What Luděk spoke about.

Madam President, this debate confirms that the majority of the House understood that Draghi and Letta were right: the single market is the asset that can assure the stability and prosperity of the European Union. I am pleased to see the 'One Europe, One Market' proposal from the Commission as a very comprehensive plan on how to reach substantial improvement – improvement that we really badly need. But this is just a plan. In order to make it real, we need to attack three areas of the problem at the same time. First of all, the unfinished part of the single market, this is what Letta put in his report. I am talking especially about the banking union, capital market union, better and deeper single energy market, and so on. Second, fragmentation of the single market caused by gold plating. I guess we should go more for regulation instead of directives and remove these obstacles. And third – and this is very important – are the barriers that are created on the Member States level by different national regulations. The first two areas are within our remit, and we need good proposals from the Commission, agreement here and support from the Council. The third is entirely up to the capitals. I believe we can deliver and we must deliver. The alternative is clear, this is what Draghi described, this is 'slow agony'. And this is what we do not want to bring for Europeans.

Madam President, thank you very much, and thank you, Kira. First of all, I am very encouraged by the clear support and understanding of the importance of this work by the majority of speakers here today. Let me also join others in thanking very much the rapporteurs, the shadow rapporteurs. We should not forget that without the strong engagement of the Polish Presidency, it would be very difficult to strike the deal. Also, let me thank the Secretariat and all our staff. But most importantly, I want to encourage the Commission to submit the proposals that would move us further in single market integration, in completing the banking union, because this is what Europe needs and we should deliver on that quickly. So, once more, thank you, and I see this as not the end of the work, but a continuation.

Madam President, the CMDI work that we will conclude tomorrow started in 2023 and it represents an important step in improving the banking architecture of the EU. But let me go at the beginning a little bit more farther in the history. The banking union itself remains unfinished more than 10 years after it was launched. Some important parts were introduced quickly, but the overall framework is still incomplete. The reason is that some Member States are not happy to continue and finish it. Fragmentation of the European banking market persists and barriers prevent banks to operate effectively across the single market. That is why we are losing the efficiency, and customers, firms and citizens pay a higher price. The CMDI proposal was not the revolution in the crisis management framework, but it is the evolution – the evolution that should demonstrate that we can do better. We can move further. Long and difficult negotiations prove that we are able to find compromises if we have in mind that the goal is to improve the situation. My lesson from the negotiation is that the main barrier in the progress is on the political side, not on the technical side. And also narrow, well‑defined reforms can be blocked by the political positions. If this continues, badly needed progress in key economic agenda of the EU, removing the single market barriers, is at stake, and we could fail in delivering improvement and strengthening of the EU economy. Mario Draghi warned us that Europe faced a choice between further integration or gradual decline. In this context, deeper integration of the banking market has no option. It is an absolute necessity and delivering on the banking union is one of the easiest things to do. To talking about the CMDI, and I guess Kira said it very clearly: this is an important improvement, but not a huge improvement in the crisis management frameworks. It improves the ability of the small banks to be resolved and reduce the cost of the potential banking crisis. It makes it easier to use the resolution tools instead of liquidation, where there is the public interest, helping preserve the critical function and the financial stability it would significantly cost for the economy. I am glad that we enhanced the situation of DGS, improved the flexibility and also kept the safeguards for using such funds. It strengthens the single resolution framework and includes better cooperation between the Member States' authority and the authorities of the EU. Overall, the file improves the financial stability, makes the system more credible, flexible and better prepared for possible crises. And it is important today, despite the fact that the European banks have proven very strong resilience in past few years. To conclude why the outcome is the compromise: it represents not huge, but very important improvement of EU architecture. The success in the negotiation of the difficult package creates good conditions for being successful in improving the single market and concluding the banking union. I guess this is what we have to do because otherwise it would be hard to reach a stronger European economy, more resilience and future prosperity. Once more, let me thank the others and I will keep the thanks for the rest of the team to my concluding remarks.

Mr President, on 12 March, tomorrow, the Czech Republic will mark the 27th anniversary of joining NATO. This was a huge step for the Czech Republic on the way to democratic Europe. Unfortunately, many Europeans have understood NATO membership as an umbrella under which someone else looks after our security and defence. This was a big mistake. The big mistake that has got us into the current, very difficult situation. We cannot change the past, but we are making the future. It is not enough if the Member States will adjust properly and increase the defence expenditures. There is a clear role for our joint Europe to be played. First of all, Article 42.7, the mutual defence clause of the Treaty of the European Union, must be real, and we must make sure that this is a credible commitment of the Member States to help each other. On top of that, we should build part of our defence together. It is more effective, cheaper and it will deliver quickly. This is the way to a more secure and safe future.

