Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! In my region, in Dresden, a bridge has just collapsed, a normal bridge in the city center. There are trams running over it, there are pedestrians running over it, and as if by a miracle no one has died. This bridge symbolizes the state of the infrastructure in Germany and elsewhere. For years, too little has been invested in our future and that of our children. We must finally take money into our hands so that we can set up our infrastructure for the future, so that we can better network them across Europe. We need to take money into our hands to make the foundation of our society climate neutral. These investments must be channelled at European level in order to put an end to this small statehood on the European single market. Thank you, Mr Draghi, for expressing this so clearly in your report when you call for more than 800 billion in additional investments per year. The Member States must take this very seriously, first and foremost my own. Mr Draghi, I would be very pleased if you could present your report personally to the German Finance Minister.

Mr President, thanks so much to everyone who took part in this debate. I think indeed it showed great, great unity, except, of course, the ridiculous and very destructive far right. But we know about that. That’s the usual case. I think the rest of Parliament was quite clear, and I hope the vote tomorrow will be also quite clear. I also want to use now my final spot to thank the Commission for the leadership in this matter. And I really, really hope that also next term, the Commission will push forward and reforming our whole idea of how we design our investment policy, because also still in other investment protection treaties, we include fossil fuel, and I think we need another, you know, reform approach there. But I trust you in this. I also want to thank, of course, my co-rapporteur, Mr Botenga, and especially all the shadows from the INTA committee, because it’s of course not only the vote today, it was five years of work. It was five years of intensive work in the monitoring group of investment policy and also on our own initiative report on the future of investment policy, where we also asked already for the ECT exit. So I want to thank Danuta Hübner from the EPP, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero from the S&D, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne from Renew, Geert Bourgeois from the ECR, and Emmanuel Maurel from the Left. It was really, really a great cooperation, very constructive discussions and it makes for me a lot of hope that we can work together in this Parliament across groups and also in a very fact-based manner, and I hope this will continue next term.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, March 2024 was the tenth warmest month in a row since the start of weather records. 2023 was by far the hottest year ever. One record chases the next, one natural disaster the other. We need to act urgently, get away from fossil fuels as soon as possible and invest in renewable energies. The EU has embarked on a journey towards a climate-neutral continent. But there are many obstacles. The Energy Charter Treaty is the best – or perhaps I should say: the worst – example of a structure that binds us to fossils and makes the much-needed energy transition more expensive and slower. The treaty is the investment protection agreement under which there were by far the most lawsuits. As of December 2023, there were 162. 162 lawsuits against the phasing out of coal, against the phasing out of oil and gas. 162 Complaints against the Green Deal. The crazy one: Most of these out-of-court actions take place within the EU. We are justifiably proud of our sophisticated, functioning legal system. So companies can simply bypass our ordinary courts and turn to a private tribunal. For example, RWE and Uniper demanded €2.4 billion in damages from the Dutch government for the coal phase-out by 2030. Italy had to pay the British oil company Rockhopper 250 million euros in compensation, because Italy has banned the development of offshore oil deposits along the coast. The list could be continued. This is insane, ladies and gentlemen. This is precisely why this Parliament has long called for the withdrawal of the EU and its Member States from this fossil-fuel gag treaty. That is why this Parliament has long since stated that the proposed reforms of this Treaty would only make things worse. These were long years of debates, of campaigning, of very constructive cooperation here in the European Parliament. Many initiatives by associations of judges and civil society. I still can't believe it, because in between the resistance seemed too high. But now the EU's withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty is imminent, and this is truly historic. "Private arbitral tribunals violate democracy," once said a former German constitutional judge. Tomorrow's vote will bring democracy back. I would have liked to see a coordinated exit with all EU Member States. But I recognise the reality that there is no majority in the Council at the moment. After all, many Member States have already withdrawn from the Treaty, including Germany, thanks to the Green Minister for Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck. Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow you will vote for the withdrawal of the EU from the ECT too – for democracy and for an effective fight against climate change.