What Sandro spoke about.

Madam President. Too many obstacles and not enough money, Commissioner, that is the problem of the single market. Too many obstacles. The root cause is protectionism, the persistence of 27 national barriers in strategic sectors: energy, services, telecoms, capital. Use your power. You can force Member States to dismantle these barriers. Use powers with infringement procedures. And then there's the money. Our capital market is fragmented. Venture capital remains underdeveloped. Too many European start-ups have to go to California to scale up. And our response must be a Capital Markets Union, eurobonds and new resources. No more excuses, no more delay, no more time to waste.

Mr President, Europe must become independent. To achieve this, a true European defence is no longer a choice; it is an emergency. But arms alone will not secure Europe's future. Without political and democratic unity, there can be no European power. That is why new European governance and also Treaty revisions are now indispensable. We need a new transnational coalition, cross-party, across institutions, uniting leaders, pro-European forces and citizens across the continent. So my question is whether the Commissioner and the Minister are ready to join this coalition. We stand for a Europe of political freedom, a Europe where those ready to move forward are no longer held hostage by national vetoes. Without flexibility, we would still be waiting for the single currency. The moment has come to build up a new political union within the current Union. A Union finally fit for the global challenges. History will not wait. Europe must choose: power, unity and action – or decline. There is no more time for hesitation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 4 May, after being diagnosed with an incurable disease, Olivier Dupuis, a former Member of this Parliament, freely chose to leave us at the age of 67. Olivier Dupuis was of Belgian nationality and was elected to two legislatures in Italy with Marco Pannella's Radical Party. It was the most successful embodiment of the dream of a party and transnational politics. He fought always and everywhere for the defense of democracy in the world. In the days before his free departure he was met or written by Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens, Russians, Tibetans, Uighurs, Chinese, Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Tunisians, Cubans and many others. They, like us, like all European democrats, will miss Olivier Dupuis very much.

Madam President, proxy voting is about freedom. Nothing less. It is about making equality real, not rhetorical. Pregnancy must never become a structural penalty, a barrier that limits representation. So if we are truly serious about gender equality, if we are truly committed to democratic representation, the path before us is clear. Yes, there are still issues to be addressed in our electoral law. An outdated text that stood basically unchanged since 1976, and the Parliament has already presented a comprehensive electoral reform. We call upon the Council once again to enter into serious negotiations. But today, today colleagues, proxy voting stands before us as a responsible answer to an urgent and concrete need. A powerful message to our citizens and national parliaments. So, colleagues, let us vote for proxy voting!

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, you said a deal is a deal. Yes, but it takes two to tango. We can be a reliable partner, but the trust is not there if the other partner does not practice what we preach, and Trump does not. We can make effort to clarify the legal framework, but the framework falls if the other partner is in a legal limbo, and Trump is in a legal limbo. We can, under certain conditions, accept a bad trade deal – as the temporary deal is – in exchange for stability and predictability. But Trump has been erratic and unpredictable with us on trade, on geopolitics, like on our digital legislation. We must always protect our sovereign choice as Europeans, and Trump pushes big tech and has declared a war against our digital legislation. For all these reasons, and while commending the big effort made by Mr Lange and the shadow rapporteurs, I think we should not move ahead with the temporary deal.

Mr President, we must reform the Union to unify Europe. Let us be serious, the Union is not fit for purpose with 27 Member States; it cannot act with the necessary speed in the current world disorder. We need a stronger and enlarged Union on the world scene. But if it does not work with 27 Member States, how could it work better with 35 Member States without reforms? Unanimity and vetoes are no longer sustainable – even less so in an enlarged Union. We need to organise a Europe of free political choice. To this end, we must fully use the flexibility enshrined in the Treaties. Those who want to move ahead towards a more efficient, powerful and democratic Union must be allowed to do so without obliging the most reluctant to follow. We need to adopt targeted Treaty reforms, notably, to better prevent and sanction serious violations of the rule of law and EU values in the enlarged Union. Colleagues, let's draw the lesson of these 20 years of enlargement: we have a problem with the rule of law after the enlargement of 2004 within the European Union. So, let's do our homework now to enlarge. There is no time to waste anymore.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, too many obstacles and too many barriers. Now we are even talking about internal tariffs: 45% for manufactured goods and 110% for services, according to the IMF and the Draghi report. But what is the cause? The cause is the persistence of 27 different national laws in strategic sectors. It is the Council's duty to eliminate them. Of course, we want to reduce bureaucracy, but most of the bureaucracy is the consequence of national protectionism and overtransposition, the so-called gold-plating national as well. Next, to the Commission: Dear Commissioner, there are several rules. They must be applied and do not hesitate with infringement procedures and penalties. And finally, to us, ladies and gentlemen: Let's get out of the unnecessary debate between regulation and deregulation. We need to deregulate at national level and regulate in a simpler and more effective way at European level. Today we are talking about the 28 ᵉ regime. This is a step forward, but the ultimate goal must be clear: one rule for a market, not 27 national rules plus one European rule.

