Speeches

Madam President, this is not a point of order. This is a point of thank you. It’s a bit emotional. It was 14 July 2009. Shortly after 8.00, I entered this hemicycle for the very first time and went to my assigned seat, 566. There I sat, almost alone, wondering at the fact that I had become a Member of the only – only – transnational parliament in the world, one of the 732 people in charge of legislating for half a billion Europeans. The pride and sense of duty that I felt there and then never, ever left me for the last 15 years. Back then, I told my voters and the members of my party that I would seek two or maximum three terms in this House. They granted me my wish, and I will forever be thankful to them for their trust. But three terms are not four; now is the time to leave. At this moment, I want to thank you, my present and former colleagues, for those 15 years. They’ve been, frankly, the brightest part of my professional career. For sure, we were not always on the same side of the argument, but I would say that, by and large, our debates were worthy of a vibrant democracy. I am also thankful to the staff of this institution. They make sure that we have everything it takes to discharge our duties to the benefit of all citizens. It would be my pleasure – because it’s not just thank you, it’s an invitation – it would be my pleasure to see you tonight at 20.00 in la rotonde, to share drinks together to celebrate my departure and that of so many other MEPs who don’t have the chance to speak. Thank you for your respect. But, if I may, before leaving, I just want you to allow me a few share to share a few thoughts on the way forward. Thank you for your respect! As we could see, the European Union was built as a response to two totalitarianisms: Nazism and Soviet communism. Those had in common an utter contempt for the life and dignity of human beings. It is not by chance that the first value lying at the foundation of this Union is human dignity. This has to remain our common compass; everything we do here must contribute to the possibility for every human being, present and to come, to live a dignified life. Nowadays, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes are once again on the rise, including at our own borders. At the same time, we see clear and present danger to human dignity within our Union. And at the global level, climate change reminds us that our economic system is putting the lives and livelihoods of humanity as a whole at risk. (Objections from certain quarters) I’m finishing! Be patient. In 15 years, I’ve never made a point of order, right? Never once. So allow me to finish. The challenges ahead are daunting, but I have an unwavering faith in the collective wisdom, creativity and resources of the European citizens. If human dignity is our compass, the motto of our European Union provides the key to unlock these collective capabilities: unity. Because together we only represent 6 % of the global population and we live on just 2 % of the land. This alone should remind us that only if we act together, will we be able to have a grip on our present and our future, what everyone here calls sovereignty. Divided, we are bound to become the playthings of others, of our events beyond our control. Diversity. Because no single individual, no single group of people, no single discipline, no single school of thought, no single culture alone can grasp the complexity of our world. It is only when we look at it from different perspectives that we stand a chance of making it better. (Loud protests from certain quarters) Dear colleagues, I’m finishing. One sentence. Dear colleagues, only if it embodies the values and the motto of the European Union will this Parliament be a beacon of hope in Europe and beyond.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is our very last session of the legislature. I see that spirits are already elsewhere – indeed, bodies too. Until the elections on 9 June, we will see a very particular inflationary surge, which only occurs during campaign periods, namely the explosion of electoral promises. On the right, my liberal and conservative colleagues, self-proclaimed protectors of entrepreneurship, will compete – thank you, Stephanie, for leaving. It’s when you’re being talked about that you’re leaving – will compete with promises of public subsidies and tax gifts for European companies. On the left, my Socialist colleagues will promise, with their hands on their hearts, to raise the salaries, pensions and allowances of nurses, teachers and I don't know who. Finally, the only question that all citizens ask themselves is: Will you keep your promises? Well, we will soon know, because in two hours there will be the most important vote in the entire legislature, the vote for or against austerity. If you are voting today in favour of austerity, put in your posters and charcoal now, and stay away from social media. The election campaign is over, because you will not be able to keep any of your promises, simply because you will have created the conditions for your own political impotence. Contrary to what you say, Commissioners, contrary to what the rapporteurs and those who support them say, to vote for these new budgetary rules is to impose a straitjacket on all European states, to confiscate all the financial means necessary to guarantee an economic, social, climate and geopolitical future for our Union. Liberal colleagues will not be able to finance business aid. Socialist colleagues will not be able to finance an improvement in public services. Frankly, when I hear people talking about flexibility and investment margin, I think: ‘But here we are in Orwell!’ Peace is war. Freedom is servitude. Words don't mean anything anymore. It is a sham. I have absolutely no heart to joke about. For the last time, I ask you: reject these unjust and deadly rules. You only have a few hours left to pull yourself together.

Mr President, you have a reputation to defend. Yesterday, the President of the Parliament ran the voting session with a speed that defied imagination. So I think that the bar now is very high for you to emulate that performance!

