Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think the last half an hour gave us a clear idea and a proof that obviously the European Parliament, in these kind of agenda debates, is becoming more and more a platform for national debates. I think that’s obvious. We feel it all in this room and I want to wish all the best to all contributors to the debate for good headlines for tomorrow in Spain, in France, wherever you want to see these debates. I think, as the European Parliament, we cannot continue like this. That is my feeling. We have to focus on European issues. And I want to underline, like Jeroen already did and last time Iratxe, who is today not with us, did the same, saying we have to focus on European issues when we spoke about Spain. I quote now Stéphane, when he was last time saying on behalf of Renew, ‘But, dear colleagues, in view of the challenges facing in the coming months in front of us, let’s avoid these changes to the agenda. My group will systematically vote against requests to modify the agenda on purely national issues.’ That’s what Stéphane said last time. I really ask us all now, having in mind that we only have one request for rule of law, and that is about Greece, and having in mind that in six weeks in Greece there will be elections, if it’s even worth only having a national debate about this and in having in April a resolution. Dear friends, it’s purely driven by national interests to have a campaign here. That’s why, let’s refuse and let’s vote against.

Mr President! I did not want, dear Stéphane, to politicise the vote we have now. I just want to make it clear: The EPP will accept any outcome here in this room. The problem, however, is that your group does not seem to share a common position. That's the problem.

Madam President of the European Parliament, Commission, Council, dear colleagues, good politics starts, first of all, with a reality check. Eight out of ten global champions are from the US. Apple’s market value alone is bigger than Germany’s entire stock market. The 10 leading companies investing in quantum computing are in the US or in China, not one single company in Europe. And in artificial intelligence, American firms invest six times more than European firms. Europe, dear friends, let’s see: the reality is not competitive enough. And that’s why the EPP is happy that competitiveness is now top of the agenda in the European Union, thanks, first of all, to the Swedish Presidency, but also to the engagement from the European Commission this week with the proposals. The EPP was always advocating for a jobs, jobs, jobs agenda in the European Union. And competitiveness is not an abstract word, it is about securing our European way of life, it’s about our welfare, about jobs. Europe will never be sovereign if it is not competitive. And no doubt our strength is the single market, the largest market in the world. That is what we should use. And there we must still invest to enable more growth. We at the EPP, we don’t believe that spending money will solve our problems, first of all. For us a competitive Europe, what counts is trading with the world: best ideas, access to resources, efficient administration and a social approach. Let me go to these concrete points. Speaking about trade, the whole problem with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) started, let’s be honest, when parts of this House rejected the TTIP negotiations. If we had TTIP, we wouldn’t have to deal with IRA now because our Canadian and Mexican friends have full access to America. A competitive Europe needs trade, and in this legislature, Europe is lacking fresh, ambitious approach when it comes to new free-trade agreements. We see no progress, for example, on Mercosur: 800 million consumers, or if I may say friends because they are closely linked to Europe. The friends from Mercosur area are waiting for us. We need new free trade agreement with the United States and we need a free trade union with the democracies in the world. A second point: the competitive Europe should also not limit innovation and forbid technologies. In our last session here in February in the in the European Parliament, a majority decided to ban the combustion engine. I ask myself, who is now producing cars for areas, for regions like South America? I don’t think that they will have in 2035 enough electric charging infrastructure in South America that they can buy all-electric cars. The combustion engine is still necessary. We hear some different voices, Stéphane from the Liberals and others are telling us that combustion engine is necessary and Bruno Le Maire is telling us that it is not any more the case. So we need a clear idea. We think that innovation and allowing technologies is the right answer, and not forbidding them. I want to underline that a third point for us is the strategy to raw materials. China is more and more dominating global resources, and that’s why we welcome very much the Commission proposal for raw material strategy for Europe. The fourth point is that we need competitiveness also with tackling cutting red tape, and I think with more ambition. In the short term, we should stop additional burdens for our economy in war times – they are struggling, they are having enough problems – they don’t need additional burdens. And in the mid and long run, I agree with Ursula von der Leyen that we set limits to bureaucracy by the European Commission and put all vice-presidents in charge to realise it. I welcome the Commission proposals now for a competitiveness check on all new EU regulation and to reduce the reporting obligations for our economies and make our single market more competitive with less bureaucracy. So a competitive Europe, European regulation and cutting red tape have to go hand-in-hand. And, above all, we need a competitive Europe that must guarantee a social Europe. Being social means providing people with a job and with a decent income, especially our young generation. Our youth needs quality jobs. We need jobs, jobs, jobs. Dear friends, Europe invented the cars because it was competitive. Let us invent now the next step of a digital age, like, for example, a digital Airbus project. Let’s make Europe the competitive powerhouse of this world.