Madam President, 'And yet it moves' – this must be the title of tomorrow's summit. After months of hesitations and vetoes, we need to move, faster and better – no time to waste anymore. The message from today's debate is clear: simplify the single market; diversify our trade partners; protect our strategic sectors. We have forgotten to finance innovation also with Eurobonds and strengthen the international role of the euro. And finally – finally – even the President of the Commission is saying that governance and enhanced cooperation are part of the solution. She has read the Treaty. The President of the Commission has read the Treaty. Yes! Let's use all the flexibility enshrined in the Treaty to overcome vetoes. At the same time, dear Commission, dear Council, let's also prepare the indispensable institutional reforms to really become more efficient and more powerful as this Parliament proposed last October.

[Start of speech off mic] ... point in our partnership, the end of the current world order is very far from our common interest. But nostalgia is not a strategy. In this time of brutality, we must build new coalitions, which work. We need to create new institutions and agreements among like‑minded partners. To this end, the EU‑India trade deal will unlock new potential not only for our business and citizens, but also for our common geopolitical ambitions and challenges. A deal is a deal. Both parties get benefit and compromises. I hope this new agreement will not be again the victim of demagoguery and disinformation against free trade. Let's make the effort to explain all this to our public opinions, looking ahead at our common future.

Madam President, colleagues, we often say that we do not have the means for our ambition. I will say that in these cases we do not have the ambition to use our means, because when it comes to trade and digital matters, we can be powerful and we can be effective, but we really have to want it. Since last July in Scotland, the appeasement approach pushed by the Commission with the support, we know, of several EU governments has blatantly failed, because, as the old saying goes, if you behave like a sheep, the wolf will eat you. So let's be bold. Trump wants to subdue us. Let's respond by using all our trade powers, as many colleagues have said. But I also want to say, dear President of the Council, dear António, let's respond also by reforming EU governance. In this Parliament in October, we adopted a very bold document to make the Union more powerful, more effective and more democratic. It is high time that the Council started to tackle the institutional issues.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have all, alas, cited very good examples of what is happening on social networks. I'll add one. Take the test. Go to Grok, take a picture of a known person. For example, Anne Frank. Undress her, add swastikas as tattoos. Shocking, isn't it? Revolting even, and yet, perfectly possible on Grok. This has been done. What we see with sexual content by AI is not a technological accident, it's not freedom of expression either, it's a systemic violation of the DSA's moderation obligations. And we are not here to judge what shocks us or not. We are here to enforce the law, to protect citizens, especially women and young people. This means detecting, blocking and quickly removing content, cutting off access to these tools, protecting victims and real sanctions. DSA and AI exist. They must be applied quickly and fully.

Mr President, we must face reality. Washington now sees a strong European Union as a problem to solve, not an ally to support. President Trump has decided that Brussels is a bigger problem than Beijing. And the Kremlin endorses all this, in Ukraine and elsewhere. Washington doesn't like an EU self-confident enough to defend its own interests, starting with the digital legislation. We can pretend that this isn't happening, as many have done this morning in this Chamber. We can think that Trump hasn't read the document, but we cannot change the reality: the national security strategy is a marker of where power is shifting in Washington. We must therefore prepare for a world where Europe can stand on its own, where Europe is free to choose. Well, I say to the Commission and the Danish Presidency, a Europe that is free to choose is a Europe which reforms itself, because with this governance, with this Treaty, we will never make it. 14 leaders out of 27 are enough to launch the process. Please push, Commission and Council, to launch the process.

