Speeches

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues. In its January resolution, the European Parliament took a clear position on the situation in Gaza, calling for a permanent ceasefire, but on the condition that all hostages be immediately and unconditionally released and that the terrorist organisation Hamas be dissolved. It is quite clear that there is no survival and security of Israel without the complete destruction of Hamas. Hamas' basic documents still today call for the killing of Jews wherever they are. In other words, Hamas must simply disappear, along with all those who support it. Unfortunately, many on the left still relativize the crimes committed by Hamas and try to equate guilt for the war to which Israel is forced. At the same time, the fact is that Hamas terrorists perfidiously continue to hide behind women and children, which they persistently use as a living shield, contrary to all the rules of international law and the custom of war. Ladies and gentlemen, Hamas has long ceased to be only an Israeli problem and has become a broader factor of instability and insecurity. Especially in the European Union, where its supporters, namely Islamists, spread hate speech in the hearts of European cities. So let's say enough the relativisation of Hamas crimes, the equalisation of guilt and the support of Islamism in Europe.

Dear Chairman, the geographical indication is a guarantee of the quality and authenticity of agricultural products for which Europe is known, and one of them is Croatian Prošek. It is a traditional sweet dessert wine, which is completely different from the Italian Prosecco by its colour, smell, price and way of consumption. However, some groups tried to use the amendment of this Regulation to deprive Croatia of its legitimate right to protection of the traditional name prošek, but despite strong lobbying, this failed. Contrary to the European Parliament’s report containing harmful provisions prohibiting the protection of Prošek at European level and against which I voted, the final text of the Regulation allows the protection of Prošek. This wine has an invaluable meaning in the centuries-old, historical and oenological tradition of Croatia, which has every right to protect it as its traditional product. I recall that the European Commission has previously taken the view that homonymity, that is to say, similarity in a name, is not in itself a sufficient factor to reject an application for protection and that two similar names can coexist, and I am glad that this is now also adopted here. I therefore call on the European Commission to grant the protection of the traditional term for Croatian dessert wine Prošek as soon as possible. And I support the adoption of this Regulation.

Being a teacher is not just a job, it's also a life vocation. Teachers not only teach, they educate generations of young people for the challenges of the modern age. Being a teacher is not easy. There are many challenges that the educational staff faces, and I personally saw it as an assistant to the Minister of Education. Difficulties in finding a permanent job, inadequate income and slow career progression are just some of the problems to be warned about. However, what is particularly worrying is that teachers are increasingly faced with a surge of violence in schools, both verbal and physical. Every now and then we are witnessing news of violence against teachers, which requires a systematic approach to strengthen the position of teachers and protect their integrity. In addition, teachers are often exposed to pressure from parents who unrealistically insist on excellent grades of the child, which threatens the independence of teachers and degrades the rating system based on excellence, as shown, among other things, by the results of PISA tests. I therefore call on the European Commission to consider models that will help Member States to improve the working conditions of teachers, ensure the protection of personal integrity and independence in the work and application of the assessment system.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, law enforcement authorities in the European Union need reliable and effective tools to tackle crime effectively. We will all agree that the common interest and responsibility of all Member States is to successfully tackle criminals. In this regard, cooperation and exchange of information are the most powerful means of combating crime. Existing legislation allows law enforcement authorities to consult other Member States’ national databases with regard to DNA information, fingerprints and vehicle registration data. However, this law goes a step further in expanding the categories of data to which automated exchange can be applied. In other words, once the updated law enters into force, police authorities will be able to use instruments to search facial images and search police records. This will greatly contribute to the detection of criminals, which is extremely important in circumstances where the European Union is experiencing increased migratory pressure and is facing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist threats. The safety of European citizens is priceless and it is up to us to protect our European way of life through better cooperation between criminal authorities.

In 2021, 90% of Jews felt that there had been an increase in antisemitism in their country, and 38% thought about emigration because they did not feel safe in the European Union. This was before October 7 and the brutal massacre carried out by the terrorist organization Hamas against the Jewish people, thus committing the greatest crime in the history of Israel. Since then, there has been a steady rise in antisemitism, which, unfortunately, is manifested by serious incidents on European soil such as the highlighting of inappropriate features, weapons attacks on synagogues and endangering the lives of members of Jewish communities. Those responsible for this rise of anti-Semitism are primarily members of the extreme left who, even here in the European Parliament, persistently want to equate blame for the war to which Israel is forced, and radical Islamists who are allowed to freely parade in European cities and spread hatred by persistently refusing to live in Europe European values and our way of life. Unfortunately, we are witnessing that anti-Semitism has also turned into a denial of the existence of the modern State of Israel, which, whether some like it or not, is an international legal fact and which, despite efforts to discredit it, will continue to be a reliable part of the international order. Three years ago, the European Union presented its first strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in Europe, based on preventing all forms of antisemitism, protecting Jewish life and promoting Holocaust education, research and remembrance. Bearing in mind the attacks of the terrorist group Hamas, a fourth pillar must be added to this strategy - one on supporting Israel in destroying Hamas and all its supporters. In modern Europe, there is no place for anti-Semitism or radical Islamism.

