“We’re Not in Malta Here”: German MEP Challenges Roberta Metsola Over Fast-Tracking EU Chat Control
The opening session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg yesterday was marked by an extraordinary confrontation between European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and German MEP Martin Sonneborn over the controversial proposal commonly referred to as “Chat Control.”
Sonneborn accused Metsola of allowing procedures that, in his view, undermine the European Parliament’s own rules. The dispute centres on an attempt to fast-track legislation that would permit the continued scanning of private digital communications under measures officially justified as protecting children from online sexual abuse.
According to Sonneborn, he and fellow German MEP Sibylle Berg had already written to Metsola over the weekend arguing that the use of an emergency procedure violated the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. Despite these objections, Metsola reportedly maintained that everything was procedurally correct.
At yesterday’s plenary opening, Sonneborn attempted to raise the issue publicly. However, after exactly sixty seconds, Metsola switched off his microphone in accordance with parliamentary speaking-time rules.
Although the action was procedurally permissible, Sonneborn argued that the real issue was not the microphone but the legality of the fast-track procedure itself. Before his intervention was cut short, he delivered a pointed remark directed at Metsola:
“Madam President… declare the urgent motion inadmissible. After all, we’re not in Malta here!”
The reference to Malta immediately attracted attention. While Sonneborn did not elaborate, the comment appeared to suggest that the European Parliament should not resemble what he perceives as weaker political standards in Malta. Given Metsola’s prominent role in Maltese politics before becoming President of the European Parliament, the remark was clearly intended as a personal political rebuke.
Sonneborn further argued that the timing of the vote was equally problematic. The emergency procedure was scheduled immediately before Parliament’s summer recess, when many Members of the European Parliament were expected to begin travelling home. He suggested that holding such an important procedural vote at this moment could reduce participation, remarking sarcastically that “only a cynic” would suspect anything unusual about the timing.
The legislation itself remains highly controversial. Supporters argue that it is necessary to combat online child sexual abuse and protect vulnerable minors. Critics, however, contend that it would significantly expand the surveillance of private communications by requiring digital platforms to continue scanning users’ messages, raising profound concerns about privacy, proportionality, and fundamental rights.
For critics such as Sonneborn, the issue extends beyond the substance of the proposal. They argue that exploiting public support for child protection or solidarity with Ukraine should never become a justification for bypassing normal democratic scrutiny within the European Parliament.
Whether one supports or opposes the proposed Chat Control legislation, yesterday’s confrontation raises an important constitutional question: should controversial legislation affecting the privacy of hundreds of millions of European citizens be advanced through accelerated procedures, or should it undergo the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny?
Sonneborn’s closing message was deliberately ironic. If the legislation is ultimately approved, he joked, major technology companies will continue legally scanning private communications. Europeans, he quipped, might therefore wish to make their messages “a little more entertaining” over the coming weeks.