Speeches

Madam President, Today it is exactly 29 years, one month and 23 days that Alexander Lukashenko rules over the people of Belarus. Thousands of opposition activists, trade unionists, media and cultural workers and members of various minorities have since been threatened, locked up, tortured, disappeared or expelled from the country. The fact that the still applicable death penalty now also applies to so-called extremist activities is a low point in this spiral. Apparently, the regime has only one goal: Winning time. Extend a status quo built on intimidation and violence. Can isolation, the impoverishment of the country and the violent incapacity of a society be the right way to win the future? In the third decade of the 21st century, in the face of climate change, urgent and far-reaching transformations of our societies, including those in Belarus, our economy and international challenges, this cannot be a way forward. These require democratic participation of all people, freedom of thought, free elections. Nothing de-legitimises a government more than when it loses its people. Let's keep our doors open for Belarus.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Many thanks also to the rapporteur Gabi Bischoff! The draft report adopted by the Committee after long and comprehensive negotiations is a clear step in the right direction. Qatar Gate has seriously damaged the image of the House, which is why we as Parliament here in July committed ourselves to translate the 14-point plan into concrete action as soon as possible, also as a promise to citizens across all 27 Member States of the European Union. The decision in this report is necessary because we can only implement the responsibility fairly if we also establish transparency about the way we work in the house, how we also demonstrate our personal behaviour. And that's as important to democracy as the air to breathe. It contains proposals that we, as a left-wing group, have long been calling for: a mandatory declaration of assets by MEPs, for example, stricter rules for the transparency of meetings with lobby representatives. Clearly, however, the report does not go far enough. And that is why, I think, we should limit the paid secondary activities of MEPs even more. The lack of MEPs right here in the House shows that we are dealing with a concise decision. I can only ask all the political groups in the House to adopt and agree with this report.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, dear Presidency of the Council! Let us be honest, ladies and gentlemen, when people in Ukraine can once again live in peace and security, unfortunately no one can say today. Every new day of war demands new suffering, new destruction, and the dam breach of Nowa Kachowka is another sad example of the fact that the civilian population in particular is suffering from Russian aggression. My sympathy, our solidarity with the affected population. Nevertheless, and I agree with you, Mr Vice-President, it is important to look at the reconstruction of Ukraine now. The challenges are huge. Already, reconstruction will devour more than double Ukraine's economic output. The country is promoting capital abroad – you mentioned it – and investors like BlackRock cannot be asked twice. The latter has already been designated free of charge by the Zelenskyy Administration as the holder of the Ukrainian Development Fund. Let me also say it clearly: After the war must not be before the sale. Can farmers continue to farm their own land sold to non-foreign investors? How do we contribute to demining? Is Ukraine making the switch to safe and environmentally friendly energy sources? Will democratization be supported by all sections of the country's population? Do young, well-educated Ukrainian women continue to see their future in a modern, forward-looking country where oligarchic structures and corruption no longer fill the pockets of a few in the country and outside, but where they can get involved? All these questions are now being decided. Civil society must be at the table when deciding on the reconstruction of Ukraine. EU and international financial assistance must not pour oil into the fire of privatisation. This means that the first step should be the repayment of Ukraine's debt to the IMF, the World Bank, international creditor communities and, of course, the EU. And the Russian state must also assume this responsibility under transparent international supervision. I say this very clearly here. Reconstruction must be a project that gives hope to the people of Ukraine. Build back better. Let us take this demand seriously.

Madam President, I can only join my previous speaker. The last time we talked about the EU-Mercosur agreement here was in 2019, and a lot has happened since then. And because the Additional Protocol has already been addressed: It is not known to this day. So we don't really know: Are the concerns and questions that have just been raised by the Brazilian and Argentine Governments really lifted in this Additional Protocol? How are sustainability issues regulated? And these are urgent issues that need to be discussed in public. That is why I believe it is right, ladies and gentlemen, that we are discussing this agreement here, even before the EU-CELAC summit.

