Special committee on the European Democracy Shield Extraordinary meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Versatz
Versatz des Transkripts
Exportieren
Aufzeichnung
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 5. Oktober 2026Angezeigt
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 5. Oktober 2026
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
EUDS European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenAlain Berset
The pact and the shield work together. Both protect democracy against threats such as foreign interference, disinformation, attacks on elections, and I think that work is really vital. And the pact also looks under the surface at what makes democracy resilient. It means institutions are what we see, as I mentioned before, trust is what we don't see until it is gone. So we can work together in three ways.
First, geography. The shield covers the 27 countries of the European Union, the pact covers the 46 countries of the Council of Europe. Disinformation does not stop at the EU borders. I mean, our response cannot either, and as we saw recently in Moldova, in Ukraine, in Armenia, in Georgia and in the Western Balkans, we already run joint programs. The first is geography, the second is standards.
The convention, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the opinions of the Venice Commission give a legal backbone we share with the EU through its Charter of Fundamental Rights. And we have also the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI. This is another example I can just mention in this context, and your parliament, this parliament approved it, and the EU became the first, and thank you for this, to ratify this convention. And the third, after geography and standards, are the common rules.
And that brings me now to foreign information manipulation and interference. Last May again in Chișinău, Moldova, the Council of Europe ministers gave the green light to work on a legal instrument on FIMI. Its form is still open. It could be the first international legal instrument of its kind, open beyond EU and designed from the outset to be coherent with the EU's own tools. It will give the objectives we share with the EU a pan-European legal anchor and set common rules for all 46 Council of Europe member states on a threat that knows, as I mentioned before, no borders.
And this is also what your recent report calls for, I was mentioning before. Common standards with like-minded partners, including the Council of Europe. So I count on your political support as this work advances and our strong collaboration making this happen. The next point will be on defending democracy but not at the price of its principles. These rules cannot weaken the democracy they protect, if we think about FIMI.
Over decades, the European Court of Human Rights has been clear: democracy means pluralism, freedom of expression protects ideas that also offend, shock or disturb, elections must be free, and the rule of law means rules that are accessible, foreseeable and subject to review. That means that countering interference must never become a pretext to silence civil society, as some laws on foreign influence have done. Every balance has a cost. Democracy weighs it openly within the limits of human rights. That is where we can, I think, work together.
Some few words before to close on the timeline. We have now a consultation on the pact. This consultation is running until end of December. We are expecting a final publication that will follow in April 2027, and Council of Europe member states will decide on the next steps at the ministerial session in next May. And then in 2028, they may recommit to a pact, not a new definition of democracy, obviously not, but a commitment to the conditions it needs to deliver in the context we know today.
You are elected members of the EU Parliament. You are closest to the people this pact wants to reach. So I think we can also all together take our part, share the views and encourage citizens to join the online consultation on 12th October, bring its questions to political families, to constituencies, including the voices we rarely hear, and help us connect, really strongly connect the shield and the pact. I think a shield protects, a pact commits, and Europe needs both. Let me end with maybe a question for you, if I may also ask a question in this context, Madam Chair.
Where do you see the Council of Europe being most useful in following up your report? So, and now I thank you very much for this invitation again, for your attention, and I look forward to our exchange this evening.
Nathalie Loiseau
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary General. Now I give the floor to my colleagues and I will not forget to answer your question at some point, at least on my personal behalf. First, EPP, Tomáš Zdechovský.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have one question and maybe one remark also. What do you think, what changed now in the Europe? Do you think that really we have to still be very, very calm and doesn't react to the all operation, Russian operation, what we see in European Union?
We are now in France. In the Czech Republic you can see that many bots are presenting what's happen now in France, the protests, the riots what they are doing against the schools. And in all Czech social media you can see that this is this is really main topic. Are you sure that we have it in our hands or do you think there is there is time for the action? And what do you think it's any right to have it anonymized account and to publish lies about the European Union and about democracy or it's time to really something to do with this anonymized account?
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Now for the S&Ds I have to figure out who speaks first. Is it... okay, he'll be first. On the second round, yes. So Sandro Ruotolo.
Sandro Ruotolo
Grazie Presidente, grazie Segretario, mi ritrovo molto nella sua analisi di cambiamento epocale delle democrazie liberali, quindi delle delle guerre ibride. Lei il collega ha parlato delle della della guerra, diciamo, russa. Però io le pongo anche altro come materia di riflessione, perché noi avremo nel 2027, anzi già prima del 2027, delle scadenze elettorali molto importanti in Europa. Cominciamo con la Spagna a novembre, poi c'è l'Italia, la Francia, la Polonia. Allora, e allora la notizia di cronaca è che a pochi giorni dal primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali brasiliane, Meta ha sospeso per alcune ore gli annunci sulla pagina Facebook del presidente candidato Lula e nello stesso giorno sospeso anche un profilo Instagram che aveva diffuso un video virale accusando Bolsonaro di corruzione.
Quindi da una parte è stato fermato il, come dire, il candidato progressista, dall'altra un contenuto contro il suo principale rivale di destra. E quindi è chiaro che la, come dire, la riflessione va sul ruolo delle piattaforme. Noi l'altra settimana a Bruxelles abbiamo incontrato l'ex presidente Petro della Colombia e ci ha parlato anche lui di tecnofascismo, cioè di questo ruolo delle delle piattaforme urgenti, che quindi è un rischio ancora più urgente oggi con Donald Trump alla Casa Bianca e alcuni degli uomini più ricchi e potenti della tecnologia americana che hanno il controllo sulle piattaforme. Allora, giustamente parliamo della guerra ibrida di Mosca, ma il condizionamento delle democrazie passa anche attraverso, come dire, il potere delle piattaforme, degli algoritmi in mano all'amministrazione di Donald Trump e a qualche cinese di turno. E allora la legge sui servizi digitali impone alle piattaforme di ridurre i rischi elettorali.
