Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, would Alan Kurdi have been saved with the package of measures that we are about to vote on? Would all those thousands of drowning deaths have been prevented in the Mediterranean? I'm afraid not. The asylum and migration pact does nothing to prevent uncontrolled influx with the help of people smugglers. On this point, therefore, the agreement I have reached is far from satisfactory. Will the pressure on our society be less with these measures? I'm a little more positive here. I expect that the processing of unsuccessful asylum applications directly at the European external borders will reduce the number of secondary movements. I also think that the extension of two databases will help all the authorities involved. I can therefore rely on these aspects of the pact, not on the others. Finally, this has to take me from the heart: Vlaams Belang has very boldly tabled a few amendments, knowing that they are now without a chance. These measures have been negotiated for eight years. I haven't seen Vlaams Belang anywhere during the negotiations in recent years. Dear voters, don't fall into the trap. Vlaams Belang has achieved nothing for you in the migration discussion. The N-VA does, even though it remains far from perfect. We are doing our parliamentary work.

Madam President, I would just like to make a very short remark. It’s a very sad and disappointing that anyone who cares about humanitarian aid and human rights would speak to propose this debate without at any moment mentioning the situation of the hostages. You speak – do you know since how long they are there? Imagine the situation of the hostages, and you don’t say anything about UNWRA, who has people who are contributing to the destruction of human life and who also support the destruction of both Palestinians’ and Israelis’ destinies. Sorry, but this is not okay.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Hamas calls for ceasefire but consistently rejected to free the remaining hostages, hostages held in captivity in tunnels potentially funded by Western money, hostages to whom access by the International Committee of the Red Cross was denied. Recently there was a manifestation in Brussels calling for a ceasefire. But I heard nobody talk about the atrocities committed by Hamas, and that view is becoming more and more mainstream in our media. We must not forget what ignited this horrible situation for ordinary Palestinians. The Hamas assault on Israel, in which it killed, raped and tortured over a thousand men, women and children and took at least 240 people to Gaza as hostages. Calling just for a ceasefire is, to a certain degree, saying to Hamas, ‘Well, you can try it again tomorrow.’ Dear colleagues, I am strongly convinced that there will be no prospects for peace, security, stability and prosperity for Gaza, as well as for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation, as long as Hamas and other terrorist groups will play any role in the Gaza Strip. I support the continuation of humanitarian aid entering Gaza by road, air and sea, and stressed that it must reach those civilians in need, not Hamas, not UNWRA. The disbursement of aid has to be organised in such a way that chaotic scenes and Hamas taking over aid convoys and redirecting aid to its own fighters are prevented. EU funds, which in the past were provided to UNWRA, should in the future be given to the UN Development Programme, UN Refugee Agency and the World Food Programme. Stop fuelling Hamas, for the sake of the Palestinian people, for the sake of the Jewish State, for the sake of global peace and security – Hamas must end.

Mr President, colleagues, investing in defence often remains a taboo. Weapons are considered ‘non-ethical’. Is that the war? What naivety! In order to live in peace, we must be ready. On n’élève pas son chien le jour de la chasse. The recent statements of French President Macron about the war in Ukraine are quite loosening, because he has spoken the language that Putin can understand: Showing muscle balls. Europe must dare to knock on the table. Not only say, but also show that we don't let ourselves be fooled. Why do we keep pretending that peace is preserved by being submissive? As a woman in a man's world, I've known for a long time that's not the case. It's been enough. Europe has long been lying on its back and acting as a doormat for Putin. Our citizens are not proud of that and Putin is not impressed by that either. We have taken peace for granted, and our naiveté has brought the war back to Europe. In addition to the attitude, we must also be more ready than ever, invest in defence and do our part within NATO. A country like Belgium remains in the tail of the NATO peloton. This is a lack of self-respect. We must have something to say within NATO. We need to make our industry strategically independent. That is why I welcome the European defence industry strategy proposed by the Commission. Let's make something of that.

Mr President, the ECR Group wants the immediate release of all hostages, the dismantling of the Hamas terrorist group, followed by a ceasefire. Of course, everyone wants Gaza's access to humanitarian aid, as long as it is not averted by Hamas. I am appalled by the depravity within UNRWA. Yesterday I listened to a mother in Geneva. Her son was abducted from the music festival to Gaza lifeless by a UNRWA employee in a UNRWA jeep. It's all on video. Do we want to pay for this? Unlike the High Representative, who is not here, and the Belgian Presidency of the Council, which also seems to have better things to do, I believe that it is legitimate for EU Member States to suspend their funding of UNRWA pending the conclusion of the investigations. A thorough review of UNRWA could eventually lead to its replacement by UNHCR and other credible agencies that do a good job. We call for full transparency and fraud control on EU funding for UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority. Minimum respect for the taxpayer, that's really not too much to ask. And think of this mother and her murdered son, by a UNRWA employee.

