Speeches

Madam President, Mr Vice-President. Let's remember why we're here today: to engage us. We want to improve the situation of those people who are currently being interned in camps. We want to stop prisoners being abused or tortured. We want action to be taken against the perpetrators, everywhere and also in China. To achieve this, we need dialogue with the Chinese leadership, the Chinese government, President Xi Jinping. I expressly commend the UN High Commissioner for her visit to Xinjiang and for the dialogue with the UN, which she has now been able to establish institutionally. I also expressly welcome the fact that the EU Commission and China's Prime Minister Li Keqiang have re-established the bilateral high-level human rights dialogue. This is the way to convince China that the measures taken 20 years ago in parallel with the US and NATO attack on Afghanistan against the spread of jihadist agitation in its Central Asian provinces are excessive and completely out of control. We should not extinguish the signals of readiness with which Michelle Bachelet was greeted in China by whipping speeches. Here we must act actively.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President! Thank you, Mr Rapporteur, for your unwavering commitment to this dossier. Finally, after years of discussions, we are coordinating our positions on enforcing the core of representative democracies, just in time to derive real political action from the recommendations of the Future Conference, which explicitly identified citizens as a weakness in the functioning of the EU. Let me add to the many correct and clear positions and aspects of our debate today and also in the report: We do not want a second-class right of initiative, i.e. to be dependent on the other institutions. No, we do not claim a right of grace, but an equal right – not for us, but in accordance with representative democracy for all citizens across the EU 27. This right to legislate on all aspects of our social coexistence in the EU must be enshrined in the Treaties. That's not what it's about.

Madam President, dear Dubravka, ladies and gentlemen! 79 years after Spinelli, the Conference delivered something here, namely, for the first time, 20 years after the last major EU-wide debate, then on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in a Convention, it provided an answer: How do we want to live together in this European Union in the future? And I recall our debate here a year and a half ago, or two years ago, when we said that everything must be put to the test: Let's explore why so many citizens across all 27 EU Member States are frustrated, disappointed by the here and there, by political solutions to their everyday concerns. The left has always said: The EU must be social and democratic, or it will not last in history. And I think the answers I have in the Conclusions document – 48 pages – give a clear answer. Citizens expect concrete change in the social sphere – Guy Verhofstadt spoke of the Energy Union and the Health Union. And the young ambassador of the Health Working Group, Nicolas Moravek, said when the phone rang and the question came whether he was willing to attend such a conference, he thought it was fake news. And I believe that we, as the European Parliament, now have a responsibility to put this result into practice in a follow-up process, and that is why we need the Convention. And I strongly encourage all MEPs, if they have sincerely accompanied this conference, to sit down and say: Let's do something about it, let's remain the guarantor of the success of this conference! Let's make the entanglement of participatory, representative democracy workable!

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, dear rapporteurs! Thanks for the work. Yes, the changes towards genuine European electoral legislation are overdue, and today's debate, I believe, shows this very impressively and, above all, out in public. Many citizens want Europe to function democratically and in a way that is understandable to everyone and open to co-creation. This was impressively demonstrated by the Future Conference, Mrs Grapini, and also provided an argument for today's debate. The Left also sees the introduction of EU-wide lists at the next European elections, the lowering of the voting age to 16 years, the establishment of 9 May as a uniform election day and the necessary establishment of gender equality as decisive steps towards an EU-wide uniform electoral law. But the fact that you, Mr Simon, have made the introduction of a 3.5% hurdle for Germany a de facto precondition for your approval of the question of the introduction of a European constituency and transnational lists, which is so controversial here today, raises questions, above all, Mr President, to what extent the electoral law provides more active and passive political participation by all, especially those who are still excluded, critical and disappointed. Let us reject this point in the vote!

