What Anna spoke about.

Madam President, dear colleagues, when you buy, let's say, a toaster and it breaks, you often can't repair it. Spare parts are not available, manuals are not accessible and necessary updates, software updates, are not provided. The result? Consumers are forced to throw away a product that they could have easily been using longer. That is so annoying, and a lot of citizens complain to us. I'm so proud that we found a legislative solution to it – the right to repair, which obliges producers to repair their own products and that gives consumers several tools to repair their purchases themselves. But this logic of extending the lifetime of physical products doesn't apply to video games. This is the core of the European Citizens' Initiative we are talking about today. When you buy a video game that is connected to the publisher online, you actually purchase a license for using it, a license defined by the publisher that potentially can end at any time for any reason, just that you are not aware of it. If the publisher then disconnects a video game, after notification, not only the support ends – it is literally dead and non repairable for you, no longer playable for the consumer. Over 1.2 million Europeans demand us to put an end to this forced and untimely death of video games. I congratulate all the citizens who were so active and also the organisers of this great European Citizens' Initiative. As the Internal Market Committee, we are working hard to ban a practice from the single market that forces consumers to buy new products to the detriment of their wallets and the planet – planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is defined as the deliberate design of a product with an artificially limited useful life. This logic also needs to apply to video games in EU consumer law. I sincerely hope and urge the European Commission to come up with a solution on how the specific situation of a licensing model can ensure the same level of consumer protection for gamers. A solution to avoid the unknown, arbitrary end of gaming fun and a long life to what has long become a part of our culture.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, the DMA is a milestone legislation to define what a European way of digitalisation looks like: diverse, innovative, open and fair. It leads to advantages for businesses with easier market access and fairer competition, and it leads to advantages for consumers who profit from interoperability or changing default settings. The decoupling of Gmail from the Google account, the ability to choose a different default browser on mobile devices, or the upcoming possibility to share files between iOS and Android devices – these are all successes, very concrete achievements, of the DMA. And as we debate the effective enforcement of the Digital Markets Act today, we must be clear about one irrefutable, non-negotiable reality: European consumers, lawmakers, citizens – Europe writes and enforces its own laws. And let us not dress this up in diplomatic niceties. To Jim Jordan and his friends, the DMA is neither part of European censorship nor a trade barrier, nor directed towards US big tech. Rules apply to all. To the Commission: you have to make sure that the dialogue with the United States on digital policies does not open the door to influence over European law that will undermine our sovereignty. At a time when the Digital Markets Act must prove its teeth through decisive and timely action, we should not be inviting foreign actors whose philosophies diverge sharply from ours. The Commission's responsibility is to ensure that enforcement is timely, robust and future‑proof, particularly as AI and cloud infrastructures define market power. We cannot delay imposing the consequences of proven breaches of the DMA, and with our resolution, this Parliament calls on the Commission to fiercely continue on this path, using all enforcement instruments at its hand for the benefit of businesses, consumers and our European sovereignty. And that means, concretely, look into Google's persistent self‑preferencing practices across its services, product‑listing ads and its use of AI. Look into why there are still no easily accessible alternatives to Apple's App Store. Look into the ongoing behavioural consent techniques of TikTok, the lacking interoperability of Microsoft's operating system, parity clauses of booking, Meta's pay and consent clause, and so many more that consumer organisations continue to flag. Simply put: enforce the DMA.

