Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, in 2008, when a few Western countries blocked the clear path to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, the Russian leadership interpreted it as weakness – and weakness always invites aggression. Only months later, Russia invaded Georgia, demonstrating that the Kremlin was fully prepared to wage war in the 21st century to subjugate European free and sovereign nations. The world's weak response opened the door for further escalation. In 2014, Russia struck again, annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine launched in 2022 is the direct consequence of years of appeasement in which the West ignored Moscow's repeated aggressions and convinced itself that rewarding aggression or doing business with the aggressor somehow would keep the peace. It did the opposite. Supporting Ukraine, defending sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity is not charity; it's an investment in Europe's security and lasting peace on our continent.

Madam President, I voted against the Report on the Gender Equality Strategy 2025, because it not only does not defend Europe's women, girls and mothers, but it creates the framework for various perverted and sexually obsessed people to exercise their obsessions unhindered. Instead of focusing on the protection, safety and defense of women, which is a biological, physiological and genetic reality different from a man, this ratio puts a man who claims to be a woman on an equal footing with a woman who is born a woman, undermining both nature and the progress made over the past hundred years in defending women's rights. Moreover, this report classifies abortion as a fundamental human right, which sabotages the very fundamental right to life, without which other fundamental rights do not exist. It also calls for the feminist agenda to become part of the EU's foreign policy. If the EU has gone mad, it does not mean that the rest of the world has to accept that a man who claims to be a woman is a woman. Gender equality must ensure that every woman in Europe can live in safety, dignity and respect in a society that values identity and the right to be protected and supported.

Madam President, I voted against the report on the framework for achieving climate neutrality, because the current Green Deal pushed the European Union in a dangerous direction, with a proven devastating effect on the economy and prosperity of European citizens. Instead of strengthening the economy, these allegedly green policies have destroyed, made European industry uncompetitive, increased energy prices and costs for citizens, and weakened Europe's cohesion at a time when economic and industrial development is vital. A binding target of reducing carbon emissions by 90% by 2024 sounds good in the ears of some for whom ideology beats reason, but in reality it is a brutal brake on the development of the economy and the prosperity of the population. Since the European Commission pushed this Green Deal, energy, fuel and transport prices have exploded, with the bill being paid by European citizens and companies. Because of these aberrant measures, European goods and services are becoming less competitive on the global market and Europeans are becoming poorer. The European Commission must get back on its feet, urgently withdraw all these aberrant proposals and draw up a realistic plan to support the economy.