Madam President, High Representative! At the EU-China summit, President Xi Jinping reminded us, probably in the knowledge of systemic rivalry and economic competitors, that we should not fall into our old block thinking. We have before us the economic consequences of our absolutely necessary response to the Putin government's aggression against Ukraine. In order to be able to shoulder them better, we need a cool head and relaxation in the relationship between the European Union and its Member States and the People's Republic of China. I would like to thank you, Mr High Representative, for making it very clear here where the differences were. The summit provided an opportunity to present to the Chinese political and media the self-reliance of European foreign policy, as outlined in the concept of ‘open strategic autonomy’. As a common position of the Council, it has also included the one-China policy for decades. And just before the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet's trip to China and Xinjiang, which is scheduled for May, it is important to restore the willingness to engage in dialogue. And it sounded like: Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and not least Taiwan have become quasi-symbolic catchwords that reflect very differently the respective perception of social values of human rights and historical development and, precisely for this reason, require advice and honest debates in the bilateral cooperation relationship with regard to the perspective design of the European-Chinese relationship – at least. It is good and important that we help China as the EU in its current pandemic situation with mRNA vaccines. The aid that China has sent to Ukraine and to the EU Member States with high numbers of refugees has also been an important sign and is an important sign. We also need each other in the fight against climate change and for biodiversity. May China now also use its new weight to make a clear international commitment to peace and an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine.

Mr President, Commissioner! Moldova urgently needs support. Even before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Moldova was in a severe economic situation. A severe recession presented the new government with very difficult tasks: socially sustainable structural reforms, greening the economy, including energy production, the rule of law, the fight against coronavirus. In addition, as a result of the Russian war of aggression, hundreds of thousands of people, especially children and women, are now seeking protection on their way through Moldova. We must immediately support the people of Europe's poorest country in their selfless aid to refugees. 150 million euros will not be enough, especially since to our shame 120 million euros of this will only be granted as a loan. I call on the Commission to follow up and to take it into account in a transparent manner in the upcoming EU assistance programmes related to the refugee emergency in Moldova. And: Is not the EU Commission, the Latvian, Swedish, German and other governments at the latest now to put pressure on those banks where the billion has disappeared from the century-long robbery of a mafia clique in politics and economy. The people of Moldova now need their assets back.

Madam President, Commissioner, I listened carefully to you: We want, we need, we need. For three years now, we have been waiting for the Commission to deliver on its President’s promise and present a strategy – truly a strategy – for sustainable textiles. This industry employs millions of people worldwide under mostly exploitative conditions. The production methods consume and pollute vast amounts of water. The figures are mentioned in the debate. A large part of this injustice supplies only the abundance in the richer states of the earth. New numerical example: Every European consumes an average of 26 kilograms of textiles per year and throws away 11 kilograms of them. If the Commission wants to achieve the sustainability goals set out in the Green Deal, something concrete must finally come. We need a right to decent work along the supply chains. We need a legally binding responsibility of European companies to prevent environmental crimes in production. We need to limit the total amount of textiles that can be imported into the EU at reduced tariffs. We need to promote recycling in the textile sector – concretely, bindingly. Therefore, no longer lag behind the desire of the population, the progress. In the European cities of fair and ethical trade, Ghent and Malmö, the demand for – in this sense – clean textiles is booming. When the EU Commission finally acted, it also served to protect companies and workers who produce on better and fairer terms inside and outside the EU.