Mr President, President, dear colleagues, the start of the year unfortunately reminds me more of Hollywood movies than the world we want to live in. It doesn't mean that the challenges for us – both external and internal – are different. External challenges – I mean especially Ukraine – are even more pressing because, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the White House very often is very close to something that Mr Putin wants to hear. That means that our call for clear and strong support for Ukraine is still the same. But I expect the Council mostly to react to new challenges: I am talking about Greenland, I am talking about the tariffs and I'm talking about the peace committee the President wants to introduce. These are not isolated events: everything fits together. It's good to listen to Mark Carney – former governor of the Central Bank and Prime Minister of Canada – and his speech in Davos. This is the world that we are in and this is the world that he described, using the words of Václav Havel. So that's why I call on the Council to be clear and bold on support for Denmark and Greenland; be united; make Europe stronger; partner with the countries like that of Mr Carney. We together need to build a stronger Europe – a Europe that is fit for the world of today.

Mr President, the US administration view on the situation of Europe and its future should not lead to our anger. It should lead to our reflection and action. Obviously, the Council is the right way to start with that. So let me just give three suggestions. First of all, Russian money should be what finances Ukraine. It's economically and morally right. So I call on the Council to find the agreement, while taking the legitimate request of the Belgian Government into account. Second, the EU needs stronger defence – I guess what is clear is absolutely right. And we need joint investment in some areas. I believe that some part of our defence, like electronic defence, like the missile defence and drones, should be built together. And I believe that financing that together is the right thing. So, I hope that the Council will find the courage to look after our defence in the right and the most effective way. Last but not least, I don't want to go into details about our competitiveness, about our economic sovereignty. That will probably be part of the geopolitical debate at the Council. I just want to say that, instead of trying to do what we could do, we should aim for what we should do. That is the difference. And only addressing the real things, the big things – the single market, competitiveness, and our delay in implementing technologies like artificial intelligence – will lead to a bright future for Europe.

Madam President, let me start by reacting to what was said here. I firmly believe that simplification and modernisation are important topics, but building the single market is the way to make Europe stable and prosperous. We should not forget that in doing so, we have to sacrifice 27 different treatments of different goods and services, create one set of rules and give up those that are created by Member States through gold plating or other measures. I hope, Council, we will talk more and more about it. Otherwise, I especially like two topics from the Council meeting. The first is drones – on drones, we have to team up together, first of all to be technologically on a higher level and, secondly, to better protect our soil, our infrastructure and our citizens. The second very important thing is the euro; I am very happy that the leaders are underwriting the goal to conclude banking unions, to promote the capital markets union, I just hope that in these matters, we will move from words to real results, and we will do so quickly.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, your Commission is in office only for half a year, so I guess your speech that was rather analysing the situation and showing the way forward was the proper one, but now time is coming when not speeches, but action will decide if we succeed in the battles that you properly describe. In months to come here in the House, we will have to show who has courage and who has the wisdom to do the right things. Difficult files will be on the table and we should show who is responsible, who is thinking about the future of Europeans and who is not. We will be voting on the EU-Mercosur Agreement and many others. The Commission should come with important proposals on how to improve our economy. We still don't have them and we badly need them. And again, the time will come and we will show who is caring about the future of Europeans, about their security and living standards, and who does not. I know that you are on board, most of our colleagues are on the board. Council should be on board. If we make it, we succeed. If not, we fail.

Mr President, Donald Trump has pushed the US trade policy almost 100 years back. Indeed, in 40s the US tariffs fall to 10 % and then continue declining to to pre-Trump 2 to 3 %. Now they are heading steeply, steeply up. On top of that we have that incredible unpredictability. The first who will suffer will be US citizens, US households who will pay more for the goods and have lower availability of the goods. But the global economy will suffer too, and obviously our businesses will suffer. But let's face the reality, this is where we stand. I'm glad to see here that the Commission has strong support from the Council and majority of Parliament to find the best possible solution. I hope we will reach it, but we must be ready also for the other result. At the same time, extending the network of our partnership, but mainly promoting the single market and remove the barriers. That's the way how to eliminate negative impacts of White House policy.

