What Jan spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, this debate has always showed very clearly what is going on in the European Parliament. Because of the changes in the budget, we have the very clear presentation of anti-Europeans and pro-Europeans, even the pacifists who are now becoming pro-Russians. So, I think this is quite a typical situation. But the big majority is on a very clear mainstream and very, very pro-democratic. Of course, what showed this debate and of course the whole work is that this kind of timing, because of the chantage, blackmailing, is absolutely unacceptable, because the Parliament is pushed to the wall and cannot any space of manoeuvre. So, this was absolutely unacceptable and we know very well what are the critical and negative elements of the result. But when you compare the positive and negative, I mean there are much more positive elements which now happened with the MFF. I would like to say that we know very well that the budget is not big enough, is not prepared to face the new challenges. This is very clear, it’s not flexible. But still, thanks to the work of the European Commission, and I would like to also thank the Belgian Presidency for a very constructive way that, pushed to the wall, we managed to finalise and to find a compromise. I would like to also to thank my co-rapporteur, Margarida Marques, and also our staff, very competent professionals who helped us in the whole process.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! Today's decision of the European Parliament has many important meanings for the functioning of this institution and for the functioning of the European Union in general. Firstly, this decision of today's Parliament to give its consent to the budget revision closes a certain procedure related to the preparation of assistance to Ukraine. The famous 50 billion that was discussed by the Heads of State and Government was a preliminary decision and today Parliament's decision closes this procedure. In other words, Parliament opens up the possibility of transferring this money to Ukraine. This is of the utmost importance and therefore Parliament also takes responsibility for this type of action. Secondly, today's decision also confirms the necessary actions related to the multiannual budget of the current 2021-2027 period, the necessary changes that are related to covering migration-related costs. These are changes concerning economic issues, but also matters concerning security related to natural disasters. These are also changes that allow you to better prepare for repayment of the loan that was taken out on the financial markets. This element of the revision of the budget is important for the functioning of the European institutions today, but it is also important for the future financial perspectives, because it has been possible, thanks to the action of the European Commission, to cooperate also with the Belgian Presidency, to change certain rules for the functioning of the European budget. So it is important not only to revise the current measures, but also to prepare the next budget to be more flexible, to allow for more opportunities for change, not to introduce additional restrictions, not to create various barriers that will then interfere with payments. These are also changes that indicate that Parliament is once again, but this time with success, fighting to ensure that the money that was once transferred by the Member States to the budget remains in this budget. Therefore, these are changes that concern the current period, but for the European Parliament it is also a matter of preparing the next financial perspective. From the outset, the European Parliament has said that a revision would be needed during this multi-annual period, and indeed a revision was needed, and is now being completed. That is to say, the multiannual financial perspective 2021-2027 is being revised, we are completing the preparation of a political process – support for Ukraine, but at the same time we are changing the functioning of the budget and I believe that this is a joint success of the European institutions, that we have managed to achieve this.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr President of the European Council, Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We, as Parliament's rapporteurs on the Multiannual Financial Perspective, are well aware of the gravity of the situation. And we are aware of how much depends on the European Parliament today. That is why we very much welcomed the decision of the European Council to provide assistance to Ukraine. But we know very well that this decision can only come into force after the consent of the European Parliament. That is why our attitude, our actions and speed of action are absolutely crucial here. But in order for the European Union to provide good assistance to Ukraine for the future, it must have a functioning industry, good research. It must have a stable budget. That is why we believe that the decision to revise is absolutely necessary, necessary and right. We are in the process of completing all work and we hope that in this way we will get a budget that will be more flexible, which will be prepared for crisis situations, which will also allow Ukraine to support in the long run. That is why we, as the European Parliament, are ready to act quickly, concretely and count on the constructive position of the Belgian Presidency.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Madam Minister, I'm sorry. I have the impression that after such a debate Victor Orbán will be the main hero of the European Union and that his importance will grow. And yet we have to pay attention not only to who he is and what he does, but what he blocks. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that, firstly, we are at the final stage of the immigration pact, and at the same time there is information that there is no money for this, and therefore a change in the multiannual financial perspective is needed. At the same time, the Council of the European Union agreed to negotiate an instrument for Ukraine. This instrument for Ukraine requires money. I therefore invite the representatives of the European Council to answer the following question: if you agree to negotiate this instrument for Ukraine, is there therefore a guarantee that there will be money for this instrument? Because without money, this instrument will be empty.