Speeches

Madam President! Not so long ago, my washing machine broke down, and I called the repairman to see if he would come out and fix it. It was only a little over two years old, the washing machine. Then he tells me he thinks it would be a bad idea. It will be more expensive for me to get my washing machine repaired than to go out and buy a new one. I checked it out and it turned out to be absolutely true! And I'm not all alone. When you look at Europe’s landfills, piles of washing machines, printers, phones and textiles and everything else are piling up, wasting the planet’s resources and burdening our environment, challenging our wallets and ending up buying new ones all too often instead of repairing them. But fortunately, we now have a new EU law where this could change. It should be no more difficult to get your things repaired than it is to buy new ones. With the proposal now on the table, we have an opportunity to know how to get our things repaired and what it will cost to have them repaired, how long there are spare parts, and of course also an extension of this guarantee if we actually end up having our things repaired. I think all of this is crucial if we are to achieve the green transition. We need to get our things repaired instead of just throwing them out. So I fully support the new law that is in place and, in particular, thank the rapporteur, Repasi, for doing a really good job here. I look forward to seeing the final result.

Mr President! Every year, thousands of Europeans die of poor air quality from the transport sector. We have just heard that, and we also know it from the World Health Organization. It is the biggest threat to our health in the EU, so tackling air pollution is a shared – or should be a shared – political responsibility. A responsibility for city councillors and for national politicians and from us at European level. But a majority in this House has refused to assume that responsibility. With the Euro 7 agreement, we simply do not deliver on air pollution. I think it is embarrassing that the European Parliament should relinquish its responsibility for the health of its citizens, and it would actually be quite wrong to call the proposal we have in this House Euro 7. It is rather close to the existing Euro 6 proposal. Of course, we need to balance health-industry and competitiveness considerations. But the Commission had already ensured that there was a balance in this. And with the agreement of the European Parliament, we will completely eliminate the balance that existed. From Renew to ID, they've ruined the balance. They have watered down the Commission's proposal. Together with the automotive industry, they have reduced the ambitions in terms of emissions, they have deteriorated the testing and they have delayed the implementation. As far as I am concerned, this is a really, really bad proposal which in no way helps the citizens and ensures their health. I think it is embarrassing and I and my group will be voting against this proposal. We do not think it is ambitious, we do not think it delivers on what it should deliver on, and therefore there is only one thing, that is to say 'no' to that proposal, and I would like the Commission to act a little harder and dare to criticise the proposal that is before us today. For the Commission must also be quite disappointed to see their own proposal watered down as drastically as it is.

Mr President, truth is the first casualty of war, it is said. Online this is true now more than ever. One of the new battlegrounds in modern conflicts is social media platforms. Online the weapon of choice is not tanks and guns, but illegal content and disinformation. During the despicable Hamas terrorist attack against Israel, fake videos and pictures flooded social media. Posts on X, for instance, showed the detonation of a nuclear bomb, accusing Israel of authorising the use of nuclear power in Gaza. Other videos showing Hamas shooting down Israeli helicopters were also circulating. The videos were fake, but when this became clear, the damage was already there and done. The videos had already gone viral, being seen and shared by thousands and thousands, and videos had achieved their purpose – to spread uncertainty and escalate the conflict even further. This is just a few examples of widespread disinformation circulating on our social media. Big tech companies, they have the responsibility to tackle disinformation on their platforms. With the DSA, the law obliged them to do so. We oblige the platforms to do risk assessments, to mitigate risk of spreading disinformation, and to take action against illegal content. We in this House have done our part. Now platforms need to do their part and live up to their responsibility and deliver. If they don’t, they risk damaging public security and our democracy. Platforms need to play by the rules of the DSA and, if not, they must be subject to sanctions. So therefore I urge the EU Commission to stand firm on this and enforce the law without delay. I trust you in doing that.

Mr President! Almost 20 months. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has been going on for so long. The news value has diminished. There is more time between the reports from Ukraine and Breaking News on TV contains news about other hotspots now. But our support must not falter. That is my message to the Council today. Continue the support. Continue the unity. We know that war is a marathon, not a sprint. We must be with the Ukrainian people all the way through, and at the finish line awaits not only freedom, democracy and self-determination, but also, in the long term, membership of the European Union. That is why it is so incredibly important that we adopt the Ukraine Facility. EU support to Ukrainian welfare institutions is needed. To Ukrainian civil society and, not least, to the necessary democratic reforms. We must ensure that Ukraine not only wins the war, but also wins its European future. I hope that the Council will support this.