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 28 million workers in forced labour, and there are more and more. 28 million, that's not some number, that's people. People like Tara, who has to work in a brick factory day and night in India and even when she is seriously ill. Or people like Henry, who came to Mauritius and is exploited as a cheap labourer, sewing textiles for the European market – without ever leaving the factory, without getting paid. 28 million people, many of them children, migrants – people who have little power and are therefore exploited by unscrupulous companies. For these people, for Tara and Henry, we have set this law in motion: Prohibition of products derived from forced labour. For all the many companies that are honest, that operate correctly, we have advanced this law, because forced labour is, after all, one of the most blatant forms of dumping and distortion of competition. And last but not least for consumers, we are voting in favour of banning products from forced labour. Finally, they can be sure that their favorite jeans or cell phone have not been made under duress.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Nowhere does the EU reach people more concretely than when it comes to consumer protection. We are improving the lives of nearly 450 million people: We are fighting greenwashing and e-waste, we have abolished roaming charges and introduced the uniform charging cable. And everyone benefits from it. Now we finally bring the right to repair to the start, and that is the end of unnecessary resource consumption: In the future, we will be able to repair our mobile phones, laptops and washing machines more easily, quickly and cost-effectively. We rolled out the carpet to the circular economy. We are changing how we operate. We make sustainability a worthwhile business model. Consumers benefit most from this. This shows once again: The European Green Deal is a success story – for a better everyday life for people, for the planet, for the predictability of companies. That's why we can't hollow it out and stop it. No, we must continue the Green Deal resolutely. This is what European consumers want, too.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! Better working conditions for over- and delivery drivers – the FDP says no. The end of forced labour in our products – the FDP says no again. Finally, and this is what we are talking about today, the European Supply Chain Law, the FDP is saying no here too. 90% of the Belgian Presidency's last compromise proposal on the law responds to the demands of the FDP. And what does it do? She's still saying no. This is not a political stance, this is a refusal to work. Europe thrives on compromise. To reject any compromise on principle is deeply anti-European. This harms the entire European Union, but it also harms the reputation of the Federal Government as a reliable negotiating partner. And Mrs. Strack-Zimmermann, you want to stand for the backbone as a top European candidate? I only see big stop signs everywhere. I would like to ask you: Show your backbone for Europe and for human rights!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, There are more and more companies that offset and advertise CO2 and want to convince customers with green promises. This shows: Climate protection is a market value; Consumers are asking. And it shows: Many companies want to do something. It is important for both consumers and businesses that we put an end to the current wild growth of green promises. 230 labels are currently supposed to say something about sustainability – and there are even more who claim that a product is really green, often without a factual basis. The result: More than half of these labels are misleading. This is bad for businesses, consumers and the planet. We need to channel this great purchasing power into a sustainable economy and businesses. And we have to be completely sure that consumers are not deceived and think that they are consuming sustainably, but in reality the product is harmful to the climate. Tomorrow's vote will do just that. We say greenwashing Take the fight! We ensure that green promises are justified in the future, in advance, scientifically and over the entire life of the product.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that we all agree here in this Parliament: Our European trade agreements and our supply chains must become more sustainable. This applies not only to the European Union, but must also be reflected in our external relations. There has been significant progress in this Legislature: The Commission has launched the green trade policy reform approach. We have the important law for deforestation-free supply chains. We are currently working on a ban on imports of forced labour products. And this Parliament, and you too, Commissioner, wanted the supply chain law, which is so important and which is currently on the brink of collapse in the Council. It would be a moral declaration of bankruptcy if it failed. And some of these improvements have now made it into the agreement with Chile. And that's good. It is good and right that there is a gender chapter – for the first time. It is good and important that there is a chapter on sustainable food systems. But I think the agreement falls short of the minimum standard – the agreement with New Zealand. There is no enforceable sustainability chapter. The chapter is really toothless. Even a real anchoring of the rights of indigenous peoples unfortunately misses the agreement. I do not think we can justify our fight against climate change here in Europe and the lithium imports