Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, Secretary of State Navarro Ríos! Everyone here says one thing: Having a roof over your head is a fundamental right. We note and criticize unanimously here in the house that we have the housing question again as a big social question. This was one of the issues before we made the modern European welfare state; It is therefore very important that we do not analyse further, but that the Commission present a coherent action plan, because indeed, this is predominantly a national competence. But we can do a lot in Europe to contribute to the solution and, among other things, really scour the EU funds. We have earmarked funds in the Youth Guarantee to ensure that we create apprenticeships. Why can't we ensure that certain funds are also allocated to building housing for young people, for apprentices, for students? At the same time, we have to realize that, in fact, we have an unleashed market that no longer works. Airbnb, for example, is pulling out housing, driving up prices. Here, too, we can do something, as well as in state aid law. A coherent action plan to ensure that we all find truly affordable housing is overdue.

Mr President! Some express it diplomatically, others directly: EU migration policy, as it is, has failed. Why did it fail? Not because so many people are coming, but because it has failed, because many want the benefits of membership of the European Union; But when it comes to refugees, for example, they prefer to deport them to their neighbouring countries, or they deliberately do not register the refugees at all, but hope that they will move through quickly. I believe that we must address this lack of solidarity and that must be at the heart of the new Pact on Migration. Nor can we, just because we are unable to act, go to Tunisia and say: "We give you money, you solve your problems!" We have to solve the problems here, and we have to conclude an asylum and migration package based on our values, but with which we show that we can manage it, in solidarity with the Member States where the refugees arrive, but also with the refugees who come here and seek protection. And Tunisia: The Secretary of State said: You can dream of it, it doesn't work anyway. That's why it's important that we learn the lessons, that we work to really find compromises here. I also want to make one thing very clear: We're going to negotiate hard, and that's important. But we will never question the fundamental right to asylum, because when we do, we betray our own values. That's why they let us find solutions together! Whether we find them is decided here, in the middle of this House – whether we succumb to the poison of populism to make points, or whether we negotiate hard and find good solutions. With this in mind, you can know the S&D by your side. One more thing, including your last objection: We discuss it, and unlike you, we don't wait for people to leave voluntarily.

Mr President, Commissioner Nicolas Schmit! In fact, the problems have been named, and I believe that this is important because, in fact, the statistics do not tell all the stories, let alone that there are families, children and many people behind them. Poor despite work – it has been mentioned – is now a widespread disease that is really feeding on society and destroying trust in democracy. It is therefore essential that we, as Europe, also have a coherent strategy. We have many programs, many individual measures. But people still have the feeling that they no longer come on a green branch, that they have to go to tables, that prices are rising. That is why I would like to remind you once again of one thing: This week I have an article by Adam Tooze in the Financial Times read – he addressed this to Germany, it is the same for the EU – really a call for social investment – also to neutralise the extreme right – in social housing, education and employment. A word to the ID Group: If you blame foreigners for this and at the same time reject poverty-resistant minimum wages, then you have a problem. This is not how we can act in Europe.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission! Together, we have set ourselves the goal of having 15 million fewer people in poverty in Europe by 2030, and if we continue as we have done so far, we will have 15 million more people in poverty. When you talk to people, they just feel like they're pressed into a vice: that prices are rising for food, for energy, that at the same time homelessness is growing, the tables are reaching their limits, etc. That is why it is important for Europe to look at what part of the solution it can contribute to minimising the pressure. And here, for example, to look at the EU funds: Can we support more social housing, can we look at the procurement rules to see if we can find solutions faster? This is extremely important for trust. And you are calling for professionals from third countries – I support that. But I ask you to go to the truckers in Gräfenhausen who are on strike and talk to them about how they are being exploited. What is Europe doing to prevent mobile work from actually becoming dirty work in the end? Therefore: A joint summit for fair mobility or a round table would be a good first solution.

Mr President! Good morning, colleagues! Let me say it in advance: My group of Socialists and Democrats will vote in favour of this proposal. Why? We all know that we are obliged to make this distribution of seats before the European elections. And we all feel that this European election is really around the corner. And this milestone, and colleagues have been working on it, we really need to agree here now. In fact, demographics have changed, and we want and need to take that into account. And for my group, it was very important that we at the same time - the population has increased - adjust the seats, have better representation, but also that no country loses a seat in the next legislature. We are, like the rapporteurs, Not amused on the recital and are of the opinion that the Council is not entitled to do so here and that, on the contrary, we expect the Council to finally deal with our proposal for a European electoral law. The proposal has been in place for two years without any negotiations being launched. It doesn't go on like that.

