Speeches

Madam President, just to tell you that we will obviously be in favour of a debate on this subject. This case proves once again that we need an interinstitutional body, so that is what we have been doing, including with my Renew Group. Nevertheless, my group will be against a resolution and I would like to see two separate votes on this issue.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of a sudden drop in our competitiveness is receding. At the moment, we are acting urgently, and everyone welcomes the Council's first decisions. But there is a real difference between the American IRA law and our response, between Chinese politics and ours: we are too dispersed, we grope, where competitors are determined to organise and think over five, ten or twenty years. Our European economy needs a clear direction and response. Our common market requires a common response. Our economy actually needs more Europe. More Europe in state aid means setting up joint projects, jointly financed by a sovereignty fund. More Europe in competition policies means the emergence of European champions, which is what the Chinese and Americans are doing. More Europe in public procurement means stopping being naive: Any competitor must comply with our common environmental and social standards. More Europe in international trade means a new trade policy geared towards democracies and the export of our values. Our environmental and social standards must be the basis for our future trade agreements. More Europe in our industrial strategy means swiftly voting on the Net-Zero Industry text, but above all working on energy market reform – and I call on the groups to commit quickly to considering this text. Our economy, moreover, cannot wait, given the rates of inflation and the problems of purchasing power that exist today in Europe. More Europe, finally, means more cohesion and efficiency in our common market, carbon neutrality. We have a temptation between groups to unravel the Green Deal – as we have seen. I find this absurd. At a time when the United States has converted to our vision on the energy transition, we must also put all the means, all the means, into it. I hear that the EPP Group will not vote on this European Parliament resolution, perhaps by internal political calculation, perhaps to put the President of the Commission in difficulty on deadlines, in the EPP, which are internal, perhaps by cynicism. But I want to believe that in the EPP delegations there is a bit of responsibility: responsibility for our industries, responsibility for our energy transition, responsibility for our jobs of tomorrow. And I hope that there will be responsible delegations, ladies and gentlemen of the EPP. In any case, my group will call for a vote on the European Parliament resolution for a new model, for emergency measures. We can do so much more and so much better!

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, my group, Renew Europe, together with other political groups, wanted this debate and this resolution because we considered it urgent to start negotiations on the interinstitutional ethics body. Since 2019, my group has been carrying the subject, and the "Qatargate" has proved us right: self-monitoring is not enough and its politicisation discredits us collectively. Only the independence of supervision is capable of definitively dispelling doubts. Only the professionalization of control will bring serenity to our institutions. I would like to share with you some of the beliefs that we have collectively, within Renew. First, the ethical body is the best way to restore trust and integrity in the European institutions. It is the best way to prevent and address conflicts of interest. These are numerous and we analyze them during different processes: at the level of the JURI Committee, at the time of the nomination of the candidate Commissioners, in particular at the time of the departure of the parliamentarians who will do something else with their lives. The ethics body is also the best way to control all financial statements, including those on wealth. It is the best way for Europe to catch up on transparency and ethics. I therefore hope that the Commission will want to make progress on this issue. In 2019, Ursula von der Leyen committed to it, in 2021, this Parliament voted, in 2022, we confirmed this vote. This authority is, for me, really the keystone of our transparency and our collective ethics in these institutions. My group wants a solution by the summer. My Socialist colleague asked you, Madam Vice-President: when will the Commission be able to make a proposal? I think that all this must happen as soon as possible because the populist, anti-Parliament and anti-Europe forces will play a lot of the mistrust that this case has created in Parliament for our fellow citizens, especially with regard to the 2024 elections. It is a common sense reform. This body is the guarantee of the effectiveness of our internal reform. It is time to create the European Ethics Body.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Ukrainians carry the security of the European Union on their shoulders. However, Ukrainians are not yet members of our Union and therefore do not participate in our decisions. That is why our Parliament has always been, in this war, the voice of the Ukrainian people right here. We have always been at the forefront. In particular, this Parliament has obtained unprecedented sanctions: an embargo on Russian fossil fuels, the granting of candidate status to Ukraine, financial and military aid envelopes. Today, we continue to play this role. Ukrainians have been fighting for a year. The experts tell us: This spring can be a turning point. A new Russian offensive, of unparalleled violence, is foreseeable. My group welcomes with relief and gratitude the decisions of the Member States and the United States to provide tanks to Ukraine. It was a fair decision, it was a necessary decision. My group calls, however, for continued efforts by widening the list of sanctions considerably – to 6,000 individuals at the heart of Putin’s regime. The gradual integration of Ukraine into our bloc is also a top priority: the common market, structural programmes and European funds must gradually be opened up to our Ukrainian friends. At every stage of sanctions and integration, we know that the Kremlin will threaten us. However, I warn European decision-makers, ourselves, here in the European Parliament: It is not up to Russia to fix the red lines. Russia has crossed the only red line by violating international law, which is the foundation of our collective security. Russia has crossed the moral red line by committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let us not fall collectively, here or in other European institutions, into the trap of their propaganda. Blackmail, apocalyptic forecasts, we've been hearing them for a year. Where would Ukraine be today if we had not listened to the Ukrainian people, if we had listened to the Kremlin and its European spokesmen? So now imagine where Ukraine would be if we stopped listening to it, if we stopped supporting it? Let’s not be afraid, let’s keep fighting, let’s keep supporting Ukraine.

