What Michal spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, livestock farming has an irreplaceable role, but it also has its negatives. If we pretend that there is no problem, we are harming the breeders in the first place. Unfortunately, examples from the Netherlands, France and Spain clearly show where unregulated stock intensification is headed: the disturbance of farms, the disappearance of farms and damage to the environment. Unfortunately, the present report ignores a number of important facts and takes an ideological viewpoint. It uncritically promotes meat consumption as the only right way forward. On the contrary, it questions alternatives, small and extensive farms, but mainly aims at deregulation of very important standards. This is not a picture of the future. This is a purposeful, one-sided and dysfunctional attitude. What we need is a realistic approach, the promotion of sustainable and natural-based management, where our main goal is the health of citizens, respect for environmental limits and fact-based decision-making.

Madam President, thank you once again for the floor and for the discussion. I would really like to stress once again that the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement is essential for achieving the 2030 biodiversity target and the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It will accelerate the creation of marine protected areas and ensure that all scientists from every part of the world can share knowledge, technology and infrastructure. This is how we make global cooperation real. Our vote tomorrow is therefore another formality. It is a statement of leadership. It is our opportunity to show that Europe stands for ambition, science and solidarity in protecting the global commons. If we succeed, the benefits will extend far beyond the high seas – to coastal communities, to our climate, and to every citizen who depends on a stable and healthy planet. Let us make this a success story – one where cooperation replaces competition, where protection and sustainable use go hand in hand, and where Europe continues to lead by example. I want to thank all the colleagues who contributed to this constructive cooperation, and I wish Belgium every success in its bid to host the BBNJ Secretariat.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, when we speak of the ocean, we often forget how vast it truly is. Two thirds of it lies beyond any nation's borders. The high seas and the international seabed, once thought to be empty and lifeless, these waters are now known to be among the richest and most diverse ecosystems on Earth. They host spawning grounds for countless fish species, deep sea coral reefs, migratory routes for whales and sharks, and an astonishing variety of marine life, much of it still unknown to science. It is a world shaped by 4 billion years of evolution, holding genetic and biological treasures that could benefit humanity for generations to come. But this world is under pressure: climate change, pollution, acidification, overfishing and the intensity of maritime transport are altering even the most remote corners of the ocean. In some regions, plastic pollution is now more common than plankton. All of these problems remind us how deeply human activity has reached into areas once thought unreachable. The high sea risks becoming a classic tragedy of the commons: a shared resource used by all but protected by no one. That is why the agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, the BBNJ agreement, is so important. When it enters into force, it will fundamentally change how we manage and protect the high seas. This agreement provides a coherent, science-based framework to assess human activities, to establish marine protected areas, to foster scientific cooperation, and to build capacity so that all nations can benefit from the ocean's legacy. In doing so, it will help deliver the marine conservation targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and make a tangible contribution to the 2030 biodiversity goals. The European Union has played, so far, a leading and ambitious role in negotiating this treaty. We ratified it on 28 May, and to this day, 75 parties have done so as well. Our friends in the United Kingdom are finalising their national legislation before ratifying – a different approach, but the same shared commitment. Within the EU, the Commission presented the directive in April, followed by our ratification in May. Now the European Parliament and the Council are advancing the legislative work. The parliamentary committees accept the tool of choice by the Commission and found a solid majority for the position. We however made an active move to offer more flexibility and recognition of the work of Member States, in due consideration of the competences of the Commission and the Member States. The European Union has much to offer. Our Member States are global leaders in ocean science, technology and exploration, but we also have much to gain by managing marine resources sustainably, by establishing effective area-based management tools, and by safeguarding the ecosystems that sustain life on our planet. Protecting the high seas is not only an environmental responsibility, it is a strategic and moral one. A healthy ocean stabilises our climate, supports global food security and preserves the carbon cycle that sustains life on Earth. Colleagues, the BBNJ agreement is multilateralism at its best: nations coming together to protect what belongs to no one, but benefits everyone. I therefore urge you to support this report and to ensure that the EU's voice remains strong, united and ambitious as we move towards the first meeting of the conference of the parties. Let this be the moment we show that cooperation, science and shared responsibility can truly turn the tide for the ocean.

