Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner! I have listened very closely to many contributions, and I have such a feeling that it is actually not really about migration policy and the best solutions, but on the one hand about propaganda and on the other hand about party politics. I think if you're heard from the right, you'll have to make a decision someday. So will the rule now lead to everyone coming to Spain? The others then say that everyone is going to Germany, and Spain is soon empty because no one wants to live there. So I don't understand how this doesn't actually contradict each other overall. I think overall, even if you are concerned about Schengen or all the things you have just said, it would be good to see if there has not been an example in the past where you can learn from it what actually happens in practice. There I find, for example, one can look at the years 1996, 2000 and 2001, because in these years the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar of the Partido Popular, of the Conservative Party, has made regularization programs. 500 000 persons were regularised; Business associations have supported this. There were more employment contracts, there were more social security contributions, it was a great success of your conservative party. It was a really big success, and the difference we had back then is: Firstly, there was no right-wing populism that poisoned the debate that you were still following, now, and secondly, there was also a connection with the people at stake. We can't just talk about people as if they're just a problem. These are fellow citizens who work, who go to school. These are normal people who deserve to be treated decently, even rhetorically.

Mr President! The greatest danger of right-wing populism is that other parties and factions also adopt the narratives and the social image of right-wing populists. Migration is then defined as the cause of most political problems, and society is explained: The harder the asylum policy, the better you are. The problem is that populism is a lie. Nevertheless, we are here today. The Christian Democrats have made compromises with the right-wing groups. And then we decide, for example – today in this Parliament you decide – that Turkey becomes a safe country of origin. In the same week, you will also decide, in a resolution, that you criticize the persecution of Christians, journalists and the opposition in Turkey. That doesn't go together. They explain one thing on one day and the other on the other day. But it is no longer about reality. It's about wanting to signal toughness at all costs. And I hope that more people will understand in the future that we may be under domestic and geopolitical pressure than Europe – yes – but there is no storm if you break your own compass, and I hope that the Christian Democrats will remember this at some point.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President of the Commission! I think it's good that we're talking about this topic today, that we take the time. I even think it is good that there are different opinions here in this House on how best to organise migration. I don't think it's bad at all if there are different opinions on where to tighten up in which regulation and that if we contribute democratically, then there is a good solution. But what makes this issue so emotional for many people is that it is not somehow abstract about migration, but that we are talking here about very many people with very emotional fates who suffer in the thousands and tens of thousands – indeed millions – of people around the world, who are on their way to Europe and have to experience unimaginable things along the way. Thousands drowning in the Mediterranean every year. Many people who, even if they make it to the Mediterranean, because they make it through the slave camps in Libya, which are partly co-financed by the EU, on one of these shabby boats and then somehow arrive in Europe, then meet masked people with badges from European border protection agencies or, for example, from the Greek coast guard and are simply abused by them. It cannot be that we no longer talk about what price migration control actually has for us, what price it has if one no longer adheres to one's own rule of law, what price it has if one abuses men, women and children at our external borders in such a way that one cannot even recognize a piece of Europe in these actions. Europe, after all, must be a place that is different from the errors and confusions of this world. We talk so much about rules-based order, we talk so much about how one can actually help us to stick to our rules again in this world, but at our own external borders, we don't even open our mouths when these rules are trampled underfoot, which we have given ourselves. I find it completely understandable: This is the business of the right to somehow work on the basis of minorities, to break up society against each other. But I want to end my speech with an appeal. Migration is a complex issue. It has different sides. Two sides of a medal are organization on the one hand and human rights on the other. And please, dear Conservatives, no longer allow one to look at only one side of the coin. Human rights at external borders are not only important, but the EU and migration policy is only well organised if human rights at the external borders are also respected.

Perhaps two points: There is often a conflict in foreign policy between those who say that we must also represent our interests internationally, and on the other hand there are people who say that we must represent our values. And I think we need to stop thinking in these two categories. Our values are our interests. And I believe that we can also talk about trade agreements in this sense. And the second point I want to say: Of course, it would be very appropriate for the Member States, in particular the governments of the Member States, to consider: How can we ensure at an early stage that causes of flight do not arise in the first place? We cannot prevent every conflict in the world in advance. But if conflicts arise, then to allow people to escape in the region and a perspective – this would also help us to have much less to argue about migration in Europe and people have a much better future. Because it is the case that not all people in the world want to flee to Europe, but quite the contrary: People are often happiest at home.