Madam President, dear Prime Minister, welcome to the European Parliament. It is pleasure to have you here. As a leader of the Greens, you can imagine that I was expecting what you would say on the climate. I had to wait for a while in your speech to get to that point, and the first thing that struck me is that there was a lot in your speech about competitiveness, at the beginning, and then some stuff on the climate, and you don’t make the link. But this is the only game in town for Europe. If we do not lead this transition, China and the US will. So it is a matter of economic survival for Europe. It is not a detail of something that we can leave for later. Second: details. You say that we focussed on details. Setting ourselves the goal of climate neutrality – a detail? Regulations to reduce emissions in transport, in buildings, in energy – details? Absolutely not! What we did is focus on the bare essentials. There’s one point I agree with you on, which is that no, you cannot achieve everything through regulation. There I totally agree. But regulation sets ourselves targets and creates markets. So we need regulation. You cannot say okay, we should dispense with it. You didn’t say that, but you cannot at the same time say we need more carrots, but then we don’t want to spend money on it. I mean, what are the carrots if it is not public money? There again I see really a contradiction in doing it. If we don’t want to do it through regulation, it is going to be subsidies. That’s what the US are doing. That’s what’s China is doing. They do not do anything on regulation; they do everything on subsidies. We have a more balanced approach where we have both regulation – say ‘sticks’ – and subsidies, and that’s ‘carrots’. But if you say we need less regulation and we want less state aid, and at the same time you say we want more climate action, then something is wrong. It doesn’t work. You can’t have all this. Every study that looks at investment says we need between 2% and 2.5% of GDP extra on investment if we want to reach our climate targets. Of this, most agree that at least half should be public investment. There is no way around this. So this is a moment where we need to step up the public investment. Again, I would call on you to support these investments locally and at the European level rather than oppose them. Finally, Prime Minister, you know, I disagree with Manfred Weber on a lot of things. I disagree with Valérie Hayer on a lot of things. I disagree with Iratxe García on a lot of things, and with the far left as well. But at least we have a common base. We have a common base, and that is that human dignity is indivisible. None of us says that some human beings are inferior or implies this. And this is where I believe that people like us should never, never go into alliance with people who de facto consider some human beings as inferior. That’s what you did in Finland. I’m glad, Manfred, that your colleagues in Portugal are not going to do that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again, I am going to talk to you about something that did not appear either in Mrs Lahbib’s speech or in the speech of the President of the Commission. Imagine that next week's summit will also be a Euro Summit. You will tell me that it is a bit of a nonsense, this kind of summit, but I was interested in the conclusions of the Eurogroup, namely those of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area prepared by their respective finance ministers. What is to be found in these draft conclusions? Well, we find two things that should make us react. The first is that it would be a question of reducing taxes on capital. In addition, it would be necessary to deregulate finance a little more, in particular by bringing back that element which was the bombshell at the origin of the financial crisis of 2007-2008, namely securitisation. Who benefits from such measures if not, precisely, the holders of capital? And here we find the completely absurd idea that making the rich richer benefits everyone. It is this completely insane theory of the runoff economy that the wealth of the rich always benefits others a little. All this is in addition to the decision taken by the Heads of State or Government to condemn themselves to austerity by adopting fiscal rules that are economically, ecologically and geopolitically insane. By doing so, they condemn themselves to powerlessness, because public action, when it is most needed, simply will not have the financial means to meet its ambitions. They also condemn our peoples to austerity. Moreover, it is Alex De Croo, it is the socialist Mette Frederiksen, it is Emmanuel Macron who say it themselves: If we want to finance the defence effort – they no longer even talk about financing the green and solidarity transition – we will have to make cuts in social security. So I ask you: Who's going to suffer? Who will pay the price for cuts in the budgets of social security, sickness and disability insurance, unemployment insurance? Who will pay the price for medical deserts? Who will pay the inevitable consumer tax hikes that are in the pipeline? Who will pay for the impact of climate change, heat waves, droughts, floods? Who will pay the price for their health? Who will pay the price for the next financial crisis? Well, I think it is not a scoop to say that it will not be the capital holders. It will simply be common people, citizens of the European Union. The Heads of State or Government of the European Union, those who so often claim to be our leaders, well one wonders, I would like to say, if they have not completely lost the ball, if they have not decided somewhere, implicitly, to feed ever more into the vote for the national-populists. They would do well to remember that, when they were installed at the head of their governments, it was to defend the public interest. And no, the public interest is not systematically confused with the interest of capital holders.

Mr President, according to you, the extreme right, the conservatives, the Christian Democrats, the liberals, the farmers’ revolt would have only one culprit: the European Green Deal and, behind it, its environmentalists. But when you don’t just harangue farmers, when you really listen to them, they point to a completely different culprit: an economic system that imprisons and crushes them. Farmers, the real ones, are caught between the hammer of landowners, seed producers, agrochemical giants, equipment manufacturers and banks, and the anvil of agribusiness and mass retail. Farmers, the real ones, have been the adjustment variable of these tailor-made free trade treaties for the benefit of shareholders for decades. Farmers, the real ones, only get the crumbs of a common agricultural policy that is 80% owned by industrial farmers. Those who do not deserve the namefarmersclaim, moreover, to defend this noble profession; It is as if Ikea presented himself as the defender of furniture craftsmen. No wonder, therefore, that agribusiness and its political representatives are pointing the finger at environmentalists and the Green Deal, when it has not even happened in our campaigns yet. You hijack the legitimate anger of farmers to mask your overwhelming responsibility in the shackles that crush them. Because it is you, the right wing, who have done everything to maintain a productivist and mercantilist common agricultural policy, to empty the nature restoration law of its content, to prevent any constraint on reducing pesticides, so that the sector’s CO2 emissions are not known. Changing the agricultural model is essential to ensure our survival. Farmers, who are at the forefront of climate change, know this better than anyone else. But we will not succeed without them, let alone against them. We will not do this as long as this economic system leads them to suicide. Young people, we dream about it; adult, we die from it": That is what they say. So, you who wield the scarecrow of punitive ecology, I tell you: We can no longer do that with your punitive economy. An entire economy enslaved by the insatiable greed of the capital holders you dare to call investors. An economy that sickens millions of workers and deprives them of meaning, freedom, income and dignity. An economy that derails our climate, poisons our air, our waters, our soils, our plates. An economy that slowly suffocates life on this planet. Your punitive economy is what we have been fighting for half a century on the democratic terrain. Our ecology is restorative and creative, so that we can all enjoy a dignified life on this planet, our one and only common home.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this Chamber a large majority recognises the climate emergency and voted for the obligation of carbon neutrality in 2050. At the same time, the Russian aggression confronts us with the need for a major effort to support Ukraine and, ultimately, for our own defence. Not so long ago, the pandemic reminded us of the urgency of reinvesting our essential public services, starting with health. All this will require an annual increase in government investment of at least two percentage points of GDP for the next quarter century. Of course, it is crucial that part of these investments be financed by an increased contribution from large companies and large wealth groups, which are still benefiting from the tax system. However, it is inevitable that the bulk of this expenditure will be financed by borrowing. Well, that is what the new budgetary rules, as adopted by the Council and as our Parliament is about to adopt them, will simply make impossible, as they are determined by the obsessive delusion of debt reduction. And it is neither the three years of respite negotiated by the Council, nor the few cache-misère obtained by this Parliament that change anything in the equation. Ladies and gentlemen, to vote for these rules is to choose the impotence to counter climate change and condemn us to suffer the human, economic and social consequences. Impotence to conquer a European leadership in the green industrial revolution already well engaged. Impotence in preventing Russia's victory in Ukraine. Vote these rules, it is also, by dark cuts in public services and social security that these rules will require, further undermine the cohesion of our societies and push more and more of our fellow citizens into the arms of the national-populists. To vote for these rules is to choose for the European Union a slow environmental, economic, geopolitical and democratic suicide. To vote for these rules is to cut our wings at the very moment when we have to take flight. Colleagues, in July 1940 Winston Churchill was alone in Europe to confront the Axis powers. An isolation that our Union could well experience in a few months if the United States were to choose the nationalist retreat. If the then British Prime Minister had been subject to the inept fiscal rules that we are preparing to adopt, he would have had no choice but to give up the fight, with the disastrous consequences that one imagines. The situation facing the European Union today is no less serious. In contrast to ideological fundamentalism, it requires a strategic vision on our part. So let's reject this text to start, from the beginning of the next mandate, the development of fiscal rules rooted in reality, combined with a real capacity for joint investment on the model of the post-Covid recovery plan. They will equip us to face the challenges of our time.