Mr President! The EU has adopted a historic number of sanctions against Russia, and yet the war continues. Does that mean sanctions don't work? No, because sanctions are not a bulldozer who drives in and knocks over the house overnight. Sanctions are a sledgehammer that you repeatedly knock against the concrete foundation of the house - sanctions package after sanctions package. You knock the hammer against the foundation, and it feels like you're not going anywhere. But it is not free to stand up for our values and for our security. We knew that, and now we feel it. But luckily - in the end - I am sure that the hammer nevertheless causes the foundation to crack. Eventually, the foundation crumbles and the house is weakened. We are not in line with the sanctions, but this is not the time to put down the hammer. We need to tighten up further with sanctions and strike even harder. But we must take it calmly in the sense that it will work. It will have an effect. We need to do this for our security and for the security of Ukraine. So stay on track, Commission. We need to work here.

Madam President! Freedom of expression and the free media are the cornerstone of our democratic society. This has always been the case from the underground press during the World War to Charlie Hebdo's relentless fight for freedom of speech. But today we see a new and growing threat to our media. The tech giants' platform has increasingly evolved into online assembly houses, where we log on to get news and to debate. That is fine, but we also see that the platforms with opaque rules remove completely legal news articles from free media. That can't be right. Free media should not be censored by the platforms, which is why I am extremely pleased that the European Media Freedom Act is continuing the work we have done with the Digital Services Act. We strengthen the free media and provide them with special protection against the opaque censorship needs of tech giants. It should be the editors of the media who decide what is published - not Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk.

Madam President! Every year, more than 300 000 Europeans die prematurely due to air pollution in the EU. It is our responsibility, so of course we have to do something. We need to do more than what we are doing today, and that is why it is also good that we have the new legislation that increases the demands on all of us, on industry, on the Member States and so on, to do something, because that is so much needed. Because it costs dearly, it costs dearly on health, on quality of life and, of course, when people die prematurely. But what we also need to be aware of is that when we adopt this law tomorrow, hopefully and hopefully by a majority in Parliament, we are still not there. There is still more we need to do, and things are interlinked. So when we are negotiating new Euro 7 standards or CO2 standards for heavy-duty vehicles, it also comes into play. Because if we do not have high criteria here too, then we cannot do anything about air pollution, and that is why it is sad to hear the Conservative group here today stand by and say that we have done too much, almost that nothing more needs to be done. It's disgraceful. We owe it to the Europeans that we do something drastic so that we actually make sure that there are no people dying from air pollution. It is possible to prevent. That is why I support the law we will make tomorrow, which we will vote through tomorrow. That's really, really important. I hope we get a majority. This is a huge step forward for the health of Europeans. They deserve that.

Madam President! Naturen er presset. We're feeling it right now. When we drive down through Europe on our way to summer vacation, there are fewer insects hitting the car window. There are fewer and fewer places in Europe where we can drink the water directly from the tap. There is oxygen depletion in lakes and streams. Species are dying out at extremely high speeds. Nature is losing. But we can do something. It just requires political will. Fortunately, the European Commission shares this commitment. This will is shared by a majority in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. But in this House, the conservative right has chosen to gamble with our nature and future. We must restore lost nature for the sake of animals and plants. For the sake of your and my drinking water, for the sake of food safety now and in the future. That is why we need to start these negotiations now. The Conservatives have slowed the law down long enough. Nature must win. It's nature's turn now. I hope you will vote yes tomorrow. Thank you.

