Speeches

Madam President, I think that this communication, Commissioner, is a typical example of what I call ‘ostrich politics’, you know, the ostrich putting his head in the sand and thinking that the problem will disappear. It’s a typical example of such ostrich politics. Why? Because we know that we will do the enlargement to 35-36 Member States, but we are not ready as a European Union to receive these 35-36 countries in total. And what you do in this communication is saying, oh, the problems , we are going to solve them inside the European Union because we have the passerelle clause, which we didn’t apply for 20 years, and we have the enhanced cooperation as the way to solve the problems. Which is a devastating thing because we have already Schengen, we have already the Euro, we have already the patent, we have already the fiscal compact, we have already the arrest warrant. And we will add additional enhanced cooperation. That is what the communication is saying, that these are the two tools to solve the problems in a Union of 35-36 Member States. Well, I have to tell you, I find this irresponsible and insane. And moreover, it’s the first time, in my opinion, that I have seen that the Commission is renouncing its historical role to be at the side of the European Parliament, to bring forward the reform treaties that are absolutely necessary to make this union ready for 36 Member States. Why is there nothing about Treaty change in your communication? I will tell you why there is nothing, because Ms von der Leyen does not want that there is something on Treaty change. She need to be re-elected, presented by the Member States, by the Council so that you cannot. So I tell you one thing. I tell you one thing. In any case, my group will not vote in the next Parliament for a candidate for President of the European Commission and for a Commission that is not putting Treaty change as an essential condition for the enlargement of the European Union. That is clear. It’s very clear. And it’s a shame, I tell you that, that we asked the Commissioners to change that communication and to be aware of the need to change the Treaty. How will you do it? A Commission with 36 Members? You are already now with 27, have not enough competences to fulfil the different portfolios. Will you do it like that? Continue with unanimity? Continue with the budget with 1 %? The geopolitical Commission with the budget of 1 % of European GDP. It’s ridiculous to talk about the geopolitics. I find it insane that the Commission comes forward with a crucial communication on the future of the European Union, including preparing the enlargement to 36 Member States, and then says nothing, but, oh, we have the passerelle clause to solve our problems, something that has not been applied and cannot be applied in the Union because it needs a unanimous decision. So I tell you, and I repeat myself for the last time, this is my last intervention. So I will not bother you anymore in the coming years. Not inside the Parliament, but more, maybe outside the Parliament. Be sure of that. There will be no support for a new Commission after these elections if a treaty reform is not from day one on the table.

Mr President, colleagues, I think this is my fourth debate, Mr Borrell, about Iran with you and every time the conclusion is the same: we don’t like your strategy. We want you to change your strategy. Your strategy of diplomacy and appeasement leads to nothing at all; it does nothing at all. And you are saying, ‘no, no, no, we did sanctions’. What sanctions did we do? Only 3 or 5 people. How many? You can tell us. I think it was 3, 4 or 5 – simply for exporting weapons to Russia. So this Parliament asks you to change the strategy, based on real sanctions against the leadership of Iran first. Secondly, recognise the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. I don’t understand why you don’t do it. And finally, don’t continue with diplomacy towards the regime. It’s time to recognise the opposition and to have direct contacts with them. They are the real representatives of the Iranian people.

Mr President, on the discharge of the Council, it’s a formal request. I ask that you withdraw the discharge of the Council from the agenda until they have taken a decision on the Patriots.