Madam President, Prime Minister, welcome here to this House. I have absolutely no doubt, and I believe that no one here has any, that Belgium is capable, for the third time, of successfully assuming the presidency of the Union. Instead, I would like to start with a word of tribute to you and your way of being in politics. Often, even in our country, the political debate comes down to a form of cockfight where ideas, projects no longer matter. Your way of being that combines the dignity of office and nuance with respect for the human person are, for me, qualities that every politician should show, and you do. You are able to lead by example and for that, thank you. This does not mean that we agree on everything. And if there was an occasion when you shocked me, it was the day you used the word ‘pause’ in relation to the green transition, the European Green Deal. That Manfred Weber, a Conservative, is talking about a moratorium, I understand. Let Emmanuel Macron, who is eco-friendly until it affects the interests of his electoral base, i.e. the rentiers, use the word ‘pause’, okay. But not you, not you anyway. As you know, when the house burns – and this is the ecolo that speaks – when the house burns, firefighters are not asked to take a break until the fire is extinguished. And I would also say, with the past we share in the private sector, that when Europe is engaged in a competitiveness marathon against the US and China in the green revolution, we cannot afford a break. On the contrary, we must accelerate. Of course, when you start running, you have a little joint pain. But I think that our societies are ready for the effort as long as the effort is distributed fairly among them, it is absolutely crucial. The last point I would like to raise is the question of failure. Indeed, there is one subject on which I wish you, I wish us collectively failure: it is about the fiscal rules of the European Union. At a time when, more than ever, we need a strategic European Union, a European Union that invests, we are getting ready – when I read the Council text and the Parliament text – to really hurt, to sacrifice both our social cohesion, our future economic prosperity and, I would say, our geopolitical sovereignty by forcing us to cut our arms, legs and wings at the very moment when the European Union will have to take flight, perhaps without the protection of the United States, as has been the case since the Second World War. I believe that the adoption of such rules would be a form of suicide for the European Union, and so on this I wish us collectively failure.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the choices that the 27 Heads of State or Government of the European Union will make together tomorrow will be decisive for our common future. Without a collective start, I invite you to imagine what is on the horizon. Imagine that they fail to grant Ukraine the opening of accession negotiations at a time when Ukraine is paying with its blood to defend the values on which our Union is built. Imagine that, succumbing to the obsessive delirium of the religious fundamentalists of the ‘zero deficit’, they condemn each other to permanent budgetary austerity and, with them, the European Union, to which they themselves constantly entrust more and more tasks. Imagine that, in their desperate search for unanimity, they are definitively abandoning the cardinal principles of the rule of law and democracy for the benefit of those within them who have chosen the path of autocracy and corruption. Imagine the consequences of this triple desertion. The European Union and its Member States will be deprived of the necessary means, both to ensure our social cohesion and to invest in our future, starting with the fight against climate change, which is key to our collective prosperity. Instrumentalized by the singers of nativism and national preference, this austerity imposed by Brussels will surely lead an increasing number of our fellow citizens to give their voice to populist nationals of all stripes. At our borders, Ukraine will inevitably be condemned to give in to the aggressor, deprived of the political, material and financial support essential to its existential struggle, which must remain ours. The European Union will then have chosen its own paralysis. It will have condemned itself to division and sabotaged its ability to act on the present and forge a future for itself. In short, it, which wanted to be geopolitical, will have simply sacrificed its sovereignty, and this, for the benefit of dictators and autocrats of this world, starting with Vladimir Putin and, if he were to be re-elected, Donald Trump, who, with all their friends, would be too happy to be able to lose the European Union and make its Member States their toys. I therefore appeal to the statesmen and women in the Council Chamber: Don't let this fiction come true. Do not underestimate the seriousness of the challenges we face together. Don't give in to blackmail. Defend the rule of law without weakness. Support Ukraine in its fight against Putin and for access to our community of values. Empower yourself to invest in keeping the planet habitable and ensuring all conditions for a dignified life. Colleagues, the pandemic and the war have strengthened our societies' awareness that our fates are linked. Most of our citizens are convinced that only our solidarity and cohesion can ensure the conditions for a dignified existence and offer citizens around the world the prospect of a fruitful partnership with us. So I urge you, the members of the European Council, not to undermine that confidence. Be up to the challenge. Stay the course that has been ours in recent years. History, our history, remains to be written and it needs real leaders.