we need by trampling on the environment or human rights elsewhere. I think that the agreement does not yet provide sufficient protection. A second point is very important to me: This Parliament, with a very, very large majority, has called for a reform of investment protection policy, because investors can complain against our climate policy and also the climate policy of our partners, often over millions and over billions, and so-called chilling effects You can call out. Nevertheless, the agreement with Chile has still included the old system of investment courts and not the reform proposals that this Parliament has called for. I think this is a totally missed opportunity. I believe the many complaints that are already waiting at the door. So: There is progress in this agreement with Chile, but we are far from over. We must continue to fight for a genuine, sustainable trade policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What is one of the biggest threats to competitiveness in the European Union? It is climate change with its extreme weather events, with the disruption of supply chains or the questioning of entire business models. That is why the EU and its continuation are a key building block for strengthening competitiveness in the European Union. This creates predictability for companies and eliminates bureaucracy in a very concrete way. We all know: An EU rule is a thousand times better than 27 different rules and a fragmentation of the single market. That is why we must now - and the Commission must, above all, also in the next legislature - Green Deal continue and expand. We must finally have complete independence in energy supply and 100 per cent renewables – which are cheaper and make us independent of autocrats. Secondly, we need clear guidelines and standards for a green European industrial policy with more manufacturing capacity in the EU in key strategic technologies. Here, too, we cannot afford to be dependent on autocrats. Thirdly, and this has already been mentioned by many today, we need more European investment. We have a huge investment gap, which means the financing of the Green Dealas well as the digital. And I do not want every single Member State, whether rich or not, to be responsible for this. We need a European instrument so that the single market is not torn apart. And lastly, because my time is running out: We also need to increase the demand for our green products, and we can do that through public procurement. 14% of GDP is public procurement. Let's use them to buy our green industrial products.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The global race for green industry is in full swing, and we simply cannot afford to lag behind as the European Union or even put individual sectors at risk. Several things are important for this; You've already mentioned a few. Firstly: The regulatory framework, the Green Deal, is the success story that we in the European Union continue to compete in this global race, and instead of hollowing it out, as this side of Parliament wants, we need to further strengthen the Green Deal. Secondly: We need to make greater use of the lever of public procurement. It cannot be the case that we do not strategically use 13% of gross domestic product – 2 trillion in taxpayers’ money. Of course, now in Net-Zero Industry Act First steps taken. But we simply have to get to the point that we prefer sustainable products in every public procurement, that we really get to the point of using public procurement as a strategic industrial tool. Thirdly: We need fair competition. It cannot be the case that dumping takes place elsewhere – whether by infiltrating social and environmental standards, but also through illegitimate subsidies – and that our European producers abide by the rules. We need competition rules that are the same for everyone. This includes the reform of the customs union, which is currently underway, so that we can see that no illegitimate products really end up on the European market. The ban on products from forced labour must finally be completed quickly, as we are in the final stages. But above all, I think it is very important that the Commission also examines what short-term measures are needed. Trading instruments have already been mentioned, but others have also just been mentioned by colleagues here. There must also be short-term instruments in addition to all these structural measures.

Mr President! Dear colleagues, there are more and more climate-neutral, green and sustainable products on the market in the European Union. And that just shows how huge the demand is. Consumers who want to shop sustainably. It is important for three out of four EU citizens in the EU what impact their product has on the environment. And this urge to counteract the climate crisis and resource consumption must be made possible. We need to channel this great purchasing power specifically into the sustainable economy and into sustainable businesses. And we need to be absolutely sure that consumers are not deceived – that they think they are consuming sustainably, but the product is actually harmful to the climate. And with tomorrow's vote, we're doing just that: We call greenwashing the fight. In the future, no clothes, no cosmetics, no car or no football World Cup can be called climate neutral anymore, if they are not really. After all, carbon offsets by companies are right and important, but they must of course not lead to greenwashing. With the vote tomorrow, consumers finally know that sustainable products are really sustainable.