Mr President, the Black Sea region is a strategic crossroads linking Europe, the Middle East and Asia and therefore plays a fundamental role in our security, interconnectivity, competitiveness and prosperity. From the EU side, the biggest gateway to this region is Romania, which through the middle corridor offers vital access to the South Caucasus, Central Asia and beyond, and vice-versa. Its ports on the Black Sea, especially Constanța, together with the Danube River, Europe's main inland waterway, make Romania a multi-modal transport hub connecting air, maritime, river, rail and land routes. The Danube strengthens the EU's direct link from Western and Central Europe to the Black Sea, providing an efficient and sustainable trade route inside Europe. A vital role in this middle corridor is also played by our non-EU strategic partners, mainly Georgia, Azerbaijan and Türkiye. Their active engagement is essential for ensuring secure transport routes and deeper cooperation across this region. I call, therefore, on the European Commission to allocate funds to strengthen rail, roads, port, river and digital infrastructure along these essential routes, so that the EU can enhance its competitiveness, diversify its supply chain and foster stability and prosperity across the Black Sea region.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament is the place where the policies of the European position can be changed or promoted on the basis of the voice of a single European. Over time, this committee has given voice to the desperate cries of Europeans in the face of abuse, and their voice has been heard. The Committee on Petitions has given voice to Romanians and Bulgarians who have condemned the discrimination and abuses to which the two countries have been subjected by blocking their accession to the Schengen area for more than 10 years. Starting from petition 0004/2023, tabled by Răzvan Eugen Nicolescu, a resolution was reached in plenary and on 1 January 2025, Romania and Bulgaria fully entered Schengen. Starting from petition 1168/2023, submitted by Mihai Igna on behalf of the NGO ‘Together we bring well-being’, a European Parliament committee spoke for the first time about the return of Romania’s treasure, illegally held by Russia since 1916. The Committee on Petitions has played a historical and moral role in protecting cultural heritage and supporting the legitimate claims of Member States affected by looting. I congratulate the staff and colleagues of the Committee on Petitions on their professionalism and recommend that Europeans confidently petition this committee.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Russia's incursions into EU and NATO airspace over Romania, Poland, Estonia and other countries are not accidents or navigational errors. They are deliberate provocations designed to test our response time, radar coverage and political will. Each airspace violation is reconnaissance. Moscow studies our coordination and readiness without crossing a formal threshold of war. These calculated violations are part of a broader psychological and hybrid warfare campaign aimed at intimidating and shifting public opinion, as well as normalising aggression. Scrambling jets and issuing diplomatic protests or condemnations are necessary EU and NATO responses, but they are not sufficient. From a military standpoint, true deterrence demands visible readiness, joint patrols, and immediate and firm consequences for repeat violations. Any hesitation is perceived in Moscow not as an act of goodwill, but of weakness. And weakness always invites more aggression. I call, therefore, that, in the event of a future EU and NATO airspace violation, after an initial warning, the object be shot down.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I bring to the plenary of the European Parliament a tribute of gratitude to a fearless fighter for freedom in Romania and to a great confessor of the Christian faith in Europe, Cardinal Lucian Muresan, Major Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic, called to the Lord on 25 September 2025. His life was a living testimony of the Christian faith, which was not afraid of the hardships of history, nor of the transitory power of the people of the communist period in Romania. Ordained a clandestine Greek-Catholic priest, 16 years after the Communists banned the Greek-Catholic church, he proclaimed the Gospel under persecution, carrying the light of the Christian faith where fear and atheistic darkness reigned. After the fall of the communist dictatorship, priest Lucian Muresan became bishop, and then the leader of the Greek-Catholic Church, a church out of communism, deeply wounded, but victorious through faith and hope. His elevation to the rank of cardinal was the gratitude of a faith that did not allow itself to be defeated by atheism and fear. Today, his example calls us to live true freedom, that born of truth, as Scripture says: ‘You know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ And this truth is (The Chair interrupted the speaker).

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on simplifying the rules of the EU's internal market, considering it as a necessary step to reduce the burden of excessive regulation that negatively affects the European economy and the competitiveness of the single market. Since last term, conservatives have warned that over-regulation harms the economy. We were accused of opposing progress. Now, however, almost every session includes de-bureaucratization measures, a sign that I was right. Unfortunately, the damage to the EU economy has already been done. It is useless to abolish internal border controls for free movement if the EU builds economic walls caused by burdening itself with harmful regulations that make European products uncompetitive, while non-EU goods take advantage of easy access to the European market. To unleash the huge potential of the Single Market, Europe must let go of the illusions promoted by the extreme left, such as the Green Deal, and adopt pragmatic policies that bring prosperity to citizens by boosting economic competitiveness. The Green Agenda in its current form means unnecessary and economically harmful taxes. An example is the carbon tax, the elimination of which is required.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we mark a truly remarkable historical moment. For the first time in history, the European Parliament officially recognizes the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Bessarabia, under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate, as a victim of Soviet oppression. After the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia in 1940, the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia was abolished by the Soviet authorities on the grounds that it posed a threat to Soviet ideological and political control over Bessarabia. The oppression of the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia, which ranged from the persecution of Orthodox priests to the confiscation of the properties of the Metropolitanate, lasted throughout the Soviet occupation. However, the persecution continued after the independence of the Republic of Moldova, the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia being recognized only in 2002, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The gratitude through this resolution on the Republic of Moldova of the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia as a victim of Soviet oppression is not only a symbolic gesture, but an act of justice that restores the dignity and memory of a community that has endured abuses not fully recognized until now. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the colleagues who supported this amendment, who understood the importance of recognizing the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia as a victim of Soviet oppression.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on simplifying the carbon border adjustment mechanism, not because I support aberrations. Green Deal against which I have consistently voted, but because this report is now trying to correct many errors in this pact, about the harmfulness of which I, too, have drawn attention since 2020, let it be clear. The decarbonisation agenda, even more so that it is said to be ambitious, continues to pose an imminent threat to the well-being of Europeans, to the European internal market as a whole and to the competitiveness of European products on the global market. With this report, the majority has now realized, a little late what is right, that the climate agenda that until yesterday they supported hits directly in the European Union's industry, impoverishes the population and complicates strategic relations with trading partners. The damage has already been done, however, because the aberrant and costly green transition has been brutally imposed from top to bottom in all economic and social fields. At present, attempts are being made to correct these mistakes by slow and complicated bureaucratic means. The solution must be quick and straightforward. This abomination must be stopped once and for all by returning to normality and rejecting absurd green ambitions, so that the population is no longer impoverished and Europe does not irreversibly lose its commercial power.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the Republic of Moldova deserves to be in the EU not as a favor, but because it has already demonstrated by deeds that it is a worthy partner and ready for this mutually beneficial partnership with the rest of the EU countries. First of all, the population of the Republic of Moldova has demonstrated that it wants European integration out of conviction. Secondly, the Republic of Moldova has already taken important steps towards democratic formation and the rule of law. Thirdly, it has opened up its economy and built strong bridges with European partners. The story of Moldova is also the story of the countries of Eastern Europe that freed themselves from the yoke of communist tyranny, which, after overcoming their own challenges, sooner or later entered the EU. It is important not to leave the Republic of Moldova behind, especially in these troubled times. The hesitation and unwillingness of Western countries to accept Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at the 2008 Bucharest Summit gave courage to imperialist Russia to annex territories from Georgia in 2008 and from Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. It is important to learn from the lessons of history. That is why I ask you to quickly welcome Moldova into the EU. He proved it was worth it.