Mr President, I have in fact a point of order to ask you: to change the agenda of today because today, I have to tell you, I’m that sick of what is happening in Ukraine. Why? Because as you have all seen in the last 20 days, there have been numerous attacks by the Russians on the ordinary cities of Ukraine: hospitals, power installations, apartment blocks. And what I find a scandal is that Europe – which is opening the door for Ukraine – and the European Council are not even capable in such an emergency to decide to send a number of anti-missile systems to Ukraine! (Applause) There are in total, Mr President, 100 of these patriot systems in Europe – Mr Borrell told us that – and they asked for seven to protect their cities. And we Europeans, we invite them to come to the European Union, but are not capable to do so. And my proposal to you, Mr President, is that, in any way, we put all these discharges of all these institutions – 55 in total – on the next agenda in Strasbourg and we don’t discharge them until the Council – who can easily make an agreement on that – has a meeting to deliver these seven Patriot systems to Ukraine. I propose that at least the discharge of the Council be withdrawn from the agenda. (Applause)

Mr President, I have to tell you that I find this debate here outrageous. Everybody is trying to honour Navalny, but that is not the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is what will be the action and the reaction of the EU after the murdering of Navalny? And you come here from the Council and the Commission is here to applaud Yulia, but we have nothing to say about the measures we’re going to take. What are we going to do? The Americans, Joe Biden, have announced – four days after the murder of Navalny – 500 sanctions against the Russian Putin regime. And we? What we have done? We have written a text, a letter, with 87 Members of Parliament to ask for three things, and nothing has been done in the meanwhile. First of all, Magnitsky sanctions against all those involved in the murder of Navalny: judges, prison guards and so on. Nothing has been decided or proposed by the Commission today or in recent days. Secondly, we ask that the Navalny list of 6 000 people will be used in a new sanction package, a 14th sanction package, a list of 6 000 people. Nothing has been proposed in the meanwhile, already 14 days. And thirdly, that the Russian assets finally will be seized, finally will be seized. Yellen, yesterday, the American administration says that they have no problems to seize the Russian assets. And the Commission and the Council is proposing nothing. I find it shameful. I want a real strategy towards Russia and not coming here in the Parliament, applauding Yulia and doing nothing at all.

Mr President, this is today, I think, in all the debates that I have followed, the only item where there is consensus across all groups in Parliament, that is, that our policy towards Iran is a complete failure! You see it every day: executions, Iran behind Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, the attacks against military facilities of the US. The deliveries of weapons continue and they are ready today to make atomic bombs in Iran. So, we need absolutely a new strategy and a new strategy based on three things: first of all, more massive sanctions until all hostages are released. That would be an approach. Secondly, recognition of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, tomorrow if possible. And lastly, recognise the opposition and the resistance as the real representatives of the Iranian people, and no longer the mullahs.

Madam President, I ask of Ms von der Leyen, can I ask you a very simple question? That is, are you going to repeat the practice that happened during the previous European Council in December? You remember that? The blackmail by Viktor Orbán to use the veto. And then just before that European Council, the freezing of I think it was 11 billion, in exchange for the fact that he left the room. That was the deal: ‘11 billion and you leave the room’. So my question to you is, are you going to do that again? Because it could happen on 1 February. That is, that he again uses his veto, now for another thing, not for the accession negotiations, but for liberating the 50 billion of funds that are desperately needed for Ukraine. And I have to tell you very openly, before you answer, that if your answer is a yes, then you will run, I think, into big troubles here in this Parliament, not only with me, not only with my group, but I think with the vast majority of this Parliament. I have to tell you, giving in to the blackmail of Orbán like it happened in December has to stop now. And also the compromises that have been put on the table to make a yearly portion of that money or to give a mid-term review on that money, or not a compromise, because it’s simply opening the door for more blackmailing, by Orbán in the coming years. So, the appeal that I want to launch to you, hopefully, I think, in the name of the vast majority of this parliament is stay inside the treaties, and pick up your role that you have as the guardian of the treaties, because there are sufficient solutions to give this money to Ukraine inside the provisions of the treaty of today. You don’t need to, every time, give in to the blackmail of Orbán. You could propose a face-saving emergency clause or break, like we call, it at 27. That could be a solution. Or you could go into an enhanced cooperation, with 26, under the control of the European Parliament, because enhanced cooperation is controlled by the European Parliament. Or ultimately, you can indeed propose to the Council to take away the voting rights based on Article 7(2) of the Treaty, so that we can decide with unanimity on 26. That’s another proposal. Anyway, I know I have a very bad reputation in this House, and maybe also with you, I don’t know. And I have also, from time to time, a bad character. I’m sometimes even replaced in my positions. But can I ask you one thing – to be a little bit of all that concerning Orbán? And finally, the battle on Hungary is not a battle on Hungary; it’s a battle on the liberal democracy in Europe. And that battle, we need to win it and not to give in on it.

