loved ones of the victims of the Pylos shipwreck, to the journalists facing SLAPPs in court next week, and to many others who are targets of harassment or spyware merely for scrutinising the government, to them I would like to say: – Δεν είστε μόνοι σας, δεν σας αφήνουμε μέχρι να έχετε δικαιοσύνη.

Mr President, colleagues, I’ve already made my remarks about the absence of President von der Leyen, which I consider to be unacceptable. But in her speech, she defiantly claimed that Orbán had delivered on the rule of law conditions. Now she knows that’s not true. She’s not fooling anybody, not even herself. But she did set a precedent, because Prime Minister Fico of Slovakia is already rubbing his hands, like many others, who are actually quite happy that Mr Orbán is making so much noise and attracting all the attention, so that they can continue their transgressions on the rule of law behind his back. The decision of the Commission is further undermining the rule of law, but also the democratic institutions of the European Union. The problem here is not one man or one country. The problem is that the European Commission no longer acts as the guardian of the Treaties, but as the lapdog of the Member States, and this House unfortunately indulges her. Ms von der Leyen broke the law by ignoring the conditionality rules. But even more seriously, she violated the Treaties, because the timing of the decision, on the eve of the summit, proves beyond any doubt that it was meant to serve the European Council. That, colleagues, is contrary to the requirement of independence of the European Commission. Now, this House will take the European Commission to court, and that’s fine. But we also have to do our duty of political accountability. Accepting the absence of President von der Leyen during such a debate is a huge mistake. So, I would call on the Presidency of this House to contact Ms von der Leyen and insist that she’s always here for the full debate.

Mr President, actually it’s more a remark and Mr Papadimoulis also referred to it. We’re having a debate here on the European Council. The President of the European Commission – as she always does – listens to the first round of speakers and then disappears. I find that utter disrespect to the European Parliament and to her Treaty duties. She’s a member of the European Council and her College is accountable to this House. And I think this House should be a bit more strict in applying the Treaties and insist that the President of the European Commission is present during the debate from the start to the end. (Applause)

Mr President, let’s not forget that our European Union arose from the ashes of extremist rule. We said at the time ‘never again’. Let’s make sure that those dark days never return. Let’s speak out before they return. We see the first signs. I hear the European Commission say ‘yes, but the Foreign Minister has condemned this’. Yes, but there has been a conspicuous silence on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister, somebody who is a member of the European Council, taking decisions that affect all European citizens. So what does this mean for Europe? What does it mean for the ECR Group, because not all members are comfortable? What does it mean for the EPP Group, massively present here as we can see? Isn’t the EPP getting increasingly uneasy about their flirtation with Prime Minister Meloni? Mr Weber – who is not here – do you still think that Prime Minister Meloni, who refuses to condemn the Hitler salute, is a good ally? Is it still power before principles for the EPP? Ms von der Leyen, who will, I understand, be visiting Prime Minister Meloni this week in the context of the floods; I would be interested to know if the President of the European Commission will ask Prime Minister Meloni to speak out to condemn the Hitler salute, because we said ‘never again’ in Europe.

Mr President, I wish that we could see the suffering and trauma through the prism of our humanity. The images of children in particular are unbearable. And this is not a matter of being on one side or the other. It’s human suffering. Human trauma. We need an immediate and lasting ceasefire, and long-term peace and security will not be ever achieved without a two-state solution. That is an illusion. I would like to highlight two specific points. One is the fate of journalists. A record number of journalists have been killed, injured, assaulted or arrested in this conflict. And that means that we get less and less information about the situation on the ground. Israel must do everything. It must do much more to protect journalists. And allegations of targeted violence and killing of journalists by Israeli forces must be urgently investigated by an independent body. And finally, Europe and the US have criticised calls by senior government ministers for voluntary emigration from Gaza. But criticism is not enough. Government ministers are not random bystanders and if Netanyahu does not dismiss them, his claim of self-defence sounds even more hollow.

Madam President, it was actually about the intervention of Mr Vandendriessche, but my my request wasn’t noticed. This is the umpteenth time that I hear Mr Vandendriessche using Nazi terminology in this Hemicycle. I have requested repeatedly that it is investigated whether or not the use of Nazi terminology is acceptable in this Hemicycle. He is using the term ‘omvolking’, which is also a term which was used, for example, by the neo-Nazis who met with the AfD members about the deportation of millions of people from Germany. It is not an innocent term. I would really like that the presidency of this House is looking into the use of this terminology very openly. He is actually proud of using Nazi terminology. It has no place in this Hemicycle. Thank you.

Madam President, we have indeed decided to have a debate this week, but given the seriousness of the rule of law concerns in Greece, we feel that it would be proper to have a resolution. There are many different concerns, but I would like to highlight just one, because it compares to resolutions that we have adopted on other countries: the fact that almost three years ago, journalist Giorgos Karaivaz was killed and today still no justice has been done. I think his widow deserves the same support of this House that we have given to the relatives of other journalists that have been killed. Therefore, it is proper to not just have a debate, but also a wind-up resolution that can be put on the agenda of the February I part-session.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the first activities of the Fico government are an alarming echo of the recent past – high-level corruption investigations suspended, the investigators removed and their whistle-blower status lifted, judicial reforms to be rolled back and the office of the Special Prosecutor to be closed and, maybe the worst of all, attacks on journalists and their access to government press conferences barred. Fico is taking his cues from Orbán, but the EU has also learned from Orbán. We have a solid Rule of Law toolkit, so thank you, Viktor. However, today’s decision of the Commission to pay a bribe – yes, a bribe – to Orbán is entirely the wrong signal. My thoughts go back to the dark days of February 2018. Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová shall not be forgotten, and the Slovak people at the time took to the streets and demanded justice, and an end to corruption. The election results of this year in no way indicate that the people want to go back to those days. I have immense confidence in the power of the Slovak people and their firm desire to be in the heart of Europe, and we stand with them.

Mr President, my first question to Mr Ruissen was: You are talking about an undesirable interference in national law. But isn't what you're proposing just unwanted interference in private lives and our wombs? But I pressed the button for your last comment about healthy and stable families. Can you explain which families you think are covered? For I think that every family of loving parents who care for their children and have chosen each other is a healthy and stable family and that you do not have to interfere in the choice of partner and family.