Thank you, Madam President, and happy birthday! Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, perhaps I will repeat the words of the President of the European Council, having an action plan for our European industry is common sense and, in a word, we must develop our response to the new American policy. Europe cannot fall behind and the risk is real, there is a risk of relocation and job destruction – this was noted, including in this Chamber, in the last plenary. On the one hand, we have sectors in which we have invested a lot to get them back to produce in Europe and to allow us to concentrate our production in Europe. On the other hand, industries that are currently relocating to our continent could revise their plans. So cheap energy, a competitive environment, a high level of qualification and support for innovation are the foundations of our European industrial success. We must act on all these plans to avoid, of course, stalling. To achieve this objective, which must be a top priority for our action, each measure and action plan must be carefully calibrated. For a few weeks now, our group has been putting forward three far-reaching proposals and I am delighted, Madam President, Mr President, since we had already discussed our proposals, to revise in your action plan a number of proposals that the Renew Europe Group had made. First, we formulated a law for clean technologies, competitiveness and innovation in Europe. The law on zero-emission industries is actually a form of implementation of these proposals. We hope that this legislation will, in particular, mark the end of the endless steps and bureaucracy for our entrepreneurs and engineers. Three years for a hydrogen project is really no longer possible. We need to speed up the issuance of permits for renewable energy and production sites. And this competitiveness shock should not only concern EU-funded projects: it must apply to everyone and in particular – my group is sensitive to this – to SMEs. Another request from the Renew Europe Group over the past year has been a European Sovereignty Fund – all of you have talked about it as well. We had also raised this issue with the other groups in the European Parliament at the mid-term, and we had formulated it in a text. Obviously, the European financial response must be commensurate with the measures taken by the Americans. It is essential not to fragment our single market and we must allow, in particular, our willing states to invest in their industries, both small and large. Finally, the issue of new global partnerships, which you have also raised, Madam President. I am convinced that we must prioritise trade with democracies and arm Europe in the event of disputes, particularly with China. The key to the success of our European response will be an overview and I welcome in any case that there is a package of answers. This package of answers, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of my group because, in order to protect our industry, policies on competition, investment, public and private financing and international trade are inseparable from each other. And all too often, in this House, we hear this or that proposal, which would be the panacea and the miracle solution to all our ills. We are convinced that we need to act on all competitiveness indicators and not just on some form of response. And this package of answers is a good solution. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must therefore learn from recent years. We need to succeed in the ecological transition, but what if we don't produce more on our soil? 98%, and this is a rather remarkable figure, 98% of photovoltaic panels cannot be produced in China today, in line with our European environmental policy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) therefore poses a major challenge to us. Having good ideas is not enough. A number of policies that you have developed must be implemented quickly and at the same time. And I think it is a good idea for the political groups, including here in this Chamber, to be able to commit to adopting these texts before the summer. I also propose that the Commission send us these texts as soon as possible, since, if there is urgency, the European Union must respond to them with the necessary time. The time needed is to have European public policies as soon as possible, particularly in response to the IRA. We will therefore commit ourselves at Renew Europe to adopt these texts as soon as possible, for the effectiveness of our international competitiveness policy.

Madam President, yesterday in Dnipro, Russia committed a war crime and an act of terrorism. Faced with this horror and the determination of the Ukrainian people to fight for their freedom, the European Parliament, as you know, has always been the driving force behind the mobilisation in Europe on the humanitarian aspect, on the financial aspect, and also on the military aspect, for Ukraine. My group, Renew Europe, is even more committed to European coordination on this Ukrainian issue: more sanctions against thousands of Russians who are still associated with the Putin regime and not yet on the lists, more weapons for Ukraine, especially tanks, given the news and announcements that have been made by a number of Member States. That is why my group is asking for a debate that you have just summarised to be added to the agenda, Madam President: the EU’s response to the appalling attack on civilians in Dnipro: strengthen sanctions against Putin’s regime and military support for Ukraine. Thank you for the support of the other groups.

