What Esther spoke about.

Mr President, I think ‘you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today’ pretty much sums up the core of the debate on the economic governance framework. We need to take responsibility to protect the credibility of the Union and the stability of the eurozone by agreeing on new rules that are realistic and can be and will be respected and enforced. This is why the Commission made a proposal that is more country-specific when it comes to achieving sustainable debt levels, which I welcome. This is why Parliament – in our negotiating position for which we asked for this House’s mandate today – introduces some additional flexibility to maintain room for much-needed investments in the key priorities of the Union, and I thank my rapporteur Margarida Marques and the shadows who made this possible. Now there will be those on the extreme right and the extreme left of the House that will vote against the mandate to deliver this better framework: no surprises there. What I find more regrettable is the position of the Greens: strong supporters of the Euro, but against the very rules needed to keep it strong and stable. Very much like having your cake and eating it. More regrettable also because the additional room for investments and the capacity to react to unforeseen circumstances needed so much for the green transition are part of the new framework and are part of Parliament’s mandate. Yes, ‘sustainability’ – or ‘stewardship’, as I call it as a Christian Democrat – means respecting our planet. But it also means not burdening next generations with unsustainable levels of debt. You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.

Madam President, with this State of the Union debate, we are looking into the fifth year of this Commission, but it also allows us to look back at the previous four. And I have to say, it feels like a lifetime, but I mean that in a good way, because in 2019, we knew that we had to embark on a double mission – the green and digital transitions – to ensure sustainable growth and competitiveness in Europe. But we did not know that soon after we would be fighting an unknown virus. We did not know what awaited us on 24 February 2022, and we did not know that we would be facing an unprecedented energy price crisis. But we did react, and we reacted in a strong way. In English, you would say we ‘manned up’. But I think in this House with good examples of female leadership, I should say – and thank you, by the way, for your words on gender equality – but in this context, I should say we ‘womaned up’. And in a way, I think the Commission President has still been very modest. Yes, the state of the European Union is strong, but it was also agile. Europe reacted in a speed and in a flexibility that was unprecedented, that is unknown in a number of Member States, my own included. And if I look forward to the fifth year of this Commission – and in what also, Philippe Lamberts, might be my last participation in a State of the Union debate – let me put aside party politics and simply say this: as elections come nearer, many politicians at home and some in this House – and thank you, Mr Legutko, for underlining that and then leaving the room – some, even in this House, will simply blame the EU for everything that is wrong in their eyes. To them, I say: be careful. Be careful what you wish for. Our common European House is the best thing that happened to us. Don’t set it on fire, but man up, ‘woman up’ and make sure it stands the test of time.

Mr President, ‘The farmer really wants to change.’ These are not my words, but those of Roy Meijer. The Dutch may know him. For those who are not from the Netherlands: a young dairy farmer from Drenthe. This farmer is not against sustainability or biodiversity at all, just as the EPP is not. Let us be clear, and I say this above all to colleagues from the Greens, the Socialists, the Liberals, who are now pretending that the EPP is firmly opposed to the Green Deal: Without us, that Green Deal would not have been there and you know it very well. And I am proud of the result we achieved in that area last year. But – let me be clear – the European People's Party and the CDA do demand that the Green Deal is not only green, but also a deal. It creates jobs in Europe. That it must go hand in hand with the production of food, renewable energy and the extraction of raw materials. And that's where the Nature Restoration Law misses the mark. This is why the Commission should take them back to the drawing board. Because we refuse to starve Europe of food, of energy, of resources to save nature. There must be a smarter way.

