What Charles spoke about.

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.

Madam President, in a very tense budgetary context, the European Union has used trust funds to respond to extremely serious crises. This practice is light years away from the budgetary orthodoxy of the European Parliament. The majority of the European Parliament finally supported this approach, first and foremost to enable the EU not to remain indifferent to the suffering and misery to which refugees and migrants were exposed. What is a far cry from humanitarian imperatives is in fact a budgetary anomaly. With NDICI-Global Europe, our new instrument for financing the EU’s external policy, and with the EU’s humanitarian policy for the coming years, we can hopefully leave the practice of Trust Funds behind in the near future. The creation of new trust funds in the future should be a last resort. The EU's Multiannual Financial Framework is a timid return to normal. However, we must go further. Crises must be addressed in a more strategic framework and the exception must not be made the rule. If the underfunding of humanitarian action were to remain chronic and for many, there is every reason to believe that this will be the case, the European Union budget should be endowed with sufficient resources to respond to situations of distress with respect for Parliament’s budgetary prerogatives. Pending the implementation of the trust funds, we must try to deal with and improve the scrutiny of the European Parliament.