What Sven spoke about.

Mr President, Vice‑President Šefčovič, dear colleagues, when citizens look at Europe today, many of them see two contradictory realities at the same time. On the one hand, they expect Europe to protect them. Protect them from war, from economic dependency, from geopolitical pressure, from insecurity in an increasingly unstable world. On the other hand, many people also feel that European decisions are becoming more distant from their own democratic influence. That Europe is often strong in producing rules, but too weak in making political responsibility visible. It is precisely between these two expectations that the European debate now takes place because the real question is no longer: do we need Europe or do we not? The real question is: how do we organise European capacity to act in a way that remains democratically accepted? Because one thing is clear: the world around us has fundamentally changed. War has returned to Europe. For the first time in decades, Europeans again understand that peace, prosperity and security cannot be taken for granted. Strategic dependencies are increasingly being weaponised and, in such a world, national capacity alone, colleagues, is no longer sufficient in many key areas. That is obvious. No Member State, colleagues – and I speak to this side, and I think you agree – on its own will be large enough to fully control geopolitical risks. Not in energy, not in technology, not in security. But something else is equally true. European integration can only succeed in the long term if citizens continue to feel that political decisions remain understandable, accountable and, where necessary, correctable. That is why we are holding this debate today, because the experience of the past decades also shows something important: where Europe has created clear common decision‑making procedures and structures, Europe is capable of delivering. The single market, trade policy, competition policy, the common currency – in these areas, Europe carries international weight because decisions can be taken jointly and implemented effectively. Where Europe remains institutionally fragmented, however, common strategic action becomes far more difficult. We see this in parts of foreign policy, security policy, energy policy. And yet, colleagues, we should be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. Europe will not become a centralised unitary state and it does not need to become one. The motto of the United States of America is 'E pluribus unum'. 'Out of many, one'. Europeans have not achieved that, nor do they want to. Our motto is 'United in diversity' and that is a significant difference. Europe's strength has always been its ability to build common solutions where common action is necessary while preserving political and national diversity where diversity matters. That is why we must now have a pragmatic and honest discussion about how the European Union can become more capable of acting without losing democratic acceptance. In my view, this requires, above all, three things. First, European decisions need clear political responsibility. Citizens must be able to understand more clearly who prepares decisions, who supports them and who is politically accountable for them. The European Commission has evolved to a kind of government. It therefore needs to become both electable and removable, which is largely not the case today. Second, the European Parliament must be strengthened wherever democratic oversight and political correctability are concerned because democratic systems remain stable only if they remain capable of learning and adapting. And third, we should openly recognise that differentiated integration has always been part of the European project. Schengen did not begin with all Member States. Neither did the euro. Europe has often advanced precisely because some Member States were willing to move forward together in specific areas without undermining the unity of the Union as a whole. So, the key question today is not whether Europe should act. The key question is how Europe can remain capable of acting while also remaining democratically legitimate and politically accountable. This, colleagues, is why we turn today to the Council and the Commission with several questions. To conclude, the questions are: where do you see the greatest institutional limits to Europe's capacity to act within the current framework? Which reforms do you consider feasible with the existing Treaties? Where do you believe further institutional adaptation may become necessary? And how will you ensure that stronger European action always remains linked to democratic accountability, parliamentary oversight and a renewed trust of European citizens? Because, colleagues, Europe will only remain strong externally if it remains democratically trusted internally.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, EU law is often seen as technical – even bureaucratic. But for businesses and citizens it is something much simpler: it is the difference between clarity and confusion. The application of EU law is not a detail; it is the foundation of the single market. And yet, too often, the same rules do not lead to the same outcomes. A market that looks unified on paper can feel fragmented. In practice, what is clear in one Member State becomes uncertain in another. The problem is not that we lack legislation; the problem is that the same law does not always mean the same thing. Divergent application, ambiguous wording and national layers turn a common rule book into a patchwork. The consequences are real: businesses face unfair competition, citizens face uncertainty. The same rules, the same standards, the same level of trust – that is the promise of the single market. If the challenge lies in application, we must rethink how we ensure consistency. This is where artificial intelligence can help in the future. Used responsibly, it can identify inconsistencies, highlight overlaps and support a more coherent and predictable legal framework. But technology is only a tool, of course. Our objective must be clear: that EU law means the same thing wherever it is applied. Because in the end, our Union depends on trust – the trust that the same rules apply in the same way everywhere.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe employs more people to comply with rules than to innovate – and that is a problem. Regular compliance accounts for 3.9% of jobs and research and development for only 1.7%. A company that always has to comply with new reporting obligations – sustainability, supply chain, taxonomy, I could continue – no longer wonders how it grows, wonders how it survives. Our legal base has grown over decades, but has never been cleaned up – full of overlaps, contradictions and outdated rules. Unfortunately, we do not have an effective mechanism to correct this effectively. Our system – I am firmly convinced that no one would have wanted it so maliciously – is not sufficiently responsive. That is why we need a paradigm shift. Laws must be reviewed, limited in time and, in case of doubt, abolished again. For example, if we want to move forward on the energy transition, we need clear priorities. For example, a priority for grid expansion, which displaces the exaggerations of the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive. In the Commission, it is not the one who enforces a new law that can be promoted, but the one who finds a law that can be abolished. Only then will we become competitive if European companies do not collapse under the burden of their own rules. Unfortunately, the issue has not become a technical detail, but a question of existence for the European Union.