Mr President, Commissioner! Trump's tariffs are illegal, and in fact, this deal shouldn't exist at all. And, frankly, I really wish the Commission had shown a little more teeth in the negotiations last year. Where were the counter tariffs, where was the activation of the anti-coercive instrument when Trump unjustifiably escalated? And I find it highly problematic that the EU has made the commitments for LNG imports in this joint statement on customs. Although we do not vote on this today, I say quite clearly that my group firmly rejects these promises. The EU must not become dependent on fossil fuels from the United States. Now on to the customs part of the deal: That it has to be there is bad. But in the current situation, we are creating a certain degree of predictability for the economy at a time of very great uncertainty. And Parliament has been able to make real improvements. Many colleagues have already said this today. And as the European Union, with this parliamentary mandate, we have more leverage over Trump, more strength over the United States. And one thing is very important to me: I also want the German government to approach Parliament in the upcoming trilogue negotiations, because of course these Parliamentary tightenings must also come through the trilogue.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Minister! For years, heads of state and government have been calling for a more internal market, and for years, Member States have been, frankly, blocking any small progress along the way. I think we finally need a genuine single market initiative. It would be good if the Member States could also make their Sunday speeches and Council conclusions Finally, put it into practice, because Europe is under pressure – as many have just said here. China’s exports are flooding into the single market – highly subsidised and high-tech – and at the same time the White House has a president who is as reliable in terms of trade policy as the Joker and Batman. This means for Europe: Export markets are breaking away; Business and industry are right to sound the alarm. I say quite clearly: The anchor of stability in these stormy times, that is domestic demand, that is the single market – with a European preference that strengthens ‘Made in Europe’, with a Capital Markets Union that enables companies to grow in the single market, with a uniform implementation of EU rules by the Member States instead of this blatant patchwork that we are seeing everywhere, and with an industrial policy that anchors climate objectives and a circular economy in market rules. I also say very clearly: The Member States, including this Parliament, have dealt too much with deregulation over the last year. Let's finally talk about the real problems and real solutions, and that is the single market.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Trump is using tariffs as a coercive tool, and we are all painfully aware of that again. I am firmly convinced that if we, as the EU, constantly give in and act cooperatively, then he will demand more and more. Then he will come back again and again with new tariffs if he wants to enforce his political goals. And in this difficult situation, we need to be aware of: Europe is not weak, Europe can be strong. But this strength presupposes that the Member States and the Commission in particular, but frankly also the EPP, which is now slowing down again and again in the European Parliament, simply dare to do more. We must finally suspend the trade agreement, which we Greens have always criticised as unequal. And it would be madness – as has just been mentioned – if we were to simply replace Russian gas with American liquefied petroleum gas. We are moving into new dependencies. We must also finally get the counter-tariffs off the ground. They've been in preparation since April, since May, but we haven't dared to get them off the ground. What did Trump do? He kept coming up with new tariffs. So, let's get the counter-duties off the ground now! And thirdly, we must finally activate the anti-compulsory instrument. This is a question for the Member States. I hope that something will finally happen in the Council on Thursday.

Mr President! Yes, ladies and gentlemen! Christmas is just around the corner and the scandals on the online platforms are not going away. Sex dolls that resemble children, toxic raincoats for the youngest and cell phone batteries that explode. These are some of the examples of the dangers lurking in online trading. We order the gifts with one click, often directly from China, directly to our apartment door and into the children's room. And customs and market surveillance – they simply can no longer cope with this tsunami of individual packages. And the good news: With the customs reform we are currently negotiating, customs controls can finally fish out the toxic packages again – through more data, through more European cooperation. And that is a huge step forward. But that alone will not be enough. Because more European cooperation is not only the answer for customs in the fight against the dangerous cheap products from China. We finally need Europe-wide market surveillance, because our national dwarfs are no longer keeping up with the online giants. We finally need a Europe-wide enforcement of investigations into unsafe products. It is therefore good that the Commission CPCReform and EU market surveillance following pressure from IMCO has now been included in the Consumer Agenda 2030. And most importantly at the end: We have with him DSA a strong lever in the hand, but the implementation is far too slow. We need more speed here, dear Commission. How many unsafe products will it take to finally address the systemic risks of these platforms?