Madam President, Commissioner! I'm glad you're here. I think we all agree: The humanitarian situation in Sudan is not only devastating, this is the biggest humanitarian catastrophe we have right now. 19 million people have been displaced, 14 million people are dependent on humanitarian aid, and it is estimated that 225,000 people have died since April 2023. And when you rattle down those numbers, they're kind of numbers. But if you consider that you can convert that, for example, that since April 2023, 10 people have died every hour in Sudan. So even while we have the debate here, ten people are dying again on average. Men, women and children, entire families who not only die, but are also raped, who experience unimaginable suffering. Of course, it is good that we are involved on the ground, but the question is why there is so little international attention to this conflict. I believe that we must stop dealing seriously with major conflicts only when people are sitting on inflatable boats to Europe. It would be appropriate for us to expand our humanitarian aid. It would be important that we also take advantage of the opportunities we have to influence the United Arab Emirates. And of course we need one. investigationTo see what role they play there. But we also need the threat potential that in the end we will ensure that, for example, trade agreements are not concluded as long as there are Rapid support forces supported by the United Arab Emirates.

Mr President, Commissioner! I'm glad you're here. As you said in your opening speech, we are Africa's most important partner in various areas. I thought it was important that you also emphasized once again that this is not God-given, but that there is competition. It is no longer a question of whether there are any partnerships with Africa, but of who has these partnerships and on the basis of which values these partnerships take place. I think that in this competition we do well to make the best offer – an offer based on democracy, on human rights, on sustainable development. And democracy, human rights, sustainable development, these are things that do not just fall from the sky in Africa, but that is hard work. Hard work, where we can make a big difference to our competition, where we can make it clear that we are the ones – especially in relation to Russia – who really want peace on this continent, that we are the ones who do not just want to overwhelm democracy, but that we believe that this is the best way to organise coexistence. I believe that if you go into individual areas, then we will quickly realise that if our offer is serious, we must of course talk about migration, but that if we want to fight smugglers, we also need alternatives to these smugglers if this partnership is to be successful. Finally, I would like to say: Africa is the continent that contributed least to the climate crisis, but suffers the hardest. I believe it is important that we also feel a responsibility, a responsibility to the expectations that Africa justly has of us, that we invest there. Finally: It is clear that Europe needs Africa, Africa needs Europe, and that is what our partnership should be based on. That's what we should be working on. I think it is good that we have had such constructive discussions today and that we also find a broad majority in Parliament in order to adopt this resolution on Thursday.

You were talking about hypocrisy. You were quoting polls which were done in Gaza, so do you believe that Hamas is an organisation which accepts scientific freedom, free press and polls? Because in the end you would rely on numbers which are based on Hamas propaganda, maybe. So, do you believe that the polls are trustworthy if they are done in Gaza at the moment, which the Hamas government is governing?

Madam President, Commissioner! I can only agree with all the previous speakers. It is an incredible situation that has caused so much suffering in South Sudan that we now have to talk about the biggest humanitarian crisis of our time. I think it's right that we're talking about it today. I think it's right to address the numbers, including the fact that people are behind them, but I actually wanted to steer my speech to a different aspect. I believe that in the end it is already the case that we must not only demand things here in the plenary speeches, but we must also do our homework as a Parliament. For example, if I look at the fact that we as a Parliament are not even able to find a clear position at the moment in view of the break-up of US development cooperation and humanitarian aid, that we are not able to agree on a position here that expresses a strong voice, including a European voice, a voice of the European Parliament at the upcoming conference in Seville, for example, and that we are committed to development cooperation, but also to humanitarian aid, then I wonder whether we have actually done everything we can – including us as parliamentarians – to ensure that such crises are properly addressed. I hope that in the future we will be better than we were yesterday.