Madam President Metsola, Madam President von der Leyen, High Representative Borrell, almost one year has passed of unimaginable suffering, bloodshed and destruction for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. 7000 innocent children, women and men have been killed. Many of them died in hospitals, schools and their homes at the hand of Putin’s army. Over 8 million Ukrainians fled their country, their home, looking for a safe haven in Europe. This is the reality that Ukrainians have been waking up to every day since 24 February 2022, 357 days ago. It was a historic moment for Europe when President Zelenskyy was with us last week in the European Parliament. I want to thank Roberta, our President, for inviting him and for managing this. It was a touching moment for all of us, but it also had an important message. One year ago, when we saw him on the screens, we didn’t know if he could survive, or if Ukraine could confront Russia successfully. Yes, President Zelenskyy, his army and all its soldiers, and his over 40 million compatriots stand united, and they have been successful until now. They show us what it means to follow the European way of life. Our Ukrainian friends show us every day what it means to be European. They show us that if people have a choice, they choose democracy over autocracy, the rule of law over rule of few, and freedom over tyranny. That is called the European way of life. President Zelenskyy used this phrase around 20 times in his speech last week. Allow me to recall how much the Socialists and the Greens were fighting against a special portfolio inside the European Commission last time to promote and protect the European way of life. As the EPP, we fought for it, and today it is the headline. You do not want to hear this, but it’s the headline of President Zelenskyy and probably the motivation for our Ukrainian friends – the European way of life. We should be proud of this. Roberta Metsola, as our President, was the first to risk going to Kyiv. ‘We are on your side’ was Roberta’s main message. Ursula von der Leyen was leading efforts to grant candidate status to our Ukrainian friends. Let’s be clear, this was not welcomed so much by Scholz, by Macron, by Sanchez or by Costa. That’s why I want to thank our two Presidents for their leading role in a historic moment to keep Ukraine on our side. For us, as the EPP, it has been clear from the very first moment. We stand beside our Ukrainian friends who seek live and defend the European way of life. Putin wants to destroy this. He is the opposite – he hates it. His dictatorship stands for suppression, censorship, war crimes and totalitarianism. Putin is a war criminal and he must lose this war. This war has shaken Europe to its core, but Europe has been united and stronger than ever before. We imposed unprecedented sanctions, which will weaken Putin’s war machine, and we welcome very much the new proposals now. We supported Ukraine with around EUR 50 billion – EUR 65 billion was your figure – for financial, humanitarian and military support. We send weapons now, including finally tanks. I would say there is one open question still on the table, and that is about building up a real European defence capability. High Representative Borrell mentioned it, but there is not so much in terms of initiatives currently on the table to do so. Finally, there cannot be – let me use a historic comparison – any kind of Munich event in the next year, where democratic politicians accepted splitting up Czechoslovakia in order to get peace, or at least a dream of peace. The future of Ukraine will not be decided in Berlin, in Paris, in Brussels, or in Washington. Only Ukrainians decide about the future of Ukraine. We will not leave them alone in their fight for peace and for the freedom to fight to live the European way of life. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, dear minister, dear President of Commission, good luck in Kyiv and send good signals to our friends there. Full support. Wir können zunächst stolz sein als Europäer, wenn wir uns die großen Krisen der letzten Jahre vergegenwärtigen – den Jugoslawienkrieg zum Beispiel: 800 000 Flüchtlinge willkommen geheißen, den Syrienkrieg: über eine Million Menschen auf europäischem Grund und Boden willkommen geheißen, und jetzt bei der Ukraine: fast acht Millionen Menschen auf der Flucht. Wir haben in den letzten Jahren gezeigt: Wann immer große Krisen sind, hat Europa ein weites Herz und will helfen. Das Asylrecht ist eine der großen Errungenschaften der Europäischen Union, auf die wir stolz sind. Es ist die Basis der heutigen Diskussion. Wir haben auch große Erfolge in der europäischen Dimension. Ich möchte ausdrücklich Frontex danken, den Beamten danken, die jeden Tag einen guten Dienst machen, Leben retten und versuchen, unser Recht an der Außengrenze durchzusetzen. Das Herz ist weit, aber die Möglichkeiten sind begrenzt, haben andere Politiker formuliert. Im letzten Jahr gab es 60 Prozent mehr illegale Grenzübertritte, die Aufnahmekapazitäten hier in Belgien beispielsweise sind voll. Bürger verlieren das Vertrauen, ob unser System noch funktioniert. Vor der Herausforderung stehen wir. Ich möchte heute vier Punkte einbringen, die über das hinausgehen, was Ursula von der Leyen bereits beschrieben hat. Zum Ersten: Wir müssen die Außengrenze Europas sichern, wir müssen Recht an der Außengrenze durchsetzen. Dafür sind technische Maßnahmen notwendig. Aber ich sage ausdrücklich auch für die EVP: Auch Zäune sind im Ausnahmefall kein Tabu. Ich war überrascht, als die Kommissarin Johansson sich öffentlich positioniert und gesagt hat: Zäune sind nicht nötig, um Außengrenzen zu sichern. Ich sage: An allen Landgrenzen, die wir haben, sind Zäune gebaut worden. In Spanien, Ceuta und Melilla, in Griechenland, in Bulgarien – überall sind Zäune gebaut worden! Ich glaube, jeder, der heute Verantwortung trägt, weiß, dass das im Ausnahmefall leider Gottes auch möglich sein muss, auch von der Kommission finanziert werden muss. Als Zweites müssen wir uns um die NGO-Boote im Mittelmeer kümmern. Leben retten ist dort das zentrale Prinzip, und jedes zivilgesellschaftliche Engagement ist willkommen im Mittelmeer. Wenn es dort Menschen gibt, die helfen, dann ist das richtig, dann ist das gut und es ist willkommen. Aber wir brauchen Regeln, wie gearbeitet wird im Mittelmeer. Wir brauchen ein gemeinsames Verständnis von allen, die dort im Mittelmeer tätig sind. Deshalb fordern wir einen Verhaltenskodex, wie wir im Mittelmeer mit diesen Maßnahmen umgehen. Beispielsweise müssen nicht alle aufgegriffenen Migranten dann auch in Italien an Land gebracht werden. Auch andere Länder können Verantwortung übernehmen, Leben retten, gemeinsam Verantwortung tragen. Das Dritte, was zu sagen ist, ist die Rückführung. 340 000 ausreisepflichtige Menschen in der Europäischen Union alleine letztes Jahr, nach einem ordentlichen und rechtlichen Verfahren, und nur 40 000 sind ausgereist. 300 000, die eigentlich ausreisen müssen, sind nach wie vor hier. Die Bürger fragen zu Recht: Kann der Staat das Recht durchsetzen, das er selbst beschließt? Deswegen müssen wir uns darum kümmern, dass wir mit Drittstaaten Rückführungsabkommen verhandeln, um diese Rückführung möglich zu machen. Da muss ich leider schon sagen, dass es auf europäischer Ebene in diesem Mandat gerade mal gelungen ist, ein einziges Flüchtlingsabkommen abzuschließen – und überraschenderweise haben wir es mit Belarus abgeschlossen. Das ist ein sehr überzeugender Fall, wo wir rückführen könnten, aber natürlich alle nicht rückführen wollen. Deshalb brauchen wir mehr Engagement mit den behandelnden Drittstaaten, solche Rückführungsabkommen durchzuführen. Das Vierte: Wir brauchen auch legale Wege in die Europäische Union, zweifellos. Beispielsweise hat Kanada in Syrien, in den dortigen Lagern für Bürgerkriegsflüchtlinge, Büros eröffnet, wo sie Menschen einen legalen Weg nach Kanada anbieten – kontingentiert, nach festen Kriterien. Das hat Kanada gemacht. Warum macht das Europa nicht? Warum sind wir nicht in Ägypten, in Tunesien mit dortigen Büros tätig, um Menschen einen legalen Weg anzubieten? Warum machen wir das nicht? Es war eine sozialdemokratische Regierung in Dänemark, die den Vorschlag zum ersten Mal eingebracht hat, auch außerhalb der Europäischen Union diese Lager aufzubauen. Wir müssen legale Wege finden, um Menschen eine sichere Perspektive nach Europa zu geben. Es ist gut, dass der Sondergipfel stattfindet, es ist gut, dass die Staats- und Regierungschefs sich diesem großen Thema wieder zuwenden. Aber nach sieben Jahren Debatte seit der letzten großen Flüchtlingskrise sind der Worte genug gewechselt. Jetzt brauchen wir Taten. Es ist Führung notwendig. Europa hilft, aber Europa muss auch Recht durchsetzen.