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner. China's export restrictions on rare earth should have been a much stronger electroshock than they were. Industry China experts have been warning us about the risk for a decade – our whole economy depends on rare earth from China, and this case shows how dangerous this is. The EU is stuck between the US, with an erratic trade policy, and China, with an aggressive industrial policy. What we learnt is that every economic bottleneck that can be weaponised by either side will be weaponised. The EU has to put the highest priority on organising its own resilience, and we know that building new sustainable supply chains of rare earth and critical raw materials will take years. What we can do today is to boost our efforts to build the circular economy tenfold, to make sure that we recover and recycle 100 % of rare-earth magnets in existing goods. Right now, Europe's circularity rate is about 12 %. The goal of the circular economy strategy is to double it to 24 % by 2030. But this is too little, dear colleagues, for key elements like magnets – it should be 100 %.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The Single Market is a huge success story: 18% of world trade and 450 million consumers. This is our response to Trump's customs madness or the China shock. But in order to truly unlock this potential, we need a new moment in Europe – and right now I'm seeing more of a tripple. If global trade collapses, if supply chains become more and more vulnerable, then we need to increase domestic, European demand – by creating lead markets, by reforming public procurement, by massive investments, as Draghi suggests. When many others in the world play foul, we can't close our eyes and pretend we're in the '90s. We must set up the internal market geopolitically and, if necessary, also protect our economy from unfair competition. It is long overdue that the Commission is likely to propose the steel protection instrument today. But we also need to better protect our consumers from the flood of cheap products, and that is why we finally need European market surveillance. And yes, we need a stronger focus on innovation and we need to reduce the existing barriers in the single market. But this can only be achieved if these integration steps are also accepted by the citizens. This acceptance is based on our high standards for consumer protection, data protection, the environment and social issues. These standards also push the business models of tomorrow and distinguish us from China and the USA. And it is precisely this acceptance among citizens that undermines some – the EPP, but also parts of Renew, as I have just heard – with repeated attacks on EU rules. But you know what? Instead of an EU rule, there are 27 different rules. It's not strategic, it's not moving us forward, it's hurting the economy with even more bureaucracy. I also think it is good that the Council is here today. Because the heads of state and government always give many Sunday speeches on the internal market. But who often blocks the rules on the single market? Who makes sure that there is a patchwork in the implementation in Europe at the end? These are the Member States. I ask the Council, for example: Where is real progress? For example, where is the Capital Markets Union that would really take us forward? Ladies and gentlemen, the single market needs a real joint European effort instead of more Sunday speeches. Let's finally tackle this!

Thank you very much for the question! I believe it is incredibly important to work with the states of Latin America, especially in times of Trump. But in fact: A deal that is bad for our farmers in Europe, but that also continues to destroy the Amazon, that cannot be a good trade deal, and that is why we Greens will not agree.

Madam President, You started with a promise: The EU must become more independent and keep its course in this respect. Green Deal. You repeated this several times today, and your speech was good. But I think we also have to look: How are we in reality? What about implementation, and where are the majorities in favour? I have to say: Instead of climate protection, your own faction here in this House repeatedly attacks important laws such as the combustion engine shutdown. Instead of planning certainty for companies, you are forcing them into a zigzag course, and instead of confident negotiations with the US, instead of European strength, the EU is bending and bowing to Trump, also – I know it – because the Member States are falling behind you. If you really want to stay on course Green Deal, then, please, do not constantly open just recently passed laws, but show backbone and leadership! If you're serious about digital sovereignty, then please don't kowtow to Trump, but finally get a digital tax on the way! Then don't weaken our European AI law just because some US tech companies don't like it! If you are serious about Europe, then work with the forces that want a strong Europe, not with the nationalists and chauvinists!

Mr President, dear colleagues, a lot of people mentioned already this number, but I want to mention it again because it's so high – 2 trillion per year! Imagine what we could do with that amount of money. We could support companies that ensure fair working conditions and thus create a race to the top. We could boost companies that do business sustainably, from green cement to build our local schools or fair clothes for our local hospitals. You could support SMEs and European companies who suffer from unfair competition and price dumping from other parts of the world, but so far – and a lot of colleagues mentioned it here – public procurement in the EU is not used strategically. The lowest price is too often the only decisive factor. So we need to transform the EU rules for public procurement to make it more social, more green, more European. As Greens, we wanted more in this report, we wanted mandatory social and environmental procurement. But I also have to say that this report is a good start. It clearly says we need to move away from the lowest price. It clearly demands legal certainty and facilitation for social and environmental procurement. It calls to end abusive subcontracting and to protect workers. So this is, for me, a clear mandate to the Commission to propose an ambitious legislative reform on public procurement next year.