Mr President, Mohammed Chahim was so creative with Dutch proverbs, so let me throw in one that I owe to my mother. She always said: “Can't-I-don't lie in the cemetery, and Will-I-don't lie next to it.” I think that is really what those who were saying ‘we can’t do it this way’ meant – ‘we don’t want to’. We will see that page in the votes from the extremes, I think, tomorrow. But most importantly, to be honest, their favourite part of this package in the debate, but had a constructive attitude – and for that I thank them. I mentioned in the beginning that this package, ETS, CBAM and the social climate fund is in a way the core triangle of Fit for 55. Since I have a new commissioner here that allows me – and I believe she is from Dubrovnik, so she knows a thing or two about navigation – to say that this is the core part of the Fit for 55 package, because it allows us to have a compass. We know where we’re going when it comes to CO2 reduction, we know what our task is, we know the point on the horizon for 2050 with this legislation. It also allows us willing to navigate the high seas. Having a compass only is not enough. You need to know exactly where you are on the high seas, and the high seas globally are sometimes very windy, and CBAM needs to protect us. CBAM might not be enough. We might need to build on CBAM, but at least we take a first step. Thirdly, a good navigator, a good sailor, knows that you have to avoid mutiny on your own ship. Yes, indeed, that means taking all your people along, but then we have to be factual. The Commission has shown that the social climate fund, even though it is small, when used in the right way by Member States will actually compensate the lowest income groups fully for the introduction of ETS2. And we have built in several safeguards to make sure that ETS doesn’t come when the energy prices remain high. We need to be factual. Do I then downplay the concerns that I have heard in this room? No, I don't. I hear them. I understand them, and the EPP hears and understands them. That means we need to work on energy prices, speeding up our independence from other providers. We need to make sure that the Green Deal provides jobs in Europe. These electrical buses are going to be built here, and not in China. Finally, on the social, let’s be very, very honest. When we did the reform of the ETS, Peter Liese and others in this room last time, the price per tonne was EUR 5. It is now EUR 100, and most of that stays in Member States. That bloody well puts an obligation on Member States to use that money well for the climate, but also socially.

Mr President, as co-rapporteur – David, again, thank you –of the Social Climate Fund, am I proud of the agreement reached? Yes. And I thank, in particular, the whole team of shadows, both of the environment and the employment committees, as well as the representatives of the budget committee, who fought their ground very hard. I think we managed to strike a deal that reflects the priorities of all those committees. We ensure that the fund kicks in before the extension of the ETS does and that the majority of funding is spent as structural measures and investments for building renovation and zero- and low-emission transport, which will of course have the biggest climate and environmental impact. The fund will target vulnerable households and transport users, including the lower and middle income ones in cities as well as in rural areas. And although the funds will be initially financed through external revenue, at the explicit request of the Council, it should be part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework. And, at least as important, we brought back national co-financing against the wish of this same Council, resulting in a total budget of EUR 87 billion. But let us be clear: we in this room, we might be relieved that the negotiating process is over, but this is no laughing matter. High energy prices are still keeping Europeans awake at night, and the social impact of this climate transition is much bigger than this limited fund. To address this, Member States and the EU level need to work hand in hand, and spending from our European budget should be much more focused on real priorities, including a fair climate transition for all but that, I admit, is a discussion for the next budget. In all, together, ETS, CBAM and the Social Climate Fund form the core – or, as a Christian Democrat, I might say the holy trinity – of the ‘Fit for 55’ package. Is this deal needed? Yes, it is, because without it we would not reach the CO2 reduction we need to pass this planet on to the next generation as good stewards. Is it enough? Well, let me say the following, and I was a bit surprised to see our economic and financial commissioner in this climate debate, but you’re from Italy, so you’re from like me, from a seafaring nation historically, let me say that this deal is the compass. We’ve put a mark on the horizon and we now need we now know where to go by 2050 in terms of CO2 reduction. But any experienced navigator knows that a compass alone is not enough to be successful. Secondly, you need to know where you are at this wide and often wild sea. This is where CBAM kicks in. International competition is not always fair, and although CBAM is a very important step, the Commission needs to be flexible enough to react when the international waters change and more might be needed. And thirdly, a good seafarer makes sure that he has no mutiny on his ship, and we need to make sure that we have no mutiny on the EU ship, that we bring our citizens along in this transition. We’ve said it as EPP in the beginning, two years ago of this debate: if the Green Deal does not provide jobs in Europe, it will not be successful. And therefore I want these electrical buses that we need to be made in Europe and not in China if the competition from China is not fair. And therefore I want the social impact of this transition to be addressed. And therefore in this way we might feel like it's the end of a long process – no blood was involved, but for sure sweat and tears – but it’s actually only the beginning, because for this strategic industrial policy that we also need, we’re still looking at the Commission. The beginning is there with your proposals for the Net-Zero Industry Act, but more might need to be done. So I hate to say, but let’s get back to work.

