Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, since its inception, the European project was built on dialogue and measured decisions. Today, we mostly witnessed a forceful political exchange but no dialogue and not about the Hungarian Presidency's priorities – maybe next time. The core of the presidency programme is competitiveness. Presented in July, it anticipated key elements of President von der Leyen's programme and the Draghi report – same starting point, almost the same conclusions. But now we should work together to find the right policies, tools and resources to win the battle for a competitive Europe. This is what the citizens are waiting from us. Dear Madam President, Dear Prime Minister, A topic very close to my heart is also included in the Hungarian Presidency's programme: the protection of indigenous national minorities and cultural heritage. The European Parliament supports the need for European standards for the protection of minorities in the Member States and candidate countries across mandates. If we can convince the Commission and the Council that there should be no double standards, that this should not be the only forgotten minority group in the European Union, well, that is a much harder nut to crack. How do you see the opportunities on this topic?

Oh, Mr. President. After more and more terrorist acts in Western Europe, political leaders are falling into fatalism, as if such horrific events could not be prevented. As if it is not our right to decide who can enter our countries and how we can live in safety. In 2023, almost 400 000 illegal entries were recorded at the EU borders. This number can be reduced by one means: stricter protection of external borders. This is where more EU money should be spent. In the first quarter of 2024, more than 103 000 non-EU nationals were ordered to leave, but only around one third actually left. That's a terrifying piece of data. If out of the remaining 60,000 people there is only one potential terrorist who will kill innocent people at some point, then Member States have made a fatal mistake by not fully enforcing the expulsion. There's no other way. Everything is better than living in fear and closing in. It is not enough to deal with symptoms by closing borders; instead of a seriously flawed migration policy, common sense should be used.

Madam President, the agreement on the directive on asset recovery and confiscation had very broad support in the Parliament in all the phases of negotiations. Allow me to highlight some elements of this new tool in fighting organised and cross-border crime. The new confiscation framework of assets deriving from criminal activity targets the core motivation of organised crime: financial gain. Their profits are estimated at EUR 150 billion in the EU. Yet currently only about 1% of proceeds from organised crime are confiscated. Why is this so? We cannot confiscate if we cannot find out swiftly what assets criminals possess. It is difficult to confiscate assets the criminal origin of which is skilfully concealed, and cross-border exchange of information, even within the EU today, is limited and slow. The negotiated text will change the situation on all these fronts. Asset recovery authorities will have almost immediate access to all the relevant national asset databases, and they will be able to freeze criminal assets before they dissipate. Loopholes used by criminals to avoid confiscation will be closed by non-conviction-based confiscation or confiscation of unexplained wealth linked to criminal activities. Asset recovery offices will be mandated to swiftly exchange information with their counterparts in other EU Member States, and victims’ rights are now also better protected. The Parliament has secured a large number of wins during negotiations. So together with my colleagues the shadow rapporteurs, we encourage you to support this important legislative initiative as a relevant step in the fight against criminal organisations and to increase the security of our citizens.

