Speeches

Madam President, it is right you came here today because this chamber is the place where the Commission is held to account, here and nowhere else. Colleagues, 14, no less than 14 resolutions on the rule of law in Poland have been adopted by this House. They were all ignored by the European Commission. So what magical effects do we expect from number 15? The Commission ignores Parliament, the rulings of the highest European Courts, the letters of dissent to five commissioners ignored. Its own Article 7 procedure against Poland ignored, the calls from Polish civil society, warnings by judicial authorities in other Member States, ignored. Instead, President von der Leyen, you travelled to Warsaw last week for a shiny ceremony with the Prime Minister, who, as soon has you had left, hastened to say the judiciary component is fine. As we heard here today by Mr Legutko and his colleagues. So the Guardian of the Treaties is no longer upholding the rule of law. It’s holding up a facade. The milestones are a smokescreen and fall short of the standards called for by the European Court of Justice. Three things. Implementation. Full implementation and irreversible implementation of all ECJ rulings. Reinstatement of the unlawfully dismissed judges. Recognition of the primacy of EU law. Those are the real criteria and nothing less. Colleagues, it is our duty as the European Parliament to hold the Commission to account. A critical Parliament is not the problem. A silent Parliament is Politics, colleagues, is not for the faint hearted. Are we a watchdog or are we a lapdog ? In 2019, this House, Madam President, gave you its vote of confidence, and so did I. But a vote of confidence is meaningless if it’s irreversible, because it leaves us without leverage. For me, it is clear if you make any payment to Poland without all the criteria having been fully met, you lose my confidence. It's democracy. (The speaker refused a request for a blue-card speech by Beata Kempa)

Madam President, first of all, congratulations to the rapporteur. As I was the rapporteur of the initial legislative proposal in October 2016, there is a special place in my heart. Whereas the idea of the annual rule of law report, or the annual rule of law health check, has been very favourably received by the general public, the Commission has been as eager as a toddler about vegetables. It initially rejected the idea altogether, and only after a few years it introduced a drastically slimmed down version. Now, the addition of country—specific recommendations in this year’s edition is very welcome, but key elements from the 2016 proposal are still missing, notably, the panel of independent experts. And that is important because the Commission is simply not free and independent enough to really critically assess the Member States. It will mince its words. Fortunately, in the Reintke report, there is a proposal to set up a panel by this Parliament. I would really urge the Commission to give a full and swift follow—up to all the elements of the 2016 proposals. I also think that the timing of the publication of the annual report, at the end of July, is particularly unfortunate. And I ask you, Commissioner, why? Why is it buried in the summer break? We call, instead, for an ‘annual values week’ in September. Finally, the EU governance structure should equally be subject to scrutiny, and therefore I’m very happy to note the support of this House for my call for an opinion of the Venice Commission on key democratic principles, in particular, the separation of powers, accountability, and checks and balances.

Mr President, I just heard the Commissioner say something interesting. He said that illegal spying, illegal hacking is a crime, and should be reported to the police. So can I then assume that the European Commission has reported to the police that the phones of Commissioners and civil servants have been hacked? Can we at least have an answer to that?

