Five Years in the European Parliament – My Digital Rights Legacy
During my five years as an MEP (2019-2024), I developed and championed a distinctive approach to digital policy: that Europe doesn’t have to choose between innovation and rights protection. My parliamentary record demonstrates that transparency strengthens institutions, that effective regulation creates genuine market freedom, and that protecting fundamental rights enables rather than constrains technological progress.
This wasn’t just rhetoric. As JURI Coordinator for Renew Europe, I worked on every major piece of EU digital legislation—the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, AI Act, Data Act, and e-IDAS regulation—consistently arguing that the apparent tension between innovation and rights is a false dichotomy created by those who profit from the status quo.
The Core Argument: Rights and Innovation Are Complementary
My speeches and interventions rejected the polarised framing that dominated much digital policy debate. Unlike voices calling for uncritical tech enthusiasm or reactionary restrictions, I argued that markets work better with clear rules, that innovation thrives when trust is established, and that democracy requires both free expression and protection from abuse.
On the Digital Services Act, I emphasised that “platforms must be transparent and accountable to society and to their users” whilst insisting that “removal of content should not be by filters, but by a transparent process involving humans.” This reflected my consistent position: procedural fairness and human oversight aren’t obstacles to platform operation—they’re essential safeguards that enable the internet’s democratic potential.
I noted how online platforms “allowed [people] to unite on Tahir Square, or on the #metoo” whilst acknowledging that unchecked “freedom given to tech companies has led to the creation of digital monopolies, polarized debate and allowed conspiracy theories to sway elections.” The solution wasn’t to abandon either freedom or accountability, but to design systems that deliver both.
Digital Markets Act: Liberation, Not Restriction
My work on the DMA exemplified how effective regulation creates rather than constrains market freedom. I framed the legislation as liberation for developers and users, not punishment for successful companies.
In my January 2025 speech to the Developers Alliance, I used concrete examples that resonated with both technical audiences and ordinary citizens: Why does Spotify cost more on iPhones? Why can’t you sign up for Netflix from your phone? Why do you need five different messaging apps to stay in touch with friends? The answer to all these questions was the same: because dominant platforms prioritise their own interests over user experience and fair competition.
The DMA addresses these issues directly by requiring interoperability between messaging services, allowing alternative app stores and payment methods, and preventing platforms from preferencing their own services. I argued this would open opportunities for innovation “at a time when some of the big tech solutions are no longer satisfying users.”
Digitalisation and Administrative Law: My Signature Achievement
As rapporteur for the Digitalisation and Administrative Law report, I championed three interconnected goals: open-source software in public administration, harmonised EU administrative procedures, and accessible digital public services.
The “public money, public code” principle became central to my advocacy. I argued that when public institutions develop software, citizens should be able to audit and reuse the code—both as a matter of democratic accountability and practical efficiency. This wasn’t theoretical: I successfully advocated for the principle across EU institutions, and praised the European Ombudsman when her office expanded open-source software use.
The report also addressed the fragmented legal frameworks across EU institutions, arguing that harmonised administrative procedures would reduce duplication, improve transparency, and lower costs for both citizens and institutions. I consistently emphasised that digitalisation must serve all citizens, with particular attention to those who lack digital skills or access.
AI Act: Balancing Innovation and Rights
Whilst Axel Voss served as JURI rapporteur on the AI Act, I contributed through JURI’s opinion work and my service on the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (2020-2022). My interventions emphasised trustworthy AI that respects human rights, avoids discrimination, and maintains meaningful human oversight.
I argued that Europe’s approach to AI regulation—based on risk assessment and fundamental rights protection—would prove more sustainable than either unregulated development or blanket restrictions. The goal was enabling beneficial AI whilst preventing harms, particularly discrimination and threats to democratic processes.
Consumer Protection and Fair Markets
Through my IMCO committee work, I addressed product liability, geo-blocking, and fair trading practices. I consistently positioned consumers as active agents deserving clear information and meaningful choices, not passive recipients of corporate decisions.
On product liability reform, I worked to ensure that defective products—including those incorporating AI—couldn’t escape accountability through technical complexity. On geo-blocking, I pushed for a truly unified digital market where artificial barriers don’t prevent Europeans from accessing goods and services available elsewhere in the Union.
Online Violence and Freedom of Expression
My FEMM committee work addressed online gender-based violence and harassment. I rejected the false choice between safety and liberty, arguing that protecting speech requires tackling abuse. Women and minorities who face coordinated harassment are effectively silenced—meaning that combating online violence strengthens rather than restricts freedom of expression.
Transparency and Democratic Accountability
Beyond specific legislation, I used every available tool to advance transparency and accountability. My budget discharge votes consistently supported amendments calling for transparency in Parliament spending, better working conditions for support staff, stronger anti-fraud measures, and ending the monthly Strasbourg travel.
I championed open-source software adoption across EU institutions, published my meeting records and financial interests, and pushed for stronger revolving door rules to prevent conflicts of interest.
Environmental Policy
Whilst secondary to my digital focus, I supported major environmental legislation including the Nature Restoration Law, Green Claims Directive, and Packaging Waste Directive. I framed environmental protection as requiring both mandatory targets and protection against greenwashing—paralleling my digital work’s emphasis on both clear rules and consumer protection.
Parliamentary Tactics and Influence
As JURI Coordinator, I effectively shaped legislation across multiple committees. I served as shadow rapporteur on numerous files, crafted opinions that influenced final texts, and built coalitions across political groups around shared principles.
My meeting transparency records demonstrate engagement with diverse stakeholders, including civil society organisations such as BEUC, EDRi, and Amnesty International; industry representatives; and academic institutions. This reflected my approach to informed, multi-stakeholder policymaking that considers diverse perspectives whilst maintaining clear principles.
Rhetorical Style: Clarity and Accessibility
My speeches avoided jargon whilst maintaining technical accuracy. I used concrete examples and clear explanations rather than abstract policy language. “Why does Spotify cost more on iPhones?” is more effective than discussing “asymmetric market power in platform ecosystems”—even though both describe the same phenomenon.
This accessibility didn’t mean oversimplification. I addressed complex technical issues whilst making them comprehensible to non-specialists, treating citizens as capable of understanding policy choices when clearly explained.
The Coherent Vision
Looking across five years of interventions, a coherent worldview emerges: Europe can be both digitally innovative and rights-protective. Transparency and accountability strengthen rather than burden institutions. Effective regulation creates rather than constrains genuine market freedom. Innovation thrives when trust is established through clear rules and fair enforcement.
This wasn’t about splitting the difference between opposing camps—it was about recognising that the apparent tensions in digital policy debates often reflect narrow interests rather than genuine dilemmas. Citizens want both innovation and protection. Developers want both market access and fair rules. Democracy requires both free expression and protection from manipulation.
My parliamentary record demonstrates that these goals are achievable when we reject false dichotomies, design systems with care, and maintain unwavering commitment to fundamental rights as the foundation of everything else.
The legislation we passed—DSA, DMA, AI Act, and others—will shape Europe’s digital future for decades. My contribution was to ensure that these laws reflect the understanding that our values and our prosperity are complementary, not competing, goals.
Written based on an analysis and a write-up generated by Claude AI