I wish you a good day. Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, fiecare cetățean român înțelege această urare în limba maghiară. Nu pentru că majoritatea a început să învețe limba minorității, ci pentru că în 2020 ați folosit limba maghiară ca instrument politic împotriva adversarilor dumneavoastră. Iar de când sunteți președinte nu ați răspuns deloc la propunerea venită din partea comunității maghiare de a realiza un pact majoritate-minoritate. Există modellé de succes în protecția minorităților europene în țări membre ale Uniunii Europene, care nici măcar nu pot fi discutate la București, iar între timp extremiștii capătă forță în România. Xenophobia, pe de o parte, și comportamentul antidemocratic, antieuropean, pe de altă parte, provin din aceeași rădăcină. Sunt de acord cu dumneavoastră, rămân multe de făcut în România și în Uniunea Europeană pentru România. Ne aflăm pe un traseu de integrare deplină la Uniunea Europeană. De aceea, aderarea integrală la zona Schengen trebuie să devină realitate, pentru că este dreptul nostru câștigat.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this proposal not only revisits last year’s resolution calling for the revision of the Treaties that already included some specific areas to be amended, but is in fact a profound EU reform. While each of us can find in it an element that resonates with the priorities of our voters, looking at the text and its annexes, it would change the entire EU architecture. One starting point was the need for a treaty change to be able to accommodate new Member States. Yet, instead of having precision surgery on specific points, this project is in fact an amputation of the consensus-based EU decision-making process in key areas. The unanimity provided for in the Treaties has in no way prevented meaningful action when there was a political will. In fact, it is never efficient to have a broad legislation based on a single case, as the foreign affairs and the sanctions regime looks like. Political priorities come and go. Tomorrow, we might have other challenges. But we cannot change the Treaties every time we are confronted with a defiance. A Union of diverse issues should not aim to eliminate the power of consensus, nor should it aim to impose majority decisions on a minority at all costs, including in the ratification process of the new treaty. Even if we accept that we would gain in efficiency in doing so, we would lose more in terms of democratic control. The majority of the proposals reflect a centralist approach. Not even one strengthens national or regional competences – this being the opposite of federalism. Centralising power in the hands of the EU should never be an aim in itself. The aim should always be to deliver on the needs of our citizens.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, congratulations to the organisers of the Fur Free Europe successful European Citizens’ Initiative. As standing rapporteur for the ECIs in Parliament, I am glad that another initiative made it to the plenary: the tenth in 10 years. More than 1.5 million Europeans signed your proposal. It is a remarkable number, which means not only a huge responsibility towards the supporters, but it gives a strong signal to the EU institutions that the ECIs cannot be ignored by the legislators. The EU animal welfare legislation is currently under revision. The EPP Group welcomes it. The Commission’s initiative is an opportunity to introduce the necessary provisions concerning a full ban on fur farms. Our Parliament is an important supporter of citizens’ participation. Through the plenary debates, we have raised awareness of the many ideas that emerge from the public agenda through various ECIs. In this regard, we will certainly carefully assess the actions taken by the Commission on a fur-free EU.

Dear Mr President, Thank you, Commissioner, Mr Secretary of State. Dear Members, I live in a safe part of Europe. In Romania, people of Jewish origin do not have to fear for their lives. There is no room for ideological controversy in our schools, so we do not delay teachers. Ethnic coexistence is not always easy, but no one has to fear for their life because they are wearing another country's football shirt. In Western Europe, however, something has gone wrong. It is incomprehensible to me that state security agencies do not have the possibility to expel non-EU nationals with a jihadist past from the country or to isolate radicalised individuals. They say they have basic rights. I ask, did the teachers killed in France, the Swedish supporters killed in Brussels, the hundreds of people killed in the terrorist attacks in Western Europe have no rights, no right to life and no expectation of the protection of the state? What is an open society? What good is freedom if we have to live in fear? The solution is clear and obvious, but we do not dare to talk about it openly enough. Strict protection of the external borders through joint efforts, swift processing of asylum applications at border crossings, employment contracts for immigrants and the immediate expulsion of those illegally staying in their countries. Dear Commission, Dear Council, Do not act ideologically, but on the basis of common sense.

Mr President, colleagues, I agree with the Council that there is an important lesson from this year’s exercise regarding the Parliament’s seat distribution, and that is that we need a permanent allocation mechanism and a reasonable timeline for the adoption of such a complicated file. I am not using the word ‘mathematical formula’, because it would be impossible to balance the weight of the Member States in Council and in Parliament using exclusively scientific tools. But a well-built allocation mechanism could replace, in the future, the lengthy political debate over Member States’ interests. It is a file with the slogan: ‘the sooner the better’. I would like to thank, in the end, the co-rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs for their contributions and also the work of all the staff in Parliament who worked on this report.

