Speeches

Commissioner, since the beginning of the debate, I have been trying to understand what this debate is not about: it is not for or against enlargement policy, it is not for Ukraine, it is not for Turkey, it is not for the readiness of the Member States to be part of the European Union. It's about something else: on the institutional and political readiness of the European Union to admit new Member States. Let us ask ourselves this question together, and here I am not looking at the extreme left or the extreme right, the political centre, which must bring about the necessary reforms for the future of the European Union. In this institutional arrangement, can we afford 35 countries within the European Union? The answer is no. Just look at the current debate on the Multiannual Financial Framework. We want the old priorities, we want new priorities, and on top of that, we need to make a decision in a Union of 35 in a foreseeable future. How is that possible? Look at the European Union's sanctions policy. How many times have we failed in our idea of having a one-way message to us in the European Union and to those who want to join us? And tell me this is democratic? Orbán is constantly blackmailing us for something. We don't take it. There must be reform...

Madam President, blood is spilling again in Gaza. Less than 24 hours ago, 51 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire near a humanitarian aid site. They searched for bread and found death. Today, the world is watching war eat up everything human. We watch children die and homes collapse. This is not just a military conflict, it is a deliberate destruction, stamped with the complicity of silence. And now I'm asking: Where is the international community? Where are all these world leaders? How many more bodies need to be removed in order to be enough? Silence is now a crime, and sympathy is inaction and hypocrisy. I call for an immediate ceasefire, for an international investigation, for sanctions, for real humanitarian aid, for the salvation of what makes us human - conscience. Don't kill humanity!

Madam President, first of all, of course, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Mendes. Of course, I agree with the position of Commissioner McGrath, who says that this report must do everything possible to prevent fundamental principles being violated in the European Union, and it was created as such. But from the Committee on Legal Affairs, we have a few recommendations. Our first recommendation is that the report should be much more focused. Enough with the reviews, which are only on paper. Where is the implementation? We need to see real implementation of these recommendations given by the European Parliament. Second, we have been watching fundamental electoral rights being violated for a long time and this is becoming a systematic handicap of the European Union. I understand the idea of the European Union concentrating on countries outside its borders and monitoring how elections are conducted, but what do we do with our own choices inside the Union? How does this contribute to the consolidation of European democracy? Last but not least, of course, we must also extend the accountability of public authorities. In a number of countries, we have seen state institutions and regulators make use of powers that have already expired. These are systemic problems of European democracy, and we must engage with this issue as soon as possible. He can't wait.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, as the new Europe shadow rapporteur on Kosovo's progress report, I welcome this comprehensive assessment of Kosovo's achievements and ongoing challenges and I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur for his very hard work. Kosovo has demonstrated a clear commitment to European integration with strong public support for EU accession. The implementation of visa liberalisation and its steadfast alignment with EU foreign and security policy are encouraging steps forward. However, significant reforms remain crucial. While progress in justice, security and economic resilience is evident, challenges persist in judicial independence, media freedom, and the fight against corruption. Strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring the full implementation of rule of law reforms are imperative for Kosovo's European path. Finally, the EU must recognise Kosovo's commitment and provide tangible incentives, including clearer accession prospects. Kosovo's European future must not remain in a grey zone. It is in our collective interest to support its journey towards full EU membership.