Mr President, first of all I have to tell you that I have had enough of these debates here where the Commission and the Council comes here and says ‘as long as it takes, we are going to support Ukraine’, but we don’t really support Ukraine on military. The reality, to give only one example, is artillery shells. The Russians have 3 million a year – 2 million that they produced themselves and 1 million that they received from North Korea. And we are not capable – you say ‘soon’, but when is soon? – even to produce 1 million of these shells in a year. That’s the reality on the ground. The F-16s are not ready, it will take six months! Long range missiles – there is a refusal by the German Chancellor to give them for the moment. On air defence, Patriots – there are not enough delivered. And the reason why? There is one simple reason, and that is there is no European Defence Community, no government procurement. That’s the real disaster of Europe. That is what I hope now – and, President, you’re going to decide on 1 February – now, instead of giving in to Orban, make a serious military package for Ukraine. It’s a question of democracy.

Mr President, most of the remarks have been made about unanimity, so I presume that all the rest of the proposals are then okay, because there were no remarks, nearly, on all the other topics that were in the report. So, that is a good sign. But on unanimity, it is a little bit strange that this criticism comes from the Polish side, on the abolishment of unanimity, because Poland knows what damage unanimity can do. Your country even disappeared for decades because of the unanimity that existed in the Polish Parliament. That completely undermined the existing of the Polish State. So, you will be the first in fact to defend the end of unanimity. I remember very well – if you allow me, Mr President – the discussions on the Lisbon Treaty with President Kaczyński and Prime Minister Kaczyński at the time. They were not very pleased with the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty, certainly not with the whole issue about the 55/65 qualified majority rule. They were against. What we do here in the proposal is we make the position of small- and medium-sized Member States, and especially of a big Member State like Poland, stronger in the proposal, by saying that you need, in the future, two-thirds of the Member States to approve by qualified majority a proposal, and to lower the 65%, what is in fact a veto for France and Germany, to 50%. I am pretty sure that if that was on the table at the moment of the Lisbon Treaty that both President Kaczyński and Prime Minister Kaczyński would be victorious and would be happy with such a proposal. So, maybe you have to reconsider your own attitude in the past a little bit before saying ‘no’ to this important proposal of the European Parliament.