Madam President, colleagues, it's a point of order concerning Rule 191, with the title 'Committee filter of plenary amendments'. Two sentences only. It reads: 'When more than 50 amendments or requests for a split or separate vote have been tabled concerning a text tabled by a committee for consideration in Parliament, the President may, after consulting its Chair, ask that committee to meet to vote on each of those amendments or requests. Any amendment or request for a split or separate vote that does not receive votes in favour at this stage from at least one-third of the members of the committee shall not be put to the vote in Parliament.' Madam President, please consider making use of this prerogative, which the Rules of Procedure give to you or to any other President.

Madam President, colleagues, today we are discussing the revision of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. The history of parliaments in Europe teaches us an important lesson. Parliamentary rights rarely appear all at once. They develop step by step. They grow through practice, through agreements, and sometimes also through debate and disagreement. The revised framework agreement continues this evolution. First, it strengthens Parliament's indirect right of initiative under Article 225 of the Treaty. One thing is very important, colleagues: this applies when Parliament calls for existing legislation, but it also applies when Parliament calls for existing legislation to be amended or repealed. New legislation and legislation to be amended or repealed. In practice, this creates what I call a negative right of initiative, allowing Parliament to request corrections where legislation no longer works as intended. This point is important beyond the purely institutional dimension, since the democratic Union must not only be capable of adopting new legislation, it must also remain capable of reviewing, adjusting and, where necessary, repealing existing rules when they are no longer functioning. When legislation creates disproportionate obstacles, for example, for necessary infrastructure or economic development – what we all know in our constituencies, for example the flora, fauna, habitat is one of those examples – the Union must have the political ability to reassess such rules to amend them or, where necessary, to revise them fundamentally. Democratic legitimacy requires the capacity to correct course. At present, however, the Union still displays, in my opinion, a structural asymmetry. It is comparatively effective at producing new legislation, but far less capable of revisiting and rolling back existing rules. Yet, one of the central promises of democracy is this: that elections must be able to produce visible political change and I think here we can become better. Second, we have clarified for the first time the use of Article 122 of the Treaty, which was designed as an emergency provision. When this article is used, the Commission will now provide immediate justification and an assessment of the legal act concerned. Third, the agreement reinforces Parliament's oversight role by ensuring that Commissioners can be requested to appear in plenary debates and committee meetings. Democratic accountability requires dialogue and dialogue requires presence. That is, by the way, also true for Members of Parliament in the Hemicycle here and that needs also to be improved. Some in the Council have expressed concerns that this agreement might go beyond the Treaties. Let me say this clearly: it does not. The agreement fully respects the Treaty and the institutional balance of the Union. What it does is something that has always been part of Europe's constitutional development: it ensures that the democratic voice of Parliament is heard. In that sense, this agreement is not a break with our constitutional order; it is part of its natural evolution. Let me conclude with a few words of thanks. I would like to thank my co-negotiator Bernd Lange from S&D and Commissioner Šefčovič for the constructive spirit of these negotiations, as well as the teams on both sides, Parliament and the Commission, led by Guillaume McLaughlin and Enrico Forti, whose expertise made this outcome possible. Sofia, I would like to thank you for the tough negotiations as well. Colleagues, the development of parliamentary democracy is rarely dramatic. More often, it advances through careful steps that strengthen democratic institutions over time. Today's agreement is one of those steps.