Mr President, wildlife crime is multifaceted: it involves wildlife trafficking, document fraud, tax evasion and money laundering, and one can say that it is huge and everywhere. For instance, in 2023, over 1 million live eels were seized in the European Union: 1 million live eels that didn't reach European rivers, eels that never reproduced, eels missing in the ocean ecosystem, eels out of the legal trade, which normally would enrich European communities. That needs to stop. CITES is an important treaty. It covers roughly 40 000 species worldwide, yet countless others don't fall under this regulation. Therefore, we need a strong CITES and we need a strong enforcement chain to tackle illegal trade in wildlife. We need the European Union to be strong and successful at CoP20. Therefore, Renew Europe supports the final position text. We call for the review of CITES strategic vision to align with Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and ask to strengthen legal frameworks against wildlife trafficking. If we need to stop wildlife crime, we simply need to act. The time is now!

Madam President, EU citizens Javier Marañón Montero and David Rodríguez Ballesta were arbitrarily detained in Malabo in January 2005, in a prosecution that appears politically motivated and aimed at shifting responsibility away from the members of the regime. They are being held in a prison infamous for torture and inhumane conditions, without any guarantee of due process and a fair trial. We in Renew Europe believe in a European Union built on the rule of law, due process, fair trial standards and humanitarian protections. At a time when these very principles are being challenged within and beyond our boundaries, we must act decisively to defend and strengthen them so that we never create space for criminal and dictatorial regimes to thrive. Through this resolution, this House reaffirms its united commitment to the rule of law, human rights and the right to a fair trial: principles on which the European Union is built.

Madam President, two examples of the use of EU funds in Slovakia: The National Institute of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases has equipped two operating rooms for €1.6 million from the recovery plan. This significantly reduced the duration of heart disease fibrillation surgery. We have a state-of-the-art workplace that saves dozens and hundreds of lives. On the other hand, for the same amount, people related to the ruling party Smer built an opulent castle in which they never accommodated anyone and in a few years became their private property. Do you feel the difference? It's essential. The first approach is beneficial, it moves Slovakia forward and helps people improve their lives in Slovakia. The latter is a misappropriation of European finances. It deprives us of the opportunity to move forward. Slovakia should be a successful country. The European Union is helping us in this, and no government, no government has the right to deprive us of this opportunity. That's why today's debate is, that's why there was a control mission, that's why we stand here, we scream, and we draw attention to this problem. We do so in the best interests of Slovakia. We are fighting and we will fight for the money to reach the people and regions in Slovakia so that Slovakia can move forward.

Madam President, I welcome your proposals. I like supporting young, small, medium-sized farmers, supporting rural development and making farming more attractive. Setting fair prices and rules with third countries. But I'm afraid that might not be enough. Please live in the real world. In such a world in 2027, the climate crisis will be worse than it is today. We will face more droughts, more floods, more shortages of commodities and inputs, and we need to prepare consistently for this. But we don't do it, we don't do it enough, quite the contrary. We are releasing green measures to protect soil, biodiversity, preserving the status quo, not promoting new sustainable practices. We make the necessary measures voluntary and thus weaken them. It is harmful and dangerous. And one more thing. Benevolent rules and trust have often been used to steal subsidies. Unfortunately, Slovakia has had a very bad experience with this. I am therefore concerned that further easing of the rules will not turn into a new wave of looting and inefficient overeating of European public resources. Please live in the real world.

Madam President, I would like to speak about deep-sea mining. In deep-sea mining, a precautionary pause is a conscious and responsible position over an issue which potentially involves impacts on a million-year timescale. We don't know, at this point, what we could lose by greedily looking at resources located in areas which belong to no one (and hence are common mankind heritage), what consequences our decisions to extract those resources might have, or what processes we could disrupt. For this ecosystem it took millions of years to evolve, yet they can be destroyed in a blink of an eye. For certain forms of deep-sea mining, the negative effect would be forever. I therefore applaud the Commission calling for a precautionary pause until sufficient scientific evidence is available to confirm that deep-sea mining poses no substantive threat to marine ecosystems. From this place, as a Member of the European Parliament and as a scientist, I also call on the Council to confirm the approach of a precautionary pause.