Madam President, Thank you for the debate. I would like to use the speech to express three thanks. The first is that I want to thank the colleagues with whom I have been able to work constructively on my report. I believe that despite very different views on the performance of certain agencies, we have found good compromises and done our job well. I hope that this will also be reflected in the vote, that we have found good compromises. Secondly, I would like to thank the EU institutions, especially the people who work in the EU institutions we supervise, and where our work here has shown that the vast majority of them are trying every day, in a not always simple mess of bureaucracy and rules, to make the best of it, to observe the rules well and to do their job well and to deal well with the tasks and mandates we have given them as legislators. And I think they deserve a lot of thanks in the context of this process, too. And thirdly, I would like to thank civil society organisations, civil society, which I believe is very important for us as politicians, which partly reflects things that we might see differently – but I think we also benefit from different opinions – which helps us with a look from practice, with a look from research, with a look that might just come from the outside and be different from what one would want in case of doubt from certain political groups. But I believe that in a European Union that has united in diversity as its motto, we should always remember that we must not start to give the impression here to those in the European Union – which is already happening too much in many other places around the world – who may have different opinions than certain political groups that they are disadvantaged by it. And I found that in some places in this debate cultural struggle has arisen, the impression of a cultural struggle has arisen that does not suit us well. I would particularly like the EPP to reflect a bit and perhaps also look forward a bit if it really wants to create this impression in the long term.

Mr President, Commissioner, representative of the Council! Budgetary control is perhaps not Parliament's most emotional task, and sometimes it all seems a bit dry. But I believe that we – at least those who are here – know that this is a crucial mechanism in our democracy, also to inspire trust in democracy, in democratic institutions. In this respect – as Mrs Hohlmeier pointed out – it is very important that there are also broad majorities in this process, that we approach each other. I think the easiest way, Mrs Hohlmeier, is probably if you don't give the impression of running away from the others. Then you also approach each other when you take a step towards each other. But that's not what my speech is about today. My speech refers to the report on the discharge of the 33 agencies. In the year 2023 at stake, the total budget that we have to relieve amounts to EUR 3.7 billion. And when you look at the trend of recent years, we are really seeing a significant increase in both the number of EU agencies and certain agencies in the growth of funds. And since, as we say in the report, it is very important to reiterate that the creation of new agencies, but also the expansion of existing agencies, should be decided on the basis of evidence and real needs, not on the basis of electoral campaigns. In the report, of course, we also take care of compliance with the financial rules, the principles of sound financial management, the audit of financial reporting, the findings of the Court of Auditors – and thank the Court of Auditors for the work that went into it. And, of course, it's about increasing transparency and performance, but also the trust we're talking about. Under these criteria, the vast majority of EU agencies have largely complied with the financial rules and have also received positive assessments from the European Court of Auditors. Some agencies struggled with delays in the implementation of the budget and with underspending of their budget. I think it's a bit about us taking a closer look at how to make resource planning better, especially for the agencies that have grown very strongly in recent years. Some financial transactions have raised concerns and increased supervision has now been called for. Weaknesses in public procurement remain a major source of irregular payments, especially for ENISA, eu-LISA and ELA. The agencies received limited audit opinions from the European Court of Auditors due to procurement problems – there is certainly still work to be done. However, I would also like to note that the agencies have already done a lot since the 2023 reporting period, so that we can hopefully also reflect the progress in the reports in the next discharges. I would also like to highlight the need for increased transparency of EU agencies. This is particularly important for agencies with critical tasks in the field of security or migration. For example, the European Ombudsman's inquiries have shown that there is certainly still a lot to do in areas of Frontex, such as public access to documents. There is no doubt that the Frontex border agency – as we say in the report – has made progress in recent years, even since there was a new Executive Director. But we also say that there is still a lot to do in the area of fundamental rights. To keep up with fundamental rights: It is also the case with FRA, the Fundamental Rights Agency, that this agency must grow in terms of staff and, of course, financial resources in view of its growing tasks and be adequately funded. All in all, I am pleased – the speaking time will soon be over, and I have never had that much speaking time, I am very pleased – to be able to propose in the report that 32 of the 33 agencies be discharged. We have already decided in the CONT Committee not to discharge the European Asylum Agency. We also propose this for the plenary session. There is simply a recent report by the anti-fraud authority, which I do not want to talk about here in terms of content, but which we must take seriously where there are problems. And especially in the current times, I believe, we as Parliament have the responsibility, in the field of the Asylum Agency, in the field of asylum and migration, to ensure that the competent agencies enjoy the trust they deserve. And that's why I think it's good to do another round here. There was already an internal procedure in the European Asylum Agency. But trust in these procedures is good, control is better – and that is why we are the Committee on Budgetary Control and will deal with it. Finally, perhaps very briefly: I believe that we need to look again at the OLAF reports as a whole: How can we get quicker and better access to OLAF reports, not only in the case of agencies, but also in other reports? But overall, I think we have to say again at the end of such a speech: Many thanks to the European agencies and many thanks to the people who work for these agencies and do a good job.