Madam President, dear colleagues, on 19 March this year, the Commission put forward the SAFE regulation proposal and based it on Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, JURI considered the use of Article 122 of TFEU as the basis of the SAFE regulation proposal under Rule 138(2) of the Rules of Procedure. On 23 April, the committee unanimously decided that Article 122 was not the appropriate legal basis for the proposed regulation. JURI came to this conclusion after having considered the aim of the SAFE proposal and in the absence of proper justification by the Commission of the choice of the legal basis. JURI also observed that Article 122 contains two paragraphs, and each of those confers on the Council a distinct competence to adopt legal acts subject to specific conditions. However, the SAFE proposal is based on Article 122, and it entirely hangs on both paragraphs. The Commission fails to explain why both paragraphs should be relied upon as the legal basis. There is also no justification why other possible legal bases under the TFEU were discarded, in particular in the context of Article 122(1), which can only apply 'without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the treaties'. At the same time, although JURI discussed and analysed alternative legal bases which appear appropriate, such as Article 173(3) of the TFEU, it decided at this stage not to pronounce itself conclusively. It is enough to say at this point that JURI does consider that another legal basis under the treaties could be used, and therefore that the Union's competence to act under a legal basis other than in Article 122 TFEU does exist.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear representatives of the Council – they are not present yet. 'If you are a parent in one country, you are parent in every country', said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her 2020 State of the Union speech. This gave a political impulse for the European Commission to prepare rules on the cross-border recognition of parenthood. Two years after, on 7 December 2022, the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood, and on the creation of a European certificate of parenthood, was announced under the equality package. The proposal sets rules of jurisdiction and applicable law for establishing parenthood and provides for an automatic recognition of decisions in parenthood matters. It also provides for a unified form of European certificate of parenthood that is optional and should not replace national documents, but should ease the confirmation of parenthood if needed in another Member States. The future regulation is to apply only for the establishment of parenthood in a cross-border situation and the recognition of instruments issued in another Member State. The Commission's ultimate goal was to safeguard the rights of all children, also those derived from national rules, arguing that, by resolving the parenthood of the child as a preliminary question, the regulation will facilitate the application of excusing Union instruments on parental responsibility, maintenance and succession as regards the child. Parliament expressed support for the main objective of the proposed regulation to address the issue of the non-recognition of parenthood status by assuring that if a child-parent relation has been established in one Member State, all other Member States should recognise it without additional proceedings. In its deliberations, the European Parliament focused thoroughly on safeguarding the rights of the child, as they should be guaranteed in all European Union Member States, regardless of a child's family arrangements or how the child was born into this world. Taking into account that the Council has been working on the proposal for more than two years, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, allow me to present the following questions for an oral answer to the Council. First, dear Council, what progress has been made by the Council so far in terms of the adoption of the parenthood regulation by all Member States? On which parts of the proposal have discussions already been concluded, if any? Second, what solutions have been discussed to accommodate certain Member States' concerns related to the most contentious matters, such as the establishment and recognition of the parenthood of children born via surrogacy and children of same-sex parents? Third, is the Council considering, in the event of not being able to obtain unanimity, triggering the enhanced cooperation mechanism under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 326 and 334 of TFEU? And, additionally, the following questions refer to the Commission. How has the Commission facilitated the discussion on the proposal in the Council? Is the Commission prepared – or is it planning – in the event that unanimity among the Member States cannot be reached to pursue the objectives of the proposed regulation using alternative legislative instruments or mechanisms provided already in the Treaties?

Mr President, today we are taking into account the 100 days since the beginning of the mandate of this European Commission and we cannot but note with satisfaction the many legislative proposals that have been made by the European Commission itself. Of course, we expect results, not just legislative proposals. The message of European citizens is clear, we cannot continue in the same way with our economy, it must be strengthened. Measures are needed, rules are needed to simplify business. We cannot continue in the same way that the European intellect creates a product here on our territory, but leaves so quickly that we cannot see its results. And therefore, the rules for simplifying doing business need to be very adequate and the measures very timely. Of course, security will continue to be on the European Parliament's agenda, because we are living in a new environment of uncertainty. The European architecture requires to be built with our own strength and therefore we do not have time and I call for all actions to be very fast-tracked in this direction.

Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Minister, fellow Members, I think that today we are witnessing a very solid position on the part of the European Commission, something that we have been missing for the last few years. Serbia must choose its own path. It can't be both in one place and in the other. And the road, if it wants to be European, has to comply with several things: the common foreign policy is a security policy. We have our rules and anyone who wants to join the European Union must abide by them. Second, common values. The fight against corruption and organised crime must continue not just with declarations when a political leader is cornered, but with concrete actions. Freedom of the media, the right of citizens to freely express their will must not be suppressed. Last but not least, regional cooperation. Yes, Serbia has its place in the European Union, but not this, but the other Serbia, the reformed Serbia, which looks with hope to the future and takes into account the rights and freedoms of each of its citizens.