Mr President, dear colleagues, as co-rapporteur of the file on the composition of the European Parliament, I welcome that in its draft decision on the distribution of seats, the European Council has followed the logic of the Parliament’s proposal, carrying out, however, some additions to it. In the absence of a permanent allocation mechanism for the distribution of seats that could be properly linked to the voting system in the Council – as well as the fact that Parliament does not at present use all seats available to it – the Parliament has proposed a solution which strictly respected the principle of digressive proportionality, did not add more seats than absolutely necessary to achieve respect for this principle, reflected demographic development in Member States, and last but not least, did not propose seat losses in the case of any Member State giving the opportunity to the European Council to avoid unnecessary complications. I do regret, however, that while confirming our general approach, the Council did not consult the Parliament when it became clear that it intended to deviate from our proposal in regard to the number of seats. It added 4 seats and it deleted the proposed allocation of 28 seats of a union-wide constituency, subject to the adoption of the legal basis for that constituency. From a strictly legal point of view, we can admit that there is no direct link about the new electoral law proposed by Parliament and the distribution of seats, but a slim majority of the Parliament believes it was an important political point to make in order to get the Council’s opinion on the electoral law proposal. From the decisions of the Council that contains no reference on the transnational list, we may understand that there is not only no consensus in the Council for the idea among Member States, but not even a majority support. Nevertheless, taking everything into consideration, the principle of mutual sincere cooperation would have required that the European Council informed us about its intention not to follow our proposal. On our side, however, my co-rapporteur and I, we made important efforts to consult with the Council before we adopted an initial position. And a polite but unambiguous answer of the Council was that it needed to have the official proposal of Parliament first. Once it had it, the deal regarding consultation was not respected. Thus, there was no proper interinstitutional dialogue on the possible outcomes. What I regret most, however, is that the European Council took the unfortunate decision to introduce a recital calling for the increase in seats to be budget neutral. Not only is this a legally void proposal – I remind here that the European Council itself has increased the number of seats by four compared to the Parliament’s proposal – it is also lacking any legal consequence. The establishment of the Union’s annual budget is a task entrusted by the Treaties to the budgetary authority. I would like to thank the good cooperation we had with my colleague, co-rapporteur Sandro Gozi. We navigated well through this complicated file even though we were coming from opposite directions. Now, at present, given the necessity to move rapidly with this file in order to ensure that Member States can do their preparations for the election in line with their constitutional requirements, my political group, the EPP, will give its consent to the European Council decision, and I am confident that the majority of this House will do as well.

Mr President, no need to take the floor. We agreed with the co-rapporteur that in this given situation, when there are so many divergences on this file, we would rather proceed with the votes.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the European Citizens Initiative is an agenda setting, instrument generating debate. But more importantly, it is the only participatory instrument at EU level which can lead to a proposal of a legal act of the Union. And this is the aspect that remains at the forefront of the European Parliament’s efforts. We must make sure that the voice of over 1 million Europeans, a very big democratic base, expressed during the signature of an initiative, is not in vain. My report contains appreciation towards the Commission in organising the process, but it also points out shortcomings and presents recommendations. The revised ECI Regulation has undoubtedly lowered the procedural hurdles for organisers and supporters. Following several cases lost before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission has ultimately made it easier for ECIs to meet the necessary legal requirements and to benefit from partial registration. The central online collection system has also been improved over the years. The Commission unit responsible for ECIs has also run a number of communication campaigns, as did the European Economic and Social Committee, in order to make this instrument more known among citizens. Response during the Covid period was fast and useful. The temporary ECI Regulation that we swiftly approved in Parliament extended time limits for the different stages of the ECI process in response to the pandemic. The revised ECI Regulation also strengthened the political dimension by introducing a mandatory plenary debate in Parliament and extended and introduced the mandatory plenary debate in Parliament with the possibility of adopting a resolution before the Commission presents its assessment. However, we have to acknowledge that the ECI instrument still falls short of its democratic potential. It has not only limited visibility, but more importantly, low effectiveness in terms of proposals by the Commission for Legal Acts of the Union. This risks weakening the participatory mechanism. The report proposes several ways to improve the ECIs. First of all, a proper dialogue should be established with all organisers. No discrimination should be allowed based on their goals and the best ways to achieve them. This could already be initiated during the collection period. The Commission needs to carry out a thorough assessment of each valid ECI in a well argued, clear, comprehensible and detailed manner. More importantly, this assessment should be on the subject of the valid ECIs. Besides the central online collection system, allowing the collection on third-party systems again should also be assessed. Running an ECI is an extremely difficult and costly process. There should be a strong consideration of financial support for successful ECIs to reward their efforts. After all, their democratic involvement arguably has more impact than many civil society actions generously supported by the EU budget. Parliament also aims to increase its engagement in the ECI process. It commits to vote a parliamentary resolution after every valid ECI and after every Commission communication, setting out its legal and political conclusions and to change its rules of procedure to allow for this. One last idea about the ECI in the framework of other EU consultative instruments: I agree with all my esteemed shadow rapporteur colleagues, whom I warmly thank for their contribution and cooperation, when they say more in-depth discussion is needed on the concerns expressed in valid ECIs. I would, however, be extremely cautious about mixing this very special tool with clear rules and obligations with other more ad hoc consultation methods like the Commission-led citizens panels and thus diluting its effects.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner. As we reflect on the legacy of the European Year of Youth, clearly one of the most pressing issues was the lack of proper funding which affected the quality and scope of the events organised. Romania received a very small amount from Erasmus+ for youth projects and the payment was made only in November 2022. This definitely did not mean good planning, sufficient funding and effective events. You spoke about future planning and that several of your colleagues will be involved in this effort. So how can the Commission ensure that future initiatives are more closely aligned with the stated objectives and that resources are focused on activities that will have a significant impact? You also mentioned inclusion and diversity. What measures will be taken to ensure that policies and programmes are tailored to meet the needs of all young people, including those from diverse ethnic, cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds?