Madam President, Mr Prime Minister, we were born actually – Mr Prime Minister, I know that Mariya Gabriel is more attractive to you than me, because she’s your partner in government! – we were born actually six months apart. And when we were born, we were separated, you and I, by an iron curtain. And it remains to me a deep joy to see that our two countries are now part of the same Union. And it’s a Union, as you said, of choice of freedom and based on rule of law. And like you, and maybe you didn’t say it explicitly, but I really resent when some European politicians are comparing the European Union to the new Soviet Union or to a renewed Third Reich, where we would be submitted by force. We all chose freely to be part of that Union, and that remains a source of pride. And let no one believe that the European Union is a repetition of the past failures in Europe. The second thing I want to say is that I totally agree with you when you say that what is happening in Ukraine is basically the defence of the values on which the European Union has been built. This is our struggle, and I must say that yes, it entails efforts from the Members of the European Union to help Ukraine, but frankly speaking, they are putting their lives on the line. We are just putting part of our wealth to help them, and I think that’s the least we can do. The third thing where I agree with you is that yes, the European Union is a union freely chosen, but it has to be merit-based. And there again, when the merits are there, the decision should follow. Yes, Bulgaria and Romania must be part of Schengen. And for citizens this is probably, with the common currency, the most emblematic meaning of what it means to be part of the European Union. So full support for that. I will finish with the values you mentioned a lot, the conservative and liberal values. And then the green in me said, ‘hang on one second, yes, the conservatives and the liberals have brought a lot to Europe, but I think that there’s more to European political diversity and values diversity than just those two families’. I think that the left has brought these values of social justice, and that lies at the heart of the European Union. And I would finish with the thing that was most absent from your speech. Well, you know, if you and I and our kids and grandkids will live in the 21st century and beyond, well, it will be because we have been able to protect this planet as our common home. And indeed that lies as well at the heart of the values of the European Union, making sure that indeed, the planet on which we live will be welcoming us for generations to come.

Madam President, nothing, absolutely nothing, can justify the barbaric acts committed by Hamas – deliberately killing civilians, taking children, women and men hostage. What this terrorist organisation committed are crimes against humanity, in line with its chief goal: the obliteration of Israel. We condemn them in the strongest possible terms, and I stand here, in the name of the Greens/EFA, in full solidarity with the victims and their loved ones. As well put by US author Frank Herbert. ‘atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating arguments. Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past. Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity.’ Yes, Israel has the right and duty to defend its citizens, in full compliance with international humanitarian law. This means that the response to crime cannot be more crime, and that the atrocities suffered do not provide a permission for revenge. Israel’s legitimate fight against Hamas is turning into the collective punishment of 2 million Gazans, and half of them are children. Trapped under an illegal siege, they are either forced into an impossible relocation or risk being killed by Tzahal’s attacks, as more than 3 000 were already. No less than Israeli victims, Palestinian victims deserve our full solidarity. Dear colleagues, the world is staring into the abyss. The European Union must stand united in calling for an immediate ceasefire, so as to allow the creation of humanitarian corridors and the safe and unconditional return of hostages. We must be unanimous in our efforts to demand the respect of international humanitarian law by all actors. We must collectively step up our efforts to relaunch a political process that will make a two-state solution viable. There is no other choice if we want Israelis to live in security, if we want Palestinians to live in dignity and if we are serious about ensuring their coexistence. For there will be no peace until terrorist organisations such as Hamas are neutralised. There will be no peace as long as Palestinian territories are illegally occupied, and Palestinians’ rights denied and their resources confiscated. There will be no peace until democratic institutions are firmly restored and anchored. There will be no peace until Palestinians and Israelis are both free to live, speak, move, work, love as they wish in safety, regardless of their origins and beliefs. Chers collègues, pour conclure, comme le dit la romancière israélienne Zeruya Shalev, il faudra que, «lorsque les canons se seront tus, apparaissent clairement les seules divisions possibles au Moyen-Orient. Non pas entre les Juifs et les Arabes, mais entre les modérés et les extrémistes, entre les pragmatiques et les fanatiques. Puissions-nous unir nos forces, nous qui prônons la vie et les concessions contre notre ennemi commun. Perspective qui semble bien lointaine aujourd’hui, mais à quel autre espoir nous raccrocher?»

Mr President, illegal, clandestine, migratory flows, calls for air, border protection, refoulement, order to leave the territory. So many cold and sanitised words that still delineate the contours of the asylum and immigration debate today. Words that classify, sort, exclude and end up obscuring the unprecedented violence inflicted on people who seek our protection. The reality is that children, women and men die every day at Europe’s borders because we deny them dignity. Being forced to leave home because of war, persecution, depletion of resources, a climate that has become unlivable is something that none of us want to experience. If we were in such situations, each of us would do exactly the same thing. We would all be exiles, and you know that. Asylum and migration are complex issues that do not lend themselves to simplistic responses. As well as the widespread opening of borders, Fortress Europe is not a viable solution to this challenge. However, it is indeed the one that the EU has de facto chosen since 2015 and that it persists in translating into its law with the Asylum and Migration Pact currently under discussion. From now on, it is all about preventing departures, strengthening borders, locking up arrivals, sending them back to their countries of origin with the help of autocratic, dictatorial or simply failed states. And all this is drowned in a perversion of the language by which arming militias to capture exiles becomes support for the coast guard tasked with saving lives at sea. Ladies and gentlemen, the question before us is threefold. Firstly, it is a question of whether the European Union has a share of responsibility, I would say a share of responsibility, for the causes that force people into exile. For us, the answer is yes and that is why we are morally bound to take our share of responsibility in welcoming. Which brings me to the second question: Does the European Union still have the means to do so? For us, while it is indisputable, as Manfred Weber has said, that a number of Member States have already done a great deal, this is not the case for all. Collectively, we can do more and better. Finally, does our Union have the human resources to face the challenges of the 21st century, starting with the green transition? We believe that those who seek refuge in our homes are not a burden, but can instead make a significant contribution to our collective well-being. By barricading itself since Brexit, the UK is turning it into a painful experience. A genuine asylum and migration pact must therefore combine the establishment of safe and legal pathways of arrival with a fair distribution of exiles between Member States. This is how we will break the business model of human traffickers. And if the EU really wants to dry up the reasons for departures, it must step up its climate action and thoroughly review its political, economic and security relations with the countries of departure, so that they remain livable for those who live there. Colleagues, the way the European Union treats exiles at its borders is the most blatant denial of its own values, starting with respect for human dignity. The main reason for the European Union’s loss of credit in the global South, particularly in Africa, should not be looked at further. So, in contrast to the fanaticism and indifference recently denounced by Pope Francis, I invite us to rise collectively to the height of our duty of humanity and civilisation.

