What Delara spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Does my rain jacket actually belong in the hazardous waste? And is the baking paper carcinogenic? These are legitimate questions that cannot be answered clearly today and which have occupied many since this news at the latest. At 1500 locations in Germany, PFAS, so-called perpetual chemicals, could be detected. Water, dirt and grease repellent – these properties ensure that we can find them everywhere: clothing, disposable packaging, even in the blood of infants and in breast milk. Forever chemicals Sounds like a good name for a band. However, it is a group of substances suspected of limiting liver and thyroid function and causing cancer. Just as eponymous as problematic: They cannot be naturally degraded. The precautionary principle should guide our chemicals policy. If there are concerns that a substance is endangering health, the problem cannot be solved – a fortiori if neither humans nor the environment can degrade these substances. The problem is actually only exacerbated by sitting out. The European Chemicals Agency needs to clarify this quickly. We need clear statements from the Commission.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Whether it's the coffee at the train station this morning or the piece of chocolate I ate on the train, consumers in the EU cannot be sure whether or not their consumption contributed to deforestation. Whether we want it or not: When we go shopping, we almost always put a piece of forest destruction in our shopping cart. Soya, palm oil, rubber, coffee, cocoa, wood and beef – these products still come far too often from deforestation and there is no law to prohibit this practice – or better: gave. Because now it's over. As an EU, we are tackling our forest footprint. With the EU law against imported deforestation, companies will have to prove in the future that there were no forests that were destroyed and no people were displaced for the cultivation and production of their goods. Otherwise, the following applies: No access to the European market. In doing so, we are putting a stop to the business model of deforestation. And this is not only good for forests, but also for consumers in Europe. So far, if you wanted to know something about deforestation, you didn't find any clarity, but a jungle of sustainability labels and many promises that didn't actually give any clarity. Without pressure from civil society and the European Parliament, we would not be voting on the European Supply Chain Act against Deforestation this week. And it also shows something about the political will in this House and also within the European institutions that we have come from the parliamentary initiative to the regulation in three and a half years. This is where we put pressure and this is where we delivered. And in the negotiations we were also able to improve the Commission proposal – Mrs Kyriakides enumerated this better than I could have done. We also cover forest damage. We are including the deforestation driver rubber in the regulation despite the massive headwind we had. We are strengthening the role of indigenous communities living on, with and in forests by also banning land-grabbing products from the EU market. But the fight against deforestation has not yet been won. Now it is time for implementation. Over the next two years, the Commission will decide whether to extend the regulation to other important ecosystems, such as the Cerrado savanna in Brazil. In addition, it could make banks that co-finance forest destruction more accountable. And here in the European Parliament, just as we have called for, we will keep up the pressure for this expansion to come. But first of all, we would like to thank the many people who have asked the EU to act, the Commission for this courageous initiative and all the colleagues who have worked so well together across political groups and committees. Thank you very much!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It seems very difficult for some to imagine that the economy does not take place in an empty space, but is rather affected in real terms by social and ecological crises. A good example of this is the delayed energy transition. People are suffering from high inflation, resulting in rising prices across Europe. Inflation is, above all, one thing: A fossil crisis. When dictators and autocrats shut their cocks, fossil energy becomes scarce and expensive, while renewables have been more affordable than ever before. The good thing is: With the Green Deal, we have the tools to free ourselves from this dependence. We must make visible the impact of ambitious environmental and climate policy on European economic policy. It is not the growth of the gross domestic product, but the social well-being within planetary boundaries that must be the goal of our economy. The 2023 European Semester must finally be measured against this reality.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2030 – that always sounds a long way off. But there are only seven years left. Only seven years until we have to reduce our emissions by at least 55% in all areas, to which we have committed ourselves legally, but also internationally. And it's not numbers that we've somehow diceed, it's hard planetary boundaries that we're negotiating with here. We are the generation of politicians who can speak not only abstractly of these long-distance goals. We must become concrete, and we must take responsibility for all areas of the economy. We will be judged by how well we have made this decision. And it is good that we have done just that well in the dossiers to be voted on this week. In particular, I would like to thank Ville once again for the good cooperation on the LULUCF Regulation. With this alone, we can raise our climate target to 57%. And together with the REPowerEU package on energy independence from Russia, there is even up to 60%. So we have really shown here