Speeches

Madam President, just very briefly, I couldn’t help noticing that the President of the European Commission has left. The President of the European Commission is a member of the European Council. We’re having a debate about the European Council here. I think it would have been appropriate for the President of the Commission to remain here for the entire debate. And I’ve noticed this is not the first time. I hope that the presidency can convey the message.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, the Lisbon Treaty says about the tasks of the European Council that it shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development. Impetus is speed, motion, but in reality, we see that the European Council is actually the biggest brake on the development of the European Union. Let’s start with enlargement. Enlargement is urgent. It is a political, strategic imperative and not a technocratic tick-box exercise that is going to take a generation. We need enlargement as quickly as possible. Secondly, Europe – now that the US is failing – must give full and unreserved support to Ukraine, because the Ukrainians are actually on the battlefield fighting the fight for Europe today. They need to get everything they need and they need to get it now. The European Council is always perfectly capable of finding all sorts of unconstitutional, creative solutions, but then, strangely, it is kept hostage by Viktor Orbán by saying, ‘Oh, he has a veto’, but it is not unavoidable. Being held hostage is a political choice in this case, and paying billions of euros in bribe to Viktor Orbán is a slap in the face of all European citizens who are fighting day in, day out for the European values, the rule of law and democracy. This European Commission, in 2019, candidate von der Leyen at the time promised us to be the champion of the rule of law. If the Commission proceeds to any payments, that promise is broken and in my view President von der Leyen has to step down. Finally, as to the situation in the Middle East, it is very sad to see that not all EU members have backed the UN motion calling for a ceasefire. The German Government wrote on Twitter that it is ‘difficult’. I would say, if you see the suffering of children in Gaza, it is not ‘difficult’. And finally, I hope that all the Member States will endorse the Schengen entry ban for violent settlers that has been proposed by Belgium.

Madam President, dear Commissioners, there is a bitter irony – it will have escaped nobody’s attention – in the timing of this defence of democracy package, because it coincides exactly with the upcoming decision by the European Commission and the European Council to pay their bribes to the European kleptocrat-in-chief, Viktor Orbán. In addition, the European Commission in this package introduces what I would call the European ‘Lex Orbán’, labelling NGOs as potential foreign agents. Funny, isn’t that? Because in reality the only foreign agent here is Orbán himself, Putin’s poodle, the Trojan horse. Commissioner, I heard you say, and I agree with you, that you consider that the abuse of spyware is unacceptable in a democracy. Then I ask you: why does the Commission refuse, flatly refuse, to act? Finally, if the Commission wants to defend democracy, it should lead by example and finally itself comply with the transparency laws. This week, it became clear that the majority of Europeans staunchly supports European integration. But they’re all worried about European democracy. This plan is not going to fix it – action will.

Mr President, Commissioner, I listened with great interest to the first-year law student lecture we just got on what the law is, and what Member States should and should not do – that’s not the problem. When Member States do not comply with the law, then what does the Commission do? That’s the key question here. And the Commission says, ‘Oh, we condemn. We expect. We assist. We have no investigative powers.’ Sorry, the Commission is maybe the most powerful body in the European Union, but the Commission says, ‘Oh, the Member States here are spying on journalists. They are illegally selling surveillance technologies to Sudan or Madagascar, but we can do nothing about it, even if the law says that they cannot do so.’ Sorry, Commissioner, this is just not good enough. If you say you have no investigative powers I disagree with you, but even if that’s the case, you don’t have to have them because the entire investigation is in the report of the European Parliament. And if it is not in the report of the European Parliament, it is in all the media reports that we have seen since. Now even the United States – not being known for being loony lefty peaceniks – have actually blacklisted Intellexa, a Europe-based company which is engaging in illegal activity. They are considered to be a threat to the national security of the United States. So what does the Commission do? Nothing! This is a gangster’s paradise – Europe is a gangster’s paradise. There is complete impunity for the abuse of spyware and for the illegal sale of spyware. And I wonder, if the Commission cannot fix this, then why do we have a Commission in the first place, if you are not the guardian of the Treaties?