Mr President, dear colleagues, first of all, I want to start by saying that I find it a little bit funny and contradictory that the far right here is lamenting this tariff war and also the effect on European businesses. But everyone knows that Trump is your best friend, and I think everyone should know that, if you vote for the far right, you get this really shitty economic policy! But coming back to the debate right now, I think, and I know, it is not easy for the Commission to negotiate with a bully. And I have to say, I'm a little bit shocked that some Member States – including my own – are also now calling for a faster deal. whatever it takes. Sure, Trump's illegal tariffs are a huge burden for businesses. But if we agree on a bad deal now, the suffering will be much longer. If you give in to a blackmailer, he will continue blackmailing you. I think we need a very strong and united European Union instead. So my questions to the Commission are: Where are your countermeasures for steel and aluminium and for cars? Why are they not yet in place? Why are we not activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument? Because this is coercion. Where are our measures that target the US digital economy, as the tech companies have huge access to Trump? Dear colleagues, I am convinced we cannot win this fight by playing softball. We need to show Trump that he cannot just kick us around.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Gazprom sued the European Union because of our efforts to limit Russia's influence on Nord Stream. ExxonMobil sued the Netherlands because they left a gas field because of earthquakes. These dangerous investor-state dispute cases undermine the EU's sovereignty. They undermine our climate and energy policy. But luckily they will be an incident of the past, because this Parliament led the way for the exit from the dangerous Energy Charter Treaty. I think we should be very proud of this and today's vote is the final step in this long process. This inter-se agreement will neutralise the Charter's sunset clause between the EU Member States. The ECT should have never been applied intra-EU, and today we are setting this in stone. I thank my co-rapporteur, Mr Budka from the EPP, and ask all colleagues to vote in favour in order to close this Energy Charter Treaty saga, to protect the EU and the Member States' budgets, and to protect our sovereignty. I ask the Commission to enlarge the inter-se agreement also to Switzerland and to the UK, and to continue reforming the international investment protection system, to fully align it with the principles of the rule of law and democratic sovereignty.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, in times of economic uncertainty, strengthening the single market is the best answer we have. It can be an anchor for business in a stormy sea. It can offer higher standards to consumers worldwide and bring forth the circular business models our planet longs for. So I welcome the Commission's effort to look at what the single market actually needs. It needs smart tools like the digital product passport that make it run smoothly. But it also needs Member States' commitment to not only talk about the single market – and they do it a lot. I agree with Andreas Schwab, who also mentioned that, because we have our experience with the Member States. They also really need to avoid further fragmentation, and that's really the role of the Member States. The single market needs to strengthen enforcement. So I really also like the idea of an EU market surveillance authority that gives the EU the ability to act against illegal and unsafe products and creates a level playing field for all European companies. Dear colleagues, my time is over, but let me say it clearly: what the single market doesn't need is that we lower our standards and that we exempt more and more companies from our laws by creating big loopholes and thus weakening our single market.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we are facing numerous challenges in the EU. Looming trade wars, high energy prices, a lack of innovation and public investment, the China shock and shortages of skilled labour makes businesses suffer and results in rising costs of living for consumers. The climate crisis is accelerating and adding additional risks. The good news is the single market remains our best answer to geopolitical insecurity and to tackle those challenges. Nearly 450 million citizens, 23 million businesses with a GDP of EUR 17 trillion. These numbers make the single market one of the three largest economies in the world, and we need to use this unique resource to the benefit of people, businesses and the planet. Let me make four points on how the IMCO Committee in this resolution sees the way forward for the single market. One, reinforcing the single market. We need to make it easier, especially for small and medium sized enterprises to operate in it. Simplification is the core idea embedded in the creation of the single market. One rule instead of 27 means less administrative burden, less costs, and a better level playing field. But currently diverging implementation and fragmentation of legislation by the Member States create barriers in the single market. Therefore, the Commission needs to base its single market strategy on the idea of more Europe in legislation, implementation and enforcement. My second point, enforcing and developing the digital single market. Last term's milestone legislations, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act and the world's first AI Act now need to be enforced to ensure fair competition and a safe and trustful online environment. We therefore highly welcome the recent decision of the Commission to impose fines against Apple and Meta for their non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act, and we expect a continuous, rigorous enforcement also in other cases. And let me say it very clearly, especially regarding the pressure from the other side of the Atlantic. We do not let ourselves blackmail. We don't trade away our tech regulation. Our