Speeches

Madam President, honourable Members, I wonder how you, as elected representatives of European citizens, would react if, in the previous European elections in June, your party received less votes than it actually does? How will you react and how will we accept if your societies want to leave the European Union tomorrow? How will you react if your fellow citizens no longer want democracy? I say this because an internet company with Russian support can lead a candidate to victory in a presidential election in a Member State of the European Union. If she can do that, then she can do anything. So the main question we have to ask ourselves today, in my opinion, is why were we unprepared for such an attack? We've been talking about Russian meddling and election manipulation for a long time. What happened in Romania can happen in Bulgaria, it can happen in Austria, it can happen even in Germany. We know what foreign interference through social media looks like, and so I welcome the European Commission's investigation, but I urge it to go further. Let's assess whether the current legislation can stop such attacks, and if changes are needed, let's make them, because the Kremlin and Georgescu can adapt. If they can adapt, so can we. It is our responsibility to protect European citizens and our democracy.

Madam President, I think it's very important to admit in this Chamber that since 5 November we face an even more complex world. This is why our response has to be immediate and it has to be actionable. There is no time for Europe to defer those decisions and actions that are so needed now. It is of high importance that we become even clearer in our priorities, but also defending our values. This is why I think it is now the time for Europe to step up even further our support and aid for Ukraine. It is now the time for Europe to invest in our tech sector and to build it in a global, competitive way. It is now for us to cut red tape in order to unleash our industries, to innovate, to develop and to be more competitive. Because if President‑elect Trump seeks to be transactional with Europe and the world in general, then we will need to deploy our spreadsheet diplomacy, and I hope we will be ready to do that. This is why, more than ever, we need a strategy where we identify common ground and figure out how to do business.

Dear Mr President, dear Otmar, dear Mr Rapporteur, dear Christian, dear Members, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's debate and also for the opportunity to contribute with concrete constructive proposals, with which I believe we have made this report much more strategic. In the last two years, we Europeans have learned the lessons of energy dependence on Russia the hard way. And this reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous quote, which says: “It’s crazy to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.” I am joining today because I believe that we all want a cleaner economy, but right now we need to know where we are when we want our economy to become greener. And I'll give you just two examples out of many: China produces over 80% of the world's solar panels and over 90% of the magnets and lithium needed for these batteries. That is why, now more than ever, we need a strong and powerful European response. And I believe that this new law gives just that, gives strong support to European decarbonisation technologies. It offers shortened deadlines and easier regulations, but at the same time it also provides funding opportunities. In my country of Bulgaria, for example, we have at least four industrial valleys that have the potential to benefit from these new resources. This includes the nuclear sector, the extraction of critical materials, the chemical and cement sectors, the blue economy and the hydrogen industry. And these are areas where I believe my country can lead. I believe that with this law we show that we have learned our lessons and are already making decisions in a different way, much more strategically.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the European Commission, one of the recent Eurobarometer surveys shows that there are Member States where satisfaction with the fairness of elections is quite low. In addition to countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, the survey shows that since 2019, this satisfaction with fair elections in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands has also fallen dramatically. So I would like to ask you: Do you think that this loss of confidence in the integrity of elections in Europe is dangerous and that it could open the door to further manipulation and interference by Russia in the upcoming European Parliament election campaign? In this direction, I would like to ask you what is the action plan of the European Commission so that it can be linked to increasing trust in the EU electoral process, especially when it comes to the campaign for the European elections?