I personally cannot give you this answer, but you know me: I would have fought for that because I'm known here that I'm always fighting against double standards, and you know that. We must be precise. In Hungary we can find enough concrete infringements of human rights and freedoms, so that I'm against this general resolution that an infringement of the rule of law has taken place. I am very precise, I am consistent, and you will always have me at your side.

Madam President, colleagues, misuse of EU funds in Slovakia is sadly linked to a decline in the rule of law generally. In the European Union, ethnicity must never determine rights. Never. Yet in Slovakia, land is reportedly being confiscated from citizens of Hungarian descent on the basis of decrees from 1945. Let us call this what it is. Property taken because of ancestry. Without compensation. Quietly. Systematically. Always the same. We see anti-corruption structures dismantled, judicial safeguards weakened, institutional checks eroded. Always the same. We must not remain silent. The European Commission is the guardian of the Treaties. But here I agree with our colleague from the Greens, I think infringement proceedings should be started because guardianship cannot be selective. Sometimes I have the impression in some Member States the rule of law violations trigger immediate procedures. In others, we look away. When expropriation in Slovakia based on ethnicity happens, we must not look away. But colleagues, when opposition politicians in Slovenia are intimidated right before the elections, we also must not look away. In Slovenia, one of our colleagues Matej Tonin, among others, is being subjected to an ‑ in my opinion ‑ obviously politically-motivated criminal proceeding. We must not remain silent because double standards damage the credibility of the Union. The rule of law must never be misused as a political instrument, and this should be our common aim, colleagues. We must never allow our governments to misuse the rule of law as a political instrument. And that is why I ask our colleagues from Renew in Slovenia to stand up, fight for your colleagues! Be true democrats! it is about the foundation of our Union and it must be defended consistently or not at all.

Madam President, Commissioner! Colleagues! We're all upset about Donald Trump's irrational tariff policy at the moment, rightly so, but there's one thing we have in our hands: abolish the de facto tariffs within the European Union that we impose on ourselves in Europe. The European single market is the foundation of our economy, but still unfinished to this day. Instead of one market, we already have the 27 different rule books mentioned above: Company law, insolvency law, labour law, all national. For companies, growth becomes an administrative project. While companies in the US or China are scaling into unified markets, expansion in Europe means new contracts and new hurdles. The differences are like internal tariffs. The International Monetary Fund quantifies it: 44% in the case of goods and 110% in the case of services. So if we want to move forward, we need an optional European company law, not too much small-to-small again. We must move forward here, but we must convince the Council that this is the European moment when we finally implement it.

Yes, indeed, thank you very much for this question. I think that a mistake in the construction of the institutional setting with the Lisbon Treaty is that we have a political union, fortunately, now, and the problem here is that the European elections do not have any effect on the composition of the Commission – that should be changed. At the moment, national governments nominate a commissioner. Okay – the European Parliament can vote or not vote for the European Commission president, but we should have a government in certain policy fields with federal structures, which can be voted in and voted out of office. This is my concrete proposal. Thank you.

