Speeches

Mr President, saying that enlargement necessitates EU centralisation via treaty change is a blatant lie. Such claim is factually wrong and biased, both politically and ideologically. Enlargement is just a false pretext to build, as planned, a European superstate to replace the European Union of today. The ultimate proof of it is that planned reform proposes to preserve, not to eliminate, the veto on decision on enlargement. The vast scientific empirical research which has been analysing the impact of previous enlargements – from the early years until the last one – on the functioning of the EU institutions, proves that the enlargement had no negative effect on the decision-making capacity of the EU. It is also confirmed by the documents of the Council secretariat. On the contrary, empirical data prove that the speed of decision-making has actually increased. Moreover, various serious academic studies demonstrate that, after each enlargement, decision-making was faster when there were more Member States. Additionally, experts say that with a view to enlargement, you should decentralise, not further centralise. Centralising reform is not necessary thus, and would be counterproductive in that respect.

Mr President, both reports on the implementation of the Treaty provisions, respectively, on national parliaments and on EU citizenship being discussed today, are a perfect example of how the European centralist mainstream is trying to take over the Member States’ competences and transfer them to the European level. The report on national parliaments puts forward excessive and detrimental proposals and is written from this centralist perspective, emphasising creating a European political sphere revolving around European political families, interfering in the affairs of the Member States. It does not adequately treat national parliaments as fully-fledged European political actors. It portrays them as secondary political actors subordinate to the European Parliament. It flatly rejects the red card procedure to repeal EU laws, as proposed during the works on the Treaty change by the European Conservatives and Reformers Group. This report advocates direct engagement of European political parties in campaigns, in campaigns for European elections and in referenda in Member States, thus neglecting the diversity and autonomy of the national political scenes. The ECR will vote against this report. The second report concerning EU citizenship is even more controversial, as it proposes to strip the Member States of their most fundamental and exclusive prerogatives. Let me remind you that EU citizenship is, according to the EU Treaties, closely linked and dependent on the nationality of Member States, and granting citizenship is an exclusive competence of Member States. There is – and should never be – no other way to obtain EU citizenship than by obtaining the nationality of a Member State and citizenship of a Member State, according to rules which are specific to each Member State and take into account their traditions and constitutional order. Granting EU citizenship to third country nationals without them obtaining citizenship of a Member State would go against the Treaty order. The ECR will vote against the second report also.

Mr President, I am a former co-rapporteur, the sixth one who left in protest against the breaking of the principle of consensus of co-rapporteurs. Europa was once abducted by Zeus, as in Greek mythology. Now, it is a second attempt to hijack Europe. Massive transfer of nine cardinal competencies to European level and few competencies left for Member States. Nearly complete liquidation of unanimity and veto rights in 63 cases, leading to a constitutional coup d’état to create, in place of the EU, a dystopian superstate to degrade Members’ countries to the position of regions. It is done under the false pretext of preparing for enlargement, but the only significant veto left is the veto on taking new members. It is the Himalayas of hypocrisy. Scientific research shows that enlargements did accelerate and facilitate decision-making, not the contrary. Enlargement in fact necessitates decentralisation, not centralisation. We have to defend the EU Treaties as they are. We have to defend the EU itself against the superstate in the making. To defend Christian-inspired Schuman’s Europe of sovereign Member States against turning the EU upside down into communist Ventotene-inspired superstate, liquidating de facto nation states. It is not federalisation, it is centralisation. This project is anti-federal, contrary to what is being said, because it favours largely populated states, contrary to the fundamental federal principle of equal representation of all members, irrespective of population. It is undemocratic because it takes decisions away from Members, where democracy works, towards European level, where democratic deficit is huge and no European demos exist. From democracy towards oligarchic hegemonic autocracy. It departs from ‘United in diversity’ motto towards ‘United in uniformity’. God save the Union from self-destruction. ‘No’ to depriving citizens of their millennial states and their heritage. ‘No’ to the elite grab of power behind the back of citizens hidden behind empty slogans. Tomorrow, vote in favour or against the abduction of Europe.

Mr Freund, massive illegal migrants come to Europe on the board of eight German ships in the Mediterranean, paid from the German budget. Would you better not comment on that instead of lying about massive Polish visas? There are 268 wrong visits, and there are massive hundreds of thousands, if not millions, brought back brought to Europe on German ships and with German money. Please respond.

Mr President, the ECR Group welcomes the European Council’s draft decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament without proposals to establish transnational lists, which are eliminated. This is a reasonable approach that respects the Treaties, and thank you Presidency of the Council. Let me remind you that proposing introductions of transnational lists violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Treaty on the European Union, stipulating that it is the Member States that are allocated the seats. Moreover, Article 14 clearly specifies that ‘the representation of citizens shall be digressively proportional’ and ‘no Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats’. Therefore, the introduction of EU-wide constituency would breach the Treaty. This could lead to the situation where one country has more than 96 seats, which would favour big states and flagrantly disrupt their representativity within the EU. Such lists would also violate the Treaty-based principles of subsidiarity and proximity, because forcing the elections to be centralised around the European political entities and transnational candidates would weaken the link between members and their electorates. To conclude, the ECR endorses the European Council decision proposal, and we invite other groups to follow suit and to respect the Treaty.