Mr President, first of all, I want to thank also the Spanish Presidency for being here for this debate. It is much appreciated. We all have to recognise that since the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, that was quite a number of years ago, the world has changed dramatically. We have since then, over the last years, lived in a brutal world – the world of what I call empires – in which the sovereignty of the peoples and countries of Europe can, in my opinion, only be secured through an enlarged European Union and a more enhanced European Union. I think that we have to be, in this debate today, honest with ourselves. That is, that we are for the moment, not ready for this more brutal world in which we have entered and also not ready for the absolute need for an enlarged European Union to 35 or 37 Member States. Certainly not with Russia that continues its aggression, or maybe with – hopefully not – a return of Trump in the White House next year. The key problem that we face in our Union is that too often we react too little too late, because we are paralysed by the request for unanimity in our decision-making. I will not give the whole list, the list is long, but a few examples. It has now been months that we have not been capable of deciding on a 12th sanction package against Russia. We are not capable of refinancing the European Peace Facility to send new weaponry to Ukraine because of unanimity. And we were for a decade not capable of doing something against illegal migration because we enclosed ourselves in unanimity. So vetoes and blackmail have become in the European Union, I would say, the standard practice. And if we find a consensus, then we go to the General Assembly of the UN and then we vote one third in favour, one third against and one term third abstains. So the question with this report is how to change this. The passerelles, dear colleagues, let’s be honest, have failed. And the reason they have failed is that because there is not one smaller or medium Member State, not even Spain, Poland or Italy, who is ready to give up its veto to strengthen, in fact, the de facto combined veto right of France and Germany under the current rules. Therefore this report, I think, is critical and important because we will fundamentally change this by creating a qualified majority by two thirds of the Member States, representing 50% of the population, and dramatically increasing doing so the position of small- and medium-sized Member States. We introduce also reinforced qualified majority for important decisions, like, for example, the budget, own resources or the coming into force of Treaty modifications. I think that this way is the way to overcome the unanimity trap in which the European Union has come and fall in for years now. In the same spirit, what this report is doing is also reforming Article 7, giving an enhanced role to the European Court of Justice, so that maybe it can work in the future. Enhancing also subsidiarity to the national parliaments and the regional parliaments with legislative power by giving a green card, which does not exist today. And then also increasing European democracy by giving more power to our Parliament, for example, the possibility to take initiatives or also to decide on the income side of the budget and finally, new competences like in defence, health, energy and climate change. I want to conclude, Mr President and dear colleagues, by saying let us not make a mistake when we vote tomorrow. And I say that especially to those who are today, by Twitter and by other means, attacking this reform of the European Union. This report will not change the Treaty overnight. This report does not create a European superstate, which is completely ridiculous if we remember that the budget of the European Union is 1% of the European GDP – I do not think with 1% of European GDP, dear colleagues, that we are a superstate. The truth is that the approval of this report is needed to start the process, to make use of Article 48, so that the European Council can start the work, so that we can enlarge the Union, we can further unify the continent and be ready for the huge challenge ahead of us. And I would ask you, do not miss that historic opportunity tomorrow.

Mr President, first of all, to Mr Vandendriessche, who is no longer in the plenary, to say that really using ‘population replacement’ here is a scandal because maybe he doesn’t find a problem, but simply to recall that population replacement has been used by Breivik, for example, as a justification to kill 69 young people in Norway. That’s the reality. I have to tell you, Mr Schinas, that personally I think that it’s good that we will have now a deal after eight years, because you, first of all, with the Council, tried to find unanimity between the Member States, even when the Treaty says it is not necessary unanimity. But I think that there are two things missing. First of all, a real legal route to enter the European Union, a European legal migration framework based on a blue card and not 27 different systems. The second is giving the possibilities, in my opinion, that people can ask for asylum or refugee status in their country of origin or in the country of transit. You know what the drama and the tragedy is? It’s that people need to come to Europe on the European territory to ask for asylum. So why not use our consulates? Why not use our embassies? Why not use opening centres in the countries of origin so there they can ask for asylum and, if it is agreed, then they can enter the European Union. That is missing in your package.

Madam President, I hope that you’re going to be flexible for me, for once, because it’s my last intervention on the State of the Union after 15 years in Parliament and 10 years in the Council. I have to tell you, Madam President, that I missed something, and I’m really in disagreement with you on one thing. What I missed was the European Defence Union. And it’s more than the common production of ammunition for Ukraine. Can you imagine if we are in the same situation, in a war with Ukraine, with Trump back as a president and without having the backing of NATO? So the European Defence Union is absolutely clear and necessary for the future. The second thing, where I am in complete disagreement with you – and you are the first President of the Commission who has tried to do that – is your suggestion to decouple the enlargement of the European Union from the deepening of the European Union. Yes, you said ‘let’s try with 30, with 35, with 36’. I can tell you, look at a European Union before your eyes with 35, 36 Commissioners or something like that – we already have no tasks for them today with 27! Or secondly, can you imagine the European Union with still the unanimity rule? You said, ‘Yeah, but we managed it.’ You managed it? Let’s give the examples. Migration we managed, it’s a breakthrough, because we skipped the unanimity, because for seven years the Council said ‘We’re going to do it with unanimity. It’s better than with qualified majority’, even when in the Treaty it’s foreseen by qualified majority. So the breakthrough came because we skipped unanimity and the same in sanctions. And Mr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, is right. He is saying that the counteroffensive of Ukraine goes at the speed of light compared to the sanction policy of the European Union. We are not capable anymore of deciding on additional sanctions against Russia because of unanimity in the European Union – because one or two countries oppose it. So I think we absolutely need this reform of the Treaties and in my opinion, I ask in any way the Spanish Presidency by the end of the year when they open the negotiations with the candidate Member States not to do it if at the same time we don’t also open the debate on the reform of the Treaties.