Madam President, it is of course important that we discuss the future of the Western Balkans, especially in the context of the Council, at the forum that is taking place - the EU-Western Balkans Summit. But don't let this forum become another filming. Let this forum also not be another single transferrable speech when it is spoken and nothing is said. I hope that the beginning of this mandate of the European Commission and the European Council will be fundamental to the enlargement of the Union itself. What do I mean? Let us ensure that the countries of the Western Balkans are prepared with their democracies long before they enter the European Union itself, meet these high standards of respect for human rights, and also have a real preparation for their economies. The development plan has provided a good basis, but we must ensure that this plan leads to investment and that the funds allocated to the countries of the Western Balkans are used for their intended purpose.

Mr President, these days mark 40 years of the so-called revival process, a cynical name for the attempt at total assimilation of the Bulgarian Turks in Bulgaria. Of course, these 40 years also have their backstory – what happened in the 1960s and 1970s with the story of our Pomaks brothers and sisters. What does a revival process mean? It's hard to explain in 30 seconds, but let me try. You are born Johann and a few years later you are renamed Ilian. It's different, isn't it? You speak your mother tongue and at some point you realize that you have to pay a fine. That's what my parents paid for. And when you disobey, there's a fight. And when you disobey again, more fights and jails and concentration camps. And so an identity is erased. These are some of the dark pages of Bulgarian history. And if you ask me right here, at the point of reconciliation between Germany and France, Alsace, whether the Bulgarian state has done enough, it has done almost nothing. Bulgarian justice was concerned with everything, but not with providing answers to the difficult questions that still remain.

Madam President, Atamana, Galata, Sharana, Diapers, Three Hicks - these are not the names of cartoon characters, nor are they superstars from the Hollywood industry, but voice buyers who are ready to do the largest vote-buying action in my country, Bulgaria. Of course, the action is followed by other things, and there are its prehistory as dismissals of people, as punishment for those who define themselves as naughty. And if you ask yourself why this is aimed at, there is only one goal - to recharge the power of Delyan Peevski once again so that he can manage the institutions in the country so that he can benefit uncontrollably from the democratic mechanisms of the country. This is not the rule of law I dreamed of. This is not the rule of law for which many have given their lives to be part of this democratic space. We need protection, but first we need to join forces to build this democratic immunity in Bulgaria. We will do it with the strong voice of the Bulgarian citizens on October 27th. But my request to the European institutions is to make sure that this phenomenon gets its political repercussions.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am, of course, taking the floor in the presence of the European Commission to ask a fundamental question - how are the rules being respected in the EU? When there is a regulation or directive, does it apply to all countries and is subject to equal treatment, or can each country choose which to apply and which not to apply? My main question relates to the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and I ask whether treatment is possible. This issue gained popularity in Bulgaria as the so-called "French unemployment" and despite the referral to the Bulgarian national authorities, mainly from the region of Blagoevgrad, 8 000 signatures were deposited at the registry of the Bulgarian institutions. And notice - silence. I asked the Commissioner for Social Policy of the European Union a question and he replied to me again in the same blanket way: ‘Every country can regulate its own legislation when it comes to the field of social policy’. This is a double standard, there cannot be one standard for Western European countries and another standard for Eastern European countries. I see that my fellow citizens, especially from Blagoevgrad, are harmed and we will seek our rights to the end. I speak for them, I speak for me.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to draw the attention of the honourable plenary to a case that took place two weeks ago in Zollingen, Germany. Four Bulgarian citizens were set on fire. You're probably asking yourself why I'm talking about this. Is there a need because the European Parliament is neither a prosecutor's office nor a court? I put it in order that there may be justice to the victims of this act, which has been committed in Zollingen, and to the community which awaits such justice. My colleagues and I took part in a protest procession and it was peaceful. Various citizens participated in it, and many of them were actually Germans, and the call of this protest was Kein Hasse Solingen (We don't want hate.) However, along with this call, there was also a very strong call for the perpetrators of the crime to be identified. And we really owe it to them as a European civil society. However, there are also some doubts about the recent actions in Zolingen – how the building is being renovated, there have been attempts to push this building down. This in itself raises the big question of the objectivity of the investigation. We cannot cast any shadow on what is happening in Zollingen, and crimes cannot be left unsolved in any way.