Madam President, I liked that we finally had a plenary debate that is really a debate. Frau Präsidentin, lieber Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission Dombrovskis, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Handelsabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Neuseeland markiert einen Wendepunkt in der europäischen Handelspolitik, für den wir Grüne uns sehr lange eingesetzt haben, für den sich auch dieses Parlament sehr lange eingesetzt hat. Besonders freue ich mich über den neuen Standard bei Nachhaltigkeitskapiteln, und endlich, endlich können Verstöße gegen das Pariser Klimaschutzübereinkommen oder die IAO-Kernarbeitsnormen geahndet werden. Und damit sind diese Kapitel endlich keine Papiertiger mehr, sondern stellen sicher, dass unser Handeln im Einklang mit dem europäischen Grünen Deal steht. Es ist so wichtig, dass es erstmals auch ein Kapitel über die Rechte indigener Völker sowie die Verpflichtung zu nachhaltiger Landwirtschaft gibt. Handelspolitik muss als Hebel für Menschenrechte und für die Transformation genutzt werden. Als Grüne hätten wir uns gewünscht, noch weiter zu gehen. Beispielsweise wollten wir einen klaren Fahrplan für den Abbau von fossilen Subventionen und die Umsetzung aus dem Nachhaltigkeitskapitel einfordern. Das Abkommen ist also noch nicht perfekt, aber es ist ein entscheidender Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Was mir ganz wichtig ist: Hinter Neuseeland dürfen wir jetzt nicht mehr zurückfallen. Alle zukünftigen EU-Handelsabkommen müssen diesen neuen Mindeststandards folgen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, More than 70% of people in Europe want to repair their smartphone, but only 20% do – this is a missed opportunity. Repair must finally become easier, cheaper and faster. This conserves resources and the climate, and that is exactly what the European right to repair does. What does this mean for consumers in concrete terms? If the vacuum cleaner breaks, it no longer has to go directly into the garbage, because the manufacturer has to repair the vacuum cleaner. In order for the repair to be affordable, independent small repair shops around the corner or tinkerers at home in their garages get access to instructions and spare parts at a reasonable price. This is very important, because currently repairing is far too expensive. We Greens have successfully negotiated to prevent practices that manufacturers use to keep their fingers crossed for repairs, such as that certain own spare parts can only be used with a serial number. All this is the end of the undisputed market power of Apple and Co. and will bring new jobs and new jobs for the little ones – and that's really good. Repair is no longer a luxury, but becomes the norm, because the right to repair finally enables consumers to make sustainable choices. I say very clearly: We Greens would have liked more; For example, we Greens would have liked to have adapted the warranty to the service life. This would have triggered a real repair revolution, but unfortunately this was prevented by the centre-right in this house. Nevertheless: The current compromise is also a milestone in the transition to a circular economy and protects resources and the climate, including consumers' wallets. Now the Member States must move too, so that the right to repair will soon become a reality.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Experience with autocratic regimes such as Russia and China shows that we need to broaden our trade relations. But these examples also show that a trade policy that undermines our value system, such as the protection of human rights or the climate, is also doomed to failure. It follows for me: We can only advance the EU trade agenda if, at the same time, we continue to reform our trade agreements, align them with genuine climate protection, if we make the European economy and our supply chains climate-neutral, as we did, for example, with the law against global deforestation. Many are now saying that we need to approach developing countries more in order to win them over as partners. Yes, I think so, and I've been saying that for a long time. But of course we don't do that by lowering our sustainability standards. What most countries in the Global South really want is that the agreements do not limit their room for manoeuvre – in industrial policy or when they produce medicines for their populations. They want more technology transfer and a reform of global economic governance structures. This requires European initiatives if we really want to join forces on an equal footing with the Global South.

Madam President, dear colleagues, are you aware that Nord Stream 2 and its Russian backers are, to this day, still suing the EU for damaging their investment in the doomed pipeline? That billions of taxpayers’ money might be used for this? The Energy Charter Treaty is to blame. And that is why we in this Parliament several months ago decided that the EU and its Member States have to exit. That is why also the Commission proposed a coordinated exit. Eleven Member States are leaving, so the EU exit is unavoidable. I have really no understanding whatsoever on why the file is now blocked for months in the Council, why the Council isn’t acting and why the Council is not even here today. To me it is clear: the Council needs to listen to the citizens, to this Parliament and also really put an end to the damaging Energy Charter Treaty. This Parliament made it very clear in our resolution that was carried by almost all the groups. Unfair overprotections for foreign investors – and especially fossil fuel investors – are unacceptable. There should be no treat of arbitration lawsuits, no shadow courts, no billions to pay as damages to the biggest polluters, no half solutions. Unfortunately, the ECT saga isn’t over yet, but we are much further than we have been four years ago. So together with the Council, we can still set our success in marble before the end of this mandate and finalise the EU exit from this outdated, toxic Energy Charter Treaty.