Madam President, Vice-President Maroš, it would be great to hear whether you were in the Ice Hotel or in the normal hotel? Okay, thank you for the clarification. Commissioner, dear Prime Minister, dear Ulf, welcome, truly, and we very warmly welcome the Swedish Presidency to the European Parliament. You won the elections last year and formed afterwards a pro-European government, and now your Presidency starts. I would say it’s a young government. It’s a young government and that means also a government full of energy and motivation. And that is so urgently needed for development on a European level. With the increasingly absent Berlin and Paris, we need more Stockholm. We need your leadership now. And that’s why we welcome you. In 2009 – the last time Sweden led the Council – Europe was in the middle of a euro crisis and facing the most severe economic recession in decades. The Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, also from the EPP, became President of the Council, kept a cool head and steered Europe through the crisis. And on top of this, Sweden managed to reach a deal on the Lisbon Treaty. In an extremely difficult moment, you showed leadership. Sweden proved to be an effective crisis manager, to be an ambitious agenda-setter and a credible bridge-builder. And that is what is now also at stake. Your predecessors did a great job. A centre-right coalition, the Czech Presidency already did a lot of good things – Fit for 55, REPowerEU, migration – and even, as a centre-right government, it was the first time activating the rule of law mechanism, and I think that is a great achievement. So that is preparing the ramp now for Sweden. You spoke about the war and, on this question of security for Europe, you already showed leadership. You have taken responsibility and committed yourself to our European security. You are not only making NATO now stronger by joining NATO, but the entire European Union. And I speak here on behalf of the EPP. So let me underline that the socialists were always opposed in Sweden to joining NATO, and at the beginning also the European Union. It was your party, it was the EPP, always together with Christian Democrats, always fighting for Europe, always fighting for NATO. So you were always on the right side of history. And finally, socialists understood we had to go. So congratulations to the Socialists as well. For us as the EPP, as you can imagine, the most important point in this Presidency is jobs, jobs, jobs. We speak again about competitiveness, and it’s about people when we speak about competitiveness. Being social means, above all, providing people with a job and a decent income. And that’s why, again, thank you so much, for Sweden is the best country to do so because you are a European champion of innovation: number three in the world, with innovative frontrunners like Skype, Tetra Pak and Spotify. And on top of this, Sweden is the home of the Nobel Prize. So that’s why innovation is, in a way, Swedish. We welcome this very much. And with this challenge in mind – you mentioned already some examples – I can say that in artificial intelligence American firms invest six times more than European firms, and the top 10 leading companies investing in quantum computing are in the US and in China, not in Europe. And that’s why we have to pick up this competition. But for us, this also means all that we have to do it on a European level because the Member States have not the capacity, the tools and the resources to do so. In addition to innovation, more has to be done. Yesterday, we celebrated 30 years of the single market: a great moment, but the work is not finished. In the telecom sector, we can do more. We have to answer the $430 billion Investment Reduction Act proposal from the Americans. Competition is good and we like competition, but our competition law and legislation is outdated. We need a reform of this. The creation of global champions is so urgently needed. And I have to say that the resistance from Commissioner Vestager – for example, to allow the merger of Siemens and Alstom – was a mistake. We need these kinds of global champions to be competitive on a global level. And finally on this issue of jobs, we want to support you on your trade policy. We finally need to ratify CETA in all Member States. And with the election of President Lula in Brazil, we now have to sign Mercosur – that is so needed for global level, but also for us as Europeans. We showed ambition and an ambitious approach to climate change in the last months. We did this together and now we have to show the same ambitious approach to jobs creation. And finally, a second wish – very briefly – and that is migration. We have to continue on this. The Czechs did a good job. We have to help people in need – there is no doubt about this. We have to rescue people in the Mediterranean. We have to strengthen Frontex. We have to build up strong border protection against smugglers. And we have to show solidarity on a European level. That is what we have to do, and let’s use now the momentum to find a European solution on migration. The upcoming special meeting of the Council in February is the momentum to deliver it. Dear Ulf, I’m convinced that the Swedish Presidency will be a success and, dear Ulf, you can fully count on your EPP Group to deliver. Good luck.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr Bek, dear colleagues, today’s subject is the preparation of the European Council. But before we go into this, as an institution, we are all still in shock about the corruption cases. Yesterday, we voted nearly unanimously that Vice—President Kaili cannot speak any more on behalf of the institution. That is how we show that we are ready to act; we will protect our institution. 99% of our colleagues here in this institution want to continue to work hard for the European citizens. We want to clean the table and we want to reform our working methods, and we will bring this to life in the upcoming weeks and months. On the other hand, we must do our job, and that is what we are doing today; it’s the preparation of the Council. The European Parliament was fighting hard for one fundamental idea, and that was the idea of conditionality when it comes to the funding of the European Union. The rule of law mechanism is our baby – it’s Parliament’s baby. We achieved this. Yesterday, when the Council for the first time agreed to block and to freeze money to Hungary, was a historic moment. We will, for the first time, use money as a tool to insist that rule of law must be implemented in the European Union. Viktor Orbán will face problems now; that’s obvious, and that is good. I want to underline this because, first of all, institutions on a European level are on the same page. We are united, and the European Parliament did it. We can be proud of this, and we will continue to fight for values. I want to mention today an international perspective. On 13 September, 22—year—old Mahsa Amini was arrested by the Iranian morality police for improperly wearing her headscarf. Three days later she died. On 17 November, the 23—year—old Majidreza Rahnavard was arrested. On Monday, he was hanged from a crane in the city of Mashhad. 14 young people have died now in the last weeks in Iran. Their only fault is their desire for freedom. This is the Iranian reality. We condemn the brutal killing of all these young people and all the people who fight for freedom, and here in the European Parliament we must show our support. We can consider, Madam President, that probably for the January plenary, we should also invite representatives from the Iranian opposition to this House to support them. When we look inside the European Union, then it is about competitiveness, it’s about jobs, it’s about perspectives for our business, and we welcome this dimension. We support the ideas presented today by the Commission President on the IRA. That is a good answer. We don’t need a war, a trade war, with our American friends. We need our solid answer with a position of strength, not being naive, but being strong. We have to strengthen our single market. For example, in the telecom sector, there is still a lot to do, and we need the main message of how can we strengthen competitiveness. There we are looking forward to the arrival of the Swedish Presidency. I also want to mention the defence sector again, because our countries are now spending hundreds of billions of euros to buy weapons, and it is good that we are investing in our defence capacity in Europe. But Poland is buying tanks in South America and South Korea, and Germany is buying air fighters in the US. A lot of jobs are being created now, but outside of the European Union, because we are lacking a single market on the defence industry inside of the European Union, and I don’t see initiatives on this. I don’t see engagement on this. I have already mentioned this several times in this place. We have to speed up to build up a European defence pillar, as well as a cyber—defence brigade, a real European defence pillar inside of NATO. For the European Council, migration linked to Schengen is also an issue to be discussed. Since 2015, we have been discussing migration, and I want to applaud and thank the Czech Presidency for all they did to achieve a solid position for the negotiations with Parliament on the migration pact. This is a big achievement. Thank you so much for this. The urgency is obvious: 280 000 illegal migrants arrived this year in the European Union. The reception centres are again full. That’s why we have to speed up on this legislation, and we have to finalise it in the upcoming months. The Schengen enlargement must also be an issue in this regard. The veto from Austria and from the Netherlands was wrong and was not fact-based, and that’s why I hope that this will also return to the negotiation table in Brussels tomorrow and on Friday. We need fairness: Romanians and Bulgarians deserve the same treatment that all the other Europeans have. That’s why the enlargement must come. Finally, on the energy side. Madam President, you know that I have insisted several times here as to why you used Article 122 for doing the energy proposals. For our legislation where Parliament is involved, the RePowerEU, we finalised now, the legislation, and for the gas cap and for other proposals you made in an urgency procedure, we are still lacking any kind of progress. We see no progress at all on the Council side. That’s why, next time, please involve the European Parliament again in the place where the democratic decisions must take place. So that is my first message. On content, the Council must speed up. The Council must now deliver on the gas cap decisions. Putin is responsible for the high price, but we could much better answer this threat from the Russian side if we were united. That’s why Mr Bek and Prime Minister Fiala, good luck for the negotiations to solve this last problem. Thank you so much. I wish you good luck for the Council and, for all of us, a peaceful Christmas.

Mr President, Mr Council representative, Commissioner! Last week's veto was a mistake. And we all feel the frustration of analyzing this flaw in the discussion today. I would like to express my gratitude for the strong words of our Commissioner, who set the direction of the debate today. The first thing I want to say is respect. Respect for the three states that they have achieved a lot. In recent years, Romania and Bulgaria in particular have shown what proper border control means, what implementation of Schengen law means. The Romanians, for example, have done enormous things for the Ukrainian refugees, and this must be acknowledged. The second thing to say is: Schengen is part of Europe's identity. Especially in times of war, we must show unity, we must show commonality. The Schengen enlargement would have meant: We believe in ourselves, we believe in what we as Europeans benefit from together. The third: There is a problem with illegal migration. Yes, the reception centres in Austria, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are full. We must fight illegal migration, no doubt about it. But we will do better if we do it together, if we protect borders, improve repatriation, and defeat gangs of traffickers. I would like to say explicitly that Bulgaria and Romania are not to blame for these high levels of illegal migration. It is the Frontex figures that prove that the two countries are not the Western Balkans route. Rather, it is Hungary that we should be talking about. Because Viktor Orbán has unfortunately opened God's borders by now. This is where the real problems lie when it comes to illegal migration. The fourth thing I want to say is: The decisions of the Netherlands and Austria were a mistake. Bulgaria and Romania have the same right to live in a united Europe as we are allowed to live. Now it's time to take the next concrete step after last week's disappointment: that we are working with Austria, with the Netherlands: Please, tell us concretely what should be done better. Only then can the points be implemented. The European People's Party, the largest political group and largest party in Europe, supports Bulgaria and Romania on their way to the European Schengen zone. The veto was wrong and Romanian citizens can rely on our support.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, the President has invited us to come to the Conference of Presidents tomorrow to take the first steps and respond to them. I believe what is important now are quick, clear decisions, Parliament's reactions. And that is where we want to try to achieve a broad pro-European, democratic consensus in this approach. This means that the Conference of Presidents will make clear decisions tomorrow. We will have discussions at the suggestion of The Left that we have enough opportunity to debate this week. That is why, if we keep the two things in mind, I would like to underline and support Stephane Séjourné's proposal that we carry out the resolution calmly in January when we have the facts from the investigative authorities. This week must be decided quickly, and that should be done by the Conference of Presidents.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we as the EPP Group are shocked. The corruption charges against one of our highest representatives of this European Parliament has significantly damaged our institution and affected the trust of people in the European Union as a whole. The damage to European democracy is too big to be now used for party political battles. Let us be clear about this. We are, as the EPP Group, extremely worried because we feel the credibility of the only directly elected institution in Europe is put in danger by the actions of the people concerned. It will take more than this debate to restore some of the trust that has been lost. As they say, trust comes on foot but leaves on a horse. On the one side, no rule can stop criminals, but on the other side, we as the EPP Group are ready to improve our rules to make them better for the future. Every one of us is sitting here with the feeling of responsibility. And to fight corruption is one of it. Corruption is the biggest enemy of democracy. It undermines the freedom of speech. It breaks the trust people have in their institutions of state. To be crystal clear: there is not any room for corruption in the Parliament or in other institutions of the European Union. The laws must be applied strictly and the prosecution has to be followed consequently. And we express as EPP our gratitude to the Belgian police and the public prosecutor for their investigation and their actions. There is not any question that this House will cooperate fully with the rest of these investigations. I want to thank you, Madam President, Roberta Metsola, for your clear and important cooperation at the beginning of this difficult development. Fight against corruption is key. That is the only way to regain the trust of the European people in the institution, in the European Parliament, in the heart of democracy in Europe.