Madam President, Commissioner, Secretary of State! How can it be that in the 21st century in the EU, Poland and Hungary are so fundamentally limiting the fundamental rights of citizens with the transformation of their judicial systems? In fact, Article 7 does not allow this. I actually say! Instead of applying Article 7 as a binding remedy, this procedure has remained inconclusive since 2017 and 2018. I therefore welcome the fact that the European Court of Justice today rejected the actions brought by Poland and Hungary against the rule of law mechanism. And the Commission, Mr Hahn, is ultimately called upon to act. Anyone who joins the EU must respect its fundamental values, without any ifs and buts. There is no rule of law Opt-out. And perhaps we should ask again, in the European Union's own history, why Member States are doing this. Opt-out have admitted. In the Future Conference, citizens rightly call for the amendment of the Conditionality Regulation to apply to all breaches of the rule of law and for the organisation of conferences on the rule of law, obliging Member States to send socially diverse national delegations. Let us open up a constructive dialogue on this. Let's listen to citizens' recommendations.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Mr Secretary of State! In the Conference on the Future of Europe, young people are particularly involved in the discussion forums, and not without reason. For it is the youth who must live in the world of tomorrow. That is why it is so important that we give the boys the chance to have a say and, above all, to participate in decision-making. Educational and vocational training opportunities or good jobs instead of unpaid traineeships or precarious employment, youth exchanges across borders: This should be self-evident, but it is not. The fact that young people organise global climate protests and have concrete ideas for the sustainable transformation of our societies should also be a matter of course, as should the humane, solidarity-based treatment of refugees. It is about their (excessive) life. So let's take the commitment and demands of the youth seriously. Establish functioning mechanisms for long-term participation and involvement in policy-making, not only in climate and environmental protection, but in all thematic areas. If we create more opportunities for cross-border learning, cultural exchanges, we give Europe, the EU, sustainable economic transformation and solidarity more weight at school – everywhere with the same content. Young people should not have to fight for their space. It must of course be given so that ideas can develop and serve as the decisive impulses for political action.

– Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! This week we discussed the relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation several times. Certainly the most far-reaching debate for social development in Russia is today's debate on Memorial International. The threat from one of the oldest and best-known civil society organisations is worrying. It illustrates the arbitrariness of the Russian state apparatus in dealing with civil society engagement and NGOs that are involved in the democratic shaping processes of society. The ‘foreign agents’ law is out of place, just as the flimsy, deliberately cobbled-up action against Memorial cannot be accepted. We insist on respect for human rights, transparency, honesty and openness of any political action as an indispensable precondition for broad democratic, participatory participation of people in shaping their societies, both in the EU and outside. This must apply in particular to Memorial against the background of its certainly for many people also painful confrontation with the Soviet past as well as to all other forces of an increasingly own claims to participation registering civil society. We call on the Russian government to immediately stop the trial of Memorial. Freedom of expression must be guaranteed. And yes, intercultural dialogue must also be developed unhindered. At the same time, we oppose the reflexive reaction on the part of the EU, including here in the House, to draw a new spiral in the sanctions policy against Russia, to inextricably mix all the problems from the past and various interests, instead of developing a long overdue sustainable new strategy for dialogue.

Mr President, Commissioner! We are talking about rough diamonds, better and more precisely about blood diamonds. The trade in smuggled, unlicensed rough diamonds is still a central driver for murder gangs in the Central African Republic, Cameroon and northern Nigeria, including Boko Haram. How much blood sticks to these diamonds, which will also be given away this year in Europe and all over the world at Christmas? We have to admit it: The Kimberley process, which was supposed to prevent this, is not working well. Outside South Africa, only a fraction of the diamonds put into circulation are recorded. As a trade committee, we unanimously demand that we finally put real pressure to reform the Kimberley process. If the Commission says that this is not possible because certain governments are blocking themselves, then I call for EU import legislation of its own. Add the diamonds to the Conflict Minerals Ordinance! We must finally stop the purchase of these diamonds, which have been mined through the most brutal exploitation. Whether raw or sanded: No stone without proven origin marking will be allowed to enter European jewellery in the future.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Vice-President Dombrovskis, please be clear about the historical background against which you are leaving for Geneva, and also part of our House, and in what context, in the consensus of the 160 Members there, decisions will have to be taken that will certainly be decisive for the future of a fair, rules-based, multilateral world trading system! Our world is shaken by a pandemic that has already killed more than five million people. In my home country Germany, the number of 100 000 victims will be exceeded before the end of this week. But overall, in Europe, China and the US, there are not so many more deaths just because we have vaccines available. The rest of the world lives in fear, and the majority of states demand that the WTO, through which waiver to help. If patents stand in the way of survival, then it is high time to clear the way. Find the golden path, Commissioner, for the temporary waiver, also in the interest of the EU! The WTO threatens to lose its legitimacy if the ministerial conference in Geneva again fails to address the needs of the world's population. In concrete terms, we are called upon to finally end hunger in the world, as was once promised when the WTO was founded. The EU is in the word. Our resolution therefore calls on you, Mr Vice-President, to use all the influence of the European Commission to ensure that, in Geneva, the package of decisions proposed by Director-General Okonjo-Iweala on world food, the the food package, adopted. I recognize your initiatives, with which you want to firmly anchor the task of sustainability in the WTO. Make it your priority that the WTO commits to supporting sustainable development and joins the fight against the climate catastrophe with all its potential! Finally, a warning: A key pillar of the WTO is the principle of special and differentiated treatment of developing countries. I am concerned that parts of our house want to question this during MC 12. This not only contradicts the founding consensus, but also excludes the majority of Member States, without which the WTO cannot be reformed and fair trade cooperation can be shaped.