Mr. President, please. Dear colleagues, For the first time, the European Parliament produces a comprehensive report on cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe. Undoubtedly, it was time for Parliament to analyse and evaluate the very wide range of relations, and for several reasons, I would now like to highlight three: On the one hand, the EU considers the Council of Europe to be a source of reference for human rights throughout Europe. Think of the many conventions to which the EU is a party, either as a whole or through its Member States. On the other hand, the European Union is the Council of Europe's leading donor for programmes related to enlargement, the Eastern Partnership and the rule of law. Financial assistance has steadily increased and exceeded EUR 200 million in 2021. Thirdly, the fact that the Council of Europe summit will be held for the first time in nearly two decades in less than a month makes the report particularly timely. This report is a long-awaited feedback to the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and the General Secretariat also praised the inclusion of the report on the agenda. I have met the bodies and leaders of the Council of Europe several times in recent months, thanking them for their openness and partnership. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly asked the European Parliament for closer cooperation, insight into each other's work and discussion on issues on both sides. The report therefore proposes the establishment of an interparliamentary delegation between the EP and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the areas of shared activities. Just as Parliament has organised cooperation with remote groups of countries, it is high time for a more organised form of cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe next door. In particular, I would add that this is where the Council of Europe plenary will meet in the coming months, due to reconstruction works. The report concludes that the institutional relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe should be better normalised and that more high-level relations are needed. The strategic partnership should be extended to give new impetus to the promotion and protection of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, including minority rights, through bilateral cooperation. In view of the changed global and European challenges and the significant transformation of both institutions, the report calls on the parties to review the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding. Analyse which areas of cooperation have been successful and where the relationship should be strengthened, extended and transformed into the main legal instrument for inter-institutional cooperation. Minority protection is an area of cooperation that has so far not been sufficiently exploited and is of particular importance to the European Parliament. The Council of Europe has established a Europe-wide legal framework through the Framework Convention for Minorities and the Language Charter. These came into force 25 years ago, but unfortunately there are still EU Member States that do not apply them. The credibility of the European Union in the accession process will be strengthened by including the standards of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in the monitoring of the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU. Therefore, the report recognises the role of the Venice Commission in the functioning of democratic institutions and respect for fundamental rights, the functioning of judicial systems, the conduct of elections and referenda. I would like to thank my fellow Members who have submitted a shadow report for their support and for their valuable contribution in terms of content. The report on cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe was adopted by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I trust that tomorrow's plenary vote will confirm the report on a unique and extremely important partnership on the Council of Europe!

Madam President, dear Commissioner Jourová, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Damian Boeselager, for the very good cooperation in preparing Parliament’s position. Available data makes it evident that the participation rate in elections among the mobile European citizens is much lower than that of the nationals in a Member State. There are many factors influencing the decision to vote or not, and certainly the registration process is the most significant. We need to close this representation gap in which the views of citizens making use of the freedom of movement are less reflected than those of other EU citizens. Mobile European citizens need to know about their right to vote and the steps they need to take for the registration in the electoral roll. I am glad that the report of the Parliament has improved the language on the possibility of immediate registration as a voter or candidate at a time of requesting a residence permit, has made it clear for voters that they have the choice of expressing their political preference in either the home state or the country of residence, and it has strengthened the references to information provision on the prohibition of double voting. And, in this regard, it is regretful that not all Member States have ratified the Council’s decision of 2018 amending the 76 electoral rule, which requires effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in Member States in the event of double voting. In its absence, strengthening the information provision through this Directive is most useful.