Madam President! Thanks for that. This summer, we are seeing the consequences of the climate crisis even more clearly than ever before. Europe is thirsty. The rivers are drying up, the water table is sinking, agriculture is under pressure and nature is suffering. There's a fight for the water. Climate action in Europe is therefore crucial. We must do what we can to avoid further climate change while compensating for what we have already seen. But it is also crucial that we take good care of the drinking water we have. In many places, drinking water is polluted. That is what the Commissioner said. Among other things, it is contaminated with PFAS. In my homeland there is an island called Fanø. And here the drinking water was so contaminated with PFAS that it was harmful to health to drink it. Now the waterworks has invested in a filter that can remove PFAS from drinking water. This is good news for the residents of Fanø. But it's symptomatic treatment, but at least you do something. I believe that we need to act more actively at European level to protect the drinking water we already have. And we should do that by introducing a full PFAS ban. I would therefore like to ask the Commission whether the Commission is willing to revise the REACH Regulation so that we can have this ban on PFAS so that we can protect the water we already have. This act of acting here and now in relation to PFAS is really, really important. The drinking water we have must be protected, and then, in the long run, with our climate change, we must prevent things from getting even worse.

–Mrs President! We need companies to invest in Europe. We need to produce more ourselves in Europe. This is vitally important. This is especially true at a time when the United States to the west is trying to attract European companies, and China and Russia to the east are rattling with the sabers. We need to do better on our own. We have to be in our own right, but so can we. Men derfor er investeringer i Europa også nøglen til fortsat vækst og til at forbedre vores konkurrenceevne og sikre en grøn og bæredygtig omstilling af vores samfund. But I would also like to stress that our market is more attractive than it sounds here today. We have well-educated employees and we have a well-functioning society. We have a strong single market with millions – 100 million – of consumers, and we have plenty of support money. We also have political predictability. But, of course, we need to make better use of our single market to promote the green transition, and this needs to be done in a social and responsible way. We must also dare to make demands on the companies that want to participate. They need to be sustainable, they need to be resilient, they need to make sure that employees have a good life and a good working life too. But in return for that, they actually get good researchers, good economy and good predictability. I think we need to be better at telling how good it actually is to invest in Europe and then just fine-tune our internal market, because that is, of course, what is needed. But we're doing it far, far better than it sounds here today. But we need the green transition, and that is why we need investment to come to Europe as well.

Madam President! Batteries are a crucial part of the green transition. They are, so to speak, the fuel tank of our electric cars and, in the long term, also our trucks. They are crucial for the future energy storage of solar and wind, and therefore we need to get better at recycling them. Batteries are filled with strategically important materials such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, etc. These are materials that we do not have sufficient access to in Europe. We are totally dependent on importing them, including from China. That is why this law is so good that we now ensure that batteries also become part of the circular economy. Now we are going to legislate on the entire battery life cycle from design to last charge, and when we recycle the waste batteries better, we need to import fewer materials from China. It is good for the climate, it is good for the environment, and it is vitally important for Europe's independence. I don't think China should be the gatekeeper to Europe's green transition, and now we're starting to get some better batteries.

Madam President! Time has run out from buying, using and throwing away the culture. Instead, we want consumers to trade green. In fact, companies understand this as well. And that's why it abounds with products in brown wrapping paper with self-invented labelling schemes and printed lots of words that praise the product's sustainability, recyclability and biodegradability. But underneath can hide products that are outdated too early or are harder and more expensive to repair. As a consumer, it is really difficult to find the truly green products in the companies’ forest of ‘green washing’. It must be over now, and that is why I would like to thank Biljana Borzan for this really good report, in which we can, with this law, really put an end to completely unfair commercial practices that put consumers at a disadvantage in the green transition. Consumers need to be able to see how sustainable the product they put in the basket is. How long is the lifetime? Can it be repaired? Can I trust the labelling scheme? Consumers want these things to work in a better way. They finished buying, using and throwing away. Producers also need to support this, so they have to do it better, and they have to do it more honestly.