that with cooperation and diligence we can even exceed our own climate goals. But I am not only concerned with these numbers and these abstract goals, but with this how. I am fighting for an EU in which no place of residence or wallet can decide whether one can live sustainably. For this, it is crucial who sits at the negotiating table and whose interests are defended here. I have to say that for the upcoming challenges and negotiations that are still ahead of us – when I think of the Pesticides Regulation, when I think of the Nature Restoration Directive, or even the vote on the Combustion Engine End – I am somewhat concerned that we are losing this spirit from the negotiations. The constant talk of a technology-open climate policy is, above all, one thing: Maintaining a fossil-based economic model supported by massive subsidies. The fight against the end of combustion engines and other pioneering EU climate instruments protects precisely these fossil interests and not those of consumers. With these shop window debates, you are not shaping a future. You're scaring people of the future, and you're stealing from responsibility. They want to regulate the market, which has such an impressive record of countering the climate crisis. In doing so, they do not support the interests of the majority of citizens, but can be harnessed for the interests of those who have built a profitable business model from the exploitation of people and the planet at the expense of all. The Fit for 55 package is a giant step towards climate neutrality by 2050. It shows what is possible when we have the political will. Anyone who wants to enable a secure, climate-neutral future for all people in Europe must now not block, but roll up their sleeves and ensure that sustainable technologies and social participation are available to all people. (The speaker refused to speak in accordance with Bogdan Rzońca’s ‘blue card’ procedure)

Something has been lost in translation, so I will try to do it in English now because there is the question I was asking about the reform proposed by the High Representative Christian Schmidt on 2 October, which is a white flag, which is also now in front of the constitutional court. And I think it’s a pity and it’s a shame that the High Representative is proposing an electoral reform that needs to be put in front of the court in the first place. So this is a problematic thing. And I was asking you how you react as the guardian of the Treaties.

Mr President! Commissioner, you said earlier, when asked by a colleague, that Bosnia and Herzegovina needs Europe, and I very much agree with that. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina also needs the EU Commission as guardian of the treaties, which supports it along the way, but also clearly addresses it when the country strays from the path. I would therefore like to ask you about the electoral reform of the High Representative Christian Schmidt. The process of changing the rules of voting on election day has led to great concern in Bosnian society and also to great loss of confidence in the international community, in particular in the institution of the High Representative. And since 54% of the EU also finances the High Representative, this raises the question of how we behave in this regard. I would like to know from you: What is your assessment of the change in electoral law, particularly in view of the need to eliminate discrimination against minorities in electoral law and to open the way for Bosnia and Herzegovina to join the EU?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As the European Parliament, we have met many allies in the fight against the climate crisis and have also heard many fates, for example from the Nigerian climate activist who cannot continue to study because floods have not only cost hundreds of lives in his country, but have also destroyed his university. We have heard from the Environment Minister of the Maldives, who has reported how hard she is trying to do her job under the conditions, but who already knows that her daughter cannot be sure if she can continue to live where her family has its roots. And it is precisely against this background that we must ask ourselves: What did we achieve at this climate conference? I would also agree very clearly: On the positive side is the success of the agreement on a fund for climate-related damage in the countries most affected by climate change. Because it is an important step towards global climate justice and enables us to help exactly where someone can no longer study, for example, because his university is under water. This is an important success. This success has only been achievable because we have a Commission Vice-President who was also there with the mandate to negotiate politically. I think it is very important to stress this again. But it is not enough just to treat the symptoms of the climate crisis. We have to fight the causes. And here Sharm al-Sheikh has stepped on the spot, if not declined. We have failed to establish a clear roadmap towards 1.5 degrees. We demand this every year, and every year we say: The time is getting shorter and shorter, and now we really have to look at what homework this means for us in the European Parliament, but also in the European institutions. The question is quite clear: What happens now to the rest of the Fit for 55 package, to the rest of the Green Deal, to REPowerEU? Here, too, it has already become clear with LULUCF: The more ambitious we negotiate, the better we can also submit our nationally determined contribution. Accordingly, we can really press on the tube. What is still very important to me is to say: I was very concerned about the human rights situation on the ground. Women activists were harassed, prevented from accessing, in some cases even for us in Parliament. We must make it perfectly clear that just climate policy can only take place if democratic conditions prevail. We must not allow greenwashing of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes precisely because the next COP will take place in Dubai. Here, too, the UN must do its homework.