Madam President, Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this debate. I believe it shows that, as I said at the outset, we have different levels of ambition with regard to these rules. For one side it is far too much, for the other side it is far too little. I think we have tried to find a really good common framework for changes that we need to go, that we should go and that are also feasible: Weighed, actually and discussed. In fact, you can't prevent corruption 100% through good rules. But what you can do is make corruption more difficult, by creating transparency and also establishing a culture of transparency, you are actually sending the signal to citizens: What we do, we do it for the general public and it's transparent. We really have nothing to hide here. A colleague asked: Don't we have to analyze the weaknesses first? We have analysed the weaknesses and we have concrete answers in our report. I want to say one thing: Meetings with third countries did not have to be made transparent beforehand. Will you do now and really close a vulnerability that we have. I would also like to thank Mrs Hübner for her experience from the Advisory Committeethat it is important to also involve independent experts, and that it is also possible and practiced here to ensure confidentiality. These rules, which we now want to adopt, are an important step, a next step, a big step even after the 14 points, which must also be put into practice. What you all stressed in the debate is: We have a very, very broad consensus on much of this change in the Rules of Procedure. We have some points that are interpreted differently. But that's how it is with compromises and that's how it is at work. I would therefore like to appeal once again to all to agree with this report, to see it as a really important next step in its implementation. I would also like to quote Mr De Meo as our Committee President: “This will strengthen the EP in order to carry out its work freely and democratically.” And indeed, we have always looked at everything to see that the freedom of the mandate is not affected. I believe that transparency and accountability really strengthen trust in democracy. We need that more than ever in these times. I would also like to thank all of you for your concerns, and I nevertheless appeal: The majority is supported. Bring the report with you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We all know that transparency is a prerequisite for democracy, it is almost oxygen for it to work. And that is why many citizens rightly demand it more. My report on the amendment of the Rules of Procedure proposes new rules. And that concerns the way we work here, in this House. I would once again like to thank all my colleagues, especially the Legal Service, who have made it possible for us to come together on these amendments. At the beginning of the year, the President of the House presented a 14-point plan and gave us the task of implementing these changes in the Rules of Procedure by the summer. We did it under pressure. It was a really big challenge for everyone. But we now have a proposal that really brings concrete changes, even if there were very different ambitions as to the extent to which these 14 goals are to be achieved. We will create complete transparency when it comes to side activities. If you earn more than 5 000 EUR per year, from the sum actually for everything. We believe that being a Member of the European Parliament is not a side job. And that anyone who pursues activities that are still remunerated in other ways will also have to disclose this transparently in the future, in the total amount per year. We strengthen the definition of conflict of interest and introduce the need to make a declaration in the future before you can become a rapporteur or take on certain functions, such as Vice-President or Quaestor, Committee Chair, to submit such a declaration. This is, I believe, a milestone, because it is about demonstrating that one acts in the public interest and that is also the focus. We are introducing greater transparency requirements for appointments. This is also important. There were always a few grey areas here, and it wasn't so clear: Do I have to state this now or not? We are simplifying this and have also included exceptions if such a mention could put others at risk. We also want stricter rules for Friendship groups These are informal friendship groups. Here, too, we have formulated clear rules so that it is also clear that they do not act on behalf of Parliament. They, too, must disclose how they are financed, etc. At the core of this is also, and this is very important: We have an advisory committee, the so-called Advisory Committee, that already exists. We want to strengthen it, especially for people who have questions (‘If I have a conflict of interest here, I can speak confidentially with people, advise myself’), but who can also take action, which is not yet the case, even if there are corresponding indications, and who will actually support and strengthen the culture of trust and transparency. And this is all the more important because we know that there will be no real ethics authority in the near future. Yes, these changes are ambitious. But they will really continue a cultural change in transparency. It is not a question of bans - some people say so - but of creating measures, more transparency and accountability. Democracy takes place in the daylight and not in the dark corners of the night. And that is why it is important to illuminate the light here as well. I would like to thank all my colleagues once again and would like to say it with Goethe's supposedly last words: More light.