Madam President, I am pleased that this report will be voted on tomorrow, because it is very clear, with concrete proposals that give two-way messages. The first message is that whoever fulfils the conditions can be part of the European Union. The second message is that enlargement policy can go hand in hand with the policy of deepening reforms within the European Union. And perhaps most importantly, this conversation finds its institutional framework here in the European Parliament. Let's be more honest with ourselves. If the worst had not happened, namely the war on European soil, what geopolitical outcome would the European Commission have taken into account? It's zero. Zero progress on enlargement policy. Twenty years in the Western Balkan countries are waiting to take a step forward. I think we owe them.

Madam President, of course this debate is very important, but it seems to me that it is very late. We look at it in the context of what happened four months ago, and it has deep roots. And the mistake we are once again making in the European institutions is that we are looking at the consequences, not so much the reasons for what happened. However, I agree with the general finding. We can only talk about a holistic approach and active fight against all forms of racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, speech and other forms of hatred when the measures cover the whole of society. And it seems to me that here we have to start first of all from education. The funds put forward in the European Commission's plan are too insufficient, but I respect the approach of talking to civil society. Secondly, the collective effort requires us to formulate what anti-Semitism and Islamophobia mean, to have a working concept. In how many of the European legislation and in the criminal codes of the Member States does the working concept of "Islamophobia" and "anti-Semitism" exist? Not much. There are efforts in some nation states to create a system of coordinators, to coordinate policy against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Why should this not be a European policy and there should be a special envoy from the European Union on these issues? Because, as you have already said, Commissioner, they are at the heart of European integration. And of course, last but not least, I think the attitude of this room. How many times have we witnessed indirect insults on the basis of ethnicity and religion being passed over without punishment? If we are not ready to sanction this behaviour of our colleagues, we will not be ready to meet the expectations of European civil society and to fight this evil because it is evil.

Mr President, the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area by air and water was received with different feelings. Some Bulgarian citizens and politicians mostly described it as a great success, others as a huge failure. I was among those who say that this is a step forward, clearly realizing that this is not what we have worked for and that this is not the fair solution for the Bulgarian and Romanian citizens, because since 2011 we have been waiting and fulfilling all the criteria, and we receive the assessment of the Council, the European Commission and here in the European Parliament with ever stronger and stronger resolutions. However, in the last few days we have also seen the consequences of the partial decisions of the European Council. The border between Bulgaria and Romania cannot be crossed in 12-14 hours. Cars, and more specifically heavy-duty vehicles, are experiencing enormous difficulties. Is this European integration? Austrian top-level politicians say ‘we have shoved ourselves in the wound’. Which wound? In the dignity, in the honour of those people who have been implementing all the decisions of the European institutions for years. It is time to correct this injustice. Decide in 2024 that the rules will ultimately apply to all European citizens.

Mr President, today we are reflecting on a classic dilemma: whether the enlargement policy is the product of geopolitical reasons or the product of Copenhagen criteria. The answer is clear. Geopolitics always has an advantage. This is what happened when my country Bulgaria joined the European Union. We were definitely not ready for all the criteria, but the leading base was the criterion. Yes, we had to meet the fundamental criteria of Copenhagen – the stability of institutions, democracy, the rule of law, respect for minority rights, the functioning of the market economy and the readiness to be part of a financial, economic and political union that would go along with all the other Member States already of the European Union. Today, however, we are faced with a more serious dilemma: whether we want to multi-commitmentally not just financially, socially and economically support the countries of the Western Balkans, plus Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to this area that shares common values of the rule of law and democratic standards. And for me, the answer must be yes, definitely yes, if we want to be a geopolitical European Union.

