misclassified/meps_speeches huggingface dataset:
Pandora Papers: implications on the efforts to combat money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-10-06

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Madam President, from 2014 to 2017 Andrej Babiš was the finance minister of the Czech Republic and as such was sitting on the Council, negotiating anti-money laundering, tax evasion, the fight against tax havens. 
But while he was sitting on the Council, Andrej Babiš had a secret because he himself, while saying that he was fighting tax evasion, used a letterbox company to buy a EUR 15 million château in the south of France, hiding his identity and shielding the source of the funding. It would not be the last time, of course, that Andrej Babiš was hiding a conflict of interest from his colleagues on the Council. 
We know from the Commission now, it is certified, his ongoing conflicts of interest, but nothing happens. He isn’t stepping down. He isn’t selling his companies. And he clearly hasn’t stopped taking EU money. He is actually making the Czech Republic fight for it. 
The rules are clear. Conflicts of interest should not persist, particularly not at the heart of decision-making in the European Council. And if Andrej Babiš doesn’t resolve that conflict of interest, well, then the others need to force him. The Council should stop sitting down and negotiating with him, while the conflict of interest persists.
The state of play on the submitted RRF recovery plans awaiting approval (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-10-06

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Madam President, we’re discussing a simple question today: is it a good idea right now to pay out many billions of euros to Poland and Hungary, countries that have no independent judiciary, that are defiant of decisions of the European Court of Justice, and where, in the case of Hungary, Orbán and his family and friends are stealing EU money on an industrial scale? So I would ask: how are we even discussing this right now?
The Commission says that the use of the rule of law conditionality is imminent or it will be shortly used, and we’re still discussing giving away the main leverage, the biggest lever that we have to protect the rule of law, democracy, freedom of the press and the integrity of the EU budget, in Poland and Hungary. This is just a ridiculous idea. Don’t fund corruption. Don’t fund attacks on the rule of law. Don’t fund the attack on our freedoms and don’t give EU money if it’s being misused in those countries.
Announcement of voting results
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-09-16

  Daniel Freund,  rapporteur. – Madam President, two years ago this House defended the integrity of the EU institutions when we were examining the Commissioner candidates. Three of those candidates were rejected because of conflicts of interest. Those conflicts, of course could have reduced the ability to do politics in the best interest of European citizens, so two years ago we made European politics cleaner, more trustworthy and more upright. Today, again, we have the chance to make European politics more transparent, because we’re voting today on this report to establish an independent EU ethics body.
This should clearly send the message: EU politics is not for sale. Good rules need independent control to be clearly enforced.
Some might argue that the rules that we have on lobbying, on conflicts of interest, on revolving doors are already really good, and I would agree. Brussels is leading by example on this. But in the past we have also witnessed that these good rules are not properly enforced. Our rules did not stop Adam Farkas, for example, from switching right from Banking Supervisor to chief lobbyist for the banking industry. Our rules have also not stopped former Commissioner Oettinger from accepting 17 new jobs during his cooling-off period, seven of which are for organisations on the EU lobby register, including his own lobby consultancy.
Our rules failed because the current system of self-policing does not work. If former top officials start their own lobby business, it automatically creates the impression that politics are for sale. And that has really bad consequences – we all know that, we hear it in our constituencies – and the few black sheep should not ruin all the good and hard work that all of us do here every day. So I hope that a large majority of this House will today accept this report and that we can then start the negotiations with the other institutions on this.
United States sanctions and the Rule of law (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-09-16

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner Johansson, the situation in Bulgaria is much worse than what is reported in all the monitoring of the European Commission. And thanks to the change in government, we can better grasp today the scope of corruption, of nepotism, of money laundering that is taking place in the country. And it also shows the failure of the Commission to really do anything about this.
I was in Sofia two weeks ago. I spoke with a number of officials from the interim government, and the stories that you hear are shocking. There are stories of bags full of cash in government offices. There are state assets being looted. There are – or there were – criminals with direct access to the former Prime Minister.
And it’s in this environment that the US sanctions came, and to quote a Bulgarian politician, it dropped a political bomb. So these Magnitsky sanctions against three corrupt oligarchs – one of them, Vassil Bojkov, known for bribing the government, known for his connections to Russia.
I think these sanctions had the desired effect. The individuals were named, shamed and sanctioned. And if you see that Bulgarian officials are actually hoping for a second round, at least the Americans are doing something when the Europeans so far remain inactive. So it is a shame that this decisive action doesn’t come from Brussels, it doesn’t come from Europe: we rely on the Americans to help out with the fight against corruption and the stealing – including of EU taxpayer money – in the country.
So dear colleagues, I think we can all agree that this doesn’t look good for the European Commission. It shows that the measures are not working. You have said today that you will monitor the situation, but monitoring isn’t preventing or fixing anything. And you have also said that you will make full use of all the tools – but clearly, you are not making use of all the tools.
The rule-of-law conditionality mechanism has already been mentioned, but let me also say that the Bulgarian officials actually told me that they had asked for help – not only the Commission, also the Member State’s government – they want technical assistance on money laundering, on public procurement officials, on how to reform the administration, and they are saying that they’re not getting that help.
So how is this possible? Why don’t we protect effectively EU taxpayer money, including in Bulgaria? Why does it take US sanctions to tackle corruption, and why aren’t we helping with that? And why don’t we at least help a Member State government, when it’s asking for help and for technical assistance?
Media freedom and further deterioration of the Rule of law in Poland (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-09-15