Dear Mr President, dear Vice-President, Commissioner, dear representatives of the Council, dear colleagues! We are sleepwalking into another major migration crisis. 280,000 illegal migrants arrived this year. We are in the midst of Europe's next migration crisis. The figures are at record highs such as in 2015 and 2016. Especially the Western Balkans with 42 000 is a main route. The existing migration policy – which is the starting point of today’s debate – has failed Europe’s existing migration policy and we are not yet in a position to provide an answer. Europe is even looking away. That's why the discussion is so necessary today, the discussion is so important today. And I would like to thank all my colleagues for taking up the EPP proposal to hold this debate. What are the parts that are driving us now? The first part is that we need to secure borders. Just as I decide in my private apartment who to let in when I open the door, the state has the right to say at the external border: Who am I letting in and who am I not letting in? Therefore, as EPP, we stand behind our border officials, the border guards, also the Frontex officials, who do a difficult job, who every day try to find balance and enforce justice. The state decides who comes to Europe, not the mafia decides who comes to Europe. And in the south, especially along the southern routes, we have over 50% of people who do not have the right to stay, who are illegal immigrants. It must also be ensured that we decide quickly at the external border who is allowed to stay, and it must also be returned quickly. This would be my first request to the Commission: We need better return agreements. We have not made any progress in recent years in this situation, that we would have really gotten better with African and Asian states. I would also like to make it clear once again that we need clarity for the officials. The officials at the external border are repeatedly confronted with the pushback accusations. And law must be enforced – no doubt about it. Pushbacks are prohibited – no doubt about it. But we have very clear definitions of pushbacks at the land border, but it's not so clear at the sea border. We had the incidents in June 22 in Melilla, for example, where 17 refugees died, on the Spanish-Moroccan border. There the border security took place on the sea. Border security there is much more difficult than on the land border. That's why we need legal clarity on what constitutes a pushback so that officials don't work in uncertainty. And we must not be blackmailed. Turkey, including Lukashenko, Belarus, has declared migration a political weapon. Europe must be united in saying: No, we do not allow migrants to be used as political weapons. I would also like to take up, dear Iratxe, suggestions from the socialist camp: For example, the Danish government – the socialist government in Denmark – has proposed that we set up reception centres in Africa; to consider how we can allow those who can really get refugee status to apply already in Africa; that we do not force them to go the arduous way across the Mediterranean. The agreement between Turkey and the European Union remains the raw model on which we can work. The second pillar, besides decisiveness at the border, is solidarity at home and help for the truly needy. And we proved it, Ukraine showed us: It's doable. We opened the doors. We have generously offered help to those who need it. All of Europe has offered help, and it works. That is why this is proof that the second pillar – Europe – can be practiced just as strongly. I would like to say explicitly: For Italy, for the southern dimension, and they are having this year 100 000 arrivals, then it is clear that it is not an Italian problem, it is a European challenge and that is why solidarity is so urgently needed. We need now actions and not words like the Vice-President and all the Council representatives told us. The newspapers are full now with the French-Italian dispute, and that was the reason for the debate also on the extraordinary Home Affairs Council meeting next Friday. But it is not about one NGO boat. It is part of a systematic challenge like Margaritis Schinas told us. The reality is that we had promise from France and Germany for 8 000 places about voluntary relocation, and finally they delivered 117, in reality. That’s Europe today. So all promises didn’t work. That’s why Italy, Malta, Cyprus – socialist government in Malta, EPP government in Cyprus – sent a letter: ‘Please help us. Please let us not alone. We need solidarity on European level’. And the last point I want to mention is that Europe needs an Africa and Middle East strategy, because the reason, the background why people are fleeing, why people are leaving their home, is fundamental, it is our interest to solve it. The European Union as a whole is the biggest donor in all these areas, and we have to use it in an effective way to really help people. That is what we need now, solutions, and that’s why we fully support the idea that we need a migration pact. We need a migration pact now, dear friends.

Madam President of the European Parliament, Commission President, dear prime ministers, 70 years of the European Parliament, our Parliament. I have to share with you my personal experience. When I entered the first time into this institution, into this building, I fell immediately in love with this institution. I experienced a parliament where everybody counts. I was young, 31 years old, and I immediately got the trust of my colleagues to deal with an important piece of legislation, in the LIBE file, in the LIBE Committee. Dear colleagues, when you understand that diversity, to have a colourful perspective about different ideas to solve problems, when you understand that this diversity is an advantage, then you fell in love with the European Parliament and that is what I did when entered here the first time. It is a very thin line here in this House to have on the one hand the party political position in mind but also the majority position, and you are defending the interests of this institution, the chamber of the European citizens. It is not the party that is in the centre here, not the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister, not even the Commission President, it is the bigger ‘we’, the bigger common interest which finally is driving this institution. 70 years ago, we hear that our colleagues gathered here in Strasbourg for the first time, seven years – you said it, Prime Minister – after the brutal Second World War had ended. Unbelievable bravery what they showed to us as Europeans. Today, it’s now the right moment to celebrate this. The House of Democracy: a place where all Europeans are represented, a place where our political ideas from the common good bring us together, a place where a multinational parliament with broad, real legislative power like no other in the world is present. My group, the EPP, has always believed that only a democratic Europe – with a strong parliamentarian democracy – is a Europe which has future. Since its first official meeting of my group in June 53, my group contributed to strengthening this House, to being ambitious in the leadership in the spirit of cooperation with other political forces and together we were successful. But now we can go further, probably even much further. After this big success in 2014, when the first time this House – Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz – managed that the Commission President was based mainly on the majority here in this House, in 2019 we made other experiences. Now we have to prepare 2024. And the idea behind this is that people see that if they go to vote, they participate, they decide about the majorities, we come here together as elected people, and then we decide the programme and also the candidates for the next five years who has the power to do it. The people in Europe see the direct link between their participation in elections and then the outcome in political terms. That is what we want to guarantee. And don’t get me wrong, as an EPP Group leader and as EPP President, I am very proud that the first elected female president of the European Commission is an EPP candidate and the youngest President of the European Parliament, also a female candidate, is an EPP member, so we do not need a quota for this, we are very proud about this. When we speak about the strengthening of democracy, I want to underline that we should not continue legislative proposals based on Article 122, sounds technical but is very democratically important. We have to strengthen the European Parliament with the full right of legislative initiatives, with full rights on the budget and with the full right of investigation in the interest of our citizens. So there is still a way in front of us. And I see the Council members now in front of me, I would ask you, I really count on you, that Council members are not doing these speeches here in this House but also when they are at home, that we really are strong in developing even a stronger European Parliament. And at a time when democracy is under attack, like it is in Ukraine, we have to be the beacon of democracy for Europe and the world. It’s a great honour to serve in this institution. All the best for the upcoming 70 years.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, Mr Bek, on Monday morning, Russia attacked Kyiv again with nearly 30 drones, killing innocents, including a pregnant woman. This happened only days after Putin said there would be no more massive strikes on Ukraine. Not a day goes by without terrible news and lies from Putin and his regime. Having all victims in mind, we are not getting tired in saying Putin is a war criminal, Putin must lose, and Europe will never stop supporting Ukraine. Never. This message unites us. We know how to answer the military war against Ukraine and the Ukraine soldiers are the real heroes of today. We have an answer to the military challenge, but let’s be honest, we don’t have currently a common understanding how to answer the energy war against the European Union. This week’s European Council cannot anymore escape. We had a lost summer, a Prague summit without conclusions, a lot of talks. Now we need solutions and the list of challenges is obviously long. Our Commission President presented them. We have wasted already enough time. And after a summer of missed opportunities, we need now a winter of solutions, a winter of actions, and we need, first of all, a winter of solidarity. And we, the EPP, we are asking for an ambitious approach. Energy was one of the founding elements of the European Union. Just think about the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. For our founding fathers, De Gasperi, Schuman and Adenauer, it was crystal clear: Europe needs energy and only together we can make it. Is it easy? Was it easy for Adenauer and De Gasperi to combine the coal industry? Not at all. It was historic what they did. And today we are occupied by the details of the electricity market architecture. The French President tells us a gas connection to Spain is not necessary. And the German Chancellor today is totally happy that he prolonged the work of one nuclear power plant for another three months. Wow. Great result of the energy planning there. We risk to fail in the eyes of history, dear friends. Europe has much energy, if we create a real energy union, and that’s why my group is supporting the proposals from the European Commission. And I want to ask the European socialists and greens to help us, especially in Berlin. Remember the last big crisis? It was about COVID. Chancellor Merkel, EPP, made the proposal of a recovery plan together with other friends. She made the proposal together with the Commission to make a European procurement on vaccines. She did it the European way. And now, today, Chancellor Scholz and the German Government are spending EUR 200 billion without even asking and consulting the European Commission and the neighbours about the impact of this. Is this the European way? I would call it a national ego trip, if I see the results of this. Where is the European spirit of the Social Democrats and the Greens in Germany? We need a European answer. That is what we need. Europe needs more the Merkel approach and less the Scholz approach, if I may say it as an EPP speaker, more EPP and less socialists. And, dear colleagues, let me also mention another undiscussed crisis in front of us. Europe again is challenged by migration. The Balkan route is open again. Until September 2022, Frontex averted more than 200 000 illegal entries in the territory of the European Union, half of them on the Western Balkan route. This is the highest figure since 2016 and we all know what happened in 2015 and 16. We must strengthen Frontex. Their officers on the ground must know that we count on them, we support them. And we have to deliver on the legislative files. The Czech Presidency – imagine for a second – the Czech Presidency, after years of waiting for the Council, is now ready to start the trilogue. Council is ready for the trilogue on Eurodac, on other files on the legislative train, and we as Parliament are not capable to deliver for the moment, due to, I must say, the ideological behaviour of some parts of this House, that we are not ready to even agree on very technical files like Eurodac. So, dear friends, if you want to stop populism, then we have to give a legislative answer on migration and it is now the time to do so. And finally, a third point. Sometimes the European level is, I have to say this, too far away from our citizens. When we speak with SMEs currently, when we speak with our farmers, they have really a lot of pressure. Our farmers should produce food, should deliver food even on a global level. Next year we will have even more problems. After the energy crisis, we will arrive at a food crisis and the Commission, under the lead of Frans Timmermans, is now presenting new legislation, for example, on pesticides. And the impact assessment tells us that this will lead to 20% less food production in Europe. That is what the impact assessment tells us, which means that we have to import more food from Africa, from South America, at the cost of the most vulnerable. Shall we remind everyone that we are in wartime? Since 24 February, something happens. Some Commissioners behaving as nothing has happened. The machinery is simply continuing their work. And as EPP, we are asking really urgently for a legislative emergency brake for additional burdens for our farmers and for our SMEs. Madam President, it is good that you postponed, for example, in the Commission work programme, the idea of a REACH revision. That is a good thing. We asked for this and now it is part of the Commission work programme. But we as EPP, we think that is not enough. The Commission must understand that we are risking to lose our industry. We are in front of a recession and that’s why it’s great that you expressed today that we have to care about competitiveness, we have to create jobs again in the European Union. Commission must act now. We must together act now. So let’s go to Brussels today and tomorrow and let’s deliver binding energy solidarity, real energy market in Europe, and a moratorium for additional burden.