Madam President, as you pointed out, there were five debates on the same subject. My group, rather than adding a sixth debate, proposes the synthesis with a title that could be this: "new developments in allegations of corruption and foreign interference, including those in Morocco, and the need to increase transparency, integrity and accountability in the European institutions". I believe that it is a good synthesis of the five debates, which could bring us together, to avoid having a set of debates that overlap with each other.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the agenda of this European Council is less busy than expected, and that is a good thing. The agreements of yesterday and the day before yesterday are excellent news. Let me stress that this European Parliament and our group in particular, Renew Europe, have a lot to do with it. On Hungary, this is historic. The conditionality mechanism was a request from my group. Its activation by the Commission and its adoption by the Council were made possible by pressure from this European Parliament. Mr Weber, you said that this solidarity and conditionality mechanism was the baby of this European Parliament. It was first and foremost the baby of a number of political groups that pushed this approach, but today we gladly share it with this Parliament as a whole. The minimum tax rate on multinationals, such as the carbon border tax, will soon be a reality in line with the wishes of this House as well. This is to be welcomed. Of course, the past few weeks have also shown that vetoes are rotting European democratic life. The absurd decision to delay the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into Schengen, the incomprehensible expectation of measures on the price of gas and the very worrying delays on Russian sanctions... All this should decide the Council to listen to what we have been claiming for months and months: end unanimity, move to qualified majority, listen to what citizens said at the Conference on the Future of Europe. These are words that you have often heard in this Chamber, Madam President, representatives of the Council, and I think we should go further on this issue. It is a question of efficiency and modernisation of our institutions, all the more necessary given the enormous challenges we face. The decisions of our American friends and Chinese adversaries jeopardize our economic fabric. This is a major issue of sovereignty. Without a healthy productive fabric, the European Green Deal is at risk and social cohesion is at risk. It is also a matter of unity. As you said, Madam President, quite rightly: asymmetries in national responses pose a real risk of fragmentation. This is a danger to the Single Market. I ask the Commission – you have made a few announcements – and especially the Heads of State or Government to support these three ideas. First, the European Fund – you talked about it – to produce more on our soil, for example renewable and clean energy, and essential goods. A sovereignty test to ensure that no EU legislation harms our objectives in this area. This is what we are already doing, in terms of the environment and the European Green Deal. A law of sovereignty to liberate energies and our continent. Our rules hinder our businesses and SMEs, such as the lengthy and unnecessarily complex permit periods and procedures that we live in our respective countries. Three years for a European hydrogen project: it would take at most three months. Businesses only want to produce and create jobs. They are the lifeblood of our continent and we need them to be the economic powerhouse of tomorrow. Madam President, Minister, I know that one crisis drives away the other. After COVID-19, war and energy, industry is now at the top of our agenda. We do not have time to postpone our decisions. We must innovate politically in order to negotiate this economic turning point of "made in Europe". I also wish you all a happy holiday and a merry Christmas. We hope that, in any case, this Council will be productive for our economy and our citizens, and to protect our European citizens from these crises.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, since May Slovenia has impressed with its new European commitment. It has also become a model to follow, including in integration, as you said, Prime Minister. We are proud to have you in our political family in Renew. Ecological transformation and the new economic attractiveness are at the heart of your action and your government, in full alignment with the European climate and sovereignty objectives. You have somehow put Slovenia back at the heart of the European Union. Your institutional record is unanimously welcomed by civil society and civil rights organizations. Illiberal and authoritarian abuses have finally ceased in Slovenia. Public television is once again becoming independent. Justice can rule in a much calmer climate, since these few months of governance. The Slovenians, voting after the vote, confirmed that the populist experience of your predecessor, Janez Janša, was a political, societal and economic failure. Mr Rangel, I am not surprised by what you have just said in your statements. It is in the right line, moreover, of the few slanders that the EPP has been able to utter on Slovenia since the defeat in May. Your EPP MEPs, although officially pro-European, have indeed often supported and excused all of Mr Janša's insults on social media against the partners and parliamentarians we are – we have benefited quite widely from them. You also insinuated that the election was under foreign influence. During this election, you also defended the harassment of a number of journalists, who were notably vilified by the current government. Prime Minister, I would just like, on behalf of my group, to assure you of the support of the vast majority of parliamentarians here for your determination to support and encourage the peaceful democratic debate in your country. My group and so many others hope that Slovenia is at the heart of Europe and that this path chosen by Slovenians can inspire other peoples – I am thinking in particular of Poles and Hungarians. Thank you for your intervention. You will always have the support of Renew Europe.

Madam President, to be very clear on our position – which I think is shared by the groups that are likely to vote against this resolution at the moment – we are not hostile to a resolution. Rather, we are in favour of learning from this case, but over time. We propose to revisit this issue in January, hoping that the judicial process will be completed and that it will allow us to draw some conclusions from it. We are in the middle of a court case, with judges who are still on the premises of the European Parliament in Brussels at the moment. I am not sure that adopting a resolution right away is the best way that Parliament has at its disposal. In favour of a resolution, therefore, but later my group will vote against it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to express, on behalf of my group, my full support and thanks to the Belgian police and judiciary, which are also the armed arm of our democracy. When I see the tweets written just now by Mr Orbán, who is already instrumentalising this story, I have a thought for the Hungarian people, who are deprived of an independent judiciary capable of carrying out such anti-corruption operations. Dear friends, I am proud to work in a country where such investigations are possible. Perhaps first of all, as I told you, our institution must unreservedly reaffirm – and you do, Madam President – its full support for and cooperation with the judicial institution. Nor does it mean that we just have to wait for the conclusions of this procedure, quite the contrary. My group will propose actions that need to be the subject of a broad consensus among pro-European groups. First, on the data subjects: we will vote, like all the groups, to withdraw Ms Kaïli’s mandate as Vice-President, and I think it is important to do so in a short time to send a strong signal. If, on the other hand, the facts are proven, we will also ask her to resign from her mandate. With regard to Qatar, Madam President, we call for the suspension – and you have announced it – of the new agenda on issues that have been voted on in committees or that have been the subject of a particular vote. In view of the ongoing inquiry, my political group obviously supports the return to committee of these debates. On the issue of the transparency of political life in our Assembly, we will support the strengthening of transparency registers. This is a lengthy debate in this Chamber, but we must also systematically have rules of procedure on this issue. As you know, since 2019, my political group has been calling for the creation of an interinstitutional ethical body, which must have investigative powers to better scrutinise the rules, not only of Members, but also of former parliamentarians and all people working in the European institutions. Finally, as regards interference – as you also mentioned, Madam President – my group is in favour of a committee of inquiry, but only once the judicial inquiry has shed all the light on this story. I will conclude by saying that my group will be with the institution: you will always find Renew Europe at your side in the democratic fight for transparency, against corruption. We will not let our work get dirty, we will not let this Parliament get dirty, we will not let Europe get dirty. No one can betray with impunity the trust of the people, and certainly not of our peoples in Europe. Colleagues, let us show our fellow citizens that the European Parliament does not have a shaking hand.