Madam President, saying that anti-Semitism is unacceptable has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. It is sad and disappointing that these two topics have been connected for today’s debate. How cynical. We all know who needs protection today against whom: it is the Jewish schools, museums and synagogues that are guarded, and we all know why. But why is it so difficult to say it, to name the reality, the Islamic anti-Semitism? We saw it in the streets here in Europe, calling to destroy the Jews. We saw it in the murders in the Jewish Museum in Belgium. We saw it in the celebration of the pogrom in Israel. We saw it in the pressure for the silence kept by international organisations who ignored the pain of the Jewish women. The reason why they kept silence is the same reason why, whenever you say anything about anti-Semitism, they want to add Muslim hatred in the conversation or they say that you are a racist. It is the reason why so many European countries use taxpayers’ money to sponsor organisations who pretend to fight racism and Islamophobia, but are the tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood operating here to feed its forces against us in Europe. Today is Shani Louk’s birthday. She was born on 7 February 2001 and killed on 7 October in Israel. Dear colleagues, I was born as a Muslim and I am telling you, saying that radical Islam is a threat has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. Saying that anti-Semitism is unacceptable has nothing to do with Muslim hatred. Colleagues, on the contrary, it has everything to do with human dignity.

Mr President, I met families of hostages in Brussels that told me about life in a kibbutz. Before 7 October, they had a life. Since then, it has become hell, because their loved ones were kidnapped or killed in the most barbaric way, intentionally massacred and never to return because they are Jews – hunted like animals, especially the women, and slaughtered as if they were nothing. Even animals have rights today. Some know that their loved ones are in Gaza. A woman told me about her kidnapped sister. How do you go on with your life? Imagine yourself in their place: that your house was entered, the place you call home. And this kidnapped girl, what do you think Hamas is doing to her now? But it seems this violence leaves the world so indifferent. No one wants war. But whatever we demand of the Israeli, let us first put ourselves in their place. Let us always remember the intention – the clear intention to massacre someone because they are Jewish. Where is the world? Where is Europe going if such hatred and indifference is permitted? Where is the United Nations going? Whose role was to be the beacon of the world? The cowardice of keeping silent because the women who were killed are Jewish? Where are we going when so many of our top politicians tolerate the actions of an Islamic terrorist group and build their careers on the failure of integration in our countries, an attitude that brings this danger and anti-Semitism to our doorstep. Yes, we need a two-state solution. Yes, a life without war is better. But the real question today is what would you do when you are raped and burned? Think of your loved ones with whom you will soon be celebrating Christmas. Would you leave them in Gaza in the hands of Hamas? I hope and wish that we never have to answer that question.

Mr President, today I have a question – a pressing question – for some western feminists: how can you remain silent when women and girls are raped, tortured, their bodies carried around naked and spat on by bearded men shouting Allahu Akbar? Then you can never call yourself a feminist again. Every day, including today, some western hypocritical feminists should be ashamed of their silence on the horror that Hamas men inflicted to women and girls on 7 October. And that includes big names we were once proud of. Why are their lips sealed and their hearts of stone when it comes to the excruciating pain of Jewish women? The MeToo movement and so-called intersectional feminists do not care about all women. If they remain silent, it means they have lied to us about their commitment to women’s rights. Their actions support the oppressor, not the victims. Also the EU money does indirectly. Those who say nothing about these women and the hostages should not be standing here and speaking about human rights. When you are under attack by terrorists, a ceasefire is like raising your hands when you are being shot at. Perhaps it’s worth considering that a real, lasting ceasefire will start with bringing back all the hostages to their homes and the rapists to justice.