Mr President, I would like to start by pointing out that, as so often, the Council doesn’t seem to think that this debate is worth attending. This debate is an important political debate, but I would like to point out as well that the debate we are going to have 11 and a half months from now will be based on the inquiry. We hope to get all the facts on the table so that we can draw our conclusions and make recommendations based on actual facts and knowledge. First of all, we need to find out who is behind those hacks, who is using the spyware and for what purposes. Those traces need to be found and that is extremely important because, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, this is not just about individual victims whose privacy has been violated in the most horrifying way, this is about attacking the integrity of the decision—making processes in the Member States and in Europe. That brings me to the hacks, or the attempted hacks, of the European Commission. I’m a bit shocked at the reaction of the European Commission, saying: ‘oh, you know, it didn’t even succeed’. There was even a Commissioner saying: ‘oh, ha ha, I have a very boring life, there’s nothing on my phone.’ I can’t believe what I hear. I would like to point out, Mr Commissioner, that investigating this matter is not optional. This is not about individual problems. This is about the accountability of the European Commission to the European citizens and to the European Parliament. You have a duty to investigate and to find out who else has been targeted in the European Commission. Here, the fact that the hacks may not have succeeded is irrelevant, Mr Commissioner, because, if it turns out that the suspicion is true, that it is Member State governments trying to hack the phones of Commissioners and officials, then we have the biggest scandal since Watergate on this continent. Because that means that Member State governments are trying to influence the Commission and the decision—making process. I will not pre-empt the conclusions and the work of the inquiry committee, but I think there are a couple of things that we will be looking into specifically. One is what legal framework is there for this kind of surveillance, this kind of spying in the Member States, and how can people be protected against it? We will of course also look at the ePrivacy Regulation. Then, I think we urgently – and I’ve had this debate with the Commission many times over the last years – need a definition of national security because, if national security becomes a kind of space where everything is possible and there are no protections anymore, then we need a definition of what that space is. It needs to be demarcated. We need a blacklisting of companies – like the Americans have done – selling this kind of spyware in the European Union. Finally, I think we should have a serious look at the cyber-security of our own institutions. After the conclusions of the PRISM investigation eight years ago, we finally need to get going with the cyber-security of our own House.

Of course, support to Poland for the reception of refugees, that is not a debate. But what you’re saying is the that rule of law is non-negotiable, but we can negotiate on the way it is implemented. I have heard in recent weeks too much speculation about what that means in practice. Madam President, three years ago you asked for our confidence. When there is so much speculation, there cannot be confidence. I would really ask you to be crystal clear about what it is, what the criteria are that the Commission will apply. I think this House and the citizens of Poland, the citizens of Hungary, indeed the citizens of all the 27 Member States, have a right to know exactly what the standards are.

Madam President, I say to President von der Leyen: it is very good that you will be triggering the conditionality regulation on Hungary. It’s a bit unfortunate that the door is closed when the horse has bolted. Will you make the same mistake with Poland, despite the fact that the Polish Government has no intention to even meet the conditions? We hear rumours that the Commission is ready to approve the RRF plan and to release the funds. Can you state here a very clear, simple and unambiguous ‘yes’ or ‘no’? Will you or will you not travel to Warsaw on 9 of April and approve the plans and free the way for the release of funds? Would you agree with me that such a decision would be a slap in the face of the Polish people standing up against autocracy? And would you agree with me that it would also mean reducing the rulings of the European Court of Justice to mere non-binding recommendations?

