What Siegfried spoke about.

Mr President, dear colleagues, many thanks for the unity which the European Parliament has shown throughout this process. Carla Tavares and myself, as co-rapporteurs, have worked in a very inclusive, transparent manner with all of the sectoral committees of Parliament, with all political groups who want a stronger budget for a stronger Europe. I would, of course, like to first and foremost thank my co-rapporteur, Carla Tavares, for all the work that she has put into this report, and the shadows of the political groups that have worked with us. We propose, as a European Parliament, a budget for more security, for more defence, for a stronger European Union, for more competitiveness, for innovation, for a digital agenda. A budget which does not forget about the vulnerable parts of our population, because Europe has always had a social side as well. We propose a budget for energy security and food security, for border protection, for cybersecurity and defence. We want decisions to be made as close as possible to the citizens. This is why we want a strong role for the European regions in the decision-making and in the implementation of the budget. We want regions to have a binding role to decide how money is being spent, because they are close to the citizens and they know the needs of the citizens best. We also want the European Parliament to have a strong say, because this only ensures transparency, democratic control and accountability. We want a strong rule of law conditionality. Let me be clear: everyone who receives European funds has to respect European values. We want predictability. Farmers and regions, researchers and beneficiaries of EU funds for large infrastructure projects should all know what resources are available for them in the next years. Predictability is important. If we tell a researcher, 'we give you money this year, but we will see next year', he will for sure do his research in the United States, in Asia or somewhere outside Europe. This is why we want clear funding for each category of beneficiaries. Then we have Mr Bardella here, who tells us he wants to cut the budget of the European Union. What Mr Bardella and his peers are proposing – what he said earlier today – means that we would have less funding for French farmers and for farmers everywhere in Europe. There would be less funding for French fishers and for fishers everywhere in Europe. There would be less funding for French industry and for industry everywhere in Europe. The idea that anti-European extremists are telling – 'we will weaken Europe, we will reduce the budget, we will do it better at national level' – is false. This is exactly what led to Brexit. This is exactly the lie the Brexit campaign told the people of the United Kingdom – and we see all the misery right now. This is why we reject this as the European Parliament. We will adopt a budget that is future-oriented, that is relevant. In order to have enough resources not to make cuts, to pay back the debt and not to burden Member States with additional contributions, we propose own resources for the budget of the Union, and we have three new ideas, Commissioner: a digital levy, an own resource based on online gaming and gambling, and an own resource based on crypto transactions. Commissioner, we call on you and your services to do technical work together with the Council and with us in the next weeks to see what are the possible own resources. You made some proposals as a Commission last year, but we believe new ideas deserve to be brought to the table, and we are also ready to discuss with Member States any other ideas that they might have on own resources. So, Commissioner, please let us do some technical work to allow alternatives to be prepared. Today, the European Parliament will adopt its position. We want a fast agreement with the Council and with the Commission. As of today, we are ready for talks. We will have a mandate and the ball is now in the court of the Council. We are looking forward to discussions to adopt a meaningful budget soon.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we are putting to vote, here in the European Parliament, the position of the Parliament on the budget of the European Union for the next seven years. We are presenting a budget which is sufficient, which is predictable and which is transparent, because the reality is the world is changing and we all have to do more for our security, for our economic strength. We have to do more for our energy independence, for our food security, and for our cybersecurity. None of these tasks can be solved by Member States individually alone. They are too big for us alone. We can only solve them together, united. And this is why Europe needs a budget to meet our ambitions, our aspirations, and our political priorities. The position of the European Parliament is clear: we believe we cannot do more with less. That is a myth. Whoever wants to weaken Europe should say it and should propose the reduction of the budget. But we, as the European Parliament, believe that if Europe has to be strong, it needs the tools, and the budget is an essential tool. Europe can only be strong with a strong budget. And this is why we propose a budget in which the new priorities – security, defence and competitiveness – are well funded and the traditional priorities, which have proven their importance and their viability in time – agriculture, fisheries, regional policy – continue to be funded. There cannot be security without food security. The support of our farmers means millions of jobs in agriculture, means rural development and means food security. This is why we continue to defend farmers and fishers. What we propose as a budget, as a European Parliament, is predictability to agriculture and to cohesion policy. We reject the idea of weakening these two policies. We want a separate budget for agriculture and cohesion, and legal predictability. We also propose to restore the cuts made by the European Commission to fisheries, because fisheries are also essential for the food security of Europe. And because outermost regions are of strategic importance for the Union as a whole, we all have to defend them. And this is why we, as a Parliament, propose a dedicated fund for the outermost regions, the islands far away, because defending them should be a common task for the European Union. We propose to invest more in our competitiveness, in research innovation. If we do not invest more in research and innovation, we will end up buying technologies from other countries in the future. Hence a clear focus on competitiveness, on research, innovation, on large infrastructure projects like military mobility and energy infrastructure projects, which would make Europe more resilient and stronger. Likewise, we are aware that we can only be safe in Europe if our neighbouring countries (many of them EU candidate countries) are safe and are protected. This is why we are proposing for each candidate country – our neighbours, countries that are defending European values together with us – separate dedicated funding. When it comes to how the budget should be managed, we want transparency, we want democratic control, and that can only be safeguarded with the strong role of the European Parliament. On the size of the budget, the European Commission proposed the budget and it says, well, we should allocate some of the money to beneficiaries, but also pay back the debt made with NextGenerationEU. We believe that paying back debt should not be made at the expense of beneficiaries, at the expense of programmes, and we propose to allocate the whole budget, as proposed by the European Commission, to programmes and to pay back the debt through the introduction of new own resources, above and beyond the ceilings of the budget. This allows us to allocate 10 % more to those programmes and projects which I described, and which we all need very much. On the introduction of own resources, we as Parliament have three new proposals of sources of revenues for the European Union, which would make our budget more transparent, more predictable and more European: a digital levy, an own resource based on transactions with cryptocurrencies, and an own resource based on online gaming and gambling. Because if we want to fund our priorities properly, to avoid cuts, to pay back debt, and not to increase the contribution of Member States significantly, then own resources are unavoidable, particularly the one on digital, because if the world's largest digital giants are benefiting from our single market, it is fair for them to also contribute something in resources to the budget. We cannot cut funding to our farmers, to our researchers, while the global technological giants enjoy a free ride on Europe's single market. This is what we are proposing as a European Parliament. Many thanks to my co-rapporteur. A strong budget for a strong Europe.