Mr President, for the first time since I left my native Burkina Faso, I see just as much insecurity and increased censorship on certain subjects here in Europe. I'm not the only one. Many fellow citizens are worried. Europe and the US must work harder together for our security and our future, for a safer home for our citizens. In these times of geopolitical conflict and increased global fragmentation, this alliance is crucial. Indeed, we must work together to fight terrorists and their supporters in our homes, to recognise Israel's right to self-defense in the Middle East, to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, to free the hostages, to build better partnerships with Africa and to bring back the perspective of a two-state solution in the Middle East. There is also a lot to do economically. Why are there no agreements with America yet on sustainable steel and aluminium and on critical raw materials? I call on both partners to come to agreements this year and also on Europe to do something, to provide an adequate response to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Madam President, first of all, it’s unacceptable that European politicians demonstrate alongside organisations who clearly support Hamas and carry flags of ISIS. Left-wing politicians like Mélenchon in France, Pineda in Spain or Ahidar in Belgium turn this into a political strategy that can only further divide Western societies. And colleague Pineda dares ask for the resignation of President von der Leyen. Seriously? From my part, people like Pineda should move to Gaza and officially work for the Hamas propaganda instead of staying in a Europe they despise and do not protect. Second, let me be clear on the conflict between Israel and Hamas: the European Council should maintain its balanced position, a position between condemnation of Hamas terrorist attacks across Israel, Israel’s right to defend itself and providing humanitarian access to Gaza for aid supplies, while ensuring that this assistance is not misused by terrorist organisations. The EU must not leave this balancing act under the next EU presidency that takes office on January 2024. There are two reasons why I worry. One member of the Belgian Government that will ensure the EU presidency stated recently that Hamas cannot be considered terrorist, while two other Belgian ministers demand sanctions against Israel.

Mr President, dear colleagues, so many innocent people, including children, will never see the sun rise again because they were Jewish, in 2023. They were slaughtered by Hamas that a colleague MP of Ms Aubry called ‘a movement of resistance’ on French radio yesterday. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organisation that still holds Israeli and foreign hostages today, in addition to the population of Gaza itself that it uses as a human shield against an Israeli military response. It is worse than Isis. And not so far from us. Again, another teacher was killed in France, again innocent citizens where shot in Brussels – in the name of Allah. And yet, we, as Europe, keep making the same mistakes. Dear colleagues, radical Islam is progressing because we are not recognising it as it is. I worry about the Jews. I worry about innocent Palestinians. I worry about Europe. I worry about our civilization and the loss of the feeling we all identify as safety. When in our European city’s demonstrators shout ‘death to Israel and death to Jews’ then it is no longer a demonstration but death threats – threats against Jews here and everywhere else, and against our Western civilization. The EU must fix its migration policy, control where its money goes, call radical Islam by its name, reject any infiltration. It must also realise that the people of Brussels do not need candles and commemorations. They need protection.

Madam President, I’m very shocked by the intervention of my colleague. We all here stand for human rights, we stand for the fact that all humans are equal. I really don’t know where you have been staying in the past days, but maybe you were on the moon or anywhere else, but have you seen what happened in Israel? Have you seen that people went into houses to find human beings, to bring them outside, to kill or kidnap them or kill the babies just because they are Jews? Do you remember history? Do you remember what happened on European soil? Do you want anything like that to happen again? Did you see that a teacher was killed in France last Friday, that today marks three years from the assassination and beheading of Samuel Paty? Why don’t you speak up against the violation of our rights and our values in Europe? Have you seen the people also chanting in Rome, in London, in Paris, in Amsterdam, in Rotterdam, saying that we are the bad ones, saying that they are defending Palestinians, but in fact they are supporting the Islamic terror group Hamas? Did you see that? Why don’t you speak against that? You know, the Palestinians are the first victims of Hamas. Shame on you.

Mr President, I had a friend who said that we should always ask ourselves the right questions. He himself always asked questions. He knew a lot, but he never knew enough. Life was a school, every conversation an opportunity to move forward. My question to colleagues here is: Why haven't we come closer to a solution in 20 years? A solution for dying at sea. A solution that gives the man on the street confidence in politics again. I am mainly hearing criticism here. Criticism of each other, criticism of Member States that would control the European external borders too hard, criticism of Member States that do not want to redistribute asylum seekers. But, ladies and gentlemen, you are skipping the most important step. That is to regain control of the illegal migration flows to Europe. And sometimes we have to dare to step over our own shadow. Thoughtful deals with neighbouring countries, countries of origin and countries that can help with the processing of asylum applications are needed. Strict control at the external borders is needed. First we have to get a grip on the influx and only then we can talk about processing and integration.