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin war vor wenigen Tagen in Warschau und hat betont, dass die Lösung der Auseinandersetzung mit der polnischen Regierung vor allen Dingen im Dialog geschehen muss. Die Europäische Kommission ist jetzt seit Jahren im Dialog, und bisher kann ich nicht erkennen, dass es irgendeine Änderung beim Abbau von Rechtsstaatlichkeit, bei der Einschränkung von Medienfreiheit und den Angriffen auf Minderheiten gibt.
Ich glaube, in dem Sinne ist es sehr richtig, dass die Kommission nun die Strafgelder in der Missachtung des EuGH-Urteils beantragt hat. Allerdings, selbst wenn die Strafgelder kommen, kann das ja nur die Situation dieses einen Gerichtsurteils und nicht die lange Liste von Problemen in Polen angehen.
Wir haben seit dem 1. Januar mit der Rechtsstaatskonditionalität ein Werkzeug, das effektiver wäre, um die lange Liste von Rechtsstaatsproblemen und von Gefahren für die finanziellen Interessen der Union anzugehen. Die Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen hat heute Morgen angekündigt, in Kürze werde man Rechtsstaatlichkeit und das Budget der Union schützen. Ich frage mich, worauf warten wir? Warum nicht hier und jetzt, heute diesen Schutz anfangen, denn der Rechtsstaat in der Europäischen Union und in Polen ist in einer tiefen Krise.
The creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (continuation of debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-07-06

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, what do Lukashenko, Assad and Kim Jong—un have in common? Well, all three are autocrats, they hate free media and they hate our democracy, but they have also for many years been members of a club, the annual list of the worst enemies of press freedom published by Reporters Without Borders. 
Since yesterday, there is a new member of this club, Viktor Orbán. Let that sink in: a Prime Minister in the European Union is now labelled a press freedom predator. That in itself is scandalous, but it’s even worse when you think that, unlike Lukashenko, unlike Assad, unlike Kim Jong—un, the European Union is actually not sanctioning him for his authoritarian behaviour. The Commission – you, Mr Hahn – has the tools to sanction him, but you refuse to act. You say that we still need those guidelines and we need to work on those cases. We have heard this now for seven months and the facts keep being created on the ground. I’ve said it before: the inaction is having a direct and severe effect on the situation in Hungary. 
Now there are a lot Hungarian citizens that are eagerly waiting for those EUR 7.2 billion of recovery money that are scheduled to come in. They want to save their businesses and they want to invest in the future. But you know that the management of EU funds in Hungary is dismal. You know that more than half the tenders only have a single bidder and that far too often it is a friend or a family member of Viktor Orbán that wins those tenders. You know that, when corruption is actually uncovered, the prosecutors don’t pick it up because Orbán controls the prosecution. In those rare cases where a case does make it in front of a judge, courts that have been stacked by Viktor Orbán with his allies throw the cases out. They don’t punish those that steal our taxpayers’ money on an industrial scale.
So, Commissioner Hahn, we have to stop this charade. We have to stop this postponing and the tweaking of internal rules and guidelines. We need to use the rule of law conditionality. Let’s do that now.
Urgent need to complete the procedures for nominations for the full functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-06-24

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, Prime Minister Janša is abusing his power to prevent the European Prosecutor from working in Slovenia. He’s doing this not because something went wrong with the selection procedure or because something is wrong with the two candidates, they are very well qualified for the job. He is doing this out of a personal vendetta because one of the two candidates has previously investigated him personally. 
So Prime Minister Janša is following in the footsteps of Viktor Orbán and attacking the independence of the judiciary. And this just days before Slovenia takes the rotating Presidency of the Council. I think this is unacceptable. 
I was in Ljubljana last week. I met with a whistleblower called Ivan Gale. Ivan Gale used to head up the national procurement body, exposed at least 13 cases of corruption with the mass procurement of medical equipment, and for that he was fired by Mr Janša’s government and personally attacked by the Prime Minister. 
So, dear colleagues, Slovenia will receive EUR 1.8 billion of recovery money, money from all EU taxpayers, and it is our job to prevent that this money is at risk of being stolen or risk of corruption. That’s why we need the European Public Prosecutor to be operational in Slovenia as soon as possible. That is why blocking it from working is not just a formality, and that is why the European Commission urgently needs to take action. 
Mr Reynders, let me be very clear on this, because the Commission’s refusal on using the rule of law conditionality mechanism in the most outrageous cases, for example to cut funding to Hungary, is emboldening the Prime Minister of Slovenia. He clearly doesn’t fear any consequences. So as long as the Commission refuses to act, I fear that there will be more that follow in the footsteps of someone like Viktor Orbán on this road to corruption and illiberalism. So please take action, Commissioner.
Rule of law situation in the European Union and the application of the Conditionality Regulation (EU, Euratom 2020/2092) (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-06-09