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When you talk about searches and rescues, you don't really have to look for the problem, because it's happening right in front of our eyes – well documented by the Coast Guard, civil society, even Frontex. We in Europe are committed to freedom and human rights, but we do not raise them at sea. Human rights don't have to be earned, we all have them from birth. In what reality, we have to ask ourselves, are we actually living where people are drowning on a regular basis and we are even punishing those who are trying to save them? This is a reality in which neo-fascists dictate what our solidarity looks like. And then we have to ask ourselves: What is our answer to that? And that's something I don't understand, because again no own Search-and-Rescue-mission is under discussion, but we are discussing strengthening the capabilities of the Libyan Coast Guard – a gang of different militias working with human smugglers and traffickers. And it must be clear to us that no port in Libya is safe. If we knowingly abandon people there and bring them back there, then we can look for our values for a long time – they can no longer be saved.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have one minute here, and I want to give that minute of votes that I believe must be heard here in this European Parliament: The two Kurdish activists Zeineb and Shahab. They say: “Over the last two months, more than 100 Kurds have been murdered, including many children. The Iranian government is now using banned chemical weapons and nerve gases. How can it be that one country's military attack against another is considered a war crime, but the attack is directed against its own population, everyone looks away?’ A few seconds for my friend and Iranian artist Nasanin. She says: "One minute is not enough to report how people on the streets, in the cold, still hopeful after 65 days, are fighting for their rights with nothing but the bare hand and freedom in their hearts against a fully armed, bloodthirsty regime. But maybe one minute is enough to ask you: Take a look! We need your support – now.” I would like to give my voice to more people. I hope that we can also create a space here in Parliament where these voices themselves can have their say. Here in the European Parliament, one minute is very little. Every second counts in Iran. It can be the second where you can quickly upload a picture of a murdered person, where you can upload another video of an atrocity. Every second counts, and this is where she has to do it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Finally, it was understood that enlargement policy is more than just annual country reports. It is a hope for democracy, for security and for a happy future. The Commission's recommendation to make Bosnia and Herzegovina an EU candidate country is a great signal. But it will still be a long time before something changes in concrete terms – so honestly we have to be. Furthermore, many young people will leave the country because they see no future. There is little to no progress on the green agenda. And instead of supporting democratic reforms in the country that elected parliamentarians decide, the representative of the international community decides on a comprehensive electoral and constitutional reform that hardens ethnic divisions. This reform breaks not only with European standards, but also with the first key category, the fulfilment of which we ourselves demand from the country. So far, the Commission has not said anything about this. Perhaps you will take the opportunity, Mr Várhelyi. So let's stop patting each other on the shoulder. Let's develop a partnership on an equal footing with concrete successes in the ecological transformation, in the creation of a European security architecture and a real perspective for the young people in the region.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. That the main sponsor of the climate conference is called Coca-Cola seems like a bad joke. It is precisely these companies whose business practices we must put a stop to, instead of rolling out the greenwashing carpet to them. This is precisely our homework between climate conferences, where we as the EU are so involved that we can even improve on our reduction targets. With REPowerEU and Fit for 55 alone, we can achieve at least 60% instead of the previous 55% reduction. Above all, however, more solidarity is needed, the recognition that some countries have a harder time protecting themselves from the consequences of the climate crisis – consequences that industrialised countries are responsible for with their fossil business model. There must be concrete commitments for financial support in Sharm el-Sheikh, including a permanent mechanism to finance climate-related damage and losses. The Russian war of aggression has shown us how vulnerable dependence on fossil fuels makes us. We are all the more responsible for ushering in the global age of renewables at this COP.