Ma chi controlla concretamente queste decisioni? Se la sicurezza democratica è uno dei fondamenti del nuovo patto, io ci credo su questo un attimo, chiudo, quali strumenti possiamo costruire perché una campagna elettorale non venga condizionata da algoritmi opachi o dalle decisioni di società private? Noi abbiamo la Spagna, la Francia, l'Italia, i paesi che hanno fondato questa Europa e il rischio è molto elevato.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci Madame la Présidente. Merci à Monsieur Berset pour sa présentation du nouveau pacte démocratique pour l'Europe. Alors je vois effectivement des similitudes avec le bouclier européen de la démocratie et à première vue, je ferais les mêmes critiques. C'est-à-dire qu'il y a un contrôle de l'information, il y a une place très importante donnée aux ONG et on sent bien une méfiance vis-à-vis des résultats électoraux. Alors je concentrerai mes questions sur deux aspects.
Le premier, Monsieur Berset, vous avez, vous écrivez dans votre rapport à un moment, je cite : "La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a estimé qu'un parti politique peut mener campagne en faveur d'un changement constitutionnel à deux conditions : premièrement, les moyens utilisés à cet effet doivent à tous égards être légaux et démocratiques et deuxièmement, le changement proposé doit lui-même être compatible avec les principes démocratiques fondamentaux." Donc ma première question : quels sont ces principes démocratiques fondamentaux dont vous parlez ? Est-ce que ce n'est pas l'élection souveraine d'une nation par le peuple qui est le principe fondamental et faites-vous encore confiance aux citoyens ? Ma deuxième question portera sur la manière de regard que vous portez sur les politiques d'immigration. On voit que vous êtes inquiet par rapport au renforcement de la rétention administrative, l'évaluation de l'âge par exemple.
Or dans ce Parlement, Parlement européen, nous avons il y a quelques semaines voté pour un renforcement du règlement retour par exemple. Et il y a eu à l'initiative de Madame Meloni neuf chefs de gouvernement, chefs d'État qui ont demandé un dialogue ouvert sur le rôle et sur l'interprétation de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme afin qu'elle ne soit pas instrumentalisée pour bloquer les politiques migratoires décidées souverainement par les États. Donc ma question est simple là aussi : est-ce que refuser des politiques migratoires plus restrictives n'est-il pas susceptible en réalité de saper la confiance des citoyens puisque les citoyens de manière plus majoritaire aujourd'hui veulent davantage de fermeté ? Est-ce que ce n'est pas saper la confiance des citoyens de vouloir aller à l'encontre ? Merci beaucoup.
Helmut Brandstätter
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Secretary General, I'm just coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina, we had very interesting elections there yesterday. And one of the real very important points is that they introduced new ways, technical ways of voting, and of course it was much more difficult to forge anything or to do anything wrong and we could see that this was reality. But what we also saw and heard was the Russian influence of course in Republika Srpska, Mr. Dodik, who is not allowed to have an office right now, went to Moscow a few days before the elections, promised again he would get money from Moscow which never arrived and people should know it. And what people told us there is the situation of the media.
So in Republika Srpska, those who were against him had very difficult chance to be on television for instance and social media is more and more important and if you check who are the owners of those platforms you don't find out. So I think that's one very important thing. It's not censorship, it's everybody should be allowed to say what he or she wants to do, but if you have a media, and I was an editor-in-chief for a long time, you have responsibility and it's very easy to say transparency. So you open your media, do whatever you want, but there must be transparent who is the owner and then it's easier for other people to understand where comes the money from. That's one thing.
And the second thing is you ask how we can cooperate.
Of course, this is Resilience Center of the European Union. We will see and we will talk to the Commission how that works out. But I think it's about fact-checking. As we know from Moldova, 300 million dollars or euro investment by Russia to destabilize the country. As we know from this new bot farm in Africa, the "I'm not in war with Russia", you know, this whole organization was built out from Russians in an African country just for disinformation in Europe.
And these are the points where we have to talk about. Should it be allowed to have, sorry, should it be allowed to build up an organization like this with African bots to influence people here, which people which cannot understand where that comes from? So it's all about transparency. Freedom of expression 100%, but at the same time transparency. Thank you.
Nathalie Loiseau
Thank you. The floor goes back to you, Mr. Secretary General. Maybe my personal answer on your question, how can the Council of Europe and the European Parliament work better together? I would say that the very big added value that the Council of Europe has is that you don't limit yourself to 27, but a number of candidate countries are members of the Council of Europe, candidate countries which long for the protections and the tools that we have at the EU 27 level. For instance, the Digital Services Act does not benefit countries like, I would say, Moldova or many others.
And I think that everything that belongs to a pact and can be similar for all members of the Council of Europe would be a big plus for these countries. But the floor is yours.
Alain Berset
Thank you. Thank you very much for the interest and for the questions. I will start maybe with the first question that you asked and to tell you that I'm really sharing your worrying about what's happening right now. But I think what we see, take this example that we have in France now, but it can be on other people, in another country, in another direction. All those elements are warning signals.
They are warning signals that probably the democratic institutions, how they work, are not seen enough anymore as able to deliver for the people. And why we need first of all to understand the roots of this and then to see how we can address this. I think the roots, to mention just two elements, I think one of the roots is the huge sequence of crises that we have seen since 20 years. And it started, you know, with the, I would maybe put the very beginning to the financial crisis. I was, I must tell you, I was at that time working in Switzerland in the parliament and I was thinking that's, you know, first of all a thing for the banks, that's not concerning the citizens.
How wrong was I. Because after this financial crisis, we had the debt crisis of the states, rise of inequalities, then we had the first, not linked, first stage of the war in Ukraine with the Crimea, a lot of other things. We can speak about the COVID crisis, we can speak about the energy crisis, we can speak about the full-scale invasion. And now we have a kind of, I would say, technological maybe not crisis, but a lot of questions about, you know, when I was in the US recently, when you read the papers, every second day it is just written in the papers that we'll be all dead in two years because of AI.
And nobody believes that it's true, but it's not creating a positive, you know, climate for the people. And this creates a lot of insecurity, instability, and the people have the impression that if it's not going better for me, but worse, it means that the democracy is not delivering anymore. That's the first element. The second element is about acceleration. This huge acceleration that we see now is creating also a huge challenge for democracies because when you have such a lot of changes between two elections in a country, it is difficult because the government has to react to what's happening, but it was not an issue at the moment where it has been elected.