Madam President, to Ms Firmenich and everyone repeating Russia's narrative in this House: the one who started the illegal, illegitimate and unprovoked war in Ukraine is the Russian Federation. It is Vladimir Putin. This needs to be said: Russia started the war and Russia is the only one who can stop the war right now, if they so wish. To the people of Ukraine, we have to say today and every day, thank you for fighting for freedom, for democracy, for your security, but also for our security. The fight of the people of Ukraine is keeping Europe safe as well. Every night, while we sleep in peace and in our homes, millions of people in Ukraine are freezing, they are having their houses bombed, they are staying in shelters. Their daily reality is survival. And they fight not only for Ukraine, but they fight also for us. They keep Europe safe. This needs to be said. So standing in solidarity with them is not only a moral obligation, but it is a strategic necessity for us. This is why we, as the European Parliament, were correct to decide in January to adopt additional support to Ukraine fast, in an emergency procedure. In February we gave our positive vote to EUR 90 billion for Ukraine. We also need to say that the European Union is the largest donor for Ukraine. We are doing more for Ukraine than anyone else. We matter and we understand that we have to do more for our own security. We will invest more from the budget of the European Union in our defence. We will help Member States to invest in their defence because we know that keeps Ukraine safe, it keeps Europe safe and it keeps the aggressor away.

Mr President, High Representative, dear colleagues, when the President of the United States of America says that he no longer feels an obligation to think purely of peace, and that his own morality is the only thing that can stop him, then the world has changed. And this is the new reality. We should not be naive. We should not hope that things will stay as they used to be. We have to tell the truth to the people of Europe, and the only thing that matters right now is how we will act and what we will do. We need to be strong and we need to be fast, and we need to be united. We should not be weak and hesitant and slow and divided. We should tell people very clearly that things will not stay as they were hoping, that things will stay as they were – that would be wrong. Hope is no strategy. We have to prioritise. We have to act. We have to act fast. We have to prioritise security. Security has to become the top priority of the European Union: food security, energy security, defence, cybersecurity, protecting our coastal areas, our border regions – that is essential. Security is also an essential component for our prosperity. We should also open up to the world. We should do more with countries that are ready to cooperate with us – the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries around the world. We should cooperate more with them in terms of defence, in terms of research, in terms of innovation and in terms of trade, because a European Union that has many allies around the world is a European Union that is strong. We have a big market on offer, we are rules‑based, we are predictable and we stand by our goal. We should not believe what the Eurosceptics are telling us. No, we are not weak, we are not divided. We are strong, and now is the time to be united, clear and fast.

Madam President, President Christodoulides, welcome back to the European Parliament, colleagues, the world is changing. The rules-based international order is being called into question, and we all have a choice to make: do we give it up or do we defend it? And I believe – and this is the clear opinion of the majority of the Members of this House – that it is in our fundamental interest to continue to defend the rules-based international order, because rules bring security, rules are good for citizens, rules are good for companies, for investments, they bring jobs, growth, prosperity. No rules means anarchy, means isolation, means poverty and means insecurity. And this is why, Mr President, the priority of the Cypriot Presidency on 'an autonomous Union' is very important and is correct right now. Hoping that the world is not changing would be wrong; hope is no strategy. The only thing that matters is what we are doing right now. We have to prioritise security. We have to change our mindset. We will have to do more to keep Europe safe. We will have to do it faster and for a longer period of time. We have to invest more. We have to cooperate with the United Kingdom and with like-minded partners. We have to prioritise our border regions, and Cyprus has a lot of experience to share with us given its strategic geographic position. We have to support our outermost regions. And if we say that security is a top priority for the European Union, it also has to be reflected in the way in which we spend. The budget of the Union for the next seven years has to become a budget for the security of all citizens of Europe – a budget for food security, for energy security, for cybersecurity, for defence and for protecting our borders. Mr President, the vast majority in the European Parliament stands ready to work with you on advancing the security of Europe, on keeping Europe united and safe.