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. After the murder of my grandfather shortly after the founding of the Islamic Republic, my family fled Iran to Europe to live in freedom. And it is thanks to them that as a young woman I can stand here in public and speak. Women in Iran take to the streets for freedoms like these. For years they were oppressed, and every grip on freedom was punished. The state controls not only the appearance, religion, identity, but also the information that reaches people in Iran and what they can carry to the outside world. If we don't look, these brave people are alone against a ruthless, brutal regime. Our solidarity in Europe must become concrete. We need to expand EU sanctions. We need to impose visa bans on regime members. We have to guarantee asylum. And we need to be loud, to use our voices to amplify those of the protesters in Iran. For Jina Mahsa Amini, for women, for life, for freedom – (The speaker uses a slogan in a language that is not an official language.) (Applause)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We all have very concrete pictures in mind when we think of the drought summer: Dried rivers, beige-grey steppes that were once fields. And when I think of this drought summer, I think of the farmer Henning in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, whom I visited during the summer break with his paludiculture. As a conventional young farmer, he thinks intensively about how the farm he inherited from his father still has a future. "Everything, as always, just isn't in there anymore," he said. When we arrived at the Moorwiese, he was distracted, all of us. A neighbor's field is on fire. A spark that catches fire when mowing in dust-dried grain – a year of work simply goes up in flames. And I realize what Henning means when he wonders if the farm has a future when these droughts are the new normal. The political danger is that short-term thinking in the crisis replaces long-term thinking. And we must prevent this, ladies and gentlemen, because we urgently need to meet our climate targets by 2030. The heat summer has only indicated to us what else threatens. The good news is: With the Green Deal, with the Farm to Fork Strategy, we have the tools in hand. Let's just stay on the ball.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Whether it's the coffee I bought at the station this morning or the leather in my shoes. How many times I have eaten or used something related to the destruction of forests alone today – I cannot say for sure. And I believe I am not alone in that, because the EU is one of the world's main drivers of deforestation and the destruction of other important ecosystems. For the products that are on our supermarket shelves, forests, steppes, savannas and moors are being destroyed all over the world, and we as the EU have set out to tackle this. We do not place the responsibility on consumers, but on companies. Sustainable deforestation-free products must not only be a lifestyle for a few that can be bought in the organic market, but they must become the standard – and this is exactly what we are setting with this proposal. If you want to bring soy, cocoa, maize, rubber, leather and Co. to the EU market, you have to make your own supply chain transparent and prevent environmental damage and human rights violations. This also applies to banks that fund these practices. With this we make it clear: The deforestation business model has no place in the EU market. Last week I got to know the indigenous activist Kiambue Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau. He and his community are at the forefront of the fight against deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. I asked him what he thought of our law. He told me that he sees it not as an act of kindness or solidarity, but as our duty, which we perceive if we want to be a real partner in the common fight against deforestation. So let's be that partner tomorrow. Let us agree with this law. Let us then also stand up for an ambitious law in the trilogue. Many thanks to Mr Hansen for the good cooperation so far, many thanks to Commissioner Sinkevičius, who is an important partner of Parliament here and, I am sure, will also remain in the trilogue.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Enlargement policy does not take place in a vacuum. We see how Russian, but also Chinese, influence is destabilizing the region. And we see in Bosnia-Herzegovina how an ethnonationalist boycotts and divides, how minorities are persecuted and how hard-won progress comes under pressure. It would now be up to the EU to show solidarity with the democratic forces in the country, to pressure that the elections can take place in October, that they are free and fair. But what does our Commissioner for Enlargement do? Relaxed fireplace evenings with exactly the forces that prevent this. And this shapes the image of the EU among the people in the region. We are not the guardians of democracy and the rule of law. My appeal to the Commission: Do not allow enlargement policy to remain a plaything of Member State interests, but make it a powerful geopolitical tool. You too – there is a lot of work to be done in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it is also up to you that the EU becomes not only the hope but also the promise for a better future for the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. (The speaker refused to speak using the ‘blue card’ procedure by Ladislav Ilčić.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I have listened very carefully to the previous speakers and in fact all those who oppose the rejection of the delegated act have done so on the grounds of security of supply, rising energy prices. But investing in this bridge technology is not prohibited by the taxonomy, that's not what it's about. That's a distortion of the debate, and you're actually about greenwashing that investment. And that is not in the interest of these applicants. Not only the thousands of people who have just written to us have understood this connection. The Commission's Committee of Experts, which was specifically commissioned by the Commission, also understood this connection. The aim of the taxonomy was to implement a common European understanding of what a sustainable investment is. A taxonomy that describes nuclear power and fossil gas as sustainable has nothing to do with this goal. It is greenwashing. Only where it is sustainable must it be sustainable. This is what taxonomy is all about. Let us not mislead consumers who want to invest in sustainable financial products. We have the power here to make sure that there is no deception. Let's use that power!