Mr President, I signed and voted in favour of the motion to dismiss Ursula von der Leyen, because she too, like any public official, must be held accountable for her actions contrary to the public interest during the COVID pandemic. She argued in the pandemic, as President of the European Commission, that medical products labelled as vaccines would have been, I quote, ‘safe and effective’, which is not true. In terms of effectiveness, we all saw that they did not stop the reinfection and transmission of the virus, people injected with these medical products reinfecting and transmitting the virus. Moreover, Pfizer has admitted in this House that they have not even tested whether their product stops transmission of the virus. Regarding the safety of these medical products, tens of thousands of Europeans died spontaneously shortly after the injection, as EMA statistics show. Many other people have complications and health problems after they have injected themselves, a fact acknowledged by more and more studies. Contracts for the procurement of these alleged vaccines contain clauses that are not yet public, so vaccine sufferers do not know who to hold accountable. For these abuses, Ursula von der Leyen must be held accountable.

Madam President, dear colleagues, humanity is composed of just two existential beings: men and women. That's it. There's nothing else and nothing in between. This is not a matter of political compromise, but of biological and genetical fact. Politicians can debate many things, but no political compromise can change human nature. A man who wears a dress or lipstick is still a man, not a woman, no matter how he feels or presents. Such behaviour does not reflect womanhood, but often perversion. Decades after that, human bones will still reveal if that person was a male or a female, regardless of how they might have identified or presented themselves. The greatest threat to women's rights today is the acceptance that there is no difference between men and women. Therefore, men who pretend to be women are legally acknowledged as women. This erases women's rights under the pretext of tolerance. I call my colleagues from the left side – actually 'the wrong side' on this issue – not to undermine women's rights, but to protect them. Being a woman is not a matter of feeling but a distinct human reality, different than a man, with dignity and rights worth defending.

Madam President, an old Arab proverb says: listen more than you speak, for the ears are closer to the brain than the mouth. This wisdom is essential as we confront the complex realities of the Middle East today. We need to hear the United Arab Emirates, a persistent supporter of humanitarian aid in Gaza, a prosperous economy and an inspiration of tolerance in the region. We must acknowledge Israel's right to self‑defence and its legitimate security concerns in a region full of threats. We cannot ignore the grave danger that we all face when Iran openly pursues nuclear weapons with the explicit goal of wiping Israel off the map. We must stand with Middle Eastern Christian communities, many of whom face existential threats of genocide or cultural cleansing by extremists. And we must not forget the everyday Palestinians, people who seek to live in peace, not under the rule of a terrorist organisation like Hamas. The Abraham Accords offered a concrete roadmap towards peace through truth and cooperation. Now, it's time for the EU to listen with the intent, to act with courage and to be part of a path through peace, through prosperity for all in the Middle East.