Madam President, for Ukraine, a decisive moment approaches, with a new Russian offensive coming. Ukraine needs boost, not cold shower and nice words. Ukraine is not getting enough and quickly enough. There is no reason for EU being so self—satisfied and self—congratulatory, Mr Commissioner, for what it does for Ukraine because it does things below the needs of Ukraine, below EU capacity. On weapons, EU is underperforming compared to US. Cowardly, hesitant and overcautious attitudes prevail. Ukraine needs fighter jets and long—range artillery now. On money, EU is performing far below its weight, gives loans instead of grant money that leads Ukraine into a sovereign debt crisis. On accession perspective, many urge to dash Ukraine’s hopes for swift EU accession and call them unrealistic. They are mainly Russia understanders and ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, dear colleagues, many want to abolish the veto to make things easier, not really better. Democracy should be fair and honest, not easy – and easy for whom? Democracy is difficult. Autocracy is easy. It should remain the basic right of Member States, as it is the last rampart of defence for the small, weak and vulnerable against the strong, big and bullish. It is rooted in the tradition and history of EU. It is a normal procedure in the EU, and big Member States use it on a regular basis. It is an expression of the wisdom of the founding fathers, whose wish was to create a balanced community of equals. Since Lisbon, the few vetoes left remain the only way for small and medium-sized Member States to protect themselves against the diktat hegemony of bigger states and their directorates. The veto serves the vital interests of the abused, the weapon of the weak meant to establish the balance when they face a risk of being bridled and abused. Removing the veto would also put in danger the cohesion of the EU. The EU is about consensus, not divisions. To those who demand the cancellation of the veto, do it yourselves first. Be the example by giving up the veto for your countries through a solemn declaration not to use it; create an enhanced avant-garde. Do not practice hypocrisy. Germany declared that it would veto enlargement if the veto were not removed from the Treaty. It is Kafkaesque and grotesque. To those who demand the cancellation of the veto, do it yourselves first. Solemnly declare not to use it. Good luck.

Mr President, Russia’s war against Ukraine has started in 2014 and some woke up to it only this year. While we in central-eastern Europe were screaming about the growing danger of Russia’s imperial appetite, others in the EU were supporting Russia with generous military and energy contracts. It was a fatal mistake, with heavy repercussions and losses. Today, many recognise Poland, the Baltics and other countries, frontline countries, were right but not listened to. Today, the same people continue not to listen and not to follow informed advice of central-east European countries. The frontline Central European countries were the only besides the US and UK, to give immediately a big part of the effort and budget to support Ukraine’s fight and to receive this time ‘true’ refugees. The EU did not help adequately frontline Member States. Many in the EU, even now, are proposing to send military equipment and disburse already promised money; not to mention increase. It is our urgent imperative and duty to give more heavy weapons and more finance and join the US initiative of monthly 1.5 billion transfers to Ukraine’s budget, to put to zero and sanction Russia, to enforce payment of reparations to Ukraine and finally, to accept Ukraine in NATO.

Madam President, this report contains a number of good proposals, but it also contains a number of far-reaching proposals which aim at drastically and illegitimately capturing the political and democratic sphere of Member States under the pretence of so-called Europeanisation, in a way which is against the subsidiarity and proportionality principles enshrined in the Treaties. Let me give you just three examples of the most striking provisions which render this project unacceptable in its current form for the ECR Group. Firstly, allowing association fees from members, parties and member organisations located outside of the European Union, but inside the Council of Europe, poses a serious and a real risk of foreign interference. Remember that until yesterday Russia was a member of the Council of Europe. Secondly, the draft report proposes increased monitoring and a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the regulation, especially with regard to respecting the Union’s fundamental values such as the rule of law. It also includes new requirements for member parties, such as to publish information on gender representation. There should not be any explicit link between the financing of parties and foundations and Article 2 Treaty values, and through control thereof, which could lead to sanctions. The objectivity and criteria of such mechanisms are highly unclear and doubtful. We are now observing the so-called EU values being used for purely instrumental and political purposes by the EU institutions to punish those who dare to have a different vision of the EU, which in itself is a contradiction of the democratic principles. The third appalling part of this report is a proposal to allow EU parties to finance campaigns on national referendums that deal with European issues and this will encroach upon the competence of the Member States in contradiction with Article 5 of the Treaty. The Council and the Court of Auditors have already expressed serious concerns on possible financing of national referendums and contributions from the outside. In this sense, this report reflects the ongoing process of introducing a more centralised and oligarchic European Union at the cost of sovereign Member States and the democratic rights of the citizens.