Yes, I can connect very well, because especially with rubber we know that it is a very big challenge for Indonesia when it comes to forest destruction. Accordingly, it would be good to take a closer look at the COP in a collegial manner. But you also raise an important problem with your answer, namely the question of monitoring, the implementation of our ambitious goals, which we have not only in the deforestation law, but also in the Nature restoration law. That is where the question comes in: How can we ensure that the goals we set ourselves are better implemented, that monitoring is better? What is the Commission planning to learn from past failures?

Commissioner! You mentioned it in a few responses: We are not only doing the homework for COP 15 during the week of preparation, but we are doing it every day here in Parliament, you in the Commission. And a milestone with which we will arrive at the COP is the EU Deforestation Act. I would have a demand for this, because we have seen with astonishment that some of the products that demonstrably contribute to deforestation, as well as your own Impact assessment-Study makes clear – maize and rubber in the case –, currently not covered by this Regulation. How do you explain this and what role does the automotive industry play, for example?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It's not that lobbying pressure has only been great in the last few weeks when it comes to this, it has been so for the last three years. Some political forces here in this Parliament, as well as parts of industry, like to use people’s fears – of food shortages, higher energy prices, the internal combustion engine – to meet the ambitions of the Fit for 55Unscrew the package. But what we are seeing right now is not the price of change, it is the price of postponing reforms. And if the current crisis shows us anything, it is how vulnerable our dependence on fossil fuels makes us. We do not need to "continue like this". We need a turning point in European climate policy. And that is why it is so important that all sectors make their contribution to reducing emissions. Forests, meadows and moors were the underdogs so far. And we want to change that with the reform of the LULUCF regulation. With a higher target for carbon removals, we are setting incentives to sustainably transform forestry and bring ecosystems into good condition. In the fight against the climate crisis, we need both: the reduction of emissions in all sectors of the economy and, of course, negative emissions. And that is why we do not have a free pass here in Parliament's proposal for the creation of an AFOLU sector. Because to compensate for missed emission reductions by planting a few trees, that's like the snoozePress the button on the alarm clock. Later you have to repeat the work. As S&D, it was also very important for us to enshrine social partnership and the impact of the transformation on the labour market in the LULUCF Regulation. Because it is not only with the Social Climate Fund that we make a social Green DealNot only by postponing things, but by anchoring the social in the regulations we are passing here. And it is precisely these principles that we are strengthening in the reports from the Environment Committee. Let us strengthen them here and then enter the trilogue with a strong negotiating mandate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, From the morning alarm ringing to the scrolling before falling asleep: Batteries are an integral part of our everyday life. Every year, we import over a million tons of batteries, and demand is increasing. Battery technology plays an important role in achieving our climate targets. We need more and more, but the extraction of raw materials and recycling rates are far from sustainable. We are miles away from recyclable batteries, and we want to change that here. The problem starts with the design. Many batteries are installed in such a way that we cannot remove them at all. That is why it is important that we position ourselves clearly here: Batteries and accumulators must be interchangeable! It is not sustainable if it is cheaper to buy a new device than to use a new battery. The EU Battery Regulation allows us to set new global environmental and human rights standards if these rules are binding and enforceable. Companies responsible for water scarcity due to the mining of lithium in Chile could be held accountable by such regulation. We need to be clear: There can be no sustainable use of batteries and accumulators if we do not guarantee human rights standards and environmental standards. And here the Green Deal also has a responsibility beyond our borders. That is why I would like to thank Simona Bonafè and all those involved for this good report, and I hope that we can go far.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When I say ‘United in diversity’, most people think of the European Union. But I also think of the greatest strength that is in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But it is precisely this equality and diversity that has been blocked by ethno-nationalists for 26 years – not for the people, but out of political calculation. But the forces are shifting to their disadvantage, not least because of Putin's attack. The Commission and you too, Commissioner, must finally get out of the shock - not pact with incitements like Milorad Dodik, but sanction them, reach out to the courageous people of civil society, strengthen the office of the High Representative and support reforms. After 30 years of independence, I wish this beautiful country to draw strength from its colorful and courageous society, with us as a reliable partner at its side.