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, we’ve arrived to the week that we are going to have the final vote of the first-ever law on artificial intelligence. The way I see it is that we are laying out a common European vision for the future of this technology – one where AI is more democratic and safe, but also, I would hope, more competitive. That is, if it’s done right. In a way, we close one chapter, but the story continues. What I believe now is important is that we focus on three things. First of all, to provide legal certainty to all stakeholders, including companies. Second of all, to play an active role in ongoing global efforts through the G7 Process, OECD and the UN. And thirdly, to prioritise AI excellence through concrete commitments and investments. I stand before you because I do believe that in Europe we are more than just a referee. I believe we are a continent of innovators, of doers, of dreamers, of achievers. And now it’s time for us to walk that talk, when it comes, particularly, to promoting AI excellence in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are approaching the end of the term of the European institutions and while many like to look back on our record and take stock, I think, more importantly, we need to set a clear vision for the future we want to build in Europe. I think the only thing that has to be bigger than our ambitions to make Europe the best place to make business and the most competitive place in the world has to be our determination to make this a reality. That would mean, though, less bureaucracy and cutting red tape. That would mean greater focus on implementation. That would mean less fragmentation of our capital markets and more start-ups able to scale up. Today, I hope in this debate we can commit on Europe about the big ideas, Europe that has created the eurozone and the single market. We are facing a backdrop of global multi-crisis and I believe Brussels can ensure the economy can survive to unleash that vision of more unicorns, more growth and more opportunities for companies and people in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, Prime Minister, welcome to the European Parliament! Bulgaria is a frontline state in the war that Russia started against Ukraine. The previous Bulgarian governments refused to provide military assistance to Ukraine and thus created an impression throughout the EU about the ambiguity of the Bulgarian position on the Russian aggression. In the new majority in the Bulgarian Parliament, this has already been overcome, I believe, to a large extent. But it is precisely because of these suspicions against Bulgaria that it is important to clarify whether Bulgaria controls compliance with the conditions of the derogation for imports of Russian oil to Lukoil, which the previous regular government requested from the European Commission. On this occasion, firstly, Bulgaria has an obligation to notify the European Commission of the implementation of the 2014 embargo against Russia, and secondly, specifically on the derogation decision, we have to notify the Member States and the European Commission of any exports from Lukoil that are subject to the environmental risk exemptions. I would therefore like to have a very brief and clear answer: has this been done by the Bulgarian government and have you notified the Member States and the European Commission?

Madam President, colleagues, I believe it is not enough to be a powerhouse of production, because Europe needs to be actually a powerhouse of ideas. But for ideas to have impact, we also need investment. We need a level of European funding that translates ambition to action. We need to utilise private investment to the maximum because when we talk about deep tech, it also requires deep pockets. We currently find ourselves in a global tech race. And when we are talking about a race, there is usually winners and those that also lose. If anywhere Europe could have a leading edge, that’s in R&D. This is why I think when it comes to STEP, it must create an effective blueprint for a fully-fledged sovereign fund to emerge and it must do it quickly. I would like to congratulate my colleague Christian Ehler for providing the much needed focus to this proposal, because strategic technology requires strategic thinking and the Parliament has provided a clear value in that regard.

Madam President, the single market is one of Europe’s greatest achievements. Europe’s stability and peace have been assisted by the prosperity which that single market has brought, and I think ensuring its integrity during times of crisis must be one of our main priorities. Any instrument we adopt has to focus on the prevention of a crisis and not only on its cure. It must provide a framework that cuts bureaucracy, as the rapporteur in the main committee said, not one that adds further bureaucracy. It must support competitiveness when it is needed the most while resisting the trap of protectionism. So, with this, I would like to congratulate my colleague Andreas for his work and our cooperation throughout this process. And I very much like to believe that this file is moving us on the right path, and it is an instrument that will successfully ensure that we continue celebrating the achievements of the single market for at least the next 30 years to come.

Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, there is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And I think when it comes to the Chips Act, all the indications so far are positive. Even before we formally adopt the Chips Act today, tens of billions of euros of investment have already been unleashed. Just look at the thousands of new jobs at the Intel plant in Poland or the investment in the chips factory in Grenoble or the historic investment in Magdeburg. And the list actually continues. I would like to warmly thank Mr Nica and the other shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation we have had. As a team what we achieved is, first of all, we listened carefully to the concerns, but also to the input that the chip industry gave to us. So today we will vote a text which reflects the complexity of the global supply chain. I believe that the Chips Act is now far more than just a mechanism for granting State aid. It is a framework to advance innovation and productivity across Europe. We have managed to cut red tape and created an environment where public and private partnership can thrive. We have shaped a crisis strategy that focuses first and foremost on prevention and not only on the cure of a heavy-handed market intervention. Looking at the big picture of things, and if the EU is to turn its ambitions into a reality, then the EU needs to de-risk and reduce its dependency on strategic rivals. And I think the Chips Act provides a blueprint exactly for that. Finally, no one single act is a silver bullet for any challenge we face. And this is why I believe the Chips Act gives us the tools to help invent but also build a more competitive and resilient economy.

Mr President, Executive Vice-President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, regulating artificial intelligence may at first sound like a very technical matter, but it is so much more than that. It is about asking ourselves the big question: what kind of society do we actually want to live in? And to me, the answer is very clear. A society in which AI enables our democracy and not one in which it undermines it. But, of course, this is much more easier said than it is actually done in practice. For us to get there, I think we should not be playing Whac-A-Mole or regulating the next big thing. It is about putting in place effective guardrails. It is about putting principles and mechanisms that will last for at least the next couple of years to come. But it is also about working with our partners. It is about working with international partners to shape a global governance framework. It is about maximising the potential of AI, while at the same time addressing the existing and looming concerns. So no, it is not technical. It is about the future of our democracy.