And the people can have like the impression, but I know they have not been elected to do what they are doing now. And we need to have this link again between the time we need for electoral and democratic processes and the real things happening on the ground. I think we have warning signals and the question that will answer also your question in answering other questions because it came then on the solutions or maybe points we need to address. Thank you very much for the questions you raised. I fully agree with a lot of things you said about the, you know, the situation we are witnessing.
We are all witnessing the same reality. The question is then what can we do to have the right answers for the people in this context? And yes, I think we have a huge concern today with the technological changes. It's not the first time in the humanity that we are confronted with a technological revolution. What makes this time that it is very special?
It is happening in few years. I mean, not for the big companies, not for the general movement, you know, because Alan Turing was in the fifties asking what would happen if, or could machine think? It's not new. But the changes we see in the societies are now and they are starting and they are having huge impact in very short term. I mean, for the industrial revolution, it was also a revolution, but it took decades.
And it was possible, you know, to follow for adaptation, to adapt generation after generation and to have, I mean, tailored answer to what was happening. Here it's much more difficult. And we need to address this. I just want to mention the AI convention of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe started the work with the member states in 2017.
Mathusalem. 17. And then we had the text open for signature in 24. Seven years. What's happening on the AI level in seven years?
And now two years later, and thank you again for the ratification, it's still not into force because we don't have enough ratification. We are by far too slow in this moment and acceleration on our side is also one of the elements. And the question then, who is controlling those instruments is a really important question. Unfortunately, we must, you know, for me at the Council of Europe, we are doing a lot in this with the European Union. But to be honest, I mean, the main companies, they are in the US, they are in China, and they are not really willing to control each other because they want to make sure as sure as possible that they are first.
I mean, it's quite complicated for us to claim that we will be able to make something strong in this. That's why I think we need to work with others, not alone. We need to work with others at my poor level. What am I doing? I'm trying to collaborate with other multilateral regional organization in the US.
That was also the reason of my presence in Washington with this level. But it seems to be, you know, quite difficult to have this space at this moment. Merci beaucoup pour la question sur le nouveau pacte démocratique, député Leggeri, membre du Parlement.
Je dois vous dire, je vous écoutais et puis je me suis dit qu'il faudrait qu'on creuse un petit peu la question sur qu'est-ce qu'on entend vraiment par le pacte. Parce qu'en réalité, vous y avez vu un contrôle de l'information, une importance aux ONG et une méfiance face aux résultats électoraux. Pour moi, aucun de ces trois éléments est présent dans le pacte. C'est même plutôt le contraire. Si on regarde ce qu'il a dû être fait dans certains processus électoraux récents, il y a une série de mesures qui ont été prises qui précisément sont allées assez loin.
Je ne suis pas certain qu'elles seraient toutes en concordance avec la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme parce que ce que nous devons réussir à faire, c'est protéger la démocratie sans policer ou sans mettre une police du discours. C'est ça, c'est pas si simple parce qu'il est très facile de prétendre protéger la démocratie en limitant les libertés. Mais ça c'est pas durable et c'est pas tenable. Et nous voulons justement mener une discussion qui soit un peu différente. Il y a des limites évidemment.
Toute liberté a ses limites, tout le monde le voit bien. Mais de faire attention à ce que ce soit aussi large que possible dans une manière qui soit vraiment débattue et discutée ensemble pour pouvoir avoir une adaptation de la démocratie à ce nouveau contexte mais sans, dans le fond, limiter la force et la puissance de la démocratie. J'ai dit dans mon discours tout à l'heure que en fait, j'ai plus la phrase exacte, mais que en fait la liberté d'expression, elle est là aussi pour avoir des idées qui choquent, qui nous plaisent pas. Et c'est ça la liberté d'expression. C'est pas la liberté de dire n'importe quoi mais c'est la liberté d'avoir des opinions qui sont dans un cadre quand même très large.
C'est ce qu'on essaie de faire d'ailleurs en promouvant le débat, en invitant des gens avec lesquels peut-être moi je ne suis pas d'accord ou d'autres ne sont pas d'accord parce qu'en réalité le dialogue et le débat, il est important quand on est d'accord, c'est bien joli, mais il est essentiel quand on n'est pas d'accord. C'est ça l'idée du débat et de la démocratie. Moi je viens d'un pays dans lequel le gouvernement, quand j'y ai participé pendant douze ans, c'est pas ce que je fais aujourd'hui, le gouvernement chez moi il couvrait pour sept personnes quatre partis politiques. De la gauche assez loin de l'échiquier politique à la droite assez loin de l'échiquier politique. Et l'idée c'est justement de forcer ces personnes-là qui veulent toutes le bien pour leur pays de travailler ensemble et de chercher la solution.
C'est aussi un peu dans ce sens-là que nous travaillons. Et donc les principes fondamentaux, les élections souveraines, la confiance aux citoyens, évidemment. La démocratie c'est dans un cadre où on respecte les règles du jeu d'accepter que c'est une équipe qui gagne mais que ça peut être l'autre aussi. C'est comme sur un terrain de football. Par contre, si une des équipes commence à détruire les règles du jeu, à ne pas respecter le poids du ballon ou la taille du but, alors là il faut dire attention, stop.
Par contre, ça doit pouvoir être une équipe qui gagne ou l'autre sinon naturellement on va créer des tensions qui vont être insupportables à terme et ça va pas fonctionner, pas tenir. La démocratie, moi c'est ce que je dis, elle évolue avec des respirations. C'est pas comme sur un terrain de foot, l'attaque et la défense c'est pas deux minutes deux minutes, c'est beaucoup plus long, c'est une génération. Et c'est probablement ce que nous sommes en train de vivre. Sur l'immigration, je vous remercie pour la question parce qu'en réalité il y a eu cette lettre.
Alors je dois parler un moment de ça maintenant, Madame la Présidente, je vous prie de m'excuser. Mais il y a eu cette lettre des neuf États membres du Conseil de l'Europe, par ailleurs tous membres de l'Union européenne en même temps, on a ça en commun. Ils ont publié une lettre ouverte posant des questions sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, lettre ouverte dans laquelle le Conseil de l'Europe n'est même pas mentionné mais on mentionne, Dieu sait pourquoi, l'OTAN. Bon, comprenez que ma première réaction était un peu irritée en disant qu'est-ce que c'est que cette histoire, comment voulez-vous qu'on travaille sur des bases comme ça.