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, today is the 24th debate on the rule of law, including in Hungary, since Viktor Orbán was elected in 2010. Twenty-four times we have discussed the dismantling of democracy, the attacks on the free media, on independent judges. And all these debates, of course, haven’t stopped Orbán from turning Hungary into a corrupt autocracy right at the heart of the European Union. 
First, the Commission looked away. Then the Commission said, ‘we don’t have the tools’. Now you do have the tools, but you are not using it. The Commission remains inactive while the assault on our values, on our rights and on our money continues every day. Orbán’s family and his friends keep stealing our money. And you, Commissioner, have said it again today: ‘no case will be lost’, suggesting that we have time, but we don’t.
In a bit over six months, there is an election in Hungary. And of course, the fate of Viktor Orbán is for the Hungarian voters to decide. But we need to make sure that our EU money is not contributing to rigging or stealing that election. So the inaction of the Commission is highly political, because your inaction allows Orbán to buy support with EU money. Your inaction allows Orbán to control the media coverage of that campaign. And your inaction means that the opposition is not contesting in a fair and free election in Hungary.
And that’s why, after 24 debates, after 10 years, we’re suing the Commission. Because we don’t want the European Union to support the re-election campaign of a corrupt autocrat in Hungary.
Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-06-09

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the Office of the EU Ombudsman is modelled on the Scandinavian examples of Ombudsmen, but the EU version is slightly weaker. There are no binding recommendations, for example, on access to documents and so on. So the revision of the statute could have been an opportunity to further strengthen the Ombudsman, to building towards the good examples of Ombudsmen and that we have in a couple of European countries. 
But I guess the good work that the Ombudsman has been doing for many years – holding those in power to account, fighting for more transparency against excessive revolving doors, for more transparency in the Council, for example – has not only created fans of the institution of the Ombudsman. 
So in this situation, thank you to you Paolo for having negotiated what remains a good compromise. I would have liked to seen it stronger, but I’m glad we managed this revision of the statute.
Parliament's right of inquiry (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-06-08

  Daniel Freund,  im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Untersuchungsausschüsse sind eines der wichtigsten Werkzeuge eines jeden Parlaments, denn ein Parlament soll ja Regierungshandeln, Verwaltungshandeln kontrollieren und aufklären, wenn irgendetwas schiefläuft. In Deutschland sind Untersuchungsausschüsse oft das, was von der Öffentlichkeit am meisten wahrgenommen wird in der parlamentarischen Arbeit, ob bei Wirecard oder bei der Maut. Und so unangenehm es für die betroffenen Minister oder auch für die Bundeskanzlerin ist, so essentiell ist eben dieses zur Verantwortung Ziehen für unsere Demokratie. 
Natürlich gibt es auch im politischen Arbeiten der Europäischen Union Sachen, die vor einen Untersuchungsausschuss gehören. Obwohl es im Vertrag steht, hat das Europäische Parlament immer noch nicht das Recht, Beamte, Kommissarinnen und Kommissare vorzuladen, vertrauliche Dokumente zu prüfen. Wir warten – wir haben es heute Abend schon mehrfach gehört – seit über einem Jahrzehnt.
Dem Europäischen Parlament der EU fehlt eines der wichtigsten Werkzeuge politischer Verantwortung, und die Regierungen im Rat – Sie, Frau Zacarias – wollen noch nicht einmal mit uns darüber verhandeln. Sie wollen sich Ihrer politischen Verantwortung gegenüber allen Europäerinnen und Europäern nicht stellen. Denn Sie – die Ratspräsidentschaft, der Rat insgesamt – sollen ja nicht nur dem portugiesischen Parlament gegenüber verantwortlich sein, sondern diesem Haus, von allen Europäerinnen und Europäern gewählt. So unangenehm ein wirkliches Untersuchungsrecht im Einzelfall sein mag, so wichtig ist es für die Demokratie, und solange wir uns dagegen weiter sträuben, brauchen wir uns nicht wundern, wenn die Bürgerinnen und Bürger weiter den Eindruck haben, dass sich Rat und Kommission ihrer politischen Verantwortung nicht vollumfänglich stellen wollen.
The conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-05-19