Thank you for the question. We have said very clearly for the European Parliament, and the EPP Group is committed on this as well – the Chair, Manfred Weber, has said it, I said it and you will hear it from all of our colleagues – that the budget needs to be designed as closely as possible to the citizens. A strong goal of the regions means that we fund what is relevant to people on the ground. If we implement the budget with the regions, the absorption is faster rather than if we try to design it above their heads. This is why also ourselves, as co-rapporteurs of the Parliament, will, throughout these negotiations, stand up for a mandatory, clear role of the regions at every stage of the budget.

Madam President, dear Mr Jungbluth, providing support to farmers, to researchers, to students; protecting our borders; making our economies greener and more digital, more innovative; making money available for artificial intelligence – this is what Europe is doing through the budget of the European Union. What you're proposing is a weaker Europe, is weaker Member States, is bad for the citizens of Europe and bad for the enterprises of Europe. The European Parliament will be united in making sure that the budget that we are going to adopt, together with the European institutions, is relevant, future-oriented and corresponding to the expectations of the citizens. Now, adopting the budget is a core competence of every Parliament, and designing, agreeing and implementing the budget of the European Union is one of our main responsibilities as the European institutions, and the European Parliament has a major role in this. Following the presentation of the budget by the European Commission in July, we have listened to the people. We have listened to beneficiaries of EU funds, to farmers, to researchers, to small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have heard that security and defence on the one side and competitiveness on the other side should be the new priorities of the budget for the next years. This is what the European Commission is putting forward. This is also what we as a Parliament have asked, and these two priorities are clearly supported. We have also heard that the traditional priorities of the Union, which have proven their viability in time – agriculture, which guarantees food security, rural development, millions of jobs in the agriculture sector, and also cohesion policy – continue to remain relevant. We think that in these two areas, some essential improvements were needed and are still needed, and this is why we as a Parliament spoke up. We were united as pro-European groups and we said we need a common agricultural policy, which is European, which is future-oriented, which is modern. And we also need a cohesion policy in which the regions are involved. Now, the European Commission has put forward a proposal which we believe is a very important step forward. We welcome it. We see this as an improved basis for negotiations. Of course, it doesn't clarify everything, but this is why we have negotiations ahead of us: to still agree on everything. With this new proposal, we see guaranteed funding for rural areas, we see a guaranteed role for the regions and we see safeguards that all regions will receive funds. We see this is an improved proposal; we are ready to start legislative work. But of course, the European Parliament will fight for a budget which is relevant, which is modern, which is European, transparent, and which corresponds to the expectations of the citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, welcome to the Parliament. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Andrzej Halicki and Matjaž Nemec, for the report which they put forward. You are making the most with the limited resources that we have. This is a budget in which young farmers, young students through the Erasmus programme, the Connecting Europe Facility, Frontex, Eurojust, Ukraine, our neighbourhood, military mobility receive solid support. This is a position that deserves to be supported. On behalf of the EPP Group, we are going to support the work done by our two rapporteurs and we are confident that they will receive a clear majority tomorrow, where we will see pro-European groups united. They make the most with very limited resources and we are now going to, together, decide a budget for a year, which is close to the end of this Multiannual Financial Framework, and we can already see the consequences of some of the mistakes which we made when we designed this Multiannual Financial Framework. We should not repeat these mistakes again for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. And the mistakes were: firstly, this budget was insufficient, there were not enough margins, not enough reserves, it could not react in situations of crisis. We see also the margins very limited for 2026, so we need to draw the lessons for the future there. Secondly, we did together NextGenerationEU. We see reimbursing NextGenerationEU costs money. The correct lesson to be drawn is we need to work together on the introduction of own resources. And, Minister, if we all want Europe to do more, particularly on competitiveness, on security, on defence, that cannot be done at the expense of the traditional policies. We as a Parliament will defend, also for the next MFF, an ambitious but future-oriented common agricultural policy and cohesion policy. What I want to say is we cannot do more with less. This is something that we have to take into account also for the next MFF.