Madam President, dear Commissioner Kyriakides, minorities have been frequently subjected to restrictions and even suppression. This was true in the past and it is still true today. The UN declaration has lost nothing of its relevance. Minorities are often instrumentalised in the most violent internal conflicts. In extreme cases, they were subject to some of the worst atrocities ever committed, instead of being treated as equals and partners for peace and stability. Given the occasion of the 30th anniversary, the European Parliament should have adopted the resolution supporting the UN engagement and action, and I am sorry that it did not do so. On Monday, probably driven by unfounded fears and outdated reflexes from national politics, the S&D, Renew and ID Groups voted overwhelmingly against the EPP proposal for the adoption of a resolution in Parliament. What is the cynical message they sent? They have turned their back on the Rohingya, subject to unimaginable cruelty and expulsion in Myanmar. They have betrayed the Yazidis and the Kurds, our partners in the fight against ISIS. They have abandoned the Uyghurs and the Kurds, the Tibetans locked in labour camps in China. Violence against minorities in Ethiopia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen was of no relevance either. But the message was disappointingly clear for the minorities in the EU as well, including the Roma – 40 million Europeans in total. It sends them the message: your rights are not worth the effort. Respect for the rights of minorities in the EU and beyond was and still is a matter of utmost importance and urgency. It is also about the credibility of our Parliament’s external action. I hope next time this House will be up for the task.

Madam President, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their valuable opinion and the good cooperation, to the shadow rapporteurs – you expressed very important proposals, you also expressed the political criticism. Well, our Petitions Committee is a political body, and we give the chance to all the citizens, all the petitioners, no matter from which ideology they come from, to have their say, to be able to address the Committee, to hear possible remedies and the internal decision—making process in our Committee. I think it is done in a democratic manner. Despite, of course, all the improvements that the petitions process went through, the overall number of petitions remains modest in relation to the total population of the EU. And this brings us to the conclusion that more efforts are needed to be done to step up the increase of the citizens’ awareness. And also, Commissioner, you touched on the matter of informing the citizens about pilot projects, about infringement procedures, about legislative proposals, because these are all linked to the petitions process. Petitions also make a valuable contribution to the work of other parliamentary committees, which give opinions or receive petitions for information. In 2021, 82 petitions were sent to other committees for opinion, and 548 for information. That’s a very important amount of inter—committee cooperation. In the end, I would also like to thank the Secretariat of the Committee, the advisors and my Office for their preparatory work on this file.

Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, dear colleagues, I am pleased to present you the report about the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations in 2021. It is the concluding part of this traditional exercise in which our committee provides a comprehensive overview of the work carried out in the previous year. The Committee on Petitions, and I quote from the report, ‘is best able to show citizens what the European Union does for them and what solutions it can provide at European, national or local level’. I would emphasise that our committee should be considered as a bridge between Europeans and the EU institutions. Petitions enable citizens to contribute to the legislative work and to make the institutions accountable. In 2021, the European Parliament received 1392 petitions, which represent a decrease by 11.5% compared to 2020, but an increase by 2.5% compared to the petitions registered in 2019. Last year there were considerable differences in the number of petitions submitted to the committee, with most of the petitions concerning Spain with 17%, followed by Germany with 9.7%, then Italy, Greece, Romania, Poland and France. Slovenia and Estonia remain the countries least concerned. More than 78% of the petitions were submitted via Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal, confirming that it has become by far the most used channel for citizens to submit petitions. The number of users supporting one or more petitions was more than 200 000; that means four times more than in 2020. The Committee on Petitions had 12 meetings, at which 159 petitions were discussed, with over 100 petitioners present remotely at that time. Under difficult circumstances, I must say that our committee swiftly adapted to the new way of working and played a key role in ensuring Parliament’s prompt response to citizens’ concerns. Our committee organised one fact—finding visit and five public hearings, partly jointly with other parliamentary committees. The Committee on Petitions adopted several reports, opinions and forwarded short motions for resolution to the plenary. Petitions were submitted in 22 of the official languages of the European Union. German and English remain the most used languages. As regards the nationality, petitions submitted by German citizens represent the highest number. There was a considerable rise in the number of petitions submitted by Italian and Greek nationals. Now on the subject of the petitions: a large number of those were related to the public health emergency triggered by the outbreak and spread of COVID-19; fundamental rights, health and environment were the most important topic of the petitions. As an example, we dealt also petitions concerning the coexistence with large carnivores, notably wolves and brown bears in Europe. I have to underline that several petitions related to the rights of national minorities, especially in the areas of right to education in their mother tongue, linguistic or cultural rights, but also their right to property as outlined in petitions concerning land confiscation and restitution cases. The efficient work of the Committee on Petitions relies on the cooperation of the Commission and other institutions. The Commission is our strongest partner in examining petitions. We count on the Commission also in the broader follow up in these topics which have been raised by the petitioners. Member States are also invited to take part in the discussions. Petitions very often concern one or more Member States, or they include a cross—border element. Petitions are useful means to draw the attention of the EU institutions and the Member States to matters that affect and concern citizens, that they can also contribute to the EU current debates. When citizens choose to address their concerns and complaints directly to their elected EU representatives, they place significant trust in the Parliament, and we must continue to do our utmost, also in the Petitions Committee, to validate this trust.