Mr President, Commissioner, Commissioner, the Pact on Migration and Asylum is unfortunately the forgotten part of the national debates on asylum and immigration currently taking place in our respective Member States. Our fellow citizens are largely unaware of the titanic work that this European Parliament is currently doing to arrive at a European solution. The failure of the previous term of office is for many, but it is the role of this debate to put this topic back at the heart of the discussions, Commissioner. Everyone's goal here is to achieve consensus, reform on this issue. My group will play its full part. We are also proposing a reform that combines the two principles that each of you, the EPP and the S&D, have also mentioned, which are solidarity and responsibility. But you might as well know what is behind responsibility and solidarity. Solidarity: the countries of arrival must be able to count on the entire European Union. We are in favour of financial solidarity, but also of human solidarity between the Member States. Responsibility: yes, there are too many irregular migrants and those who do not currently meet the asylum and immigration criteria should be able to return quickly. To this end, my group calls for harmonised data: essential checks and identical procedures based on common criteria. All this, of course, with full respect for human rights. We will obviously go in this direction to have verification criteria that allow it. But that will not be enough. We must go further by stepping up our efforts, in particular with third countries and a good coordination of rescue at sea, as was said by President Iratxe García Pérez. Asylum and immigration policy is and will be dependent on our efforts on the climate, on development policy, on our international actions. Limiting the causes of exile remains the best solution to avoid this crisis. So, ladies and gentlemen, I am not hiding behind the numbers. Moreover, you both mentioned a significant increase of 70% in the number of asylum applications compared to last year, either in the EPP or in the S&D. We are approaching the figures of the migration crisis of 2015. Our common diagnosis and solutions must be put forward, but my group calls for a positive, discreet and real dynamic to reach agreement on this reform. I therefore call on the pro-European groups to discuss our proposals in order to reach a swift conclusion. Let us not allow men and women to be held hostage to electoral calculations and national contingencies. And yes, we will have to establish rules for who can live in Europe and who cannot live in Europe, but these rules must be European, fair and true to our values. We already know that we cannot count on the far-right members of the Chamber to help us. They shine by their absence in the parliamentary work of everyday life. They prefer forums to solutions and they know very well, colleagues, that if we manage to meet this migration challenge, they will lose the main electoral fuel for their future elections. I also doubt the willingness of far-left MEPs to play collectively. For them, the very issue of evoking a border guard is a problem. And we will not come to a common solution on the basis of this logic and this statement. We Europeans will probably find a way, at least I hope, to put pressure also on the Council, to put pressure on capital. Everyone must be able to understand that it is necessary to take one step towards the other in pro-European parties in order to reach an agreement. I hope that Warsaw and Budapest will remember that we acted together to welcome Ukrainian refugees. The only 27-member agreement we have reached in 20 years on asylum and migration. I hope that Rome and Ms Meloni will also agree on a position – which I do not know today – on this text. So enough show, enough polemics for two or three polling points. At work. This is our duty as co-legislator and a political and humanitarian duty.

Madam President, Prime Minister, Prime Ministers, this Parliament, like our European adventure, is a political miracle, an everyday political miracle. In its 24 official languages and three seats, in Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg. At the centre of this hemicycle, hundreds of national parties from 27 countries are able to agree on climate laws, digital rights, agricultural budgets, minimum wages and so many other topics, often even before the other European institutions. I am thinking in particular of the purchase of vaccines, the recovery plans and now the energy price cap. This Parliament was the first to ask for and vote on these proposals. And Europeans are not mistaken, since as early as 2019, more than 18 million more people have gone to the polls. Unpublished for 20 years. In some countries, turnouts have even exceeded turnouts in national elections. Europeans understand better than their media, for sure, sometimes better than their own government, that it is here that everyday life improves and the future of our citizens is written. And that is why we have to go through with the logic of the Conference on the Future of Europe that we initiated here in the European Parliament. More power for this assembly means more efficiency for Europe. Give us the right of initiative and you will have the keys in hand on issues such as inflation, energy, asylum and immigration that we still have to deal with in the coming months and years before the end of this mandate. Give us more budgetary powers and you will have more investment in European sovereignty. Give us the transnational lists and you will have to deal with part of the democratic challenge of the European Union. So I know that my group can count on the support of the Prime Ministers here. I thank them for that. I also ask the other groups to convince them and to convince all governments about these fundamentals. The European Parliamentary Assembly is elected by universal suffrage in 27 countries with the power of co-legislator. 70 years ago, all this was a dream. Today, this is a reality. So, let us be surprised to see even further for European democracy, for our citizens, for an additional 18 million voters to join the polls in 2024. Thank you, Madam President, for organising this event and for having a happy birthday at the European Parliament.

Madam President, this is not a vote, so I am not going to make an explanation of vote, but perhaps more of a point of order and a point of order. We will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the European Parliament. This European Parliament is a transnational parliament. We have energy issues to deal with, we have purchasing power issues. I know that we will be heading towards the 2024 European elections and that, increasingly, political groups will be tempted to integrate national controversies into this European Parliament. But, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the challenges we face in the coming months and years, let us avoid these changes to the agenda. And in this, Madam President, it is more a reminder to the Rules of Procedure than anything else. My group will systematically vote against - without entering into polemics and without even going into the merits of national parliaments' polemics - requests to change the agenda on purely national issues. This is the case, and it will also be the case with ID’s request on an electoral issue in Germany, which has nothing to do with the European Parliament’s democratic and political debate.