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! It is not only the European Parliament that is waiting for the decision on next year's budgets. This is what the citizens of the European Union are waiting for, who would like to know whether, if we set certain priorities, certain tasks – such as, firstly, Ukraine, the most important, secondly, immigration issues, as you said, do we have the money for this? The European Commission has calculated the costs of these actions, which are necessary. On the other hand, since then, despite the fact that Parliament has also calculated the costs and shown how much it really requires - and we see in the Council constant attempts to look for reserves inside the budget, to move from one drawer to another, to look for solutions, that is, to show that we have too much money and we just need to move it - the European Parliament has strongly said: It can't be done that way. The priorities, unfortunately, require all European countries to add money. We are waiting for an urgent decision on this matter.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The 2024 budget is running, in its preparation, in a rather specific atmosphere, because on the one hand we have very difficult external conditions, because there is war and other conflicts, and on the other hand, as we have been talking about for a long time, it is undoubtedly necessary to prepare a budget amendment, i.e. a revision of the multiannual budget. Our rapporteur of the European Parliament and the negotiating group were well aware that the 2024 annual budget could not really be fully implemented without a revision. We were all aware of that. Therefore, the European Parliament’s approach was not only very rational, but also responsible, as in Parliament’s normal behaviour it could be assumed that Parliament would use the instrument of influence on – also – the Council, i.e. that Parliament would use the instrument of non-compliance for the annual budget, provided that there is an amendment to the multiannual budget. The European Parliament has clearly shown a responsible attitude through its rapporteurs, through our lead rapporteur and through others. We agreed to the annual budget, knowing that we would have to change the multiannual budget anyway.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. First of all, I would like to stress that the role of the rapporteurs, who are implementing the European Parliament's plan in a very consistent way, should be pointed out with great respect, but in order to bring about fundamental changes. It is worth noting this, because in politics it does not always happen that someone is consistent and follows a certain plan. The new own resources of the European Union – as can be seen from the ongoing discussion – have two faces. First of all, the question is how we will repay the huge debt in the financial markets: Will we have new sources of income, or will we have to change the nature of the European budget at all and reduce the funding of European policies or increase the contribution to the European Union? And the second face that appears here, that is, the question of what the Union is supposed to be. Should the revenue structure be changed? Should the EU be stronger, more independent and more important in the financial markets? And a question to the Council: which of these elements is important to the Council if the Council does not act?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Listening to this debate, it is clear that the majority of Parliament is in favour of the proposal for a revision. But can someone say if we are standing on the ground at all, or are we behaving rationally? When the Commission proposes to increase the budget, the Council is really saying that it will not increase it, and we are responding to increase it even more. Is that rational? Is that pragmatic? Do we know what we're doing? Are we serious about this debate? We are rational and pragmatic. We want to show exactly what the priorities of the European Union are as a Parliament. We want to show that we support the European Commission's proposal and that it is going in the right direction, but it is simply not enough. We want to make it clear that it is not possible to promise different actions to citizens and then not to secure the means for doing so. You can't act in such a way as to do more for less. This is simply unacceptable and it causes dissatisfaction and also an increase in anti-European movements. The European Parliament is rational, even if it proposes 10 billion more. Will it work? We will see, but for today we expect a decisive move from the Council. Are we waiting for the Council to tell us that it will actually maintain the package? And it won't break it into pieces, it won't bring us small changes to save the situation. So I call on all colleagues to vote for our position, whether you think it's rational or not. But I assure you, we know what we're doing.