I listened to you very carefully, colleague, and I fully agree with you. I mean, either we give ourselves the strength to be an actor or we are on the menu. Either we stay at the table or we are on the menu – the menu of Trump and Putin. So I wonder how your group can join forces every day in this Hemicycle with allies of Trump and Putin? How can you today say here that you want a stronger Europe, a sovereign Europe, and then join forces daily with the best allies of our enemies?

Madam President, we are in 2025, but our electoral law quite literally belongs to another century. It was adopted in 1976 and is now completely obsolete. Today we are taking an important step to allow women to reconcile motherhood with democratic participation – a long-awaited step into modernity and justice. But our role here is to fully reflect today's society – and today care and responsibility belong equally to both parents. This is why our group has pushed also to include fathers in the proxy vote. All this was foreseen in this Parliament's new electoral law that we proposed in 2022, together with the rights of disabled voters or digital voting. Our fight for a more efficient and truly European electoral law must therefore continue. This is why we call upon the Council to finally engage in real negotiations on our new electoral law. And we count, President, on your strong support for this.

Mr. Speaker, Shein wants the best of both worlds and, in return, makes us experience the worst of nightmares. This platform wants to take advantage of the European market, but without respecting the rules and promoting abject illegal practices such as child pornography. Chinese platforms like AliExpress or Temu make sure they respect all the dictates of their communist regime – in China – but bypass our European rules as soon as they can. Shein does not assess risks, does not control what is sold and does not immediately remove illegal content. In short, Shein is flouting our European laws. There is no time to waste, we need to act quickly. The Commission must immediately suspend Shein’s access to the European market. Protecting consumers – and especially the most vulnerable, children – is not negotiable.

Mr President, there is only one legitimate state on the island: it is the Republic of Cyprus. It is time for Türkiye to respect international law and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and to withdraw its forces from the island. The continuing military occupation of part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus must finally come to an end. Of course, we know that the ears of Türkiye have always been deaf, especially to the European Court of Human Rights. But in this House, I want to recall that the European Court has clearly stated that the regime in the occupied areas is unlawful, calling it a 'puppet regime'. We absolutely cannot accept this within our European Union. I want to recall that upon accession in 2004, the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU with all of its territory, and this is why today we stand by the EU citizens of Cyprus and we will always do so in the future.

Madam President, Serbia has chosen a European path. It was a free European choice – a choice we strongly support and a choice which ensures a clear benefit, but demands clear commitments. Commitment to democracy, rule of law and freedom first of all. The freedom of hundreds of students to protest and to express criticism of President Vučić one year after a terrible tragedy in Novi Sad. A protest against corruption, a protest for free information, a protest against propaganda, fake news and manipulation by the Serbian authorities. A protest against Russian interference. A call for democratic accountability, which does not seem to exist in the vocabulary of President Aleksandar Vučić. Thank you, Commissioner Kos. Thank you, because it was time that we hear the right word from the European Commission. We stand by this commitment. We stand by the European students. And we stand by the European future of the Serbian people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the attack on Sigfrido Ranucci and his family is an attack on freedom of information, on the rule of law and, therefore, also on Europe. And democracy is defended not only at the polls or in Parliament but also in the freedom of journalists to investigate without fear. Freedom and independence of information are two pillars of our fragile democracies: They guarantee our ability to understand, judge and choose as free citizens. Investigative journalism is a dangerous profession and, too often, is accused of ulterior motives; Too often, journalists are left alone. Freedom of the press is not a privilege of journalists but a right of every citizen to know the truth. Of course, journalists must carry out their work professionally, like everyone else. The investigative journalist is uncomfortable. Journalists are also wrong. But today is the day when we all praise serious investigative journalism. Well: But let's always do it, because until yesterday we did not do it and we continue to do it tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. On behalf of the Renew Europe Group, I would like to express our total solidarity with Sigfrido Ranucci and his family.