Madam President, I think we share your idea that indeed, we need to deepen and to widen the European Union, but we cannot use that as an excuse to keep people waiting longer than needed. It has to be merit-based, but only merit-based. Now, the thing is, if Ukraine would join today, all 27 Member States except one would be net contributors to the EU budget. I hope that this will make Member States realise that we need the European Union to be funded by its own resources and I hope it will dawn upon them that that’s the only way to keep it going. And, well, we can do that without treaty revision, you know, and I will quote Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: when there’s the will, there’s a way.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, dear colleagues, it is not without emotion, having been in this Parliament for 14 years, that I am taking part today in my last State of the Union debate. For ten years, I witnessed the European Union blinded by economic orthodoxy, deaf to the social and climate emergencies. But 2019 marked the turning point. For the first time in its history, the European Union made the fight against climate change a top priority. And against all odds, the European Green Deal withstood the pandemic and the war that rocked the European Union. Each time it was put front and centre in our response. We owe very much of this to you, Madam President, to your vision, your persistence, and your leadership. Unsurprisingly, those who never embraced the European Green Deal in the first place are now calling for a pause, a moratorium to weaken its ambition in the name of protecting our competitiveness, if you see what I mean. To them, I say this: we are not above nature. Humanity is part of nature. Whether we like it or not, there are limits to what our planet can take and to what it can give. Respecting those limits is not the Greens’ hobbyhorse. It is a question of survival. And this struggle for survival, all too many European citizens are now seeing first hand. Can you imagine a Greek firefighter walking away from the raging inferno or a rescue worker when floods hit Slovenia saying: ‘let’s take it easy’? No, they are giving everything they have to get these climate events under control. We owe it to them and to every citizen caught up in the extremes unleashed by climate change to act with all we have. We have waited for too long. So stand firm, Madam President! We cannot content ourselves with just implementing what has already been decided, which in itself is not enough to meet the 1.5-degree warming target. So much remains to be done. Instead of carbon sinks, our agriculture and forestry have become net carbon emitters. Our land, water and air are so polluted by forever chemicals, heavy metals, fine particles, plastics that they are causing massive death and disease. And this leads to a collapse in biodiversity, which endangers our lives and livelihoods. But as you said, Madam President, the ecological transition is not just a necessity. It is the single biggest economic opportunity for Europe. Shying away from it would make us followers, also-rans, condemned to import the solutions we need from the rest of the world. The key to competitiveness, dear colleagues, is for economies to embrace the green transition, to support entrepreneurs who want to lead it and to ditch the rent-seekers. This is the surest route to EU prosperity. La viabilité politique du pacte vert pour l’Europe dépendra cependant de notre capacité à demander plus à ceux qui ont le plus et moins à ceux qui ont le moins. Car s’il y a des limites à ce que nous pouvons faire subir à la planète, il y en a tout autant aux injustices que nos sociétés peuvent tolérer. Crise financière, crise de l’euro, pandémie, guerre en Ukraine, crise énergétique, ce sont à chaque fois les citoyens ordinaires qui passent à la caisse pendant que les détenteurs de capitaux accumulent sans relâche. Même Christine Lagarde le dit, le gros de l’inflation actuelle est dû au gonflement abject – mon adjectif – des profits des grandes entreprises. Vous m’objecterez sans doute, Madame la Présidente, que les grands leviers de la justice sociale et fiscale sont du ressort des États membres, et c’est vrai. Mais si, par le passé, la Commission européenne a su pousser nos gouvernements à adopter des réformes injustes, elle peut tout autant aujourd’hui les inciter à faire ce qui est juste. Elle dispose de moyens d’action directe. Prenons le cas du logement. La plupart des jeunes ne savent plus se loger dans les villes où ils travaillent. En cause, la spéculation causée par la financiarisation du secteur immobilier. Bonne nouvelle: la régulation financière est une compétence de l’Union. Qu’attendez-vous donc pour agir sur ce front explosif? Pas plus que la nature, les biens communs ou l’énergie, le logement ne peut être un simple actif financier laissé aux aléas du marché. Si la transition écologique et solidaire doit être notre projet fédérateur, ne perdons jamais de vue que notre Union est d’abord une communauté de valeurs. Or, partout en Europe, les libertés fondamentales sont en danger, que ce soit la remise en cause des droits des femmes, le sous-financement et la mise sous tutelle de la justice, l’hyper-concentration des médias, l’espionnage de journalistes, d’activistes, de leaders politiques ou encore les violences policières à l’encontre de manifestants et de personnes racisées. Madame la Présidente, malgré les pressions juridiques et financières que vous avez exercées sur deux États membres, les dérives se poursuivent et s’accentuent. En tant que gardienne du droit européen, la Commission va devoir redoubler d’efforts, et pas seulement à l’égard de la Pologne ou de la Hongrie. Speaking of fundamental values, the one that comes first in Article 2 is human dignity, and there is no greater denial of this fundamental value than the way we treat people seeking protection from us. Today, European asylum policy boils down to making Europe a fortress and relying on autocrats, dictators and failed states to keep refugees and migrants away from our shores. This has made smugglers rich and turned the Mediterranean into a mass grave. And I’m afraid, Madam President, that I don’t share your optimism. The EU’s pact on asylum and migration does not fundamentally change this deadly logic. Our Union has a duty, a responsibility and I would even say a need to take its fair share in welcoming forcibly displaced people. And it can, if we only harness our collective capabilities. Our moral credit is at stake, not least in Africa. For decades, the fear of migration has been instrumentalised by the far right. And now it seems that the fight against climate change has become their new target. But what concerns me even more, Madam President, is the fact that a growing number of your party colleagues are embracing the same strategy, the same language, in the hope, probably, of bringing voters back into the EPP fold. Several EPP member parties are considering or have chosen to form coalitions with far-right parties, and some of their representatives were not even ashamed to admit to me that they ‘share so much with them’ in terms of values and programmes. So, in the name of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I appeal you: don’t let Robert Schumann’s party drift away from its values – the values on which the European Union was founded. Chers collègues, et c’est ma conclusion, la pandémie et la guerre sur fond de bouleversement climatique, ont convaincu la majorité de nos concitoyens que ce n’est qu’ensemble, que nous, Européens, pourrons relever les défis de ce siècle. L’Union européenne a retrouvé crédit à leurs yeux, au point que même ceux ici – ils ne sont plus très nombreux, d’ailleurs – qui plaidaient la sortie de leur pays n’oseraient plus le faire ouvertement aujourd’hui. À nous de consolider cet acquis en gardant le cap et en nous assurant que les efforts seront justement répartis. C’est à ce prix que notre union sera un espace de paix et de liberté, à la prospérité à la fois partagée et durable. Nos concitoyens, et en particulier une jeunesse légitimement anxieuse de son avenir, n’en attendent pas moins de nous. Sachons susciter et garder leur confiance.