Mr President, very briefly, I have the feeling that we’re a bit in the Twilight Zone. There is a massive scandal and the Commission says after a debate like this, ‘Oh, we’re only responsible to see that EU laws are transposed and the Council says everything is fine because we have laws’. Who is responsible? We didn’t get an answer to that in this debate. I find this such a lack of respect, not just to the European Parliament, but to the European citizen. Can we please get an answer from both institutions as to what they’re going to do to make sure that such a scandal cannot happen again, and not because crooks are suddenly good people, but because they will enforce the law.

Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the journalists who, once again, were the ones who have uncovered wrongdoing. We are now talking about Cyprus Confidential, but it could be LuxLeaks, Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers ... We have to ask ourselves, why is it that journalists seem to be the ones who are actually in charge of law enforcement? Why is it that all this wrongdoing is not uncovered by the authorities: the national authorities and the European authorities? And quite frankly, I am tired of hearing the European Commission say, ‘oh, this is national competence’. The only kind of enforcement that the Commission does is seeing to it that a Member State transposes the legislation, and your responsibility ends there. I recommend that you read the Treaties once. It doesn't say there that it's only about transposition. You are responsible for enforcing EU laws and the European Commission is not doing its job. You know why? Because you rely exclusively on national authorities doing their duty. But you know what? When it's about corruption and financial wrongdoings, the national authorities very often are the culprits. They're complicit. They’re involved. Cyprus, Malta ... I mean, we can give so many examples. And this is the problem. It's happening right under your noses. And because of this lax attitude of the European Commission, never mind the national authorities that are guilty of this, the European Union is turning into a gangster's paradise – because there is complete impunity, because of your very legalistic interpretation or very narrow interpretation of the Treaties, which I'm sure is wrong. Finally, we are now working on the directive to criminalise sanction circumvention, and I would very much like to invite the Council to join the European Parliament in fighting for strong enforcement and harmonisation, closing all the loopholes.

Dear colleague, you were singing the praises of the Hungarian people. And I entirely share your views. But then you seem to equal the Hungarian Government to the Hungarian people. Can you please explain if you agree with us, yes or no, that a government is not the same as the people? And Mr Orbán may think he is the people, but he actually is not. He’s the head of government. But there are lots of Hungarians who disagree with him, and they are also Hungarians. They’re very good Hungarians. Can you please acknowledge that Mr Orbán is not Hungary?

Madam President, Commissioners, Minister, I’m getting a little bit tired of this debate. It’s not the first time. No, no, no! You’re cheering for the wrong reasons there, okay? I’m getting a little bit tired because I think we all agree here – with the exception of you there in the back – that not a penny should go to the Hungarian Government. And I don’t want to have this debate, because every time we get rumours in the media about the Commission maybe negotiating. I don’t want to have this debate anymore. It is very obvious that not only does the Orbán government not meet the criteria – he actually doesn’t want to meet the criteria. So why are we having this debate? I think I want to hear the European Commission, in particular Commissioner Hahn, say ‘this is very clear to us’. We are not going to pay a penny to Orbán – because this is not to the Hungarian people, this is to Orbán and that is the problem here – until he has fully met all the criteria. And I would also like to get a bit more clarity about how the Commission assesses the criteria. Because how do you negotiate rule-of-law criteria? This is a mystery to me. You know, either you respect the rule of law or you don’t. And the point is that, okay, now I think Orbán himself has given up. I don’t think he expects to get any more money from Brussels. But there are others: Fico, who has just been re-elected in Slovakia. But I can think of some other countries which are very problematic. Greece: I am getting very, very worried about Greece, and I think we should be discussing conditionality here. Spain: whatever. You have a long list, apparently. Very good. But I think if you now give the signal to Orbán that we are willing to negotiate, that we can buy off your veto, you’re giving that signal to other countries, too. So I want some clarity here today about the criteria and how they are being assessed.

My question was in the same vein. It was very short: why are you here? But you’ve just very eloquently explained that your presence here is absolutely useless, that your aim – your stated aim – is actually to be as useless as possible. And on top of that, you do not achieve anything. So do you not think you would serve your voters better by leaving?