Madam President, the brutal assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta five years ago yesterday took away the life of a brave woman and mother. But at the same time, it was also a massive attack against freedom of media and against democracy in Malta. It shocked Europe and the world to the core. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat promised to leave no stone unturned to get to the truth. But his words were empty, and his government obstructed justice and showed a shameful contempt for Daphne. A public inquiry was only established after Muscat was pushed from the Council of Europe. And the result? They found, and I quote: ‘The State of Malta should bear responsibility for the assassination by creating a climate of impunity generated from the highest level, which led to the collapse of rule of law.’ Quote end. It is totally unacceptable that a government of an EU Member State is partly responsible for the assassination of a journalist. If this is not a serious breach of rule of law, then what is ? The European Commission has to step up its efforts to ensure that the rule of law in Malta is fully restored, and I thank the Commissioner for his statement today. I turn also to our S&D Members in this House. Please stop turning a blind eye to the shameful behaviour of party members in Malta. Last Friday, the court in Malta convicted two men to 40 years’ imprisonment for Daphne’s murder. But for us, this is only the first step towards justice. We also want justice to be served against the big fish who ordered the killing and not just who for those who carried it out. We want justice served against those involved in the corruption scandals exposed by Daphne, for which she was killed, starting with Muscat and his friends. The European Commission has to be very clear. The Government of Malta has to fully implement the public inquiry recommendations. And finally, we want the Government of Malta to shoulder its responsibility for the assassination and stop impunity once and for all by letting the institutions work freely to deliver justice. We stand to the people of Malta. We stand for rule of law.

Madam President, Schengen is a great success story for Europe. It has broken down barriers, brought European citizens closer together and strengthened our European economy. With Bulgaria and Romania, we have two EU Member States who fulfil all conditions to join this area. They are ready for Schengen, but they are still waiting for the Council’s green light. Since 2011 – 11 years – there has been no progress. This is simply unacceptable. We in the EPP, like all parties in this House, strongly support Romania and Bulgaria becoming members of the Schengen area, and we have always fought as the EPP for this endeavour. Romania and Bulgaria’s place is within Schengen, especially now when we face many humanitarian and security challenges at the EU borders. For us, there is no first and second-class European; there are no objective reasons to deny Bulgaria and Romania this success. They have made all the necessary steps. Let me assure our friends in Sofia and Bucharest that you have the full support of us in the EPP. Your place is within Schengen. We call now on the Council to finally grant Bulgaria and Romania the access they deserve. The war, in particular, is again a test for us on whether we can reinforce the unity. This Schengen enlargement is a test case for this. The years of waiting must come to an end. We need no more excuses, but actions. With these two countries joining Schengen, we can better protect our external borders and strengthen the whole Schengen area. Let us continue the Schengen success story with Bulgaria and Romania on board, and let’s do it now.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, High Representative, Minister, dear colleagues, more than 220 days have passed since Putin started his invasion in Ukraine on 24 February – more than 220 days of tremendous suffering, bloodshed and destruction of Ukraine, people and the whole country. By the end of last month, we have seen 13 million people fleeing Ukraine, crossing the borders to neighbouring countries. Six thousand Ukrainians have died. Three hundred and seventy—nine children have lost their lives in the Russian war. Putin is a war criminal and, like all war criminals, he doesn’t stop. But not weapons or money are winning a war – people, the will of people, the determination of people, and most of all of free people defending their freedom, are winning a war. As Europeans, we can only admire what the Ukraine troops are doing every day in Lyman, in Kherson. Congratulations to President Zelensky and the Ukraine troops – you’re great. Obviously, even among the autocrats of this world, Russia is losing ground. We saw this in Samarkand, where even the Prime Minister of India, Modi, said publicly it’s not the right moment to go to war. Fake referenda in occupied Ukraine territories, mobilising now 300 000 Russian reservists and threatening to use nuclear weapons. This is obviously a signal of weakness. So the Ukrainians are doing their job. And Europe? First of all, the upcoming winter is a big test for us and we have to win it. First of all, we have to be strong against the populists inside the European Union. Just look at Marine Le Pen. In the presidential election race this year, she proposed to seek an alliance with Russia without fear of US sanctions. Back in 2014, the Front National found no better supporter than Russian banks to finance its campaign. Anyone, dear friends, who loves his country would never ask for money from Putin. That is what Le Pen is doing. Dear colleagues, in Spain, just after the start of the war, Podemos stated that the heart of the Ukraine conflict lies in the NATO policy of enlargement towards Eastern Europe – unbelievable lies! Or in Slovakia, the former president and party leader Robert Fico from the SMER Party described the war as a conflict between the United States and Russia. He called the strengthening of NATO forces in Slovakia by German soldiers ‘the welcoming of the Wehrmacht in our country’. That is the wording of leaders in Europe of today. And these populists, dear friends, have only one idea. They have the idea to weaken Europe and we have to stand up to defend Europe. Now, more than ever, it is time to show that we are standing together, and the EPP will never accept to rewrite the history. Our EPP parties in Finland and Sweden, for example, fought always, argued always, for NATO membership. Only recently, the Socialists changed their mind and also supported the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland. NATO defends freedom and peace and security in Europe and Putin wants to destroy our Europe. That’s why, again, we have to show unity. At the same time, Putin’s threats must not determine our actions. That’s why we have to support our Ukrainian friends more than ever before. Now, more than ever before, it’s time for European leadership. Without weapons from the West, Putin would have won long ago already. Ukraine urgently needs more weapons, including tanks – and dare I ask France and Germany to lead Europe and to present a proposal to deliver all the tanks? We support another action, a package of sanctions and financial assistance to Ukraine. If we want this war to end, we need actions but not any more excuses. Europe needs leadership. Now, more than ever before, it’s time for this winter of solidarity. On Friday, the European Council must find a common understanding on energy solidarity, and Madam Commission President we fully support your initiatives in this field. A continuation of uncertainty costs each and every European currency. Uncertainty is driving speculation on the market. So we need a binding solidarity mechanism. We need common procurement, and we need a price cap as proposed by the Commission, and we need this now, this clarity. Let me also add that on Thursday we have this first meeting of the political union. President Erdoğan will be there, and let me also underline that we should not forget next to the Ukraine war that we have other challenges in our neighbourhood. I think that someone who is not practising our solidarity with Ukraine in the same way, who is not implementing the same sanctions in a way like we do as Europeans, cannot have candidate status for the European Union, cannot be a reliable partner for us. That’s why I hope that we also have a clear wording towards President Erdoğan that he has to show his European commitment. With Putin escalating the war, it is now, even more, time to firmly stand by Ukraine. We as the EPP always did so, and we always will do so – now more than ever before. Without a free Ukraine, there will be not a fully free Europe.