Madam President, on Sunday, 18 December, we celebrate the World Minorities Rights Day. This date also marks the 30-year anniversary since the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. It is the only UN international human rights instrument devoted to minority rights, and it is built on the core idea that the rights of minorities are vital to advancing political and social stability, and preventing conflicts. This September, at the anniversary high—level meeting organised in New York, UN Secretary—General António Guterres said that the world still falls far short in actions supporting minorities. Parliament should also echo his call. We welcome the debate planned for Thursday morning on the topic. On behalf of the EPP Group, I propose that in a manner consistent with our action on previous UN declarations, we also adopt a resolution. Commitment to fundamental values and to a principled foreign policy stance will demand the strong voice of the Parliament on this matter, and I hope all the political groups would support this request.

Madam President, Commissioner Breton, by declaring the European Year of Youth, the Commission and the entire European Union made a strong commitment towards young people. I believe this commitment, but also the responsibility of the Union. I checked the European Year of Youth portal for my constituency. It lists nearly 2 000 events in Romania, but they are not dedicated initiatives and have little to do with the objectives set out by the Commission for the dedicated year. I learned from youth organisations that these activities would have taken place in any case and that they are part of Erasmus+, third—country or other public—entity funded projects. Imagine that Romania had an allocation of EUR 183 000 for the whole European Year project. The Commission paid just some days ago the first EUR 80 000. Because of this late payment there has actually been no possibility to spend even EUR 1 for the European Year in Romania, when the closing European event is around the corner. This is bad implementation of an otherwise well—intended policy. Additionally, I learned that for many youth organisations, this year was particularly difficult as the financing through the Erasmus+ programme encountered delays and less organisations received administrative funds. Colleagues, the message of the youth for us is clear. For them, every year is the European Year of Youth. They should be continuously supported, promoted, asked for advice in youth matters and in European policies, and their organisations given opportunities to have long—term financial stability. We should not deceive them again.

Mr President, strangely enough, we never have a debate in this House about the dangers of the extreme left for our societies. I could tell you a lot about how extreme left communism devastated my country, Romania. In Sweden, the government was formed yesterday, while in Italy it has not even been formed yet. Nonetheless, the left in this house wants to put a quarantine stamp on a majority that emerged in free and democratic elections. Colleagues, we can certainly have ideological debates, but we cannot alter the vote of citizens. This would not be democracy anymore, but an ideological dictatorship. Perform better in the elections, not in making outcasts of the winners. The centre right was always careful in choosing its partners and, more importantly, in keeping its coalitions on a firmly European track. I am certain this will be the case in Italy and in Sweden this time around too. Today’s debate is not timely at all, but it gives us the opportunity to stay where we stay. We need the centre right and Christian Democrats. We state clearly that the left has no monopoly on what Europe is, on what Europeans can think about it, and on how Europe should look.