Madam President, Commissioner! The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples established the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples residing in an area. Without this approval, oil production should not even be started. Donald Trump ignored the United Nations when he launched the project. We expected President Biden and Vice President Harris to govern in the respect of the United Nations and the treasure of its international agreements and declarations. The Nuiqsut community and its representatives have complained in the past that the direct impact of oil and gas production on their communities has already led to sick fish, malnourished caribou and toxic air quality. They reject the project, as do many citizens in the US and also in other regions of the world, including here in the EU. In protest against the project, more than a million letters were written to the White House alone. As the left in the European Parliament, we call on you and through you – the Commission – to make an urgent and proactive effort to stop this completely out-of-date Willow project from happening in the US. It must therefore also be included in the agenda of the next meeting of the Trade and Technology Council to be set. We all, including the US, are committed to implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 UN Agenda.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister! When the Commission presents its legislative proposal on the handling of critical raw materials in three weeks' time, I ask you not to follow the Swedish mining industry's dream. Do not oblige Member States to build up large stocks of critical raw materials! The global impact on prices would be dramatic. Many countries would be cut off from access by the price, as the EU is responsible for by hamstering LNG. Rather, the energy transition, environmental aspects, mobility – and sustainable mobility – and economic development need to be considered together. Instead, improve cooperation with the partner countries in whose soil the coveted raw materials are found and extracted! Help the countries to build modern, sustainable plants for processing themselves! This is what Mercosur, Chile, Peru and others need and want. Together with our partners all over the world, research the replacement of the toxic materials from which batteries are still made today! The critical raw materials and rare earths are also finite. Drive the circular economy forward! We expect a concrete timetable. We need cooperative, regional and global solutions with high standards and binding supply chain laws.

Madam President, Commissioner, good advice! The Americans invest with their American workers first promotion policy in future technologies, in the revitalization of their production facilities, in the modernization of the ailing infrastructure and in jobs. China is also investing huge sums of money. For far too long, however, the EU remained paralyzed by the reverberation of neoliberal allergies against government commitment to meaningful production and future-oriented investments. Was President von der Leyen's speech yesterday in Davos finally the starting signal for the use of sufficiently high public investment in the future of Europe? I say quite clearly: In the announced Net-Zero Industry Act We must not create an underfunded bureaucratic monster like the Chips Act. My urgent appeal to the Council and the Commission: Take money in your hand! Especially when it comes to the growth of skills and skilled workers in this sector. We need investments in competition and a level playing field, courageous investments in all economic centres of the world, in order to be able to stop climate change together and courageously and to organise socially and environmentally sound economic restructuring. Let us not let the EU-27 fall behind as a location. We act responsibly and cooperatively for the global economy, also with a view to Africa and the Global South. For too long, the EU has been acting at the expense of others.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister! I often have to think about how the Moria refugee camp went up in flames and how German conservative politicians still put forward the excuse for a European solution, solely in order to evade national responsibility for European politics. Since then, nothing has really happened. And without the abolition of the veto of individual Member States, there will never be a common European asylum policy worthy of this name. The same goes for tax issues. More cooperation is finally needed and, above all, a European financial transaction tax is finally needed. I am therefore, of course, in favour of voting with a qualified majority in the Council on even more policy areas. In general, however, the abandonment of the unanimity principle also requires the introduction of full legislative co-decision by the European Parliament. For example, when sending troops from Germany in a crisis, the national parliamentary reservation must continue to apply. Therefore, it is not possible to override the sovereignty of the Member States. We must agree together on this reform of voting conditions in the interests of the ability of European policy to act.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President! Contrary to many opinions here or in European industry, which see an economic war coming up and are somehow deeply disappointed by the US government, I mean: We should pay tribute to the legislative package on industrial policy renewal adopted in September 2022, although I find the principle of ‘America first!’ more than questionable. What is it about? The Democrats have finally managed to bring a large investment package for more climate protection and renewable energies through the Congress. In order to achieve this, the Biden/Harris government had to reconcile job creation and climate protection – by the way, a core demand of the left worldwide. The large US consumer protection organization PublicCitizen, the trade unions and many others are clapping. Anyone who has seen the industrial wastelands in the USA understands that the whole country needs sustainable reindustrialization. This is to be initiated now, with enormous resources and in precisely those areas of technology that we in Europe also need for the sustainable transformation of our economy and society. We must therefore take money into our own hands and invest it in the EU, instead of whining and demanding that European companies also be granted free access to subsidies from American taxpayers' money. At its core, it is a matter of reconfiguring industrial and economic policy with a view to global necessities. Greening economies – good work, i.e. Just Green Transition. It is right and necessary to combine climate policy with industrial policy. The $430 billion seems well-invested and is designed to give the U.S. an opportunity to be at the forefront of developing critical technologies. China is investing in the same way. We should emulate them and therefore immediately invest some 100 billion euros in the development of technologies and finally also in Europe in their market readiness and production.