Madam President, let me start by congratulating our Bulgarian colleagues, like my friend, Dolors. I really envy them, that they have the courage to take the right decision. I'm saying that as a Czech – unfortunately, my country hasn't had this courage so far. But talking about our debate, I would say that this is a little bit of a half‑empty glass situation. I will talk about three issues. Only in one of them, I guess, are we on the very right track. The very right track is concerning the foreign diplomatic policies or foreign trade policies because here, I must say, I have great respect for the work of the Commission. I hope we will have the courage as the Parliament to take the right decision and go forward with that because this is something that will strengthen our economy. In the other two areas, it is not so positive. In defence, we should have more courage to work together because only by purchasing together, by coordinating, will we be able to improve our ability to defend ourselves effectively. It is the same for competitiveness. We know that the key for competitiveness is the strengthening of the single market, removing the barriers. But I don't see progress on the Member States level because these are Member States that build the barriers that are slowing down our economy. Why don't they start to race who is quicker in removing these barriers? This would make Europe stronger and this is what we need.

Mr President, selling passports for cash is just wrong. It is wrong from so many angles. It is wrong ethically, it was said clearly that passports are not candy or a telephone, and it undermines the value of citizenship. It hurts EU citizens because very often it's associated with increase of real estate prices created by this bubble of of gold-passport holders. It undermines the security and not just the security of the Member State that issues the passport, but security of all of the Union. It hurts very often the economy, because sometimes these people are involved in illicit activities that are hurting all the economy. And at the end of the day, it hurts mutual trust between the Member States and the citizens. I guess it is a pretty extensive list, isn't it? So that's why I'm really surprised that Malta keep providing this service for ten years. And I was very surprised by what was said here, because I guess the Commission clearly indicated that this practice is not correct. And there were several kind of Commission opinions reacting on the adjustments of the plan. I'm quite happy that the verdict of the Court is very clear, and I hope the Council will have a debate about it and it will be accepted by all Member States, not just by Malta. I guess the word of the day is difficult. We are facing a lot of troubles, a lot of challenges, a lot of risk. And one more by persuing such a bad policy is just not something that makes the world better. So I hope it will be stopped completely.

Mr President, dear colleagues, US tariff policy is just wrong – not only for all the world, but also for US firms and businesses. It will be the people and firms of the US who will pay most of the hundreds of billions in tariffs if they are actually collected. But we are not here to set the US policy. We are rightly debating our response. And here I am very glad that I can endorse the plan of the Commission, and I would just encourage the Commission to keep trying up to the last minute and find the best solution. I guess the first part of the plan is obviously an effort to minimise or avoid tariffs, and to keep or even extend the fair and free trade with the US. If you ask me if it's likely, I don't know. So that's why we should have the plan B that is proportionate. Secondly, we should extend, where possible, trade with the third country and also coordinate on possible responses. But the most important and most effective way is to deepen and complete the single market. There is no excuse for not doing that, because it will ensure the prosperity and stability of the European economy.

First, this is not exactly what I was talking about. But it's absolutely obvious: either we defend ourselves together, or we don't defend ourselves. What I'm talking about are the projects that will substantially increase our ability to defend, and make it much more effective, and save money – for example, anti-missile defence, drone defence, electronic defence, and so on. It would be – and I guess you understand – much more effective to make it together than try to develop 10 or 20 different systems at the same time. We don't each need to reinvent the wheel.

Madam President, the world has changed, not to better, in the last few years, but mostly in the last few weeks. It's clear what we Europeans have to do: the exact opposite to what Moscow, Beijing, but also Donald Trump, is dreaming about. We must get united and we must get much, much, much stronger. From that point of view, the summit was a good start. But not everything is about money. We need a strong and clear foreign policy to be able to represent the interest of Europeans. Common purchases are good, but it's not the same as the European defence that we desperately need, and this is what Manfred Weber was talking about. So for me, the summit was a good start. But we must go much, much further and we must go much, much quicker, because there is very little time left.

I just think the first: negotiate with EU to try to reduce our harm. The second: promote the single market that will make our economy stronger. And the third: develop the trade relationship with other countries through trade agreements. This is a way which I would propose.