Mr President, High Representative Borrell, you know that I like you very much and also that I applaud the courage that you have got in the Ukrainian file. But I have to tell you – and the proof, you have listened to it – nobody likes your position on Iran. That’s the reality. The reasons are very clear. Let’s be honest, the policy and the strategy of Europe towards Iran is purely symbolic. It has nothing to do with stopping the regime. The so-called critical engagement; what does it mean? Two hundred and twenty-six people have been sanctioned by the European Union for human rights abuses. For the help of Iran to Russia, twelve people have been sanctioned. Twelve people. That is the only thing that’s happened. In the meanwhile, the Revolutionary Guard is still not a terrorist organisation. So, I can tell you one thing. This Parliament wants another approach. My request will be, Mr President, that in two months we put this file, in November, again on the plenary of this Parliament. So we can see that you change your strategy and that you can also convince your colleagues – ministers of foreign affairs, because I know it’s not only you who is responsible for it – for a new course, because what is happening in Iran is a scandal. It’s a regime of murderers and criminals, and we have to be really tough with them.

Mr President, I want to come back to the absence of the Council here, because we all know why they are not here, the leaders of the European Union, because they are in Vilnius in the NATO summit. What do they have to do in the NATO summit? Nothing at all. The EU is not a member of NATO, in my opinion. But the photos are there and they are in search of a new Secretary General for NATO for next year. So there they are and not here in Parliament to answer the questions that we have. On top of that, Mr President, what they are deciding there in Vilnius is nothing at all, because they are putting Ukraine again in a waiting room. That is not a wise decision, in my opinion, because it gives the impression for Russia that they can continue the war. The longer they continue the war, the longer Ukraine will be outside NATO. Let’s not make this mistake here in Europe. My proposal is that, after the summer break, as fast as possible, the Commission comes forward with a proposal to open the negotiations with Ukraine as a member of the EU.

Madam President, Minister, it’s one year that the Council has a letter about Article 48 and the launch of a convention and we didn’t receive a reply. It’s more than one year that you have the electoral law approved by Parliament and you have still no common position. But you are capable to send us a letter about the composition of Parliament; on the future composition of Parliament, we need to make progress. I find that you have guts to do that. So, one year and you are not capable to respond to Article 48, what is by a simple majority in the Treaty. You are not capable to respond to have a common position on the electoral law, but on the composition it needs to go fast, fast, fast. I can tell you one thing: I think there will be a link between all this, one day or another. The best way forward is not to send these letters. The best way forward will be that the President of the Council, the rotating presidency, takes contact with the President of Parliament and starts to have a meeting about the global issue that we have on the table. And that is the request on the convention, that is the electoral law and that is the composition of the Parliament. And the longer you are waiting with that, the more problems we will have and the more problems you will have and the next Presidency will have. The faster you propose, together with Ms Metsola, a common meeting about this, the faster we will have a solution for all these files, if that is an advice that I can give you.