laws are not for sale because they protect consumers, democracy and smaller companies. Three. The green transition. Also, the reports of Letta and Draghi make clear the transition towards a green and circular economy is a must, and to ensure our future competitiveness, we need to prepare for the economic disruptions the climate crisis will bring. Following a clear and predictable path for businesses accompanied by investment and strengthened public services, next to better labelling and fighting greenwashing, we need to create a real single market for second-hand goods and the Circular Economy Act. Digital tools can smoothen the complex processes of public procurement. Thus, we can simplify and create lead markets for sustainable products, quality jobs and regional value at the same time. Four consumer protection. A flourishing single market and high consumer protection are two sides of the same coin. A single market cannot function without strong consumer protection in both online and offline markets. So our resolution asks the Commission to come up in due course with a Digital Fairness Act. Targeted advertising, advertising of influencers, dark patterns and dynamic pricing, as well as the protection of minors, are challenges that this act needs to tackle. With a rapidly rising share of e-commerce, millions of parcels land directly at the consumer's doorsteps, often from China, often not complying with our standards. This leads to safety risks and creates an uneven level playing field for European businesses. Therefore, the Commission must act. We need a swift implementation of the communication on e-commerce. We need to faster deploy the digital product passport and tracing laws to finalise the customs reform and to step up enforcement. More e-commerce leads to completely overloaded national market surveillance authorities. And that is why we need more European enforcement in order to live up to the giant online platforms, which is why the IMCO Committee, in our resolution, we call to reform the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network and for harmonised investigation to better fight unsafe products. Only joint action on EU level can get the tsunami of packages under control. So this is what the IMCO committee suggests, and we hope that the Commission takes it into account in its upcoming single market strategy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am deeply concerned that Trump's tariff war is destroying jobs, hurting the economy, raising prices, especially in the United States. And I am extremely concerned that there is a right-wing nationalist movement in the United States. powergrab It is a process that gradually abolishes democracy and the rule of law. And it is so important that the EU acts united in this chaos. As the largest market in the world, we have a huge power, and we shouldn't downplay that. Let us not be blinded by the current tariff pause. Many of Trump's tariffs are already in place, and that's why we now need to launch targeted countermeasures if he doesn't take back the current tariffs. This also includes the taxation of large digital companies. Clearly, at the same time, the Commission must continue to try to negotiate. But under no circumstances must we lower our standards and soften our European laws. This applies to the regulation of tech giants as well as to agricultural imports and the rules on methane. New LNG imports – I do not know if this is a good idea. We must counter the expected massive diversion from China with robust protective measures. We need to diversify our trading partners. But for me, that means, above all, strengthening the internal market, strengthening demand here. I say quite clearly: Trump's tariff policy cannot be the excuse for throwing our standards overboard in new trade agreements and opening the door to further outsourcing of industrial production. Despite all the criticism of Trump, we must not forget that a huge discontent about globalization is breaking in the US in both camps. This must not happen in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We all know it: In the European Union, we have the highest standards of consumer protection worldwide, whether we shop in the Czech Republic, Belgium or Italy. We also need to enforce these high standards of consumer protection in e-commerce; Many colleagues have already said this today. That is the great task of this legislature. More and more cheap products come directly from third countries to our living rooms, to our children's rooms; This is where the products become a safety risk. Maybe a number: 95% of toys purchased from Temu violate our safety regulations. I therefore call on the Member States – the Council is not here today – to finally enter into negotiations with us on customs reform in order to be able to finally manage this package tsunami. I call on the Commission to finally give consumer protection a real update for the digital age. These include: the consistent implementation of the DSA, the end of manipulation by a Digital Fairness Act, more efficient market surveillance and finally more enforcement at the Commission and more responsibility for online marketplaces if they do not comply with their obligations. Consumers are finally safe in online shopping.