Madam President, high unjustified tariffs don't make economies stronger. They don't make economies more competitive. It doesn't solve the fiscal problem. This was proved many, many times, but obviously Donald Trump is right, he can take this way if he wants. We as Europeans must stay united and negotiate in our interest, also to protect multilateralism. At the same time, we should clearly understand what cards we have in our hands. It's true that Europe has big surplus in trade in goods, but US firms have big surplus in trading of services. At the same time, US firms, especially large digital firms, are using EU single market with very free access to generate huge profits. So, we should understand what cards we have in our hands and they are not weak. We should negotiate with the US as with our friends, as well allies, but when we get into hard negotiation, we should really understand that we have a good position to defend our interests and also to fight for the multilateral trade relationships in order to help the global economy to be stronger.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I believe that focusing the first Council under new leadership on external actions is a good decision. Continuing war in Ukraine, situation in the Middle East, but also hybrid wars going on all around us, as we heard in the morning session, are clearly showing the importance of that. Secondly, given the uncertainty about the future course of US policy, it is important to focus on the position of the EU in the global world. We need a strong position to be able to defend our interests. Also in closer perimeter, focusing on enlargement and also the resilience of our society is important. But to deliver on all of this, we need a stronger economy. Listening to what was said on this topic, especially by speakers from extreme sides of the hemicycle, makes me sad, and is going clearly against any economic logic. Attacking efforts to improve the situation of our exporters, turning back on the transition of our economy to sustainable, effective and modern technology – this is exactly what would harm our economy and harm our citizens. I hope the Council will get back to the topic of the economy very soon, and we will find rational proposals and go forward – this is not what our colleagues proposed here today.

Madam President, we are almost at the end of the debate, so let me just say two remarks. The first: in the debate, I guess we learned how people interpret the democracy, how they interpret the elections and how they think about the future of our common Europe. And this was very sad. It shows how much the responsibility is lacking on parts of the politics in the 21st century. And the second comment, to you, Madam President: I guess we do not need to tell you that the times will be very difficult. You have experience with that, and we should learn how we managed the severe crises in the past few years. We must keep focus. It is not time to do, nice to have. We must really focus on things that deliver, do them well and do them quickly. You can count on that, on my support and the support of my colleagues from my delegation. So I wish you good luck, to all of us.

Mr President, as was said by the Commissioner at the beginning, the data are quite clear that, with the substantial contribution of the existing tax regime across the world, the super rich are just getting richer. It seems to me that it's really not good for society, there is no doubt about it. But I firmly believe it's also not good for the economy, at least in this extent. But at the same time, there are no doubts that finding a balanced functional response is far from easy, and only a more or less global response can work, as big money faces no borders. They are equipped by the best lawyers and best accountants that are finding the way how to make big money even bigger. So it will be a difficult journey. It will not be a short journey, but there is no excuse for not starting it. I guess the arguments are very clear. We need to reach the more or less global agreement that will tackle this issue, and we must start now. I guess that it was pointed out at the beginning, but to repeat once more, the OECD process fully backed by the G20 and G8 is the right way forward, but it must be also backed by strong and clear support of the EU. I guess this is what we should do.

Mr President, the competitiveness is economic topic of the day – by far the most important. We need to finally move from nice slogans to real action that will deliver. Letta report, Draghi report provide a good guidance how to go. But at the same time, we should not forget that there are pending proposals that will deliver improvement in our economy, like digital taxation proposal ViDA, and it's frustrating that due to the blockage of one Member State, we are not able to proceed. There is no silver bullet to really enhance quickly our economy. It's not an accident that Draghi report is more than 400 pages long. There is more than 100 recommendations and we should prioritise, and we should see what is the most important and what we should deliver quickly. For me, there are three areas. The first: making electricity cheaper. It is possible. We need investment. We need better market rules. The second: capital market and financial markets should become more European. It should be more consistent with the single market. This is not the point where we are. Last not least: economy of decarbonisation. We have good clear rules. We have the technologies, but it's very difficult to employ them quickly and to provide the benefits for our economy and become the leader in most of these technologies. For this we need enabling policies most probably that will be functional across Europe, that will ensure that Europe will deliver and Europe will get the economic benefits, and the Council should act on that.

Madam President, I guess this is an excellent paper. Not everyone obviously shares everything, but I guess the sense of urgency from this report is very clear. It includes not only great economics, but also some important takes. Let me borrow one sentence: procrastination has only produced slow growth and it has certainly achieved no more consensus. This is where we are. This is the message that should be sent clearly to the Council. Let me mention the three issues on the content of this very good economic report. The first, on which I would appreciate more debate, more consideration, is what is the positive role of clear existing rules and the targets set by the EU? The second, this policy sometimes has created quite a strong supply response or research response, at the same time without corresponding demand. That creates a lot of trouble for people that invest into that either human capital or financial resources. Last but not least, this report stresses or actually emphasises the quantitative response to the situation by means of increasing investment by certain percentage points of GDP. I guess that the debate on qualitative measures is also important, because I believe it can do a lot of trick. Anyway, this is a great report. I guess this could be the starting point of the debate that will lead us to a better EU economy in the future.