Madam President, it is fantastic here in this debate to hear described the courage of these two men – Vladimir Kara—Murza and Alexei Navalny. I think they have enormous courage to go back to their country, to Russia, to fight for a free and democratic Russia after they have been poisoned by Putin –both of them. I have to tell you that I would not have this courage, very honestly, to return in such circumstances. But the question is, are we courageous here in these two cases? I have to tell you, President, that we have sent with a number of colleagues, already on 6 April, a letter to the Commission, to Mr Borrell, asking for Magnitsky sanctions the fastest as possible in the case of Vladimir Kara—Murza. That’s from 6 April. The Americans have already two months ago taken Magnitsky sanctions in that case – and we are still waiting. So what I ask, Mr Commissioner, is that the Commission and Mr Borrell come forward, with the Council, with the Foreign Affairs Ministers, with Magnitsky sanctions in the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, in the case of Mr Navalny and in the case of all these political prisoners, the fastest as possible. I ask, we will ask – and we will have a majority in this parliament – that the point is again on the agenda in May or in June. We expect then that these packages will be announced in the coming weeks. Otherwise, in my case in any way, I will cancel my trust in the European leadership of today.

Mr President, Mr Borrell, I have to tell you one thing. I was pleased that you got COVID. I was pleased that you got COVID a few days ago and that you didn’t go to China because it only add more cacophony to the positions of Europe on China. So very well that you stay at home. But I have a request you: it’s your task to come forward now with a new strategic paper. You know, the strategic paper on China dates from 2016. 2016! I know! Then we added we actualised the paper of 2016, Mr Bütikofer, in 2019. And then in the meanwhile, what happened, is everything what happened in Hong Kong, because everybody is talking about Ukraine, but things changed fundamentally when? At the moment of Hong Kong, because the consensus worldwide was ‘one China, two systems’. And if China doesn’t accept any more two systems, why we should accept one China? It is the one or the other. So my plea to you is to come forward as fast as possible in the three months from coming with a new communications strategy paper on China, sending it to the Council, sending it to the European Parliament, and to define this new strategy, as fast as possible. That is what we need to do.

Madam President, personally, I must tell you that I believe that this case would be better discussed and debated in the French National Assembly. It is a democracy, France. It must not be forgotten. In addition, so that there is no misunderstanding, Ms Aubry, if there are exaggerated police responses, I will be the first to denounce them and also condemn them. But this naturally remains a retaliation. This means a reaction to other violence we have seen on our TVs. That is the reality. And violence that is, and that is even more serious, Ms Aubry, sometimes encouraged by political parties today in France. People who say: “Don’t listen to the elections, it’s not legitimate. What is actually most important is popular censorship, not the parliamentary majority. Well, you are making gestures, Ms Aubry, but I did, once, look at your Twitter account. I have been interrupted two or three times, Madam President, but let me give some examples. Permanence of Mr Ciotti vandalised: No condemnation on your Twitter. Aurora Bergé’s baby threatened: Nothing on your Twitter. The front door of Bordeaux City Hall burned down: No reaction from Ms Aubry on Twitter. And then hundreds of injured policemen: There is no question of talking about it. I propose another title for the debate, if there is a debate: Violence in politics, a growing threat to the right to protest. Democracy and those who defend it.

Madam President, the problems that Mr Gahler and Ms Loiseau have indicated – a lack of ammunition that is there for the moment, the fact that some countries who make ammunition don’t want to send it to Ukraine, like Switzerland – this is all proof of the fact that we have an enormous problem in Europe, and that’s the lack of a European defence community. Without the help of the Americans, this war would be already over and in the wrong direction, with the wrong result. We don’t have a European defence community. And so, what I hope is that the Commission comes forward, as fast as possible, during the war, by the end of the war, with a strategic concept of creating a European defence community. It’s not because you buy together in the EPF some weapons that you have a European defence community. It’s a good measure, but it’s not enough. The training of soldiers, it is good that we do that. But that’s not a European defence community. A European defence community is putting together the EUR 250 billion we spend on defence. We spend 30% of the Americans on defence and can only do 10% of the operations of the American Army. Why? Duplication, duplication, duplication. One hundred and thirteen weapon systems – the problem in Ukraine today. Also in ammunition. And so what the European Commission and the European institutions and the European Council have to do is, as fast as possible, before the end of the war, come up with a strategic concept for European defence – not in contradiction with NATO, but as the European pillar of NATO. That has to be the lesson of this brutal war and this invasion of Russia in Ukraine.