Donc je l'ai fait savoir parce que c'était un peu une manière de remettre un petit peu d'ordre dans le débat pour dire attendez, la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, c'est le Conseil de l'Europe et la Cour également. Donc ça doit se passer à Strasbourg cette discussion. Mais suite à ça, j'ai évidemment, parce que c'est une question légitime, ouvert un processus avec les États membres. Ça nous a conduit à en parler non pas avec Madame Meloni mais avec Madame Frederiksen qui était l'une des deux cosignataires à l'origine de de l'évolution. Organiser une ministérielle spéciale en décembre et nous avons adopté une déclaration des États membres sur la migration consensuelle, donc avec l'accord et le soutien de l'Italie, du Danemark et de tous les autres en mai à Chișinău.
Donc je vous dis que on va pas résoudre les problèmes sans les affronter, mais il faut respecter certaines règles du jeu et ça a été fait d'ailleurs. Et une de ces règles du jeu, eh bien c'est le c'est dans le fond le respect qui est qui a été souhaité par les pays, c'est pas nous qui l'avons inventé, hein, pour la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et pour le la jurisprudence de la de la Cour. Thank you very much, vielen Dank für die Frage, aber ich werde auf in English, no, sorry. Well, I fully agree with what you said. Maybe I would just try to elaborate a little bit on the Balkan because I think it is much less stable as we think.
That's the first element. And as we have all the members of the all the countries of the region but Kosovo members of the Council of Europe, Kosovo has an application open but for different reasons it is a bit blocked at the moment, we see what it means. And that's why I think the collaboration between the European Union and the Council of Europe is so important. Where the European Union is at home in the Balkan with some countries member states of the EU, others maybe soon member states, and other where there is to be honest not really a close perspective, this situation is drawing new lines in the whole region. What is also a concern for all the all Europe and also for the other countries in the region.
And I think that's where we can play a role. We have offices and we are developing programs of I would say convergence on European values in all those all those those countries. And I'm like you quite worried about the situation and we really need to be to be present there. I was in all the countries of the region in the last six or eight months exactly for this reason and we are continuing to develop new idea to to strengthen this this this convergence. By the way, an element important in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you know this probably, it is that when where nobody was agreeing between the different groups in the 90s, the only thing where everybody was agreeing was the European Convention on Human Rights and to accept the jurisdiction of the court.
I will stop my presentation, Madam Chair, no. And that's an important element. I stop now on Moldova and other countries because I would be too too long, but fully agree with transparency and again, the measures we take must be compliant with the ECHR and not to police speech.
Nathalie Loiseau
Merci Monsieur le Secrétaire général. Je vais maintenant passer la parole à des collègues qui auront juste une minute pour répondre et pour poser des questions et je vous demanderai de répondre de manière un peu plus brève. Je passe d'abord la parole pour les sociaux-démocrates à Juan Fernando López Aguilar.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you, Madam President. Of course, Monsieur Berset, we thank you for showing up in this Democracy Shield Committee of the European Parliament, which is of course coincident in nature with the very idea of New Democratic Pact for Europe in the Council of Europe. Well, we're all aware that we're talking about concentric circles of the European process. One, 46 states, Council of Europe. This of us, 27 member states, the European Union.
But we are focusing the same issue here. How to protect democracy against forthcoming threats, digital world for sure, and make it under the umbrella of the Reykjavik Declaration and Summit, safeguarding especially the integrity of elections, electoral system against foreign interference.
But I got two questions which I shoot very sharply. First, you're making a point about applying common parameters and turn dialogue into action. And the question goes, how are we to combine forces in this concentric circles of us, the new Pact for Democracy of the Council of Europe and our democracy shield, so that they not simply overlap, but of course they do not indulge into fireworks, into just words which are like drops in the ocean with no practical results? What's your idea of combining forces to make it better and true?
Nathalie Loiseau
Let me remind you that one minute is exactly 60 seconds. Csaba Dömötör, please.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you, Chair. Dear Mr. Secretary General, when it comes to their main purpose, the new democratic pact and the so-called democracy shield program seem to be quite similar. I think no one in this house questions the importance of the fight against disinformation and foreign interference. Where we do have diverging views, though, is the exact toolset. What we have seen so far is that under the guise of the fight against disinformation, new methods were established to silence some political voices.
For example, in my country, 90,000 pieces of Facebook content were deleted prior to the election. Most of the content were flagged by designated fact-checkers that receive funding from the Commission. The problem is that apart from Facebook and the fact-checkers themselves, nobody knows exactly which pieces of content were deleted. Therefore, let me kindly ask you, are the debates in the Council of Europe in this regard, what are the conclusions, and what do you personally think about the transparency of the fact-checker system? Thank you.
Sandro Gozi
Merci, et merci Madame la Présidente. J'ai deux questions, Monsieur le Secrétaire Général, sur des questions que vous avez évoquées. La première sur les Balkans, la deuxième sur la CEDH. Sur les Balkans, c'est très inquiétant ce qui se passe dans certains pays, Albanie, Serbie. Je vous donne une histoire personnelle.
Il y a la Flamingo Revolution, vous savez que pour répondre à cela, les mesures ne sont pas toujours, disons, conformes, et Meta tout d'un coup a suspendu des centaines de comptes des étudiants de la jeunesse qui fait partie de ce mouvement. J'ai fait une interview à Euronews Albanie, quelques heures après, Meta a suspendu le compte Instagram de Euronews Albanie. Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de ce qui se passe et qu'est-ce que le Conseil de l'Europe entend prendre comme mesure vis-à-vis de cela ? Serbie, il y aura des élections d'ici à quelques jours. On voit déjà des irrégularités très fortes.
Est-ce que le Conseil de l'Europe pourra intervenir avant pour éviter que les élections serbes soient manipulées ?