Madam President, Commissioner! I would like to start my speech before the ASEAN Summit with a clear message: Don't let the people of Myanmar down! The brutal military coup of 1 February 2021 is no longer present in our media. The war against one's own people continues with great severity. What does the ASEAN community do about it? What role does this play at the EU summit? What help are we providing to the refugee camps in Thailand? Southeast Asia sounds beautiful to many. We talk a lot about economic cooperation and there is a great desire to find new economic partners for the EU. However, the organisation of ASEAN MPs for Human Rights APHR repeatedly stresses – also to me – how much democracy and human rights are under pressure in almost all states in the region. The military in Thailand, the duo of dictator children Marcos and Duterte in the Philippines, the growing ‘green wave’ of conservative Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia, the dictator in Cambodia and the authoritarian government reality in Laos are part of the reality that sits at the table with the EU at this summit.

I'm moving away from the critical port economy, including infrastructure. You also spoke of lithium, of a critical raw material partnership, which I think is very important. But even there we have to think about it: How do we ensure that the investments we make there are in our interest and in the interest of the recipients of investments, and how is the recipient involved in determining the direction of investments and the extent of the investment in practice in this reorientation of investments?

Mr President! Madam Vice-President, I come back to your introductory remarks on the past. It was the financial crisis of 2009/2010, when conservative parties and many states within the EU called on Greece to sell the port, privatize it. And at the same time, they asked China to support the eurozone countries. Today, this is always presented as if China is buying all the ports here, so to speak, with cunning and trickery. Of course, we need to talk very clearly about the port structure, the critical infrastructure. But I want this infrastructure to remain in public hands. If there is a need to get involved because there is an economic situation in the different Member States, then I am interested in people being paid decently, jobs being maintained, environmental rights, human rights, etc. being respected. So how must state aid and competition law in general be restructured, both macroeconomically and with regard to critical infrastructure, in such a way that we ourselves can make these investments?

Mr President, Commissioner, Presidency of the Council! Ukraine was forced into a terrible war by order of Vladimir Putin. The destruction is catastrophic. The suffering of the population increases with each day of the beginning of winter. A political-diplomatic solution and ending of the war is not in sight. Against this background, it is perfectly clear that the Group of the Left in the European Parliament stands with the people and will not oppose the granting of 18 billion euros in support of the people. But why is this not real help, but a series of loans for which interest is incurred, which will pile up into a huge, hardly repayable mountain of debt? And does the money actually end up with the people it's meant for? In peacetime, we have formulated precise criteria regarding the granting of macro-financial assistance. My group has always insisted explicitly on social and democratic progress under the rule of law, including the protection of trade unions and labour rights. Is the Commission now willing to support these principles in the same way with this new package? Is regular parliamentary scrutiny of these standards ensured? Especially with the perspective of the EU candidate status of Ukraine: The war must not be used as a reason why the Zelenskyy government is already curtailing the trade union rights and other rights of employees and companies, journalism must not be intimidated, and even in a state of emergency it must continue to apply not simply to ban opposition parties. Remind the partners in Kiev of this!

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Henry Kissinger and Walden Bello, two very different politicians, far from us here, predict the war between the United States and China. Open strategic autonomy, Mr Borrell, must therefore formulate independent capacity to act in order to resolve issues, not to decouple from other actors. So what is Europe's current interest in relations with China? Climate change, future-proof transformation of the economy with good jobs, peace, security, human rights certainly belong in the first place, legalization of international relations also; and this will not be possible in confrontation – however different the approaches may be. The knowledge of history always plays a role. Therefore, our interest as Nobel Peace Prize laureates must be and remain dialogue, listening and rethinking our own positions, precisely because the so-called rest of the world actually makes up by far the larger part of the world. Europe can no longer force China, Mr. Foreign Minister. We need to convince our partners, in partnership and in systemic competition at the same time, because the enormous potentials of Europe and China must mobilise and work together to achieve impact and generate synergies.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister! According to Petr Fiala, the EPG offers a special opportunity for states that are destined to live together but usually do not get the opportunity to speak. Here I agree. We need formats to enable political dialogue, the search for solutions to the many complicated tasks ahead. For this we now need political foresight and perhaps even more political courage. The EPG can be a step in this direction. How can the 27 EU Member States, together with many other political forces on our continent, concretely address the crucial question of a radically necessary socio-ecological transformation in order to cope with climate change and regain peace? In 1973, when the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe began, it was not yet clear what significance the Helsinki Final Act would have. We should remember that. In view of the challenges, we should perhaps turn the EPG into an actionable format à la CSCE 2.0, which not only enables exchanges and confidential discussions of very different and certainly not only like-minded partners, but also leads to concrete, binding conditions. If we learn from the failure of Paris in 1990, let us now put together a package to create structures capable of action.