Mr President, transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is the cornerstone of democracy. Now, the Commission pledges allegiance to transparency and indeed we have laws in place, but we all know that the practice is an entirely different one. And I happen to be a veteran of access to document requests, and I can tell you the Commission and the Council are actually not practicing a culture of transparency. They go out of their way to avoid transparency. And it’s not only the Commission and the Council. If you look at Frontex, which is not only refusing access to documents but then making applicants pay for expensive external lawyers that they’ve hired. And then we also see that the European Council is taking over more and more of the legislative work of the Council so that a growing chunk of decision—making is moving back into the black box. Now, let’s get to the case at hand here. The European Commission has its own wrong interpretation of the transparency regulation, and this is not me considering that, this is considered maladministration by the European Ombudsman, and the European Ombudsman knows a thing or two about transparency. Yesterday, a Dutch newspaper called Follow the Money disclosed internal papers from the Commission Legal Service and other services that show that the Legal Service had already warned against the Commission interpretation of the transparency regulation, saying that the definitions were insufficiently precise. So the Commission knew, but it chose to ignore those warnings. If we cannot trust the guardian of the treaties to be open to scrutiny, if the guardian of the treaties is deliberately, knowingly misinterpreting the transparency rules, how can we trust them? There’s been the case of the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and Mr Bourla. And I think it is high time that President von der Leyen confirms if they have been deleted, yes or no. And to those who start to hyperventilate about the confidentiality of commercial negotiations, you should know the Transparency Regulation, OK? I recommend everybody reads it because the fact that those messages are considered a document officially, doesn’t mean that they will automatically have to be published, but they must be open to requests for access. If the President doesn’t feel that she is accountable to the public and to this House, I would like to know how we can trust the Commission to manage the spending of EUR 450 million on weapons in the near future. I’m all in favour of the military support to Ukraine, but I also think that strict scrutiny is in order. President von der Leyen also happens to have a past as Defence Minister, where she ran into the same trouble with an exchange of messages that she deleted, so she should have known better. Incidentally, I think President von der Leyen should have been here. There seems to be a pattern of avoiding debates where awkward questions may be asked. I think that is a contempt for democracy, it’s a contempt for Parliament. But one last remark. We should do also more as a Parliament. We cannot outsource parliamentary scrutiny to the European Court of Justice or to the Ombudsman or the Court of Auditors. We have to hold the Commission to account.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Madam Minister, I would like to start by echoing the praise for the frontline states, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, but of course also the non-EU countries like Moldova, because in their countries citizens, civil society and local authorities are doing really an incredible job and I take a deep bow to their humanity and commitment. So we welcome the EU support provided to those countries, and I would like to join the urgent call of the Commissioner for Frontex and EASO to be closely involved in the operation. We also strongly salute the activation of the TPD, but now we also have to take the next step. Europe has to move on from ad hoc solutions to a coherent, structural and common migration and asylum policy. Just as Europe will be stronger by achieving energy independence, we will be stronger with a common asylum and migration policy, and I therefore invite the Council to agree a roadmap with the European Parliament, a timetable for the swift adoption of the entire asylum and migration package. The warm welcome to the Ukrainian refugees is Europe at its best. Colleagues, it is the cradle of human rights, a community of values and Europe should also be a safe haven for those Russians fleeing the brutal Putin regime and the soldiers who refuse to fight his dirty war. But let us also not forget the other migrants. Those who are still left dying on the borders of Europe pushed back and beaten, because Europe will offer safety to all people equally, because that’s who we are.

Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioners and my colleagues for this debate. I very much welcome the statements by the Commission, and I thank the Commissioners for their personal commitment. I also salute the announcement of the initiatives to be taken, but I will also be frank: it still sounds a little bit timid to me, because I think the time for non-binding recommendations is over. The time to ask the national governments nicely is over. It is great if golden visa schemes will disappear, not as a result of ad hoc decisions of whoever happens to be in government at any particular given time, but structurally, as the outcome of European legislation. Now the Commission has the power, the power of initiative. So you have a duty to use it in the interests of the European citizens. And to be clear, this report, which commands a big majority, as you have seen, is not just a friendly suggestion to the Commission, it is a legislative initiative report on the basis of Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. And that means that if the Commission chooses not to answer our call for legislation, it has to clearly state its reasons. And you have surely noticed, as I said, there is a very big majority supporting this call. And again, I remind you and ourselves of the 2019 election promise of President von der Leyen to follow up on the legislative initiatives of Parliament. Colleagues, it’s also in our own hands because I also believe it is time for this House to assert itself and to not take ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘some other time’ for an answer. Dear Commissioners, I think we know each other well enough, so please don’t take this personally – because usually I’m a really nice person, as you know, a real pussycat, but in this case, I’ll be on your backs until we have legislation on the table, until we have banned these practices from Europe and I will harass you, I will chase you, I will hunt you down until we have the proposals on the table, because anything else is just not credible anymore.