Mr President! I wanted to talk about a different topic, but I can't help it now. Mr. Weber, you are very much reminiscent of Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice, who called the spirits that he can no longer get rid of. You left the table to work on compromises, instructed your people to just vote against it. I think it's right that we should press a stop button here, reflect together. Because this House lives on the fact that we work together on compromises and then really put forward proposals for the citizens. And you have with the fake news, I mean, your videos, all that – I believe that it is not good for this House, and I believe that we should really return to factual work, including factual debate and content disputes, and see what compromises we find. But I would like to emphasize again that it does not work if you appeal to the common spirit, but then do not change your own behaviors. This is why I also believe in the issue of migration: The issue is too important for us to operate here with fake news and populism. We have to fight for the best compromises. We have to do this in terms of content, because we need to be able to act, but we also need a migration policy that is oriented towards human rights and our values.

Human dignity is indivisible. We don't have first-class refugees or second-class refugees. This is the crucial value of Europe. The second is: Poland and Hungary did not agree in the Council to this compromise, which the Council found after eight years of blockade. These are just the facts and nothing more.

Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission Šefčovič and also Mrs Roswall! I would like to thank you again for your presence here. We appreciate it in the house. That's not always the case. But if I listen to the speeches that I have to hear in this house, then you can see that the right side here in the house has been polluting the discourse, spreading lies, stirring up resentment, fear and propagating isolation for years. And then one wonders if this is also reflected in the Council mandate and on the other hand Poland and Hungary wash their hands anyway, because they did not agree to it at all. I would like to underline once again that this House has a broad consensus that we want to support a balanced migration package. But I would like to underline again: Human dignity and international law must be taken into account. This is something that the citizens of the Future Conference have written to us once again. That is why I appeal to the Council to actually enter into negotiations with Parliament on this basis to find a good compromise, a much better compromise. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. This was just a great example of how we deal with the fact that we are now planning a proposal from the Commission that pretends to establish an ethics body. But if we look at the data, we can say: Yeah, that's a novelty. But if we look at it, it is definitely not an ethics body, which the proposal contains, but a new coordination body. Nor will it establish binding rules for EU institutions. It will not even set really ambitious common standards or that, as Parliament called for in an opinion, we can really launch investigations and also issue sanctions to Sven Simon, who also at least partly worked on the EPP. If we look at this, we have a toothless tiger in front of us, which still requires a lot, a lot of work. I hope that Parliament will be very decisive in the negotiations in order to really make it an ethics authority. It is the same groups that are preventing us from really tightening up our rules, and they are now saying: No, that's actually a good suggestion, you don't have to do much about it anymore, we stick to it. This is about as if car manufacturers were working out the rules for road traffic, and then all motorists can orient themselves, but they don't have to. Or as if football clubs establish rules of the game, but then each team decides for itself what consequences this should have if you hurt them. That is why I believe it is important that we really get an ethics authority that has resources – we really need to improve – that really has the competences to be called an ethics authority. So I think we should look again: What requirements did Parliament make in a joint own-initiative report that received broad support? In fact, when we look at it: We also need such an ethics authority so that not every institution does its own thing again. That is why it is very important for us as S&D Group that we get an ethics body that deserves its name, that we do our homework here in the house, faster than before, also to change our own rules, and that we do not stick our heads in the sand and give the message: Okay, we're building a house here that has a wonderful name. But it is not at all equipped to really be an ethics authority. We will not accept this from the point of view of S&D. That is why we advocate: Yes, it's a novelty, I agree with you. It is a step in the right direction. But it's not enough at all. That is why we have to work hard here.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the colleagues who have done such a good job here to lift the veil of naivety when it comes to foreign interference. And that was by no means an easy job. But I am also concerned – worried when I hear that the democracy package is being postponed further and further, when we know that the date for the European elections is fixed and we need a stronger shield against interference by then. But I would also like to reiterate the importance of civil society – an independent civil society – for a stable democracy. And that is why I am very concerned that some also want to use this debate to discredit this very independent civil society. We must create the framework so that civil society can also play its role, so that democracy and the rule of law are protected. And that is why I am glad that Mrs Jourová has underlined once again that our approach is different from other autocracies in how we fight disinformation and influence.

