Speeches

Mr President, in Niger, a young man wants to start a construction business. He is without financial means and if a loan is refused, he must abandon his project. In another developing country, it is imperative to reduce inequality. Creating a social protection system could address this. But if you miss everything, it becomes impossible to start the project. We want to improve access to healthcare in Africa, where there is a lack of hospitals, laboratories and medical schools everywhere. Money is not everything, but without money, many projects become illusory. The financial architecture of development tends to address this. It is true that the European Union is spending €80 billion for these purposes between 2020 and 2030. Even though European official development assistance accounts for 46% of Member States' contributions across the OECD, it soon becomes clear that a multiple of this amount is needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. How to do it? This is where the financial development architecture comes into play to enable the Nigerian entrepreneur candidate to achieve his dream. He's lost if the local bank doesn't give him anything. The launch of large-scale social security can only be successful if a minimum of administrative and IT communications infrastructure is available, provided that the political conditions necessary for its implementation are initially met. The financial architecture for development promises to address this, I said. Let us say it at the outset: Most instruments exist. These include development ministries, the Commission, development banks and financial institutions. These financial institutions are expected to mobilise private capital to fill public funding gaps. This gap is estimated at $4,200 billion per year to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. These financial institutions exist. At European and national level, they are called: European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, French AFD, German KfW, to name but a few, and of course the Dutch, Swedish, Italian and so on. In short, a multitude of actors active in the same field. The European Parliament would like to see them organised in order to reduce duplication and inconsistencies in development policy, with a view to prioritising the complementarity of actors, with a view to integrating their action into a comprehensive European Union approach, guided in this respect by the principle of policy first. 2022 shows the urgency of putting in place this new financial architecture. The war in Ukraine is wasting precious time and the reconstruction of this country, once the war is over, will make it necessary to mobilize gigantic financial amounts. On the one hand, there is already a huge financial chasm and, on the other hand, the combined effect of the war in Ukraine and the impact of the COVID crisis have increased capital needs by a third over the last three years. We no longer have the right to waste a single euro, so important are the needs to achieve the SDGs. The financial architecture is a bet on the future. It promises to respect human rights, social rights, the imperatives of the Paris Climate Agreement, the commitments made in Addis Ababa in the context of financing development aid, the principles of sound management, the principle of partnership and the principle of ownership. In short, we have rarely seen so many requirements, or even commitments, combined into a single approach. This report is the result of the collective work of the Commission. It is the result of the work and contributions of the shadow rapporteurs, but also the result of the commitment of my assistant, Ms Simoes. I thank everyone for having managed to have this report voted unanimously in the Committee on Development, and I hope that we can also find a very large majority here in this House.

Madam President, who is the European Political Community? So far, 44 European Heads of State and Government have met in Prague to discuss the threats to our democracies. These are countries with different degrees of European integration; 27 are members of the European Union, 30 are members of the European Economic Area, 28 are members of NATO, all are members of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. That inspires me to make two points. First, if, as decided in Prague, this structure is to become permanent, it is not intended to replace the Council of Europe or the OSCE. Secondly, the date of the first meeting was well chosen to show that beyond our traditional differences, we reject barbarism. Finally, it is to be welcomed that most European countries remain united around a foundation of rights and duties implied by adherence to the civilising values that are the foundation of the free world.

Madam President, the 2023 budget is anything but a routine exercise. Indeed, the current political and geopolitical context places us in front of unprecedented challenges. This is nothing more or less about whether we want to stay in the top league. Even in a priori European cases, we are not always the first to intervene, to propose solutions, in short, to play the role that should be ours and come back to us quite naturally. The United States, it must be acknowledged, is by far the most important support for Ukraine from a budgetary point of view. This does not mean that the European Union does nothing. On the contrary, what Europe does is good, it is useful and indispensable, it is to our credit, but it is not enough. The question before us is: Will we still be able to provide sufficient support to Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian aggressor in case the US political leadership is no longer the same as in 2022? The financial years 2023, 2024 and 2025 will therefore be of paramount importance. If we want to answer this central question, we have very little time left. The mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework – which we, the European Parliament, are the only ones calling for at this stage – should be the starting point for a reorientation of European policy and should be reflected in substantial budgetary choices, both in terms of volume and quality, for the medium and long term.