Mr President, Commissioner! I would also like to make it clear first of all: We want a good partnership with Thailand, but a good partnership also requires a common foundation of values. That is why this resolution is also an occasion to express our concern that this common foundation of values threatens to erode further and further. It is unacceptable for opposition politicians in Thailand to be put under pressure if they are threatened that they will not be able to pursue politics throughout their lives simply because they have different opinions if freedom of expression is restricted. It is also unacceptable that 2000 human rights defenders and journalists have been prosecuted in recent years. Of course, it is also unacceptable that Uyghurs are deported to China, where they are threatened with arbitrary detention, but also torture. We expect the rights of minorities such as the Uyghurs to be protected. And indeed, I also expect Parliament and Parliament's delegation to be very active in defending these rights during these delegations. I believe it is therefore important that we decide this resolution, that we call for improvements with great unity, but also with determination, but also try to achieve them together with the Thai authorities.

Madam President, Commissioner! We've been having discussions lately, including in Europe, and you can't say your opinion anymore. You wouldn't have a real democracy in Europe because the government is doing something you don't like. And I think that even when we talk about the situation in Hong Kong today, we have to make it clear again and again that we can count ourselves lucky in the European Union, that we have the freedom to demonstrate freedom here, against the government, for democracy, to stand up for freedom of the press. And the rule of law can do nothing for us, but it protects us from suffering repression. It is very different in Hong Kong. It's very different in China, and that's why I think we should be able to use the happiness that we live here, and should use it to draw attention to how bad the situation is elsewhere. It is true that we demand the release of political prisoners in Hong Kong, such as Pui-kuen Chung as a journalist, but also Jimmy Lai as a democracy activist or the Hong Kong 47. I believe, however, that it is also important that we call on the Commission and also the Council to work to ensure that those responsible are finally sanctioned. This includes John Lee, but also many others. Finally, I would like to thank everyone for the constructive negotiations, the rapporteur, but also the shadow rapporteurs.

Madam President, I just wanted to reiterate that in Rule 197(3) of the Rules of Procedure it is written that the roll-call vote shall be taken using the electronic voting system. But if – and that happened today – the latter cannot be used for technical reasons, the roll may be called in alphabetical order, beginning with the name of a Member drawn by lot. I just wanted to say that, to my understanding, what happened today is not in line with the Rules of Procedure.

Madam President, Commissioner! Conservatives have just said: “We want to regain control.” In my view, that is correct. It is only from my point of view also correct to state that the truth is that in recent years we have lost control because we no longer want to comply with the rules because we no longer comply with the laws that we have given ourselves. In Italy, we have just seen it when it comes to fundamental rights: Minorities cannot be imprisoned in democracies simply because majorities want them to be imprisoned. They remind courts of this, and then they try not to comply with the rules, but to attack the courts. I find this outrageous, I must say honestly, and I also find it outrageous that we cannot succeed in agreements – and I have listened carefully to you, Mrs Dalli – as with Tunisia and Libya, where you can have your political goals, but where, on the other hand, you have to ensure that women are not systematically raped there, that people are not systematically imprisoned somewhere or even sent to the desert. These are things that are important for coexistence, for cooperation in migration policy. Please give me two more sentences. The first is: I expect the Commission to finally acknowledge these atrocities in external cooperation. And I expect us together, and especially the Conservatives, to implement the migration pact properly. Please don't squint to the right, we can do this together.

Madam President, Commissioner! We have known about human rights violations in China for years – actually decades. It is really sad that we are not making progress, that people like Ilham Tohti, people like Gulshan Abbas are still in captivity. They are just two examples of hundreds, thousands of people wrongfully imprisoned and millions suffering from human rights violations. That is why it is important that we continue to put pressure on China to demand the immediate closure of internment camps, access for UN human rights monitors, and the immediate release of political prisoners. All this is correct. But, of course, we can't just turn to the Chinese government, because we know that as a parliament, we can't create enough pressure on our own. That is why it is also right that we put pressure on the Commission in the resolution, that it further increases the pressure, that it places human rights, democracy and the rule of law at the heart of Chinese relations, and that the Member States do the same. But it's just as important that we put pressure on the economy. As – I must say – also German citizens, I find it shameful that companies like VW are not even able to recognise such human rights violations and talk openly about them.