Mr President! If we look at the fact that we are talking about the action plan on the Pillar of Social Rights and the years after Porto, we must once again see that without this House, in cooperation with the Commission, this pillar would never have existed. It's like having a child: You want to see that it grows and thrives well. We have a responsibility, and that is what we have here across political groups, because we as a Parliament wanted it to be. That is why it is important to see what we have achieved – the Commissioner has underlined this, others also – but also to see that this child continues to thrive, also in the future, because we have many projects that we need to implement, because we promised that to the people of Europe. That is why another point is very important to me. We have a huge transformation in front of the chest: Green Deal, digitalisation, people are worried about their jobs. You already have less in your pocket due to declining purchasing power. Our signal must also be: We will involve you in this transformation. We are also strengthening your rights to shape this transformation. Not only are you victims and at the mercy of it, but together we will make sure we don't leave anyone behind. And that is why all the projects in the resolution are great, and I thank the rapporteurs – that is exactly the responsibility that parents have.

Madam President, Mr Bundeskanzler! As the last speaker, you have the privilege of having such a bit of an overview. What remains of the speech here today on Europe Day? I have to say that, apart from roaring and self-reflection, there remains a blunt and clear commitment to enlargement and reform, not a "go on" - and that is what we need. We in Parliament are really working under pressure – you mentioned it, Mr Chancellor – on a proposal for Treaty amendments. This gives us a tailwind once again, and I hope that you will also be in the Council to initiate a Convention, because many have mentioned Schuman today: Europe will emerge through concrete actions and through the solidarity of action. We deliver here in Parliament, we rely on Franco-German initiatives, on broad support, and then we really have the chance to act and not just talk about reforming Europe.

Madam President, Prime Minister Bettel, your speech has been good. A year before the European elections – I think some of them are back on the populism booster. Others talk about self-reflection and don't even know how to spell it. They started with a self-reflection, the lessons we learned from COVID: first close borders, then procure vaccines together – that is the way forward. But that also means that we need more skills for future pandemics to tackle them across borders. I also liked the fact that you once again pleaded not to be afraid of the citizens. We had the Future Conference. I don't think anyone in the room is afraid of the citizens' proposals. On the contrary: We are in the process of implementing them. But I would like – I believe it is necessary – to take the fears of citizens’ proposals even more seriously in the Council. We also need a convention to strengthen the heart of democracy. How do you think you can still win a majority?

Madam President, Minister Roswall, Nicolas Schmit as Commissioner! As the European Parliament, we have to wait until something like this has happened, that this is on the agenda, that people are being scammed for their wages, that they have to fear for their personal safety, that, for example, they do not have health insurance coverage, as they then find out here. I had the opportunity to meet with Agnes Jongerius, with Vera Tax yesterday these brave men who are in Gräfenhausen. I really want to convey here their greetings, but above all their concerns and also their hopes that they have come here to work under harsh conditions, but with confidence in Europe that it does what Nicolas Schmit said: It promises that it does not differ, but that everyone who works here has decent working conditions, does not have to worry about their safety and gets paid their wages. That is why it is incredibly important that we do not just look there – it has been said. I really thank the people who live there, who show that we make no difference from which country someone comes from Europe or whether they come from outside, but that they say: These men and also the women who work there make sure that we can live our lives at all, that we get the products that we have, that work can take place. And then we don't manage to ensure really decent working conditions. Mr Radtke also mentioned it: We fought through a mobility package here, with many committed colleagues. But what good is the best legislation if it is not properly implemented at national level, if the Commission does not play a stronger role as guardian of the Treaties, if there are not enough controls and also European approaches to ensure this? That's why we really need to see this as a tip of the iceberg, and it's not just the transport sector where we see this. We have other sectors where we have similar problems, but that we do not stand still as we do now. I would also like to thank the media, who have taken this up, for making it clear that we must not put the spotlight on it and then return to our work, but that from here we must send the message to these truck drivers who are in Gräfenhausen and to all the other millions of workers in this European Union: The Council will now take a closer look. The Commission will also take a closer look at these people's employment contracts. We need to ensure – and we can do this together as co-legislators here – that such a thing is no longer a piece of normalcy in Europe, but that we really ensure – especially when I look to Georgia, a country that also has such high hopes for the EU, and a large part of the drivers come from or come from Uzbekistan: equal pay for equal work in the same place. And we do not tolerate slave labor relations, as this obviously seems to be the case here.