Mr President, colleagues, parliamentary democracy is in steep decline. Checks and balances, accountability and the separation of powers have been all but eliminated, and nowhere more than at EU level. As the EU is growing more powerful, its democracy is limp. And it is not by accident. The Lisbon Treaty ironically gave new powers to the Parliament, but it also made the European Union fundamentally more intergovernmental. The European Council is nothing less than a power grab in broad daylight. It has domesticated the European Commission and sidelined the European Parliament. Sadly, this House has meekly resigned to that. We urgently need treaty change, but that alone will not fix democracy. This House has a duty to make full use of its current parliamentary powers and restore the power balance between the institutions. The spitzenkandidat is the first and vital step towards that goal in 2024, because intergovernmental Europe will fail. But Europe, as a mature parliamentary democracy, will be rock solid. Finally, Mr President, to quote a famous Italian novel, ‘if we want everything to remain the same, everything will have to change.’

Dear colleague Rangel, I hear what you say, and I’ve known you for many years, and I know your commitment to the rule of law. It is true that we are talking here about Malta today, because the EPP did not want to have a debate on Greece. Dear colleague Rangel, there is a systemic problem with the rule of law in Greece. You mentioned Daphne Caruana, you mentioned Ján Kuciak, but there’s one journalist who was murdered two and a half years ago, and his murder is not being investigated – it’s Giorgos Karaivaz. Do I have your support to put it here on the agenda?

Madam President, the day before yesterday was six years ago when Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered. Today, we pay tribute to her work. It continues to be necessary, and this House will continue to be involved until full justice is done and the culture of impunity has ended. Because two years after the report of the public inquiry, it is true that steps have taken, but all recommendations have not been fully implemented, and we would really call on the government to fully and swiftly implement all the recommendations. We also see that the culture of impunity which is mentioned in the report is still present, and it concerns issues like corruption, trading in influence, abuse of power, etc. We have seen recent examples again, and it is really necessary that these matters and the matters that Daphne Caruana was investigating are fully investigated and prosecuted and that that is done fully and swiftly. We also conclude that journalists are still working in difficult conditions, in a hostile environment, and that the SLAPPs against the family members of Daphne have still not been lifted. This is ridiculous. Six years after her death, this House has repeatedly called for the SLAPPs to be lifted. Finally, although this debate is dedicated to Daphne Caruana, I am sure that she would agree if I also mention other journalists which have been killed for exposing corruption and crime. Ján Kuciak’s killers have been convicted, but it is to fear that the culture of corruption that he exposed may well return soon. I would also hope for support of the EPP Group to address the murder of Giorgos Karaivaz in Greece, which remains unsolved. Although the two killers have been arrested, I get the distinct impression that that had a lot more to do with the election campaign than with a genuine desire for justice. So, I think it is important that we protect all journalists in Europe exposing corruption.

Mr President, Minister, Madam Commissioner, I’m a bit sad that the not all the responsible Commissioners are here. Honestly, looking at the reply of the Commission, which took you four months to draft, it is a complete and utter waste of paper. it is worse, it is a provocation, it is a slap in the face of those people who have been targeted with spyware and a slap in the face for the victims of brutal regimes, which have bought spyware from Europe right under the nose of the Commission. ‘The European Commission strongly condemns’, oh, do I hear champagne corks popping in Casa de Leon? Because I don’t think that anybody will be very impressed. The sentence that shocks most in the report of the Commission is ‘we expect that national competent authorities and courts make full use of their powers to thoroughly investigate allegations regarding any unlawful surveillance activities.’ Well, here’s news for the Commission: the unlawful surveillance was actually carried out by those same competent authorities! It is like asking a burglar, ‘Please investigate the burglary.’ So why does the Commission continue with the pretence of compliance? It is like a fiction, like a myth. So to date, unsurprisingly, colleagues, in not a single case justice has been done. Not a single case. So what does the Commission have to offer to them? What do you say to the journalists who, at peril, have been continuously investigating this case? What do you have to say to independent authorities, to Mr Rammos in Greece, who is facing a lot of grief from the national authorities because he is investigating bravely? Now the Commission will present a non-legislative initiative. Don’t bother. Don’t bother. I think the interventions of my colleagues have also made it very clear that it is unacceptable. It is not a failure to act by the Commission, it is a refusal to act.

