Speeches

Madam President, I think that it’s obvious why an additional point on Wednesday afternoon would be added on defending European Union against the abuse of national vetoes. Because everybody can see today what is happening with national vetoes, on every file. More and more of these files are blocked today. The last days, the last weeks: migration strategy, Schengen, electoral law, energy, price cap on gas, taxation policy, the minimum rate on multinationals, further sanctions and further financial aid to Ukraine, where we need to find now a solution with 26 instead of a solution inside the Union. So it’s clear that, in my opinion, vetoes are an instrument for blackmailing the Union, and it is increasing for the moment. I know that we asked for a convention to seriously discuss this. And again, due to the lack of consensus, the Council is not in a position to respond to that request. So I know that we have a discussion on Wednesday with the European Council, but it’s only 2 hours. What we are going to discuss is Ukraine, and we’re going to discuss energy. So I request that we need to urgently debate before the Council on Thursday, and my proposal will be to add that item Wednesday afternoon as the second point on the agenda.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, it has been eight months now since this energy crisis started. Eight months, and I have still not seen a coherent plan by the European Commission. I find it hugely disappointing because your job is not to come up with a fragment approach but with a global structural approach. And there isn’t one. You are talking about price caps, okay. You’re talking about windfall tax. But what is the whole picture? What will you do to tackle this energy crisis? I think you have to do three things. That is an energy purchase platform that is completely different to what you are doing now. You will buy together 15% in 2023 – it is the opposite of what you have to do, to buy together 85%. Where is the security fund for the investments that we absolutely need? And where is the energy assistance plan for households or companies, the same as we did with COVID-19? Why do we not repeat it now? You are right when you criticise in this op-ed the German approach with the 200 billion but it is not only necessary to criticise it, you have to also to come forward with an alternative. And we are going to do that with a number of MEPs. In a few moments, we are going to send you a letter about it, with these cross-party proposals.

Mr President, I think that we can be very honest about this: the Russians are losing the war on the battlefield, but the Russians are not losing the propaganda war. They are winning the propaganda war. If you look to our social media for the moment, what you see is more and more posts echoing the narrative of the Kremlin. And the narrative of the Kremlin is that this is a war that was started by us to punish Russia. And that everything that is happening with the energy crisis today is not the consequence of the war, but the consequence of the sanctions and the measures we are taking. And I know that there is an aid package – Mr Schinas, you have said here everything that needs to be done, but in the aid package, there is nothing about that. In the aid package is a package where we increase the sanctions against Russian individuals from 1232 to 1262, 30 more, mainly people who are involved in the referenda in eastern and south Ukraine. But nearly nothing about the celebrities, the influencers, the opinion leaders, the propagandists. Already on 29 June we sent, together with the Navalny Foundation, a list of 135 people that are the core of the propaganda machine of Putin to the External Action Service. And you know how many have been sanctioned? Two of them! And since the aid package, four more. We are at six now of this 135. One is Dugin, for evident reasons, and three musicians, three singers. That is what we have done, six in total. So my question is: if it is all true, what you are saying, why are the Commission and the Council not going after the core of the propaganda machine, tackling the 135 people in Russia? And secondly, if we talk about countering Putin, and the Putin propaganda machine inside our own European Union, let us not make agreements, government agreements and government coalitions with the cheerleaders of Putin like Mr Salvini or Mr Berlusconi even. But Mr Salvini was even better with his T-shirt on the Kremlin showing his support for Putin. Well, you are from the PPE I think, Mr Schinas, maybe it’s a good moment now to say to your friends in the PPE, not to make a coalition agreement with these cheerleaders of Putin in Italy.

Madam President, it is a shame that Mr Bardella is no longer here because you have to have the nerve to say what he said here. Attacking the President of the Commission, who would be responsible for inflation, who would be responsible for rising prices, when everyone knows that it is the war in Ukraine with Putin, and that it is they who have been defending Putin and sympathizing with him for years... You have to have nerve to do it! And they're even paid, maybe? I do not know what is on the list of Americans. I would not be surprised if Ms Le Pen’s name and that of the National Rally were on the list of Americans, paid for by the Russians. That said, Madam President, I thought there was one black hole in your speech – not so big as those were discovered for the moment, but – that is the absence of defence, because I think really that we are going to live in a total new world order, with huge problems for our security. And you never know what happens if tweeting Trump is returning in the US, then we will be on our own for our own security. So a defence community is an absolute necessity. We are spending today EUR 240 trillion on defence in Europe, the same amount as China, four times more as Russia. We have 130 weapons systems in Europe. We have a world record of soldiers in the world – 2.4 million. And we are powerless. That’s at least the sentiment of most people. So my request to you is when we have a convention, and thank you for supporting it so clearly, we need to talk also by that and we need to come forward with, I shouldn't say a copy, but a draft like the Treaty of Paris of 1952, translated by Adenauer, by Gasperi and Robert Schuman. That’s the way forward. Don’t forget it. And fill the black hole, please.