Madam President, there is no life without water. Yes, but without enough water there is no industry, there is no agriculture. There is only hunger and thirst. So the water scarcity problem is really serious and requires a quick and effective solution. The problem is complicated. It's not just about the quantity of water, it's about its quality. And just as complex must be the solutions, where we have to make the most of both technical measures and natural ones. That was my approach in the Committee on Agriculture as rapporteur, and I must say that we have reached a solution or a text which, yes, indicates what needs to be done. Unfortunately, I must also say critically that we are not too brave on some issues. It's like we're switching off old ways, but they don't work anymore in a new world, a changing world. I therefore really wish the Commission to draw up a good water strategy on the basis of this document, too. She took over the good things we propose, and she was more courageous where we lacked courage. It's about water, and it's about life.

Madam President, tomorrow's vote will conclude the discharge process for the financial year 2023. I would therefore like to thank the European Court of Auditors once again for its role in supporting our work. The principles of transparency, accountability, parliamentary oversight, sound financial management and the rule of law must, and I believe they are, shared in this House. For budgetary control, we proceed on the basis of the relevant financial regulations and established financial rules. The principle of legality is an essential element and we all know that it is indeed a very clean, very technical and very targeted procedure. It is therefore worrying if this approach really involves political narratives that do not inherently belong to such platforms. These are, unfortunately, aimed at non-governmental organisations and, in particular, at green NGOs. As part of civil society, NGOs are an integral part of the European Union's decision-making and it remains crucial that civil society organisations can engage in an open, transparent and effective dialogue with the European Union institutions through European Union funding. This is enshrined in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union through activities such as advocacy, taking of evidence or administrative submissions. This is nothing more than what we agreed in the treaties. It is therefore very worrying when attacks on NGOs come from such a large part of this House, not only from the far right, but literally from the centre, literally from the heart of this house. And if I use that parallel with the heart, it's dangerous because it puts the whole system at risk. So far, it may be a murmur, but if it is not treated, it will break into a heart attack. And this threatens to collapse the whole system, which is European democracy. Let's try to avoid such unnecessary steps.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, let me first also thank to the European Court of Auditors for their thorough audits, as well as for the clarifications and open cooperation with joint undertakings. Joint undertakings as public-private partnerships play a crucial role in ground-breaking European research, development and demonstration programmes in sustainable transport, revolutionary fusion energy, health, circular bio-based industries, key electronic components, supercomputing and network systems. On 13 November 2024, the Court of Auditors published its annual report on joint undertakings in the form of a consolidated report, similarly to the previous year. I would like to highlight that there are some recurrent problematic areas that could be still brought about in the next financial years, particularly the need for improvement in programme implementations, human resources, and the management and control systems. Likewise, we also emphasise the continuation of aftermath of the important events that enrolled over the last years and that eventually had an impact on the performance of the joint undertakings. Particularly, these were the Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and its impact on some specific supply chains. These were also the COVID-19 pandemic impacts and the high level of inflation caused by the two aforementioned events, which, again, had an impact on the supplies and delivery time for the joint undertakings. Nevertheless, we endorse the Court's recommendations and conclude that the risks to the reliability of annual accounts was deemed to be low for all joint undertakings and medium for the smart networks and services joint undertaking and the global joint undertaking, due to the complexities brought about by the transfer of budget appropriations. We also conclude that the risk to the legality and regularity of revenue was deemed to be low for all joint undertakings. As a member of the CONT Committee, I would also like to express my personal dissatisfaction over the recent politicising of the discharge procedure. Let me remind my colleagues that it is ensuring compliance with the relevant legal and regulatory framework requirements that is the main aim of the procedure. There should be no space for political targeting. Nevertheless, we saw allegations which were dismissed by the Commission and timely clarified by the recent ECA special report. Such unfounded claims have no place in this exact procedure. In Budgetary Control, we are proceeding on the basis of financial regulations and the established financial rules, the principle of legality being the core element. NGOs, as part of civil society, are an integral part of EU decision-making, and it remains fundamental that civil society organisations, through EU funding, can engage in an open, transparent and structured dialogue with EU institutions as enshrined in Article 11 of the Treaty, through activities such as advocacy, demonstrations and judicial actions. This is nothing more than we have agreed on, and I call on all of us to abide by it in this very House.