Madam President! In 2015, we were shocked by this scandal. Extremely shaken. Cars emitted much more NOx than they had to – deliberately manipulated by parts of the industry to circumvent the requirements. And it was a scandal because trust was broken. It was a scandal because in this way we allowed people to die prematurely because the cars polluted more than they had to. Totally unacceptable! Fortunately, we started at that time. In the European Parliament, we created a committee that looked at what had gone wrong and we revised our legislation, which, after all, gave us a better framework to ensure that this can be avoided in the future. But we still have a lot of cars that drive around out there and pollute. But the thing is, we have to learn from this. We still have a lot of old cars running around. It is unbelievable that we are allowing this and we still need to tighten up the rules. And now we see again, when we are in the process of tightening the Euro 7 rules, that the car industry is once again coming to our house and saying that it is not necessary and that it cannot be done, it is too expensive and everything possible. I believe that we need to do much more. We need and learn from Dieselgate. We need to test, and we need to monitor much more than we have done. Member States still have a responsibility, but so does the Commission. And then we need to have the Euro 7 legislation in place as soon as possible before the end of this mandate, although some people do not want this to happen. And then we have to phase out the internal combustion engine, because that's the problem in this. With an internal combustion engine, you also get NOx and other pollutant particles. Of course we should have done something about that. We need to show citizens that we take them seriously, that we take health seriously and that we take our own democracy seriously. That is why more needs to be done than what has happened at the moment, and that is why I hope that this House will help to support the delivery of Euro 7 standards – these are new standards that are needed – and that, moreover, we will continue the development we have in phasing out polluting vehicles for the benefit of our health and for the benefit of confidence in our system.

Madam President! Perpetuality chemicals are one of the greatest threats to our health and to our environment of our time. And it is a scandal that the EU has not done more to protect us from them. Toxic substances like PFAS are found everywhere in our everyday lives. They make us sick, they mess up our environment, and then they reduce fertility. Honestly, action is needed now! PFAS is a cross-border problem that can only be solved here in the EU community. But we've known about it for a long time. Why, then, have we done nothing more about it in the European Union? In fact, I think that the European Union is ignoring the precautionary principle when it has tacitly looked at the fact that our drinking water has been filled with PFAS. The Commission must take responsibility now so that we can adopt new chemicals legislation before the European elections. If we don't hurry, we run the risk that it will be years before we get to the end of this. And a lot of Member States have also been pushing for something to happen. In conclusion, therefore, I would like to ask the Commission directly: "What are we really waiting for?" Let's get that ban now!

Mr President! More and more Europeans are no longer buying their products in the local shops on the pedestrian street. They shop online in web shops and online marketplaces, and that presents us with a new challenge. Because while our product safety rules for many years have worked in the physical offline world and worked really well and been really good, the same does not apply online when shopping with the seller and not least from third countries. In short, the consumer risks buying the cat in the bag. Toys with carcinogens, flammable mobile chargers or hot blankets with bumps in. Our rules have not kept up with the times, which is why it is good that we are now taking action. And I am particularly pleased that we are ensuring that products imported outside the EU into the EU must now have the rules tightened up so that those who do this can be held accountable if the product does not live up to our rules. But that doesn't mean we're on target. We've only patched a few holes. I still believe that there is more to do in terms of securing products online when consumers shop. But it's good that we're getting started. And this is better than nothing.

Mr President! When I was a kid, the windshield on the cars was filled with insects and bees as you drove through the summer landscape. It was a sign of a healthy and diverse ecosystem. But it's not like that anymore. Insects and bees are endangered, not least because of our ruthless use of pesticides. More than 10 years ago, we adopted stricter rules on the use of pesticides in this House. This should reduce the use of pesticides and safeguard biodiversity and our valuable ecosystems. Today, it is clear to all of us that we have not achieved this goal. Science and the EU's own Court of Auditors have made it quite clear: Not enough has happened. It is crucial that we reduce the use of pesticides and transform our economy and production into a greener and toxic-free food system. And as we have called for here in the 'Farm to Fork' strategy: Action is needed. The citizens' initiative says so too, and I agree with them. Therefore, it is crucial that the ongoing revision of the SUD ensures that we reduce use, for the benefit of bees and for the benefit of future generations.

Madam President! Competition for green jobs has intensified. Inflation deduction act in the United States, solar cells and car battery production by China, are just a few examples. The EU's green jersey is challenged both from the east and from the west. Both because several countries have become aware of the climate challenges we face. That is good, but also because it has actually become a good business case, and therefore the EU is of course forced to react when the US pulls out the checkbook and encourages European companies to move their production to the US. Anything else would be unrealistic. But we need to do it in a way where we do not close ourselves and where the investments we make are both temporary and targeted. No one benefits from a State aid race, not even the EU. And the world has changed. We have to face that before it's too late. So dear Germany and dear EPP: This also applies to the phasing out of internal combustion engines in cars. The future is green, even when it comes to cars.