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Mr President, Andrej Babiš has become a billionaire with EU funds, so it wasn’t a surprise that there was a risk of conflict of interest when he became finance minister of his country seven years ago. The risk for conflict of interest got even larger when he became prime minister four years ago. The Commission has now certified that, but the conflict of interest persists. 
So the question to Mr Babiš is, when are you resolving this conflict? When are you stepping down? When are you selling your company or when do you stop taking EU money so that the conflict of interest goes away?
Mr Hahn, you have cut a few million in project funding, but all the direct subsidies continue to flow. So he is still one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU funding with an unresolved conflict of interest. We can’t tolerate that, and I have to say to the Council you accept that, although there was a conflict of interest, Mr Babiš negotiated the seven-year budget on behalf of his country – a budget of which he is one of the single largest beneficiaries. How can we accept that? 
I think those are questions to which not only Czech citizens, but all Europeans would like some answers.
(Applause)
Union Anti-Fraud Programme 2021-2027 (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-04-29

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, we have all seen that image of a little lonely excavator and the enormous ship stuck in the Suez Canal a few weeks ago. I think this is really the perfect image for the EU anti-fraud programme.
To stay in the metaphor, the programme is a good excavator. Giving money to national authorities and NGOs is great, of course, and we should do that, but one little excavator is not going to get that huge ship unstuck, and an anti-fraud programme of less than EUR 1 million per year per Member State is not going to stop fraud in the European Union, of course.
This budget line is supposed to protect a budget that is 10 000 times larger. It’s a nice symbolic start, but to overcome systematic fraud in the EU, we need bigger machinery – because some of the biggest fraudsters in the European Union lead national governments. I’m talking about Hungary, of course. Hungary has received about EUR 0.5 million from the previous programme per year and, despite that, there is a ten times higher fraud trade in the country than in any other Member State, according to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
So we need bigger machinery. We need some strong tug boats. I think the Commission needs to cut funding under the current Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) provisions of management and control systems, which don’t work. The Commission needs to start urgently using the rule of law conditionality mechanism. The Commission also needs to increase the budget and the resources of our anti-fraud institutions, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), OLAF and the Court of Auditors, because, if we’re spending twice the EU money over the next few years, we also need to spend twice the money on preventing fraud and corruption, I think. Finally, the Commission needs to ensure that we get a clear idea on the beneficial owners of those that receive EU funds because fraud really should not ever be given. It should be stopped in the European Union.
2019 Discharge (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-04-27

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir alle bekommen jeden Monat die sogenannte Bürokostenpauschale, 4563 EUR. 273 780 EUR im Laufe einer Legislatur – steuerfrei. Mit diesem Geld können wir uns Wahlkreisbüros anmieten, Computer, Telefone, Veranstaltungen organisieren, und wenn man das Geld richtig einsetzt, kann man damit, glaube ich, richtig viel gute Arbeit für die Europäische Union machen.
Wie mit allen öffentlichen Geldern sollten wir auch mit diesem Geld sehr gut und verantwortungsvoll umgehen. Und deshalb sind für mich hier zwei Sachen selbstverständlich: Über jeden Euro, den wir ausgeben, sollten wir Buch führen, und jeden Euro, den wir eben nicht ausgeben, sollten wir dem europäischen Steuerzahler zurückgeben.
Leider sehen das hier im Haus nicht alle so. Einige stecken das Geld in die eigene Tasche – was haben wir in den letzten Jahren nicht alles gesehen. 42 Abgeordnete haben von sich selbst ein Wahlkreisbüro gemietet. 249 Abgeordnete hatten überhaupt kein Wahlkreisbüro, haben das Geld aber trotzdem genommen. 693 Abgeordnete in der letzten Legislatur haben es geschafft, das Geld bis auf den allerletzten Cent auszugeben; das ist schon eine sehr beachtliche Leistung, die wir sonst in keiner Budgetlinie so sehen.
Man kann das Geld im Moment so ziemlich für alles ausgeben; es wird nicht nachkontrolliert bei den Abgeordneten, wofür sie das Geld ausgeben. Das Ganze ist so absurd, dass dieses Plenum seit Jahren immer wieder sagt: Diese Praxis muss sich ändern, wir brauchen mehr Kontrolle und mehr Transparenz. Aber diese demokratische Entscheidung des Plenums wird immer wieder vom Präsidium ignoriert – das muss sich endlich ändern.
Order of business
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-04-26

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Mr President, I would like you to reconsider your decision to rule inadmissible Amendment 39 on the discharge report for the European Parliament as it doesn’t fulfil any of the criteria in Rule 181(1). We have actually explicitly checked with the Legal Service before tabling this amendment, and I have a written note from the Legal Service saying that it doesn’t raise any legal concerns. So I think it would be good to put it to a vote in this House.
Application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092, the rule of law conditionality mechanism (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-03-11

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Madam President, when students forget to do their homework, legend has it that the dog ate it. I think the Commission equivalent of that is ‘we’re still working on the guidelines’.
The Commission suggested the rule of law mechanism over three years ago and seems to have been utterly surprised now by the entry into force on 1 January. It’s been three months. We haven’t seen anything of those guidelines. The Commission still refuses to apply the law, and the governments of Poland and Hungary are creating facts on the ground.
Every day we hear new news of breaches of fundamental rights, of the rule of law. New projects are awarded to the family and friends of Viktor Orbán. Commissioner Hahn, I think the Parliament’s equivalent of ‘stop making cheap excuses for not doing your homework’, is that we will sue or censure if we have to.
We will fight for the rule of law, because this is not just some school project. This is the foundation of this Union that this is about. So please do this homework.
Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2019 (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-03-09