Madam President, Prime Minister Frieden, welcome to the European Parliament. Luxembourg has been at the heart of European integration for more than 70 years – a founding home of European institutions and a symbol of unity, stability and confidence in the European project. You have recently stated that Europe is a necessity. This is now more true than ever. We are seeing autocrats cooperating closer around us. It is clear that we – those who believe in a strong, united European Union, those who believe in the ideals of the European project – have to cooperate even closer, and have to deliver on what the people of Europe expect. That is of course, firstly, safety, stability, security. And, secondly, a prosperous, modern, future-oriented, innovative economy. We can only be safe if we all contribute to this. On this note, I would like to thank you, Prime Minister, for the contribution which the people of Luxembourg are making to the security of all of us. Luxembourg is deploying European soldiers in my home country, Romania, less than 200 km away from the border to Ukraine. We have there Luxembourgish soldiers with soldiers from other EU Member States training soldiers together and making sure that our national armed forces from all over Europe are becoming stronger and can protect us. That effort of Luxembourgish soldiers keeps Luxembourg safe, makes Luxembourg safer, and makes all of us safer. Just a word on enlargement. You're absolutely right in your appeal that we take leadership when it comes to enlargement. The more candidate countries reform, the more they modernise, the better for our security and stability. They should become EU Members only once they fulfil the criteria, but we should do more in helping them to fulfil the criteria. Once they fulfil the criteria, the message needs to be sure: the door is open for them to join the European Union.

Madam President, we thank Mr Lazarus for mixing up everything with everything in trying to gain some of our attention, but not much of what he said is true. The European Union is a very democratic entity. This very Parliament that we are all together in is directly elected by the citizens of Europe. We have elected together the European Commission and the European Commission is making decisions, checked, controlled by the European Parliament. We have clear procedures here at European level. This is all very democratic.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, dear colleagues, we are surrounded by autocrats. Autocrats who want to weaken us, who cooperate ‑ look at their picture in Beijing ‑, who attack our neighbours, our values, our cyberspace and our democracies. Disinformation, cyber attacks, provocations and electoral interference are their weapons, and they are looking for servants within the 27 Member States of the Union. They challenge us from outside and they challenge us from inside. And looking away will not protect us. Nobody else will protect us unless we protect ourselves. And it is clear that to live in peace, we need to be strong. This is why setting security and defence, on the one side, and competitiveness, on the other side, is our top priorities for the next years is the right decision and these two security and competitiveness are interlinked. We will only be able to invest more in our security if our economies are strong, and the private sector will only invest more in our economies if they feel safe and to be protected we need even more. Food security is of essence. There can be no national security without food security. And we need strong and modern infrastructures, energy infrastructure, digital infrastructure, which is innovative, modern and transport infrastructure, large cross-border projects which protect our single market, and smaller infrastructure projects which are deeply rooted at local and regional level. These shall be the priorities of the Union for the next years, and these should also be reflected in the way in which we spend. This is what the majority of colleagues in this House stand for. And this is why we believe that as we are embarking now on the work for the budget of the Union for the next seven years, we should defend this together in the work that we are going to do. Security, competitiveness, food security and good infrastructure is strongly anchored at local level.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last four years, the Republic of Moldova has applied for membership of the European Union. He was granted the status of candidate state. The Member States of the European Union, at the request of the European Parliament, following the recommendation of the European Commission, unanimously decided that the Republic of Moldova becomes a candidate state for accession to the European Union and also decided that the Republic of Moldova can start accession negotiations. These negotiations are ready and need to start very soon. This is also what we are asking for in the resolution of the European Parliament. The Republic of Moldova has started essential reforms, including in the area of justice. The Republic of Moldova has overcome two energy crises. He responded, with our support, to two energy blackmails from the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Moldova offered help to the people of Ukraine who were looking for security. At the same time, we, the European Union, supported an economic support package of 1.9 billion for the next three years, through which we will help the Republic of Moldova to become more modern schools, hospitals to become more modern, roads to become better and the Republic of Moldova to be linked, including energetically, to free, democratic countries of the European Union, so that in the future the Russian Federation can never again blackmail and threaten the Republic of Moldova, as it did in the past. We say very clearly: The Republic of Moldova is not alone. We will help her on the road to European integration, because we know that helping the Republic of Moldova is also support for the European Union. A strong and secure Republic of Moldova also means a more secure European Union and I want to say very clearly: while Russia wants to weaken the Republic of Moldova, we want to strengthen the Republic of Moldova, a Moldovan republic as strong as possible, led by a pro-European government, because only a pro-European government can take the Republic of Moldova to the European Union.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the common agricultural policy is one of the core competences, the core responsibilities of the European Union. Through our implication in that area, through our support of farmers, we are guaranteeing millions of jobs in Europe in the agriculture sector. We are guaranteeing rural development, which goes way beyond agriculture, and we are guaranteeing food security and high consumer protection. Our food standards, our quality standards here in the European Union are better than anywhere else in the world. Let me say very clearly, in times of multiple security risks that we are facing from autocrats around the world, there cannot be national security without food security. Food security is now more important than ever. Farmers have faced difficult recent years. They made more efforts. They faced more pressure. They are doing more to protect the environment. They are the first victims, very often, of extreme weather conditions. They are facing price volatility. They are facing high inflation and they are also facing a shortage of labour force. We are asking more from them, so we have a duty to do more for them as well. It is in our fundamental interest. It is in the fundamental interest of the people, no matter what sector they are involved in. This is why this European Parliament has a clear position, Commissioner, particularly now with the beginning of the negotiations on the next seven‑year budget. We want to preserve the identity of the common agricultural policy. People in Europe – farmers, specifically – should know exactly that support will be coming in the next seven years as well so that they can plan their investment. So our demands are clear: the common agricultural policy should remain as a distinct policy with a separate budget, which is easily identifiable with the two pillars. We want a separate legal base, and in financial terms, the support for farmers should be at least the same as it was now, adjusted to inflation. The Parliament is united behind this position.