Dear colleague, if you had listened to me, you would not have asked this stupid question – I have to say that now. I praised Poland for this and said: For us, it has always been a hope that there are countries where it goes and where it is also shown that the economy does not go down if, for example, there is equal pay for equal work and work of equal value. And I can say: The women in Germany from trade unions, from parties, from women's organisations are fighting for it, and they are happy that Europe is finally giving them what they have been fighting for for so long. And that's why it's a good day for women, for equality, but it's actually a good day for Europe.

Mr President! Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, good morning, Commissioner Dalli! Many have already said it here: This is going to be a historic day today. And this Parliament has done a super good job. And why? I believe that the few on the right who have said ‘Oh, God, that only creates bureaucracy!’ have not understood at all the reality of life in which women are diverse. And that's why, women of Europe: Have a look at such a debate, see that we are watching – and that is why I was happy about Ms Rafalska to say: We have countries, that's how it works. We have less discrimination. For me, who come from a country where there has always been high wage discrimination, this was simply a hope. And it also shows that it can be done. And that is why it is good that we lift this veil, this veil, this secrecy, which is one reason why so many women have to go such a tedious way to achieve equal pay. And this creates tools for workers' representatives, for works councils, for trade unions, for those affected. The veil is gone. But then the work has to come to ensure equal pay. And we can do that too. (The speaker agreed to reply to a statement using the blue card procedure)

Mr President, Madam Minister, Commissioner! I was in Athens last week, and that's why I'd like to start with a quote from Pericles, who said: ‘It is not a question of predicting the future, but of being prepared for the future.’ The question is therefore: Are we prepared for this? I believe, on the one hand, that Commissioner Schmit put it this way: We have taken a lot of good steps recently: NextGenerationEU, Fit for 55 – much has been mentioned here. But nevertheless the impression creeps in here – and this is also shown by the debates this morning – that the wake-up call from the US, what we are doing with the Inflation Reduction Act It has not yet been fully understood here in Europe. I agree with many who say: "In fact, what Europe needs to do now is invest, invest, invest!" But not only in green technologies, but also in people. The Commissioner said: skills. There is a group in which, I think, much more should be invested in a labour market where we are desperately looking for strength, and these are women, for example. We have a lot of catching up to do, that's what we should do! For this great transformation that we have here in front of us, we have to take the people with us. In order for this to succeed, it is really important to strengthen democracy in the workplace and to create trust in this change. I think, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to finally develop a different, sustainable concept of European competitiveness, which is not just cutting red tape, but also to see that it is good jobs – as the US is doing right now – and that we are linking the ecological and social sides. I agree with Mr Séjourné and Renew who say: Improving opportunities for the future really also means daring more Europe – but in the sense that we actually take everyone with us and not only the elites benefit from it. Then it will succeed.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr Vice-President! In fact, you can see here again: The Inflation Reduction Act was a wake-up call for Europe. I listened very carefully to what Mrs. von der Leyen said. It has pointed to the similarities between what the US is doing and what Europe is doing. But she forgot one key point. Because the US has actually succeeded in establishing something like the Justice40 principle in its law, namely a strong social component at a time of great uncertainty. If we now compare both approaches, we can see that the issue of good work of collective agreements is also included in the US guidelines for support services and nothing in our case. niente. This dimension does not occur at all. Instead, there are old recipes, the lyre, as if only cutting red tape would continue and ensure competitiveness; But there is also a real need for sustainable social concepts. This really needs to be reworked.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Madam Minister! It is true that we are launching this resolution here. But I would like to remind you once again what this is all about. We are not talking about whether we need social systems or not, which some are already questioning, but about the adequacy of these systems and accessibility. Here we see that there are huge problems in Europe. I honestly sometimes ask myself – I do not know how the Commissioner is doing – whether it is a curse or a blessing to have been active in European social policy for so long. How many presidencies, how many resolutions, how many OMC processes, how much voluntary commitment I have seen – none of them work. That's why I can't imagine electing a new President of the European Commission or a new President of the European Commission who is not at the top of the agenda to put a minimum income directive on the way. I will always honour this directive as the Fintan Farrell directive wherever it is now. It is simply time and overdue to act on the directive.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President! Our responsibility here in the house is not to spark populism, but the current challenge is that we agree on a balanced migration package, in accordance with the roadmap. The EU has been incapable of acting here for years, especially because the Council is blocked and blocked. But the recent debates in the Council also fuel the doubts as to whether the Council understands that only a balanced package will find a majority here in the House. I am not surprised when the ID Group or the ECR Group spark here and take Trump as an example; He raved that he would build the best wall, the largest, the strongest, not surmountable. But the fact that the EPP is increasingly cuddling with rights and post-fascists here and is adopting this Trump rhetoric is negligent. Because fears against migration fuel and try to make political capital out of it, that's not bourgeois, that's simply repulsive. And I have seen that the ID has already offered Mr. Weber membership. Why are we as S&D against walls? Because walls and fences don't help. Also the history of the USA, and if you look at the US wall: Walls do not stop refugees, they only increase the number of deaths. Therefore: EU money that can be spent elsewhere is populist, and most importantly, it does not solve the challenges we face in terms of migration. We can only achieve this through a balanced package.