Mr President, on this election day for the Provincial States in the Netherlands, allow me to translate the importance of something like net-zero industry legislation very concretely – and into Dutch, contrary to what you may be used to. Take the province of Groningen. I think it is a province that the President of the Commission knows well because it is her neighbouring region, a region where natural gas production has stopped because of the earthquakes that caused it, with all the consequences that this entails. They now want to use the knowledge in the region in the field of energy for the production of green hydrogen. This of course requires more wind turbines at sea and the necessary infrastructure, pipelines on land, including in or near Natura 2000 sites or other protected areas. Faster permitting procedures with more flexibility, if this is necessary for the realization of the energy transition, is something that we as EPP have been advocating for a long time. And this is also something that we hope to see tomorrow in the European Commission's legislative proposal, so that the Green Deal will not only green It is, but also an attractive deal ensuring that businesses and jobs remain in Europe. This is something that we, as EPP, have been committed to from the beginning, and we will continue to do so.

Madam President, in a way, it’s ironic that it takes an Inflation Reduction Act in the US and high energy prices to put our industrial competitiveness higher on the agenda of this House. For the EPP, this should be a permanent priority, but unfortunately our calls to discuss it have often landed on deaf ears. So I’m happy we’re discussing it today. And let me be clear: for us, this is not about protecting the old or even the status quo. It’s about ensuring that the green and digital transitions can actually take place. The unfair competition that we face from China, from the US and others goes to the heart of the Green Deal. If the Green Deal does not deliver sufficient and good—quality jobs in Europe, it will not succeed and therefore it’s time to act. We should not sit here and take it just because some of the threats come from our American friends. But we should be smart and measured in our response, and therefore the EPP looks forward to the Commission’s proposals, which we hope will be targeted, steering for the highest potential impact, not just the highest amount. We want them to be flexible when it comes to using existing funds, but also – and thank you for mentioning them – when it comes to speeding up planning procedures. And thirdly – that’s our responsibility in this European House – we want them to be a solution for all, not for the lucky few.

Madam President, three years ago in this room the Green Deal was compared to putting a man on the moon. And indeed at the time we were afraid that others would wreck our launchpad through unfair competition. Now the US, with the Inflation Reduction Act, is building its own launchpad. And if we’re not careful, they’re beating us at our own game, with our approach, but better tools in their toolbox. And we shouldn’t sit here and take it just because it’s our friends, the Americans. That’s why the EPP welcomes the ideas put on the table by the Commission this morning. But we should do more. Rather than the immediate more—subsidies reflex, we should first redirect money remaining in existing funds to strategic infrastructure for key sectors. And this should be done cross-border – because let’s be fair, this is what’s lacking in the current funds. Our State aid and competition rules, it has been said, should become more strategic and more flexible, as should the upside process. And our budget, which is set in concrete for seven years, is of course not helping – there we need change and we urgently need own resources to address these new challenges. And finally, if the talks that are ongoing and that are good with the US do not lead to results, we should not be afraid of standing up for more ‘Made in Europe’. And on that note, Madam President, in time, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and I am sure we will revisit this topic after the break.