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, welcome to Parliament, dear colleagues, the debate that we are having today is very important because it's the start of us deciding how we will spend up to 2034. And this has to be in line with the priorities of the Union. This will also influence priority spending at national and regional levels and will also trigger private investments. The debate is important because we need to give certainty to the beneficiaries of EU funds. Farmers, students, researchers, and small and medium-sized enterprises need to know what amounts – under which conditions and for which types of projects – will be available. Of course, seven years is a long period of time. Of course, we need to be open to unexpected developments. But we need to give certainty to those who invest – to those who keep the economy going. This is why the European Parliament starts this process with clear priorities. And we say, firstly, our new priorities have to be security and defence, and competitiveness; and these two are interlinked. We need to strengthen our economy. We need to invest in research, innovation and digitisation; improve our energy efficiency; and reduce pollution. We need to improve security and defence. 1.2 % of the previous MFF – less than EUR 15 billion – for security and defence for seven years for 27 Member States is not enough. These are our new priorities, but you cannot have security without food security, and you cannot have a competitive economy without an investment policy. And this is why our traditional priorities, our traditional policies – the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy – are today more relevant than ever. And this is why we say, dear colleagues, Commissioner, before the proposal on 16 July: 'the utmost priority of Parliament now – and the strong expectation – is that the identity and the strength of the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy shall be preserved'. This means a clear, distinct, separate budget for our farmers. They need to know exactly what the resources available to them are, what the resources for rural development are. It means a legal base – a separate legal base – for agriculture and for cohesion and a clear goal for the regions in the cohesion policy. We need a direct allocation for regions in the cohesion policy. And the cohesion policy should continue to serve the development of the least developed regions. These are our priorities. Parliament is clearly united behind this, and we are ready to start work on negotiations as soon as possible...

Madam President, Prime Minister, welcome back to the European Parliament. Denmark is taking over the Council Presidency at a very important moment. Setting the right priorities for the Union for the next six months is essential because, Prime Minister, your success will be our success. Truth be told, we are seeing autocrats inside the European Union and outside the European Union cooperating closely, clearly wanting to weaken our democracy, weaken our security, weaken our prosperity. Let me say clearly: we will only be able to defend our democracy and our prosperity if we fight for it. This is why setting security and defence on the one side, and competitiveness, prosperity, defending our way of life, our high social standards in Europe, are essential priorities for the next six months. They should be priorities of the Danish Presidency and they are our priorities for the next years. We should also put our money where our mouth is. As the Prime Minister has said, as the Vice-President of the Commission has said, the European Commission will make their proposal on the multiannual financial framework of the Union on 16 July. We should work closely together to make sure that that will be a budget that will be adopted in time, that will give certainty to beneficiaries of EU funds, to researchers, to farmers, to the regions, to students. It should be a budget that makes Europe safer and more competitive. It should be a budget that prioritises and doesn't neglect traditional priorities. Farmers are important, regions are important and it should be a European budget, not a sum of 27 different national interests. For this, the European Parliament will fight together.

First of all, Mr Sánchez and his party lost the elections in Spain, they did not win the elections. They managed to form a parliamentary majority, gaining the support of Catalan separatists, who had otherwise violated the Spanish Constitution through Catalonia's independence referendum. They managed to gain their political support by offering a broad amnesty law for many acts that consisted of violations of Spanish law in that referendum, as well as many other acts, including corruption.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioners, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez came to power by breaching the rule of law through his amnesty law. Now we are all witnessing that Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wants to stay in power even more by further weakening the rule of law and by encouraging and tolerating the people around him, who are breaking the rule of law. The rule of law, dear colleagues, means that the government does not control the judiciary. And if people close to the Prime Minister break the law, the obligation of the Prime Minister is to defend the law, not to defend his friends. Close friends, companions of the Prime Minister of Spain are involved in corruption cases. They are misusing European funds and this is a matter which Commissioner colleagues should concern all European institutions. Whoever receives European funds should defend European values and we as a European Parliament want the people of Spain to receive as many funds as possible. Spain is one of the main beneficiaries of European funds. But unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Spain, through his deliberate actions against the rule of law, poses a risk to the people of Spain continuing to receive European funds. If Spain and the Spanish Government continues on this track, I am afraid that sooner or later the European funds for the people of Spain will be put into question. We do not want this to happen. We want the people of Spain to benefit from all that Europe has to offer. But clearly, the actions of the Prime Minister are a risk in that sense. Spain deserves better. The people of Spain deserve better.

Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for this long and fruitful debate, and thank you for the broad support for the report, which Victor Negrescu and myself have drafted and are putting in front of you. We are, of course, noticing different opinions, the overall support, and let me say that in our report we wanted to present a factual, objective, non-ideological and European report – a report which properly assesses the Recovery and Resilience Facility with all its merits, but which also points out its shortcomings and draws some lessons to be learned for the future. When speaking about merits, we are all seeing that hospitals were built with support from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, that transport infrastructure was made more energy efficient, that the education system was modernised, was digitalised, that public administration was also modernised, and that overall economies became more competitive, more resilient due to investments, but also due to the reforms which were implemented and which are important. So we all see the merits, we all see the achievements, but of course some things we could do better in the future. One of them is the way in which we link reforms and investments. We believe that such a link needs to be precise – we do not want beneficiaries of certain funds to be punished because the national government wouldn't do a pension or taxation reform. So if ever, in the future, investments and reforms are linked, the reform needs to be precise. Then, of course, the role of the regions needs to be better taken into account, and the role of the European Parliament. Whenever European money is being spent, the European Parliament needs to be involved properly because this is the only way to ensure democratic accountability and legitimacy, then transparency, accountability and stakeholder involvement – here, Commissioner, we count on you. We count on the European Commission playing an active role to make sure that we know the final beneficiaries, that governments will publish the final beneficiaries. People have the right to know who received the money. And of course, a strong role for the European Public Prosecutor and the European Anti-Fraud Office. We thank you all for the constructive work. We thank you for the support which the report has received at the level of committee, and we are looking forward to the vote tomorrow.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, indeed, at the very beginning of the pandemic generated by the coronavirus, the European Union acted swiftly, united and we launched the biggest package of economic support ever created at European level to help those affected by the pandemic (citizens, companies, regions, Member States) to cope with the economic and social consequences of the pandemic. This had a very important impact, then, also upon the private sector, which kept on investing, knowing that financial support from Europe would be coming. We showed then that Europe is united, that we express solidarity and that we support those in need. It was Europe at its best. Our main objective, then, in the short term was to help those affected. But our main objective in the long term was to strengthen our economy, to strengthen also the private sectors, to reform them, to make them more digital, more energy efficient, to improve their resilience, to make sure that whenever a next crisis hits us, we will be better prepared. And for that, we knew that investments are important, but that reforms are needed as well. This is why this is a package of investments and reforms. Whenever money is involved, we tend to speak only about money, but we should not forget this is a package of investments and reforms, and its benefits can only be maximised if authorities at local, regional but particularly at national level reform and improve the state of their economy and also of their public sector. Now, there are 14 more months for the implementation and the conclusion of this instrument. This is why Victor Negrescu and myself are putting forward an implementation reform, which should be factual, objective and European. It should help us draw the lessons. What went well? What could have been done better? One conclusion is that this is a new instrument. It functions differently than all other EU funds. This is why it took time for Member States to get used to it. It took time for the European Commission to get used to it. And we want for this instrument to be successfully concluded. It's a one-off instrument. This was decided in the beginning. This was never up for debate. It shall end. For the time being, the rules say that everything ends 31 August 2026. We say that those projects which are mature, which are eligible, which were approved by the Commission, which are in the implementing phase – we should make sure that they can properly conclude. This is why we say no handing in of new projects after the 31 August 2026, but give some more time, and the proposal of the Parliament, adopted by a large majority at the committee level, is to give projects 18 months more time to conclude successfully. We also ask Member States to prioritise mature projects in the upcoming months, to focus only on those projects which make sense, which are mature, and which can be properly implemented. Of course, when we speak about lessons to be learned, there are some things which could have been done better. Firstly, the involvement of local regional authorities – national governments did not involve them properly. The more you involve the national and regional level, the faster you implement and the more relevant the projects are close to the citizen. This is the first shortcoming. The second shortcoming is lack of cross-border projects. Governments, as they submitted their national recovery plans, each of them thought only nationally. But we as a European Parliament see this as a shortcoming, as a mistake. We would have wanted more cross-border projects and more European added value. Large, ambitious infrastructure projects, for example, which help Europe as a whole. And of course, transparency. We need to know how money is spent. We need to know who the final beneficiaries are. And there we also need to be strong. This is what we're putting forward for debate. I would also like to thank my co-rapporteur Victor Negrescu, the shadows and everyone who has worked on this report. It's an objective, factual, useful, I think, assessment of an important tool, and it draws some useful lessons for the future, as well as for the budget of the European Union and for any other future project linked to EU funds.