Madam President, Romania is today threatened by the European Commission with drastic cuts to vital European funds on the grounds of an excessive budget deficit. This excessive deficit, however, is no surprise. It has accumulated in good years, as Romanian governments after 2022 have been tacitly supported by the European Commission. In the 2024-2025 election years, the Commission chose to remain silent as an accomplice to the irresponsible economic policies of Romanian governments based on massive expenditure increases and unsustainable loans. Now, after the elections, however, under the conditions imposed by the European Commission, European citizens face harsh threats, brutal austerity, wage cuts, massive layoffs and tax increases, measures that will stifle the economy and directly hit citizens and businesses. I call on the European Commission to support a European policy that promotes tax cuts in Romania, deregulation and responsible management of public money.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I abstained on the vote on the resolution Clean Industrial Deal because, although it contains some seemingly good ideas, it does not address the real cause of rising energy prices in the EU. Under misleading slogans such as ‘green energy’, ‘renewable’ or ‘decarbonisation’, there are ideological policies that have made Europe the most expensive energy region in the world. The so-called accelerated decarbonisation has in fact been achieved through the accelerated closure of traditional coal or gas-fired energy production capacities, which have not been replaced by stable, sustainable and affordable energy sources. Solar or wind energy, purportedly clean, occurs intermittently. But what do Europeans do when there is no sun or no wind? More seriously, amendments were rejected in this report which recognised nuclear energy as clean. After Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, it now imports energy from France, produced in nuclear power plants. This is not a green transition, but an economic suicide of Europe, politically and bureaucratically assisted by Brussels. Under the guise of "green", you are destroying Europe's competitiveness on the altar of an illusion of Marxist origin, which has already pushed and condemned millions of Europeans to poverty. Stop this utopian madness before it's too late!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European project was visionary, initiated by practising Christian leaders after the Second World War. They dreamed of a community of sovereign states united by the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, a union that would bring peace through the prosperity of all, and they succeeded. From six founding Western European states, this community, which began in 1951, has grown and with each enlargement all Member States have strengthened their stability, solidarity and well-being. Unfortunately, the Iron Curtain and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe have locked more than 200 million Europeans out of this space of freedom and prosperity. Communism had to fall and it had to be almost 50 years since it was founded, for the former communist captive states to start being part of this community. Today, the integration of the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and the Western Balkans is the natural step of a political-economic project that has demonstrated that unity brings strength and increases the prosperity of all member states.

Mr President, I strongly support the report on strengthening rural areas in the European Union through cohesion policy, because these regions deserve a proper plan for sustainable and balanced development. It is essential to support rural people and agriculture by reducing regional disparities, combating depopulation, ensuring food security, increasing resilience to natural disasters and promoting local cultural heritage. Financial support should be targeted at small businesses, farmers and community initiatives that can generate jobs and economic stability. Access to education, healthcare and infrastructure must not be an urban privilege, but an equal right for all European citizens, wherever they live. Rural areas are a microuniverse and true cultural and identity landmarks of European nations. They are the precious legacy left by past generations, and we have a moral duty to protect it and pass it on to future generations.