Mr Torvalds, you know I respect you a lot. You mentioned Finland. The nature of Finland is not being destroyed. The entire climate strategy [] Okay. What you mean is that, basically, Finland does not have the same problem as the Netherlands, I agree, it’s a different country, but the entire climate strategy of your country is predicated on your forests absorbing 20 million tons of carbon every year. And the way they are exploited today means that they emit carbon instead of absorbing it. You have to solve this.

Madam President, I’d like to welcome President Christodoulides to the European Parliament. I really appreciate these opportunities that we have to debate on the future of Europe with members of the European Council, because I’m one who believes that Parliament and Council have to work closely together. That’s the only way to achieve success here. Cyprus enjoys a privilege that actually no other Member State has and that is to have parts of its territory militarily occupied. And it is not a privilege, it is really a plague. And there I must commend your efforts and your determination. You deserve the solidarity and the engagement of the European Union to achieve a peaceful reunification of the country under international law – you have the full support of the Greens/EFA Group in order to achieve this. There is a second point where I do believe Cyprus needs the solidarity and engagement of the European Union and thus indeed on asylum and migration. Yes, countries such as yours really carry a more than proportionate part of the effort of welcoming people. And indeed we cannot let countries at the borders, and especially the southern borders of Europe, alone in that. But, frankly speaking, the asylum and migration pact that is currently being discussed, in our view, is not the kind of solidarity and engagement that you need, because yes, Manfred, I agree that not everyone has the right to live in Europe. No, we cannot welcome the entire humanity here. But Europe has also a responsibility towards asylum seekers, but also in the causes that force people to migrate. And there I believe that Europe can do more. We cannot be just a fortress against the rest of the world. Now there two aspects where I would like to see engagement and solidarity from Cyprus towards the rest of the European Union. The first is, you know, this music of dirty money hovering around Cyprus, these golden passports granted to – guess who – Russian oligarchs. We need to root that out. No, EU’s citizenship is not for sale. And making friends with such oligarchs, well, you look what the Russian regime is capable of, I would say Cyprus should know better and really fight against that kind of dirty money. Finally, that’s a green transition. And yes, I heard you praising the opportunities for the green transition, but I also heard you a lot speaking about oil and gas. And, frankly speaking, in 2023, oil and gas cannot play a crucial role in the transition. We need really to embrace the green transition, not just as a necessity but as an economic opportunity for all of us. So we count on you for that.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think it’s a very good thing that this Parliament has tackled the issue of foreign interference and disinformation seriously. We already adopted one report on it, there is a second one coming, and as we could see a few minutes ago, these issues are sensitive issues, not easy ones to deal with because, of course, they put in tension different aspects of democracy in terms of freedom of speech, but also restrictions that can be applied to them. And so we cannot just go about voting on such an important text without giving the possibility of the real sovereign – that is the plenary of this assembly – to discuss potential amendments to make this text better. So my plea to you is that, yes, we have the debate on the text today – well, in this session, I don’t know if it’s today or tomorrow – and we vote the report in the June session allowing for this assembly to table and discuss amendments to make it better.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for 25 years, under the guise of economic rationality, austerity has become a dogma in Europe. A dogma with its apostles who pose as guardians of good management, these fetishes that take the form of deficit and debt ratios that have no scientific basis, and of course its morality that exalts the sense of effort and collective sacrifice. Effort and collective sacrifice, you say? But for whose benefit? As is often the case, dogma is not neutral. It serves the interests of a few at the expense of the many. The reality is that austerity has always been applied selectively in Europe. On the one hand, the priests of budgetary orthodoxy systematically wanted to cut public investment, education, health, and sell public assets to the private sector. From the financial crisis to the pandemic to the war in Ukraine: It's a crazy doughnut. I mean a bunch of public money, the same ones watering unconditionally and without bubbling the big business. This is evidenced by the superprofits of sectors such as fossil fuels and finance. This selective austerity causes a double injustice, both social and climate. It increases the level of public debt in order ultimately to enrich the pensioners of the system without this benefiting the greatest number of our fellow citizens or the planet. The real issue, therefore, is not to choose one’s side between the so-called frugals and the spenders, between the supposedly virtuous and the debauched. No, no. The only valid question to ask is: What should our public debt be used for? Should it finance fossil fuels, bank bailouts, tax gifts to the richest or, on the contrary, fight the climate peril, make our societies fairer and more resilient in our uncertain world? This is the second choice we make at home, among the Greens. That is why we want an in-depth overhaul of the fiscal rules. First, we call for the deactivation of the deficit rule, which has no scientific value. What matters is not so much the deficit figure as the public utility, including economic utility, of the expenditure it allows to finance. Second, we propose that debt sustainability should now be assessed in the light of climate risk. The reality is that the best way to make our public finances unsustainable is to postpone investments in the green transition. On the contrary, we have every interest in speeding them up, and our rules must allow that. These areas of reform are intended to move towards an economic strategy that is no longer governed by figures but by needs. To sum up, more public debt today for less ecological, social and financial debt tomorrow. This is the political project we are defending.