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There must be zero tolerance for child labour. That's exactly what Ursula von der Leyen said here in this house and has received a lot of applause for it. That was a few years ago, but what's left of that confession today? The EU Supply Chain Act is to be sacrificed before it is even in force. The law, of all things, is intended to prevent terrible working conditions and exploitation. First of all, Commissioner: This is an extremely bad style. The ink from the law isn't even dry. There is no experience with this law, whether it contributes to bureaucracy at all. Companies that turn to me and are totally unsettled. They've invested, they've rebuilt systems. Citizens write to me: We don't want child labour in our coffee, we don't want environmental crimes in our textiles, and the EU has guaranteed that. And now such a short-term, unthinking back and forth. This destroys trust in EU legislation. And now, secondly, to the content: The Commission had announced that it would reduce reporting requirements. Yes, we need relief, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. But this proposal is not a discharge, it is not a simple reduction of reporting obligations. This proposal is a massive deregulation that jeopardizes the objectives of the law. What does it have to do with reporting obligations if civil liability is removed? What does it have to do with reporting obligations if fines are reduced? What does it have to do with reporting obligations when companies only have to check the first supplier when most human rights violations happen at the beginning of the supply chain? We can't do that with the Greens. Simplification yes, but no deregulation. In that sense, we will renegotiate.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, one thing in advance: It is very good that we are discussing tariffs today. But it is also very clear that we have to look at what is happening in the United States itself. Parliament's rights are being eroded, unelected people have access to the entire payment system, and entire authorities are being destroyed. We must say that what is happening is actually a coup d'état. We need to talk about that, too. Now on to the tariffs. One thing must be clear: Arbitrary tariffs make people poorer – here and in the US. They fuel inflation, destroy prosperity and are a threat to the global economy. And I find that quite interesting: The extreme right here throws Trump at his feet and finds him great. In doing so, Trump will weaken Europe – our economy and the income of Europeans. And you are weakening Trump and Europe's interests with your support. Under patrioticism, I imagine something else. But now on to what we need to do in the European Union. We have to prepare very well for the emergency. We have to stick together. This is very important, because only when we are closed can we have influence. The EU must not be blackmailed because of the impending tariffs and must not reverse our own laws. We were told yesterday that we were doing it. AI Act Back up, it's really scandalous. We need to work out common interests with the US and be cooperative. But also, as you said, Mr Šefčovič, prepare clever counter-tariffs, because we have an insane power with one of the largest markets in the world, and we must also use that against Trump.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Our Response to Trump's Attacks on Democracy, the Free World Order Make America Great AgainIt must be: Europe United – eA strong, united Europe. Europe UnitedBut this must not be a phrase. So what does it mean? I think it takes even more European political commitment, for example from a German chancellor, and the willingness to make the EU finally more capable of acting with more funding and more competences. In addition, we must not give in to a millimeter in our regulation of Big tech. Trump, along with his billionaire buddies Musk and Zuckerberg, wants to get to them first. The Commission must take the necessary steps to ensure that the Digital Services Act provide, use and courageously implement, so that democracy, elections and freedom of expression on the net are preserved. Our European rules must not be a bargaining chip of any deal – trade car tariffs for tech or climate laws. That mustn't happen. Perhaps one more comment to the EPP colleagues: I think that the EPP must also be very careful here with its calls for the opening of the laws so as not to pave the way for Trump's interests.

Mr President, dear colleagues, 2022 was an exceptionally profitable year for energy companies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had sent oil and gas prices skyrocketing. Both businesses and consumers were hit hard by the inflation. Meanwhile, the six largest American and European oil firms doubled their profits, to an incredible USD 219 billion. Rightfully, the EU instated a windfall profit tax targeting energy companies benefiting from the crisis. Unfortunately, the crisis profiteers had a little known tool at hand: investment arbitration. Despite its record profiteers, the Klesch Group sued the EU for its windfall profit tax. In this case, is not running in front of EU courts; it takes place in front of a panel of private arbitrators, which can order the EU to pay hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money, without any judicial review. And the worst thing is that this case is completely running behind closed doors. There is no transparency at all. Dear colleagues, this is one of the many examples of the dangers of investment protection clauses and of investment arbitration. In the past 10 years, the number of treaty-based investor state dispute settlement cases has more than doubled. EU Member States are under attack, but the majority of cases remain against developing countries. The amounts claims are awarded are still eye-watering. Environmental regulations are under attack. National security decisions, like the exclusion of Huawei from key telecom infrastructure, are under attack. Sanctions are under attack. The phasing-out of coal is under attack. Dear colleagues, no matter from which Member State you are, your country is most likely facing one or several ISDS cases. Awards have been paid by your constituents' taxes, and the fact that this could happen in total secrecy is simply a scandal. The Mauritius Convention will increase transparency in those cases. At least we will know what is going on. Therefore, I strongly call for its ratification as soon as possible by the EU and its Member States. The Mauritius Convention is an important step in the right direction, but we need more, and this Parliament called for it already. States need to revise their investment treaties and terminate outdated ones; they need to do away with private arbitration panels; they need to immediately end the protection of fossil fuel investments and shield climate measures against investor lawsuits; they need to protect their own policy space. I think the EU is a driving force in the reform process of investment protection worldwide. We need more speed and more commitment to tackle all the other outstanding problems of ISDS.