Madam President, I have a point of order indeed. Parliament decided that we wanted to exit the Energy Charter Treaty, and the Commission proposed it as well. But the blocking majority, or whatever, is in the Council. The Council is not moving. But how can we debate with the Council if the Council is not here? That really renders the whole debate a little bit useless. So could we probably either call for the Council to come back, or postpone the debate? Because like this it doesn’t really make sense, because the addressee, of course, of the debate is the Council.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. War and pandemic have relentlessly demonstrated how vulnerable and unstable our supply chains are. And yes, we must diversify our sourcing of raw materials and we must become less dependent on authoritarian regimes such as China or Russia. However, this must not come at the expense of human rights and environmental protection in other countries, whether it is nickel mining in Indonesia or lithium mining in Chile. We need clear guidelines on human rights and sustainability in the EU raw materials partnerships and we need a strong EU supply chain law. In this context, I find it very disappointing that the ITRE Committee did not follow our initiative to anchor indigenous rights and informed consultation on raw material projects. And I strongly advocate that tomorrow we vote in favour of certain amendments that are relevant. Indigenous people must not be the victims of our raw materials policy. We only gain more international partners if we make attractive offers. Many developing countries want to move away from their role as pure suppliers of raw materials. That is why we need to shape our trade policy and our trade agreements in such a way that they create more value on the ground. And we need more European investment in on-site processing in the raw material countries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Miles-long truck jams at the borders, nurses who can't get to work, or even couples who can't visit. All this has once again become a sad reality in the European Union during the coronavirus pandemic. Border controls by Member States have prevented the free movement of goods, services, but also of people, disrupted the internal market. This must never happen again! And that is exactly what the Single Market Emergency Instrument will tackle. Better foresight, better coordination and faster procedures should keep borders open in the event of a crisis. After all, the single market thrives on us working together and overcoming crises through cooperation. And I say this above all in the direction of some German CDU/CSU state governments, which now want to reintroduce border controls that violate European law because of migration or have been practicing this for years: Don't jeopardize Europe's greatest achievement! In times of crisis, our supply chains are also put to the test. Supply and demand shocks, supply bottlenecks, rising prices. We experienced this in the corona crisis, and we are also experiencing this in the war in Ukraine. And here too, if we work together to make up for strengths and weaknesses, Europe is the most resilient. The single market will become a lifejacket for businesses, but also for people, for consumers, if we use it properly. We Greens – and I must say this quite honestly – would have liked the law to have more teeth, to be able to establish a real crisis economy, similar to the US, and to be able to adapt to it if it is really necessary. And now, unfortunately, the law also contains some toothless rules. Nevertheless, the beginning has been made. Nevertheless, the law will help to protect what constitutes for many Europe: Open borders, mutual support, standing together in crisis. I would like to thank once again the rapporteur Andreas Schwab and the shadow rapporteurs for the good cooperation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. How environmentally harmful a product is is decided by 80% of the design, and that is a huge lever that we simply have to use much more. T-shirt, mobile phone or kettle – previously: Buying, using briefly and throwing away, that is unfortunately the rule. And with blatant consequences: Earth heating is progressing, the hunger for resources is increasing, the mountains of garbage are growing. This must finally be over! With the vote on the Ecodesign Regulation, we make it clear: It is high time that the sustainability of products becomes the norm in the internal market. Ecodesign is a milestone in the transition to a circular economy. Garbage becomes a design flaw, and scrap products disappear from the market. I am pleased that we are creating transparency across the supply chain and facilitating recycling with the product passport. And a repairability value will clearly show consumers how easy or how difficult a product is to repair. Also, the destruction of unsold goods must finally stop. It is good and right that Parliament has reinforced the Commission's proposal.