Mr President, Commissioner Jourová, Minister Roswall! It is good that this Parliament has been pushing for an independent ethics body since 2021 and that this is also supported – here in the House – by a broad majority. And I am pleased that the signal does not continue to be outrageous, but that we are really getting signals now that a corresponding proposal is being put forward. Why is this so necessary? If we look again at what the rules look like at the moment, then we can see, we as Parliament, we have our own transparency requirements, our own code of conduct and our own rules of ethics. The Commission has its own procedures and bodies for ethics rules, including for former Commissioners, and other institutions – we have heard – have different rules. To be clear, here again: These rules, which usually only work in-house, where former colleagues are often involved in decisions, cannot really do that. And when we look, what does it look like in other countries; For example, we are looking at Canada, where we have an independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with appropriate staff. In the United States, we have had an independent ethics body since 2008. Why? Because there were corruption cases. Three congressmen ended up in jail at the time, and it was still Trump who actually tried to weaken the rules here before his term, but thank God he failed. Qatar gate now also brings us back into the debate, so that this ethics authority can really be launched again this year. And I would also like to remind you that it was not only Parliament that pushed here, but also the European Ombudsman and the European Court of Auditors. They have pointed out to us that we – or the institutions – have failed to develop effective strategies, especially to prevent conflicts of interest, so that this does not happen in the first place. And they have also pointed out and criticised us for not having a common ethical framework for the EU institutions with very clear procedures. We also need monitoring and enforcement of ethics rules, because the best rules are of no use if they are not enforced and sanctioned accordingly. That is why I am very happy – as they say in football, after a slightly longer warm-up period – that this is happening now. And I'd like to check again, Mrs. Jourová. I heard you said you were going to present something soon. This is what the President of the Commission told us in December. I would like to know something more concrete: When exactly will the Commission present a proposal for an interinstitutional agreement? I think that would be exactly the right signal now so that we can be certain.

Madam President, Commissioner Jourová just said: We have a window of opportunity here, a small window of opportunity before the European elections, where we can still act and make sure that the 11 million EU citizens we have in Europe who live in another country love working, that they really participate in the European elections. And yes, theoretically you can. It has been an important step forward, but we still have so many hurdles, be they language hurdles that have been applied here or bureaucratic procedures that sometimes make it difficult for someone who works there but is not familiar with the bureaucracies to actually exercise their right. And that is why it is right that we are now pushing again to strengthen democracy for EU citizens, because the fundamental right to vote in elections also means in practice that it signals: Here I am at home, here I want to have a say in who represents my interests in Europe, in the European Parliament. And that is why there is still a strong need for action here.

Madam President, dear colleagues, who would have thought that, five years after we criticized President Trump for building walls to Mexico, the European Council would propose to build walls in Europe? And who would have thought that two decades and more after the fall of the Iron Curtain, we would have, or even have considered, proposals to build walls around Europe? Okay, they call it, still very technocratic, ‘border protection’. They call ‘armour-like technocratic border protection capability and infrastructure’. But we are not fooled. We know what it is and let us see it straight, therefore. Every euro that will be put into fences and borders is a euro that cannot be used to help someone else and protect the vulnerable. Therefore, we want to hear from the Commission and the Council their points of view about this term and the use of EU funds to build a fortress Europe. This is why we, as the S&D, urge you to support this – especially at a time also where we look, as the President said, with horror to the situation in Türkiye and Syria. So please, I ask you to support this.