Madam President! The last move on internal combustion engines in cars is very good for the climate, and it is an absolutely necessary decision if we in the EU are to achieve our climate goals and comply with the Paris climate agreement. Men EPP er imod loven, fordi de frygter, at vi taber jobs i bilindustrien. I'm for the law. Because if we do not adopt it, we will lose jobs in the automotive industry. The green transition is the way forward both for the climate, but actually also to ensure growth and secure jobs. The future is in the green transition. There is no point in trying to hold onto a polluting old-fashioned technology. Because with this phase-out date, we're actually sending a clear signal to the industry: Now a new competition is starting, who can produce the best zero-emission car? This creates new opportunities for businesses in the EU, but also for the climate, and it creates lots of new green jobs. Come on into the fight for the future, EPP. We need this legislation for the climate, but also to secure jobs in the future.

Madam President! We are still not on target when it comes to fighting corruption in the European Union, nor in this House. Qatargate is a clear proof of this. Every stone must be turned, and no solution must be rejected in advance. The same is true when it comes to NGOs. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that it was precisely an NGO that ran and organised the corruption scandal that is still joking and shaking in our Parliament, and that is why we need to look at whether the rules need to be tightened. But just as we cannot turn a blind eye to the role of NGOs in the corruption scandal, so they must not blind us either. Lack of transparency applies not only to NGOs but also to business organisations. We saw this, for example, in the context of negotiations on the DSA and the DMA, where organisations allegedly representing small and medium-sized enterprises were in fact financed by Big Tech. So Qatargate is not just about individual MEPs or NGOs, it is about structure, and here more transparency and more control are key to solving that problem.

Mr President! Russia’s attack on Ukraine marked a breach of decades of peace in Europe. The images from Ukraine of civilian casualties, bombed cities and weeping relatives have affected us all. Where there used to be wars in other parts of the world, it has now moved very close to the EU's borders. The war has changed the state of the world. Energy policy has become security policy and industrial policy has become foreign policy. We have to take cutlery off that. Solar cells and wind turbines no longer just produce green energy, they produce freedom energy. By freeing ourselves from fossil fuels, we become independent of the world's tyrants, and that is our best weapon in the new security reality. But at a time when the world is changing, we must also remember that we must hold on to our allies. And here I am thinking, among other things, of Japan, which is experiencing many of the same challenges as us. Our strategic cooperation with our global allies is not a weakness, but a strength that can help us through times of crisis. We must not forget this in our quest for independence. Thank you.

Mr. President! Commissioner, colleagues. Have you tried to lose interest in hobbies and friends because all you wanted was to play computer games? Or have you experienced periods when all you thought about was playing again? The vast majority of us here will probably say no, we haven't tried that. And that's not because we're better at resisting temptations, but because we're not quite as young anymore. But the reality is different for our children and young people. In recent years, more children and young people have become addicted to computer games. And even though my own generation may find it difficult to relate to it, it speaks into a major crisis we have in our society, namely the whole well-being crisis. Too many children and young people today suffer from loneliness, insomnia and depression. Far from it all, of course, can be attributed to computer games, but some of it can. Therefore, we also need to look at how we can reduce the risk of becoming addicted to computer games. For example, it could be a demand for better parental control, a ban on the use of dark patterns and other addictive patterns and not least a showdown with the so-called loot boxes. Because it's not just your mental health that's at stake when addiction strikes. It also affects our wallets. The payment for computer games has changed quite considerably over the last 20 years. Once you bought a game in a store for a one-time payment. Nowadays, many games use micropayments as loot boxes. Here, young people and children are nudged to spend a lot of money on digital packages that can lead them further in the game. Common to them is that users do not actually know what they contain, and that they are often designed in a way like what is known from casino games, such as roulette and one-armed bandits. It shouldn't be like that. Computer games should not become children's casinos, and children should not be looted when they use their computer, and that is why we need to solve it. That is why I thank the rapporteur for a very good own-initiative report, and I hope that the European Commission will help to look at how we can work together to find solutions so that we can reduce gambling addiction without, of course, banning computer games. Thank you!