András László
Thank you very much. There's a lot of talk about foreign interference in elections and in our public spaces. I see it's what you're doing is very similar to the European Democracy Shield. I advise you to learn the lessons, the bad lessons we have, the bad practice we have here. We have no transparency whatsoever on what the NGOs are limiting in terms of content, what they are taking down, just as my colleague said.
Since the April elections in Hungary, we have demanded several times from the European Commission to have a report on what was actually the result of the rapid response system they activated.
Zero response on this, absolutely zero. What we do know is there were millions, if not tens of millions, or rather hundreds of millions of euros spent on these fact-checking networks. How much is the European Council planning to spend on such a system and will it be transparent? Because on the European side, we don't have any. You mentioned freedom of speech as being a major pillar of, of freedom of speech as a major pillar of democracy.
The European Democracy Shield has no guarantees on reinforcing freedom of speech. What is the European Council going to do not to impede on, on freedom of speech when trying to defend against foreign interference?
Nathalie Loiseau
Mr. Secretary General, you have a few minutes, but not more than five really maximum to answer all these questions. Thank you.
Alain Berset
I try to be brief, but first, Madam Chair, thank you very much for this invitation. And I'm noting right now, I would be really happy if we can have, you know, more often this kind of exchanges, just bringing this here. Thank you very much for the question about the, the well, overlapping, as you mentioned, between the, between the Shield and the Pact. I think we should avoid this. We will avoid this because our tools are not the same, the possibilities to act are not the same, and the geography is also not the same.
And we are obviously concentrating also on non-EU members, not only because we have 46 member states, but we are also trying to work where we make the, where we make the difference. Where I can absolutely see, see the same thing as you, as you have been mentioning, it is this concentric circles. And I would maybe add something in the movement, it's not only concentric, it is also diverging. You know, we had a long period of convergence, we are a period of divergence now. We need to act properly in this, in this situation.
And I think, well, you know, I can mention South Caucasus, the Balkan where we are active, I can mention Ukraine, not possible obviously to have elections right now, but a member state is here concerned, Moldova that you mentioned before. And we have a lot of occasions to really work together and to make as sure as possible that we are, well, coherent together. Thank you very much for the question then on silenced political voices. That's exactly what I want that we really discuss if we want to have a stable democracy. I mean, saying that democracy is to having debates.
And it is essential not to having debates, you know, with people we are agreeing with. That's nice, but it's not bringing that much. It is essential to have debates with people where we are not agreeing with. But everybody has to comply to certain rules that have been accepted. That's my, my example of the, the football match before.
And I mean, the point is exactly this, with the tool that we are thinking with our work on FIMI, it will be as, you know, good as possible to see what is allowed for a government to protect democracy with foreign interferences and what not. That's exactly the point where we are missing now. It's interesting also to compare the, the discussions that we have also with the situation in, in Albania. In Albania, Meta just banned some social media. Who is agreeing with this?
We cannot agree with a ban because it is on our side or not on our side. We need to have some concrete rules to see what is allowed and what not to protect democracy for what it is, a place where we can debate. Otherwise, I mean, we will just navigate, you know, on the short term with our own interest. And that's exactly the opposite of what a democracy would, would be.
Do we need to have transparency for fact-checking? I would say yes, why not? And you know, I know that you're asking questions that probably I am also taking in your own debate. So please, I am answering the questions with my experience at the Council of Europe. And I'm not knowing all your internal debates and I mean, to be clear, you know and everybody knows that what I am answering here cannot be used in internal debates that you have in the committee.
I say this because I feel the ambiance. I was also a member, MEP during years. I exactly know how it works. But basically, basically, the context is fully new and we need to have a good context for having positive and good democratic discussions, that means with differences where at the end we take decisions. You mentioned or was mentioned before election in Spain, we'll see what will happen, election in France, we'll see these changes.
On Albania, I'm not able to give a precise answer on the case, just that we are working on this case with Albania because in the case of the ban of the accounts, but of the Flamingo case because they are a member with us and they also ratified a lot of our conventions. Serbia, I see that I don't have time now to elaborate much more. We need to have, I mean, a possibility to observe the elections even if it's always more difficult. And last point about Hungary and fact-checking and all those elements, I'm not able to tell you what the European Council will do because it's not in my job. But for the Council of Europe, we are working with all countries in the context of EFEMI and in the context of the new democratic pact exactly also for bringing some clear rules for this kind of situations and to have a long-term perspective and to see how we can protect and have a good and strong development for the democracy in a new context.
The context is fully new and we need to adapt this, not be naive, with no return, no way back to the ancient world. We need to adapt to what we have now.
Nathalie Loiseau
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary General, for your detailed and candid answers to all questions. It's been a pleasure to have you here. And indeed, you mentioned something we do in common to protect democracies, and these are election observation missions. I was blessed to participate in several missions of the European Parliament alongside missions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. And I think we are doing our job to support countries doing their best to enhance democracy at home.
Thank you very much and I'm looking forward to continuing this dialogue in the future. Thank you very much.
So colleagues, I would direct you to the next item of the agenda, so please have your seats and grab your headphones because I will switch to my mother tongue. Chers collègues, Monsieur le Ministre, c'est avec un grand plaisir que je vous accueille, Monsieur Thomas Byrne, chargé des affaires européennes et de la défense au sein du gouvernement irlandais. Merci d'avoir accepté de participer à nos discussions en votre qualité de représentant de la présidence tournante du Conseil de l'Union européenne. Bienvenue. Vous étiez présent lors de la session plénière en septembre lorsque le Parlement européen a adopté le rapport final avec les conclusions et recommandations émanant des travaux de cette commission spéciale.
Vous nous avez rassurés en quelque sorte sur le fait que la présidence irlandaise partageait sans réserve les préoccupations de la grande majorité de ce Parlement quant aux menaces qui pèsent sur notre démocratie. Tout comme cette commission l'a fait dans son rapport, vous n'avez pas hésité à condamner les attaques hybrides provenant de la Russie et dont le but mal dissimulé est de déstabiliser l'Union européenne et ses États membres ou de les intimider. Le soutien au bouclier européen de la démocratie est aussi un point clair du programme de la présidence irlandaise. En particulier, ce programme insiste sur le rôle clé de la participation de la société civile à la vie démocratique pour lutter contre le désengagement citoyen et la violence politique. Vous n'avez pas caché votre ambition de clôturer les travaux du Conseil sur ce thème par l'adoption de conclusions.