Madam President, last night, the film of Aleksei Navalny won the Oscar for the best documentary. I think, personally – and I hope that everybody can agree – that it’s an important sign of recognition after we as Parliament – you remember that – honoured him with the Sakharov Prize. And again, I think that with this award, the world recognised that Russia and its autocratic regime is a threat to all who want to live in peace and stability and democracy and with human rights, whether they live in Russia or outside Russia. I think that Parliament, during this session, has to stand by them and to put back on the table the liberation of Aleksei Navalny and with them of all political prisoners, first of all of Belarus, like Ales Bialiatski, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, or, for example, political prisoners in Georgia, such as former President Mikheil Saakashvili, such as Russia’s Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is in prison, Aleksei Gorinov, and many others arrested for speaking out against the war in Ukraine. I can tell you that families and supporters of the last three are visiting the European Parliament this week, so let’s welcome these families with wholehearted support and put the entire weight of a democratic Europe behind their causes.

Madam President, it’s a pity that Mr Schirdewan is no longer in the room. After everything what he said he should go to Kramatorsk, maybe, where yesterday, again, an apartment block was brutally attacked and destroyed by Russia. The only way to end this war is a victory of Ukraine. That’s the way to end the war the fastest as possible. And for that – I hope Mr Hahn that you are in direct contact with Ms von der Leyen, I suppose, on what she will do in Kyiv – my impression is that it is a weak proposal what you are bringing to Kyiv. On weapons, for example, I see no long—range missiles in the package. On sanctions, Mr Séjourné has said it, it’s already a year that we are asking to put the full backbone of the Russian Putin regime on the sanctions regime. And the Commission is not moving on that. The same on the assets, the frozen assets of the Russian central bank. It’s possible to seize them, to freeze them and to transfer them to Ukraine. That’s possible. There is the legal service of the Council, Mr Hahn, that’s something that cannot be disputed. And they have said that it is possible. And finally, a fast—track membership to 2026. If I see what is happening on corruption in Hungary, I think, and I see the actions that are happening in Ukraine, Ukraine deserves a place in Europe.

Madam President, there is a letter signed by nearly 120 colleagues of Parliament yesterday and today, with a message to the Council and to the Commission after the Dnipro massacre to say that sanctions have to be strengthened as fast as possible. You have to stop to think that with the progressive packages of sanctions, as we are doing already now for ten months, that we’re going to have success. The Council is saying it is going well with the sanctions. For me, the sanctions will only have a positive result when the Putin regime stops what is happening in Dnipro – that is a positive result of sanctions. Therefore, we don’t need progressive packages, as we have seen. I said it already to your colleague, Mr Borrell, nearly ten months ago: with a dictator, with an authoritarian regime, if do you do a package of sanctions they adapt themselves and everything goes on. So we are now preparing a tenth package. In total – as Mr Gahler has said – of the 6 700 people identified as the backbone of the Putin regime by the Navalny Foundation, the EU as the External Action Service – Mr Borrell and the whole Commission – has as yet been capable to issue personal sanctions to 1 400 of them, of the 6 700. And that list has existed for nearly ten months already and is on the table of the EEAS for ten months already. The second thing is secondary sanctions. There are still companies and individuals making deals and doing business in Russia. I ask you, as fast as possible, to declare secondary sanctions on this, because that’s the only possibility to stop it. The last point is the 320 billion that is frozen in Russian banks. Why not transfer that money directly? Russia is a terrorist state. So they do not need to have the reserves of their Russian central bank. That money could be mobilised immediately, even for buying arms. Finally – sorry but I’m speaking for 112 colleagues so you have to give me some additional room to do so – on arms, it’s clear what we need now. If Europe wants to do something positive on this, well then it’s long—range missiles next to tanks – then it is long—range missiles so that tragedies like Dnipro can no longer happen.