Mr President, will the EU become the servant of every dictator on this planet? We got stuck in the region. We have become the brunt of President Aliyev waving his gas in exchange for our principles. The EU ignored the signals that Azerbaijan wanted to take advantage of Russia’s weakened position in the region to bring Nagorno-Karabakh fully under its control. We did not take into account possible retaliation after the rapprochement between Armenia and the West. As a result, the humanitarian emergency created by the months-long blockade of the Laçın corridor was exacerbated by the 200 deaths and hundreds of victims of Azerbaijan's military attack on Nagorno-Karabakh on 19 September and the exodus, and thus displacement, of the vast majority of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. Now the end of Nagorno-Karabakh's self-government is in sight. As of 1 January 2024, this ethnic minority no longer has a home. Nagorno-Karabakh needs much more than humanitarian aid. Ethnic cleansing must stop. The rights of the remaining Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh must not be further violated. The Armenian-Christian heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh must be protected. Above all, the EU must not fail a second time and must not ignore Azerbaijan's territorial claims to parts of the Armenian Republic itself. We must support Armenia's sovereignty.

Madam President, ‘No means no’, President von der Leyen said in her speech yesterday. Sadly, this basic principle is still something we need to fight for. I stand here today as a mother, as a woman, as a lawmaker working on the Directive on Combating Violence Against Women. I hope that together we bring closer the day that in our workplaces, streets and homes, nobody needs to be convinced that ‘no’ means just ‘no’. And the absence of ‘yes’ also means ‘no’. We all know that the first kissing is just the tip of the iceberg of what women endure every day in many places inside and outside the sports world, whether they are on top or at the bottom of the ladder. But laws alone are not going to solve this problem. We must all think about our daily habits. Men and women. Yes, men, women can be your boss and continue being who they are. Face it! No, women, it is not okay to play groupies and pick me games. Be allies. Who do you pick as allies? When do you look away? Only if we realise as lawmakers that this is bigger than the law will we be able to truly start changing something and making our kids proud.

Mr President, I have two points for the High Representative. First, you said in the newspaper Le Monde in 2021 the following sentence in French about the Sahel: «Nous avons peut-être signé trop de chèques en blanc». This is very clear. You said it. So, do you remember what you said in Le Monde? Second point, we had a debate here ahead of the 2022 EU-Africa Summit. I said in this plenary that we need to stop the nanny diplomacy and, from my experience and from my view as a politician, I said what could be done. You actually, in your reply, made a joke about that, and I replied to you, I wrote an official letter to you, so please remember that as well. Now I’m asking you, what about the blank checks? Because I did not get an answer.

Thank you very much for being here and being prepared to answer our questions. You know, all of us here know that first they will take Africa, who not only Russia, with their propaganda and disinformation, not only China with their modern economic imperialism, but also the jihadists right now with the carte blanche that they have to act to their own desires. We must wake up and understand that what is going on in the Sahel is an insidious poison for our economies, for our societies, and for the values that we have inherited from people who dared to be braver than us. What we do today will determine how the Sahel will evolve, but it will also determine what we will become as Europe. Now the Sahel is the epicentre of terrorism globally. So my question to you is how concretely are you going to change your policy? You said in the French newspaper Le Monde: «Nous avons signé beaucoup de chèques en blanc». Are you going to continue signing those checks, or will you follow my advice to you ahead of the EU-Africa Summit that we should leave the money at home and take strategy with us to go to the conversation about the EU-Africa future? This is my question to you: what will you do now ? So far I did not see any solution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, panic football, amateurism, naivety: This is the only way to call the EU-Tunisia deal. ? No one is impressed by what the EU has done here. No one, and certainly not the smugglers or the Tunisian leader. Today we have the highest figures since 2016. Impact? Effect? The only effect is the explosive influx through Tunisia and the red cheeks of the EU. The migration crisis and the ingredients that make it possible were not so difficult to anticipate and deal with in a timely manner. But what have we done here? Political show and improvisation put above decisiveness. Our fate and that of the migrants put into the hands of a dictator with a huge blank cheque. I'm very disappointed. Like many of our citizens. Not everything is for sale. The EU needs to learn that. You can't sign a blank check for any problem you don't dare solve. You can't make a pact with the devil every time you're lazy and go back to sleep. Because now Europe has to dance with that devil. Do we want that? I'm not in.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, too many people will continue to die trying to reach Europe, because that is how our European asylum system works. Reaching the European mainland is a necessary condition for obtaining asylum. That's where the mistake is. Every death in the Mediterranean Sea is a victim of that system. When will we see that it doesn't work? Citizens have been tired of this for a long time and want to see decisiveness. And clear language. Rightly so. But that clear language is the problem. Anyone who has a different opinion on asylum and migration is morally demonized, even canceled, resulting in a one-sided left-wing debate full of taboos. Meanwhile, extreme parties continue to grow. They reap what Europe sows. What shocks me is the fact that we have so much power to change something, but don't dare. What we need to do is simple. It is obvious: Stop rewarding life-threatening boat trips with the prospect of a right of residence. I think we can achieve a more humane asylum and migration policy if we get a little more courageous.