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, thank you very much. I would like to remind you that today the European Parliament will vote on its position on the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027. But it should also be an important indication for us and an important reminder of the debate that has been going on for many years in the European institutions. Can we really predict and plan well the European budget for seven years? Are we prepared for surprising situations, for unforeseen circumstances, for crises? Shouldn't a budget prepared for seven years be prepared in advance for revision, for change? Shouldn't the budget be more flexible to respond? The European Parliament has said from the beginning that this budget for 2021-2027 is too small, that it will not be enough, and we did not know about the upcoming crises yet. This view was also shared by the European Commission at the time when the needs were compiled. The budget turned out to be much smaller than the needs that were defined at that time. Nevertheless, a decision was taken on the Multiannual Financial Framework with a review in the middle of this period. From the beginning, we said: It is not enough to revise the budget, it will be necessary to revise it. And then there were unforeseen circumstances: COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, raised questions as to whether this budget is enough or whether we need to change it. The first response from the governments was that there would be no revision. Fortunately, however, at that time the European Commission prepared proposals for the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework, as we discussed in 2022. The European Commission has prepared this amendment and Parliament generally agrees with it. agrees on the list of priority actions, on the need to allocate money to Ukraine, on the need to strengthen the issues of innovation, competitiveness on global markets, to add money to migration, but also on the need to make the budget more flexible in order to respond to unforeseen opportunities; And now the European Parliament is proposing: We agree with the European Commission's proposal, but we believe that it should be further strengthened. That is why our proposal, the European Parliament, speaks of an additional ten billion. This is quite a symbolic sum, because of course it could be broken down into more detailed issues, but we, as the European Parliament, want to point out that there are priority actions that need to be strengthened, but time is important. That is why we are taking this decision today, that is why we are waiting for the decision of the Council. We believe that the Council must take a decision quickly, because the money that was foreseen for Ukraine ends at the end of the year. After all, we need to prepare the 2024 budget. That is why today we come as the European Parliament and say: This is our proposal. We expect swift action from the Council on how to change this financial framework, how to find additional money for the second part of this framework. After all, not only do we have to respond to new challenges, but we will still have to repay the loan, and we propose solutions that will facilitate this type of action. It is therefore important to understand Parliament's position. Parliament is not asking for more money. The European Parliament supports the most important priorities for the Union, shows how to achieve this and calls on the Council to act swiftly.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. It is worth recalling here once again that the issue of own income, new own income did not arise in connection with the loan taken out. This issue had already been raised much earlier and concerned the future of the European Union in general. It concerned the shape of the European Union and its construction, but also the way we pay for the tasks that await us. This has already been mentioned by the rapporteurs, but this issue has been discussed here in the European Parliament for several years. Parliament has long said that the European Union needs to change its nature, but reality has preceded this discussion and we are already in a situation where our talks have taken on a different meaning. Now is the time to repay the debt and, therefore, today new own revenues are absolutely necessary, but they really concern the shape of the Union in general, its importance and its character in the future.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The title of our debate today refers to all the European institutions, but of course we know that the pretext for these activities and discussions is the corruption scandal in the European Parliament. We ask ourselves whether the fact that this type of crime occurs is the result of the weakness of human nature, that is, the vulnerability to crime, or is it the weakness of the system, of the organizational system? The European Parliament reacted very quickly to this type of action, and we all know that there has been a proposal for 14 points proposed by the President, and this proposal has been carefully examined and is currently in the implementation phase. Therefore, I would like to say that this is why the European People's Party, our group, was against this debate, because last week the Conference of Presidents decided to launch the process of implementing the points that are supposed to improve the situation in the European Parliament. There are some extremely important elements concerning transparency, concerning the rights of Members and former Members, there are also elements concerning the functioning of the register of all lobbyists and how is this register, which is, after all, common to all European institutions, to be organised? I understand that the Commissioner mentioned this, that all institutions should consider together whether this registration system should not be improved. We, as parliamentarians, are currently at the stage of reflecting on the implementation of certain changes, as well as embarking on the reform of the European Parliament. No laws will give a dam to criminals. However, we need to consider whether there are gaps in our system that need to be addressed. We should, of course, start by ensuring that all Members of the European Parliament have the necessary information regarding already existing rules, existing rules and existing institutions. Because the conversations I have had indicate that the information about the existing system of rules is not known to everyone. We have a lot of work to do. I hope that this work will be done together with the European Commission.

The last sentence is very important. For this reason, the EPP Group has decided that until the integrity of this procedure is restored, it will not take part in any preparation, any negotiation, any co-signing and any debate, and will not take part in the plenary votes on the urgency resolutions.