Mr President, Commissioner! The head of the WTO, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, wrote to us and to the EU only last week that it is our most urgent, up-to-date task to ensure access to food and energy for all people. Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 is therefore a top priority, including through EU foreign trade policy. Some in the Commission have understood quite well, and their evaluation of what has not worked on the 15-point plan so far is quite good. Nevertheless, the Commission lacks implementation and speed. Hurry up, but don't go in the wrong direction – this has already been said today. We do not need to hastily conclude new trade agreements. What we need are cooperation agreements and jointly developed standards and roadmaps. Not only the war in Ukraine and elsewhere, but also the warming of the climate and the undersupply of the majority of the world’s population are depressing real threats to people – everywhere. Trade and no longer leave food and energy prices to disrupted markets and supply chains. Those who today only focus on access to raw materials and sales markets for EU companies do not understand how serious the situation is in reality. Let's look at Pakistan and Somalia, and let's calculate how expensive the disasters will be for the world if such outdated trade agreements with Mercosur act as a fire accelerator in the Amazon. We need to make sustainability the central benchmarking, with binding legal enforcement tools.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! We are all affected again – again! And the extinction of fish on the Oder River is an ecological disaster. Experts have named toxic algae as the cause that arises when rivers are polluted and salted by industrial wastewater. Nearly 300 illegal drainage pipes have so far been discovered on the Oder River, such as an illegal drain pipe in a Polish paper mill. On the contrary, we must say: Unfortunately, industrial plants in general discharge their wastewater into the river because they want to avoid the costs of disposal. This is an economic problem for many businesses. nutrient inputs from agriculture, pollutants from sewage and rainwater pipes and, and, and – the list is long. And the fragile ecosystem of the Oder, one of the few still somewhat natural rivers, is exposed to manifold pressures from these human influences and can no longer withstand them – despite the European Water Directive. The escalating climate catastrophe also leads to low water levels and high temperatures. And my colleague Neumann spoke from wading, so to speak, to the neck, which was possible in the summer. The verbatim stinking of the dead fish has deeply frightened people along the Oder River on both sides of the border. I would like to reiterate that the ecosystem is being knowingly destroyed and the plants and animals living there are losing their habitat – in times of increasing species extinction and loss of biodiversity. It is also and will continue to be started – and Poland is the first state bordering the Oder to start dredging the Oder, in line with the plan drawn up years ago by the two EU states Poland and Germany to make the Oder navigable. This is a completely wrong approach. I therefore call on the Commission to work with the EU state of Poland to immediately stop the dredging work that has already begun on the Polish side. And yes, we also need cooperation between Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, the European Union and perhaps the other Baltic Sea countries in terms of mutual warning systems in order to be able to act quickly. In the case of the German Government, I would ask you to work to ensure that the expansion work does not even begin. Despite recent verbal commitments by the Federal Ministry for the Environment against the Oder expansion, it has not yet become known that the plans for the expansion measures on the German side have been stopped. A strategic environmental assessment by the German government is probably still underway here, and the effects can actually be seen with the naked eye. Therefore: We need to work together, we need German-Polish cooperation, we need the support of the EU Commission, especially for the people in the region, for mitigating the effects of this fish death and also for developing a macroeconomic perspective for the people in the entire Oder region to the west and east of this river.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová! For years, European political parties and foundations have been actively participating in the shaping of European democracy. The challenges against which our political decisions must be measured are great. It is therefore all the more important that the institutional framework, which we fill with political content, is equipped with the trust of European citizens. Therefore, the parties and the foundations play a role as discourse-wide structures that should not be underestimated. The revision of the legislation takes up experience and problems of recent years. The rapporteurs have spoken on this. And we are directing the modernization above all to the necessary strengthening of the financial and organizational capacity of the parties and foundations, to the strengthening of transparency. And demands on internal party democracy are of particular concern to us leftists in this context of legislation. If we have sufficient access to information about political actors, including better across the EU, citizens will only be able to make an informed decision. And for us, participation in democracy is also an important aspect. We would also have liked, as Mrs Delbos-Corfield has stressed, to include gender equality as a more consistent and stringent measure here. And an important part of the responsible decision is awareness of one's own European citizenship, i.e. the entanglement of national and European democracy. And I expressly welcome the increased visibility of European parties in the future framework. We have a big task to do, and yesterday the tasks that have to be done in today's time were mentioned again, especially with regard to foundations and parties.