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Emily, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Günther Oettinger hat 14 neue Jobs genehmigt bekommen. Sieben dieser neuen Jobs sind für registrierte Lobbyorganisationen, plus er hat seine eigene Beratungsfirma aufgemacht. Die Bürgerbeauftragte hat zu Recht darauf hingewiesen, dass einer dieser neuen Arbeitgeber als Hauptkunden Philip Morris hat. 
Günther Oettinger ist ja nicht so gefragt, weil er sich so gut mit Tunnelbohrmaschinen auskennt, sondern er wird angeheuert, weil er beste Kontakte in die Politik hat. Er wird eingestellt, weil er dabei helfen soll, Gesetze und Entscheidungen zu beeinflussen. Genau das soll aber hier eigentlich nicht passieren. Die Kommission sagt immer, Oettinger solle seine Ex-Kollegen nicht lobbyieren. Ich frage mich aber: Was macht er denn bei einer Lobbyfirma, wenn er nicht lobbyieren darf? 
Interessenkonflikte sind da vorprogrammiert. Sie, Frau Bürgerbeauftragte, haben das schon 2019 immer wieder beklagt. Sie haben auch gesagt: Es gibt ja die Möglichkeit, diese Folgebeschäftigungen zu verbieten. 
Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich finde, es ist Zeit, dass wir den Empfehlungen der Bürgerbeauftragten noch deutlich mehr Gewicht geben und noch besser auf sie hören.
The state of play of the EU’s COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-02-10

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Madam President, I would ask Ms von der Leyen why it is we are still not able to see the contracts. So far we have heard that it’s because the pharmaceutical companies do not agree, even though I don’t really understand how the scrutiny of the European Parliament – of the Commission – is somehow conditional on the agreement of pharmaceutical companies. 
Anyway, I went to the reading room, I handed over my phone, I signed the non-disclosure agreement, and then I got to read these fun details of the agreements that we have struck. These are probably the most valuable contracts that the EU has ever concluded, certainly in terms of the economic impact if we made a bad deal in this case. But we as Parliament cannot read them. You have now offered a contact group and thankfully, a Belgian minister has tweeted the prices.
But I don’t think that democratic control can work on accidental or restricted transparency, and actually, transparency should be your best friend because it protects you against blame—shifting by the Member States. That’s what gains you trust, and it allows us to avoid mistakes, particularly in the future. So I think you should try a bit more transparency.
Lack of transparency on Council appointments to the EPPO (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2021-01-20

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Mr President, Ms Zakarias, the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) is supposed to be a leap forward in the fight against corruption and fraud, but Council seems to be working against the success of EPPO.
You do not want to provide adequate funding for EPPO; two Member States still refuse to appoint full—time prosecutors, and three governments have now heavily interfered with the selection process. Belgium, Bulgaria and your own government have chosen to ignore the ranking by the independent experts. Belgium rather wanted the guy that used to work in the cabinet of the minister that nominated him. Your Portuguese government provided false information to the other Member States – and I thought we were going to select the best guy for the job.
I honestly don’t understand why the other governments in Council tolerate this, and if Member States are not able or willing to check the dubious personnel choices of their fellow governments, then I think Council is not the suitable institution to make these choices, because we need a fully—functioning, well—staffed EPPO to start its work.
(Applause)
OLAF cooperation with EPPO and the effectiveness of its investigations (continuation of debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-12-17

   Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, yesterday we approved the EU budget and the corona recovery funds – EUR 1.8 trillion of European solidarity. But, we have to be honest: some of this money will be stolen. If we, the European Union, are going to spend almost twice as much, we should at least double the budget of our anti-corruption bodies: the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). I honestly do not understand why, in this situation, you, Commissioner Hahn, have not approved the EUR 10 million in additional funding that the EPPO requested to properly function. 
Maybe even more seriously, two thirds of the fraud that is uncovered by OLAF is simply ignored by the Member States. At this point in the EU version of Monopoly, we have to rename the Get Out of Jail Free card and call it the ‘Member States don’t cooperate with OLAF’ card. This has to stop. OLAF and the EPPO need to be properly funded and staffed. Member States urgently need to improve their cooperation with the anti-corruption bodies. Sweden, Ireland and Denmark need to join the European Public Prosecutor, because they are giving a cheap excuse to Poland and Hungary not to join. Finally, if Member States don’t cooperate with OLAF, we have to cut their funding under the Common Provisions Regulation, because it clearly means that the management and control systems are not working. It has to be clear: if EU money is stolen, we won’t let people get away with it.
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 10-11 December 2020 – MFF, Rule of Law Conditionality and Own Resources – Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 – Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources – Regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-12-16