According to the latest Eurostat data, 75% of citizens in the European Union shop online. In such circumstances, the sale of dangerous products such as unverified medicines and counterfeit products, the dissemination of illegal content such as infringing intellectual property rights, terrorist content or hate speech are realities we face on a daily basis. A particular problem is the frequent occurrence of false information that spreads uncontrollably over the Internet. There are many examples, and these recent ones include false claims of Israeli missiles targeting civilians and hospitals in the Gaza area. This is why we need to reduce citizens' exposure to false information, while at the same time increasing the level of consumer safety by establishing clear rules on removing illegal content from the internet. It is therefore important that, with the adoption of the Digital Services Act, we ensured a high level of protection for all European consumers and forced online platforms to remove illegal content, but also prohibited targeted advertising towards minors as the most vulnerable social group. In addition, with the Digital Services Act, we also obliged online platforms to check in detail the traders whose products they offer on their websites, which is extremely important for consumers. Colleagues, it is good that today we are discussing the Digital Services Act, because what started to apply in August to large online platforms, in ten days, will also apply to all other online platforms. It is essential that we now ensure the correct application of this law and prevent disinformation and terror from endangering the security of our citizens, both online and offline.

Dear Chairman, Serbia is an undemocratic state, Aleksandar Vucic has been stalling Brussels for years and Brussels keeps looking through his fingers. It is absurd to tolerate an alliance with Russia in circumstances where the rest of the European Union uniformly conducts its foreign policy towards Russia. But now it's really enough. Such Serbia, in which the entire media space is under the control of the government and in which it is practically impossible to conduct fair elections, has no place in the European Union. Not only is Belgrade not ready for an agreement on Kosovo, but Greater-Serbian hegemony has become a key factor of instability in neighbouring countries. The policy of the "Serbian world" is perhaps the most visible in Montenegro, which, with the help of the Serbian Orthodox Church, wants to return to the Serbian and Russian spheres of interest. Such a policy is incompatible with European values. That is why, once again, for who knows which time, I call on the European Union to use the mechanisms at its disposal, including political and economic ones, to prevent the spread of Greater Serbian hegemony before it is too late. We must force Serbia to finally determine whether it wants to build a European path or whether it will forever remain a black hole on the map of Europe.

Dear Chairman, colleague and colleague. The founding treaties are the primary law of the European Union, and the debate about their implementation or amendments rightly always occupies the interest of the public. The document we are discussing today refers, among other things, to the November Resolution on Treaty Changes, which was extremely problematic. I therefore take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of maintaining unanimity in the Council. Already over 90% of decisions are taken by qualified majority and unanimity in the remaining few areas also ensures that smaller Member States protect their own interests and national identity. And that's how it should stay. The right of veto is used today exclusively in those spheres that states consider to be of their vital national interest such as foreign policy, defence and taxation.I simply cannot imagine a Union in which strategic decisions would be made by imposing and overvoting, because only then would the implementation of such, octified, decisions be practically impossible. The complete abolition of the right of veto and overvoting would only increase divisions in the European Union and endanger all its survival, and certainly not consolidate it. As regards citizenship, I would point out that the provisions on citizenship must not be used to infringe the principle of subsidiarity and to fall within the areas falling within the competences of the Member States. Member States are free to determine the conditions for acquiring their own nationality and should remain so regardless of certain problems related to golden visas. In addition, they can, in accordance with their own values and tradition, regulate matters of marriage and family, and no EU statute on non-discrimination can and must not bypass restrict this right.