Madam President, it is clear that things are moving very quickly in Iran, but, on behalf of my group, we would obviously like to have this discussion in November I, and that it is not a substitute for a debate in Strasbourg in November II. Yes, therefore, to a debate which is now taking place, but which will have to continue – possibly with a text and a resolution – in Strasbourg. We are, of course, in agreement for the time being to discuss this key issue at this mini-plenary.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Minister, we will be strong outside our borders if we are strong within our borders. The Council must show the same determination on domestic issues that it puts into the geopolitical mutating of the European Union. Our energy must be total to put policies in place to ensure prosperity, for bills to fall, for our small businesses to survive. Solidarity and unity must be, for my group, the watchword and the basis of this European summit. Will we live up to the last two years or will we reproduce the hesitations and quarrels of the 2010s in the face of the sovereign debt crisis and the migration crisis? I do not want to argue with Mr Weber either, but in those 2010s, it was the EPP who was in charge, and the European Union did not shine with the response it was able to provide, it did not act quickly and strongly in the last crises. So more EPP, Mr Weber, I do not think it is desirable today, given the last crises we experienced in the 2010s. So will we act fast and strong, precisely, or too little and too late? If we act fast and hard, we will respond to the anxiety of widespread downgrading through employment and rising purchasing power. If we act fast and hard, we will respond with increased purchasing power, and I think our people will increasingly support our efforts for Ukraine. Despite the differences, even divisions, that we sometimes have in the Council on certain subjects, we also know that the Twenty-Seven can be effective. What has been possible on the superprofit tax, for example, must be possible on the energy crisis and the responses to it. This Parliament, Madam President, as you know, as usual, has been quite clear on the points that could be the subject of a European consensus in its last resolutions. There is a majority for a European tariff shield, as Renew proposed a few months ago now. We have identified a number of solutions that are both structural and cyclical. We know about short-term solutions: gas price caps; a new solidarity fund until the end of winter 2024. This new solidarity fund should help states that are currently unable to lower bills; joint energy purchases – thank you for your comments on this forum. As we have seen, it worked with vaccines, it must work with the fund, which must allow us, precisely, to buy gas together. And I hope, Madam President, that in the coming weeks you will be on your way to Oslo to negotiate, on behalf of the 27, with our Norwegian friends. From a business-to-business perspective, this is how we need to bring prices down, how we need to help our citizens and businesses pay their bills. On the other hand, we also have structural solutions: the decoupling of electricity and gas prices. It is an aberration today that the prices of decarbonised electricity produced in Europe depend on the price of fossil gas, which is imported via external countries. If there is a majority in this Chamber, in any case, there is probably a way to the Council. Our demands are those of our companies, economists, civil society. My group also advocates a genuine European investment plan, especially in electricity infrastructure. We have proposed a sovereignty fund. It must allow us to gain our independence, whether in terms of food, industry or energy. I caution, however, that: 27 national investment policies are good, but an ambitious European investment policy is better. And those who invest massively at national level and at the same time oppose European investment are jeopardising the European response we need to lead. This will naturally require – and you know this – that the multiannual financial framework, our European budget, is adapted and readjusted to the shared objectives of sovereignty and strategic autonomy. In any case, Madam President, Minister, responding to popular aspirations, or even exceeding them in times of crisis, we know that Europe knows how to do, we know that Europe can do. So the key word for my group is very clear: Now it is up to the 27.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this weekend the president of a nuclear power designated us as enemies. The President of United Russia, Putin’s party, has directly threatened to use weapons against European cities. Members of the same party, members of the Russian parliament, called for genocide, rape and abduction of Ukrainian children. Vladimir Putin, his allies and his party want to destroy us, destroy our values, destroy our European model, destroy our democracy and destroy our rights – the rights of minorities, the rights of children, the rights of women. They say it, they accept it: They hate who we are – a society of free and safe men and women. Vladimir Putin did not declare war only on Ukraine, he also declared war on democracy. Yet in Europe, there are politicians who continue to support it. The European far left and far right have been repeating the language elements of the Kremlin for a few months now. One day NATO is the aggressor, another day Crimea has always been Russian. At the moment, the ritournelle is: Sanctions don't work. I say this to the extreme right of the Chamber: How dare you today call for an end to the sanctions? How dare you serve the arguments we hear on Russian state television all day long? Russia is no longer producing advanced technologies, and its GDP is in free fall – the largest decline it has seen since the end of the Soviet Union. You often prefer to surf on the social and economic suffering of Europeans, but this suffering is caused by Putin's war, not by sanctions. And we are answering it here in this Chamber, and we are answering it as Europeans: by reducing our dependencies, by lowering Europeans' bills, but also by sharing our votes in this Chamber – which, by your votes, you are rejecting here. My question, ladies and gentlemen, is the central question that each and every one of you should ask: Why do you do that? Ladies and gentlemen, members of the National Rally, the Lega, Fidesz: Why do you want to lift the sanctions against Russia? This makes no sense; We should rather all, as Europeans, be behind the Ukrainians, behind the Ukrainian people, who, moreover, have made the sovereign choice to move towards Europe. When you claim to be a sovereignist and sovereignty is a value of the party you represent, you support the Ukrainian people. I have only two hypotheses, colleagues: the first – the only one, potentially – is – perhaps – the suitcases of banknotes, the second being full support for Putin’s political project. The first hypothesis merits further investigation. We have already mentioned this in this Chamber: More than €300 million is said to have been invested by the Russian state and Russian political parties in European political parties. Some, for that matter, such as the Lega, still have agreements with Vladimir Putin’s party. As for Viktor Orban, he visits Moscow more than Brussels. In any case, if you are consistent, you who claim to be patriots and sovereignists, you who sometimes claim to be defenders of a European civilisation and way of life, know that you have made the opposite choice. Europe or Putin? You chose Putin... Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, I am also turning to the far left of this Chamber: Why refuse arms to Ukraine? When you are for the emancipation of peoples, when you are for the independence and autonomy of peoples, you are with Ukraine. But often the anti-Americanism of the far left turns out to be stronger than defending the oppressed. I am even speaking in the centre of this Chamber, Commissioner, to our own camp, that of pro-Europeans: Why is Silvio Berlusconi still a member of the EPP, after his mind-blowing statements about Ukraine? Why do so many Bulgarian and Slovak leaders with pro-Russian proposals still call themselves socialists? And why do our institutions, Commissioner, continue to give money to Serbia de Vučić, also an EPP member? So, ladies and gentlemen, I will go no further: an international survey of the €300 million will be needed. I conclude, Mr President: We, as citizens, must know how to put a barrier across the links that exist between these political parties. That is why my political group wanted this debate to clarify each other's position and proposals in this Chamber.