Madam President. What I am going to tell you now is not very original, but it is simply using the usual formula to ask our colleagues to send the file back to committee to initiate interinstitutional negotiations. This is in line with our Rules of Procedure, as provided for in Rule 59(4).

Madam President, thank you to the colleagues who made a statement in connection with this report and also in response to Commissioner Jourová's replies. Thank you to all colleagues. Our colleague Ruiz Devesa was right to stress that we need to be ready for the 2024 elections, for the 2024 European elections. He is right because this is part of a "democracy package": it is only a piece, but an essential piece. If we want to bring the whole package to a successful conclusion, we also need to bring this file to a successful conclusion. Another colleague, who is no longer present in the room, would like to know why we propose to include the reference to the fundamental values of the European Union in this text. Well, the answer is very simple: this reference simply reflects respect for the principle of the irreducibility of human dignity. In the last century, millions of Europeans have been massacred, raped, ill-treated, tortured, gassed because the political powers in place were no longer able to uphold the values we propose to enshrine in this Regulation. For those who believe that this refers to distant times that could never happen again, I invite you to see what is happening a few hundred kilometres east of this country and you will see that the problem is undeniably topical. ‘Never again’, moreover, only makes sense if we give ourselves the means to ensure that it does not happen again and political parties also have a key role to play in this context. Our colleague Raphaël Glucksmann made an intervention to tell us: "Attention, I am alerted by the possible interference from outside in the work of the European parties". I have a lot of respect for our colleague because it is a bright spot in this chamber when it comes to defending human rights, but I invite him to ask, together with us, whether it would not be appropriate to dare a little more democracy, as Willy Brandt said at the time. We must dare a little more democracy with colleagues who come from countries that subscribe to exactly the same values as ours. I have enough years of experience in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe to know how beneficial this cooperation is.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, in this Chamber we are all, so to speak, members of a political party. To be able to represent his constituency, his country, here in Strasbourg or Brussels, we were elected on the basis of a list, a programme, a joint programme with candidates from other countries. It is thanks to political parties that we are able to carry out these tasks without which a pluralist democracy would be unthinkable. We want more democracy at European level too. This presupposes the existence of a European demos. To those who claim that the European demos does not exist, I would like to recount the reflection of one of my colleagues: “Whether I am in Paris, Rome, Warsaw or elsewhere in Europe, the young people I meet dress in the same way, have common aspirations, often the same tastes for music, aspire to freedom. Something common is developing before our eyes. Common aspirations were also expressed in the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is clear that political parties are indispensable in a world full of both opportunities and threats. Politics, if it wants to meet the expectations of citizens in terms of security, combating the deterioration of the climate and our living conditions, preserving our freedoms and values, will not succeed without taking into account the currents of thought that must be able to express themselves freely. Our report aims to facilitate the work of the parties. We want to make parties less dependent on external and private funding by increasing subsidies from the EU budget. We stand up for parties in their freedom to think and act. There is only one limit: this is where opinion ceases to be mere opinion and becomes a crime. We therefore consider it essential to refer to the values of the Union in this text. We have common values, we are proud of them, but we do not have a monopoly on them. The member states of the Council of Europe have, so to speak, subscribed to the same values as we have. That is why we want to open up the possibility for parties active in Council of Europe member states to associate with European political parties in the European Union. Their representatives form political groups with their counterparts from EU Member States in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Why not let them join the political parties of the European Union? Political life is driven by competition between political parties. This competition must be fair. Rules on transparency and equal treatment of parties are essential. For that reason, an authority provided for that purpose ensures compliance with the rules laid down for that purpose. Colleagues, I would like to thank those who have contributed to this work. I am thinking of my assistants, Yves Hoffmann and Jessica Simoes, as well as Rainer Wieland, the co-rapporteur, and his assistant, Angela, who have always been ready, sooner or later, to seek compromise. Today's vote is not the end of this exercise. A rather complicated negotiation with the Council will start next week, if you give us the mandate to do so. If you want us to approach this trilogue in a strong position, I am sure you will vote overwhelmingly in favour of the position set out in this report.