Madam President, the Prime Minister said here in his intervention that the reform of the European Union and the change of the Treaties is a long-term exercise. That’s true. But if it is a long-term exercise, Prime Minister, you have to start early. Certainly to be ready for 2024. And as you know, the President of the Parliament has triggered Article 48, has sent you a letter, and my request to you and the request of the whole Parliament is that you react smoothly and swiftly to that request. It’s a limited request – to end unanimity and the national vetoes in the European Council because the war in Ukraine shows very well that that is the problem in the European Union for the moment. We need three months to have an oil embargo in the European Union – three months to decide that, because of national vetoes. We have no agreement now on this minimum taxation, a multilateral agreement in an international framework, because of the blackmail and the veto of whom? Of Hungary. And at the same time we have the whole migration package in limbo because of what? Of national vetoes. So the war is showing that that needs to change. So, my request to you is to smoothly say yes to the request of the Parliament to have a convention and not to play games about that, Minister – like yesterday preparing a letter with the other Member States, with a silent procedure, and saying, yeah, but, we wait for a more bold proposal of Parliament or Article 48. So the Council is now saying we cannot say yes to the limited proposal because they ask for a bold proposal! That’s playing games, Minister. Say yes to what the President of the Parliament has asked for. Don’t only use the words of Havel, act as Václav Havel.

Mr President, for those who are still doubting if they are going to vote for this resolution, let me maybe recall what happened last week in Europe concerning the sanctions. The Americans, when the war started on 24 February, were capable immediately, three weeks after that, to launch – by an Executive Order of President Biden – an embargo on oil, on coal and on gas. And they did that on 8 March, so the war started 24 February, and 8 March, by an executive order, the Americans were ready to stop the funding of the war machine of Putin. You have to compare that with the way we in Europe have handled that same issue. For us, it has taken three months to come to a conclusion. It was on, I think, 4 May that Ms von der Leyen said, ‘yes, I have a proposal’ – two months after the Americans, and then it has taken three weeks, nearly a month, to decide on it, and it will be implemented by the end of the year. And there will be an exception for a number of Member States, especially for Hungary, because of unanimity and the veto right. That is the reality of today. Europe is not fit for the world of tomorrow. The world of tomorrow is not a world of nation states, dear colleagues. The world of tomorrow is a world of empires. Whether you want it or not, China is an empire; India is an empire; the US is an empire; Russia wants to be an empire. In such a world, only a European Union that is not based on unanimity, not based on veto rights, not based on such an instrument can survive. Therefore, I think we did a good thing to ask for a convention, Article 48, and to concentrate on the main issue that blocks the Union for the moment – and that is this unanimity rule, the veto right that exists today in our Treaties. I think the two articles that we have mentioned are not the only articles I hope that we as Parliament will want to reform, but we will have the chance to discuss that in the Constitutional Affairs Committee. But at least giving up the veto right in sanctions, creating a passerelle clause that was never used – it was created in the Nice Treaty – it has never been used since the moment that it was in the Treaties. By launching a possibility to have, with qualified majority, a passerelle clause, I think that it is absolutely needed to survive with the European Union in this 21st Century. So I hope for a massive ‘yes’ for the call for this convention to make that a reality.