Madam President, I will perhaps be a little more explicit than you about the speeches that have taken place in this Chamber. Mr Bardella, I am sorry, but your intervention is irresponsible. It is irresponsible because it is not the sanctions that are the cause of the Europeans, it is you and the Russians. You have been in touch with the Russian government for years and you are now teaching us what should be done today at European level. I said this in my speech, Madam President, but the issues of interference will have to be addressed. The issue, in particular, of the money paid to political parties by the Kremlin is a real subject of European independence and sovereignty. These issues will have to be addressed here, and I also count on the Commission to be able to organise this work. And then a message also to the Italian colleagues in this debate in the debate: I apologize for not having the same ideas as you, ladies and gentlemen. Excuse us for thinking that the Italian election is not yet played out and excuse me for wanting an Italy that is open in Europe, open to the world. So we will obviously respect the results in Italy, but allow us to campaign. And democracy is about campaigning, it is about campaigning on European topics and it is about campaigning against your ideas. I'm sorry.

Madam President, two hundred days. Two hundred days that the Ukrainian people are fighting the Russian aggressor. Two hundred days that Ukrainians are fighting for their values and those of Europe. Their fight is our fight, that of democracy against autocracy, that of the rule of law against the law of the strongest, that of freedom against oppression, that of our Union against its opponents. So much so that populists no longer even dared to say that they were anti-European. Today, we hear their dangerous proposals again because war – and I mean war and not sanctions – war has increasingly direct consequences in the daily lives of our citizens, on the price of energy, on the quantity of food, perhaps tomorrow on the number of jobs available in Europe. However, our democracies have the means to respond quickly and well. Europe is the most effective level and your speech, Madam President, is proof of that, and so are your proposals. For that, thank you for the democratic exercise you have just done. On the front lines of all these projects, we support you. First of all, we support you on the first front, the energy front. My group is in favour of a European energy shield for lower bills and I think there are even two types of European solidarity. First type of European solidarity: solidarity with citizens and our SMEs, using the rents of energy producers and putting a ceiling on gas imports. The second type of solidarity is solidarity between Member States and our neighbours, buying energy together, exchanging surpluses, investing more in renewable energy and energy renovation of buildings. It is for us, and it was also the aim of our group, to make our continent the first to emerge from fossil fuels. So yes, on the benches of extremes, we have ready-made solutions: this is the end of the sanctions. As if sanctions were the cause of European harm, even as Russia drops its GDP by 6% and the Russian military is reduced to supplying itself to Iran and North Korea during this war. Incompetence or convenience? I do not know, given the evidence and information we had last night about astronomical amounts – EUR 300 million – that would have been paid to political parties in Europe and abroad to interfere. It will have to be seen, it will have to be addressed by Parliament, it will have to be addressed by the institutions. You have referred to proposals against interference abroad and I think my group will join you on all these issues. We've worked on it before. More work needs to be done on this, as it is above all a democratic subject. The second front, Madam President, is sovereignty. We need to reduce all our dependencies on food (and here I would make a parenthesis: on food, we cannot risk a supply disruption in Europe; it will be necessary to work upstream, to look at production), on raw materials, on health, on digital technology, on defence infrastructure. My group supports a new action plan to identify our vulnerabilities and strengthen our value chains in Europe. As Europeans, we must ask ourselves the same question every day and, as parliamentarians, more: Does this decision make us more sovereign or more dependent? We therefore propose a sovereignty test to check the conformity of all the European acquis, of any new legislation built here, between the Commission and the European Parliament, of all our budgets and of any new investment in the future. It is time to feed in and align all our public policies now with the objectives of strategic autonomy. Let us make our European Union an economic and geopolitical power. You indicated this in your first speech before this Chamber at the beginning of your term of office. This sovereignty is the key to ensuring equality, fairness and quality of life for our European citizens, economic growth, the green transition and also our place in the world. Madam President, all these proposals also raise the fundamental question of our institutional and budgetary frameworks. The EU has shown some agility and even flexibility in recent months. But two questions, beyond the question of generation and the convention that you propose, will catch up with us, it is obvious. First, until when will we be able to decide unanimously? And at what price? And secondly, how far should we invest together and on what priorities? These are also questions that must be asked if we are to launch a major convention, which should not be restricted to a single point, perhaps with the question from the Council. We must act with organization. We were the first to call for a Conference on the Future of Europe, now with a revision of our budget and a follow-up convention. I think my group's position is clear and will not surprise you. The last front, and I am done with it, will not surprise you either. It is the rule of law. Our values must be our compass. What is at stake outside our borders is also at stake within the European Union. I am thinking in particular of Viktor Orbán. Not a penny should go