Dès lors, je vous remercie d'ores et déjà de bien vouloir partager avec nous l'état des lieux sur ce sujet. De même, vous avez fait part du plein soutien de la présidence irlandaise pour la mise en œuvre opérationnelle et le développement du Centre européen pour la résilience démocratique créé par la Commission européenne. Vous savez sans doute que le Parlement européen s'attend aussi à ce que ce centre devienne une réalité de la stratégie de l'Union européenne pour la défense de notre démocratie. Nous souhaitons connaître plus en détail la manière dont la présidence et le Conseil se proposent de renforcer ce centre et d'en développer pleinement le potentiel. Le programme de la présidence irlandaise inclut plusieurs autres éléments d'intérêt pour notre commission sur lesquels nous serons heureux d'échanger avec vous.
Vos responsabilités au Conseil couvrent entre autres, et ce n'est pas le moindre, les négociations sur le futur cadre budgétaire pluriannuel de l'Union. Alors n'hésitez pas si vous le pouvez à nous donner des éléments d'information sur les moyens que le Conseil compte mettre au service de la défense de la démocratie pour les années à venir. Sans plus attendre, je vous passe la parole, Monsieur le Ministre.
Thomas Byrne
Merci, merci beaucoup, Madame Loiseau. Thank you, chère Nathalie. Thank you very much for the invitation tonight. I appear before you of course on behalf of the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union, and I want to start where I think any representative of the Council should start today before this committee with indeed your report which this committee has adopted and the Parliament adopted as well on the 15th of September as mentioned. The Parliament adopted the findings and recommendations of this committee.
That vote concluded close to two years of work, work begun in December 2024, carried out by the rapporteur, Mr. Tobé, and steered by you, chair, across the political groups and through a mandate extended twice because the subject kept outrunning the time allowed for it.
Let me be direct about how the presidency reads that document. It is the most comprehensive account any European institution has yet given of what it would actually take to defend democracy in the Union. In places, it makes for uncomfortable reading for the Council and in national capitals. And of course, that is as it should be. A parliament that only told member states what they are prepared to hear would not be worth the invitation that I have accepted here today.
Let me set out plainly where the presidency finds itself with you. First, the threat. Your report names Russia as the primary external threat to Europe's security and democratic integrity. The Council has no difficulty with that assessment. It is the assessment of every serious analysis before us.
And you are right, this is not an information problem alone. It is an economic, technological, infrastructure, and societal hybrid in the full sense of the word. Second, on fragmentation. Your report states that the fragmentation of the Union remains a vulnerability in defense of democracy. That sentence is aimed at member states at least as much as the institutions, and that's correct.
27 different levels of capability operating at 27 different speeds is not a defense, it's a map of where to apply pressure. Third, the finding that has drawn most attention in this Council is where you conclude that soft policy measures are often insufficient where democratic values are deliberately undermined, and that the credibility of the shield rests on the will to enforce the legislation we already have. The presidency does not treat that as a criticism to be managed. It is rather a standard to be met. So let me account for the three months we've had so far and tell you what we intend to do with the remaining three months.
On the center, when the committee began its drafting, when you began your work, the European Center for Democratic Resilience did not exist. It was inaugurated at the General Affairs Council in February and every member state now takes part. On the 30th of October, eight days from now, I will chair a ministerial breakfast at the margins of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, where the candidate countries and potential candidates are formally associated with the center. Your resolution calls for the systematic involvement of candidate countries in the center's actions, support mechanisms, and expert networks. That's what we will give effect to next week.
Participation in plenary meetings, the right to propose and join projects, access to the center's platform, phased, calibrated, and shaped by member states, but very real. Your resolution also says that the Union has a significant amount to learn from the resilience of Moldova and Ukraine. That's absolutely correct, and that's why we have insisted throughout that association is a two-way instrument. The countries on the accession path are not recipients of our resilience, on several fronts they are ahead of us because they've been under sustained attack for longer. And many member states, including my own, have been in touch with governments who are not members of the EU about their resilience in these contexts.
Safety in political life, at the informal General Affairs Council that we had in Dublin last month, I asked my colleagues to give their working lunch to a subject that rarely reaches our Council, and that's the abuse, the intimidation, and violence directed at those who stand for election, at those who are elected, and at their staff and families. Your report identifies this issue as a threat to democracy itself, with a deliberate and documented gender dimension. Ministers in Dublin were clear on the consequence. When public life becomes something to be endured rather than something to aspire to, we lose the voices we most need: women, young people, first-time candidates, and those from underrepresented communities. Regional representatives can carry the heaviest share with the fewest protections.
They address the part of the agenda that attracts the least attention and may matter most over time: democratic disengagement as a structural vulnerability. Citizens who are younger, poorer, more rural, more marginalized, they're less likely to vote, they're less likely to trust institutions, and they are measurably more exposed to manipulation. Hostile actors understand this. They don't create the alienation, they locate it and they exploit it. Your report arrives at the same place from the other direction when it treats civil society, civic participation, culture, and media literacy as defenses rather than decoration.
We await the Commission's recommendation on safety in politics and this presidency will carry that work forward in the Council. On inclusive democratic participation, the presidency's own initiative in the Council is a set of conclusions on inclusive democratic participation and community resilience under the third pillar of the shield.
Negotiations are in advanced stage in the General Affairs Group and I intend to bring that text to the Council for adoption before the end of our term. Chair, I would not be doing this committee the courtesy it deserves if I only spoke of agreement. Your report calls for the center to be established by a legal act as a structurally autonomous entity with its own statute, governance, and parliamentary oversight on an ambitious timeline. I just have to say that there's no consensus in the Council at the moment for that step. The prevailing view among member states is that the center should first demonstrate operational value within the architecture that it already has and that a legal act would follow a proven need rather than anticipate it.