Mr President, Vice-Presidents! The discussions held last week in Washington by the delegation of our House's Trade Committee made it clear that the TTC is currently arguably the most important perceptible mutual attempt to redefine US-EU cooperation. At the same time, it has become clear: The most important issue for the US is the US: Buy American. The second most important issue for the US is China – a strategic and systemic rival. The importance of the partnership with the EU will be measured by whether the EU, as an economic competitor, is willing to follow American interests, and also by how the EU stands by the US in the conflict with China. In this context, the TTC is now being placed, and given the planetary interests – looking to Glasgow – we need to use the remaining time intensively to define common interests. The TTC will only be fruitful if it does not mutate into a body of securing global dominance in technology and industry, but serves with its working groups, with the planned broad stakeholders, consultations and exchanges of views in the real sense as a dialogue forum for sustainability and overcoming poverty. Why should we not take up the American ideas for a trade policy that puts its workers at the centre? We just need to transform it to serve workers in all countries of the world. However, many fear that the TTC format will be hijacked by traditional power and corporate interests. In TTIP, the planned regulatory cooperation was a focus of public criticism. With TTC, the idea is back, just without a trade deal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The relationship with the European Union is measured in Washington by whether the EU actively participates in the containment strategy vis-à-vis the main rival China, especially in the economic sector. Katherine Tai presented the tactics in detail yesterday. They do not want to cancel the Phase 1 trade agreement, but ask China to pay for it. It is claimed that China has not delivered any opening reforms and threatens new punitive tariffs to protect American jobs. I think it is good to put the workers at the centre of trade policy, but then please not only your own. This reasoning applies to all parties involved, including the steel industry in Germany, the EU and beyond, which must necessarily be converted to green energy. We should not think of such cockfights. The global challenges are much more fundamental. There is little time left to halt global warming caused by climate change. Only nine years remain to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals agreed at the UN for all countries of the world. Poverty reduction, environmental protection, access for all to health services and education, disarmament and peace should be the common goals of our partnership with the US. But even the EU and the US together cannot achieve these goals without gaining further partners. Cooperation is needed, including with China. This is where the new narrative begins: instead of confrontation cooperation, instead of us each first Restore synergies and collective trust and set rules, including actively in the WTO.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In the 21st century, power politics will no longer be able to impose our will on one-fifth of the world's population. Rather, our generation faces the historic task of preserving peace in order to tackle global challenges such as climate change, poverty eradication and technological upheaval. Renouncing dialogue, contacts and fundamental debates is not a sensible alternative. Clean mobility will have to be designed together. Human rights, both individual and social, can and must be resolutely improved through cooperation and dialogue, understanding on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, problems and opportunities of economic and trade linkages and dependencies, including on the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement. This means, together with the USA, with other actors and especially with the People's Republic of China, to reorganize the global structure in a peaceful way.