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, let me highlight the priorities of the IMCO Committee. First, our customs and market surveillance need sufficient resources to implement consumer protection, for example in e-commerce, and to ensure compliance with EU law by all companies to create a level playing field in the single market. Second, our milestone legislation like the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the AI Act, but also the product ban on forced labour, needs to be implemented and enforced effectively and robustly. The digital single market has to benefit citizens and companies alike. We cannot tolerate human rights dumping on our market and, to enforce all of that, we need adequate resources in the Commission. And third, with the reform of public procurement coming up, we want to remind you that the single market programme is also aiming at supporting actions for strategic public procurement, and this can continue paving the way for the reform.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The teddy bear on the online platform Temu, which looks cute and fluffy and costs only twelve euros. But if consumers order this teddy, there is a 95% chance that it will not meet European product safety standards. In other words: The cuddly toy is dangerous: His eyes may be swallowed, or the fur may be poisonous. Customs and market surveillance here in Europe are helpless against the ever-increasing share of online trade, especially with cheap products from China. This year, it is estimated that four billion packages will enter the European Union, which are below the customs border of 150 euros, and they will end up directly with consumers. It is high time to enforce our high level of European consumer protection also in online trade. The Commission needs to consistently implement the Digital Services Act and make online marketplaces more accountable. EU customs reform is key to improving controls at our borders. Parliament has done its homework; The Council is creeping and blocking, and we are losing precious time. We finally need more legal and financial responsibility for the online platforms. Unfortunately, the conservative side of this Parliament blocked the big shot in the last legislature; Now everyone realizes, I think, that it was a mistake.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! Dear Enrico Letta, first of all, thank you for your report and for the good cooperation with this House, in particular with the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Some people are firmly convinced – and Gabriele has already said so – that you cannot fall in love with an EU single market; One of them was Jacques Delors. But I have to say that the current single market legislation is quite attractive, a key against the multiple crises of our time. The Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act set democratic rules for the online world. With circular economy legislation and the right to repair, we are making sustainability the norm in the internal market. And – this is really a project to fall in love with – the common charging cable finally puts an end to our cable clutter in the drawers. These examples show that the task of creating a common European market has evolved over the last 30 years. From changing the market with its four freedoms – goods, services, capital and people – we are increasingly using it today to achieve our common policy goals: Sovereignty, the regulation of large tech companies, the strengthening of consumer rights and, above all, the protection of our planet and the climate. And that is also the story, I think, that we have to tell the citizens today. In fact, no one will fall in love with the abstract idea of economic integration. But EU citizens want high standards of consumer protection, a healthy economy, environmental protection; and the single market and our single market rules can deliver all this if we do it right. I think that if we want to get the support of our citizens, the internal market must protect them. Huge protests across Europe and two failed EU constitutional referendums were the result when the Commission went too far in market integration with the Services Directive. At that time, in 2006, this Parliament amended the proposal and made it more balanced. We have successfully fought in recent years for a stronger social dimension of the Single Market and we must continue to do so. Yes, many nonsensical hurdles in the internal market must be removed as quickly as possible. But market integration must never, but never, lead to the reduction of protection standards.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I am terrified by the raging infernos devastating land and forests in Brazil. A huge drought is drying out the rainforest, emptying its rivers, turning wood into tinder. The consequences for people in nature are severe, upending lives, stranding boats, isolating communities, burning down biodiversity. And the long-term impact on our world's climate could be absolutely devastating. Plus 1 ºC of climate change made this historical drought 30 times more likely to happen. The EU has responsibility for our historic and actual contribution to climate change. On top, the EU is responsible for 10 % of global deforestation, and that is why the European Green Deal is the necessary and only course of action. Everyone who wants to scrap it because of bureaucracy should have a close look at the images of Brazil. The anti-deforestation law is the EU's contribution to combating the global loss of nature. I truly think postponement is the wrong decision, especially in this situation. I think together with our Brazilian and international partners, we have to stay on course. The fight against climate change and deforestation has the highest priority. Let us put out the fires together.