Madam President, Vice-President Schinas, Commissioner Breton, I think when we talk about cyber, I think there’s a lot we can learn from Ukraine and how it managed its response to the Russian invasion. I say this because Ukraine is no stranger to Russia’s cyber warfare, but we’ve all been in awe of its ability to keep its critical infrastructure broadly operating during the unrelenting hybrid and kinetic attacks against it. And I think one core lesson from Ukraine is that the public and private sectors have to collaborate more together. This is why, for me, it is important to have the Cyber Solidarity Act, and I very much welcome it. The act will create a form of collective cyber defence for the European Union and the idea that when one Member State is attacked, we all have the tools to rally support and to rally assistance for it. The act also establishes a critical new public-private partnership, bringing the expertise of the private sector within the cyber reserve and the coordinating power of the public sector. On the skills initiative that Vice President Schinas talked extensively on, it’s another critical tool for building this much needed resilience. I think with this act, now, we see the different layers of cybersecurity legislation in place – again, as the Commissioners mentioned, now we have the Cyber Resilience Act, the Cyber Solidarity Act, the NIS2. And these are all some sorts of acts working in a jigsaw together to make sense of each other. But also most importantly, and the key here, is that we must make sure to implement those laws from here onwards, making them work for the business and for the citizens. Because we have to remember that the cyber defence does not start in a text, does not start in the EU act, in an agency, or in security services. It starts from the desktops, from the laptops in the business offices, from those devices. I hope that today we have put another basis to support that protection.

Madam President, colleagues, rapporteur, I think we find ourselves today in the face of a full-blown hybrid warfare in Europe. Just in 2020 alone, cybercrime cost the global economy around EUR 1 trillion and this figure continues to rise astronomically day by day. This is why cyber resilience is no longer a topic we can pay lip service to. Without it, Europe’s economy and security will simply crumble. This updated directive, I believe, is an important step towards better preparing Europe’s defences. It must mark the beginning of our journey towards effective cyber resilience, not the end. I believe this is a piece of legislation of an ever-growing jigsaw puzzle and not a silver bullet necessary by itself. We need the resources, we need the skills, but also the political will to ensure intentions become a reality. We also need all Europeans, businesses, governments and individuals to work together. And, last but not least, with the growing appetite of some global players such as Russia, that are trying to rewrite the rule-based order and attack our critical infrastructure, I believe cybersecurity is also about protecting our democracies. Failing to do so will simply hand the keys to the backdoor of our democracies to countries like Russia, Iran or China.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, inflation in the euro area and the European Union is currently reaching record levels. A family will now have to choose what to buy and what not to buy, because they will have almost 10% less. The European Union began as a peace project, but the economic prosperity it provides is what largely sustains us today. People like Europe because they have a peaceful, good and secure life here. Today, we are taking very firm and clear positions against Russia's aggression. Sanctions and an embargo. And these are really the right steps. But if they are not to be unacceptable and too burdensome for citizens, we must take concrete action to compensate for any negative effects. This is exactly what needs to be done in a practical and targeted way. We need to support people at risk, but we also need to support business in its recovery, because only strong, strong and rapid economic growth can compensate for record inflation.

Commissioner, dear colleagues, Putin has been waging a bloody and devastating war against Ukraine for almost three months. It makes no distinction between military and civilian, between homes and military objects. Russia is pouring its entire military capacity onto a sovereign state. We want to stop the flow of funds to Russia so that these funds cannot be used for even more murders in Ukraine. Therefore, we want to impose an embargo on oil and say that we will refuse to pay for gas in rubles. But countries in the European Union actually continue to buy Russian gas. Just like the Bulgarian government does. Others want an exception to the oil embargo. Again, like the Bulgarian government. Others say they will veto these sanctions. Again, as the Bulgarian government does. And others just pay, and some of them pay in rubles. And that's why I'm asking myself. Where are our values today? Where is our choice? It is really time for us Europeans and our governments to start doing only what we say, and to say only what we intend to do.