A hundred days have passed since the terrorist organization Hamas committed the greatest crime in the history of Israel, and we are still getting information about the continued terrorist attacks they are carrying out. Nevertheless, they are loud, and we hear that today, who relativize the crimes committed by Hamas and want to equalize the guilt for the war to which Israel is forced. We should therefore use this debate to resolutely condemn Hamas' crimes and call on the international community to provide clear and unequivocal support for Israel and its right to self-defence. And it should be absolutely clear: There is no survival and security for Israel without the complete destruction of Hamas and all its supporters. Of course, it is necessary to do everything to avoid civilian casualties, but we must also clearly say that the culprit for these victims is Hamas, which is persistently hiding behind women and children. However, what is particularly worrying is the rise of radical Islamism here in the European Union and its metropolises. Unpleasantly surprises the tolerance that we show towards such groups who, expressing hatred, freely gather and march in European cities. I therefore call for zero tolerance for rallies of radical Islamist groups in the European Union that spread hatred and...Chair took the floor)

Dear Chairman, I was convinced that this law will finally put an end to the practices of built-in failures. However, instead of completely prohibiting the placing on the market of products with embedded defects, this law treats as unfair commercial practices only commercial communications related to goods, and the law explicitly states that the production of goods and their placing on the market do not constitute commercial communications. In other words, this law will not prevent us from having products with built-in faults on store shelves, as colleague Pelletier said, among others. Fortunately, we have another regulation, the one on eco-design, which was agreed in December and stipulates that eco-design requirements will ensure that products are not obsolete. Osim navedenog, Europski parlament u svom izvješću daje pregovaračkom timu jasan mandat da se kroz ovaj zakon izmijeni Direktiva o nepoštenoj poslovnoj praksi da bi se apsolutno zabranila različita kvaliteta proizvoda. Unfortunately, this has not been done either, so absolutely, as far as consumer rights are concerned, there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Dear Chairman, Commissioners of colleagues, the protection of the family and parenthood, especially motherhood, are the most intimate values of each individual and it is therefore not surprising that many states attribute the highest protection, the constitutional one, to these values. At the same time, we must not forget that matters relating to substantive family law remain within the competence of the Member States. The European Union has very limited powers in procedural aspects involving citizens of different Member States. The EU has no competence to legally unify key elements in this area, such as the definition of the concept of family and parenthood. In other words, Member States, including those with more prominent values of the traditional family, have the right to determine what it represents, taking into account their own traditions and specificities. This proposal crosses that border and de facto through the process of binding mutual recognition, it forces states to give effect on their own territory to the definition of families that do not exist in their own legislation. The European Union remains a community of states that have the right to regulate key issues of their identity, such as the definition of family. An attempt to impose from above and unify on a small door will certainly not contribute to the stability of the EU, but can only jeopardise it. ‘United in diversity’ means that states have the right to regulate key identity issues themselves, whether you agree with them or not. So let's stop using the European institutions to impose our own worldview.

Madam President, I think this is a great day for healthcare in the European Union. After one year of very hard negotiations, I believe that we found a really good compromise – it’s not perfect, but I think it’s a good starting point for interinstitutional negotiations. It will make it possible to use the untapped potential of health data for research innovation, but also to have much faster and more efficient healthcare in the European Union. I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, also the shadows and all the staff for the great work that they’ve done. And I would like to ask you to refer the file back to committees for interinstitutional negotiations on the basis of Rule 59.

After committing the biggest crime in Israel's history two months ago, the terrorist organization Hamas still holds more than 130 detainees kidnapped on October 7. In addition, Hamas does not hesitate to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, including the recent attack on civilians in Jerusalem. That is why it is shameful that even today in the international community, but also in this Parliament, there are those who relativize the crimes of Hamas and who want to equalize the guilt for the atrocities committed. That is why we should use this debate to unequivocally condemn, without a figment in our pocket, the terrorist attacks that Hamas has carried out and is still carrying out, and to give clear support to Israel, which has the right and duty to defend itself. Ladies and gentlemen, peaceful coexistence in the context of the two-state solution will not be possible as long as the continued terrorist threat posed by Hamas to the Israeli people is not eliminated. Also of particular concern is the rise of radical Islamist movements that threaten the security of citizens in the European Union and support Hamas terrorism across European metropolises. Members of such movements have no place in Europe, nor should Europe tolerate such movements.