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. For me, this COP was a conference of good intentions. We've heard new long-term plans from the biggest CO2 emitters, promises to end rainforest deforestation or reduce methane emissions. This basically shows that the Paris mechanism of renewing the goals every five years under the eyes of the world public works very well. But whether there really is more climate protection is decided by concrete measures. The EU has also taken home some homework: We need an ambitious implementation of the "Fit for 55“—package to also exceed the 2030 targets, as there is no time for raisin picking; All sectors must make their contribution. I turn to the right-wing side, which always discovers its social side in this debate. The social question must drive our climate ambition and not be a lame excuse for less climate ambition. Only with the expansion of renewable energies, only if we have alternative mobility available, only if we promote energy efficiency measures, then really all people can participate in this change. However, the EU must also fulfil its responsibilities beyond its borders. This applies to climate finance, but it also applies to the whole issue of deforestation, where I am very grateful for the Commission's proposal: This is going in the right direction. We need to close some loopholes. We have been at the forefront of these climate negotiations, and we must not rest. We need to keep pace, and we will do so in the coming weeks and months.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, They say yes: Where there is smoke, there is also fire, and the current situation makes it very, very clear that the ethnic division in Bosnia-Herzegovina is far from over. No, the worlds of experience – including those of young people – are still very separate. They consume different media, they go to different schools. Instead of caring about building a society based on shared values and goals, leaders are tearing the rifts deeper and deeper. But fortunately, where there is smoke, there doesn't always have to be fire. As an EU, we should not continue to take as our orientation the blockades of the ethnic-nationalist representatives in the country. We should speak with the elected parliamentarians, with the watchful civil society, who want to create one and perspectives, because there are also those, not only those, who want to draw political calculations out of the division. We will not watch here in the European Parliament as Dodik jeopardises the peace of the last 26 years for fear of elections and poor polling. It is time for us to talk about the country's real problems and become genuine partners of Bosnia-Herzegovina in its efforts to become part of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What we eat and how we produce it has a direct impact on human, environmental and animal health. The European Commission has recognised the impact of intensive farming on precisely this, with the Farm to Fork Strategy, and as the European Parliament we must stand behind these ambitions – to reduce the use of pesticides, antibiotics and fertilisers, to strengthen organic farming and animal welfare, and also to better inform consumers about the nutritional values and sustainability of products. In doing so, the strategy is working on many important steps to make the food system more sustainable – if there are also concrete instruments to follow. But we also have to be honest: Without a U-turn in the common agricultural policy, this strategy remains only a very small screw in a shaky system that threatens our livelihoods. So let's continue to strengthen this important strategy, but let's not stop there either!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Because ‘today is such a day’, one does not change one’s policy, one heard on 15.7.2021, shortly after flash floods devastated the Ahr valley, parts of the Eifel, Limburg and Wallonia. ‘Such a day’, when thousands of people lost everything. ‘Such a day’, on which over 200 people died in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This day was later referred to as ‘the tide of the century’. Just as there are more and more "heating of the century" and "storms of the century". However, ‘centurys’ have long since ceased to suffice to measure these extreme weather conditions. You are the new normal. With this new normal, we are becoming more and more painfully aware and clear that the climate crisis is nothing abstract. ‘Such a day’ is now everyday life, brutal for many people. Working to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement does not only mean drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It also means organising climate adaptation measures that protect all people from the consequences of the crisis. We must not waste any more time, we must not rest on what we have achieved – there is far too much to do. It is not enough, and we must act now. Many colleagues have already said this today. Because tomorrow could be ‘such a day’ again, and because many, many more such days can come, you have to change politics.