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Viktor Orbán schafft nur vier Tage nach dem europäischen Gipfel weiter Fakten. Er schreibt die systematische Plünderung von EU-Geldern jetzt direkt in die Verfassung von Ungarn. Genau das soll ja dieser Rechtsstaatsmechanismus eigentlich verhindern. Aber anstatt dafür zu sorgen, dass er jetzt möglichst schnell kommt und wir ihn benutzen können, hat der Europäische Rat ihn noch mal eine Weile auf Eis gelegt: zwei Jahre, vielleicht drei, im Zweifel bis nach den nächsten Wahlen in Ungarn.
Lieber Michael Roth: Beim Juli-Gipfel habt ihr die Hürde zum Auslösen dieses Mechanismus deutlich nach oben gelegt. Dann habt ihr diesen Kompromissvorschlag gemacht, in dem ihr den Geltungsbereich reduziert habt, und ihr hattet sogar das Wort „Rechtsstaat“ aus dem Text gestrichen. Und jetzt wird die Kommission also gezwungen, mit Sanktionen noch mal zu warten. Ich muss sagen: Ich habe Probleme, hier wirklich einen großen Erfolg für den europäischen Rechtsstaat durch die deutsche Ratspräsidentschaft zu erkennen.
Frau von der Leyen: Wir haben im Trilog vereinbart, dass dieses Gesetz zum 1. Januar in Kraft tritt. So steht es im Gesetz, so sehen es die Verträge vor – egal, ob Polen oder Ungarn dagegen klagen. Genau so muss es jetzt kommen, denn der Rechtsstaat kann ja nicht warten. Wir müssen alle Werkzeuge einsetzen, die die Kommission zur Verfügung hat, um den europäischen Rechtsstaat zu verteidigen.
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 10-11 December 2020 (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-11-25

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wie kann das eigentlich sein, dass Viktor Orbán ganz Europa an der Nase herumführt? Die Kommission, die große Mehrheit hier im Parlament, fast alle Mitgliedstaaten wollten eine Rechtsstaatskonditionalität mit umgedrehter qualifizierter Mehrheit. Orbán hat sich durchgesetzt, und auch wir hier im Parlament haben diesen sehr schmerzhaften Kompromiss geschluckt, weil wir in dieser schwersten Krise die Millionen von Europäerinnen und Europäern, die vielen tausend Unternehmen eben nicht im Regen stehen lassen wollen.
Trotzdem haben wir jetzt dieses Veto. Es ist die nächste Stufe in einem zehnjährigen Prozess, und ich glaube, es ist Zeit, dass wir uns endlich eingestehen, dass diese Appeasement-Politik mit Viktor Orbán nicht funktioniert. Wir sehen es an den Verfassungsänderungen. Jetzt schreibt er, dass die Plünderung der EU-Gelder weitergehen kann, sollte er irgendwann eine Wahl verlieren. Er schreibt es in die Verfassung, und die ändert er auch noch, damit er die Wahl nicht verliert und es der Opposition noch schwieriger macht.
In dieser Situation ist leider die deutsche Ratspräsidentschaft jetzt zum zweiten Mal schon nicht für die Debatte hier im Parlament. Ich finde, Sie sollten stattdessen endlich die Ratifizierung der Konditionalität durchbringen. Das ist das richtige Signal, das wir jetzt brauchen.
Stocktaking of European elections (continuation of debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-11-24

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich glaube, wir müssen ehrlich mit uns sein: Das, was nach der Europawahl passiert ist, war nicht unbedingt ein großer Fortschritt für die europäische Demokratie. Wir als Parlament haben es in der Tat nicht geschafft, einen Spitzenkandidaten durchzusetzen. Ironischerweise haben CDU/CSU, die Konservativen, ja in der letzten Legislatur gegen transnationale Listen gestimmt und es damit den Staats- und Regierungschefs besonders einfach gemacht, über ihren Spitzenkandidaten, Manfred Weber, hinwegzugehen und jemanden vorzuschlagen, der nicht zur Europawahl angetreten ist.
Wenn wir es also ernst meinen mit europäischer Demokratie, dann müssen wir in Zukunft dafür sorgen, dass das Grundprinzip einer jeden funktionierenden Demokratie erfüllt wird, dass also Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten und Parteien mit Programmen antreten und diejenigen, die dann eine Mehrheit holen oder eine Koalition basteln, die eine Mehrheit stellt, dann eben auch die Spitzenposten füllen.
Deshalb – da kann ich dem Kollegen Rangel nur widersprechen: Wenn wir das hinbekommen wollen, wenn wir diese europäische Demokratie so bauen wollen, dann habe ich bisher keine bessere Idee gesehen, als dass alle Europäerinnen und Europäer für diesen Spitzenposten eben auch ihre Stimme abgeben können.
Multiannual Financial Framework (including Own Resources), Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism and the Recovery Fund for Europe (continuation of debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-11-11