Madam President, colleagues, I hear the Putin friends from the left and right extremes of this chamber argue against sanctions in great consensus, invoking the economic cost to European citizens. But they should tell the full story. The cost of war is infinitely higher, both materially and morally, and the cynical reality is that despite the sanctions, trade continues and we see Russians, rich Russians living, holidaying, conducting their business freely in Europe. The EU law criminalising the violation of sanctions will help tackle the uneven and weak enforcement by the Member States. And yes, more harmonisation and strict enforcement are a key priority for Parliament. Of course, that means that some countries will have to change their practices, but the whole point of an EU law is to eliminate back doors and forum shopping. Making the sanctions work, however, is more important than petty power struggles between national governments and the EU. As a rapporteur, I am determined to conclude the file by December at the latest, and I count on the cooperation and the flexibility of the Council and the Member States.

Mr President, maybe, actually, I should address the question to you, because I have had this exchange with Mr Vandendriessche many times. He is using a term which is a Nazi term, and he knows that full well. And I would like to ask you, Mr President, rather than Mr Vandendriessche, whether the use of Nazi terminology in this hemicycle is acceptable, he uses the term , which is the Dutch version of which is a Nazi term. Do we accept that in this hemicycle, Mr President? I would really like an answer to that. I have had the exchange with Mr Vandendriessche many times in the committee. He does it on purpose. He knows it’s Nazi terminology and yet he continues to use it.

Mr President, Mr Minister, Mr Commissioner, it has been said by many that the clock is ticking. We owe it to the citizens of Europe to finally adopt a proper asylum and migration policy. And so we are eagerly awaiting the position of the Council on the crisis regulation, which is the key to the rest of the package. But, I warn you, that's not the end of the process, because a negotiating mandate should leave sufficient margin for negotiations and compromise with the European Parliament. It cannot be rigid. It's the start of negotiations between the two legislators. I hear many people talk about realism. Realism means working seriously on the internal dimension of migration policies, a proper common European asylum and migration policy that includes not just mandatory solidarity, but mandatory relocation, because only that is real solidarity. The famous blueprint Tunisia deal turns out not to be a blueprint, but a fob, a blueprint of how not to do it. Because a deal that props up a dictator that leads to massive human rights violations and deaths, a deal that is not enforceable and that has done absolutely nothing to reduce the number of arrivals is not a blueprint, but only a blueprint for how not to do it. It is high time, after so many years that the Member States take their responsibility. This House is ready.

You mentioned the people smugglers. Surely, you are aware that since the conclusion of this deal, whatever it may be, that the business has actually boomed for people smugglers. Would the EPP consider this a successful outcome of the deal?