Mr President, the majority of European citizens are ahead of politics. This is confirmed in many polls where citizens overwhelmingly support a credible European defence. This is also confirmed in the surveys on support to developing countries. Ditto for health, energy, our position in the world. European citizens answer these questions straight away, without ulterior motives. What motivates them is their concern to find themselves in a political decision-making framework that is able to meet their expectations. Citizens speak out against blockades, against blackmail, against haggling, against scheming, which has good economic times when the lowest budget, the most recalcitrant, the least respectful of fundamental values and sometimes also the most corrupt abuses the unanimity rule to block the functioning of the European Union. Let's finally put an end to this masquerade.

Mr President, since 1979, Parliament has had to fight for all the prerogatives it has today. We started from scratch, we were an academy, and today we are a real centre of political decision-making. And, at the time, the right of legislative initiative was not on the agenda. It took several legislatures to finally be granted the right of legislative initiative. But it is difficult to go beyond the embryonic stage, in this matter. As for the possible ways of realising the right of legislative initiative, my preference is clearly to change the treaty. A favourable outcome for the Rangel report will put an end to a delay we have in relation to national parliaments. In my country, the national parliament has the right of legislative initiative, as is the case in most parliaments in the EU Member States. However, the right of legislative initiative is not restricted to Members only. Even professional chambers, which are an integral part of the legislative process, have the right of legislative initiative. As far as my country is concerned, the Chamber of Professional Workers, for example, has 60% non-Luxembourgers and 40% Luxembourgers. Even this body, which is a minority in Luxembourg, has the right of legislative initiative. So let us put an end to the anachronism of denying the European Parliament what is normal for national parliaments.

Mr President, Commissioner, the search for a solution to climate protection resembles a system of equations with several unknowns. First unknown: How can we feed the world’s population with a view to extensifying agriculture in the world’s most fertile regions? It is impossible to give a satisfactory answer to this question in the short term. Second unknown: How can the purchasing power of consumers be protected if demand increases, supply falls and individual income tends to be eaten away by inflation? There, it will be necessary to be much more selective in the granting of aid. Third unknown: Why are we neglecting solutions that cost nothing while protecting the climate? I am thinking in particular of energy savings – car-free Sundays, speed limits, etc. It seems to me that this is a matter of political will. Fourth unknown: How, if we want to save the planet, can we convince the rest of the world, responsible for 92% of greenhouse gas emissions, to resolutely commit to making the same efforts as the European Union, and at the same pace? Our responsibility is global. That is why I end with a question to Climate Commissioner Timmermans: Are you really given the means you need to contribute to a comprehensive response?

Mr President, we are currently witnessing a deterioration in our relations with many African partners. Mali seems to me more inclined to cooperate with forces close to the Russian invader in Ukraine. While there are some who recommend giving up at this stage on breaking up with countries that have been key partners in the past, we must be aware that the way in which the European Union is humiliated cannot remain unaffected by our future relations with certain Sahelian states. The EU strategy, at least one had hoped, was to become a facilitator in our cooperation with third countries, a better instrument. However, it does not or no longer achieve satisfactory results, as long as there is no real political will, notably on the part of Mali. Mali and many others do not or no longer have this will, which must be of great concern to us. That is why I agree with those who, in this debate, propose to rethink our strategy for the Sahel region.