Mr President, Putin's war is taking place on several fronts. The most inhumane of course in Ukraine itself, but also in our national parliaments, where useful idiots – those few, that handful of parliamentarians – are spraying Putin’s poison. In addition, in our energy market, where gas is used as a weapon. When the market is no longer functioning, the government must intervene. The EU – in particular the Commission – has already put several instruments on the table to this end, such as skimming the excess profits of energy companies. In the Netherlands, the aid is paid to energy-intensive SMEs, such as bakers. Now there is a new package, aimed at jointly purchasing gas, tackling price spikes and organising mutual solidarity in emergencies. In the latter case, I miss one more element. Solidarity also involves responsibility. Responsibility to do everything possible to maintain your own energy production. In this context, the German decision to keep the three nuclear power plants open for a little longer is of course to be welcomed. But this will be too short, because in April 2023 we are just in the perhaps even more difficult phase of filling gas stocks for 2023/2024. We know that may be even more difficult than the current assignment. That is why I say: Keep your own energy generation open for a little longer and make sure you take responsibility before you demand solidarity from others.

Mr President, one minute is far too short to put this whole negotiation result in the spotlight. First of all, let me thank Véronique Trillet-Lenoir and all the members of our team. We may have been from different political groups, but we had common priorities and I would like to thank you for that. In this short time, I want to do three things. I want to say what I'm most proud of. In this negotiation result, I am most proud of the fact that continuity of care, the prevention of deferred care, is mandatory in the preparation plans of the Member States. You only have to look at the reports on late diagnoses of, for example, childhood cancer to know why this was a priority of the European Parliament. I want to say what I hate the most. I am most disappointed by the fact that mental health is not mandatory in the national preparation plans. We as a Parliament would have liked that and the Council was working against it. I think you only have to look from Strasbourg to know that this needs more attention throughout Europe. Finally, what I fear the most. What I fear most is that in the event of another pandemic, the Council will fall back on that national reflex. The Conference on the Future of Europe has shown that citizens do not want it. This legislation allows for a European approach. That is why I ask for support in the vote this week.

Madam President, I would say to the Commissioner that when the Commission took office three years ago, it promised Europeans a market that works for people. Although not perfect, the European energy market in normal times has provided Europeans with accessible and affordable electricity and gas. But let’s be clear, a tyrant does not play by the rules of the market. A tyrant uses gas as a weapon. Putin uses gas as a weapon, trying to divide us by hurting our citizens. So now is the time to step up to protect vulnerable consumers, SMEs and industries who are suffering. Therefore, the EPP welcomes the speedy presentation of the Commission’s legislative proposals – about which more tomorrow, I understand – less than a week after the energy ministers mandated it to do so. Because let’s not beat around the bush, this winter will be very hard. If we are to stay the course, we need to ensure a winter of solidarity in Europe, asking those who profit excessively to help support those who suffer most and to help Member States, as provided for in the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. But solidarity and responsibility need to go hand-in-hand. You cannot keep blocking the needed interconnection between France and the Iberian Peninsula. You cannot ask your neighbours for gas while closing down perfectly safe nuclear power plants. Such national decisions have a major impact on all Member States. This is why for the euro we have the Stability and Growth Pact. We clearly need a similar stability pact when it comes to energy. Let President Macron show Spain and Portugal that he is the true European that he claims to be. Let Germany do whatever it takes to keep open all its domestic energy production, including nuclear. The answer to this crisis should be European, or it will not work.

Madam President, I would respectfully say to Philippe Lamberts, of course, that this is not a normal vote, in the sense that a lot of the amendments that are put forward now have already been voted on and rejected in the first vote that we undertook in the previous plenary. So, in that sense, I’m not that worried about setting a precedent, and I would therefore say that using Rule 183(3) is justified –voting on the compromise amendment first – which will also allow us, dear colleagues, I hope, to speed up the vote that we have to undertake today.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think we all know that the ETS and the social climate fund are closely interlinked. We also voted accordingly in this report. Since for the moment we have referred back to committee the ETS report, I would propose on the basis of Rule 200(4) that we postpone the final vote on the social climate fund until, hopefully very soon, we also have an agreement on ETS. I have the impression that there is a will to resolve this. I also have the impression that the outstanding issues on ETS are more limited than some might think. So let’s get to work. Let’s keep treating this as a package and postpone the final vote on the social climate fund.