Mr President, colleagues, we do not always have the luxury of choosing our neighbours, but as long as European standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law are respected, of course we can conclude agreements. But the Tunisia deal does not meet any of those standards. It has the legal status of a beer coaster and was concluded by a fantasy body called Team Europe. It has not delivered on reducing the number of arrivals and it has led to immense human suffering. We all remember the image of the dead body of a mother and her daughter in the desert, paid for by European money. Now the EP claims it is all just a matter of implementation, but that is false. Many predicted that this deal would not work because it cannot work. It is just right-wing magical thinking. And Manfred Weber, who is absent, uses it for his love affair with the far right, and his derogatory remarks about the victims make his claim on Christian values sound very hollow. Colleagues, this deal is a betrayal of European values.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, I am very grateful for the report of the rapporteur, but I would disagree with you, rapporteur, on one tiny detail: you said ‘transparency, access to documents is a fundamental right’. That’s true in itself. But there is something much more important – it is a key element of democracy. Without transparency and access to documents, there is no scrutiny. Without scrutiny, there is no accountability. And if we say that we are a political Union, even a geopolitical Union, where the Commission and the Council and Parliament have taken great strides ahead in recent years in response to crisis, then the need for more transparency is more pressing than ever. And I respectfully disagree with you, Madam Commissioner, that the European Commission is very transparent, and the same applies to the Council. I think we really need a dramatic improvement. And as has been highlighted by my colleague, the so-called SMS-gate or delete-gate urgently needs to be answered. But there, colleagues, I would also like to raise a critical note to this House. How is it possible that a journalist went to court, The New York Times went to court? The European Ombudsman issued an opinion labelling it maladministration. And there has been a very critical remark by the European Court of Auditors that this House so far has spectacularly failed to hold the President of the European Commission to account. Ms von der Leyen should appear here before the plenary and explain. And I think she has a duty; there cannot be any excuses. The law applies to Ms von der Leyen and to the Commission as well. She has to register the text messages so that they can be accessed if need be.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Mr Minister, let’s compare here. The billionaire on board the shipwrecked Titan was a Pakistani citizen and holder of a Maltese golden passport. The 209 Pakistani people on board the Adriana had no golden passport, indeed no legal pathways. Yes, people smuggling is a despicable crime that must be fought. But don’t try to distract and shift the blame because once the boat is out on the sea and in trouble, as the Commissioner said, our first duty is to save lives. Full stop. There are no ‘buts’. I hear people say here, ‘yes, we have to save lives, but...’ There is no ‘but’, we save lives. Now, in the case of the Pylos shipwreck, there are very strong indications that 600 deaths might have been prevented. An independent international investigation is essential to make sure that there is no cover up. Finally, we urgently need a common EU search and rescue capacity without further delay or excuses. And as the Commissioner said very, very well, let our action be the monument to the victims of Pylos.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, Minister, as the original architect of this report, this annual debate is always a special moment for me. The Annual Rule of Law Report – in its fourth edition this year – have become a document of reference for everybody, and including recommendations was clearly a big improvement. However, key weaknesses remain because our original idea was to have standards applied evenly and independently and that there should be no space for political or diplomatic considerations – and yet I see that the text still tends to be too diplomatic, with balanced Commission language avoiding clear statements on the Member States. This is why – and I reiterate this and I will continue to reiterate it – the report must be drawn up by independent experts, as called for by this House. One illustration is the chapter on Greece. It states, for example, that the national transparency is, I quote, ‘progressing well’, whereas we all know that the Greek National Transparency Authority is a fig leaf for government wrongdoing instead of an effective independent watchdog. With regard to the Council, the Council will only discuss the general part you just said, not the country chapters. Yet some of the members of the Council – i.e. Member State governments – are amongst the main demolition men of the rule of law. So when will the Council finally take responsibility, show some courage and address the wrongdoing within its own circles? In summary, I welcome the report, but I think that in the interest of the rule of law, next year’s edition and the editions after that must become the big leap forward.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, as the rapporteur for the Directive on ‘VURM’, as we call it – the violation of Union restrictive measures – I am very committed to working fast and concluding the file as quickly as possible, and I am glad to say that all the groups have committed to that because everybody understands the importance of this piece of legislation. But we also know that in practice European law tends to be applied very unevenly, and in this case that would be of benefit for the perpetrators, for the persons who have been put under sanctions, and we do not, of course, want to give them any opportunity to go shopping around for places where they can escape the sanctions. Therefore, in addition to the national competence for the application, we call – and you can hear that there is broad consensus here – for the extension of the mandate of EPPO to include all types of violations of Union restrictive measures in order to really strongly enhance the uniform enforcement of the directive. Finally, I would like to say that eventually EPPO will be subject to an evaluation, but I think that even before doing the evaluation we can say that EPPO is doing a fantastic job. I’m already convinced that if they are put in charge of this, then they would really greatly contribute to the effective application of this measure.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, thank you for this debate. We have often referred to this scandal as Watergate. The European or Greek or Spanish or Hungarian equivalent of Watergate. Actually, it isn’t. It’s like this movie called ‘The Lives of Others’, which is about the former Eastern European Stasi spying on its citizens, a repressive regime. That is what this is about. And colleagues, do we actually learn from history or are we doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again? Do we close our eyes and ears until it’s too late and then we have to start all over again with rebuilding democracy, because we are not immune to authoritarian tendencies simply because we’re European. We have to fight for it. And here, Commissioner, I would like to appeal to you: the European Union has to act and it has to give itself the powers to act, because, quite frankly, relying on national authorities for upholding the law, when those very same national authorities are the actual perpetrators, makes absolutely no sense. You know. [] Thank you. I got a bit choked up here. The thing is that you very often put the burden on the shoulders of the individuals. Yes, but people, you know, victims can go to court, but then you’re putting the burden on the individual, the burden of upholding EU laws. That is not a replacement for enforcement by the EU Commission and the other EU bodies. Then on national security. National security is very important, but it has become a blanket exemption to the democratic rule of law. It is very important that we get a clear demarcation where there is a unified European definition or the obligation for Member States to define, but there has to be a definition of national security. Commissioner, this is a full-blown democratic crisis and therefore we need a crisis response, not a technocratic, legalistic and timid reaction. We need to act as we did in the other crises, as I have said before, because Commissioner – this is my last sentence, Mr President – not a thousand democracy action plans can save our democracy if we just stand by and watch how it is being destroyed. There is a broad majority for the recommendations. Please, Commissioner, act on this with all the strengths that you have.