Madam President, when governments are selling passports or visas, what is actually bringing in the cash is not those passports and visas, but it’s the little blue and yellow logo on them. These stars of the EU flag, however, are not for sale. They belong to all of us, and governments are essentially selling what is not theirs to sell. Golden passports and golden visa schemes are not about attracting any meaningful, legitimate investment in the real economy of Europe. They are designed for shady business, shady money and shady characters. Now, already in 2014, colleagues, this House called for a ban on golden passports. Then, in 2017, Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered, among other things because she exposed the corruption—riddled trade in passports. Today, the war in Ukraine puts the spotlight on this problem. Russians are the largest group of third—country nationals that have obtained golden passports and golden visas in the EU, many of them oligarchs with links to Putin’s Kremlin. They escape sanctions merely by waving their nice EU passports. It must end. A large majority in Parliament sends a very clear message to you, Mr Commissioner, a message that cannot be ignored. The Commission has to put legislative proposals on the table before the end of the year. Now is not the time to first wait for the blessing of the Member States to ban these schemes, as it is actually those same Member States that exploit those schemes. So now is the time for the Commission to be independent in the service of Europe and its security. President von der Leyen, incidentally, promised us to consider legislative initiative reports by Parliament as if we have the full right of initiative. So today would be a very good day to honour that promise. Parliament has done its homework. We have put on the table a complete and detailed set of proposals. Now let the national governments explain why they still think it’s a good idea for Russian oligarchs to get EU citizenship or residency rights. First, we want to phase out golden passports, no more sale of citizenship. Second, we call for very strict regulation of the golden visa to the point that they will lose their attractiveness for callous opportunists. Background checks shall be tightened, intermediaries shall be strictly regulated, and a requirement of physical presence shall be strictly enforced. We also call for rules governing the investment itself. It should not be enough to just buy a house or a villa. The investment must be in the real economy and in line with the climate and social objectives of the Union. And if countries monetise their EU membership in this way, then it’s only reasonable that they share that profit with their fellow Europeans in the form of a levy. The proceeds of which will be an own resource for the EU budget. And finally, third countries, often mini states – ‘statelets’ – who benefit from visa—free travel in the European Union should be banned from issuing golden passports as they have become the new route into the EU for undesirable characters. Commissioners, we are looking forward to your proposals. Consider this as support for a new initiative and independence of the Commission. And finally, I would like to thank all my shadow rapporteurs because this report is truly the fruit of a collective effort. So thank you all very much.

Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, not just for his introduction, but also his good efforts in this area. But it’s a pity that the Council isn’t here because I think we have to conclude that the Commission is doing its homework, Parliament is doing its homework, we are trying to actually eliminate the barriers for free travel for citizens, but it’s national policies and national governments that are unilaterally changing their rules every day and they are creating barriers. You said that we don’t want a one—size—fits—all. As a matter of fact, I think citizens are clamouring for a one—size—fits—all, at least when it comes to this. They want to travel easily and freely. There are people who have to cross borders because of their work. There are people who are living in border areas. We had the debate last time. If we are going to extend the duration of the regulation then I think we have to come back to the debate on more harmonisation, and I think Member State governments also have to take their responsibility. The very least they should do is have some sort of common consultation and not each one for himself because you cannot explain it to people anymore. The virus doesn’t know nationalities, it doesn’t know borders and it doesn’t know passports. It only makes a difference between individuals and it doesn’t recognise where you’re coming from or where you were born. One last question to the Commission is about enforcement because, quite frankly, we worked very hard last year to get this regulation in place, but I wonder about enforcement. We see that national Member States are taking measures, and I wonder if the Commission actually assesses whether those measures are in line with the agreement that we laid down in the regulation. I get the distinct impression that it’s not.

Madam President, friends, today’s debate is not about money or the budget. Today is about the credibility of the European Union as a community of values and a community of law. This is Chefsache, and President von der Leyen’s absence for today’s debate I find particularly ill—judged, and reflects contempt for Parliament. In the next few months, as far as I’m concerned, the Commission will have to prove it still deserves our confidence. Everybody knew this would be the outcome of the court case. Parliament knew it. The Commission knew it. Orbán and Kaczyński knew it. But for over 12 months, the Commission chose to play charades. Twelve months of agony for judges, journalists, academics and NGOs in Hungary and Poland. Twelve more months enabling the demolition of democracy and the consolidation of autocracies funded with EU taxpayers’ money. Twelve months wasted. But the European Council, for 12 years, has knowingly allowed corrupt autocrats to destroy the rule of law and fundamental rights. Government leaders, I’m afraid, are fully co—responsible for the current mess, and now they have to be co—responsible for fixing it. I expect the European Council to give full and explicit backing to the Commission for applying the regulation immediately and in full, with no phoney excuses of guidelines that everybody knows are not necessary. No more pretexts. No more delays. The people of Europe are watching you.