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Mr President, you might have noticed that two governments – Hungary and Poland – are fuming since last Thursday, since we struck this historic deal on the rule of law conditionality. The Polish minister has been speaking of political, cultural and economic colonisation, and Hungary goes a step further, as always, and speaks of the execution of the Soros plan.
What a bizarre fantasy land these people live in. Hungary and Poland are among the biggest recipients of EU funds. They have profited to the tune of EUR 180 billion of European solidarity since they acceded to the European Union and now, at this moment, where millions of citizens, where thousands of businesses need a lifeline from us and are expecting European solidarity, this is the moment that they threaten to block the whole package, because Kaczyński wants to continue to throw out judges that he doesn’t like and because Orbán wants to keep lining his own pockets.
I think one thing is pretty obvious: that those that are screaming the loudest now about this are the ones that have to fear the most from this new conditionality. Just last night, the Hungarian minister, as some colleagues have referred to, has put forward new constitutional changes that would make it impossible for the opposition to run in a coordinated fashion. In Poland, we have an ECJ ruling that this so—called disciplinary chamber should cease to exist, but it continues to operate and to put judges out of work.
For years we have seen how the situation is deteriorating. Commissioner Hahn, I was recently in Hungary. I visited Klub Radio, which is about to lose its frequency – the last independent radio station in Hungary. There are thousands of people in Poland on the street because they lost the independence of the judiciary. These citizens do not have the time to wait. They don’t have the time to wait for another rule of law report, another dialogue, we need to act. When this enters into force on 1 January, we don’t have a minute to lose, it’s time to act.
Rule of Law conditionality in the framework of the MFF 2021-2027 and Next Generation EU (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-10-05

  Daniel Freund,  im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, lieber Michael Roth! Der Vorschlag, den ihr zu Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der EU gemacht habt, legt die Hürde so hoch, dass wir alle wissen, in der Praxis wird es so nie zu einer Sanktion kommen.
Wenn es in einem Mitgliedstaat keine unabhängigen Medien mehr gibt, so wie das ja jetzt in Ungarn schon der Fall ist, dann soll da nicht sanktioniert werden können. Wenn in einem Mitgliedstaat die Regierung alle ihr unliebsamen Richter rausschmeißt, so wie sich das die polnische Regierung gerne vorstellt, dann müsste die Kommission erst einmal beweisen, wo das die EU-Steuerzahler Geld kostet, bevor wir sanktionieren können.
Das hat doch mit dem Schutz des Rechtsstaats nichts zu tun. Das ist auch kein Kompromiss zwischen dem, was das Europäische Parlament schon vor anderthalb Jahren hier beschlossen hat, und eurer Position im Rat. Das, was ihr vorgelegt habt, ist ein weiteres Einknicken vor dem Diktator in Budapest.
Damit muss endlich Schluss sein! Wir brauchen diesen funktionierenden, wirklich funktionierenden, Rechtsstaatsmechanismus, im Notfall gegen Ungarn und Polen. 
Der Bluff, dass sie jetzt die ganzen Corona-Hilfen für die ganze Europäische Union sabotieren wollen, wird sich in Luft auflösen, wenn ihr im Europäischen Rat endlich zusammen mit uns im Europäischen Parlament für den Rechtsstaat in Europa kämpft.
The rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-10-05

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I actually went to the protests in Sofia last week. I had the opportunity to speak to a lot of people on the ground. I heard that they are fed up with the corruption in Bulgaria. I heard that the justice system is captured, and I heard that media freedom is being eroded at an alarming pace. So I can understand that Bulgarians are fed up with the speed of reform. I can understand that they say EU money, in a lot of cases, is actually making things worse, because systematically the EU funds that we give are being stolen by a corrupt elite. They are being used to cement their power or to buy up the remaining independent media. 
So what are we doing as the European Union? Well, what Bulgarians see is that we are publishing another report on the rule of law. They see that Donald Tusk is fist-bumping Borisov, and a Prime Minister that has recently called protestors ‘gamblers and smugglers’. But what Bulgarians unfortunately so far are not seeing is decisive action from the European Union. The Commission is contemplating stopping the CVM; the European Council is dismantling the rule-of-law mechanism. So when I asked the Bulgarians on the ground what we should do as the European Union, the reply was unanimous: everyone I met was telling me, ‘Please stop the EU funds, because that money is not feeding hungry children. If you stop the money, you are basically taking away the caviar from corrupt oligarchs.’ So I think that is right, that is what we should do. And the EU should be with those citizens who are fighting corruption and fighting for democracy in Bulgaria.
State of play of Council negotiations on the Regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-07-09