Mr President, Commissioner, Europe once again stands at a historic crossroads and, colleague Stoyanov, of course the decision has a geopolitical meaning and, we all know, colleagues, such windows of opportunity open and they also close again. Too often we have opened them only to close them half-heartedly afterwards, and each time the disappointment in the Western Balkans has grown. This is about our credibility, our stability and our ability to act in an increasingly dangerous world. When Europe hesitates, others fill the vacuum, but not with our values, rather with their interests. Enlargement is not an act of idealism. It is an act of European self-assertion, yet a Union that grows without institutional renewal grows into its own incapacity to act. We need structures that make decisions possible, and institutions can be elected and unelected. Because the ability to act without democratic legitimacy would be a pyrrhic victory. Colleagues, we need more federal mechanisms in key policy areas where no Member State can act alone, but we also know the appetite for treaty change is limited in many capitals, if not all. That is why we must proceed wisely, step by step, with concrete reforms that create the ability to act without breaching centralism in Brussels. Those who want a larger Union tomorrow must have the courage to renew it today, and must seize this historic window before it is too late.

Mr Körner, I did not know that Mr Mazurek laughed or should have laughed at the Auschwitz extermination camp. It helps us with the topic, as so often, only education, education. It's usually uneducated. In the case of Mr Mazurek, when I heard the speech here, I thought it was just stupidity. Anyone who expresses himself as he does, who on a day when we had a touching, moving memorial hour here in the house today with the brother of a victim, one who is still in the hands of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and who then expresses himself and pretends that insults against white people are somehow comparable to what Jews are unfortunately experiencing again in Europe at the moment, is somehow not present in his senses.

Madam President, Commissioner! Mr Mazurek, I think you have just spoken nonsense and cannot put yourself in the shoes of people of Jewish faith, which puts pressure on them – in Germany, in Europe, throughout Europe. Two years after Hamas's barbaric massacre on October 7, Jews in Europe are once again living in fear, and this is really not comparable to what you have presented here, which is supposed to also exist against white people. No, colleagues, in Manchester, in Berlin, in Paris: Synagogues under police protection, schools with security zones. On our streets, anti-Semitic slogans are being openly chanted again, calls for the destruction of Israel, justifications for terror, relativizations of the Shoah. At our universities and in the cultural sector boycott calls and defamation campaigns. The attitude becomes the yardstick. Artists and lecturers are tested for origin and attitude. Exhibits such as those of the Israeli conductor Lahav Shani in Belgium are no longer an isolated case. 80 years after the Shoah, Israel's anti-Semitism has once again become acceptable under the guise of alleged criticism of Israel or the government of Israel. The truth also includes: Part of the incitement is nurtured by those who have fled to us from war and persecution. At the commemoration hour here in the House today, the Ambassador of Israel said – I quote – that Israel is certainly not doing everything right. Certainly not. But those who want to defend freedom and democracy must protect Jewish life, unconditionally, visibly, every day.