Madam President, I find that this whole situation reminds me very much of a movie that I think many of us know, (‘’), which describes how a government critic was being spied upon by a government agent around the clock, and we all found it a very chilling image. But the point is that it’s not a movie. This has been a reality for millions of Europeans for many decades and I get the feeling that Europe today is being haunted by the spectre of its totalitarian past. This is not an incident. It’s not something that we have to treat in in a single debate and then it will go away. It goes against everything that the European Union stands for. As a matter of fact, this is about why we want to be in the European Union. I find it remarkable that the US Government has very swiftly blacklisted NSO, stating that NSO has ‘developed and supplied software to foreign governments that used these tools to maliciously target government officials, journalists, businesspeople, activists [and] academics ... Such practices threaten the rules—based international order’. But, in Europe, where this is happening, the Council and the Commission have so far been silent. Yes, you have condemned the practices, but what has actually been done? Nothing. European governments spying on their own citizens for political purposes is totally and wholly unacceptable. Using national security or the fight against terrorism, or whatever other security—related argument, as a pretext for this practice, colleagues, is textbook autocracy and evident rubbish. It doesn’t only affect the persons targeted, but it affects the whole of society because it has a chilling effect. When no one can be sure anymore that he is not being spied upon, more and more people will start practising self-censorship. We have already gone through that in Europe. Never again. We will also need to have a very close look at the possible impact that these practices may have had on the integrity of elections in Europe, and notably the 2019 European elections in Poland. I’ve heard powerful statements today condemning these practices, but the funny thing is that, at the same time, we are negotiating the ePrivacy Directive, the very piece of legislation that is supposed to protect people and restrict the powers that governments have to spy on their own citizens, and that, frankly, I find that not everybody who spoke is always on our side. The European Parliament position is very clear: we want those restrictions to remain in place. So I hope that I will find the Council – and the EPP Group and the ECR Group and others who have voted against the European Parliament position – on our side in the ePrivacy trilogues because, for too long, I think that critical questions have been dismissed as left—wing whining, and I think these cases demonstrate very clearly why this is a very real issue. Finally, I am very pleased that the European Parliament has decided to set up an inquiry committee. My group, the Renew Group, already proposed this months ago, but only after the revelations about Poland did a majority emerge. But I can assure everybody that, even if the European Parliament doesn’t have the same powers as national parliaments when it comes to parliamentary inquiries, we will play a lead role in this. We will stand by the European citizens. We will defend democracy. We will defend freedom and we will defend justice, and I count on all my colleagues for doing so.

Mr President, I would like to start with a sort of procedural remark. I find is rather disturbing that the leaders of the three institutions are not present for the full debate until the end. I feel the leaders of the House, the Commission and the Council should be present for such a debate. Then I would like to call on, in particular the Council, but also the Commission, to do something very original, almost two years into the pandemic, and that is to actually coordinate their actions. It’s rather incredible that we are now in the umpteenth wave and we still see national governments taking unilateral, uncoordinated action, creating a patchwork for the citizens that is impossible to tackle. I’m glad that the European Commission at least tried to create some more coordination and unity and, who knows, harmonisation, but I think that the Commission cannot work with non-binding recommendations – which are not followed by the Member States anyway – but with legislation. We have legislation for the COVID-19 certificate. If you want to modify it, it should go through a proper legislative procedure in this House. We should insist, colleagues, that we get a legislative proposal. We can work quickly. We have done it before. So we call on the Commission to put a legislative proposal on the table.