  Daniel Freund,  im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, lieber Michael Roth! Ich war letzte Woche in einer Suppenküche in Budapest und habe dort einen ehemaligen Weggefährten von Viktor Orbán getroffen.
Gábor Iványi hilft den Schwächsten, denen, die von Fidesz ich am schärfsten angegriffen werden: Flüchtlingen und Obdachlosen. Weil Iványi offen Kritik übt, weil er Korruption anprangert, weil er für die Grundrechte kämpft, macht Viktor Orbán ihn fertig. Er hat seine Kirche aberkannt, hat alle öffentlichen Gelder gestrichen, er versucht, sein Lebenswerk zu zerstören – es ist ein bisschen wie bei der Mafia. Iványi ist nicht der Einzige in Ungarn, sondern allen, die Kritik üben, geht das so: Sie werden bedroht, gefeuert, drangsaliert.
Im Mafia-Staat von Viktor Orbán hat die Opposition keinen Platz mehr. In den letzten Jahren gab es kein einziges Interview, keine einzige Talkshow im öffentlichen Fernsehen, wo Oppositionelle eingeladen wurden. In der Zwischenzeit wird Orbáns Bande unglaublich reich: sein Vater, sein Schwiegersohn, seine Schulfreunde. Es ist nicht ungesehen, dass man vom Installateur zum Milliardär wird. Orbán selbst baut sich ein Stadion vors Haus, er baut die Orbán-Bahn ins Nirgendwo. Ich war letzte Woche der einzige Fahrgast. Es ist der komplette Irrsinn.
Michael, die Rolle der deutschen Bundesregierung in dieser Geschichte ist beschämend. Die führende Nachrichtenseite Origó wurde von der Deutschen Telekom an Fidesz-Leute verscherbelt. Die Bundesregierung hält eine Sperrminorität, und Ihr schaut weg, ihr nennt nicht mal den Namen Ungarns. Wenn Orbán den Corona-Notstand missbraucht, dann taucht der Name Ungarn nicht auf.
Die Verhandlungen zu MFR und zum Rettungsfonds sind jetzt die letzte Chance, diese Plünderung in Ungarn zu stoppen. Es ist die letzte Chance zu zeigen, dass Werte für uns nicht verhandelbar sind. Wir können uns wirklich nicht erlauben, dass wir Orbán jetzt noch einmal Milliarden ohne Kontrolle und ohne Sanktionen hinterherwerfen. Bitte gebt das nicht auf, nächste Woche im Rat!
Conference on the Future of Europe (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-06-17

  Daniel Freund,  on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I have 90 seconds of speaking time today. That’s the same amount that the European Council took to discuss the outcome of the last major exercise of citizen consultation. We talked to hundreds of thousands of Europeans in over 1 600 citizens’ dialogues. When I read now the draft Council mandate, I have to say that I am shocked the outcome of the two-year debate on the conference should simply be another discussion of the Council behind closed doors. How do you explain to citizens that we are having a debate on the future of Europe, but that you don't really want them to change anything, that we’re excluding the possibility of treaty change, of real change, before the debate has even started? I think that’s absurd. 
So we are in a situation where, for the second time in a decade, we are slipping into the worst economic crisis. Millions of Europeans are losing their jobs, particularly young people. Many of them had just gotten out of the last crisis. The question now is: can we or do we want to afford losing another decade, or are we finally going to address the structural shortcomings of this Union, and make sure that we get out of this crisis faster than the last one.
I hear in the Council that the conference has become a bit of a running joke, a running gag. I think this House has made it very clear that citizen participation is not a joke, that meaningful reform of the Union is not a joke, and that coming out of this crisis stronger and more united is not a joke. So the Council really needs to stop joking around now. Let’s start working on the future of Europe, I think it is about time.
Conclusions of the special European Council meeting of 20 February 2020 on the Multiannual Financial framework (debate)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance / Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Date: 2020-03-10

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE).   – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden heute über den nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen, und ich finde, da muss man auch sagen: Wir verlieren in der EU jedes Jahr viele Millionen Euro Steuergelder an Korruption. Wir haben in einer Reihe von Mitgliedstaaten ein systematisches Problem. Transparency International hat zum Beispiel aufgezeigt: Millionen von EU-Steuergeldern fließen an den Milliardär und Premierminister Babiş. Und gleichzeitig sehen wir eben auch im Budget, dass wir viel zu wenig Geld für die Institutionen ausgeben, die genau das verhindern sollen: Korruption, Betrug, Missmanagement. OLAF, Eurojust, die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft – alle haben zu wenig Ressourcen, und gleichzeitig binden wir die Mitgliedschaft bei diesen Institutionen, gerade bei der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft, nicht an das europäische Budget. Das heißt, die Einhaltung der Grundregeln, der Kampf gegen Korruption wird nicht mit der Auszahlung von EU-Geldern verknüpft. Ich finde, das geht nicht, das ist ein Verrat an unseren Werten. Wir brauchen einen funktionierenden Rechtsstaatsmechanismus, der endlich dafür sorgt, dass Korruption bekämpft wird, dass die Grundwerte eingehalten werden. Das muss die Bedingung für EU-Gelder sein.