Mr President, Commissioner Kos, thank you, and thank you all, because I think that this debate made things very clear. I mean, there is the extreme right which is against everything: 'We don't need to reform because we are against enlargement'. It's fine, it's not madness, but at least it's a clear position. Then there are those who haven't read the report properly, because I heard that there are Greek delegations and delegations from Cyprus, from different groups, who say, 'We cannot accept that we lose the unanimity vote to decide whether Türkiye should become a member or not'. You don't lose it – you don't lose it. Because what we say in the report is that to start the negotiation, to assess the country and to decide whether a country must become a member, we keep unanimity. I would like to emphasise this again for the Cypriot and Greek delegation of different groups, and also for our Croat friends: you don't want Serbia in the European Union, you can keep unanimity, but during the enlargement process, we cannot be exposed to 150 vetoes on technical or sectoral issues. We want to accelerate, that is the first point that I wanted to explain, the second is that it is clear, several colleagues said, it is a question of credibility. Colleagues, if we want to unify the continent, we must reform the Union, because we perfectly know, if we are in good faith, that without reforming the Union, without using the flexibility in the Treaty, without some targeted Treaty reform on the rule of law, for example, the Union is already hampered today and it will not work with the enlargement. So either we are lying to the Ukrainians, we are lying to the Western Balkans and we say, 'Of course we want you in the European family,' but in the meantime we don't prepare the house, so it is a lie, or we are serious about enlargement. If we are serious about enlargement, we must do our homework as we ask the candidate country to do their homework. Because the consequence – last point, Mr President – is exactly what Michał Kobosko raised. There are Member States that, instead of tackling the issue of reform, they say, we create two leagues: league one, the current Member States, and league two, the second league. So the new members will not have voting rights until when? Until we have done what we have to do today. We have to prepare the Union to become more efficient, to become more powerful and to become more democratic. And we must do it because we owed it to our citizens, and we must do it because also we must be serious and credible when we say that we want to unify the continent. And to the colleague of the extreme right, I would like to recall that the European project, since the very beginning, was meant to unify the continent. Only at the beginning there was the Berlin Wall, there was a dictatorship in Spain and Portugal, and this is why we started with six Member States. But since the very beginning, it was a project for all the citizens of our continent, and we must make it happen.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I want to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive work and commitment throughout this process, and notably the intensive and good work on the compromise amendments. I also want to record the useful exchanges and cooperation with the AFET and SEDE committees. This report starts from a simple conviction: the real question today is not whether the European Union should enlarge, but how to ensure that enlargement strengthens our Union. The cost of inaction would be too high. Reform is no longer a choice; it is a necessity. Continental unification and reform must go hand in hand. Every enlargement in our history has been preceded by an internal reform. The Treaty of Nice prepared the 2004 enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon then made it possible to integrate Croatia and to equip the Union with institutions which should have been fit for 28 Member States. And today, once again, if we want to welcome new countries, we must adapt our Union to this new dimension. We must reform the Union to unify Europe. This report shows the way forward in a very pragmatic way. It offers a clear direction for a Union that acts faster and speaks with one voice. It turns the priorities set out in this very Chamber in September, in the State of the Union address, into concrete proposals. Our objectives are three-fold. First of all, efficiency – by extending qualified majority voting to more areas so we can move beyond paralysis and take decisions more quickly. Power and resources – by reforming the EU budget, as we already decided together last May, so that Europe has the means to act. And democracy – by strengthening the powers of the European Parliament. But I want to be very clear on one point, to clarify to some colleagues. Our report proposes the use of qualified majority voting only for intermediate stages of the enlargement process: 150 cases of decisions on technical and sectoral methods that cannot continue to be dependent on veto. But we maintain unanimity when it truly matters: for decisions to open negotiations, to close them, and to approve a new Member State. These are historic and sovereign decisions, and they must remain unanimous. We must all agree to accept a new member of the club. We are not therefore taking power away from the Member States; we are giving Europe the capacity to act. The text also calls for making full use of current Treaty flexibilities, pursuing targeted Treaty changes on issues such as rule of law, and advancing differentiated integration among willing Member States. In this sense, defence could be a great example. Tools such as Permanent Structured Cooperation allow willing Member States to move forward in the field of security and defence. We need, colleagues, a Europe of free political will. Those who want to move ahead faster must be allowed to do so without obliging the others to make the same choice. Throughout the drafting process, we worked constructively across political groups to build a balanced and ambitious text. The spirit of cooperation gives me hope that the report will receive broad support in plenary, sending a strong signal of unity and determination to move Europe forward in view of the Commission's pre-enlargement strategy and in view of the discussion in the European Council. I also want, Mr President, to stress the importance of dialogue with national parliaments. They have participated in our work. They have contributed to the whole process. They have presented amendments, and some of their amendments have reached our report. Why? Because we think that this debate must not be confined to Brussels. It must live and breathe in all capitals and in our societies. So, there are unavoidable changes and unavoidable reforms. If we really want a strong and more united Europe, we must do our homework.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear Stéphane, ladies and gentlemen, dear rapporteur, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your excellent work. And I have to say it's not the first time, so keep going like this. Like you, I am convinced that we need to adapt our single market to new green and digital challenges and transform it to make it more sustainable, more competitive and more consumer-friendly. That is why it is essential to review our legislative framework. We need to ensure and encourage – for example in terms of VAT – a proper implementation of what we have already decided in the previous legislature. I am thinking, for example, of the right to reparation or the fight against planned obsolescence. But we also need to adapt our instruments, such as digital product passports or public procurement, to promote the circular economy, protect our consumers and strengthen market surveillance. In this transformation, we must also be attentive to certain phenomena such as fast fashion which have a considerable environmental, commercial and social impact. I believe that we need to consider proportionate measures to address this. Finally, it is crucial to ensure better coherence between our legislations, be it ecodesign, the right to repair or consumer information, in order to simplify and avoid duplication. The question, ladies and gentlemen, is not to do what we decided in the previous parliamentary term. The question is to implement it in the most effective way to achieve our single market and better defend our European model on the world stage.