Madam President, Commissioner, the zero degree of politics is the order given by leaders to their tormentors to sow terror, to intimidate, to humiliate and to attack the weakest and above all women. The zero degree of politics is this ruling caste hiding its barbarism behind a manly smile. The zero degree of politics is that these leaders, on the one hand, underestimate the human being – and above all the woman – until they cancel it and, on the other hand, stick to their seat on the UN Commission on Human Rights. The zero degree of politics is the complacency of European leaders or their complicit silence with those who do not hesitate for a moment to crush any manifestation of non-submission. This is for the friendly powers of Afghanistan, which are doing everything to support the Taliban and nothing to alleviate the plight of women and girls. The zero-degree in Afghanistan is this regressive phase, which not only practices the total exclusion of women and girls, but also fails to even feed its population. The zero degree of our policy would be to remain indifferent to these crimes and injustices. So I say to the Commissioner: Tell us what you need and we will organize to mobilize the necessary means to at least avoid famine to a population that suffers terribly, but not to finance the brainwashing perpetrated by the Taliban on Afghan women.

Madam President, for an authoritarian leader, nothing is more dangerous than citizens who think and articulate freely. The place of these people is before a partial justice, in labor camps, or even in torture rooms. Thus, the authoritarian leader is often rightly threatened by his system from the outside. With its fifth columns present everywhere in the Member States of the European Union, and even in this Parliament, it tries to impose its views, to tip over majorities that are not acquired by it. New technologies serve as powerful amplifiers in manipulation operations. Let's face it, we have little means to oppose it. In fact, we only have one, and that is the right one: the formation of the critical mind, from an early age, capable of discerning between truth, approximation, untruth, lie, misinterpretation. I would like to conclude with a quote from Frans Timmermans: “Putin is not afraid of NATO enlargement, Putin is afraid of democracy enlargement”. A free society – and this is my quote – is an enlightened society. An enlightened society is not afraid.

Madam President, every year we have a report on respect for human rights outside the European Union. I believe that everything has been said and repeated in this room about human rights violations around the world. Of course, human rights abuses, whatever their nature, must be denounced. We must raise our voices and protest against all this. As we know, citizens in authoritarian regimes often have no other means than to hope that human rights defenders in free countries will take over. When victims’ calls are no longer heard outside prison walls or torture rooms, it is up to us to mobilise. By conviction, by conscience, by moral duty, all these reasons are justified. This is the visible aspect of defending human rights. However, I would like to say a word today about the hidden side of defending human rights, about the efforts of our leaders, diplomats and representatives of civil society, who, without everyone's knowledge, are doing much-needed work. They intervene and act in secret, behind closed doors, alongside audible and visible efforts, with dictators, autocrats and authoritarian leaders in an attempt to alleviate the plight of those being prosecuted and abused. If they succeed, secret diplomacy actors cannot always gloat or express their satisfaction. On the other hand, they must already think about defending other victims and take care not to cut off their channels of communication with those responsible for human rights violations. We owe them respect, and we must pay tribute to them in a debate on this topic.

Madam President, over the past 30 years, we have been essentially engaged in stabilisation or peacekeeping missions, in short, Petersberg missions. The massing of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border warns us not to or no longer neglect the defence of our own territory. Nathalie Loiseau’s report, with unusual mastery and precision, lists everything that needs to be done. Once again, we know what to do, so let’s get ready to tackle this task. Kabul and Ukraine are the latest warnings that remind us that things can no longer remain as they are. Moreover – and this is very welcome – public opinion is in line with our discourses on effective European defence. I would even say that public opinion is ahead of politics, as all the polls on European security and defence point out. As Bernard Guetta just recalled in this gallery a few moments ago, Putin has something to do with it. As the Charlemagne Prize is awarded to highly meritorious personalities in the promotion of European unity, I would propose that he be awarded the Charlemagne Prize this year!