Mr President, the situation in Myanmar is getting worse by the day. The military regime is doing everything possible to prevent the press from reporting on the atrocities happening in the country. Compared to our last October’s debate on Myanmar, the total number of people killed and arrested has almost doubled. Journalism has become a very dangerous profession in Myanmar. Media outlets are shut down and reports indicate serious violations of human rights, including torture and other abuses. Ethnic and religious communities continue to the be subject of direct attacks by the army and the media, so women, men and children are forced to flee to seek refuge. We need a better and stronger international coordination on sanctions that directly targets the military junta, in order to avoid the loss of innocent lives, to be sure that sanctions do not provoke further suffering on the populations and workers. We must continue the support together with our regional partners of the National Unity government in Myanmar to ensure a transition to democracy and a tolerant society, and to make sure that everyone can enjoy their right of expression and belief without fear of persecution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we often speak of European solidarity. Some states are extremely supportive when it comes to third countries, but more reluctant when they have to give their consent to the completion of Romania's European path, i.e. joining the Schengen area. It's not fair. We have done our homework, the technical access criteria have been met for more than ten years. In recent months, the Romanian authorities have managed more than two million Ukrainian refugees. Romania showed full solidarity in the context of the war in Ukraine and demonstrated once again that it is ready to effectively control the external borders of the European Union. Delaying accession to the Schengen area costs companies, carriers money and is an unnecessary waste of time for citizens. Plus a cost to the environment due to the thousands of trucks that spend tens of hours in traffic. The message of the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria is unequivocal: we no longer accept to be considered as second-class European citizens. Here, the European Commission and Parliament reaffirm their strong support for accession, and the Council must follow this just approach without further delay and conditions.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I read in the draft: the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including Roma and Jews, and protection against hateful statements against minorities. Anyone who hears this statement clearly believes that the Orbán government is anti-minority, anti-Semitic and anti-Roma. There's one problem with that: it's not true. So much so that the reporter cannot substantiate his serious finding with facts, this topic was addressed exclusively to Roma. Of course, a single discriminatory measure is reprehensible, but show me a single EU Member State where Roma employment, social affairs, education and housing issues are fully resolved. They will not find one, but there will be no report condemning the other Member States. The truth is that Hungary provides one of the most favourable legal frameworks for minority issues in the EU. This is said by the 13 national minority self-government leaders with whom I have personally discussed this. To call Hungary's national minority policy anti-minority is simply a lie. The alleged anti-Jewishness does not stand up either. It is no coincidence that the report does not contain a single word on this. On the other hand, Israel's Chief Rabbi David Lau thanked the Hungarian government for its support in strengthening Jewish communities around the world. At the beginning of the summer, Chief Rabbi Mayer Tzvi Stambler, President of the Association of Jewish Communities in Ukraine, thanked Hungary for its help in welcoming Jewish refugees. I have only singled out one subject, honourable Members, from the report, but it is already clear from this that the text is severely biased and not factual.

Mr President, Vice-President, dear colleagues, the first question one could raise is whether there is a treaty-change opportunity. After all, there is a war in our neighbourhood, a severe recession is looming, energy prices are going through the roof… Why start a long and complicated political and legal procedure now instead of seeking fast and effective answers to the most pressing questions? Some say the Conference on the Future of Europe legitimises starting treaty change. But let’s be honest, we know the Conference was neither sufficiently representative in its choice of stakeholders nor sufficiently pluralistic in the way it adopted its decisions. Yet, colleagues, I say there is a treaty-change opportunity. The past decade has shown us that a stronger, faster and more united Europe is needed to answer challenges during economic crises, health crises, in areas like border protection, defence, climate change and energy security. We can certainly have a successful convention if we allow ourselves sufficient time to seek pragmatic consensus – if we avoid ideologically driven, dead-end debates and do not waste our energy discussing issues that are completely irrelevant for the majority of citizens, such as transnational lists, and if we do not pursue the nuclear option of forcing the will of the majority on all, at any cost, by abolishing the unanimity rule. We will need wisdom to respect the diversity of the Member States, having in mind a difficult ratification process in the end. It is not uniformity that makes us stronger, but our diversity in pursuing common goals.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, the precarious situation of Roma has been acknowledged in the EU and in the Member States. National strategies have been in place for over two decades now. But the hard truth is that little progress has been achieved. The majority of Europe’s Roma communities still live in poverty, often in favela-type settlements. This fact, honestly, is a shame for Europe. In Romania, eight out of ten Roma live in a house without running water and seven out of ten children drop out of school. Improving this situation requires three things: more humility, more empathy, and more well-coordinated work. We need more humility because we should not remain satisfied that we have a strategy. There is no quick fix to century-old prejudices, deprivation and segregation. We need more empathy. We must try to put ourselves in the shoes of a child living in a mud hut, going to school dirty, and being looked at badly by colleagues. What it means for a child when his parents cannot help him learn to read at home because they themselves cannot read. We cannot expect Roma people to come out of their condition on their own. We must understand that also a Roma child, like everyone else, is able to go to school if he’s fed, has clean clothes and is able to buy a bus ticket. Lastly, we need well-coordinated, hard work at all levels. The Member States cannot do this without the EU, but the EU cannot do it without the Member States. We must move beyond formal requirements. We must develop better coordinated, comprehensive and well-funded transfer policies that are, in turn, implemented on the ground by the local authorities.