Mr President, it is important to discuss biodiversity protection, but it is more important to act. Commissioner, a few hours ago, the Slovak Government approved a proposal to shoot 350 bears. 350 bears, that is a third of the nation-wide population. This proposal came without proper discussion, without impact assessment and without understanding the consequences. But most importantly, it is a decision that has no legal framework and is a blatant, direct and deliberate violation of legislation, including European legislation. Commissioner, European Commission, I am calling on you from this place and please focus on what is happening in Slovakia at the moment and intervene before this ecocide is fully triggered. Strike and put an end to this madness, so please demonstrate with clear actions that the EU is in fact able to protect biodiversity and is committed to upholding the basic rules on which it is built. Thank you, now is the time.

Trump's current policy has many elements of far-right populism. I see a lot of evidence that it is unsystematic and disruptive. For all this, it is enough to mention the truly unelected and unaccountable Elon Musk, to whom Trump granted almost unlimited power over the state apparatus. This is a threat to the democratic system, which naturally encounters resistance and is doomed to failure. This creates an exceptional opportunity for the EU and makes it necessary to take the initiative again. If we want to withstand pressure from the now unsystematic US, as well as from autocratic Russia and China, we will need to create a robust, vital, competitive and sustainable economic framework that relieves us of dependence on unreliable partners while allowing us to cope with objectively impending crises, including the climate crisis. This makes sense economically, environmentally and geopolitically. There is no time or reason for backward revisionism, let alone the example of Trump, Putin or Musk. Thank you.

Mr President, when we lose biodiversity, we have a serious problem because we lose the functionality of ecosystems and thus the ecosystem services on which we depend. Without biodiversity, we will not survive. For life to work properly, it must be varied and robust. Any activity that destroys life is inherently harmful and should be replaced by procedures that allow us to achieve the desired goals, but do not have the negative impact on life. And that's just not happening. Let's be honest with each other. Already in the previous mandate, when we had the Green Deal, we were rather hesitant about protecting biodiversity. In this mandate, the reinforced right to protect biodiversity is openly attacking. The weakening of the Deforestation Regulation, wolf hunting, are just two signs of a new anti-natural standard. Without facts and science, but on horse-drawn populism. It is unacceptable, it is non-European. But above all, let's not pretend that we can afford this sick procedure. We can't. Ide o život.

Madam President, COP 16 was based on the motto 'peace with nature'. At a time when we are experiencing a 73% decline in wildlife populations and we are missing 700 billion euros a year for nature conservation, this result is kind of non-existent. And that's because the champions in nature conservation have failed. We are them. Instead of building peace with nature, we declared an open war on it. We have weakened and almost failed to pass the Nature Restoration Regulation, postponed and almost rendered inoperable the Deforestation Regulation. We're going to reduce the protection of the wolf, and I'm afraid it won't end with this species. On the wave of populism, an anti-natural right-wing coalition with extremists is being built here. We want the world to protect biodiversity, but at the same time we pretend not to be concerned. It is a gross disregard for the urgency of the biodiversity crisis. It's such a song and I find it very relevant for this moment. “The forest is on fire, the fauna is flaming, nobody is dancing, nobody is anything, so it is, there is still dancing on the Titanic.” In human history, no society has disappeared because it protected its nature. On the contrary, it killed ignorance, unsustainability and destruction. And none of us have a mandate to make the Titanic here.

Madam President, thank you, Commissioner, for this Question Time. I would have one specific to African Swine Fever. We know that the source of this disease is the wild wild boar population. We are applying various preventive measures, mostly based on massive hunting, but we are ignoring the effect that natural predators of wild boar, and in this context the wolf in particular, have on the spread of this disease - and that effect is positive. We know that it is very effective in eliminating weakened, infected individuals from that population, also by eating dead infected individuals without the risk of further spreading the disease. Therefore, my question is whether the Commission is actually also taking into account this potential of natural predators of wild animals in mitigating the spread of such diseases and whether it intends to include this potential as a tool indeed in an integrated system of animal health protection.