Madam President, Africa in 2020 looks like a huge project, where the most diverse actors are strengthening their presence. Some deploy military means and try to oust actors who are not in tune with the aggressive posture of those who take their place. Others see Africa as an opportunity to source raw materials on highly questionable terms, which are more like a plunder of resources than a real partnership. The European Union, for its part, without wishing to claim infallibility, proposes, as part of its instrument for financing its external policy, to rely on well-established principles, such as partnership, ownership and respect for the rule of law, among others. The implementation of the NDICI is admittedly more laborious, less spectacular and often less visible in the short term, but in line with the expectations of African citizens. Mr Borrell has just reminded us that the problems of Africans are also our problems. This is true, but let us add that the solutions to these problems must be essentially African. It is up to us to contribute.

Madam President, Mr President of the Council of the Union, among the 27 Heads of State and Government, there is a majority of personalities who, frankly, do not or no longer have the sacred fire when it comes to promoting European integration. Then there are the frugals, those who do arithmetic when it is time to do politics. And let us not forget the rule of law gravediggers who want their public opinion to believe that Moscow and Brussels, Brezhnev and von der Leyen are the same thing. And then there is one, if not the only one, at least one of the very few, who adopts a resolutely pro-European stance: the one who has held the presidency of the Council of the EU since 1 January. He has the courage to thematise Europe and by thematising Europe, he projects himself into the future for our citizens, for our countries and for our continent. President Macron had already had the audacity to make Europe a major issue in his 2017 election campaign. We can learn from him that in politics we are in constant anticipation. Despite the current context, let us dare to act together with him, against all odds, to make Europe stronger, better protected and more dynamic.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone agrees that there is a growing need for humanitarian aid funding. When it comes to reducing the funding gap, let us stop being hypocritical. The lack of financial resources bears one name, or even several names. The name of each Member State that has since the dawn of time promised to devote at least 0.7% of its gross national income to official development assistance. At the Addis Ababa conference six years ago, the Commission was authorised to renew, on behalf of all EU Member States, the commitment to devote 0.7% of their gross national income to official development assistance. As soon as they returned from the conference, two Member States had the nerve to announce a substantial reduction in their official development assistance. Is this policy coherence? I am addressing you - the Commission - to implore you to confront each Member State with its commitments. The opportunity to do so will already be presented in 2022 at the first Humanitarian Aid Forum. There is no point in lamenting the plight of the victims of humanitarian crises if we are not prepared to devote the necessary resources, which have been repeatedly promised since then. I would not like to end without thanking Mr Norbert Neuser. With his departure, Parliament’s Committee on Development loses one of its best talents. We're losing a pillar. I wish Norbert Neuser good memories of us, and he can count on our sincere reciprocity.

Madam President, we are all equal, but the citizens of the Northern Hemisphere are a little more equal than those of the Southern Hemisphere. Indeed, if there was still evidence of discrimination in developing countries, the current COVID-19 pandemic would have revealed it. In terms of access to vaccines, there is a gap or even a chasm between rich and poor countries. The COVAX mechanism is still doing too little, but what it is doing is doing it well, very well, even at the instigation of the European Union. And we know why. In the short term, it has been impossible to meet the expectations of developing countries. The problem is structural, as we know. This is why international action is further reduced to the humanitarian dimension. For the time being, we must persevere in this direction while at the same time developing more structural approaches. This must involve the transfer of technical capacity to enable the production of vaccines on an industrial scale. It must also involve the transmission of knowledge to developing countries. This commitment was already made by the rich countries in Doha 20 years ago. We have to keep that promise. If this were to fail, we would be in the same situation during the next pandemic as we are now, with citizens in our countries already receiving the third dose of the vaccine, while more than 90% of people in the South are still waiting for the first shot.

