misclassified/meps_speeches_with_translation.csv huggingface dataset:
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-09-16
Debate: United States sanctions and the Rule of law (debate)

  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?
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-09-15
Debate: Media freedom and further deterioration of the Rule of law in Poland (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-07-06
Debate: The creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (continuation of debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-06-24
Debate: Urgent need to complete the procedures for nominations for the full functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-06-09
Debate: Rule of law situation in the European Union and the application of the Conditionality Regulation (EU, Euratom 2020/2092) (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-06-09
Debate: Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-06-08
Debate: Parliament's right of inquiry (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-05-19
Debate: The conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (debate)

  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)
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-04-29
Debate: Union Anti-Fraud Programme 2021-2027 (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-04-27
Debate: 2019 Discharge (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-04-26
Debate: Order of business

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-03-11
Debate: Application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092, the rule of law conditionality mechanism (debate)

  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.
Speaker: Daniel FREUND (Germany — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
Political group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Date: 2021-03-09
Debate: Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2019 (debate)

  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.