Mr President, I find the attitude of countries like Austria and the Netherlands, who are using their veto to block two countries who are fully fulfilling the conditions to enter Schengen, as deplorable as the attitude of a country like Hungary using their veto in that case. The only thing that you have to do, Mr Dzhambazki, is say ‘yes, I agree with you’!

Mr President, so it’s not only a question of, ‘Ah, finally we find a solution, even with the unanimity’, it’s the time we lose. That’s even a more important problem. So it’s not only a question of saying, ‘Yeah, but finally, in the European Union, after six months, nine months, one year, two years – the migration package is already seven years but OK, that’s only an exception maybe – we find the solution. No, it’s not about that. It’s also about the time you lose. How you manage Europe in the modern world if you need seven years to agree on a migration package. If you need six months to agree on some sanctions in the case of a war against Ukraine, that’s the problem. And that, apparently, Mr Bek and the Czech Presidency and the whole Council doesn’t want to understand. Now they are saying, ‘Look, it’s going better because the last packages prove that it is working’. Some people are even waxing lyrical about the agreement that has been found in the beginning of this week. In fact, what is happening is that two evident files with no contestation – the 80 billion loan to Ukraine and a minimum tax on multinationals – are traded against two disputable concessions to Orbán: the approval of his recovery plan on the one hand, and then lowering the frozen amount from 6.3 to 5.8 billion. Well, I predict you something. I predict to you this at this moment that this is not the end, Mr President, of this file. What Orbán will do is to continue every new file in 2023 or to lower that amount, or to escape completely on the rule—of—law mechanism. This is not the end of the blackmail. It’s only the start of the blackmail, the agreement that you have found. So, I think it’s high time to abolish vetoes. We have done, you have done, President Metsola has done a request based on Article 48. What I ask for is a little bit of respect of the Council towards the Parliament. If the Parliament – based on the Treaties, on Article 48 – is asking for a convention, at least that they have respect for the Parliament and answer that request, and are saying yes or no. For me it’s the same. Say no, say no against the citizens of the European Union, who in the Conference on the Future of Europe asked for such a convention and abolishing unanimity, but at least show respect for the only democratically chosen institution of this continent.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I have listened, Mr Bek, to the long list of items that you will discuss tomorrow and after tomorrow in the Council, but I have to tell you the most important items were not there. That is, in my opinion, the sanctions and the weapons that Ukraine needs to end this war the fastest as possible. You can all talk about price caps on oil and gas, but the best way to end the energy crisis is to end the war. For that, Ukraine needs to win the war. There, for the moment, what we see is that weak sanctions create weak results. It’s ten months and what we see is an escalation of brutality of Russia in Ukraine – rape, genocide, deportations of children in that country. So what I want and expect of the European Council is that, first of all, you start a decision to give more weapons. These discussions about Patriots, about Leopards, of the European governments is a scandal! You need to send them, to transfer them to Ukraine so that they can win the war. The second item is on sanctions – there are still, dear colleagues, 11 oligarchs of the most important oligarchs not on the list of sanctions in Europe. In total, after the ninth package – remember you are already on the ninth package – there will be 1 400, 1 500 or maybe 1 600 on the sanction list and, in total, there are 6 000, 7 000 people that need to be on the sanction list, because they are the real backbone. The same for Iran. Will you discuss, in fact now, sanctions for Iran? Can we still support Iranian diplomats on the territory of Europe, dear colleagues? We need to expel them the fastest as possible from Europe. That is what we need to do, and that is what I expect: sanctions and weapons for Ukraine and sanctions against Iran at the next European Council.