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Raw materials are finite, and planetary boundaries are reality. The Battery Ordinance is accelerating the transition to a true circular economy because we are no longer wasting important raw materials, but are finally recycling them. Consumers will receive more durable and efficient batteries. All batteries can be replaced, devices can be used longer and e-waste can be reduced. What a benefit for the environment and consumers! Secondly, the Regulation creates a level playing field for batteries produced and imported in Europe. It lays down rules under which Europe can compete internationally with high consumer and environmental standards in this key technology. This will affect global production – the Brussels effect now finally also for batteries! Third, the law establishes clear human rights due diligence obligations in a sector that is highly vulnerable to human rights violations. This is incredibly necessary. So, the battery regulation is a blueprint. It is one of the pillars of the Green Deal. We now need to implement them quickly and efficiently for a fair circular economy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, annually, 50 billion worth of imported goods are made with child labour. And an estimated 160 million children are engaged in child labour. Children such as Nina, a 13-year-old working in the mica mine in Madagascar for our cosmetics, paints and electronics. Or Sandy who picks potatoes, extracts onions and digs up lettuce on a hillside in the Dominican Republic. To improve the circumstances and to lift the families from Nina and Sandy out of poverty, we need support and development cooperation. But child labour and especially forced child labour is also straightforward economic dumping. That is why we need to increase the economic costs of companies that exploit the most vulnerable. The answer is a strong and effective import ban on products made with forced labour. It is a shame that the EPP is teaming up with the right wing to block and postpone this very important proposal.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, More and more consumers are attaching importance to sustainability. They want to participate in the green transition, in the transition to a circular economy. The law we are voting on this week is the framework for that. An example: A new update slows down the functions of my smartphone to a point where it is simply no longer usable. This is not only expensive and annoying for consumers, it is also really bad for the climate and consumes vast amounts of resources. This is based on calculus, because a built-in expiration date leads to a new purchase. This must finally end. Producing e-waste must no longer be a business model. Scrap products do not belong in the European single market. I am pleased that with this law the European Parliament is saying so clearly: Practices of premature wear belong on the blacklist. They are prohibited so that consumers can make sustainable choices at the counter. In addition, we introduce new information requirements, above all finally a repair index, which will show how easy the mobile phone can be repaired. So it pays off to spend a few euros more if the mobile phone has a longer life. This dossier is really a good success. I once again warmly congratulate our IMCO rapporteur Biljana Borzan and all shadows.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the world forests are at the brink of an abyss, and for years the EU was a major driver of imported deforestation. And this regulation on deforestation—free supply chains is a game changer. We are making sure that products like soy or beef placed on the EU single market will not anymore fuel disastrous deforestation elsewhere. And this is not only good for global biodiversity, but also for the European consumers who can be sure to buy deforestation—free products in the future. Especially in Brazil under former President Bolsonaro, deforestation rates skyrocketed and this endangered the livelihood of so many indigenous people. This new law is benefiting not only biodiversity but also people and their rights. It is a law to reach our common global goals, like stopping climate change and biodiversity loss. But let me be clear, the regulation on deforestation—free supply chains cannot be an excuse for agreeing on a bad Mercosur deal. We need additional robust safeguards for human rights and against deforestation instead of the currently proposed toothless instrument.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! High product standards in the EU single market – that is at the core of our Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. We are working hard on this every day, and therefore once again thank you to the rapporteur Dita Charanzová and to all the shadow rapporteurs who have done a great job on this dossier. High product standards – people actually benefit from the EU single market, which involves much, much more than just removing barriers for businesses. Product safety is not an abstract problem, ladies and gentlemen. Just think of smoke detectors, for example: Safe products save lives. A recent study has shown that two-thirds of the products you can buy online fail at security standards. This is absolutely unacceptable. And the new rules on product safety fill these gaps and will better protect consumers online and offline. We finally have stricter regulations that determine what makes products safe and what doesn't. The precautionary principle remains firmly anchored – this was particularly important for my group. We want to make sure that online marketplaces are no longer the gateway to unsafe products. All consumers in the European Union will benefit from these new rules.

Madam President, the global net—zero race is on, and for the EU to lead it, we need to speed up the Green Deal. Clear and predictable rules as well as adequate financing are key to boost the transition of our industry. And two things I find crucial in this debate: we also need to create a market for our green products. And that is why I very much welcome the Commission’s proposal on green procurement in the Net—Zero Industry Act. Public procurement is 14% of our GDP, and we must use this huge leverage to support our companies who want to embark on the green transition. And secondly, as a lot of people mentioned today, we need to protect our main asset, the single market. And flexibilities on national subsidies require more European money, fresh money to prevent a subsidy race within the EU, to allow a truly common European approach. So I urge, especially also the Member States, the Council, to embrace Parliament’s proposal on a sovereignty fund.