Madam President, I think, David, you thanked me in the end. But my Maltese is not perfect. But I would like to thank you as well as I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs that have been working in two committees in the EMPL Committee and the ENVI Committee on this dossier. And, Madam President, I have to say that in all my years in the European Parliament, this was one of the most exotic ones, in a sense that we had one of the weirdest majorities possible on this dossier, for example, the idea to really focus the spending more on investment measures rather than general income support. This was something that was supported in particular by the EPP, the Greens and ID, and not the parties in between. So in the beginning we had some challenges to actually reach an agreement, but I think we did. We did in the end also because RENEW joined the effort, S&D joined the effort to make sure that we do several things. We target spending as much as we can on these real investment measures. If I help you pay your bill, I help you once. If I help you to insulate your house, I help you for the longer term. So Parliament was very keen to make sure that most of the spending goes towards these more structural investment measures. Then we were also keen – I know that the distribution of funds is already taking into account the fact that some Member States will need more support from the social climate fund than others – but we were very keen to increase this a bit to make sure that the poorest Member States required slightly less national co-financing, and in particular when it comes to these structural investment measures. One thing that we didn’t manage to resolve in our very good cooperation at shadows level was the issue of small and medium enterprises. And for the EPP, it is very clear that if you start ETS 2 with commercial companies only, you will also have to do something for those commercial companies. And that means in particular SMEs, and in particular SMEs that are at risk of carbon leakage. So that will be the only amendment we would put forward on behalf of the of the EPP. But I think here – and I have been very strict, I think with Mr Timmermans, saying that it was your group in the lead to actually make ETS 2 smaller and it was your group therefore who landed us with a smaller social climate fund. But in the end we all signed up or at least the constructive parties signed up to this deal. So to start ETS 2 with commercial companies only and leave the households for later and therefore have a slightly smaller social climate fund, but one where we found additional money by leaving some allowances on the side of the social climate fund rather than transferring them to the innovation fund. And I think we should now stand by this deal because what is on the table, I say to the Commission, really is either the compromise that we reach or even less. I am afraid that that is the choice that we will have tomorrow when we vote. I think we should stick by the compromise that we have and then negotiate on that basis. We stand ready to do that. And again, thanks to all the shadows who helped us along.

Madam President, this is a unique chance and a huge responsibility. I think that is what this legislative package that is on the table today is – no less than that. It is a huge opportunity and, I think, even a last chance, because we are the last generation that can change the course of climate change. And it is a huge responsibility, because only when we do the right thing, when we do this the right way, will we succeed. For the EPP, that means three things. First of all, green does not come out of the blue. Today we discuss hundreds, even thousands, of pages of legislation and amendments, and I would like to thank all those who have contributed constructively to getting us this far. But let me be clear: only putting objectives and percentages and standards and definition into these pieces of legislation will not in itself be enough to make change happen. We need companies, investors, industries who are willing to invest, and for that they need a Green Deal with a business case. Investments require liquidity, and the current economic situation is not making things easier. This is why the EPP believes we should not hit our industries and companies with a one—off rebasing at the start of the new ETS. We need to be more gradual in our approach, give them breathing space in these challenging times while still demanding that they reach the reduction targets set by the Commission – and even more. We also need hardware to turn the paper targets that we vote today into hands—on reality: energy interconnectors; cables to link up offshore renewables; grid capacity; the adaptation of natural gas infrastructure into green hydrogen infrastructure, etc. En zelfs in de provincie Groningen, waar er op zee al genoeg wind voorhanden is en gasinfrastructuur al klaarligt en alleen maar aangepast hoeft te worden, zelfs daar blijkt dat zo makkelijk nog niet. Vele projecten moeten vergund worden en procedures zijn te lang en te complex. De EVP is blij met de aandacht van de Commissie voor kortere procedures in REPowerEU. Maar we verwachten meer. De Commissie moet met lidstaten aan de slag om deze kortere procedures daadwerkelijk te realiseren. Wij wensen hier een resultaatsverplichting, geen inspanningsverplichting, mijnheer Timmermans. Secondly, for the EPP the Green Deal needs to be made in Europe. This climate package will only succeed if it leads to innovation, opportunities and jobs in Europe. This is why we need a level playing field for our companies and industries. This is also why the EPP believes that we should not do away with our free allowances – which, let’s be fair, is currently the only instrument we have against carbon leakage – until we know that CBAM works in praxis. Thirdly, you can’t do green when you are in the red. These laws should not be a plaything for the green elites, and we should avoid putting the heaviest burden on those who can least afford it – and yes, Mr Timmermans, that is why we need a social climate fund to go hand in hand with the new ETS. This might be the moment for me to remind you that it was your political family taking the lead in actually curtailing this ETS too, and making the social climate fund smaller as a result. I would call on colleagues to stick to the compromise that was reached, even though it might not be beautiful. But I hear the temptation among some to say ‘okay, let’s then have a smaller ETS – maybe even smaller than the one currently in the compromise’ and ‘let’s have a huge social climate fund without worrying about where the funding is going to come from’. That would be wrong. Let’s stick to the compromise, though it might not be beautiful, and then we negotiate. The EPP stands ready to do that work in a credible way.