Madam President, just a few remarks about the reflections that have just been made by the speakers who preceded me on this rostrum. First, I think we all agree: it is important to avoid abuse and to do everything possible to prevent it. The authority that is in place will take care of the grain and, if necessary, the national courts and the European Court of Justice will be able to decide in case of disagreement. Secondly, I have heard someone here say that this is an attempt to put Eurosceptic parties at the helm. Let's be extremely clear: if a party disagrees with the majority of decisions taken by the European legislator, i.e. the Council and the European Parliament, this is its most basic right. This is not a ground for excluding party funding. Thirdly, if someone says that the co-rapporteurs and the Commissioner are not very funny and that they are the gravediggers of democracy. It is also not very pleasant, but it is also not a ground for excluding party funding. Parties must tolerate enormously to contribute to a democracy that is as pluralistic as possible, but there are certain limits. And I would like to invite the speaker who has claimed that we are ready to put Eurosceptic parties to the test to think about the following. If there is a party within its ranks that tolerates Nazis who openly claim this ideology, who incite hatred against minorities, do you not think that at that time the authority responsible for allocating financial aid to parties should be alerted and should face up to its responsibilities? And here too, if a decision not in line with the wishes and expectations of the complainants were to be taken, it would still be possible to appeal to the national courts and the European Court of Justice to decide. One last word. This report is not a report that can advocate transnational lists – personally, I am in favour and even very much in favour, I am a federalist – but it does not impose federalism or full respect for the principle of establishing a transnational list. It is the European Parliament, together with the Council, that will decide on this issue later and our colleague Domènec Ruiz Devesa is responsible for this report in the committee. Thank you for allowing me to make these few corrections and thank you, of course, for all the constructive contributions that have just been made in this debate.

Madam President, political parties are indispensable pillars in a pluralist democracy. Free to organise themselves, free to intervene in and animate the political debate, they structure the political landscape while highlighting their specificity and diversity. Their freedom of expression – it has become commonplace to repeat – should not be so restricted as to stifle political debate. Our European model is built on the irreducibility of the dignity of the person. The individual who violates this rule conflicts with the law, but it is not clear why this rule would not apply to parties either. This report informs the Commission of Parliament's willingness to allow European parties and foundations to focus on their political mission. To that end, it removes the obligation for parties to publish their accounts in IFRS standards, an obligation which, moreover, does not meet any need and which has never met any need. The report also opens the door to parties active in non-EU countries. Parties from Council of Europe member states will be able to join European parties if they so wish. We therefore call on the Commission to include in its legislative proposal the possibility for parties to participate also financially in a referendum campaign of a Member State when the stakes of that campaign affect the functioning of the European Union, in particular. This is, of course, only one example among others, reflecting the rapporteurs’ desire to make existing provisions and rules more flexible. As regards the financing of European parties and foundations, I do not hide the fact that, as rapporteur, my clear preference is for the model of financial support for parties based on the number of MEPs who sit in the European Parliament under the banner of their party. Finally, to limit myself strictly to the essentials, I would point out that the report refers to transnational lists which, of course, can only become a reality if there is the political will to do so. I would not like to conclude without a friendly thought for my co-rapporteur colleague Rainer Wieland, with whom I agreed on almost everything, and my thanks, of course, also go to my team.

Mr President, do the Western Balkans have a European perspective? The answer is yes. Will they be able to join the EU's internal market? Yes, as soon as they are ready. What about the Schengen area? Same answer: as soon as they are ready. Is there any obstacle in principle to denying cooperation with the Western Balkans in all matters relating to trade, monetary cooperation and political cooperation? Of course not, as long as the conditions are met on both sides. But a big obstacle remains to be overcome: how can we ensure that the fundamental values of the European Union are respected once these countries have become members of the Union? The answer is clear. It is enough for the Balkan countries to observe what is happening today in one of their own, already a member of the European Union, in Poland or Hungary, or in other states in the process of becoming democrats. Two days ago, the representative of a country accused of deviating from the fundamental values of the European Union came under fire here. In the meantime, our Union is powerless when it comes to imposing a return to respect for the rule of law. Let's be clear: As long as the European Union remains unable to impose on a failing Member State respect for the values enshrined in Article 2, we will face the gravediggers of the rule of law. Back to the Balkans, where you don't have to go very far to discover mass graves. The first of the aspirations of the citizens of the Balkans is, it seems to me, respect for dignity and the ability to guarantee it. For us, the European Parliament, the situation is hard. We are currently unable to deliver on the promise of freedom and ensure a return to respect for values once flouted by a Member State. In other words, let us remain open to cooperation. We can offer everything to the countries of the Western Balkans, with the exception of the institutions.