Mr President, I would just like to answer some questions and concerns which have been raised here. So first we will not give anyone’s health data to banks and tech giants. So that’s completely clear in the draft report. So the data can only be used for very narrowly defined purposes relating to healthcare for the benefit of the patients, and we made it even more precise enough. So no giving away of health data to banks and tech giants. So that’s completely clear. Second, the notion that we are creating some kind of a European superstate which will decide about our data: all decisions on individual requests to access data will be decided on the national level. So we will have health data access bodies on the national level, and these bodies will make decisions on individual requests. So no super-European institution which will decide about individual requests to access health data. Three – what the Greens propose – so to have a consent-based system for secondary use. So if we have this, it will destroy the whole system. It will destroy the whole purpose of the EHDS, because we will not have enough data so that it is representative, unbiased and useful. The whole idea of the EHDS is to have more data available than we have now through the system of clinical trials. So saying that we already have clinical trials and that is great means essentially that we don’t need the EHDS. We believe that we do. I believe that what we have now is not enough. We need access to more data, and the EHDS is the way to achieve this. I think what is the best proof of our approach is that all patient groups unanimously support this. So patient groups do not want the consent-based or an opt-in-based system, because they understand that then data will not be useful. We will not be able to innovate, create new medical technologies to save lives. The last point is on the opt-out for primary use: as the Commissioner already said, we already have the safeguards in place prescribing that once we have an electronic health record, we as patients will be able to restrict access to all or part of this data, on mental health conditions, on sexually transmitted disease or whatever. So we believe that the safeguards that we already have in here are enough to protect patients’ right to decide and patients’ right to privacy. For that reason, there is no need to accept this amendment proposed by the German SPD.

I wasn’t speaking about the red line, but I said that I believe that what we have in the draft report is sufficient enough in terms of protection of patients’ rights. So I never used the actual phrase ‘the red line’ – you can check my original wording. I just said, and I repeated this afterwards, that there is no need, there is no necessity to accept what you propose, because we already have enough safeguards to protect patients’ right to choose.

Dear colleague, thank you very much, but I do not understand how you can say that we are against additional patients’ rights because we are the ones who proposed an opt-out on secondary use. There was nothing there before. We actively added additional patient rights when compared to the Commission proposal. So definitely I do not see how you can say that we are against additional patient rights. My question is that we already have, for primary use, the provision that patients can limit access to all or part of their data according to their choice. So my question is: what does your proposal, your amendment add to that? Because we already have the possibilities for patients to limit access to data if they want to do that. So what do you want to achieve additional to that with your proposal?

You know that if we want data to be useful for research innovation, it needs to be representative, and you know what you propose is to have a consent-based system or an opt-in system whereby every patient whose data is part of a certain data set would need to give consent or an opt-in for this data to be used. So my question is: how do you plan to ensure representativeness, that this data is actually useful, that we can use it to develop new medicines to save lives if we go for your approach? Because everybody that I talked to – patient groups, stakeholders, healthcare professionals – all said that this is impossible to achieve what you propose.

The Honourable Chair shall at all times process and use key health data for the purpose of saving human lives by healthcare professionals, researchers and health regulatory authorities. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of up-to-date health data for key public health decisions and timely crisis response, but also for treatment, research and innovation. However, many barriers remain in the Member States through complex rules and procedures that prevent the full exploitation of the potential of digital health and health data. The biggest problems stem from the lack of mandatory standards at Union level, which results in limited interoperability and inability to exchange data, not only between hospitals and practices in different countries, but often also within the same Member State. With the establishment of the European Health Data Space, we aim to remove precisely these barriers and problems. The objective of this Regulation is to establish a European Health Data Space to improve citizens’ access to their personal electronic health data. This is the so-called primary use of electronic health data. Secondary use, on the other hand, means the use of health data for innovation and research to develop new treatments and life-saving medicines and is also very important. The primary use of health data puts citizens at the centre by giving them control over their data to improve healthcare across the European Union. This means that we put all our health data in the EU in a digital space where citizens can easily and free of charge access their own health records in electronic form, recognised and accepted across the Union, via their mobile phones or computers. In doing so, they are able to share their health data with doctors in their own country or in other Member States, thus gaining access to better healthcare. The new rules will ensure better diagnosis and treatment, reduce medical errors and avoid unnecessary tests, and make the work of doctors more effective. This will not only provide better and faster treatment for our citizens, but also facilitate treatment abroad and facilitate access to equal healthcare in all EU Member States. When it comes to the secondary use of health data, industry researchers, together with policy makers, are currently facing major barriers in accessing the data they need to develop new products or make decisions. In this context, the EU lags behind other global players such as the US or China. With the adoption of this European law, the EU will reduce dependence on third countries and become more competitive in the field of medicine production. In particular, under strict conditions, researchers will be given access to large amounts of quality health data to better understand the various diseases. This is crucial for the development of new treatments and life-saving medical devices. It should be emphasized that the health data that will be exchanged will be anonymized and pseudonymized, which means that the possibility for citizens to be identified using health data is minimized and thus we achieve a balance between, on the one hand, the need to use health data in a way that we can save more lives, but also with the need to protect privacy and protect the health data of our citizens. As co-rapporteur for this legislative proposal, after more than nine months of negotiations between the political groups, I can say that I am generally satisfied with the final text adopted at the level of the committees responsible. In the negotiations, I sought to maintain the basic principles contained in the Commission’s legislative proposal, while at the same time improving certain essential parts. However, for secondary use, I do not think that the Commission’s proposal concerning patients’ decision-making rights was sufficient. Therefore, we have proposed provisions that would allow citizens to fully or partially exempt themselves from the system of secondary use of health data if they so wish. opt-out system. This gives citizens the option to decide, based on their own judgment, whether or not they want their health data to be used under strict measures for innovation research purposes. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing a ground-breaking proposal that needs to be endorsed and the entire legislative process completed before the end of the mandate of this Parliament. Thereafter, the European Union and the Member States have a responsibility to ensure that the EHDS is easily applicable in practice and that the system works for the well-being of our citizens.