to Mr. Orbán. Look, for ten years now, where our indifference has led us: corruption and discrimination have exploded in this country. The Hungarian media under control is now spreading Russian propaganda and the elections are no longer even fair. I am also thinking of Poland, even if the case is different. But these excesses, Madam President, must be combated. At a time when other countries could switch to unfamiliar democratic territory, such as Italy, we ask you to hold on. We'll have to hold on. Madam President, we are counting very much on you, on all the European Commissioners and the College. The multiple crises show us that the agenda we set at the beginning of 2019 is the right one. Ecological transition, economic resilience, democratic model. For all this, Renew is proud of what we have already achieved and ready to go through the crises, ready to support you to carry out the projects you have presented, without trembling, without waiting and without forgetting our priorities, all our priorities in this new international order. Madam President, I am convinced that we will collectively, as Europeans, be up to the task.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the shock of the US Supreme Court decision reminds us that nothing is taken for granted. This Parliament, whose first president was Simone Veil, has a duty to show unambiguous solidarity with the Americans. In one day, millions of women lost the right to dispose of their bodies. In our Union, too, millions of Poles lost the opportunity to have an abortion because judges in power had decided to do so. Moreover, on this subject, the extreme right and the ultra-conservative right are never transparent in their political agendas. In Europe, these parties are more discreet than ever so as not to frighten us during election campaigns. They advance masked, but they hope to achieve their ends, using in particular the paths derived from justice. And this is where the rule of law, the right to abortion and women’s rights come together in the political struggle. It is in this sense that I propose to you and that we propose, together with Renew Europe, a request for clarification and amendment of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We thus take up the proposal of the President of the French Republic and draw inspiration from the French, Belgian and Swedish initiatives calling for the constitutionalisation of abortion in their countries. Thursday's vote on the proposal is a test for our political groups. Who will be truly sincere? Who will defend women's rights? Who will be politically responsible for challenging the right to abortion? Who will vote for, who will vote against? The political groups are facing up to their responsibilities. Colleagues, Europeans should know that, regardless of political alternations and ruling parties, women's rights will be respected. European women deserve the same protection as newspapers, trade unions, asylum seekers, landlords and churches. All have guarantees in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. All have their rights respected in this Charter. Let us therefore give women in Europe the guarantee that no judge will be able to unravel these rights and remind the reactionaries what they really are: a legacy of the past that has no future in the European Union.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, Minister, for the latter of the French Presidency, the European Council of tomorrow promises to be once again historic. My group welcomes the spirit of responsibility shown by all Member States and the Commission's work to achieve this. Madam President, Ukraine’s candidate status is a fair recognition of the sacrifice of the Ukrainian people for our European values. We could not have been unaware – as I have said many times in this Chamber – of the blood shed in the name of the ideal of peace, democracy and sovereignty in this unjust war. I hope that this same spirit of responsibility will also prevail among the members of the Council on the issue of the Western Balkans. We also have a duty to build the European path of these nations. This is the position of my group, which is also in favour of Moldova's candidate status. The Council will also finally decide on the follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe. I know that some people think that these institutional issues are secondary and, by comparison, surely, are not among the emergencies of our time. I think they are wrong. What is our near future? We Europeans? Probably a combination of crises that will force Europe to decide in a coherent, ambitious, rapid way: inflation settles in a sustainable way, with the possibility of passing on sovereign debt; food crises, humanitarian and migration crises, probably; Climate change will continue if we do not act... And in the face of these challenges, are we ready today, together with our institutions, to act? Perhaps we can repeat once again the miracle of the COVID crisis, which, together with the recovery plan, created a massive, rapid and urgent response from the European institutions, a real impetus for European solidarity, with a speed we had never seen before. But some states will likely use our institutional architecture, including the veto, to block the efforts needed to deal with these new crises. And that is exactly why, Madam President, Mr Minister, we will not leave the institutional project behind. This project is important. Some Member States - and, forgive me, still the same - are blocking the necessary reforms. Vetos are not vetoes of peoples, but are vetoes and blackmails of struggling governments. The blockage on the global minimum tax is as much a symptom as a warning for us, and we are obviously paying attention to all these points. We have so much to do and we must not disappoint. Mr Minister, Madam President, you know that our political family is carrying this institutional reform in Europe. We have a majority of Council members who are ulcerated by the behaviour of certain States. You know that citizens will not accept the spectacle of inaction on these issues. So my watchword, and the watchword of my group, will be to open this reform and follow it up in the European Parliament, which has paved the way for this procedure.