I give you this position straight because it is just simply the position of the member states as a whole, but I add this: your underlying argument that voluntary participation and gradual phasing in supply neither predictability nor accountability, and that's one that the Council will simply have to answer on its merits. On resources, you will point to the dichotomy of ambition without funding. And you mentioned the Multiannual Financial Framework. I've just told the ministers that we will be circulating that to member states on Saturday, actually. But it's a live negotiation in which the presidency's duty is honest brokerage rather than advocacy, and I will not prejudge it here.
But the question your report puts, whether we're willing to fund democratic resilience as seriously as we fund other forms of security, well, that won't go away when this committee rises. On your renewed call for qualified majority voting on sanctions, this is a matter for member states under the treaties and we cannot just deliver this on goodwill alone. Chair, your resolution was formally forwarded to the Council. Under this presidency, we don't just note it. We will actually ensure it's reflected in the Council's work for the remainder of our term and then handed on to the incoming presidency.
Our presidency motto is the Irish language proverb, which is Ní neart go cur le chéile, which is there is no strength without coming together or there is no strength without unity. On this file, that's not a sentiment, it's the operational finding of your own report. I look forward to the discussion and I'm happy to answer questions as best I can.
Thank you very much, Minister. Now I give the floor to my colleagues for their questions. There will be just one round of questions, so if you have not already asked for the floor, please do it. And I will start with our S&D colleague, Juan Fernando López Aguilar.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you so much, Madam President, and Mr. Byrne, and we thank you for your readiness and willingness to show that the Council is involved. Because all the work that we have carried out for more than one year now in this Democracy Shield special committee is meant to have practical results, institutional, political results. And it does not suffice the realm of the European Parliament as a lawmaker. We need the Council and making sure that national legislations are also involved under the leadership of the relevant governments.
So we got a whole lot of work to do in order to implement each and every one of the conclusions that we have put in writing when addressing the outcome of our year of work so far. So we we we really appreciate the goodwill that has been shown by your presidency by taking into account the most relevant pieces of advice as to better protect democracy, which takes involvement from the Council under the current Irish presidency. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Csaba Dömötör
Megtiszteltetéssel köszöntjük államtitkár urat az ír elnökség képviseletében. Ön az elmúlt években számos alkalommal megszólalt a magyar demokrácia állapotáról, nem éppen hízelgő módon. Ez nem meglepő annak alapján, hogy milyen kormányt képvisel. Az annál meglepőbb, amit az új magyarországi helyzettel kapcsolatban mondott. Azt mondta, hogy az új kormány alatt nagy előrelépés történt a jogállamiság terén.
Ezt mondta annak ellenére, hogy a magyar kormánytöbbség egy alkotmánymódosítással eltávolította a köztársasági elnököt, a legfőbb ügyészt és alkotmánybírókat is. A médiatanácsból kirekesztették a legnagyobb ellenzéki párt jelöltjeit. Lefoglalták a legnagyobb ellenzéki párt szervereit, rajta a tagnyilvántartással. Létrehoztak egy olyan hatóságot, amely nyíltan üldözi az ellenzéket, és hogy még durvább legyen, ez a hatóság átveheti olyan cégek fölött az irányítást, amelyek korábban szerződéses kapcsolatban álltak a magyar állammal. De ez nem minden, úgy módosították a jogszabályokat, hogy az ellenzék vezetője egész egyszerűen nem indulhat el a következő választáson.
Sőt, az ellenzéki képviselők jelentős része sem indulhat el, amit egy tizenkét éves mandátumkorlátozással értek el. Ez a mandátumkorlát egyetlenegy kormánypárti képviselőre sem vonatkozik, csak az ellenzék három pártjára, visszamenőleges hatállyal. Hogyha itt lenne ilyen szabályozás, akkor százhatvannégy európai parlamenti képviselő nem indulhatna kétezer-huszonkilencben. Hogyha jól tudom, ön kétezer-hét óta képviselő Írországban. Namost, hogyha az ön országában lenne ilyen korlátozás, akkor ön nem indulhatna a következő választáson, de mondok mást, nem indulhatott volna el az előző választáson sem.
Ez azt jelenti, hogy ön most jó eséllyel nem ülhetne itt. Mindezek alapján azt szeretném öntől kérdezni, hogy fenntartja-e, hogy a Tisza-kormánnyal nagy előrelépés történt a jogállamiság terén? Ön szerint elfogadható-e ellenzéki képviselők kizárása a politikai életből? Belefér-e a demokratikus értékekbe, hogy jobboldali szavazók nem tudnak majd azokra szavazni, akikre a legutóbbi választáson szavaztak? A kérdés igazából költői.
Köszönöm.
Nathalie Loiseau
Thank you. I'm not sure that we have that much time at this moment in the evening for purely rhetorical questions, but that's the beauty of democracy that shows that there is freedom for everyone to speak his mind. Now for Renew Europe, Helmut Scholz.
Helmut Brandstätter
Yeah, thank you very much, Chair, dear Minister. Thank you very much for your words about our work here, and I think it was and is very important. So there are a lot of words in there, there are a lot of ideas, and now let's do something. And that's what I want to ask you, especially about two things. First of all, can you really organize that the Council of Ministers says, okay, this resilience center is a good idea?
First of all, we will do everything that this will be a strong organization, strong institution. And secondly, there are 27 member states. Let's have a kind of a resolution, we all will cooperate with this resilience center. I think that would be very important. And then secondly, I'm also from a neutral country, from Austria, but as you know and as I know, there is 42.7 in the EU treaty, and that is solidarity.
So two things.
And if we see, and we see what's happening with FIMI, we see what's happening with the hybrid war, we have to cooperate much, much more better than before. And I don't know about your country, but I can admit it that in my country, when I talk about 42.7, many people say, "Really?" And we have to be, solidarity, is that necessary? And there are even, there is even a party in government who really doesn't like that very much. Anyway, this is the Union, this is our treaty, and I follow the treaty.
And we changed our constitution, by the way. So my second question would be, is it also possible that within the next months you have the presidency, organize something that every country is clear there is 42.7 and could you also elaborate a few examples how this kind of solidarity would work within Europe, because I'm really afraid that we will need this solidarity. Thanks very much.