Mr President, Commissioner! I think that the first thing that really belongs to politics is honesty. I believe that honesty in the debate we are having here now means that more and more money has been invested for years, more and more is also invested in structures and that the promise is made that if we invest more money, then there will be fewer asylum applications in the end. Now the promise: 30 000 Frontex officials, more Frontex officials, fewer asylum applications. But honesty actually includes saying that any person who stands at a European external border can apply for asylum there. We do not determine with the club, but with a rule of law procedure, whether the persons get asylum or whether they just do not get asylum. This promise that they say there is some form of sorcery where, with ten, 100 or a million more border guards, you can suddenly abandon this principle of the rule of law at the borders, that's a promise that generates expectations that, in the end, Democrats can't fulfill. There are repeated reports of pushbacks, there are internal documents – as Euractiv has just reported – which show that Frontex officials are also being pressured not to address human rights violations offensively. There are not only reports, but also evidence from OLAF that aerial reconnaissance at borders, for example, is no longer taking place in Greece because human rights violations have been observed there. Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favour of the rule of law controls at the external borders, but one principle for me is: If borders are to be protected, human rights must also be protected at these borders. We're just a long way from that and I hope we'll get back there. Give me one more sentence to say margaritis once: Maybe it's the last time we see each other here, we never agreed, but I wish you all the best on your way.

Madam President, Commissioner! Sometimes you only realize how important something was when you no longer have it, and I hope that this does not also apply to the Schengen area with us. In the border regions with us all over Europe, enemies have become neighbours and neighbours have become friends in the last 80 years. It is also the free internal market and freedom of movement that make the old wars in Europe seem unimaginable at the moment. Yes, I don't want to deny it: Our peace project, our European Union, stands on the pillar of security. But it also stands on the pillar of freedom and on the pillar of law. I think all three pillars are important, we should remember that again and again, otherwise our foundations will shake. What bothers me in this context at the stationary border controls, also at the general introduction in Germany, are three things: Firstly, the measures were not agreed with the neighbours or with the EU Commission. This is not how we treat each other in Europe. Secondly, they worsen the security situation, where personnel are tied up in ineffective measures instead of being used more effectively, for example, in mobile controls. Thirdly, stationary border controls are associated with a false promise, namely the promise that they will reduce irregular migration, i.e. asylum applications, at the borders. But you are not honest, because at every border control you can apply for asylum, and you drive people into the hands of right-wing extremists, because you make a promise that you can not fulfill even in the rule of law. I therefore hope that the EU Commission will enforce the law, that the Schengen Borders Code will finally be enforced on the one hand, and that the law will also be enforced at the external borders, that pushbacks will no longer be relied on without registration, but on registration under the rule of law. I also hope that at some point there will be a representation of Member States at this point, which also finds the Schengen area important.