Madam Chair, I’m very grateful for this debate on the follow-up of the conference, because I think, in fact, that we cannot allow this conference, after one year of work, after this innovation, of the involvement of the citizens, and with the publication of a beautiful document – that is then classified vertically, I should say. That is also what the co-chair, Dubravka Šuica, and myself said at the end of the conference. Therefore, I think that what we as Parliament need to do is to keep the lead in this and to see where the conclusions of the conference can be implemented immediately, as we already did today with the vote on the transnational lists. Let’s remember that. Because let’s be honest, it was a recommendation of the citizens and it was a conclusion of the conference. Let’s not forget it! But OK, OK, we will not redo the vote from a few moments ago, but we need to do that on every topic and there are a number of topics that require treaty change. When you talk about the health union, to make it a shared competence, you need the treaty change. That was also in the recommendation of the citizens. When you want a real energy union, you need a change of the treaties – because an energy union, we don’t have one. We have not one energy mix that is decided at European level and we don’t have a common purchase of energy decided at European level. So therefore, we also need a change. When you want to end unanimity in a lot of areas, you need to change. When you want to give the right of initiative to the European Parliament, you need a change. So, I think it’s obvious that the only way to be true to the conclusions of the conference is to call for a convention – a convention, Article 48, a convention in which we are going to say exactly what articles need to change and how they need to be changed. I hope that, if Parliament votes in favour of this with a big majority tomorrow, then on 9 May, there will also be a positive response from the Council, and that we can go in the direction that is absolutely key and needed: a real union, capable of acting and not always acting too little too late, as has been the case until now. So I hope anyway for a big majority in the House, for the follow-up, the approval of the results of the conference and the goal of the convention, Article 48.

On the first point it is a different file from the file in 2018, because for good reasons you have voted against it because there was no balance between big Member States, medium Member States and small Member States. Well, we, especially in Domènec’s report, have taken that as the basis for the proposal, so making a balance between the Member States so that that argument that you have used, with right reasons, doesn’t exist anymore. Second point: the second point is that you cannot put that in that file in the electoral law. Therefore, it is in the recital. And in the recital we explain very clearly what the engagement is of this Parliament, that we will never designate, nominate, a President of the Commission who has not been a lead candidate – lead candidate on this transnational list.

Mr President, I want first of all to thank the rapporteur, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, who did an excellent job because this is not only about Spitzenkandidaten, not only about transnational list, it is a complete electoral law. It’s a huge legislative file that we have prepared that is an overhaul of the electoral system on the 8th, on transnational votes, on a democratisation for the Spitzenkandidaten on the election day, on everything. I want to thank especially Sven Simon for his intervention. I have older bottles in my cellar, but I will wait until the votes are sent to open them, so we will see. So let there be no hesitation for those who believe in Europe to vote in favour of this. I know that Mr Annemans’ idea people vote against. He’s against Europe. He’s against the European demos. He will say it himself, he has another opinion about Europe in any way and in any way, a Europe that is not based on transnational list and on a European demos. That’s the reality. And I want all those who have hesitations to reflect on that. Listen to Mr Annemans and you will know why you will vote in favour of this file in a few moments, in a few seconds. Don't follow those in fact who don’t want a European demos and who think that democracy can express itself by simple addition of national democracies. By the way, this file doesn’t abolish national democracy. What we have is we give two votes to the people, one vote on European level to vote for his own representative in the European Parliament, national representative on the parliament, and then a second vote to express the European concerns, the European challenges that are at stake. And the most important point of this side, and I think Sven Simon has quietly underlined it, is this is also to avoid the catastrophe – may I say that? – of 2019. In 2019, when the Parliament was an outsider, I should say, in the designation, the nomination of the leading figure of the European Union, the President of the Commission. By this system, there will be a democratisation of the Spitzenkandidat. There will be votes for the Spitzenkandidat, and it will be impossible in my opinion, dear colleagues, that the Council will choose somebody else, will nominate somebody else than the Spitzenkandidat who has won the elections in 2024. That is what is at stake, with the balance between big Member States, small Member States and medium Member States. So for those who are still hesitating, this is in fact an historical and existential file for Europe and for the European project. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)