Madam President, Commissioner! Only recently in June, with my report on EU-Africa trade relations, our House clearly called for a rethinking of economic relations. The planned exploitation of Uganda's oil reserves by the companies Total from France and China's CNOOC is a mockery. It is an unworthy project of the old style. It does not bring economic progress to East Africa. The transport of crude oil through a pipeline across Uganda and Tanzania to the sea endangers the environment. People are forcibly relocated. Nothing remains of the extracted oil except dirt in the region. It is sold entirely in Europe and China. The pipeline will be built by companies from Australia and China. Fifteen banks have refused to finance the three billion project costs due to environmental concerns. I expect the European Commission to give an assurance that no European default guarantees will be provided. Commissioner, the Commission shares our view in its opinion on my parliamentary report. So I expect concrete action. People for profit!

Mr President, Mr Vice-President! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his good work on this very supportable report. I see a broad agreement with the far-reaching positions and views that we, as a Constitutional Committee, bring to the work on the further development of the important EU legislation that needs to be made transparent. The longest opinion AFCO has ever given on a report. Our understanding must be: Legislation has a lot to do with the daily lives of people in the 27 Member States and in the EU. It is these regulations that make the foundation of our prosperity possible. Workers' rights, climate protection or fair competition are unthinkable without extensive legislation. It is therefore necessary to carry out an individual impact assessment of each initiative. The One-in-one-outPersonally, I consider the principle unsuitable, since purely formal criteria are applied for the evaluation of laws. More important is the content. Particular consideration should be given to the fight against the climate catastrophe, but also to the confidence of citizens in the legislative process, especially with regard to the consistent implementation of the recommendations of the Future Conference – consistently and inclusively including the renegotiation of treaties. Mr Vice-President, your statements today are proved by the deeds and I hope for constructive cooperation... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Thank you, Madam President, thank you, Commissioner, thank you to colleagues for the very different weighting of the discussion. I agree with many things, not at all with some. But our report - and I would like to emphasise this once again - is not blind to the hunger and hardship of large parts of Africa's population. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has dramatically exacerbated the situation, but the causes of hunger and poverty, especially on the African continent, are more diverse and have been manifest for much longer. Speculation is also driving up food prices in this crisis, so that aid agencies can no longer purchase enough aid for their budgets. More than 80 million people in East Africa alone are at risk of famine. Climate change could be added, environmental degradation. The war in West Africa in large parts of Mali prevents farmers from cultivating their fields. So now it is time to tackle the issues in a complex way, to act, certainly in the short term by providing food, but in the medium term - and this is also what our report recommends - by enabling a dignified life for Africa's rural population and farms. We recommend giving room to agro-ecological reforms. Profitable price formation must not be prevented by dumping milk powder or poultry parts from Europe. Ultimately, but necessarily, from now on through the prevention of climate change and the preservation of biodiversity and joint most intensive efforts to get this off the ground. For what and how will it be next generation say about our politics and our economic relations and concrete cooperation on the African continent, if 2.5 billion people will live there in 20 to 25 years? Climate partnerships, that is, EU investment activities - you have the Global Gateway reiterated – it is precisely the equal involvement of decision-makers on the African continent, at all levels, at national level, at the level of the African Union, but also on the ground, regionally and by stakeholders that is required. Africa is a continent of hope, I think. Africa is the continent of youth, and our European continent is unfortunately ageing. For both of us, therefore, the need and the opportunity lies in cooperation, in which we should invest far more than previously foreseen, that is, the coherence of the policies that we want to launch together, and perhaps also work together on the reform of the World Trade Organization. In this sense, I hope, our report is an important guide for this work.