Mr President, I believe cyberattacks are just another front in Putin’s all-out attack against democracy and against democratic states. Every government, every company, every individual stands on the frontline of that war, of Putin’s war. I’m very proud that this Parliament is currently working to deliver on the NIS2 Directive, which could offer a real opportunity for Member States and industry to be able to collaborate. Of course, businesses will need the resources and the scale to tackle those very complex and hybrid tricks. The same applies to institutions and to agencies that assist at both national but also European level. If cybercrime costed the world USD 1 trillion back in 2020 alone, well, I believe it’s only common sense to significantly make sure that we increase investment in our critical infrastructure and, most importantly, digital defence. We simply have to wargame the various scenarios together with the Internet service providers, together with the telephone companies, to make sure we can repel potential attacks and make sure we can restore basic functions at an unprecedented speed. We also have to make sure we build greater resilience among our populations. And this we could do with more cyber and media literacy efforts. This item has to be very high on the agenda of the European Council and during its next meeting in June. I am actually surprised that we do not see the Council present here today. European leaders should stop shying away from topics related to tech and cyber – because the effects of a cyberattack can be instant, can be devastating, and they could be very far-reaching, knowing no borders. So this is why there is no time to waste for us to increase our resilience.

Madam President, just in a couple of days on the 9th May, we will remember the visionaries who embarked on a project of peace, stability, growth, prosperity. We will also attempt on that day to be looking ahead towards our bright European future together. Today, our continent is struck by war. But we have seen that our freedom no longer lives in fear. And this is because of our unity and of our solidarity. I hope that one day, very soon, we can offer the same European future to our Ukrainian friends. What this Conference did is to reaffirm those exact values and to root them into fresh ideas. I was one of many colleagues working within the Digital Transformation Working Group, and we have put concrete proposals that aim to make Europe’s tech sector more vibrant, more innovative, safer and full of opportunities for the next generations to come. I think citizens want a union that understand the needs of its towns, of its villages, of its cities, of its capitals, and that knows how to defend their rights and values on a global stage. A Europe that has the confidence to see itself as one, with pan-European candidates that are able to reflect those values. This is how I believe we are going to be building a European Union, by the citizens and for the citizens.

Mr President, Executive Vice-President, Rapporteur, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, in the past, whoever ruled the waves ruled the world. In the future, I believe whoever rules artificial intelligence will dominate the world. And this is where I believe Europe’s challenge lies. Just as we seek to use AI for the betterment of society, we see autocracies seeking ways to weaponise it. They do so by trying to create a digital dystopia. What we notice is that when it comes to the spread of disinformation, mass hacks, the dark web, cyberattacks and autonomous weapons systems, all these phenomena can be aided by artificial intelligence. If the West loses the race to gain the social, economic and security benefits of AI, there will be a fundamental shift in global order, and this is why I believe this report seeks to shape AI in our democratic image. And it is precisely to build trust, to create an ethical framework for innovation; we have to try and be the champions for a future that ensures AI is the vessel for those ground—breaking innovations when it comes to health outcomes, when it comes to effective cybersecurity or scientific discovery or greater sustainability. We cannot let authoritarian states such as China and Russia beat us to this technological punch. And I believe if we have enough political will, which I hope we show in this report, enough financial investment and legal certainty, I believe we could attract the so much needed investment, but also be able to foster world—leading innovation. So I would like to congratulate my colleague Axel Voss on this report, because I believe technology and democracy have to go hand in hand. And I think with this report, we set the right path in achieving that.

Madam President, today, more than ever, the world needs multilateralism, and so does innovation and research. Many of our challenges know no borders: the pandemic, war or climate change. And in the same way of thought, no man or lab is an island. This is why working together is more important than ever in order to achieve great things and at greater speed. This is why protectionism and nationalism must not shut the door for collaboration. It is reciprocity and a mutually beneficial outcome that have to underpin our international cooperation. And it is programmes like Horizon Europe that are an excellent example of world-leading programmes. It is our doorway, in a way, to likeminded partners around the world, and I would like to join colleagues like Martina Dlabajová and others who called for such corporations. I think that now, together with the European Commission, we must ensure that the Chips Act and the AI Act are further opportunities to pursue European excellence in this area. Thank you for your leadership, Madam Commissioner.

Madam President, it is very often said, and we often hear people saying, that data is the new oil. But, in a way, this comparison is not very accurate. We all generate data. Data can be shared, it can be used, it can be reused, and it can create value and different types of values. This is why I think that the DGA will help ensure that all areas of society benefit from this data. And, of course, we need trust and fairness that underpin the exchange, but also the flow of data. I think this Act will enable the reuse, most importantly, of public sector data, that will help us tackle some of the biggest challenges before us, be it environmental, be it health or in the energy sector. But this Act will only work if, as a European Union, we manage to build a coherent digital strategy, one where AI data, crypto, semiconductors and many other features work together to improve global competitiveness, both for businesses but also for society.