Mr President, on the night of 17 March 2022, Boyko Borisov, the leader of the Bulgarian opposition party GERB, a member of the EPP family, was detained for a whole day by the Bulgarian police. Without a former judge, without a prosecutor involved and without any legal basis. You have to name this act for what it really was: it was an illegal breach of the fundamental principle of the rule of law in Bulgaria and in the European Union. It was an arbitrary order from the Interior Minister, a member of the government, who arrested the opposition leader, and he even invited himself the media to witness the arrest as a propaganda action. They know the facts. We are worried about the rule of law situation in Bulgaria. These very serious concerns are based on objective and thorough legal assessments. Two courts condemned the government action, the last one just three weeks ago. Both courts ruled that the detention was illegal. We strongly condemn this unlawful act. And I have to say, we stand behind Boyko Borisov. His illegal arresting violates our fundamental democratic standards and cannot be tolerated, not in Bulgaria and in any EU Member State. And despite this clear violation of the rule of law, the left in this House, and that is obvious also now when I look into the ranks of this House, is silent and refuses to debate. And let me be clear. You know… Where is Sophie in 't Veld? Where is she? You have so much action every time and I'm ready to answer all questions. But where is Sophie in 't Veld? Where are the left? Where are the Greens? Where are all these people who are everyday insisting rightfully to respect the rule of law? And we speak again about the judgment of two court cases, the outcome of two independent court cases. That is the reality in Bulgaria. As the EPP Group, we are fighting for an EU where every citizen enjoys these fundamental rights and where the rule of law is fully respected. That is our EPP thinking. This is not negotiable for us and we are fighting for the rule of law in Europe. Today more than ever, the EPP, not the Socialists and others, is the rule of law party of Europe. I refer to Poland, where Donald Tusk is in the lead to fight against rule of law breaches from the PiS government. Romania, in the border for example, when we defended our border towards the Belarusian attacks, it was the EPP government in Lithuania and Latvia who opened all Frontex officers and the media, the access to the border, not Poland. So we are doing our best to respect the rule of law all over Europe. We carry the flag of democracy, independent judiciary, freedom and rule of law in our hands, and we fight for the rule of law by true actions. After the detention of Boyko Borisov, we sent an urgent fact-finding mission to Sofia. My dear colleagues Monika Hohlmeier and Jeroen Lenaers met with Boyko Borisov and the involved parties, including the Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov, the Minister of the Interior and the Prosecutor-General. The recommendation was clear. We call for appropriate measures to guarantee the respect of democratic values and the rule of law in Bulgaria. This illegal act cannot remain unanswered. When it comes to democracy in Europe, you can't have a blind eye on Bulgaria. We need the rule of law also there.

Madam President, I also want to thank Ursula von der Leyen for the contribution, for the great speech and a great discussion today. There is a broad consensus about now activating going further social means, also creating jobs, that’s why I think we have a lot in common that we want to work on. But I want especially to thank Ska Keller because she was presenting to the EPP the flowers that we are the founding fathers of today’s European Union – you said it – with Adenauer, with De Gasperi, with Schuman; Christian Democrats together with Socialists, together with Liberals and then finally also Greens, when you grew up as a party, contributed to this. But I want to say one thing: when we speak about pro-Europeans and not pro-Europeans, we should not politicise this thing. (Laughter) Because, I tell you – please listen – in the Spanish Government, there is Podemos. Three Spanish Podemos ministers voted against NATO membership for Finland and Sweden – three of them in a government with Socialists. We have the Five Star Movement in government with Lega in Italy. Nobody did a debate here. Nobody asked for a debate here. And this was taking place in Italy. I give you another argument: dear Ska, you had a coalition in France to do campaigning together with Mélenchon. Mélenchon publicly said that we do not respect European law any more if we come in office. That was the position of Mélenchon. And I give you another point: in the last COP, we had a debate about Bulgaria. We will have a debate on Bulgaria. (Heckling) No, it’s really serious. Two independent judges in Bulgaria said over the summertime that detaining the opposition leader in Bulgaria was unlawful. And I was simply asking for a debate about the Bulgarian rule of law situation, but that was refused by the Greens. So don’t politicise things. When we talk about the rule of law, it is independent. It’s about being based on facts and not about party-political orientation.

Madam President of the European Parliament, Madam President of the European Commission, Madam Zelenska, Czech Presidency, dear colleagues, last week the hemicycle in Brussels was full of young people. We organised this EPP Group 4 Youth week at the beginning of the autumn session and during the discussion, Eva Maydell, a young colleague of ours, spoke about a moving encounter during summer. She was in Bulgaria, at a supermarket checkout, and there was a young lady. She didn’t speak Bulgarian very well. She talked with her and she was a Ukraine refugee. Young, talented, she was excited to start her university studies and then war, fleeing, losing loved ones, she was from Mariupol and ending up in uncertainty. That is the brutal reality of Putin’s war. And, on the other hand, in my constituency, I received a letter from a small bakery: after decades of baking Bavarian bread, he wrote to me saying that he cannot survive with the high energy costs. The baker told me, ‘Putin is a war criminal, no doubt about this, but how can I survive?’. These two stories mark the challenge in front of us, and our EPP answer is: we need a winter of solidarity. Solidarity, first of all, with Ukraine. More weapons, more money, more solidarity. Putin must lose; Ukraine must win. Great news from Ukraine is that they are pushing back the Russian troops from their soil. And, Madam Zelenska, we admire what your soldiers are doing there on the front line. Thank you for this. And dear friends, solidarity among Europeans, nobody left behind. We care for the poor in our societies and help our economies, especially the SMEs. Crisis times means now, leadership, and the EPP supports the proposal of the Commission presented today on support for Ukraine but also to give an answer on the soaring energy prices. But there is more to do. The markets are obviously speculating against European solidarity when winter will really be hard. Let us be concrete. It is not normal in a market that Scholz has to call Macron to open a gas pipeline and we will be more independent if Spain would be better connected to the European gas market. If it is true that the winter will be hard, then we must use all our energy resources. Germany cannot stop producing nuclear electricity and, on the other hand, ask the Dutch to ask for gas solidarity. That’s not the case. And let’s be honest, it was a lost summer. The EPP has been asking for an extraordinary Council meeting to give certainty, to structure things, to show everyone that we are united and you cannot split up Europe. And the signal would have had already lowered the prices. People are paying because politics was and is for the moment, among Member States, not strong enough. And on inflation – not only driven by energy, first, it is an ECB task that’s clear – I think we also can contribute. One example, we have a global food crisis, and that is also increasing the prices for our citizens. And the Commission is now presenting new regulations, which will limit food production in Europe and produce more bureaucratic burden for our farmers. For new legislation, the Commission promised the principle of ‘one in and one out’. If we continue like this, then at the end of the mandate we will arrive to ‘five in and only one out’. We have war in Europe and parts of the Brussels community are continuing to make new laws and new burdens as if nothing has happened. That’s why we as the EPP Group are asking for a moratorium on new legislation. Let our businesses, especially the SMEs, do their work without burdening them. And for creating growth and, having a recession now in mind, the EPP stand for creating a union of democratic economies on a global level. Europe is a trading continent and if we want to limit our dependency on the autocracies, on China and others, and that is a lesson we learned out of the Russian gas war, then we must speed up on trade deals with other democracies. And, as EPP, we always did so, but I just want to remind ourselves about the CETA debate in this House where the Left, Greens and part of the Socialists, were are opposing doing a trade deal with Canada. Canada, dear friends! You frightened Europeans with misleading arguments and even with lies. And, until now, Scholz and Macron are not ready to ratify CETA at national level. But they are great at doing pictures with Trudeau. That is not serious, dear friends. That is not serious. And about democracies, yes, Madam President, you spoke about defending the rule of law and with you as Commission President – and I have to say, I was in Poland with friends like Donald Tusk – we as the EPP, we are fighting for rule of law, you stopped the money as EPP President of the Commission to Poland and Hungary. That’s why we are very, very proud about this. The rule of law must be judged and based on clear criteria and fair procedure. It must be blind like justice without looking at party books. Speaking about democracies, I have to come back to the energy proposals. And Madam President, we spoke about this, you have our full support on the content but on the procedure, I have to say, we have to respect the European Parliament as a people’s Chamber. Can you imagine a windfall tax and a price cap being decided at national level without a vote in the national parliament? We would call this a democratic problem. But now we have proposals on the table, we are doing this in Europe and that should not be the new normal at European level. So decisions without the European Parliament should not be the new normal in Europe. And that is why please consider again the legal basis for the proposals on the table. The EPP stands for a democratic Europe and that means a Europe where all legislation is voted in this Chamber. Finally, during the COVID-19 crisis, we were ready for doing bigger steps. The CRRF proposed by Ursula von der Leyen is bigger than the Marshall Plan was. So we changed the architecture of Europe. That was great. But today, war is back in Europe. There was no Council meeting on coordinating our defence activities, only votes. There is no initiative to stop a unanimous vote on foreign affairs, only a speech from Chancellor Scholz in Prague. No convention to strengthen the European democracy requested by this Chamber and the Conference for the Future of Europe, only, I have to say, campaigning and campaigning in Paris. The Commission has to launch now until December a European Defence Action Plan as a concrete initiative in this field to invest together to build up a European missile defence system and a cyber brigade to make Europe stronger on this and we need – and thanks for your clear statement – a convention now. The EPP stands for a more ambitious Europe. The times of Sunday speeches are over. Europe will not be saved by university pulpit speeches but by political leadership. And the Ukraine refugee in Bulgaria and my baker, they believe in this and they understand this. That’s why leadership and leadership now.