Mr President, no one here is fooled. Each in its own way, the United States and China seek to block our digital justice model and endanger the mental health of our children. The GAFAM have sealed a diabolical pact with Trump's new US administration to impose a digital Wild West on us. We see them at work in their war against our digital legislation, such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), or against the Online Political Advertising Act. The latter is precisely the European response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal to protect our democracies from massive manipulation. Meta can no longer use online political advertising to plunder our personal data and renounces this activity by invoking inadmissible excuses. Apple is circulating texts against the DMA, aimed at maintaining its dominant positions at the expense of European consumers. We must say no to Washington, no to Beijing, no to Silicon Valley, and yes to the European model.

Mr President, Commissioner, Europe and India share vital interests and face similar challenges. We both push to rethink and relaunch multilateralism, starting with the reform of the UN. We have both a strong interest in contributing to global stability. We should also push India to rethink its relationship with Russia and to be very careful with its recent openings toward China. We are both convinced that strategic autonomy is a key element of our sovereignty, and we both need to renew and differentiate our trade relationship. This is why we must intensify our effort to reach a trade agreement before the end of the year, and we must strengthen our cooperation in the Indian Ocean, also fully exploiting the potential of our European outermost regions like Réunion. Last, but certainly not least, we must deepen our dialogue on artificial intelligence and digital issues. I am convinced that after the success of the AI summit in Paris, the new AI summit in Delhi can be a turning point for our bilateral relationship and for our common global digital action.

Madam President, I would like to highlight two challenges in particular. The first is courage in the face of the hypocrisy of some states that talk about innovation, but practice closure and erect new barriers. The Commission must show that courage. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of infringement cases dropped by 60%. I therefore call on the Commission not to fear confrontation. The other challenge is coherence, because it is not enough to quote the Draghi report if its recommendations are not implemented: 800 billion investments per year to strengthen competitiveness and build a true single market for services and investment. This consistency also applies to governments. They must stop blocking any further harmonisation and unnecessarily burdening our common rules when transposing them into national law, and then criticise Europe by saying that it is Brussels' fault, when the fault clearly lies with the capitals. To stand still is to choose decline. Completing the single market means giving Europe power and prosperity.