Madam President, and welcome! I am a little moved because I have always had a little tenderness and even an assertive tenderness for the Grand Duchy. It should be noted that for ten years, in my previous life, I was a sales representative for a large firm, and my main client was in Colmar-Berg, in the Grand Duchy. Guess who I'm talking about? And for them, I was, you know. [...] Excuse me? [] No, it was not the Grand Duke. It's right next door. But what happiness! How happy to have you here and to have been able to hear your triple plea! Advocacy first for our Union. For small countries like ours, sovereignty in the 21st century can only be built together. But, as one of your predecessors, who was then President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said, in Europe there are two kinds of countries: small countries and those that have not yet understood that they are small. I think he was right about that. And I am indeed delighted that unity has prevailed in the EU in the face of the pandemic, in the face of the war, and I believe that this is what makes us strong. But this Union is not just any union. It is a union based first – and you said so – on values. I never forget the compass that Article 2 of the Treaties represents for us, which lists the values on which the European Union is built, starting with respect for human dignity. Not the dignity of European citizens. Of human dignity. Regardless of gender, sexual orientation, origin, beliefs, a human being is a human being and has the right to respect. I find your plea on this particularly moving. And to be able to count on you as an advocate of these values in the Council, I want to say that, in fact, it should not be extraordinary. But I note that, within the Council, this is not unanimously shared. And therefore to have champions of the fundamental values of the Union in the Council, for us this is of absolutely central importance. Finally, regarding your advocacy for the ecological transition, I often said to myself: "But in the end, among the 27 Heads of State or Government, who is really the champion of the Green Deal?" Apart from you, I don't see much of the world. Really, who understands the centrality of this challenge, its crucial importance for our future, obviously, in the face of a planet that can become uninhabitable, and for our economic future? And you understood that. I am not surprised that our two political families are associated in the Luxembourg government. And as long as it lasts! In any case, I would like to thank you for all this. Keep going, don't let go. You know we're by your side. We stand for the same values.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, naivety: This is the word that best characterises the European Union’s attitude – I would not dare to speak of a strategy – towards China over the past 40 years. Mercantilist naiveté, who wanted to believe that opening our market to all winds would give us unlimited access to the gigantic Chinese market. Democratic naivety, who wanted to believe that this sweet trade would bring the Beijing regime step by step to liberal democracy. Finally, narcissistic naiveté, who wanted to believe that the charm displayed by this or that head of state or government could influence the strategic calculations of Chinese leaders. Many industrialists have borne the brunt of this European naivety. This is the case, for example, for the European photovoltaic sector, which has been almost wiped out by unfair Chinese competition. Conversely, our companies are increasingly denied access to the Chinese market, unless they accept ultra-costly technology transfers. As for the political record, it is no more glorious. Despite the trade and charm offensives of our leaders, the Beijing regime is sinking ever deeper, inside, into authoritarianism, and, outside, into a proper offensive to unite the enemies of the West under its aegis. It is high time for the European Union to learn from this triple naivety and see the Chinese regime for what it is and not for what we would like it to become. In short, to bring our relations with China to the adult stage of Realpolitik. First of all, Europe must reduce its hyperdependence on the Middle Kingdom in order to gain greater economic and strategic autonomy from it. Of course, this is not about severing ties with China. It will remain a trading partner and a key player in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, starting with the fight against climate change. However, the EU needs to build its own capacity and diversify its partnerships. Second, we can no longer turn a blind eye to Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions, which, under the guise of a multipolar world, actually wants to firmly establish Chinese hegemony over the world of the 21st century. In this area, we will only be met under two conditions: on the one hand, if we unanimously and unambiguously resist China’s attacks on human rights and democratic values, whether within its borders (as in Xinjiang or Hong Kong) or in the rest of the world – and it is clear that only a negotiated process can solve the Taiwan issue for us! – on the other hand, by putting an end to the ‘double standards’ which have confused the EU’s international policy. In this regard, I would like to point out that the involvement of several Member States in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States cost us and still costs us a considerable amount of credit from the countries of the Global South. If we want to restore the strength of our word and action, it is high time to make them coherent in space and time. This is precisely the direction that was advocated by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock during her recent visit to China. This is in line with the course you set, Madam President, in your important speech of 30 March. Be assured, Madam President, of the support of our group in your ambition to make the European Union a respectable and respected geopolitical actor.

Madam President, Mr President, first of all, thank you for being here, since you were there not long ago before the Council, see you later. I think that is a good formula. Last time, I spoke to you about a subject on which the Greens’ voice may sometimes appear incongruous – it was competitiveness. Today, another topic of the Council: international trade. You're going to say: What fly stung him, he wants to talk about international trade? My starting question is whether Europe can be autarkic. Our answer is that even if she wanted to, she could not. In fact, I think we should not want to, because Europe is not an island. It is part of this planet, and, if only for climate change, we know that we are dependent on others. What we need to avoid – and we have been reminded in recent years – is over-dependence, both on the side of our suppliers – and we have seen it on the side of Russia – and on the side of our customers; This has also been seen on the side of China. What, it seems to me, the European Union’s trade policy must aim at, therefore, are interdependencies chosen at the right level and with the partners of our choice. These interdependencies, it seems to me, must have three objectives. The first is the resilience of our societies through diversification, both of suppliers and of markets. Secondly – and do not see a hierarchy in the objectives – it must be said that it is the consolidation of strategic alliances. Again, Europe is not an island. When we also see the decline of democracy on the planet, I really think that between European and non-European democracies, we really have an interest in sticking together. Finally, and this is new – climate change and planetary boundaries impose it on us – it is regulatory convergence. I say convergence: This does not mean instant regulatory identity, but regulatory convergence, especially in social and environmental matters. International trade cannot lead to a race at least on these matters. The problem we have – and this is where we probably have a nuance with the enthusiastic speeches, including that of Malik a moment ago, or that of Manfred a little before – is that all the negotiating mandates for the treaties currently under discussion have been decided, have been adopted in the world before: the pre-pandemic world, the pre-climate world, the pre-war world. And so we really need to ask ourselves the question of the extent to which we need to review the agreements – and Mercosur is a good example – to bring them in line with the EU’s strategic, climate, social and environmental objectives. This is what I invite us to work on. And perhaps – it is not yet a scoop – the free trade agreement with New Zealand shows the right path.