The digital transition we are witnessing every day is yet to reach its full potential in the area of justice and cross-border cooperation in civil, commercial and criminal matters. For example, granting cross-border access to court registers would undoubtedly increase trust in legal transactions and contribute to transparency in business. As the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the digitalisation of public services, I also strongly advocated this in a report that was endorsed by a large majority of the European Parliament. A comprehensive set of instruments designed to improve judicial cooperation already exists in the European Union. However, most instruments do not provide for communication by judicial authorities to take place digitally. That is why I am particularly pleased that, through the Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation, we will create the preconditions for access to the use of modern technologies in cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice. The new regulation will enable the use of electronic means of communication, such as videoconferencing between individuals and legal entities, as well as courts and competent authorities, which will facilitate cross-border access to justice. However, in a context where the European Union is experiencing an unprecedented influx of migrants, I would like to use this debate to call for a stronger engagement of the European Union in the fight against mass migration, especially irregular migration. This also means better international cooperation on data exchanges on migrants. This is why it is important to reach a final agreement on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will contain instruments to prevent uncontrolled and mass entry into the European Union, whereby the burden of migratory pressure cannot lie with the countries of first entry. It has long been clear that the European Union cannot admit to its territory all those who want to live in Europe simply because the quality of life here is better than in third countries. Colleagues, in defending the European way of life, cross-border cooperation in police and judicial matters is essential.

Dear Vice-President of the European Parliament, Vice-President of the European Commission, colleague and colleague, the implementation of the new pollinator plan is an opportunity to strengthen the position of European beekeepers, who produce first-class honey but are often exposed to unfair competition on store shelves. A recent survey by the European Commission found that 46 percent of honey imported into the European Union does not meet the criteria of the Honey Directive. That is why it is important to tighten the rules on honey labelling. In circumstances where the average price of imported honey from third countries is EUR 2.56 per kilogram, or EUR 1.6 per kilogram for honey imported from China, we need to work further to strengthen the position of our beekeepers and properly label honey packaging. In this connection, the consumer, when purchasing, must know exactly from which country the honey comes, and if it is a mixture of honeys, he must know what proportion of the honey from which country it comes. That is why, through amendments, I requested the introduction of an obligation to indicate the exact percentage of honey content on the packaging of products. To protect pollinators and European beekeepers, we need a proper implementation of the new plan for pollinators and an agreement on the revision of the Honey Directive as soon as possible.

Thirty years after their definition, the Copenhagen criteria continue to mark the key conditions that candidate countries must fulfil in order to become members of the European Union. After a lengthy phase of enlargement fatigue, the political will to continue this political process seems to have finally emerged. If the European Union does not offer a clear perspective to the neighbouring countries, they will be completely under the influence of foreign powers, which in the long run is a disaster for Europe's security. To be clear, in the process of enlargement, each country should be seen only individually and judged on merit. There is no entry into the EU through order. This must be understood in particular by Aleksandar Vucic, during whose reign Serbian hegemony became a major threat to the stability of Southeast Europe. And democracy in Serbia has taken not one, but three steps backwards. On the other hand, the Commission's decision to conditionally recommend the opening of accession negotiations for Bosnia and Herzegovina is an incentive to continue the reform process in the country, which should certainly be welcomed and supported by BiH in the difficult reforms ahead.