Mr President, the report on the proposal for a directive to combat child sexual abuse addresses an extremely serious and urgent problem. Unfortunately, however, the text has been compromised by the infiltration of ideological elements such as gender ideology, which have nothing to do with the legal purpose of this endeavour. Sexual abuse, exploitation of minors and production of child pornography material are appalling realities that call for a firm, clear and unified response from the European Union. I fully support effective, concrete and well-founded legal measures to combat these crimes. The fight against crime, however, is done through legal instruments that require clarity and precision in expression, not ideological ambiguities. Thus, the introduction in the report of ambiguous and imprecise ideological formulations, such as the reference to LGBTQ+ children, seriously dilutes the central objective - the protection of all children, regardless of context. Children must be defended equally, not divided on absurd ideological criteria. Hormonal interventions or fluid concepts of identity have no relevance in the context of preventing abuse or combating crime. They confuse and weaken the message of the Directive. That is why I have chosen to abstain from this vote.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the integration of the Republic of Moldova into the European Union is a partial reparation of the historical injustice committed by Stalin and Hitler through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which in 1940 led to the annexation by the USSR of Bessarabia, which was part of Romania. This Soviet occupation brought profound suffering to the Romanian population in Bessarabia: ethnic cleansing, organised starvation, deportations, systematic murder and persecution. Among the victims of Soviet oppression was the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Bessarabia, under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate. In 1940, it comprised over 1,000 churches and 30 monasteries. Many were imprisoned, destroyed or desecrated by the Soviet communists. More than 50 Romanian Orthodox priests who refused to come under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate were assassinated and others deported by the atheist communist authorities. Even after the fall of the communist regime and the independence of Moldova, the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia continued to be discriminated against, being officially recognized only in 2002, after a decision of the ECHR. I invite you to support the amendment I have made to this report, which recognises the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia as a victim of Soviet oppression.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to reduce the price of electricity, it is imperative to abandon the current system that sets the price of energy on the basis of the marginal price, which requires that the most expensive type of energy dictates the price of the entire market. This model has become inefficient and unfair, especially at a time when the share of cheaper renewable energy is increasing. If 10% of energy is produced on coal, which is more expensive, it is absurd that the remaining 90% of energy consumed, produced from renewable sources that have lower production costs, should be sold at the same price as energy produced on coal. We need an energy pricing system that covers real production costs and makes a profit for firms, but by no means the kind of cost, as is currently the case, that produces huge profits for firms but makes products and services inefficient. Giving up the marginal price for energy pricing is imperative for reducing the price of energy in Europe, which will lead to poverty reduction and the protection of families.