Mr President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for all the work that we have done together and for your kind words today, for the support that Carla Tavares and myself have received. Look, we as a Parliament want a budget of the European Union that is simple, that is flexible, that is aligned with the priorities of the Union and that is European. The priorities of the people right now are to keep Europe safe, to protect people, and to strengthen the economy, to make it more competitive. These are the priorities of the people. This is why we make these also the priorities of the budget, and we believe they are linked. The economy is strong and competitive only if people and enterprises feel protected and we will only be able to stay protected, to invest in security, defence, in protecting our citizens if our economy is strong and contributes also to the budget. We want a budget that is European. This is why – and we have heard it today very clearly – we reject 27 different divergent, sometimes opposing agendas, approaches at national level to the budget. This is why we say a clear no to the single national plans. What we have heard so far about this idea has not convinced us, and the colleagues in Parliament are absolutely united: a European budget for European priorities, for projects with European added value. We also believe that whoever accesses EU funds has to respect European values. You want European funds, you have to respect European values. This is why we will be strong on the rule of law conditionality, on implementing a budget in a way in which it is aligned with our European values. And – important – debt was made in the past. Immediately after the beginning of the Covid pandemic, we launched the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the biggest package of economic support ever. It contributes to growth, to employment, but the repayment is not yet clarified. Own resources are the only possibility to repay NextGenerationEU, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, without affecting the EU budget. This is why we as a Parliament stay so strongly in favour of own resources. And, to conclude, immediately after the European Commission puts forward their proposal, we will be ready to negotiate with the Council, with the support also of the European Commission. The sooner we agree, the better, so that the budget can be implemented as of 1 January 2028 without any delays. Thank you all for the support in view of tomorrow's vote.

Mr President, Commissioner, welcome to the European Parliament. Indeed, today, as the European Parliament, we are officially starting work on the next seven-year budget of the European Union: the next multiannual financial framework. This is more than just a financial plan; it will be an agenda for Europe for the next decade. How do we want Europe to look in 10 years' time? What are our priorities? How are we helping people in ordinary, good times, but also in times of crisis? What are our political priorities? These are the fundamental questions that we will have to debate in the context of the next multiannual financial framework. And we will have to put our money where our priorities are. This will be a fundamental debate: which areas will we fund, under which conditions and which types of projects will be eligible? On all this, the European Parliament and the Member States will decide – with a bit of support maybe also from the European Commission. Today we are having the debate, tomorrow we are going to vote on the position of the European Parliament, which is a clear position and one which we expect the European Commission to take into account when it puts forward its draft proposal in July. What is the position of the Parliament? What are our priorities? Firstly, we see that people in Europe expect safety and security. If this is what people expect, then this is what we have to deliver, and the budget of the European Union has to be a tool for this. Only 1 % of the current multiannual financial framework, less than EUR 15 billion for seven years for 27 Member States, went into security and defence. This was not enough. Security and defence – protecting the citizens – will have to become a priority for the next seven years. We have to support a strong European defence industry, increase spending at European level in this area, enhance military mobility, be better on cybersecurity, support dual-use infrastructure and protect our borders because this is needed. Safety and security: first priority. Secondly: competitiveness, and this is also very much linked to safety and security. People will only feel safe in Europe if our economy is strong, companies will only invest if they feel protected, and we will only be able to invest more in security and defence if our economy is strong and competitive. This is why we call for a simple investment structure, stronger public-private synergies, more funding for SMEs and for start ups, and we should make better use of the European Investment Bank, support strong, successful existing projects like Horizon Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility, which make our economy more competitive. All of the programmes that we have to contribute to making Europe more competitive. We do not believe that just putting a headline, Commissioner-called 'competitiveness fund' upon merging some programmes automatically makes our economy more competitive. We are going to defend cohesion policy and agriculture. Of course, cohesion policy is our main investment policy. It has to evolve. It has to become more modern, be better aligned with our objectives on security, defence and competitiveness. But it is important – many regions were developed because of it. So we are going to defend cohesion, we are going to defend agriculture, and we are going to ask that each of them remains as a single distinct policy. We believe that merging some programmes may be justified, but we do not believe that merging all programmes into single national plans is a correct idea. The European Parliament rejects an idea floated by the European Commission that each Member State should have a single national plan adopted at European level. We reject this because we want one budget for the European Union. We do not want 27 different national agendas competing against each other. We want a budget which is more flexible so that we can react to unexpected developments, and we also want a budget which is simpler. Simplification for us means making accessing EU funds easier for beneficiaries – for SMEs, for farmers, for entrepreneurs, for local communities. Making the budget simpler simply does not mean a big role for the Commission and a small role for the Parliament and for the Council. We want the Parliament to be involved in every step of the budget. I will say a bit more at the end, when I will still receive two more minutes about own resources and about aligning European funds with European values. But for the time being we are presenting a clear agenda for the next seven years in line with the priorities of the people. We are sure that the European Parliament, Commissioner, will support this with a large majority tomorrow in the vote.