Madam President, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is part of a wider campaign to undermine our democracies. Disinformation and foreign interference isn’t a new phenomenon, but Russia has digitised it, and it has combined it with other hybrid tactics. It’s a playbook that has been borrowed and has been used before – be it by China, by Venezuela or by Trump. Sometimes it feels that people may want to accept convenient lies. But we have to make sure that we can lead them to the sometimes uncomfortable truth. This is why, more than ever, we need to increase our media literacy and critical thinking. Also, platforms can and should do more. I wonder why there are some Russian state accounts that are still active on several platforms. This, for me, is hard to justify. Tackling disinformation without suppressing free speech is a major task for Europe. This is why we need a special disinformation war room, for which I have already called – and if we ever wanted to try this, now is the time to do it.

Mr President, I would like to be clear, I think that only together will the EU and the US influence global rules in the decades to come. I think that we currently see that our combined share of economic output is shrinking. Our democratic allies are fewer and fewer. And even after the election of President Biden, both of us engage in avoidable mistakes. I think we need each other, and this is why the Trade and Technology Council is too important to fail. Now it is up to us to use windows of opportunities. And I think one such window, as Executive Vice-President Vestager mentioned, is now open on artificial intelligence. Many experts agree that on AI, guidelines and the public also demand more oversight. So let’s make AI and other digital matters our early successes, hopefully opening the door for other topics with more complicated pasts. We, in the European Parliament, are ready to engage with Congress and citizens to make these issues a success.

Madam President, ‘What is not defined cannot be measured. What is not measured cannot be improved.’ This quote by a renowned mathematician should be kept in mind by everyone who wants to work on the European twin transition. If we want to improve our wind turbines or energy efficiency, we need precise measurements of their performance. If we want Europe to be ahead of the curve in green and digital policies in 10 years’ time, we must measure and improve our R&D and knowledge industry today. This is why the partnership on metrology is an enabling step to do exactly that: to improve Europe’s competitiveness and capacity to innovate. We want to ensure that qualified specialists in universities, research centres and the private sector are all involved. I’m very glad that the EPP Group has managed to steer the negotiations towards such a successful end. That is why I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work.

Commissioner, while we are having this debate, every business in Bulgaria pays EUR 170 per megawatt hour of electricity. Unlike other governments in Europe, the Bulgarian government is doing little to cushion the blow to businesses and citizens. The fact that the price per megawatt hour is three times higher than usual and that many governments, like the one in Bulgaria, do not react is not only a national problem, however. The first voices against the green transition and against the idea of a European energy market are already being heard. The fact that governments like this in Bulgaria do nothing will also affect the opinion of many Europeans about the European Union. However, the European Commission, which holds record high emissions prices in Europe, is not doing enough. We need, right now, an unmistakable response from the European Union. In addition to reacting now, we must ensure that this does not happen again. We need an energy stress test system in Europe that measures how the economy will react to different set prices for gas, oil and electricity. On this basis, we need to create a clear toolbox for action, as well as requirements for national energy and climate plans. We should also launch an annual assessment of the European Union's energy security, similar to the credit rating of the banking system. I hope we are all aware of how great the risk is for Europe at the moment.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your speech. I think that at the moment Europe needs vision, but it also needs security and stability until it can emerge from the various crises it is in. Crises, as you said, have always been our strongest allies, because they make us evolve, they also give us the painful signal of where we are wrong and what we need to change. This is how I think we have created many of our institutions that today make our Union stronger. But I wonder if Europe has learned the lesson from the 2015 refugee crisis? Have we forgotten what it did to our Union? Have we forgotten the fears she instilled in our societies? Have we forgotten that this was the crisis that gave the engine fuel to the extreme populists? As if after the reduced pressure on our borders we forgot all this. After what happened in Afghanistan, our unlearned lessons could prove a huge failure for Europe. At our threshold this time are people who are even more alien to our culture, but have an even greater need for protection. So I wonder what we've changed so that we can better assess which we can accept and which we can't. Our borders could soon be at great risk. But what have we changed about their security? Have we made Frontex a real border guard? I think that countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Malta will again have to take over the main flow of asylum seekers. Have we therefore changed the Dublin Regulation in order to share the burden equally? Do we want to turn countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus back into Europe's open wounds? Do we have a plan? I think that Europe would certainly look frivolous if it did not learn from its own experience, and I hope that we can all work together in the different institutions in this direction.