Madam President, I wish to welcome Prime Minister Petr Fiala and to thank you, Mr Fiala, so much for the presentation of the ideas of the Czech Presidency. The Czech Presidency comes at the right moment. Thanks to you Europe is, first of all, back in the Czech Government. As soon as you took office you appointed a Minister for European Affairs, sitting there next to you, Mr Bek. For the first time after 12 years there is again a Minister for Europe in the Czech Government, and that’s why I am convinced that the Czech Presidency will be a pro-European one, a good one and a successful one. And I also want to underline that this is a new government after the government of Babiš. It is also a symbol of the rule of law and also a symbol of separation between business interests and public interests. The Czech Presidency comes at the right moment. Ursula von der Leyen reminded us already about the Prague Spring. I want to add their resistance against Nazi Germany and the peaceful revolution in 1989. The Czech Republic is the symbol that brave and determined fighting for democracy and freedom will be rewarded in the end. The Czech Presidency is the best suited to lead Europe when it comes to supporting Ukraine in its fight for democracy, freedom and justice. European democracy and freedom are breathing Czech spirit. The Czech Presidency comes at the right moment when it comes to the future of Europe now. We can only survive in confrontation with Putin if Europe is the lighthouse of free democracies in the world. That is why we finally need a convention to renew the idea of European democracy. We must take the people of Europe seriously when it is about European decision-making. The Conference on the Future of Europe made it clear we need to strengthen our democracy, and you spoke about this. The Czech Presidency wants to do so. We must introduce and live the lead candidate principle, that people have a say about who is in the future the Commission President. We must strengthen both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. We need a re-parliamentarisation of the European Union. The European Parliament should have full rights on legislative initiatives and decide on the EU budget together with the national parliaments. And that is why the Czech Republic can play there a key role, after the French Presidency had some leftovers for you to continue your work. And let me be also clear on this political union idea. I think it’s good that we talk to each other, no doubt about this. But for me, it’s not yet clear what is the key idea behind this political union and I have also to say that this was not part of the debate here in Strasbourg in the Future of Europe Conference. So it’s a new idea. I think we should base our future ideas on the process of listening to people. And finally, the Czech Presidency comes at the right moment when we have to focus on the most urgent tasks, and that is about inflation and especially energy security. As a first step, I support Draghi’s initiative to impose a temporary cap on the price that the European Union countries are willing to pay for Russian natural gas. Let us use our European economic power against Putin’s blackmail attempts. When the crisis will probably arrive in winter and Nord Stream 1will probably not continue to deliver gas, we need a binding, a legally binding mechanism of solidarity in the European Union. And I think it is also needed, Mr Prime Minister, to go for an extraordinary European Council for this. We need decisions. We have to prepare for the crisis and not wait for the crisis. The Czech Presidency comes at the right moment. You can fully count on your PPE Group to deliver. Europe needs your leadership, Europe needs a strong Czech Presidency.

Madam President, on 7 July 2019, almost exactly three years ago, the Prime Minister won the Greek elections in a landslide victory. The Greek people sent a strong message of support and trust to you, Prime Minister, and to Nea Demokratia to steer the future of Greece and turn a page on the failed policies of Alexis Tsipras and Syriza. When you came into office, Greece was in bad shape, I think that was obvious. After painful years of poor leadership by Tsipras, you put Greece back on track – and thank you for this remarkable and excellent work. Thanks to you and thanks to your government, Greece is back in Europe and that is good news. It is important for Europe to have Greece back. First of all, everybody, I think, should and must underline that Greece is in a way not a normal country because democracy was born in Greece. Our western civilization was born in Greece. Europe was born in Greece, not to mention the princess taken away by Zeus to beautiful Crete, the princess who gave her name to our old joint project, Europa. There is no Europe without Greece. Greece is back on economic issues. Last year, even in crisis times, the Greek economy grew by more than 8%. When it comes to growth, Greece is among Europe’s top five countries. You managed to reduce unemployment in Greece. In Greece, in the quarter from summer 2019 to February 2022, more than any other country, you did it and the people feel the success in their daily life. Thanks to your efforts and to the determination of the government, Greece is finally also on the way to exiting the surveillance programme. On another aspect, Greece is back and that is about the security issues. Since you took over, Greece seriously cares about security again. Greece, due to its geographic position, is key when it comes to European security. Europe is not to be criticised but to thank Greece for protecting and defending our common external borders. And I want to be very clear on this, and I see that each and every single event on the border between Turkey and Greece is in this European Parliament an issue, and it’s okay that we discuss the issues. But on the other hand we saw in Spain, on the Spanish-Moroccan border, an event where more than 20 people died. And I have to tell you that the Socialists and the Greens didn’t initiate a debate about the events in Spain, but they initiate always a debate when it is about Greece. So we should care about the migrants and not about party political issues when it is about migrants. I have to be clear on this, that the PPE is strongly on the side of our Greek authorities. Erdoğan is misusing migrants as a political weapon like Lukashenko did. For us that’s clear. Our border guards, who are doing everyday the job of protecting people and the border, we trust them, we are respecting their work every day in the interests of all of us. What we have to do is to strengthen Frontex and what we have to do is also to clarify the rules for pushbacks, and I want to thank Margaritis Schinas for his work in this clarification process. Greece is back also on geopolitical issues. Tsipras, I have to say, mainly cared about Maduro. You care about the European interests in the Mediterranean, and that is good. Not only in the last years do we witness an increasingly destabilising role played by Turkey, dangerously raising the tensions in the region. What Turkey is doing is unacceptable. It is not a problem between Greece and Turkey, but a problem between Europe and Turkey. Greece’s interests are European interests in this border conflict. And we all have to ask ourselves, and probably, Mr Prime Minister, you can reflect a little bit in your final statement, how do we best deal with Erdoğan’s Turkey, a Turkey that is becoming more and more provocative and aggressive? And Greece is back on foreign and defence issues. Putin and Erdoğan tell us one lesson – Europe must grow up when it comes to foreign and security policy. It is great news that Finland and Sweden have finally joined NATO. And as PPE, our parties in Finland and Sweden always fought for becoming NATO members. The Socialists finally also supported this approach. The PPE is fully supporting NATO, but we also think that Europe has to grow up. We must abolish the unanimous vote principle in the Council side when it comes to foreign affairs, and within NATO we have to build a true common European defence with concrete projects like a cyber-brigade or a European missile defence system. Europeans have to be capable of defending themselves if it is needed. And if you will allow me, I want to finalise with a more general consideration, because you delivered, Mr Prime Minister, a great speech in the US Congress and in the Senate a few weeks ago. It was a big honour for you to be there as one of the European leaders. And when we look to the US and we also look to our European democracies, we have to see that these democracies are under stress. We are facing populism and extremism, and probably most fundamental question is, can we agree still in our societies about what is true, what is the reality? Because we have fake news discussions – you mentioned this – we have propaganda from China, from Russia, which tried to change what is true, the reality which we are based on. And without the common understanding in our societies about what is true, what is the reality, you cannot build up a lively democratic discussion between Greens, Socialists, the PPE and so on and so forth, and people cannot decide. That’s why the idea to strengthen this common base is so important. The fight against propaganda, too often this is unanswered. We have to strengthen good and serious journalism, and we have to make clear that the tech giants have a responsibility. We will vote this week on the DMA and the DSA, which would give and will give an answer on these challenges. So thank you, dear Kyriakos, thanks to you Greece is back in Europe. The Greek people can be proud about these achievements.