Mr Mariani, you were frustrated that after the revelations of the NSA spying etc. nothing has been done by the European Union. You said, ‘Why doesn’t the European Union act?’ But then my question is, why are you – your party and your group – opposed to giving the powers to the European Union to act? Because you’ve tabled amendments and during the debates you’ve opposed action by the European Union. So are you now reproaching the European Union for being too weak or too strong?

Madam President, dear colleagues, today we are going to have the debate and tomorrow the vote on the recommendations put forward by the PEGA Committee, which is the conclusion of the work that we have been doing for 14 or 15 months. And let us go back a little bit to what it is that we are talking about: spyware. You know, this stuff that creeps into your mobile phone and takes over your life without you even noticing it. And of course, we have been focusing a lot on what this means to the individual whose privacy is violated in the most horrible way. But I think what may be even more important is what this means for democracy, because spyware is not just a technology. It is a tool in a broader toolkit, the toolkit of the authoritarian. It is a grave threat to democracy because spyware is not being used against just any citizen – and this is also why many people think, ‘oh, it doesn’t concern me. It concerns only a handful of people that I have nothing to do with.’ No, it concerns the very people who are the custodians of our democracy, the people who hold power to account, the people who scrutinise, the people who exercise oversight, journalists, oversight bodies, lawyers, NGOs, researchers, opposition politicians. And, you know, I firmly believe that democracy is about checks and balances and accountability and scrutiny. Take those away and democracy is dead. If you have no more countervailing powers, then democracy is dead. And that is the very purpose of the regimes that are using spyware against some of their own citizens. And this is not only happening in Saudi Arabia or Mexico. No, it’s happening right here on our doorstep within the European Union by EU governments. It is a democracy crisis, you might say. But let us see a little bit what happened since the news of this broke, which is now almost two years ago, July 2021, when the Pegasus Project presented its report. Justice has not been done in a single case. Not a single case. No inquiry – be it parliamentary or judicial or a police inquiry – has been concluded in a meaningful way. In not a single Member State has light been shed on the situation. Not a single case of illicit exports has been investigated and not a single license has been repealed. Colleagues, nothing has been done. Some countries have taken measures, but in most of the cases they are meaningless, or they even make matters worse. And I have to say the European Union has also been pretty much absent, with the exception of this House and maybe the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Letters have been written to the Member States asking them for explanations, but in a very friendly way. Now I find the contrast with the response of the European Union to other crises quite stark. You know, we’ve had we’ve had a war, we’ve had a pandemic, we had inflation, we had an energy crisis, a bit longer ago, we had the banking crisis. And every time, you know, the European Union was there with a crisis response. In this case, the crisis is a democratic crisis. Democracy is the core of what the European Union is about, and yet the European Union is absent. Now, tomorrow, dear Commissioner, we are adopting a comprehensive set of recommendations, and I would really ask the Commission to follow up as much as you can, really seek the limits of your powers. And in any case, report back in great detail to the European Parliament, preferably even before the summer break, about how you intend to give a follow-up to our recommendations, because this is not the end of our work, friends. This is where it starts. Tomorrow we’re going to adopt the big sledgehammer that we will be fighting authoritarianism with and we will make sure that every single recommendation is implemented, no matter how long it takes.