Madam President, The Budapest Pride Parade has attracted more people this year than ever before. So the ban did exactly the opposite of what Viktor Orbán wanted to achieve. Colleagues, we can discuss many things, including whether the form of protest is always helpful. We must also talk about it when parts of society and European institutions move away from liberal principles and use symbols of an identitarian model of society that puts collective belonging above individual freedom. But one thing must be clear in Europe forever: The right to demonstrate applies! Freedom of assembly is a fundamental pillar of the European legal order, and the ban on the event in Budapest, as well as the Hungarian law, which illegally restricts freedom of assembly under the ridiculous pretext of child protection, is a clear violation of this fundamental right. That is also not a question, dear colleagues, of interpretation, interpretation or legal-cultural differences. You know that I am always in favour of a differentiated approach, including in Hungary, but here, Commissioner, the case is very clear, and that is why the whole thing has to be dealt with legally. Don't wait! An infringement procedure at this point is appropriate, because the fundamental rights, the individual enforceable fundamental rights, that is the special thing about Europe. That's what makes us special. But they are not a gift, not even given forever. That is why every day we need to have the courage to defend them – clear, loud and uncompromising.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the European Commission's rule of law report is more than just a technical assessment, it is a political compass. It reminds us that the rule of law is not an abstract principle, but the very backbone of our Union. For the European Union, law constitutes the very basis of its existence. But let us be clear: credibility demands consistency. Double standards undermine trust within the Union and beyond. Pointing fingers without self-reflection weakens rather than strengthens our position. The European Parliament's report should be a call to dialogue, not a tool for division. We are facing rule of law problems in numerous Member States: unresolved murders of journalists, corruption, surveillance scandals and interference in press freedom. The Commission's rule of law report does identify such issues. However, in public debate and political rhetoric they are often addressed in an unbalanced manner – we focus on one or two problems. And yes, colleagues, deficits include us as well. If we expect others to uphold the rule of law, we must apply the same standards to ourselves, including our own rules of procedure, which are handled quite flexibly from time to time. We must lead by example, with respect for our own rules. Only then will our voice in the world remain strong and credible when we speak about the rule of law.

Madam President, colleagues, with this report, the Constitutional Affairs Committee is proposing to amend Article 8(1) of Annex I to our Rules of Procedure, according to which rapporteurs shall list the entities or persons from whom they received input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file in an annex to their report or opinion. In practice, it has become apparent that the wording 'entities and persons' is unclear, and there has been uncertainty as to which input must be included in the annex. The amendment proposed today addresses this issue. First, it limits your obligation as rapporteur to listing only those contributions that you have actually included in your report or opinion. Second, it narrows the scope to interest representatives registered in the Transparency Register and authorities of third countries. Unfortunately, colleagues, this is not the only provision with unclear wording in our Rules of Procedure, and when obligations are too vague or open to interpretation, there is always a risk that colleagues may find themselves subject to public criticism, even in the absence of any wrongdoing. That is why further amendments will be needed and we will come up with further proposals. Today's amendment will remove the ambiguous wording, while still addressing the intention of the provision, so I ask for your approval.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The Committee on Budgetary Control's investigations speak for themselves: For years, the European Commission has funded NGOs to lobby MEPs and Commissioners. A special report by the European Court of Auditors confirms: Between 2021 and 2023, several billion euros went to NGOs without a clear overview of their use. NGOs are part of our democracy, but they become a problem in a liberal democracy when they are funded with substantial state or European funds to distort the free competition of ideas and opinions and push through their political agenda. It therefore needs consequences. NGOs must be subject to the same transparency obligations as companies and disclose their sources of funding. It also raises the question – probably the more important question – of how much funding is justified at all if NGOs: non‐Governmental Organizations – on close‐Governmental Organizations will be. How many of these funds could have been invested so much more meaningfully in defence or European infrastructure?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, In my view, the European Parliament's draft for the next Multiannual Financial Framework sets the right priorities. It calls on the Commission to put in place effective instruments to promote innovation. He is focusing on targeted investments to strengthen our defence industry and calls for greater transparency in the allocation of funding. The report by former ECB President Mario Draghi has clearly shown: Europe is at risk of losing out in global competition. He was very clear: We're going to die a slow death if we don't totally turn around and turn around. The mistakes of past budgets must not be repeated. Funding must be measured by its European added value, not by its political opportunity. Every single euro must be subject to clear controls and proof requirements. At the same time, new debts must not, in the long term, contribute to jeopardising the European Union's ability to act. As a result, however, competitiveness cannot be bought, but must be developed. It comes from bold structural reforms and the reduction of bureaucracy and clear incentives for companies.