Mr President, Commissioner! More than four million people work in Bangladesh in the textile sector. In daily hard work, they make a large part of the clothes we wear in Europe. Hardly any textile company that has not relocated production to conditions that I can only call exploitation. Wages are so low that every seamstress has to work overtime. Often 100 overtime hours per month are needed to pay the rent for a room for an entire family and to provide the children with food. Even before the pandemic, wages were too low. Now, a study has found that those who were able to keep their job should accept up to 65% wage cuts. Factory owners are simply refusing to pay, and protests and labour disputes, of which media in the EU-27 barely report, left one dead and 35 injured last week. Bangladesh's labor laws need to be changed. This situation is also caused by the EU. Buyers of European entrepreneurs are pushing prices down. Let's end these irresponsible actions by legally assigning responsibility in the textile industry with the European Supply Chain Act! Let's calculate what profit margin arises when a woman makes 200 sweaters for 70 euros a month. For a dignified life in Dakar, she would have to earn 370 euros. And you know what? We would hardly feel the necessary increase in the purchase price here. First, we need an effective supply chain law. Secondly, in the upcoming reform of the trade preferences system, we need to ensure that due diligence objectives are supported and not undermined. And thirdly, we must not just look at the textile sector. The minimum wage for the many tea pickers in Bangladesh is a scandalous 1.17 euros per day. This is an immediate challenge for EU legislators and the Commission.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Just in time for the launch of the Citizens’ Panels, this important second central pillar of the Conference on the Future of Europe that has started, our report on the democratic participation of people from all 27 Member States will be put to the vote here in plenary. I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for their participation in this report and for the opinions of the associated and consultative committees PETI, CULT and LIBE. Very important for us - and thank you very much for this - was the great interest from civil society structures in the drafting of the report. I explicitly wanted this intensive involvement of NGOs, committed scientists and volunteer experts and those who, as topic- and subject-specific actors, ultimately help to shape citizens' views decisively. Civil society thrives on commitment. The correctness of the planning approaches in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has rarely become as clear as in these days, as we are all called upon in our everyday lives in our societies to fight the challenges of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic – not only with regard to the immediate consequences for health and vaccination protection, but in general, with regard to the question of the solidarity of the people in our European Union, the question of state responsibility as well as the question of the resilience of economic and social actors and the formation of political structures in the interest of the general public. Democratisation of democracy – this was a key point in many sociological and legal debates a few years ago, especially when it came to transparency and encouraging participation in political decisions at European level. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union by citizens' vote naturally raises questions. What were the reasons? Why was it so decided? And what was actually expected of citizens in terms of policies at both national and European level? The development of the European Citizens' Initiative was a right and important step in giving people concrete opportunities to have a thematic say. But if we are honest, participation far too often remained in the consultation mechanism. Democratic shaping of our societies depends on communication between people, on conscious participation in elections in a representative democracy, but much more on the daily involvement of everyone in social, political and economic debate, on the development of the community in which they want and can live and work. The journalist Arno Widmann put it this way in an essay: “It is not the media that is the public, it is not us and it is not the others. The public is the moment when a society recognises itself." The aim of our report is thus to give citizens a stronger voice in EU decision-making. To do this, we need to improve the existing participation mechanisms and set up new ones at EU level. It is therefore crucial to involve citizens in European debates and to actively involve them in EU decision-making. Only in this way can we also strengthen citizens' sense of responsibility for an EU that reflects their needs and visions, develops a genuine European public sphere and strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the EU. This also includes strengthening education, both the political and the professional, as well as the cultural-political dimension. We have drawn up a number of new instruments in the report. I hope that the proposals drawn up with my colleagues for better citizen participation in EU decision-making will appeal to the Commission and encourage many people to actively participate in decision-making processes. I look forward to your opinion, Madam Vice-President.