Madam President, I try to speak not only in my name, but in the name of the 212 MEPs who have signed the letter. And you know that letter Mr Borrell? Because let’s be honest, I can only join those who felt completely devastated about what is happening in Bucha and Mariupol. But let’s be honest, that cannot be the centre of our debate. The centre of our debate needs to be whether the strategy that we are following is the right strategy? Is it stopping the war? Is it stopping Putin – yes or no? What is our strategy? Our strategy, Mr Borrell, and it’s a pity that Mrs von der Leyen is not there, or Mr Michel is not there anymore because they are responsible for that. It’s the strategy of progressive packages, of sanctions. We are now in the fourth and now announced today the fifth package. The first four package didn’t work. The value of the ruble went up at the end. And I predict you something, Mr Borrell, the fifth package will not work either. And therefore, we have sent with 212 people and mapped this letter to you. Because, it will not work and people in the corridors tell me ‘Mr Verhofstadt, you are impatient. Wait a little bit. We are working on the sixth package already and in the sixth package you’re going to have all as you want’. Well, I can tell you, I can wait my whole bloody life for your packages. But the Ukrainians who are dying in Mariupol and Bucha cannot wait anymore. That is the reality of the work here. You know why your strategy doesn’t work? Because progressive packages of sanctions with an autocrat do not work. That works with a democracy, with Democrats. We have a public opinion, a real public opinion. In Russia there is no longer a real public opinion. The reality is that it doesn’t work because the fifth package is what? coal! It’s ridiculous! It’s only 3% of the imports from Russia. Switch the ban. Ridiculous. More than 50% of the financial institutions are still outside the ban. And the oligarchs, the oligarchs, – shall we extend a little bit? – the oligarchs. The oligarchs will escape finally the sanctions or lose a little bit of their money. You need to tackle the 6000 people around Putin, the real people working with Putin. And we have the list. Alexei Navalny’s Foundation for combating corruption has made the list of 6000 people. These people you need to tackle. And so I have a request for you. I’m sorry that I am saying it to you, because I think that for 90% you agree with me, in fact. I’m pretty sure about that. So I wanted to say that to Michel and von der Leyen – in the name of this 212, it’s time to change your strategy. It’s time to have an extra European Council as fast as possible and to go for the full package of sanctions immediately so that you can really make a difference. All the rest will not work. All the rest will prolong the war. All the rest will be more killings on the Ukraine side. And finally, a little advice to my friends in Germany. I think that after the horrors of the Second World War, there has emerged (I’m finishing) a strong and democratic Germany, a very strong and democratic Germany. But from such a Germany, I expect leadership, leading by example and not the dragging of feet, as we are seeing today.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for her leadership. Let’s say it here in the House: Estonia was one of the first countries, if not even the first country, to send weaponry to Ukraine. You are showing that in these dramatic circumstances, smaller countries in our Union count and can lead by example. So thank you very much for that. But for the rest, let’s not pat ourselves on the back. The sad reality, dear colleagues, is that we are not doing enough for Ukraine today. A no-fly zone is not on the radar. Our financial sanctions are only targeting seven Russian banks. That’s 30% of the Russian banking sector. And most importantly, there is still no ban on Russian oil and gas. Ukraine is fighting for European values and for our democracies while we Europeans continue to finance the war machine of Putin’s evil. So, in my opinion, it’s time that, after the Americans and also the British, we decide on a full temporary ban on Russian oil and gas for as long as this aggression is continuing. That is what we need to do. And yes, we will suffer, but we will survive in the coming months. But it is not clear if the Ukrainians will survive in the coming months if we don’t take that decision and we don’t need – Mr Borrell, it’s not to you that I'm saying this, it’s to the Commission in general – a fantastic strategic paper to lower our dependency on Russian gas. No, that’s for later. What we need now is immediate action and a decision on the European level, to temporarily ban, until the end of the war, Russian oil and gas.

Madam President, I’m asking myself what Mr Borrell is going to take from here as a conclusion of this debate. In my personal view, I think there’s an enormous unity in this Parliament. Besides some people on the extreme left who still think that the Soviet Union exists, and besides a part of the extreme right which is financed by Putin, I think all the rest have a huge unity. I think that the conclusion of this debate, if I can give some advice or make a suggestion, is that we need a more robust strategy of the European Union. It’s true you did your job, and maybe more than is possible with 27 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, but the conclusion of this debate is that we need a more robust stance. On 20 February 2014 I was at Maidan, when in the morning 49 people were killed by snipers, and I saw in the eyes of these people how they in fact belong to Europe and want to be in the European Union. Their future is there, not with Putin. Even those people who speak Russian in Ukraine don’t want Putin to come in. So I think we have to be more robust. We need to do more. First of all, maybe use the European Peace Facility to make a common transfer of defensive weapons to them. We could do that. We have the instrument to do that. And finally – and then I will stop, Ms Hautala, because I know that you have a strong instrument with you, your hammer – we also need a pro-Russian agenda. Because Putin is not Russia, and there is an opposition there with Navalny, who needs our full support because, in the end, there will only be stability and security in Europe if there is a democratic Russia at our borders.