Madam President, let me first say that I am glad that it seems that we have a broad agreement on this very important act in debate within the Econ Committee. We were looking for ways of promoting a quicker introduction of net-zero strategic products, while at the same time keeping the market functioning and supporting the competition. This is also true for the extension of possible State aid, when we must balance the benefits of these steps, while also considering the risk that it creates for consistency of the single market. So I am glad that we support the creation of this file. At the same time, let me say that for the Parliament to come, the Council, the Commission to come, there is still the open issue that we should really find a way to better promote the transformation of our industry, to make sure that the global competitiveness of European firms is kept and strengthened.

Mr President, there is not so much to add. This was a great demonstration of unity of Parliament over this topic. This was not just unity of those who spoke here, but also we worked very well as the team. Obviously we haven’t agreed on anything, but we easily find the consensus. I wish that this is more often in this House in the future. Let me just say one more thanks to all the rapporteurs that are here, but also thank our team that was negotiating on that remarkable long night when we reached agreement with the Belgian Presidency around 2.30, with our Commissioner, with Irene. Let me very much thank Paul Tang. I guess this is a great success for Parliament. This is a great success for European citizens. But the war is not over. We must make sure that we keep checking the loopholes and we make sure that dirty money has no place in our Union.

Mr President, I guess this long speaking time is reflecting the hundreds of hours we spent on the anti-money-laundering file. But I hope I will not use all the four minutes. Let me start by saying that that money laundering, financing of terrorism is a very serious crime. This is something that is at the end of the criminal behaviour, but at the same time, ease with which money can be laundered is also stimulating the crime. Fighting money laundering is a continuous process because criminals are all the time trying to find a better way how to do it. So that’s why we have already six evolution of Anti-Money Laundering Directive and we are still trying to close the loopholes and make the system better. This time I’m grateful that the Commission had made some systemic changes. This change consists of, first, dividing the directive between the directive and the regulation, and at the same time creating the AMLA body that will oversee the quality of the anti-money laundering framework. It took more than two years. During that time the word has changed. We witnessed a terrible Russian attack on Ukraine and it has also some financial consequences. We try to find out where the assets of criminals sanctioned people are, and we found that it’s not easy. So this was another impact to our work. And I’m grateful the Commission accepts the fact that that we want more than was originally proposed. So what did we did do in file I was responsible for? Inter alia, we accept that we are living in the digital age, so we must make sure that the data are used digitally and exchange in a readable form that will make the fight against money laundering easier and more effective. We look very much at real estate, because the system in some countries are, I don’t want to say from the Middle Ages, but definitely are not up to the current situation. And we made a significant improvement. We are aiming to improve the quality data for beneficial ownership. Parliament was proposing to create the registers for planes, boats or similar assets, but we end up after the agreement with the Council with so-called threshold-based reporting that will look after ability to identify who owns such data. We also tried to improve the interaction between competent authorities and oblige entities, but making sure, for example, how quickly they will react on the suspicious transaction report. We also harmonised the sanctions, and this is just a short list of what we did. So I hope the system will improve the situation. I hope the system will close some loopholes and make sure that the weakest point of the anti-money-laundering system will become stronger. So let me, finally, thank the Commission for being responsive to the demands of Parliament. Let me thank the Council and especially the Belgian Presidency, who did a very good job in finalising the agreement. That would not be possible without really very great and very intense work of our people, our teams and EP staff. I hope that this file will get the support because I believe it deserves it.

Madam President, at the beginning let me share – and most of the colleagues share – dissatisfaction with the approach of the Council and Commission. Continuing the support for Ukraine is a must for us. This war is also about our security and about our values. In this context, it is really hard for me to understand the hesitation about money of the Russian state deposited in European banks or financial institutions – and I am here not talking about the revenues or interest; I am talking about money itself. I am very surprised to hear that such a move would harm our credibility or our legal position, and I am surprised to hear it from the ECB. If someone is of this opinion, this opinion really deserves very careful consideration in a broader context. I strongly believe that those who are acting clearly against the most important principles of the international order and cooperation cannot seek the protection of the same order and its rules. So I strongly urge you to really reconsider the situation, because it is really hard to sustain it.