Madam President, we take note that the Chamber has rejected our request. For this reason, allow me to explain the position of the EPP Group. The EPP Group has tried hard to persuade other groups to include in this week’s resolution on corruption a need to define the scope of urgency resolutions better in order to ensure proper scrutiny of a third-party influence. But incredibly, this was not accepted. A majority composed of the left-wing groups in this House did not even accept a single reference to the urgent need for transparency and financing of NGOs, when we all know that the NGOs were involved with the scandal.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the EPP Group requests a point of order on the basis of Rule 200(4) of the EP Rules of Procedure on the adjournment of a vote. In light of the ongoing criminal investigations into a corrupt network of individual Members, former Members and assistants in the European Parliament, the EPP Group is extremely concerned about the integrity of the foreign policy positions of the European Parliament as expressed in the urgency resolutions. We simply cannot continue with business as usual before we can establish with certainty that the integrity of the procedure and the network does not remain compromised by third countries like Qatar. We should stop all work on urgency resolutions. We must take bold and radical decisions to stop the damage of this corrupt network from spreading further into our parliamentary work. This is why, Madam President, on behalf of the EPP Group, I request that all the three votes of urgency resolutions are adjourned.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, I think that at the end of our debate, before voting, it’s very clear that the European Parliament, in its majority, really feels co-responsible for the actions which should be organised and made by the European Union. This is our challenge but, of course, we know very well how difficult it is and how difficult it will be to find the financial resources to do it. So that’s why I think, and I hope, that you understand that we are waiting for the very concrete steps. I would like to thank Mr Commissioner for explaining what is the ambitious review, but I understand that when we speak about revision and the Commission speaks about review, the question is, is it a real difference? I don’t think so. I don’t think so, because if we want to change something, and we have to change, we need a very deep and ambitious review. And, of course, at the end of this debate, I would like to say that if this review is really well done and really not only ambitious but very, very concrete, the conclusions will be absolutely obvious, because the review will show that we have to change the MFF. So I think that if your review will be ambitious, we will have revision, and I think that we share this view and the Council will agree as well.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The question we ask ourselves today is this: Why are we now, before the end of 2022, adopting the text of the resolution on the Multiannual Financial Framework? What is the reason why Parliament wants to strongly ask the European Commission to prepare a proposal for a revision, i.e. a revision of the multiannual financial perspective? It has usually been the case in Parliament's experience so far that Parliament has agreed, after a lot of difficult discussions, to a relatively smaller budget, assuming that there would nevertheless be a change halfway through the perspective and that Parliament would then claim some expenditure. The situation today is completely different. The situation is therefore different, because the conditions that surround us make us ask ourselves whether this budget is prepared for new challenges. Can we cover the most urgent, COVID-related, war-related expenses? Is this budget properly structured? Do we have enough funds? At the same time, we have new proposals, new programs, new initiatives that cost money. The European Parliament says: It's not enough for us to review, it's not enough for us review. There has to be a change, because this budget has to be changed. It's not just about giving more money. The idea is to change this budget in such a way that it is able to react quickly to some of the latest challenges, so that it can react, so that it can respond to new difficulties. On the one hand, we point out where there are gaps, where there is a real lack of money, and at the same time we propose what should be done, how to approach it, how to find solutions, also when rebuilding the functioning of the budget. We look forward to the cooperation of the European Commission. And even if everyone today repeats that there will be no revision, there are proposals for revision. We have just carried out a revision of the Multiannual Financial Perspective on macroeconomic assistance to Ukraine. This was a small revision of the Multiannual Financial Perspective. Today, in this room, the President of the European Commission spoke about the announcements of a new fund, the Sovereignty Fund, that proposals would be coming soon. How will this fund be, what will have to be done? The Multiannual Financial Perspectives will need to be revised. In other words, we know that we will have to change. Politically, this is a very difficult decision. Parliament today in a resolution says: we expect the Commission to act very urgently. We expect the Commission to present its proposal for amendment in the first quarter of 2023. Time is running out. This budget really needs to change. The long-term perspective needs revision. We say how we would like to do this, where to look for resources, how to approach new sources of income in the European Union. So it's time to act. And for now, Commissioner, we are tabling a resolution, in which we expect the Commission to act as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Secretary of State! Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The debate on the veto, of course, has two sides. On the one hand, we have countries that are afraid of being voted on. And it's not just about small countries, it's also about big countries. On the other hand, there is the fear of using the veto as a method of blackmail. Different points of view must be taken into account, but first and foremost the effectiveness of the functioning of the European Union must be considered. Effectiveness requires speed of decision. It is time for us to talk about which European policies require unanimity, but in which we must decide to move away from unanimity in the name of efficiency and effectiveness. Example: The Multiannual Financial Framework is decided unanimously by the Council. Parliament will once again vote tomorrow on a text asking the Council to unanimously authorise all governments to vote by majority so that certain budgetary processes concerning the governance of the Union can be speeded up. I therefore ask the representative of the Council precisely to consider this possibility, because everyday decisions require speed, efficiency, so that we take them at a time when it is really necessary. Therefore, the right of veto has its different sides. I draw attention to the effectiveness of the European Union's action.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The discussion on macro-economic assistance is in fact on two levels. The first level is, of course, the necessary assistance to Ukraine in maintaining macroeconomic stability, in maintaining the functioning of the state in all its functions. This is not money for the reconstruction of Ukraine. This is money to maintain the stability of the state. It is important that we emphasize this element, because the expectations are very high. According to the calculations, the proposal that we have on the table today is to provide one and a half billion euros in loans every month, throughout 2023, starting in January. A total of 18 billion euros. This necessitated changes in legislative matters. And that's the second dimension. We are in a completely different situation in the European Union. There was a breakthrough in the recovery fund. There is a consent to take out loans on the capital market. The fact that the fund was successfully acquired also opens the way for this type of action. It is important that we keep this in mind, because this is a completely different type of functioning of the European Union. And for us as Parliament, it is important that we urgently agree to make legislative changes in order to facilitate this type of action on the capital markets. This is absolutely necessary. But this is also an element pointing to the future activities of the European budget.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. As co-rapporteur for the Multiannual Financial Framework, I have the opportunity to look at whether the European Union budget is well-designed to face new challenges. Of course, in the coming months we will be asking the Commission and the Council to revise this budget, but the key issue is what the European Union budget will be financed from, what the sources of revenue will be, how they will guarantee not only the implementation of policies, but also the repayment of debt. From this point of view, a quick decision on own revenues is absolutely crucial for building a stable system and the future multiannual financial perspective.

Mr President, let me first express my thanks on behalf of the EPP Group for the very good cooperation with the Commission on the programme from last year. And I think that it is important, especially in this Chamber, to remind all of us that this is the third year of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) – I mean, 23 – but this is our fourth year of this term. So the end of the term is coming. And the question is, how will we be judged? How will we be evaluated? How did we behave facing this completely new situation? I mean, ‘we’ as in Parliament, preparing legislation, and you the Commission. I think how well you are prepared to adapt to the new situation is very important. So when we look at the European Commission programme, we can see, of course, the ongoing processes, the pending elements which we will have to finalize, and we will have the new initiatives which are proposed by the Commission. But there is also the part which is not written in the programme which is the question of the capacity to adapt to completely new, unexpected situations. This is probably next year’s activity. So we will be, as you will be, evaluated for the response to completely unexpected situations concerning the war, climate change, food crises, etc. So that’s why we have to take care of everything that can happen – not only everything that is planned but all that can happen. So that’s why we as the EPP would like to concentrate everything on the jobs, especially the jobs for citizens, farmers, SMEs, businesses. This is also about the functioning of European energy markets. This is also the question of protecting EU citizens from outside threats. So I think this is very important. And the question of how to fight foreign interferences and the attack against democratic values and our way of life. This is for us two basic elements, because when we speak about the social market economy, we are speaking about people. So we have to take care of their life. And we have to take care of the programmes but, of course, take care not to create victims of the programmes. We cannot have people falling victim to our ambitions. We have to be very rational and very clear. Let me finish, Mr Commissioner, by expressing that I found in your documents, for the first time, the expression that you are not ruling out a revision of the MFF. This is the first time we have heard this from the Commission. Up to now, it has been only a ‘review’ or even an ‘ambitious review’. But this is the first time I have read about the possibility of revision. I can keep your promise and we will see how it will happen.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! 2023 is the third year of the multiannual financial perspective. In a normal situation, it would have been a year of very serious advancement in spending. Unfortunately, external conditions have meant that expenditure will accumulate in the second part, so it will probably start in 2023. Therefore, we assume that more funds will be needed for this. In addition, completely new situations are emerging, unforeseen so far, and it is likely that the Commission, as in 2022, will respond to extraordinary situations in Europe and in the world. We cannot rule out the possibility of new commitments, new promises, new declarations of expenditure, in particular when it comes to energy or war issues. If this is the case, then the budget must be prepared for this type of action. It has to be more flexible. It must be able to react quickly and adapt to the situation. Therefore, as my colleagues have said, I am absolutely in favour of the revision of the budget and I would like to express my satisfaction to the Commissioner that, for the first time, the wording of the revision appears in the document on the committee's plan. This was a pleasant surprise for me, because so far the Commission has only used the wording of the review.