Mr President, I was the first voice in the European Parliament that, since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, has drawn attention to the abusive nature of what Ursula von der Leyen is doing. Under the pretext of fighting the COVID-19 virus, we have actually witnessed the largest corruption in the history of the European Union, with catastrophic effects on people’s health and lives. Billions of euros of public money were spent on billions of doses of vaccines under secret contracts negotiated by Ursula von der Leyen, which are still not published in full, as is the case with Pfizer. On 14 May 2025, the General Court of the EU condemned the Commission for refusing to disclose personal messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, negotiating that contract. The General Court classified that conduct as maladministration. But I say that what Ursula von der Leyen has done is a crime against humanity. I call for a committee of inquiry to be set up into these negotiations by Ursula von der Leyen and for those responsible to be held to account. Transparency and fundamental rights, including the right to life, cannot be negotiated.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I will vote against the report on Serbia, because it does not reflect in a balanced way the reality on the ground and the specific challenges that this country is facing. Serbia obviously needs to continue reforms and align with EU standards, but the report omits real progress and risks damaging trust between the EU and Serbia. Belgrade has taken concrete steps in dialogue with Pristina and in cooperation with the EU and Frontex on fighting illegal immigration. These efforts deserve recognition. Serbia also met all the criteria for opening cluster 3, but the Commission has not advanced the process. The EU also has a responsibility in shaping the regional context. The recognition of Kosovo's independence has created an extremely dangerous precedent, which has been used by Russia to justify illegal annexations from Georgia and Ukraine. Serbia has demonstrated consistency and determination in its proximity to European values. It is therefore essential that this commitment is supported and not discouraged. I encourage Serbian leaders to continue firmly on the path of integration, with the conviction that Serbia's place is with us in the European Union.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the 2023 discharge report for the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which I served as the leading rapporteur, highlights both the court's notable achievements and the areas where further progress is needed. Together with my colleagues from all political groups, we made this report more comprehensive. For that, I thank them. The report notes progress on transparency, especially by streaming some hearings live and publishing written submissions. We urge the Court to go further by broadcasting all hearings, archiving them online and allowing citizens to access case files. One issue that the report touches on only briefly – but which deserves deeper reflection – is the growing tension between the supremacy of national constitutions and the primacy of the EU law. The constitution of each Member State is the supreme law within its territory. It expresses the sovereign will of the people, affirmed through a referendum, and forms the basis of the national legal order. By contrast, the principle of primacy of the EU law ensures that European law prevails over conflicting national legislation, a principle essential to the uniform application of the Treaties. However, the primacy cannot and must not override the supremacy of national constitutions. The CJEU does not have a mandate to override national constitutions. The EU is not a federal state, but a union of sovereign nations that have voluntarily agreed to share certain competences without surrendering their constitutional sovereignty. Yet in several recent rulings, including some involving Romania, the court asserted a form of jurisprudential federalism, expanding its authority beyond what was democratically agreed upon in the Treaties. This is not only legally unfounded, but democratically dangerous. Let us be clear: the EU was created by the EU Member States, not the EU created the Member States. No nations will accept having its constitutional sovereignty absorbed by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. This is why we must return to the Union's foundational principles. The answer is not confrontation, but dialogue.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the report on the 2023 discharge of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which I was lead rapporteur, highlights both the Court's achievements and the issues where further improvements are still needed, as well as some fundamental challenges. On this occasion, I thank my colleagues from all political groups for the contributions they have made to make this report clearer and more comprehensive. An important achievement of the Court in 2023 was the continuation of the reform of the judiciary, in particular through the partial transfer of competences from the Court of Justice to the General Court, which reduces the length of trials. As regards the rule of law, the report highlights a number of cases in which the Court has emphasised the importance of protecting the financial interests of the European Union. However, in some judgments, the wording used by the CJEU suggests that this defence can be carried out even to the detriment of fundamental rights, such as those pertaining to a fair trial. We have therefore introduced an amendment which reaffirms that the protection of the financial interests of the European Union must be done in full respect of the fundamental rights of citizens, including the guarantees of a fair trial. The EU must not repeat the mistakes of totalitarian regimes in which the public interest justifies abuse. Money and goods cannot be above human dignity and fundamental rights. Another important progress is in the area of transparency, where the CJEU has started transmitting hearings online. With this report, we ask the CJEU to continue this work by broadcasting all hearings live and archiving them online so that interested parties can access them. The report also welcomes the decision of the CJEU to publish, with some exceptions, documents submitted in preliminary ruling proceedings after their closure. This will significantly improve the justice system. One aspect that the report addresses only tangentially, but which deserves a deep reflection, is the growing tension between the supremacy of the Constitution and the priority of European law. The Constitution, on the one hand, is the fundamental and supreme law of a state. It expresses the sovereign will of the people, enshrined in a referendum and forms the basis of the national legal order. European Union law, on the other hand, has its own principle of priority, which presupposes that European rules take precedence over conflicting national rules in order to ensure consistency in the application of the Treaties. However, the CJEU cannot interpret the Treaties as contributing to and giving European law primacy over national constitutions, as this would undermine the sovereignty of the Member States themselves. The EU is not a federal state, but a creation of national states that have retained their sovereignty and have only voluntarily shared powers. Unfortunately, in several recent decisions, including those concerning Romania, the Court is attempting a federalization de facto by the case-law of the European Union, conferring on it powers which the Treaties do not confer on it. Such an approach is not only illegal, but directly contradicts the will expressed by European citizens who explicitly rejected the draft European Constitution in a referendum. Until then, the states created the European Union, not the Union created its member states. The EU must remain what it was meant to be: a union of states cooperating for the common good of citizens, not a bureaucratic overstate that extends its authority beyond the democratic will of citizens. The CJEU does not have jurisdiction to annul the constitutions of the Member States. For this reason, constitutional supremacy must be defended. Attempts by the CJEU to abusively expand European competences will lead to potentially destructive institutional crises for the entire European project. No nation will allow its sovereignty to be confiscated by an unelected bureaucracy. That is why we must return to the founding principles of the EU, as set out in the Treaties. In conclusion, the coexistence between the supremacy of the Constitution and the priority of European law is a tense but necessary one. The solution is not confrontation, but dialogue. A sincere and loyal dialogue between the constitutional courts and the CJEU, in a balance that respects both the priority of European Union law and the democratic sovereignty of the Member States and the primacy of their constitutions.