Mr President, let’s get straight to the point. All energy will now have to be dedicated to climate disaster mitigation. For example, the funds that many countries intend to devote to the arms race will miss the technological revolution that the planet will need to complete the energy transition, a gigantic project requiring the total investment of all, starting with China, the United States, the European Union and so on. We no longer have the right to waste our resources. The business as usual will lead us straight into the wall. The technological potential and there to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Let us be creative and remember that the end of the carved stone age was not caused by a lack of stones, but was made possible by innovation. Politically speaking, there are few examples in history where so many conditions must be met to avoid the worst. So let's set the real priorities. We are no longer entitled to error. The younger generations will send us to hell if Glasgow were to make history as the pinnacle of shame, powerlessness and irresponsibility.

Madam President, let us mention four important points for the 2022 budget in terms of development. First, the total state aid, which is about four times higher than that available to the European Commission. The Commission therefore has significant leverage, as provided for in the Treaty, to convince Member States to act in the same direction. Second, the Commission's strategic role should focus on the best approaches to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In this regard, reducing inequalities through better tax policy in developing countries and access to social security in those countries should be a major objective. Thirdly, security and health threats and major political upheavals necessitate the use of the budget reserve. The reserve must be used to deal with unforeseen events rather than to supplement budget items whose expenditure estimates have been lower than the reality. Fourthly, the European Union will have to step up its efforts to combat climate change, an area in which it already has a leading role. Reference is made to this lever because it will be necessary to convince other countries, since the challenge we face is a global one.

Mr President, the great collective tragedies in the history of our continent have all begun with the abandonment of the rule of law in favour of force. In the 20th century, my country experienced this experience once, once too much. Others, including Poland, have had this experience twice, twice too much. All this would not have happened if the law of force had not prevailed over the force of law. This is what the European Union is all about: a guarantee and a hope, thanks to an area of common law with an arbitrator who ensures compliance with the commonly accepted rules. Many of us here in this room have had the honour, in a previous life, of laying flowers in dark suits and dark ties in front of places of remembrance honouring the victims of barbarism and arbitrariness, chanting the slogan ‘Never again’. These three words, ‘never again’, sound hollow if we are not determined to stifle breaches of the principles of the rule of law, even if they still exist only in a diffuse state. The most effective way to ensure the ‘never again’ is to respect the rule of law.

Madam President, the process is long and complicated, but compliance with the rules on compliance with the EU’s broad political guidelines can explain the sometimes laborious implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Let us not underestimate the scope of how the recovery plan becomes a reality. The conditionality inherent in the recovery plan allows us to make a big leap in terms of solidarity-based integration at European level, under certain conditions. First, the absorption capacity of NGEU funds in too short a timeframe can be problematic. Either the beneficiary countries face specific procedural or administrative difficulties, in which case technical assistance must be provided to overcome these difficulties; or the legitimate demands of the Commission may slow down the process and here too it is important to address them. Secondly, it is important to ensure that competition rules are complied with, so as not to hinder the proper functioning of the internal market. Thirdly, I fully agree with the comments made by Katalin Cseh and Valérie Hayer, two colleagues from my political group, on conditionality. I subscribe with both hands. Last remark: The health and climate change challenges before us make me think that Next Generation EU should not be the last operation of its kind. It all depends on the political will of our institutions and how this facility is managed.