Madam President, colleagues, to everyone here in the House who wants to weaken Europe we say very clearly, the pro-European parties here in the European Parliament are united in strengthening Europe, in defending the European Union. What the Eurosceptics advocate for ‑ a weak Europe ‑ only serves the Russian Federation and autocratic regimes around the world. We want a strong European Union capable of defending its citizens. A weak European Union is a vulnerable European Union. Being stronger means that we can defend the citizens, and this is what pro-European party stand for, because this is what the people of Europe expect. Whoever believes that the world is changing is late. The world has already changed. Unfortunately, the United States of America are turning their backs on key allies, on their neighbours, on their closest partners, and also on international institutions which they helped create, which they often led and which brought prosperity and peace for over 80 years. What should we do in this case? In this case, we should make more friends and more partners around the world, and we should strengthen the international partnerships that the European Union has. In these times, the European Union is becoming more important and more relevant to the Member States, to the citizens of Europe and also to our neighbouring countries. We're going to provide for prosperity, and we are going to do more on security and on defence. And as Manfred Weber has said in the beginning, the first step, the EUR 800 billion, is just a first package. It's the beginning. Our clear position is that on security and defence, we will have to do more. We will have to do it faster, and we will have to do it for a longer period of time. We have to create mechanisms right now, but we also have to make sure that we provide sufficient funding for security and defence in the long term. Security and defence should become a priority for the budget of the European Union in the long term, and we should invest in those projects which firstly bring European added value ‑ people should see the European signature ‑ and, secondly, they meet the needs of the people on the ground. People should see that Europe is there to help. It spends where it is needed on the ground.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Mr Jungbluth, our duty here in the European Parliament is to protect the citizens of Europe. And I am afraid that your speech here does not provide any additional protection, any additional certainty and any additional security to the people of Europe. This is the difference between pro-Europeans and between sceptics, extremists and anti-Europeans. We want to solve problems here. We want to strengthen Europe. You want to weaken Europe and just want to create problems. What is our approach for next year? Under the leadership of Andrzej Halicki, the European Parliament's rapporteur for the budget 2026, we are putting forward clear priorities for the budget of the European Union for next year. Security, strategic autonomy, food security and economic resilience should be our priorities. We want to make our economy stronger, more competitive, more resilient so that we can together invest more in the security of our citizens, in defending our countries, in protecting our external borders, in overcoming the multiple risks that we are facing. Autocrats around the world are cooperating more and more. Russia is not the only country that is trying to weaken our cyber security. That is challenging the security at our external borders. And we need to provide a clear answer. And what Andrzej Halicki is putting forward is an approach based on the priorities of all pro-European groups. We believe this has to be supported, and we believe that particularly in the area of security, defence, protecting the citizens, we will have to do more, faster and for a longer period of time. We are starting with the budget of 2026, and we believe that these will be our priorities for the foreseeable future. Congratulations to the rapporteur.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in the past 20 years, the European Union was good and the European Commission played an important role in reacting to crises: the economic/financial crisis, the migration/refugee crisis, Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and then the illegal and illegitimate invasion of Russian armed forces into Ukraine. But very often the European Commission has ignored topics which were important but never urgent: completing the single market (particularly the digital single market), reducing bureaucracy and improving competitiveness were never urgent, but 20 years later we see that we have lost competitiveness in comparison to other regions of the world – in comparison to China and the United States of America. Vice-President, Minister, colleagues, my appeal today is the following: we have seen in the first 100 days of the European Commission that many unexpected developments occurred – unexpected developments will continue to occur also in the next months – but my appeal is let us focus on what we have agreed together at the beginning of this mandate and let us implement it. We have together said that security and defence on the one side and improving the competitiveness of our economy should be the priorities for the next years, and I believe we have to we have to implement this methodically, as we have agreed at the beginning of the term. When we say 'improve security and defence', of course, we mean protecting external borders as well. We mean protecting food security, strengthening our agriculture – and this can only work with the farmers, not not against the farmers. When we want more security for the people of Europe and a stronger economy, of course, one of the key tools that we have as the European Union is the budget of the European Union. We are seeing the first developments in the European Commission on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. We, in the European Parliament, are ready to start working with the Commission and with the Member States on the Multiannual Financial Framework to make sure that it will become more flexible, simpler for the beneficiaries, in line with our priorities, not ignoring the traditional priorities. Agriculture and cohesion remain priorities remain important, but, of course, security and defence has to be properly financed. And all of this, we are ready, as the European People's Party, to do, together with the pro-European groups here in the House, together with everyone who is ready to build Europe and to bring it forward in the next month.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the automotive industry accounts for millions of jobs in Europe, much of the taxes and also a big part of our exports. It is in our fundamental interest that it does well here in Europe. Every car manufacturer that you meet and visit will proudly report to you how they reduce CO2 emissions and how they invest more in renewable energies. I think, today, car manufacturers can be a partner in protecting the environment, in reducing CO2 emissions, in improving energy efficiency. This is why we need to do the transition to the green economy with them, not against them. We cannot establish rules here which endanger production in Europe, because that would mean more unemployment, fewer taxes, fewer jobs here in Europe. The first and most important thing that we have to provide to every investor is long-term predictability. Commissioner Tzitzikostas, I think you did very well in giving certain flexibilities to this important industry over the course of the next three years, solving an urgent problem that we have. But the most important thing that investors need is long-term predictability. We have a target in place, which is rigid, regarding 2035. The most important thing that we have to do right now is look at that target, and see if and how we can achieve it with the industry, not against it, and give employers that sense of long-term predictability.