Mr. President! These days we are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the single market, and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that it is very good for the European Union that we have had this single market for so long. This is the crown jewel of European cooperation. However, the management and transport of our waste is, in fact, an essential part of the proper functioning of the internal market. And that is why it is also important that we now have a thorough look at these rules for the transport of waste. In recent years, we have become increasingly aware that waste is a resource. But at least that is our responsibility first and foremost, and that is why I am very pleased that Mrs Weiss' report specifically takes account of the fact that we have to deal with waste differently. I am very pleased that we want to strengthen the circular economy and that we are actually tackling plastic waste in particular. Plastic waste is something we generate a lot of, and it must therefore be the EU's own responsibility to handle the plastic waste we create ourselves. And this is what we in the European Parliament are now saying, with Mrs Weiss' report, that this is what we want to make law. That's what we want to do about. And then we must hope that we can convince the Council of the same. But it is crucial that we get rid of the fact that others have to take care of our waste. And I know it's hard. I know it can be difficult. I know there may be business you've sent out of the EU. However, we have a responsibility for our own waste, and that is why I support this report, because it precisely ensures that we take care of special plastic waste.

Mr. President! Thanks for that. It is often said, and Mrs Vestager has also said it today, but it can withstand yet another repetition. The single market is nothing short of a crown jewel in European cooperation. Over the last 30 years, the single market has created jobs, prosperity and well-being in the European Union, and that is how I hope it will continue. We celebrate today and congratulations to all of us. But, as is the case with all good inventions, they must continue to be developed, including the internal market. Therefore, I want to talk about some changes that we can do, rather than keep scratching up on all the really good things we have done. Firstly, I think it is important that we need to transform the internal market into a new type of globalisation. We need to move from 1.0 to 2.0. Industrial policy has become geopolitics again, and the internal market must be better equipped to deal with this. And that is why we need to make sure that we can be more independent from other countries without closing ourselves down. Secondly, as has also been said, the internal market is facing two major transformations; Green and digital. During this mandate, we have been incredibly ambitious, we have adopted the DSA legislation, common chargers and others. But we must continue in that direction, to be a frontrunner is exactly what ensures that we also have a market in the future. And then, as Mrs Vestager also talked about, implementation is absolutely, absolutely crucial. Our Member States are not doing enough to implement our legislation. That is why we need to look at how we can ensure that the many good laws we have made in the single market are actually enforced properly. And in this way, I hope that we can also help celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Single Market in 30 years' time.

Mr. President! Corruption. Interference in European decision-making processes. Elected people who do not live up to the trust that voters have placed in them. Yes, that is one of the things we have seen this week in the biggest scandal ever in this House. It does not belong in a democracy. It does not belong in the European Union and, of course, it does not belong in this Parliament. Autocratic regimes have been attacking our democracy for far too long, but they are in the process of further arming up, including on social media, with disinformation and with corruption in our parliament. But also in other areas. But seeing bags filled with money in exchange for supporting the disgusting interests of hostile powers is so problematic. We need to do something about it. There are a lot of things we need to do. Firstly, we must ensure that we elected representatives live up to the confidence of the electorate. It requires new rules in the house, but it also requires a change in our culture. Secondly, we must, among other things, put an end to the disinformation we see taking place online, which is aimed solely at destabilising our societies. With the Digital Services Act, we have taken a major step in the fight against disinformation online, and that is very good, but I believe that more needs to be done. We must take strong action against both those powers that are trying to destroy our democracy from the outside and those elected representatives who are also trying to destroy our democracy from the inside through corruption. Our democracy is under attack, and this requires us to take a wide range of initiatives, not only against disinformation, but also in relation to cybersecurity and so on. There is still a long way to go, but we have to do it. There is only one way we can safeguard our own interests, and that is that we have a proper democracy.

Mr. President! Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We have now had the internal market for 30 years. We have managed – with an open economy – to create a fair framework for competition. A fair competition. It has created jobs and it has created growth. Now we are in a new global situation, where we are challenged from China with their state aid and from the United States with not least the new "Inflation Reduction Act". Ursula von der Leyen also spoke about it. My appeal here today is to be very, very careful in the solutions to be found for the Council meeting and in the Commission. We need to protect our internal market from fragmentation. It's a really, really important thing, but we also shouldn't build too many barriers to an open economy. We really need to ensure a proper balance in this. So when you're working on these things, try to do it well and fairly and openly and future-proof. And it is simply a matter of avoiding a fragmented internal market. I believe you can, but remember the balances. This is absolutely crucial. Otherwise, we cannot celebrate the next 30 years of the single market.