Madam President, this disaster, which has swept across several European countries, has caused enormous damage. I wish to express my full solidarity with those affected and my sincere condolences to those most seriously affected. At the same time, I would like to express my deep gratitude to all the security forces and authorities, as well as to the volunteers, who intervened in this event and helped to protect the lives and property of citizens of European countries. I want to say that, in the resolution that we are preparing in this House, we are asking the European Commission to activate the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism as soon as the affected countries request it. Boris should be a lesson. We knew he was coming, and yet we did not avoid some mistakes, which unfortunately were also associated with incompetent decision-making. But above all, it is proof that it was neither the last nor the greatest such catastrophe. On the contrary, the climate crisis will bring more frequent and larger disasters of a similar nature. That is why we cannot stop our efforts to mitigate climate change and keep global warming at relatively safe levels of 1.5°C. But above all, we are lagging behind in adaptation. It's basically about infrastructure. It must be functional and durable, but concrete alone is not enough for us. Functional ecosystems, rivers, forests, wetlands have enormous potential to help us. Let's make full use of it. And where it has been reduced, let's restore it and incorporate it into integrated protection from weather extremes. The situation is really serious, it is about people's lives and property. It is about security and our prosperity. Failure is therefore unacceptable.

Mr President, twenty-nine authorities from the circle of scientists, stakeholders and farmers' organisations have met and organised a strategic dialogue on agriculture, and I very much welcome its conclusions. Indeed, the conclusions drawn by this dialogue go to the heart of today's agricultural problems. They clearly state the need to strengthen the position of farmers and fair conditions for those who produce our food. Help should be directed and addressed to those most in need. And risk management and measurable results are a prerequisite for the transformation of agriculture. However, one thing should not disappear. This report, these conclusions, very clearly focus on the need for agriculture to respond to the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises, to ensure that agriculture is better prepared for drought, healthy soils, vital pollinators and better welfare of farmed animals. Our common goal should be a viable and successful agriculture. The results of the strategic dialogue clearly show us how to ensure this. I think we're ready and able to get out of it.

Let me turn to Mrs. Beňová, who, unfortunately, has already left this room again. Mrs Beňová, you have been a Member of the European Parliament for 20 years. Indeed, experience cannot be denied to you, and yet you are trying to give the impression that we, the opposition MEPs, are responsible for what is currently happening and how the Commission is progressing towards Slovakia. And yet you are really ignoring the fact that the Commission is really acting, acting and deciding on the basis of the concrete actions of the Robert Fico government. Concrete actions that undermine the rule of law and are a threat to Slovakia's integration into the European Union. You are talking about a kind of shame that we should feel by allegedly bringing to Slovakia. Look where you're sitting. Where did the politician Robert Fico get you? You're somewhere in a corner with unincorporated fascists who are your only allies in this house. That's a shame, that's a shame we won't let you drag Slovakia into. One fascist is shouting at the moment and wondering why he was not invited to public television. Because you are a fascist. So please stop dragging Slovakia into this proputin line. We won't let you do that. Slovakia does not need your shame. The future of Slovakia is in the European Union. And for this we will fight until the last breath using all legal means.

Mr President, once again, just to conclude the debate: tomorrow we are due to vote on discharge for nine joint undertakings. We will conclude the process of granting discharge for the financial year 2022. Therefore, I would like to thank once again the European Court of Auditors for their role in supporting our work. Improving accountability, transparency and financial management: that is the goal of everybody in this room and in this House. We all share a common commitment to ensuring that the European budget is used in an appropriate way: legally and regularly, and in line with the principles of sound financial management of the implementation of European funds, ensuring best value for money. So let’s work continuously on all our shared principles of transparency, accountability, parliamentary scrutiny in the years ahead, and allow for sound financial management and rule of law in Europe.