The Honourable Chair, while research has shown that 77% of EU citizens would rather repair their devices than replace them with new ones, the fact remains that consumers, when they decide to repair a product, face a number of problems such as the unavailability of replacement parts, the length and cost of repair, and the unavailability of repair services. With the adoption of the legislative report Right to Repair, we are one step closer to making repair more accessible to consumers. Manufacturers will no longer be able to claim that they do not have replacement parts for repair, as we have made it mandatory for spare parts to be available for the entire expected life of the product. In particular, I advocated that a replacement product must be offered to consumers during the period of repair of the product within the warranty period. Indeed, when a consumer, for example, takes a mobile phone for repair under a warranty, the producer is not obliged to give him or her a replacement mobile phone, which is a major problem for consumers. In this vein, I am pleased that part of this report is also my amendment, which will oblige manufacturers to give consumers a replacement product for the duration of the repair if repair cannot be carried out in the short term. In addition, it is important that we encourage the right to repair, which is why I particularly support the idea of vouchers that will make repair more accessible. Colleagues, the well-established model by which a product is bought, used and discarded, is no longer sustainable. That is why I support the adoption of this report and hope for a swift agreement with the Member States to make the right to repair a new standard of European legislation.

A pro-Serbian and pro-Russian government was formed in Montenegro. A Serbian nationalist who openly supports Russia has been elected President of the Assembly, his party is part of the parliamentary majority. This is the result of a series of events that began with lithiums organized by the Serbian Orthodox Church Aleksandar Vučić with the aim of returning Montenegro to the Serbian and Russian spheres of interest. Unfortunately, after three years, we can say that they have largely met their goals. The last act in effectively abolishing the Montenegrin nation and turning this country into another Russian gubernatorial is a census. In the changed geopolitical circumstances, a state deprived of its national sign would thus become a hybrid creation in which the Russian-Serbian axis would build Belarus in a small one. That is why it is crucial that the European Union supports a further postponement of the population census and closely monitors the steps of the new government, especially President Milatović, in their relationship with European integration. Ladies and gentlemen, the transformation of Montenegro into a small Belarus on the Mediterranean coast is the result of a disastrous policy of the European Union and I invite you to change it until it is too late. Let's stop Serbia destabilizing Montenegro and the whole of Southeast Europe.

The Honourable Chair, the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic crisis, rising inflation and armed conflicts around the world all place a heavy burden on the mental state of citizens, especially young people. Our fellow citizens feel uncertainty, change of daily routine, fear for existence and social isolation. In this context, there is a need to attach greater importance to the impact of work on mental health. Mental health is a prerequisite for the work ability and productivity of every person in the workplace. On the other hand, according to the European Commission, as many as 27% of workers reported experiencing work-related stress, depression or anxiety during the previous 12 months. Long-term exposure to stress in the workplace can have far more serious consequences in terms of developing mental disorders such as depression or anxiety. According to post-pandemic data, health and social workers are most exposed to work-related psychosocial risks in the context of mental illness. In addition, new forms of work as a result of digitalisation also affect mental health, so their flexibility can prove useful in certain situations. The Commission's communication is a step in the right direction, but much more is needed. The current legal framework on minimum requirements is over 30 years old and is far from being aligned with all the social changes and new forms of work that have emerged in the meantime. Its revision should be initiated as soon as possible. Furthermore, it is necessary to update the recommendation on the European list of occupational diseases to include mental health issues in the list. The social partners should also be strongly encouraged to negotiate a new agreement on telework and the right to disconnect. Finally, we all need to understand that protecting workers' mental health is not a cost, but an investment, better quality, more productive workers and a more efficient economy.

Dear Chairman, the world is increasingly reminiscent of the period just before the First World War. The war in Ukraine with its economic consequences, the global geopolitical shift to the detriment of the West and developments in the Middle East have made the European Union more vulnerable than ever. Europe's share of world GDP has fallen to less than 15%, and Nigeria alone will have more people in the middle of the 21st century than the entire European Union. In short, we don't have enough natural resources, we're uncompetitive, we're getting smaller and we're still divided. The EU must clearly define its key interests and act together. Strategic autonomy in the production of basic resources and energy is one of the priorities, where nuclear energy must play an important role, and let us only remember what mistakes have been made on this issue in the past. Robust protection of external borders, together with the deportation of illegal immigrants who do not have the right to stay in the EU, is essential for our security. In the long run, without a strong demographic policy, comprehensive stimulus measures that will raise the current catastrophic fertility rate to 2.1 by the end of the century will simply not exist. In the end, we must be clear in our relations with Russia, China, the Islamic world, keeping our common interests in the first place.