Mr President, it is 4 May today and in the Netherlands that means that we will all be standing still for a moment at eight o'clock tonight. For two minutes, the country stands still and remains silent to commemorate the dead from World War II and all those who died afterwards during operations and peacekeeping missions worldwide. And on a day like today, it therefore feels a bit strange to speak in this debate – the title says it all – about the economic consequences of the war here in Europe. It is war again on our continent and the consequences here in the EU are, of course, absolutely not the same as what is happening in Ukraine. And of course our main focus is and should remain not on the economic consequences here but on the consequences in Ukraine and how to help them against Putin’s barbaric war. And this is why I am very grateful to the Commission that they will announce their sixth sanctions package today, and for the words that the Commission has spoken about the reconstruction and the help to Ukraine. But that being said, we should also talk about the socio-economic consequences here and our capacity to act, because as a European Union, unity is our strongest weapon against this war. And if we want to sustain this unity, we also need to address the consequences here. For the EPP, we badly need an analysis of the cumulative effects of the war: the rising energy prices, the shortages in raw materials, new legislation on the table, the impact that has on companies and on citizens within the EU. We need to address the consequences also on families, some of them not even turning on their heating because they can no longer do so. And this is why, of course, we are working to address these consequences in the fund that is proposed. And finally, we need to work to address the consequences on companies and on industries. And for the EPP, that means a diversification strategy for raw materials, I think, which is badly needed. The necessary investment for the roll-out of renewable energy. And finally, let’s be very honest, we are asking a lot from our industries, and don’t get me wrong: the EPP wants to achieve the objectives of the Fit for 55 package and the climate law, but we may have to look at a legislative embargo for new legislation to make sure that we are not burdening certain industries that are suffering badly with the cumulative effect of higher prices, the ambitious Fit for 55 package. And, for example, let me mention one piece of legislation – new REACH, at the same time. Let’s be honest: we stand ready to work with you, but let’s do it in a smart way.

Very quickly, thank you for that reply and of course, that will bear fruit in the medium to long-term. But at the same time, I have vulnerable households in the Netherlands, but also in Germany, also in Romania and all our Member States, where families are putting the heating – even though it’s freezing outside – on 16 degrees because they can’t afford any more. And you promised a change that would leave nobody behind. And had you asked me at the time, I would have said that Fit for 55 is challenging, in terms of legislation, in terms of technical issues and socially. I would at this moment say the biggest challenge is the social challenge and how can we together deliver on that promise of leaving nobody behind? We have the Social Climate Fund. Is it enough?

Madam President, Madam Commission President, you already touched upon the fact that the war in Ukraine has demonstrated how dependent Russia is on fossil fuel imports from Russia. It was to the question of Philippe Lamberts. At the same time, we are in a situation that inflation is reaching levels not seen for decades – I think it is eleven point something percent in my own Member State. And our families and SMEs are already feeling the consequences of these incredibly high energy prices. How will the Commission ensure, in this economic environment, that we couldn’t have foreseen, when Fit for 55 was put on the table, that we will deliver on Fit for 55 with the objectives that we have for 2030, 2050? Will that be business as usual, as foreseen at the time of publication, or are adaptations maybe needed?