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs. We had a very good and, above all, constructive cooperation, and I am proud of the joint result we have now achieved. The content of our report grew out of intensive cooperation with renowned African experts who shared with us in a hearing and a series of workshops their idea of the future economic cooperation between our two world regions. With this report, we are giving the European Union, but also the African Union and its Member States, a clear positioning of the European Parliament. We are in favour of a partnership on an equal footing, building directly on the joint final declaration of the EU-AU summit in February this year. So let's set our priorities together. We must subordinate our policies, and in particular trade policy, to the common task of achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. And overcoming poverty, the prosperity of the African continent is a self-interest of the European Union. We are therefore called upon to make efforts to jointly build value chains within Africa, including through modern and environmentally friendly technologies, to support the African Union's vision of a sustainable industrialisation of the continent. Our report clarifies that it must be primarily about promoting trade within Africa. This primacy must also be taken into account in our support for the expansion of the infrastructure. Intra-African trade needs transport infrastructure, cold chains and warehouses, communication networks and data highways. And it should be underlined once again: The driving force behind Africa's economic transformation is women and youth, whom we should support in a targeted and proactive manner with new ideas and concrete proposals. Intra-African trade also needs facilitation of customs duties and customs clearance within the continent. With this report, the European Parliament is also supporting the African project of the continental free trade area AfCFTA. In doing so, we have respect for the ambitions of the project, to which Secretary General Wamkele Mene assured us that they aim at sustainability and the creation of properly paid jobs, including the introduction of free movement for people in Africa and thus go far beyond a normal trade agreement. Trade in and with Africa today is far too fragmented. In my view, the European Union is certainly contributing to this problem as long as we do not at least harmonise the rules of origin for the entire continent. The rules that the AfCFTA member states have just agreed on with each other should guide us in this regard. In this context, we as Parliament call on the Commission to carry out a deep analysis of the existing EPAs, whether they help or stand in the way of the African integration process. In my view, we should not cling to the 20-year-old EPA concept and its logic, but rather take up this new dynamic of the African free trade area. We may also need to listen better and seek the conversation. We therefore recommend that the Commission hold regular structured meetings with the African Union Commission to jointly discuss the next concrete steps of cooperation. So far for introduction. I am now looking forward to the contributions of the shadow rapporteurs and the panellists.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! What do a car, a T-shirt, a computer and a banana have in common? All of them are likely to show traces of forced labour. People's suffering is hidden in the opaqueness of global supply chains. Worldwide, it has been said, 25 million people are forced to produce certain products and goods; Many of these goods are also sold here in the EU. How long will we look away? Products of modern slavery and forced services have nothing to look for in the European market. And European companies should not benefit from human rights violations. I mean, European citizens want to have the certainty in their purchase that no one had to suffer to make this product. Far too many companies have failed to voluntarily take the necessary measures to address the problem. That is why I believe, Madam Vice-President, that the Commission must finally act. We need three key instruments that together will make a difference: a strong ban on imports, robust, binding and enforceable corporate due diligence legislation and the binding UN treaty on business and human rights.

I believe that Article 48(2) is exactly the way to discuss this issue. Personally, I can imagine a federal Europe. For example, we have a debate in our party about the Republic of Europe. Twenty years ago, we discussed Europe of the regions, without the nation states. We talked about a Europe of citizens. So there are very different ideas. I believe that the Convention is exactly the right way to discuss these issues together with citizens and organised civil society.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President! Let me start with a quote: “The moment has come to throw the outdated ballast overboard and to be ready for the coming upheaval, which is so very different from what was imagined. The path that awaits us will be neither convenient nor safe. However, we must walk on it, and we will do so’ (Spinelli and Rossi, 1941). Yes, our task now is to open the way further, to expand it to meet the challenges of the 21st century. After all, everything is actually said in the debate: Climate change, good working conditions, health union, especially with the experiences of COVID-19 and the pandemic, a stability of values and the further development of values that drives citizens when they look into everyday life and at the challenges of climate change, coexistence in solidarity and peace with a view to Ukraine and the Russian war there. Let us therefore take Article 48, and in particular point 2, seriously. Let's start working together to discuss the different views, objectives, issues and the promise that we all made together here in this room a month ago to put the citizens' recommendations into practice. And that is why we need Article 48, and that is why we need the Convention. Let's start working! (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the blue card procedure)