Madam President, raped, starved, barred from education, forced off the land during the planting season. Their future is stolen. Millions of Sudanese civilians, including their children, are internally displaced or are trapped in their homes, without food, medical care and other essential services, while humanitarian workers are unable to deliver them supplies. According to UNICEF, more than 13.6 million children in Sudan are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. We must step up cooperation with regional and international partners to ensure that a permanent ceasefire agreement is followed by credible political process in Sudan that respects people’s desire for democratic reform. The EU must provide support and humanitarian assistance to those impacted by the conflict, in particular women and children. We must make sure that all parties to the conflict allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access, as well as protect civilians and civilian infrastructure and prioritise the protection of children. We must support efforts to establish an independent investigation and accountability mechanism, addressing all alleged human rights violations in Sudan since the coup of October 2021. The people and children of Sudan need our attention and action now.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, they say ‘dance like nobody is watching, but text and email like it will be displayed on Instagram someday’. Perhaps we should not only see this as a joke, it is serious. Today, not only Big Brother is watching you, but also Little Brother – to censor or to feed disinformation, to influence or to destroy. How can our democracy survive and human rights prevail if the press has lost freedom on the one hand and the critical reflex to question things on the other hand. ‘The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist, but the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true or false, no longer exist.’ Hannah Arendt wrote this, a long time ago. In modern Europe, I would call that the perfect recipe to kill a democracy from the inside. Big Brother is not what I worry the most about. French philosopher Raphaël Enthoven calls the new threat ‘Little Brother’. Little Brother is watching you, so literally anyone can. We can make laws to tackle official espionage. We cannot make laws to create respect in society. To do that, we need to have stronger minds.

Mr President, it means so many different things to so many people. For me, it was, and it still is, a dream. A promise of freedom and equality between women and men. A promise of freedom to think and express your opinions without fearing for your life. A promise of having your voice heard on the global scene. A promise of peace. Europe, this promise is showing more and more cracks because we forget to be its guardians and we take it too often for granted. These cracks are more and more visible, also to others. What shakes our Europe at its core and makes us often shiver is both a combination of threats from the inside and from the outside. Outside we have, of course, China and Russia daring us. We have all seen how Turkey is continuously deceiving us and acting like a Trojan horse inside international organisations, accumulating provocations in the Mediterranean Sea, sabotaging unity in your country, using our failure to address the migration policy as an instrument against us. Look inside as well. From the inside, we fail to keep order and be strong enough to be taken seriously. Look at the institutionalisation of victimhood that became very fashionable and how we get used to cancel culture instead of choosing excellence. This was not how Europe was built. To keep its promise, Europe must do one very simple thing do its job and honour its history.

Mr President, migration and asylum policies are being challenged all over Europe, but if you want to talk about solutions, you are the far right. If you want to muddle on, you're a hero. What are we doing? I have been talking about the hypocrisy of the left and of certain NGOs, and I have been talking about the taboos that stand in the way of real solutions. How many more people have to die before the blinders are removed? Why do we not see how racist the leftist attitude and the open border policy is? A European paradigm for migration and asylum is needed to prevent more and more innocent people from dying in their search for a different life. Asylum policy must start outside the EU in the countries of origin or nearby. What refugees need is a safe place to stay. This place is not necessarily in Europe. We must combine this policy with strategic contributions to global security, because the world is a whole to which Europe also belongs. As an EU, we need to be more courageous. This is how we give Europe a future.

Mr President, colleagues, thank you very much for this debate and for all the excellent points you have made. Let me just pick up one or two issues: throughout the negotiations, some people kept insisting that crypto is actually much safer than traditional finance because of the transparency of the blockchain and, therefore, regulation was not really necessary. I disagree with that. The blockchain can indeed offer transparency, and some old crypto hacks have been resolved years later as a result. However, there are a lot of innovations to reduce this transparency, not least mixers and tumblers. In some cases, CASPs themselves do a lot of mixing and tumbling as well. Furthermore, if you can identify the flow of crypto on the blockchain, but cannot identify the people involved, you see only half of the picture. I therefore see the travel rule as proportionate and compatible to the blockchain. Again, peer-to-peer transactions remain outside of the scope of defi. Another issue has been the concern to push crypto out of the EU. Again, I don’t think these laws will do that. We see all the serious countries in the world taking big steps to regulate crypto. Some less democratic places go even further and ban most crypto activities. It is clear to me that if crypto wants to be taken seriously as an innovative fintech sector, it should also accept serious regulation like what we are doing now. I think most countries around the world agree with that. That was enough discussion, and we have experienced a lot of positive contributions. I would like to thank all of you who are involved in this file for the excellent cooperation. Also, the French presidency has been very supportive, with a lot of capable people. I want especially to thank Commissioner McGuinness and her team. Together, we will expect and hope for a very – I’m so happy that the Council is back – positive outcome tomorrow, and broad support so that we can make crypto safer for our citizens and much more difficult for criminals.

