What Pernille spoke about.

Mr President! What has always characterised us Europeans is that we pay tribute to debates, discussions and investigative conversations. We have for thousands of years cultivated disagreements and constantly challenge each other on facts. We Europeans have created the concept of pluralism, respecting the fact that there is often more than one perception of something. Pluralism has developed our democracy, and pluralism is a key part of the DNA of free research and innovation, which for hundreds of years has placed Europe at the forefront of most industries and created our economic strength, enabling us to solve the complex challenges of our time while at the same time being able to afford to look after our values. Free media is here an absolute key to opening up the complicated debates, following them to the door and along the way contributing to the sound of different voices, opinions and truths. Free media ensures that the workshops of democracy are challenged, kept in mind and that decisions become sustainable, robust and, not least, meaningful for those affected by them. What Poland's vacillating government is doing with its forthcoming media law is therefore far from European and certainly not in line with the values of the EU and the words of the Treaty. In addition, it is incomprehensibly stupid because ‘printing produces backprinting’. To imagine that the Polish European population accepts the paranoid premise behind the text of the Media Act is simply too stupid. Let us therefore send them our full support to continue this backlash.

Mr President! There is no important task for the EU other than climate. This was the case before the Corona crisis, and it is still the case, and the UN's latest climate report underlines this with an ever shorter meter target. In the spring, the European Union adopted its first climate law. Now the tools need to be sanded, and new ones need to be designed. We probably won't avoid hernias from the left side of the room. It is also okay if you do not destroy the tools and delay time unnecessarily, because there is no more important task for the EU than the climate. It is also important for the rest of the world, which is looking to the EU to find solutions to both technologies, new ways of shaping societies so that everyone can live the life he or she wants and, not least, how the transition can take place without social strife and the destruction of competitive power. The latter is important. This is crucial in order to afford the transition, because without money, it will hurt, or it will become completely impossible. We must provide companies of all industries and sizes with the instruments they need to contribute to the green transition. We must avoid creating unnecessary buckles, and we must create effective incentives and ensure a predictable regulatory landscape in the coming years. That's what we have to do! Now! Let's get started now!

Mr President! It is now, while in many parts of Europe we are still wearing masks and many countries are still struggling to get the number of people vaccinated up, that we need to agree on how we will never be the same in either shock, panic or distress in the face of an epidemic, and how we in the EU will avoid contributing to the activation of a pandemic. That's the job. That is why it is good that ECDC, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, is now given a stronger mandate so that it can better support Member States' cooperation and the Commission's ability to act when saving lives and keeping our economic muscle going. ECDC will help us to be able to count more and better on each other. It should actually be a matter of course, but it is not when national vanity comes into play and the fear is fuelled that someone should be allowed to take something from you that you would rather hide for yourself. So there will be enough for ECDC to work hard to make it work. Especially because there are proposals in the text that challenge the sovereign national responsibility for non-communicable diseases. Perhaps it will turn out that it is better for the EU's defences against cross-border infectious diseases to focus on them and not all sorts of others. If it becomes necessary, then my more federalist-oriented colleagues must not hang on to the ideological details. The EU must be ready for the next pandemic, all around its Member States. I will of course vote for that!

Mr President! I understand that the great ambition of the Slovenian Presidency is the enlargement of the European Union. I suggest putting the focus somewhere else entirely. We need to be tightened up if we are to remain the attractive club of democratic countries that, in a world full of despots and autocrats, gain respect and influence through our competitive power – competitive power, which does not come by itself. The EU's economic muscle derives its nourishment from research and innovation. We have known and shown this for many years. However, it is as if the Council – our national governments – have forgotten about it and certainly do not have the topic often and qualified enough on the agenda when they meet. In 2019, only three of the EU countries spent more than the agreed three percent of gross domestic product on research. Most were far below, and some countries, including my own, keep barely 3% by withdrawing national funding when a university is adept at obtaining EU funds. In international comparison, we are lagging behind. It's shameful, and it's harmful! Dear new Slovenian Presidency: put research and innovation high on the agenda now. Otherwise, the EU loses its attractiveness faster than accession negotiations with new Member States can be concluded.

Madam President! It costs to take good care of the EU's external borders. That is the way it is, because only with it and our economic muscle can we take good care of the Europe and the free and fair world that our children will soon take over. It also costs that the influx of illegal migrants has not yet slowed down, and it costs to treat properly strangers who have fallen into the arms of traffickers. Therefore, there is something good to say about the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Border Control Fund. But there is no doubt that we cannot just pay for the problems. Fortunately, we will soon see a new legislative package on migration, and I hope it will contain two things in particular; courage and methods of being actively and clearly present in third countries, from which we can ensure that only people with a genuine need for protection or a legally agreed purpose enter the European Union. Concrete, effective tools for the rapid repatriation of people who, despite increased efforts at the external borders of third countries, have nevertheless escaped under the radar. If these tools are not available, we cannot pay enough money in the short term. On the long, there will be nothing to pay with or pay for.