Madam President, migrants drowning in the western Mediterranean; smugglers are to blame. Migrant victims of pushbacks in the eastern Mediterranean; Erdoğan is to blame. Migrants stuck and dying on the Polish border; Lukashenko is to blame. So maybe, just maybe, we should think about how the European response is part of the problem. Let us not step into the game of the dictators because they are playing us like puppets. They send a few thousand migrants and laugh as they see us scramble. In the meantime, Putin has sent fighter jets to guard the Belarus—Poland border today. The real game is a big game and it is geopolitical. Frankly, Mr Borrell, I do not want to interrupt your phone call, but I would have hoped for a more powerful answer than your speech today, because I do not think that Mr Putin and Mr Lukashenko will lose much sleep over it. Time for Europe to wake up because a wall may keep out the migrants, but it will not keep out reality.

Madam President, children are freezing to death on the borders of Europe, and your main concern is border protection and Schengen? Do you remember colleagues at the start of this mandate when a new portfolio was created, the European Way of Life – remember that? And remember the position that this House took about the promotion and the protection of the European Way of Life? Well, compare that to what is happening on our borders today, because sending children into the cold to freeze to death, sending women and children on leaky boats with no engines at gunpoint to be sent back to Turkey, sending people back to the hell of Libya in order to make a political point. Seriously, is that the European Way of Life? Is that what we stand for? Well, not in my name. Are the frontline countries facing big problems? Yes, they are. But the only reason the people like Lukashenko and Erdoğan are able to blackmail Europe is because the Council, for years, has refused to adopt an asylum and migration policy. So it is your responsibility. You are guilty. Now today, an NGO, a Dutch NGO, has brought before the European Court of Justice the case of a Syrian refugee who was pushed back by the Greek authorities and Frontex. And it was all documented. And again, it is citizens doing the job of the European Commission. And I know where you stand, Madam Commissioner, you have our full support. But we also know that not everybody in the Commission feels that the Commission should enforce the rules. Madam Commissioner, you have our full support to start infringement procedures against all the countries who do the pushbacks.

Mr President, the rule of law crisis is the single biggest threat to the European Union, and disintegration has already set in today. And yet the European Council flatly refuses to tackle the matter, which is unsurprising as the main offenders are actually sitting on that same European Council. Even today, government leaders irresponsibly prefer to appease the autocrats, keeping the matter off the agenda. President von der Leyen, you are ‘concerned’, but you haven’t announced any action. The Commission has a duty to protect the treaties, and this House has a duty to hold the Commission to account. We expect the Commission to do whatever it takes to halt the destruction of the rule of law. Anything less would amount to a dereliction of duty, and that would merit the ultimate political consequence because debates and resolutions demanding action sound hollow without consequences, consequences for autocrats, but also for the enablers of autocrats. So, colleagues, we speak firm language today, but are we ready to go beyond words if necessary?

Madam President, it’s not the first time that the United States intervenes in European matters in the area of the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy. They have put pressure on Poland, for example, in the case of the Lex TVN, which we discussed yesterday. They’ve put pressure on Hungary for violation of fundamental rights. But imposing sanctions is actually a whole different ballgame – I also wonder if the Magnitsky Act is the correct instrument for this. This should wake us up. Dear Commissioner, I hear you say ‘it is for the Member States to fight corruption and the European Commission, the European Union, will support this’. But it’s a ridiculous situation. We know that there is corruption in many Member States and there are Member States which are vulnerable, including my own. Yet, the European Commission says, ‘Oh, you know, this is a national matter’. We have a third country, a non—EU country, imposing sanctions. This should wake us up. This shows that there is a problem with the way that the European Union functions. I think there’s also a problem with the way the European Commission operates. I think the Commission is lax and slow and hands—off and too intergovernmental, basically. The Commission should decide: is it serving the citizens or is it serving the governments? If it’s serving the citizens, then it should be much more actively fighting corruption, because corruption is, poison. Europe has to keep its own house in order. Now, this House has always been very active. The European Parliament Democracy Rule of Law Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group is monitoring a range of countries: Malta, Slovakia and also Bulgaria – we will be travelling there next week – and Slovenia. But we have also raised questions to the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Spain, the Greek authorities, etc., etc. I am glad to hear that the Commission, as of next year, will include country—specific recommendations in the Rule of Law Report, but that is clearly not enough. The Commission, under the pressure of the same Member States, has abolished the annual corruption report. I think that was a very bad sign. But there are sufficient instruments at your disposal. It’s also a question of enforcement. Here again, we see that the Commission is bowing to pressure of the Member States. It has been raised by the previous colleague. There is the CVM. Since 15 years, the Commission has been monitoring. So what has been achieved? It cannot be that the Commission says ‘everything’s fine, progress is being made’ and then the US is imposing sanctions. There is a gap here that cannot be explained. The Commission is not doing enough. The Commission should face up to the Member States, serve the citizens and fight corruption, because corruption is poison.