Madam President, Vice-Presidents Šuica and Šefčovič, dear Prime Minister, dear Andrej, welcome back to the European Parliament, as a former colleague. It’s great to have you here. A second term now as Prime Minister is a strong mandate from your citizens. You are leading Croatia and you are also leading the European debate. When I have in mind that Croatia is the youngest member inside of the European Union today, it is impressive to see the European success story behind it. When I look for the arguments for this success story, what first comes to my mind is the dramatically reduced youth unemployment – to give the young generation a perspective, to reduce the demographic brain drain and all the negative developments over the last decades. You mentioned already, and also Roberta mentioned, two other success stories, with now joining the eurozone, a big success. I want to underline, it’s not only for Croatia, it’s also for Europe, for the eurozone, a big success because it’s proof that it makes sense to do it together. It strengthens the authority of the euro in the world. Also now with the Schengen enlargement, you have the full support of your political group and I think also from the European Parliament, because you managed to do the necessary steps. When we talk about the future of Europe, Croatia is there in a leading role. I also want to thank Dubravka Šuica for her service, for her work on the Conference on the Future of Europe. You also referred to the history of Croatia – and whenever I speak about the general approach, Croatians towards the euro, one event comes to my mind: when I was for the first time as a young MEP in Dubrovnik, in Dubravka’s city, and we visited there the Memorial Centre showing the pictures of the soldiers who died fighting, defending freedom, defending the country, but also freedom and democracy and the rule of law. I saw the pictures, I saw then the subtitles about the names and about the age of the people and of the soldiers that died. Then I read 1971, 1972, and that is my birth year as well. I grew up in Bavaria in a peaceful time and I always had and still have a lot of respect for those who fought for democracy in Croatia. Croatia is, in a way, a good proof for what we have to do today. You said it. Because now it’s a similar situation to Ukraine and Moldova, for those who now stand up and fight for our values, to give them a similar perspective: that enlargement works, that we should be convinced about this model and this approach. This is also true towards the Western Balkans, where we need now a clear timeline. I want to thank the opposition in Bulgaria today, because Boyko Borisov and GERB voted in favour of North Macedonia, to give them a perspective. I also want to express towards the Serbian friends that they have to decide whether they want to join the European Union or whether they are on the side of Russia. There is no in—between anymore. We are making enlargement possible and we have to improve Europe. There you mentioned one aspect, when we speak about the unanimous vote, where we have probably different points of views. Croatia is now joining the eurozone. That means to give up sovereignty because you have no national currency anymore. But the idea behind it is to be stronger together, to be stronger together when we vote by majority. The same is for foreign affairs. We have no China policy currently as a European Union; this gives us clear proof that we are not capable to answer the big challenges, due to the decision—making mechanism. So that’s why, you can imagine, we would be happy if you also would show up in the Council to present the idea of a Convention, because we need a deepening of the European Union to make Europe better, stronger for the future and Croatia will contribute to this. Thank you so much, dear Andrej, and welcome.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the substance of today’s vote – I think you all are aware – is to try to give an answer to the biggest challenge of our generation and not allow ourselves to play one crisis against the other, with the war, as the climate thing cannot wait. I thank everyone for their readiness for the compromise today, even if we had to tell Frans Timmermans that we changed a lot in his proposal to improve it. Now, I think it’s a good compromise and we all understood how difficult it is to bring interests together. On the one hand, Fridays for Future, on the other hand, the ‘Yellow Vest’ movement – the social dimension – and the fear of a lot of young people in Europe to be another lost generation in terms of jobs and competitiveness. So I think we achieved a lot, and that’s why the EPP Group will vote in favour. I want to use the opportunity, Madam President, to make a more general remark, because Philippe Lamberts, last time, when we had the vote and the defeat for the outcome, spoke about the pro—European majority. I thought a lot about this, also because of Assita, as she was also asking me about what I said, and I want to reflect a little bit also for our culture in the House, that, for example, the Czech colleagues from the ECR Group, having now the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic in their ranks, together with the Pirates from the Greens, are they allowed to vote? Are their rights populistic? For example, is our Belgian colleague, Mr Van Overtveldt, the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, a very respected colleague from the ECR family, allowed to vote? I would say ‘yes’. Is it for the colleagues, for example, even for Marco Zanni, governing in Italy with Mario Draghi currently in office as prime minister, is he allowed to vote? I would even ask the question, Philippe, is it for the French Greens to be allowed now and in the future to vote because they work together with the Left Populist, Mélenchon – a person who was really asking for a breach of EU law. So that’s why I am really ... (Boos and whistles from the floor) (The President asked Members to respect the speaker and be quiet) I really take it seriously. But Philippe, you have to answer the question as to who decides finally about who has the right to vote and be part of a compromise with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’? That’s why my only appeal – and that’s why I am using this opportunity – is don’t continue this talk about who is allowed to vote and who not. We are all elected and we all have the same right to decide about the future of Europe.

Madam President, Philippe, I really respect you very much, you know this. I respect everyone. But sorry, ‘pro—European majorities in this Chamber’ does not automatically mean the Green and Socialist majority in this Chamber. Let me be clear on this. (Loud applause) That’s why we voted today on content and there was a majority in this Chamber, clearly expressed by the Chamber. I tell you that at the end of the vote, when we had the chance to give the green light to the start of the trilogue, it is a reality in this House that the Socialists, Greens and Left voted together with the far right against the proposal of the majority of this Parliament. That’s a reality. Don’t change the history, that’s not fair. (Loud applause)

Madam President, yes, let’s assess the last Council meeting. First of all, about sanctions, defence, all the other initiatives, I think the outcome is good. We took a step forward. Europe is on a good path. But I ask myself, frankly speaking, when we reflect about the last Council meeting, why nobody mentioned until now the name of Viktor Orbán. Because when people saw what happened in the last European Council, I think they understood that there is Viktor Orbán, one of the crazy guys, at the table, and this is a problem for us as Europeans. I ask myself, how was it to sit next to him, to have the experience of being blackmailed by Viktor Orbán, to have Putin’s interests sitting at the table? I have a long history personally with Viktor Orbán. We kicked him out two years ago. Today, my party, the PPE, is in Poland, and in Czechia, for example, we kicked the corrupt Babiš out of office. So we are the rule of law party today in a lot of central and Eastern European countries. I am proud about this. But again, how was it? And I ask these questions because I think a lot of people, all of Europe, understand that the current architecture, the current decision-making process is not anymore giving us answers to the tasks of the table. That’s why the question again: why are we not initiating the passerelle clause in the Lisbon Treaty? Why don’t we discuss these issues? The European Parliament will vote tomorrow on the idea to ask for a convention. I think, all colleagues from the other Groups, that we find a good text now, that we find a common understanding about our requests on the table, a joint text. I hope that the leaders have enough will, show enough leadership, to really develop the idea of a convention. When we speak about leadership, then also Ukraine is in our mind, The next European Council will have to discuss its candidate status. I want to remind us that a few days after the war started, on 24 February, President Zelenskyy was here on the screen and he was asking us, Are we welcome? Can we become a member of the club? Is it worth to fight? That was his question. And I said here, like a lot of my colleague: yes, you have to come, yes, you can join the European Union. And that’s why it’s so important that we give, in the next European Council, a clear mandate, a clear signal to the Ukrainian friends that their fight is a good fight and they are welcome in the European family. So that’s why we need a decision of a candidate status now, that is what we need, and also for Moldova. I want to be clear on this, that the Republic of Moldova has to have the same treatment. I want to underline that this is part of a broader development, for sure. And we speak about the Western Balkans. The whole enlargement process is not any more about the single market, it is today about stability, and that’s why we should do it now. We should show leadership again in this aspect. And my Group is fighting hard for this. And then I want to welcome the initiatives from the Commission on food security. A lot of these issues are good issues and to prioritise this is great. Probably, generally speaking, we can say that farmers are not seen anymore as the bad guys polluting our environment, because that was the perception over the last years. Farmers are those who are working hard, families who are working hard to deliver high-quality food for all of us. And that should be respected, that should be seen, especially in the week when we celebrate 60 years of the CAP. And then we speak about the economic situation for farmers. Here I want to ask the President of the Council to consider putting another item on the agenda of the next European Council, because for the moment we speak a lot about the external dimension but we do not speak so much about the concerns of our citizens, and that is about inflation, that is about the interest rates going up in the next few months. From what we hear from the ECB, the growth rate is not promising for today’s European expectations. We are facing a recession, a possible recession. People are confronted with the question: can I pay my bill for holidays now or for a better education for my children? That is the question of citizens in the European Union. And that’s why politically, populists are already waiting for this development. We have to give an answer. We have to prioritise this debate now. We have to prioritise it now. And the PPE always insists on jobs, jobs, jobs. That is our message and I ask you now to put this on the agenda of the European Council to discuss this issue among leaders. From my political family, I can tell you, with strengthening the single market, less bureaucracy, yes to trade agreements. We need the Mercosur agreement now and also in this Fit for 55 package of today to find a good balance; we want to have a decarbonisation but not a de-industrialisation of the European Union. That is now on the table and that’s why we have to prioritise this issue. Leadership is needed again.