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! Today we are talking about one of the most serious issues, one of the fundamental human rights. And, of course, we very much welcome the information on what action is being taken by both the European Commission and the Council. However, we have the impression that for the most part these are declarations and not necessarily concrete actions. As Members of the European Parliament, we have repeatedly asked that reports on violations of religious freedom be widely disseminated and reported on. We have repeatedly said that in bilateral matters, the European Union side should take into account possible violations of religious freedom and that this should be reflected in foreign policy conducted by external services. We have been waiting for several years for information on the special envoy for religious freedom, and we hope that in the coming days we will find out not only who will be this envoy, but what happened that for several years this envoy could not be appointed. Finally, I would like to say that if we want to be a model for the whole European Union and for the whole world, we should also care about religious freedom within the Union. The situation in the Union is becoming increasingly complicated and I also call on the Commission, the Council, to pay attention to religious freedom within the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. At the moment, we are asking ourselves the fundamental question of whether the budget of the European Union is prepared, whether it is properly structured, whether it is sufficient to meet the new challenges that lie ahead. The answer we give in the Committee on Budgets is that it is not prepared. We therefore have to revise the multiannual financial framework and convince the Council, the governments, but also the European Commission, to make such an effort, to decide to show the public that we need changes to the budget. The first such change, which fortunately the European Commission is now proposing with the support of the European Parliament, is to make the legislative system more coherent. That is, on the one hand, we are dealing with the need to create new own revenues, including the use of emissions trading and changing the model of this emissions trading, respectively. Parliament has already taken a decision on this. At the same time, there is a second thread on energy issues, in other words, everything we voted on in our Parliament under the slogan Fit for 55. The idea was to ensure consistency between own income and new expenditure. And the third very important issue here is the question of the consequences of introducing certain legislative solutions, consequences not for politicians, consequences not for the European institutions, but consequences for residents, for Europeans, for residents of our countries. Therefore, the idea has arisen that in order to offset and reduce the negative consequences, it is necessary to create an additional fund that will precisely tie up elements of own income, but also issues related to the achievement of climate goals. Such a mechanism to protect citizens is crucial. What we are talking about today is not just a technical discussion. Today's conversation is about translating, translating the language of legislative decisions on energy and climate protection into concrete elements of the European budget. That is why today we are talking about the Social Climate Fund, where the money for this fund should come from, how to guarantee that it will be included in the budget and controlled by the European Parliament. We therefore have an important decision ahead of us, which will make our actions more coherent. own revenue, Fit for 55 and caring for people – together this is to create a sensibly and wisely shared social climate fund.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Madam Minister, I'm sorry. Today we are talking about the social and economic consequences for the Union, but we should not say what the consequences will be, but what the consequences may be. If we talk about what the consequences might be, it is a question of what we, as the European Union, will do to reduce the negative consequences as much as possible. What steps are we ready to take? We welcome the next package of sanctions, but we need to think about how the European Union should continue to function. How is it to be organised, how is it to be managed and how is it to be financed? As rapporteur for the Multiannual Financial Framework, I would like to put a question to the Commissioner in public: Is the Multiannual Financial Framework we have today prepared, ready to respond to the challenges of war? Is this a structure that is prepared for such serious crises? I'm not just talking about this war, I'm talking about every major crisis. The answer is quite clear. This is not well-prepared for such challenges. We have to change that. However, the European Parliament is currently preparing to call on both the European Commission and the Council to proceed with the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework. We need a different type of mechanism. It's not just that we need more money. Finally, we need to rethink some budgetary mechanisms. The budget needs to be more flexible, it needs to be more prepared for challenges. The budget must not send unspent money back to the Member States, but must leave it in the budget. I hope the Council understands this this time. So we have to take action, not just talk about what the consequences will be.

Madam President, by the way, we are not speaking about the mid—term review, but mid-term revision. But my question was what about the stress test? I mean the revision of legislation which exists in the future.