Mr. Friend! My colleague Loránt Vincze has already given the answer: Democracy is also part of the rule of law. An election took place in June and there are now other majorities in this Parliament. We will carry out the procedure now. Then we will see the majorities and, if necessary, terminate this agreement if there is a new majority for it in the new Parliament. You have to get used to the idea that you did not succeed in overcoming democracy, but with elections in June last year, a change took place, and that is exactly what we are implementing – if necessary by cancelling this agreement.

Madam President, colleagues, the European Union was founded on the rule of law, which means there are clear rules on how to deal with crimes. The following order needs to be applied: suspicion, investigation, Indictment and then, if necessary, conviction. We often follow the process in the reversed order. But the fight for the rule of law can only be successfully waged if it is carried out using constitutional means. This includes the presumption of innocence, the separation of powers, and the immunity of Members of Parliament, which should be lifted in a legally sound procedure if there is cause to do so. Where the rule of law is applied, it is also clear which institutions prosecute crimes: the police, the Public Prosecutor's Office and, at the European level, OLAF and EPPO. Parliament must cooperate with these authorities and, if necessary, initiate its own investigations. However, this must also be done with within the framework of legal procedures. In another case, the European Court of Justice has just confirmed that we have some catching up to do in our own House when it comes to legal procedures. Today, we discuss allegations again, although I would like to know what actually happened to the allegations of the past – Kaili, Krah, von der Leyen. Always the same pattern: accusation, arrest and then what is the outcome of this allegation? By the way, the current case, like all the others, has nothing to do with morals or ethics. The accusation here is a criminal offence. And, as I said, we have OLAF, EPPO and the national authorities to investigate. They should now do their work and while they do, we should do our best to avoid giving the impression that the European Union is a corrupt institution. It is not.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The guidelines for the 2026 budget of the European Union set the right priorities: The report focuses on European competitiveness; calls for investment in research of more than 3% of gross domestic product and stresses the need for an integrated European energy market. It is right to focus on strengthening funding opportunities for the European defence industry. As long as we source 80% of Europe's arms supplies to Ukraine from abroad, Europe will remain dependent on security policy. In the long term, however, Europe's challenges cannot be met with the current financial framework. Without a reform of own resources, the European Union will not be crisis-proof or receptive to new members. And by the way, we also have to repay the debt from the budget – unfortunately, we always forget that at the moment when it seems opportune to us to be able to solve all conceivable problems simply always with new debts.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 100 days of the European Commission: In fact, time for a first review. A change of mindset has started, a change of course. The fact that the left side of the house is not pleased with this, I am pleased again. You thought you had overcome democracy and this whole left-wing, illiberal course continues – but an election has taken place. And that is why it is good, Commissioner, that the new Commission is now focusing more on economic competitiveness and security. This is good because you have noticed that small-scale regulation and excessive bureaucracy have long prevented the European Union from reaching its full potential. The central question you always have to ask yourself: First, do we need regulation at all? And secondly, will regulation achieve the goal you want to achieve? This is not the case in the area of the Green Deal and many other regulations that have left the European continent behind. Therefore: Congratulations on the bus packages. You have to imagine that we managed to create 13,000 new regulations in five years – the Americans got by with 3,000. Congratulations on the proposals in the field of defence – however, the legal basis is wrongly chosen and we must now finally wake up to jointly develop and produce European weapons so that we can become autonomously defence-ready.

Madam President, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we must confront the fact that, in defence, Europe is utterly unprepared. The numbers are clear: while the European Union maintains 178 different weapon systems, the United States operates with 27. Our defence industry is paralysed by inefficiencies and fragmentation. In supporting Ukraine, we have procured 80 % of our military supplies from outside the European market. That doesn't make sense. Last November, President von der Leyen put forward urgently needed reforms to strengthen the European Defence Agency and accelerate industry production. So far, Member States have shown an alarming lack of engagement. Putin sees the West as weak. That, we must change! We Europeans, ladies and gentlemen, must move beyond the zero-sum game of national interests and become capable of defending ourselves.