Madam President, first of all, congratulations to you. It’s an absolute pleasure to have you – and to have a woman once again – at the head of this institution. Let me also thank the French President for his committed, passionate and pro—European speech, as we have come, of course, to expect from this French President. I also thank him for his European commitment. He stated at the beginning of this year that the French Presidency must be a turning point for Europe. Let me be clear: ambition and commitments alone are not enough; we also need credibility. Et dans ce contexte, Monsieur le Président, je me demande – et je pense que beaucoup se demandent aussi – si votre politique budgétaire, si vos dépenses publiques sont vraiment dans l’intérêt de la France et de l’Europe, ou plutôt dans l’intérêt de votre campagne de réélection. – It’s true, all Member States have had to address the economic fallout of the COVID crisis, and the EU – as you mentioned – took the historic decision to establish its Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). Yes, we need to have a debate about the smartest way to shape and apply our budgetary rules. But even before COVID, France never breached budgetary rules as much as during the first year of this President’s mandate. Europe, Mr President, first and foremost, needs a France that is ready for reforms, so that we can build this stronger Europe together.

Mr President, it looks like the more numbers go up in Member States, the more they go in different directions when it comes to the measures that they take. And let’s be honest, the COVID Pass that went through this Parliament in rapid speed was a success story. It allowed us at the time to use our freedom of movement whenever it was medically possible. But we’ve reached the stage now where we indeed need more guidance – not only when it comes to travel within the EU and travel to the EU from outside, but I would also like to say about the validity and the length of use of vaccinations and the use of booster vaccines. I would like the Commission maybe to react to that because it seems that this is where we mostly need guidance at the moment. But let’s be honest, the reason we’re in this situation is because we have too many unvaccinated. You will all get, in your email boxes, emails about Black Friday – and this is an American commercial event enticing us to buy more stuff online. It’s this Friday. But what the healthcare systems in our Member States are dealing with at the moment is a potential Code Black and to show you what Code Black is, let me just mention one of the emails that I got from a nurse somewhere in Europe. She said ‘I now have double the amount of COVID patients in my hospital than I should officially have and I cannot outplace them anywhere because all the other hospitals are full’. When we get to Code Black in our health systems, it means that doctors and nurses have to choose between patient A or patient B when it comes to giving them a place in intensive care. And this is what we need to avoid. A year ago, in this House, we were having a debate about whether we would have enough vaccines. Now we have them. Let’s use them and let’s share them, so that yes we can have a Black Friday if you wish, but we avoid a Code Black in our health systems.