Madam President, we’re talking today not about Poland, Commissioner, but about the Lex TVM, which is textbook Orbán. It is a trick using one law which has nothing to do with media in order to eliminate your opponents and your critics. Now I have the feeling, colleagues, with all due respect, that exchanging arguments with the Polish government party is a dialogue of death. We’re not convincing anybody, so let’s stop the exchange of arguments and resort to action. I welcome the action taken by the Commission in the past couple of weeks, and I’m also pleased to hear that as of next year, the annual Rule of Law Report will contain country-specific recommendations. But most of all, I call on the Commission to finally apply the rule-of-law conditionality, and I disagree with President von der Leyen, who considers it to be only an anti-fraud tool. No, it’s a rule-of-law tool, and it’s the only thing that will get the Polish Government, the Hungarian Government and others who are violating the rule of law moving. So please, Commissioner – and I know that I’m preaching to the converted here – immediate application of the law that has been in force since 1 January.

Madam President, Commissioner, we’ve been here before. We’re now talking Pegasus, but we’ve been here for PRISM, NSA, Echelon and so many other scandals where we found out that we were being spied upon, basically without limits. And I’m a bit tired of us only complaining and saying it’s terrible, but we can’t do anything because it’s exclusive national competence. Sorry, all the European citizens are involved here, so we need European action. I would like to repeat what was adopted here many years ago: we need a European intelligence service with fully—fledged parliamentary oversight by the European Parliament. I’m glad that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has followed our call for an investigation, but I think we immediately also have to start working on legislative proposals. And here I have to say I’ve heard the proposals of the European Commission, but they somehow clash with the persistent calls for European legislation to weaken encryption. There is a contradiction here. We need to consider this very seriously. Finally, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to get an answer to my written parliamentary question about this topic going back to July. Secondly, I have submitted a request for access to documents to the European Commission, and I am getting replies now from the different DGs, all saying, ‘NSO? Never heard of it. We have no documents containing any references to NSO’. I find it hard to believe that there’s never been any contact at all between the European institutions and NSO. So I would like to get a full answer.

Madam President, President von der Leyen has today presented a list of ambitious plans, but in its current state, the European Union cannot deliver. President von der Leyen, we support most of your plans wholeheartedly, but intergovernmental Europe is sclerotic and paralysed, and the European Council has become the graveyard of many crucial initiatives. Migration pact: stuck. Geopolitics: Europe is a midget. Rule of law: talk, talk, no action, and Europe is quietly but steadily losing ground in the global economy. The Green Deal is a great plan, but national governments have already started to unpick it. You mentioned, rightly, the lack of political will, but let me finish that sentence for you: the lack of political will of the national governments. Yet the Commission is making itself the most loyal servant of the Council, while Community Europe has been losing ground. But dear colleagues, let’s also look at ourselves: if the Commission is cosying up to the Council, it’s because it smells where the power is, and it is up to this house to restore the democratic balance, the separation of powers, and checks and balances. Parliament should not just be a good legislator, but also take its tasks as parliamentary watchdog more seriously, because our ambitions – the ambitions that we share – cannot be made reality with a limping democracy. This house has, therefore, to drastically up its game in the next couple of years, because only a strong political union can take Europe forward.