So, I can report that even our members of the government do not look forward to this pact with euphoria, but that they have many criticisms. What is important to me is actually to say – because I have already heard something else from the Christian Democrats – that after the election it cannot be a question of looking at where it is easiest to get majorities for asylum policy, which can still be organised in some way to the right of the centre, but that it must be a question of the Christian Democrats then also seeking compromises with us, because we can actually find good solutions even in compromises – this will not be easy, but also in compromises – if the Christian Democrats do not orient themselves to the right after the election and try, for example, to push asylum policy further to the right with the Giorgia Meloni party. That would be important to me. And the rest we just clarify later with apple juice.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I think we all agree: European asylum policy needs a fresh start. But this asylum pact is not a new start, but in large part a tightening of proposals that have already failed several times. Rapid procedures at the external borders, which have been done in Greece for years, have led to camps like Moria and to the chaos that we see every day in the news. You can also believe us: The Greens, we would agree to this pact if it meant that at least some of the problems would be solved. But locking children and families in camps is not a solution. It's been tried for years, but refugees don't just disappear if you imprison them or treat them even worse. Migration is simply a reality that we have to face, and to face this reality, the Asylum Pact does not do that. The numbers aren't going down just because we all want it together. We want to take responsibility for an asylum policy. But it must be an asylum policy that works and that does not capitulate to a right-wing mood, but considers pragmatic solutions based on the rule of law, human rights and solidarity. This, I hope, we will do in the future, because with this pact it is all the more necessary. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, There are many who say in migration policy that the chaos and suffering is due to some green policy or green-left policy or even to rescue at sea. The reality is that for years the Commission and Member States have been increasingly copying and implementing the simple and wrong answers of right-wing radicals. Some bad deal, some glossy pictures, a press release, 150 million to a dictator without any relevant condition – that is the policy that causes the chaos. Democratisation, human rights, the fight against the causes of flight – all this hardly seems to play a role anymore. The only thing that matters is: How do fewer people come to Europe, how do we deter even harder? And even that is completely unsuccessful. I can only appeal to the Commission and the Member States: Stop vying for the favor of corrupt dictators with China and Russia! Let's start together to fight for the perspectives and rights of the population, the youth in the countries of origin and transit! Then we can also better organize migration and organize it in a dignified way and also end the dying in the Mediterranean.

Mr President! Congratulations again! Over the weekend, hundreds of thousands of people were again on the streets in Germany, and I find it impressive that there are so many politicians from democratic parties there. But I would be happy if we, democratic politicians from the opposition and government, could demonstrate there with some humility. Because what we are currently experiencing in Germany is not the biggest protest in the history of the Federal Republic, because the government or the opposition has done everything right. I believe that many people also take to the streets because they lack the confidence that the government, together with the democratic opposition, will be able to inspire people for democracy in such a way that democracy can withstand it permanently. And I would be happy if we also learn how to relearn how to argue democratically, if we provide more orientation, if we bring passion back into the debate, and if we also stop demanding deportation on a large scale, and then wonder that people choose rights when we realise that on the one hand you cannot say ‘Never again is now’ and on the other hand you want to abolish the right to asylum – because that is a core part of ‘Never again’.

You said yes, there is political persecution, now from the new government in Poland. You have ruled Poland for years. They have also made some changes in the judicial system there. And I ask you: If politicians are also finally convicted, what reason do you have to believe that the courts, which you have redesigned according to your ideas, then carry out these convictions politically? Why shouldn't the courts created by you have made this decision independently?

Madam President, I think dealing with the weakest shows how strong a rule of law really is. And so that you do not misunderstand me in my criticism of the Greek government, I do not expect the Greek government to make green policies. The Greeks have elected, they have elected a conservative party. But I expect all governments in Europe, including conservatives, to abide by the law, the rule of law and human rights. If you see refugees sentenced in the justice system in trials that last no more than half an hour and they are sentenced to decades of imprisonment without translation, if you see more than 600 people died in the Pylos shipwreck and authorities obscure this and the government doesn't seem to have much interest in enlightenment, if you see that journalists you meet there in Greece are afraid to report on migration, then this is not a conservative policy, but then this is a policy that should be condemned by us. I think it's one thing to want to build walls on the borders. I think it's wrong, but people can find it right. But the other is when we try to build a wall of lies about our own politics. This should have no place in Europe. That is why I would like the government, but also the Commission, to take a different path there and put Greece in the right place.

Mr President! It is often written in newspapers in recent days that AfD politicians have met with right-wing extremists in Potsdam. And I would like to say that right-wing extremists have simply met there. This is an important difference for me, because I think we have to make it clear that right-wing extremists themselves are now sitting in parliaments and that their ideology is spreading. And if that is not a reason to strongly disagree, then I wonder why some – even conservatives who might think that it would not be strategically helpful to disagree – are so quiet. This silence against right-wing extremism must never happen again in Europe. Because when it comes to the nice-sounding word remigration, it's not about a few more returns. It's about ethnic cleansing, about people wanting back a time that must never happen again. And when it comes to right-wing extremists, it's not about the fact that they have perhaps just made a snippy slogan on TikTok against the Greens, but about the fact that they want to dissolve the diversity that makes Europe, that they want a world that has already brought Europe to the abyss. This situation must never return to normal. Never again is now... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)