Madam President, dear Commissioner and dear colleagues, the last few years have been quite a wild ride in the crypto world. Sometimes – and my colleagues would confirm that as well – it felt like a wild ride also here in this Parliament when we are negotiating the Transfer of Funds Regulation. We started work on this file just after the total crypto market cap hit its third trillion. Trading was feverish, lobbying was feverish, and many people wanted to make sure that we do not harm this growth sector, which was also never our intention. Things look quite different right now. At one point, cryptos collectively lost almost two-thirds of their market value. Although this year there has been some recovery, the sector is reeling from high-profile scandals and bankruptcies. Some very normal people that could be your neighbours have lost a lot. A lot more people have come around to the idea now that crypto—assets need normal regulations. That is what we have been working on in Parliament and Council, together with the Commission. I am firmly convinced that the package we are now debating today is a good package. MiCA and TFR together will make holding and trading crypto—assets safer for ordinary people and more difficult for criminals, terrorists and for sanction-evaders. Let me highlight a few points: first of all, our new European legislation does not say that crypto—assets are bad, or that they are good. It does not say that holders and traders of crypto—assets are bad or good. This legislation simply seeks to regulate a sector that is still quite new and dynamic, but it takes a neutral approach to the merits of the sector. Secondly, the rules that we agreed upon between Parliament and Council are not revolutionary. I would even say that there are a lot less revolutionary than some people believe crypto—assets to be. Ninety-nine per cent of our work has been to translate rules that have already existed for many years for the traditional banking sector to the crypto world. We have translated the existing travel rule from traditional finance to crypto. We have translated existing provisions on fighting money laundering and terrorist financing from traditional finance to crypto. Colleague Berger with his file created rules on transparency and disclosure, on consumer protection and the prevention of market abuse. All this stuff is standard as every entrepreneur and every EU country knows. Let me mention two specific issues from my own file. First of all, the threshold for application of the travel rule, or rather the absence of a threshold. It was the Slovenian Council Presidency that first removed the EUR 1 000 threshold from the Commission proposal. In Parliament, we follow the Member States. I am convinced we are doing the right thing here. Colleagues, a EUR 1 000 threshold is really quite meaningless in the crypto world. There is high price volatility. Smurfing and opening or closing accounts is so easy. Just like banks, crypto-asset service providers would anyway need to check linked transactions, so even with a threshold in place, small amounts cannot be transferred without bureaucracy. Most importantly, it’s often in the small amounts that crime is hidden. We have seen evidence of fundraisers from terrorists with amounts of around EUR 100. We have seen evidence of payments on child pornography sites with amounts around EUR 10 or EUR 20. If we would not include the small transfers, we will not be doing enough. Another contentious issue has been the partial inclusion of unhosted wallets. Again, the Member States made the first move in the general approach. The point is the following: we already agree that crypto—asset service providers, the banks and trading houses of crypto need regulation. We also concluded that peer-to-peer transfers, the decentralised part of the crypto world, should stay out of the scope, even if I understand that my S&D colleague Paul Tang disagrees. But what about the interaction between crypto wallets hosted by CASPs and the unregulated private wallets? In order to prevent a massive loophole, we decided to apply the travel rule to those interactions as well. This is not fundamentally different from identifying yourself when making cash deposits or withdrawals from your bank account. Will this create a dual system and push crypto holders and traders into the unregulated world? I don’t think so. The verification burden on CASPs is very limited. We are not going to be as strict as some other countries are already today. Colleagues, there is more to say, but I think my time for now is up and I’m looking forward to our debate. I will be happy to get back to you at the end after hearing your observations. And I also extend my thanks to my co-rapporteur Urtasun, who is amazing, to all the shadows and to my political group advisor, Jannes De Jong, thank you very much. And the collaboration with Valeria.