Madam President, just one word to say that I share the concern of the Chairman of the Green Group to work together on this text and to build something in majority format with the pro-Europeans. But I'm in a different situation than yours. We shared the ambition, but we made the tactical choice to vote for this text and not to mingle with the voices of the far right for the rejection of this text. But we shared the ambition. Madam President, we will have a text back in committee, we will work on it. We want there to be a pro-European majority. Ambition is important. The legislation affects 450 million citizens over a period of 30 years, with important objectives. So we will work together with all the pro-European groups that are able to find a compromise.

Madam President, dear Taoiseach, dear Micheál, thank you for your speech. Let me assure you, from a very pro-European political family in this Parliament, that we are proud of the resolutely European agenda of the Irish Government. As we can count on Ireland to defend European unity, I wanted to reiterate, dear Taoiseach, that the Irish can count on Renew Europe and their Members, Barry Andrews and Billy Kelleher, to defend their interests, because for some time now the interests of the Irish have been the interests of Europe. Indeed, in spite of ourselves, we are once again confronted with the consequences of Brexit. At Renew Europe, we know the concerns of Irish and Northern Irish citizens. Worried, I would also be if my market, my food or pharmaceutical safety depended on the constancy of Boris Johnson. But, I will tell you very clearly, we are defending the Northern Irish protocol. The Irish are not mistaken, including the Northern Irish, who voted 56% for parties in favour of this agreement. Perhaps accommodation is possible, but it is not unilaterally at Westminster – in breach of international law, for that matter – to define what suits or does not suit the Irish and Europe. Europe has only one word. She has only one word with the Irish and the British. Dear Taoiseach, I take the opportunity of our exchange to ask you about an important subject for our political group: Citizens’ proposals following the Conference on the Future of Europe. We call for a convention to change our treaties if necessary. This seems essential to us in order to finally establish a legislative initiative in Parliament and, above all, to put an end to a number of elements of decision-making, including unanimity on certain points in the Council. A state can no longer block decisions that affect 450 million Europeans. Then a question: What is the Irish Government's position on these points and on the launch of this conference? You have answered a little, but we would like to hear a little more from you – my political group, at least – on this issue. Thank you very much and indeed long live Europe and long live Ireland!

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, thank you for being here with this institution to talk about an important subject. The rule of law is the cornerstone of our democracy, the cement of our society. The European Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and Parliament is its watchdog. That is why we are making it clear, including to the members of the Council, that it is a political mistake to approve the Polish recovery plan as it stands and at this stage. Giving in to the blackmail of the Polish government is a political mistake. For my group and many others, with whom we have signed several letters, sent several resolutions, organized several debates, the conditions that have been set are clear, clear preconditions and not vague milestones. These milestones that rest a few times and that we consider today as insufficient not to say cosmetics. For my political group, the Court's judgments must be fully and fully implemented, including the primacy of European law. Otherwise, we will have no choice but to make further appeals here in the European Parliament. For my group, it is out of the question that only one euro is spent before the Polish judiciary is independent. This has always been clear from this parliamentary majority in Parliament and also in your own Commission, Madam President. If only one euro is spent before the rule of law is restored, we can legitimately use a number of political, legal and institutional components and levers at our disposal. This debate will inevitably take place, since this debate on the rule of law is fundamental for our Parliament. Finally, for our group, we have repeatedly said that direct management of European funds is the best solution and I would really like it to be studied seriously by your services, Madam President, to see if there are possibilities if these conditions are not respected. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my political group and my entire political family will always stand against the abuses of the Polish Government, but above all and certainly alongside the Polish people.

Madam President, Vice-President Timmermans, Minister – I am very pleased to see you on these benches, dear Chrysoula – the eight Green Deal laws that we are about to vote on this week show that there are still many reasons to hope. Hope for democracy first, because by proposing these laws, we are responding to the wishes of the millions of voters who, in 2019, chose MEPs committed to climate and political projects committed mainly to climate. Thus, twenty-year-old projects will be able to see the light of day. Finally the carbon tax at the borders! Think that I have been hearing about this project since I was 15 years old, and I am proud to be able to participate in this historic debate and vote. It is also a reason to hope for Europe and its expertise, as it has been able to set carbon neutrality targets for 2050 to music. From air transport to maritime transport, from heavy industries to forests, we are pushing each sector one by one to go in the right direction, and it is also the role of this Parliament to work with all sectors. Finally, it is simply a reason to hope for politics, ladies and gentlemen. With the law on the end of thermal cars, we are seeing a societal and organisational change as fundamental as the emergence of the railway or the telephone, and, for the first time, we are not managing a technological revolution: We're planning it. For my group, Renew Europe, there is no doubt. There is no doubt that the international context obliges us to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons even faster. There is also no doubt that our industry is able to be the first in the world to trigger decarbonisation and thus also become more competitive at global level. There is also no doubt that we need to accompany the most fragile – and they will be accompanied – with an ecological revolution and the Social Fund for the Transition. So there is a path by listening to scientists and engineers, by knowingly assuming the responsibilities of the transition, by responding to social risks, by showing the true face of ecology, capable of combining transition and growth. With these laws, we allow everyone to drive without polluting, we will make polluters pay – including outside the European Union, with this carbon tax at the EU’s borders – we will prevent households from disproportionately bearing the burden of this transformation. Ecology is doing well in this Chamber, not in easy outrages, but in the complex detail of the law, amendment by amendment, we are building this desirable future.