Madam President, we cannot start this debate today about the upcoming European Council without looking back at yesterday’s debate with Prime Minister Morawiecki, because at this Council, clearly the rule of law risks being the elephant in the room. And let me remind all of you of Article 15 of the Treaty: ‘The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof.’ On the rule of law, we heard the Commission yesterday, and we thank you for that. But the European Council has not been giving any political directions at all. Our European House is built on a foundation of common values and common rules: democracy, the rule of law, freedom of the media and independence of the judiciary. If we allow this foundation to be taken apart country by country, brick by brick, the entire House we built of peace, of prosperity, of freedom, of opportunity is in danger – and this will not happen under the EPP’s watch. This will not happen under this Parliament’s watch. Now that we see an increasingly divided and toxic debate on the rule of law in Europe, it is of the utmost importance that the European Council finally takes its responsibility in this regard and gives the impetus and directives they are normally so very keen to give. You call yourself European leaders. Well, now, on this very fundamental issue, it is your time to lead. Madam Vice-President, let me touch upon some other issues on the Council’s agenda. On vaccination, for the EPP it is clear that we need to avoid the perception of first and second class citizens when it comes to vaccination. Europe can be proud that it is at the forefront of the global vaccination drive, that it has vaccinated a large amount of its own citizens while providing vaccines to the world. And let me use this opportunity to thank those doctors and nurses who are currently actually preparing their hospitals for what is going to come in the weeks ahead. But it is worrying that some countries stay behind when it comes to vaccination rates, and we expect all the support needed from the European Council to help Member States to drive up their vaccination coverage. Finally, on energy prices – the cost of simply heating our homes and running our businesses. The current energy crisis is confronting us with the reality of energy dependence in Europe. This is not new. It was always predicted that this would have a political price, but now we see what it really means. It is also a warning about a limited ambition when it comes to the Energy Union, and that we should not include any technology or energy source from our transition plans in the Green Deal, nor gas as a transition technology. The Green Deal simply won’t work if it leaves people literally out in the cold, and therefore this Council should focus on concrete measures for citizens in the short term, especially those at risk of energy poverty. For the medium term, we should not only discuss our high – and let me say, for the EPP, justified – ambitions for 2030 and 2050, but also make sure that we have the conditions and the infrastructure in place to get there. Then my last line, Madam President of the Commission, was including streamlining and speeding up planning permission procedures. You mentioned that in your discourse, and I would like to, on behalf of my Group at least, ask you to present those plans as quickly as you can. We need to get to work.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, you spoke of last summer's floods and forest fires. Rightly so, because they underline the need to act together on climate change. Although there were fortunately no deaths in the Netherlands, the damage was enormous there as well. I mention the entrepreneurs in the Grotestraat in Valkenburg, who suffered the water after corona, families who thought they were insured, but whose British insurance company Lloyd's does not want to pay now, and vulnerable children whose child centre and mytyl school in Houthem had to be evacuated. Madam President, this is not really a request to you, because the European Commission has a solidarity fund for these situations. It is a call to my own government in the Netherlands to make use of this as well. And let me maybe take this image of a house that needs renovation and apply it to our European house, to our European Union. In many areas, indeed, that house is strong. We added an extra room in the area of health when we faced an irreversible health threat. But the house also needs a strong foundation: the rule of law, independent courts and independent media. I thank the Commission for the initiatives announced in this area today. But like the pandemic, the rule of law is not a sprint but a marathon, and this House expects the European Commission to go all the way. Let me finalise today’s contribution by saying that we also need to fix our roof when it isn’t yet raining. I’m thinking about the creation of a capital markets union and the completion of the banking union, no matter how difficult that will be. So let’s get to work.

Mr President, colleagues, when the first wave of corona hit our continent, my grandmother, who was 99 years old at the time, was being cared for in a care home in the southern part of the Netherlands, just a few kilometres away from the German border. When an outbreak appeared just across that border in Germany, of course Germany was on high alert. The Netherlands, however, took no measures for the moment, as we were at that time supposedly Covid-free – as if a virus stops at the border. Dear colleagues, it is exactly to break through this national bias that we are here today. Next time we face a pandemic or any other cross-border health threat, the reflex should not be purely national thinking, but it should be European cooperation. As directly elected representatives, our first responsibility here in this House lies with the citizens. First of all, with those citizens who are vulnerable and who need to be protected against these cross-border health threats. Therefore, the report proposes that national preparedness plans should always also include a component of cross-border cooperation. Secondly, we have a responsibility towards our freedoms – the freedom of movement, as previous speakers said. Although North Rhine-Westphalia kept the border with the Netherlands open, the one with Belgium was closed for months. Yes, I say to our colleagues in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO Committee) that, of course, that has huge economic consequences, but also at a human level. Let me give you one example: a father living in Belgium who could not see his children. A divorced couple, in this case, who were living just across the border – four kilometres away – in the Netherlands. This is what we need to prevent. What I also support in this report, and I am concluding, Mr President, is the fact that Europe can now declare its own health emergency, therefore being able to act more quickly. But with this increased capability also comes increased responsibilities, and I say this already with a little wink towards the Council, with whom we still need to negotiate: neither this Parliament, nor its citizens, will in a future pandemic accept a purely national approach.