Mr President, we come to a plenary today concerned again about the threats to the rule of law in the European Union. As the Liberals, we have spearheaded this cause and have led the defence of the rule of law each and every time anyone has attempted to confront it – just to name them, Poland, Hungary or today Spain. We are worried to see political concessions like an amnesty war or a parliamentary investigation of an independent judicial system. Sacrificing the rule of law and the separation of powers in exchange of votes to secure a government is political corruption and, I would say, a political mistake. Prioritising political wins over upholding legal institutions sets a dangerous trend, allowing politics to sway legal matters. It erodes the essential balance of power, a trait of every healthy democracy. Upholding the rule of law and an independent judiciary are non-negotiable here in this European House. That is why: Ciudadanos españoles, no estáis solos.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, Prime Minister, colleagues, I have participated in such debates many times and all have concluded with the same conclusion. Debate on the domestic policy of Bulgaria. Let us make sure that this debate is not about Bulgaria's domestic policy, but about the future of Europe, in which I want Bulgaria to participate very actively and to use this pro-European majority for the necessary reforms, which are so urgent both in the national context and in the European one. If there is a consensus on one issue for years between the European Commission, MEPs, the Bulgarian national elite, this is the topic of Schengen. By the end of 2023, if Bulgaria and Romania do not join Schengen, we risk a lot as the European Union. We risk undermining the foundations of everything we have achieved in these more than 70 years. Why? Because Bulgarian and Romanian citizens cannot continue to be treated in the same way as they have been treated in recent years, because they are no different from German, Austrian, Dutch and other citizens. Because the Bulgarian economy is suffering enormous damage. And if we want to have a Union that is based on a strong economy that is competitive, a Union that relies on the single market, we need Bulgaria and Romania to be part of Schengen. Another topic that seems very important to me. I would like, Prime Minister, Bulgaria to be ambitious with its ideas, with its plans, with its proposals in the European institutions. We cannot have an EU that wants to have a strong foreign policy if we continue to make decisions in this way. It will always be too little, too slow. 27 countries come together, make decisions and how they do it, for months, with delay, with bargaining. There are a number of initiatives, including those of countries that are on our rug, so to speak, to change the way we make decisions. Move from unanimity to qualified majority. I know what these nationalist forces will tell me. Ilhan Kyuchyuk wants to promote the interests of the Western Balkans. It was never a topic. The topic of enlargement, enlargement policy, was not part of this debate. So let us be ambitious and accountable to the future of the EU, because it is a union of all of us.

Madam President, Commissioner, of course we must start by thanking you, because enlargement policy has not been the most popular in recent years in the European Union. And yet you managed to take it to a very serious level. Today, in addition to the traditional clichés in this room to talk about a plan, an economic plan that should be aimed at the social recovery of the countries of the Western Balkans mainly, but also others. If we have to look for news, there are actually two news stories. One news is about Ukraine and Moldova with the start of the negotiation process, and the other news is about Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I wouldn't be too hasty to say that this is some kind of historic decision. If it is to be assumed that it is historical in terms of being included for the first time, yes, it is historical, but many other historical decisions we have made here and have remained simply on paper. Let us think about how seriously these countries can gradually be integrated into the European Union and be realistic, enlargement will not happen today and tomorrow, but we must give them sufficiently clear messages and concrete steps, actions, in order to show them, above all, to the citizens of these countries, that they will belong to the European Union. And I welcome Roberta Metsola's proposal, giving these countries status, their politicians, to be here with you, with us, without having the right to vote.

Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner again for his concluding remarks and to thank colleagues for their input. I fully agree with those saying that we need more diplomacy and cooperation with Uzbekistan, not less. Let me conclude by saying what is the most important part of the discussion and what is the way forward, actually. First, I think we should continue to carefully monitor the NGOs and civil society registration process in Uzbekistan. This will be important both for human, environmental and labour rights under due diligence, and therefore also affecting the business and investment climate. Secondly, increase the EU-Uzbekistan security and digital engagement dialogues. This is a key prerequisite for EU and private sector risk assessment for existing, future and new supply chain hubs in the region, especially ahead of the new year’s investors’ forum. Thirdly, continuous support for international and EU-funded organisations like the European Neighbourhood Council, Human Rights Watch, and the ILO in order to conduct evidence-based research, data collection and surveying in Uzbekistan. This helps guide our choices and policies and should not be infringed under any circumstances. Fourthly, continue cooperation and exchanging with the European External Action Service, Member States, DGs and across political parties on the important new relationship with the EU, and develop the new Central Asia Asian Strategy together with Uzbekistan, both ahead of the Global Gateway Conference at the end of October, as well as in tandem with a potential summit visit next year. Thank you so much for having this discussion today. I think it is important to strengthen the relationship with Uzbekistan, and certainly I have many takeaways from you, colleagues.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, this report tells us a lot about it. Firstly, the EU-Uzbekistan relationship as of 2023 and the important transformation which Uzbekistan has gone through. Secondly, the new geostrategic importance of the EU’s Central Asian relations, with Uzbekistan playing a central role. Thirdly, the very positive regional integration initiatives, which have been taken by all Central Asian republics. And finally, the many hurdles, which still exist in terms of human rights and environmental protection, but which stand ready to be tackled and improved. I am proud to say that our House, the European Parliament, often manages to find a constructive consensus on difficult policies. Today’s report on Uzbekistan is no exception. Our report received broad and solid backing from across political parties as well as European institutions and Member States during the AFET Committee vote. One might start asking oneself: ‘Why is this report so relevant for the EU today, both here in Parliament as well as across other EU institutions and in Member State capitals?’ And I tell you the answer: it is because our relationship with Central Asia has changed dramatically since the war in Ukraine and because the relationship represents an important strategic milestone in EU foreign policy. And the number of visits to the region is unprecedented and speaks for itself. Times are changing fast and the EU of our early careers is becoming a mature union of principles, strategically sovereign choices and inevitable power projection, which comes with new responsibilities. The war in Ukraine told us that we must be able to defend our values and interests and seek out like-minded, new and independent partnerships for regional integration, water security, digital safety, supply chains, connectivity, critical raw materials and the environment, all of which are key in Uzbekistan and across other parts of Central Asia. This is because Uzbekistan and Central Asia are rich in minerals needed for our renewable transition. And because this is a highly skilled and educated region with existing supply chain infrastructure and with relatively low levels of conflict compared to elsewhere. It is also because it’s part of the post-Soviet group of countries that are keenly seeking to break away from Russia and form a new and equal relationship with the EU and their own regional neighbours. Another very important reason why this report is relevant is because it both highlights the important geoeconomic and geopolitical priorities, while showing important developments made by Uzbekistan over the past decade – as well as the remaining issues and pitfalls, namely surrounding human rights. It is important to stay realistic and fact based on this sensitive subject. Firstly, Uzbekistan continues to encounter serious human rights breaches. This is clear when taking into account EU delegation as well as international and local civil society assessments and reports. The most urgent point to raise is that civil society registration remains biased and difficult, while better legal protection and civil society registration should be diligently pursued by the Uzbek Government and carefully monitored. This is not only because it is a key component of the relationship with the EU, but equally because labour, environmental and human rights are prerequisites for future EU private sector investments and supply chains across the region as part of the EU diligence legislation. Despite these challenges, it should, however, be noted that Uzbekistan has – in relative terms – progressed more than most countries in the same time span.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, well, EULEX and KFOR are on the ground working closely with authorities to manage the situation. We cannot turn a blind eye to the troublesome military movements by Serbia along the Kosovo border. Stability in the region is hanging by a thread and the rhetoric and actions emerging from Serbia’s leadership, particularly in the context of the broader European security situation, are indeed a cause for concern. It is unbelievable that we have to hear through our staunch allies, the Americans, about the military build-up by the Serbians. We must question why, despite our collective experiences, our historical scars of war and the conflict, do we find ourselves on the brink once more? It is untenable to think that Europe might once again be plunged into the darkness of even more conflicts. The EU, its Member States and global partners must stand firmly against any actions that destabilise the region. We must not pander to those who would seek to undermine peace and security in the region. Our message must be clear to President Vučić and his administration: military posturing and escalating tensions are not the path forward. So it’s time to unite our forces against those dictatorial regimes in the region.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, when we talk about the Schengen area, we cannot but mention the fact that two countries that want to be part of it are not yet. We are talking about Bulgaria and Romania. Of course, Schengen is a matter of trust. And the data on the sale of visas in the Schengen area is undeniably worrying. We have been repeating for years that in the territory of shared trust there is no place for golden visas and golden passports, for unjustifiably granting access to the greatest achievement of the European Union, in its free zone of movement only on the grounds of financial opportunity. Bulgaria realized these facts and we fought back. Bulgaria last year passed legislation and put an end to the citizenship investment scheme, ensuring transparency and clear rules for access to the country. Thus, Bulgaria proved itself as a reliable partner. However, it is now time for the two countries, Austria and the Netherlands, to show that the debate on the future of migration and asylum policy goes through Bulgaria and Romania being part of the Schengen area. Today, this Parliament must once again say with the utmost seriousness that the two countries deserve to be part of Schengen. I do not accept the fact that there are some citizens who are privileged and others who are waiting in line. This will not make the European Union stronger. It's time for unification.