Lena Düpont
Thanks, Madam Chair, and actually excellent that I can speak after the colleague Brandstätter because some of the questions are connected to what he has just said and probably allow me to take that as a hook. I very much agree with his plea for the resilience center. I'm also interested in your answer to that. But let me add the question and dimension of what's the Council's view on the relation between that resilience center and the sooner or later to be set up Security Council. And how do we actually integrate whatever we had been doing on FIMI and disinformation also in that sphere of the Security Council as well as part of hybrid threat that the body should address.
And in connection to what the colleague Brandstätter just had mentioned on 42.7, fully agree with him here also on the expectation that we will need it and that we will also need this solidarity being organized within the European Union under that article. Could you give us a bit of an idea on where the discussion on the security protocol that should be also part of that probably is hinting at in Council? And let me conclude on the really emphasis on we should do whatever we can to be prepared and to have the protocols and the institutions in place before we need it. Thanks.
Sandro Gozi
Thank you. No other colleague willing to take the floor? Yes, Sandro Gozi.
Thank you, Chair. Many questions have already been covered by the colleagues, so I would focus only on one specific point, Minister Thomas. You have made a reference to our report. Our report focuses on the need to properly implement and enforce also the existing legislation to protect our democracy. Among this legislation, there is the new regulation on targeting and transparency of political advertising online.
What is happening is that Meta refuses to apply this regulation, announced that from now on they won't do any political advertising anymore on the Meta platform. In fact, there is political advertising, only Meta is not compliant with this legislation. And this is exactly what we have to avoid. So I'm asking you whether you are aware of this problem and which step as the Irish presidency you intend to take towards the Commission and towards the national authorities to verify, because political advertising is happening on media platform, only they do not comply with our regulation.
What do you intend to do? Thank you very much.
Thank you. After this round of questions, I'm happy to give the floor back to you, Minister.
Thomas Byrne
Yes. Thank you. And thanks very much for your strong interest and look again and thanks for the good wishes to the Irish presidency. I have in front of me the draft conclusions that we're currently negotiating at the Council on inclusive democratic participation and societal and community resilience. And it's look we're still working on them and they have to go to the ambassadors and to the ministers, but at the moment they have unanimity actually, which you know we haven't been able to do that for quite some time.
So it's good that we have unanimity across the board. And your report is feeding into that like very much so. It's very much a part of it. And I think people are taking this very, very seriously because of the threats that are happening all around the place. So this is not one of those reports that simply gets forgotten or the Council says we don't have time to deal with it.
We have these conclusions which we hope to have done next week really for the GAC in Luxembourg. And then we also have there's a forum on the ministerial forum on the 3rd of December and I think the chair you'll be invited and the rapporteur will be invited as far as I know at the very least to reflect on one year of the of the democracy shield. That'll be held in Brussels on the 3rd of December. And again it's the Parliament and the Council working together. I mean as I keep saying to people, people talk about Brussels or Brussels is telling us to do this or that.
I mean Brussels is the elected representatives either of the government or of the Parliament. The Commission is there to to propose and enforce legislation. So so that will be a very good opportunity for us all to come together to discuss things on member Deputy De Mooter. I mean look you said it was a rhetorical question. On that basis I won't answer it.
Safe to say that every member state is obliged to comply with the fundamentals on the rule of law and the basic values of the European Union. And at the Council we hold each other accountable on that, that we question each other member state about aspects of our laws, about aspects of our democratic practice, aspects of our media freedom, aspects of our judicial practice. And I have answered on behalf of Ireland where members have maybe pointed out issues that they have with some aspect of our I mean at one point we had issues with the judicial appointments procedures which we changed then because of consultation with fellow member states and the Commission for example. And every member state has has issues. The point is we acknowledge them and we address them.
If we don't acknowledge them and don't address them there are procedures of course to deal with that. But I think it is fair to recognize that there has been significant progress in Hungary. On on the issue of Article 42.7, I don't have a full outline just here now except to say that the article is there. It's law same as in my your member state, my member state has it in law. There's no exemption, no derogation from it.
The procedure is there. It has been used before at the time of the Bataclan attack and the procedure is that a member state asks for the assistance under the article and the the Council the member states have to agree unanimously to do that. So that is there and we have to respond if if the situation arises. So I you know just at some point it will be put into practice again and we have the precedent from before. Again on the resilience center I think look we you know it's starting.
It's it's I think working quite well.
It's, again, I would say, the very fact that it's there is an influence of the Parliament, and of course of the democratic process. I do think that Commissioner Michael McGrath is a great commissioner for this job. I mean, he was elected to his local, like, basically village council at the age of, like, something like 21. So he's been in politics, he's gone from village council to county council to the national parliament, national government, and now to, to the European Commission. So he's seen every stage of the, the democratic process.
So a real, a person who's really committed to, to, to, to our democracy. And I know that some, you know, the Parliament, sorry, I know that the Parliament and your report calls for a legal basis, or a separate legal act to be enacted to provide for the center. It's not, it's just not something we have agreement among the member states at the moment. And then, I think, the, the question then from Sandro Gozi then on the platforms. Yeah, we are aware of this, and there's dialogue, I think, with the, with the platforms.
I mean, there was some newspaper reports recently in Ireland, I think, of some, we, I just assumed that Meta's closed to me, for example, but there certainly are some members of Parliament who are putting out ads on, on Meta at the moment in Ireland. It doesn't get checked or whatever. I don't know the answer, actually, as to whether they're then complying with the, the rules that are there, but they had, they had told us all we're banned, but it doesn't seem that that's quite the case. But we're certainly aware of it. You know, we need strong regulations, strong rules to protect the democracy, but we also need to be able to get our message out there as well, because lots of other people seem to have easy access to this, to platforms in terms of how algorithms work.
We need to be able to put our message out there in a, in a legal way, and indeed in a transparent way. But yeah, I'm aware of that.
Thank you very much, Minister, for being gracious with your time and your answers. All the best for the rest of the Irish presidency, and we really count on you to support our work, to take our recommendations into consideration, because we definitely need to make sure that we strengthen democracy at a moment where it is all over the place under attack. Thank you very much, Minister. And our next item of the agenda will be in camera, so we'll make a break of five minutes, but not more than five minutes, which might make us end up a little earlier than expected, and I'm sure...