Mr President, let me first thank the European Court of Auditors (ECA) for their thorough audits, as well as for the clarifications and open cooperation with joint undertakings. Tomorrow, we are due to vote on discharge for nine joint undertakings. The reports follow the ECA annual report for the 2022 financial year and the individual annual reports on the joint undertakings and present some observations to improve their sound financial management further. Joint undertakings can be set up under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU or Euratom Treaty as public-private partnerships between the EU and industry, research groups and Member States. They play a crucial role in groundbreaking EU research, development and demonstration programmes aiming at bringing the EU to the forefront of sustainable development in the world and responding to European social challenges that are currently insufficiently served by industry. The JUs operating under the 2021-2027 MFF implement their specific research and innovation agenda in sustainable transport, fusion energy, health, circular bio-based industries, key electronic components, supercomputing and network systems. Each has a distinct legal personality and adopts its own financial rules in line with the Financial Regulation, and they operate under the Euratom and Horizon Europe programmes. On 15 November 2023, the ECA published its specific annual report on JUs in the form of a consolidated report. Overall, the Court’s audit of the JUs for the financial year ending on 31 December 2022 confirmed similar results reported in previous years. In the annual process of granting discharge, we endorse the ECA’s recommendations and conclude that all accounts of the joint undertakings are reliable, in accordance with international accounting standards, and with low risk to the legality and regularity of revenues and payments. Nevertheless, through the reports, we would also like to highlight some further improvement in the coming financial years, in particular the need for improvement in programme implementation, human resources, and management and control systems. Given the systemic errors for declared personnel costs, we asked the JUs to strengthen their internal control systems for payments, especially by those beneficiaries that are more prone to errors, such as SMEs and newcomers. Regarding the risk expressed by the ECA in relation to the costs and deadlines for the ITER project in which Russia participates, we advise to remain attentive to events that may affect the implementation of the programme and exploring alternative supply flows should delivery problem arise. ITER is truly a groundbreaking programme with the ambition to produce unlimited energy on Earth. However, since the war in Ukraine, Russia’s membership has proven unreliable and very problematic as regards the delivery of components and risk of inflated costs. Therefore, we stress that this situation presents a high risk of delays and higher costs for the ITER project, where the EU takes the lead with more than a 45% share of construction costs. To conclude, I am fully convinced that all JUs represent successful European undertakings. All of them are operating within the merits of common rules.

Mr President, the animal welfare legislation is 20 years old. So far, 22 million tonnes of pigs, 13 million tonnes of poultry and 7 million tonnes of cattle are slaughtered annually in the European Union. Yes, in the statistics, we measure animals per ton, as if they weren't even individuals. However, five European initiatives calling for better animal welfare have been successful to date. We are therefore waiting for the legislative activity of the Commission on the ban on cage farming, we are waiting for the publication of the revised proposals, but despite the promises, we are waiting in vain, and that is unacceptable. As elected representatives of citizens, we are obliged to reflect on their demands, but we cannot do our job properly if the Commission is hesitant and undermines its own credibility and trust in the unique European instrument of direct democracy. 84% of Europeans ask for higher standards for farmed animals, while three out of four people want to know more about the conditions under which the animal was farmed when buying products. It is high time to comply with them, because “If it matters for Europeans, it must matter to Europe”.

Mr President, products labelled as environmentally friendly, climate friendly or from sustainably managed forests. Certification schemes refer to environmental protection on a large scale, but all too often seem to create an impression. In doing so, they enjoy great confidence and should under no circumstances be based on abbreviated, inaccurate, partial or even misleading information. The consequences are very serious. One example for all of them: Today, the last gold mine of the Lukashenka regime, the Belarusian primary forests are devastated and timber from them is widely sold in Europe as a product of sustainable forestry. Each certification scheme and audit system must be subject to an independent check of their resistance to fraud and machinations. The Directive will protect consumers from false claims and will support the sincere efforts of certification schemes to make a real contribution to environmental, climate and forest management. I very much welcome her acceptance.

Madam President, reducing the protection of the wolf means only introducing hunting. And this is absolutely inefficient and even counterproductive in terms of reducing damage to livestock. What it can do, however, is to create a framework for legalizing infected wolf individuals during the quota period. That's not fiction. Such a poacher, who shot a wolf in the freezer, currently manages our most important national park in Slovakia. It sounds ridiculous, but it is these people you are about to untie your hands. I therefore appeal to the Commission to treat this sensitive issue, as always, on the basis of data and science. There is no scientific data to support efforts to reduce the protection of the wolf, let alone frame it as urgent. Preventive measures have proven to be effective. The problem is that they are poorly applied, and it is also a question of science that public support for the protection of the wolf and its coexistence contrasts with wolf hunting. I therefore ask the Commission to remain true to its principles and not to be subject to cheap pre-election populist pressure, even if it comes from the highest places.