Madam President, you have seen, Mr President, our French colleagues, at least most of our French colleagues are obsessed with the elections in France, with the presidential election. Hence apparently all these attacks: Mr. Bellamy, Mr. Bardella, Mrs. Aubry, Mr. Bompard... Mr. Jadot, I understand that: he is the only candidate at the moment, here, so he is still enthusiastic. This is the beginning of the campaign, so we get it wrong from time to time – it is a possible fact. I felt like you were at Antenna 2 or TF1, something like that. That said, what is needed is not these divisions at the moment. What is needed during these six months is European unity. Because, Mr Jadot, this is a serious time for Europe. We are threatened inside: Kaczyński and Orbán. Putin threatens us from the outside. And at that point, unity is needed, not only in France, but in Europe in general. And so, I say to you, Mr President, 'do whatever it takes, whatever it takes'. Because I can tell you that people in Europe support you.

Mr President, I would like to say to the Prime Minister that I have listened to him carefully for 30 minutes. Prime Minister, even if you had spoken for an hour, I would have silently listened to you. You didn’t talk about the ruling of the constitutional court because the ruling of the constitutional court is very clear. Article 1 and Article 19 of the Treaty are null and void in Poland and are in contradiction with the Polish constitution. That’s the decision of the constitutional court in Poland. And that is a constitution and a Treaty, Article 1 and Article 19, that you accepted in 2004, that the past government accepted at the moment of the Lisbon Treaty. And you know what these articles –Article 1 and Article 19 – are. Article 1 is an ever—closer union, and Article 19 is the central role of the European Court of Justice. By the way, it is exactly for the same reasons that the hard Brexiteers went out of the European Union – for these two articles, Article 1 and Article 19. The sinister game that you are playing is very clear. The sinister game is that you are putting a politicised constitutional court inside Poland, and that politicised constitutional court is criticised by whom? By the European Court of Justice. The way to eliminate the decisions of the European Court of Justice is to take, with the politicised constitutional court of Poland, a decision that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) no longer has a right of decision in Poland. That is what you have done, and what you defend here. You are making references to others, to the French and the Germans, and there is something to say about the German constitutional court and so on, but they never did that. They never said that Article 1 and Article 19 were no longer applicable in Poland, in their country. They never did that. Like I said, the Brexiteers did that. What you have done is, in fact, put an existential threat to your country and, most of all, to the people, to the Polish people, who are the most pro-European people of the entire European Union. That is what you have done. And that reminds me of something very dramatic in European history, by the end of the 18th century, when a great country like Poland disappears and makes a fatal mix of bad governance, of external threats and the betrayal of conservatives who could not accept a modern Polish constitution at that time. Am I the only one who sees some fatal resemblance here with what is happening today in Poland? So I have to tell you – I know that you are a historian, Prime Minister – so I wanted, in fact, to start my speech and to end my speech with a classic historical book: ‘The March of Folly’ by Barbara Tuchman, because it reminds me of what is happening in Poland today. It starts with a simple decision, and it goes to another decision, and a further decision, and that is when the folly starts. It is not, in fact, people who want that, not the ordinary Polish citizens, it is the ego of big power players who are not thinking what the disaster will be at the end of the story. So my wish, Prime Minister, is please, come back from these stupid decisions and end, together with the Polish people, this march of the folly that you have entered in 2015.

Mr President, I see that you are very active with your hammer today. So I have, first of all, a question to the Commission, can that be done independently from my speaking time? Because I hear, in the German press, that there is a suspension of the recovery plan of Hungary. But the German press is not the official gazette of the European Union. My question: is this the truth? Has that been done? (A voice responds ‘I will reply to it) OK, that is confirmation that you will reply to it. This House has a right to know if there is a suspension of the recovery plan of Hungary; that is a major decision. We also need to know because Ms Von der Leyen didn’t say anything about that this morning in her intervention, and we need to know that. So, that was outside my speaking time, if would allow me. Saying that, I have followed this debate since this morning, and I’m stunned. I say that to Slovenian Presidency. After three years, closing the university, closing a radio station like Klubradio, going after the judges, the only thing that you can say here is: oh, we got the debate, and it was an interesting debate, and we didn’t apply Article 7 Paragraph 1, because we had no time to do it; we cannot decide. I think that’s a shame! When are you going to take the only decision that you need to take, that is to request from Hungary to repeal the LGTBI law that had been voted. That is what you have to decide. No, Madam Commissioner, it is not sufficient to hold it on the agenda; there needs to be a decision. Article 7 was launched by this Parliament three years ago. It’s a shame that, after three years, the only thing you have to tell us is: oh, we will come back later on in autumn.