Mr President, Commissioner, I think for a debate like the debates today it’s a pity that the Council isn’t there, because actually I think, the Commission has delivered, Parliament has delivered: the take-up of 200 million certificates! I hadn’t heard it before, but that’s an amazing proof that we did the right thing, and that people are desperate to regain their freedom of movement. And that’s exactly what we all very consensually – with exceptional consensus – agreed in this House. The problem is, and it has been raised by the previous speakers, that the Member States a few weeks later adopted a common approach. And we said, this is great: now people will really be able to travel. But the ink hadn’t dried on the common approach, and the Member States went their own way again. And now again, we are dealing with a kind of spaghetti of national rules, and people are clueless. And there are many people coming to all of us asking, how does it work? What do I need? What about my children? Can I be vaccinated once, twice? What kind of test? How many hours in advance do I have to quarantine? And it’s simply impossible to tell them. Now I don’t think anybody in this House – or most reasonable people, probably, are against restrictions: we see the Delta variant going around. So of course measures need to be taken, but they should be taken on a harmonised European basis, not a national basis. I mean, I really don’t think it’s reasonable to say that there are 27 different scientific notions which are all equivalent on the virus. We need a European approach, citizens need clarity. And I think I would also like to hear a little bit more from the Commission, first of all about, indeed, the phasing-in: how far are the Member States? Because I hear there are Member States which are still not even connected to the system, which have delays. And I’d also like to hear a little bit more about the occurrence of fraud, because we got some reports of certificates which have been obtained on the basis of false vaccination at the station. So maybe you can say a little bit more about that.

Mr President, we can already congratulate Mr Orbán on winning the European Championship for the most homophobic law on the continent. Last week, the new European far-right alliance has signed up to a common declaration of their values that are profoundly homophobic and sexist. And the only answer to such an alliance is a passionate defence of European values of equality. Yet the European Council, it has already been said by many, stubbornly and shamefully refuses to act. No wonder, because the main defenders are actually members of that same European Council, and the others are their enablers, let’s say the European Mitch McConnells. Now, last week, the government leaders spoke strong words on LGBTI rights, and even suggested the expulsion of Hungary. But expulsion is no solution, and it even betrays the millions of Hungarian people who count on Europe for support. The government leaders finally have to choose what side of history they want to be on, and vote on Article 7.

Mr President, I would like to draw attention briefly to the cowardly attack on Dutch investigative journalist Peter R. de Vries yesterday. For the fifth time in less than four years, an investigative journalist is literally under fire for the work he or she does. Peter R. de Vries is currently fighting for his life. I hope, therefore, that this House will show its sympathy and support. I think everyone's hoping he'll get back on his feet. We must not only renew our solidarity with journalists, but also work even harder to ensure that Europe is not governed by organised crime, but by law and the state. I think we are all very motivated in this regard. Today, however, I would like to draw attention to Peter R. de Vries.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for setting out an inspiring vision. Europe is indeed facing formidable challenges and as we are still struggling with the pandemic we’re already facing the climate crisis which will be infinitely bigger than the COVID crisis. So we need a strong and united Europe more than ever. But the European Council is paralysed, unable to find a common response to migration, to Putin or Zuckerberg, and most importantly, it allows the deep rule of law crisis to fester, to eat away the foundations of our community of values. Mr Janša, this House has expressed grave concerns about your attitude towards these values. There are no misunderstandings, as you call it. Attacks on journalists of free media, pressure on the judiciary and your interference in the nomination of a prosecutor to the EPPO are intolerable, so your claim to leadership on the rule of law agenda is not very credible. And it’s great to hear my colleague Mr Weber champion the rule of law, but I’m a bit tired of the EPP lip service to the rule of law. Both in Parliament and in the Commission your inaction is complicity. Mr Janša, the European Parliament rule of law monitoring group will gladly take up your invitation to visit beautiful Slovenia for a fact-finding mission in October. And I would also like to use this opportunity to give you a little reminder: in March, when we met online, the rule of law monitoring group of this House addressed a series of questions to you regarding the situation in Slovenia, and unfortunately we have not received an answer. I realise that you’re very busy, so I use this opportunity for a little reminder. For your convenience I have brought a paper copy of the questions which I will leave in your trusted hands; I’m looking forward to a prompt answer.