Madam President, I might talk to you about a subject that will surprise you from a Green, but that is the subject that Manfred Weber talked to us about and that Stéphane Séjourné has just talked to us about. Competitiveness. A Green who talks about competitiveness. What is going on? Is it because he is 60 that he starts talking about this kind of topic? No, absolutely not. But I would like to go back to the fundamentals. What is competitiveness? It is the ability to offer high-value goods or services at as low a price as possible. So it is a relationship between a numerator and a denominator. You're going to say I'm doing the lesson, but you have to remember the fundamentals. Cost is the denominator. Do you seriously think that Europe can or wants to be the champion of low cost? No, no. We have a social structure that we pride ourselves on. Yes, we want to pay workers properly. We want goods and services to be produced in an environmentally friendly way. And all this entails additional costs. So we will never be the champion of low cost. So the only way for the European Union to be competitive is to be the champion of high value. And here, the question we need to ask ourselves is what are high-value goods and services in the 21st century? It can be said, in a sense, that the European Union has so far missed the digital revolution. But what is the Big Game of the 21st century? It means making our societies and economies compatible with the biophysical limits of the planet. This is where competitiveness will play out in the 21st century. And so for the European Union, this is not just one issue among many. This will determine whether our economies will be world champions or not in the 21st century. And now I have to say that I am worried. And I am particularly worried when I listen to Manfred Weber. Not by listening to you, Madam President, not by listening to you, Mr Michel, but by listening, by feeling a growing resistance in this House, but also in the Council, to the ambition of the European Green Deal. Because the European Green Deal can be said to be a climate project, yes, of course, because the climate issue is a survival issue. But it is actually a competitiveness strategy. That is exactly what it is. So to let go of the effort now, as we feel when it comes to cars or the energy performance of buildings, well, to give up the effort is actually to scupper our economy. You know, today, the European car industry is saying that we are still not going to play the game of the American or Chinese champions of the electric car. But this is not the result of overregulation in Europe. This is the result of a deliberate choice of our automotive industries in Europe, to choose the past over the future. And that, Madam President, is the reason for the lack of investment in Europe: we have rentier capitalism in Europe. It is no longer a capitalism of investors or entrepreneurs. Short-term profits are preferred – and in particular the case of the automobile – rather than investing to ensure long-term profits. We need to regain this ambition of entrepreneurship and innovation. And that means getting out of the short-term comfort of rentier capitalism. That is what the Greens are calling for. And so, contrary to what one might think, the Greens are not economically backward. I think we understand the challenges of this century better than others.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of an independent ethical authority at the level of the European institutions predates, by many, the scandal we have been dealing with since December, as it was part of the work programme of the President of the European Commission. As this Parliament does not have the right of legislative initiative, the Commission should take some action. However, we note that, despite the scandal, we are still waiting for the proposal. I think it is important for this Parliament to make its voice heard on this subject a little more than a debate, and – if you pass the word on to me – to give the Commission a bit of a go-ahead for things to move forward. That is the purpose of this resolution that we propose to you.

Madam President, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam President of the Commission, I would obviously like to wish you the best of luck from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance for 2023. You said, Mr Michel, that 2023 would be a key year, but 2020 was a key year, 2021 was a key year, 2022 was a key year and I am delighted to see that, in the face of all these key years, the unity and determination of Europeans has stood firm. I think the challenge we have here is to keep this collective dynamic, which is the only way for Europeans to retain sovereignty, that is to say the ability to decide our future autonomously. I would like to indulge with you in a little exercise in political fiction. Imagine that in 2004, at the beginning of his first term, José Manuel Barroso had the idea of launching a European Green Deal. Ten years later, in 2014, Europe would have freed itself to such an extent from Russian fossil fuels that we could then have taken the necessary sanctions against Vladimir Putin, perhaps in order to deter him from going further than the annexation of Crimea. Perhaps in 2022, then, the US’s late rallying to the climate emergency would have pleased us and we would have waited for it firmly, because at that time we would have been so far ahead that the competitiveness of our economy would not have been risky. But here it is, the vision has been lacking. It was not until Ursula von der Leyen that the Green Deal was launched. So we're facing an emergency and we're not going to lament the past. We are where we are, so what to do? The first thing I will say is in any case not to loosen the ambition of the Green Deal. As you said, Madam President, I know that this Green Deal puts us all in discomfort, that is, we have to make extremely profound changes extremely quickly. But it is also from the discomfort that the movement comes. And this is evidenced by the fact that the energy war that the Russian President is waging on us has produced energy savings, which not even the President of the Commission could have imagined: When you said less than 15%, we did better than that. In other words, when we put pressure, there is movement, and I think we have to accept that, for a few more years, we will be in discomfort. But it is this discomfort that will move us. Second, I understand that the situation of some companies is put in difficulty by this discomfort. And if there must be subsidies, I would really like to insist that these subsidies be targeted; I am indeed very concerned about the state of our public finances. It is true that with Covid, we watered so widely that some who were not supposed to receive subsidies received them. For example, in Belgium I can receive an oil check when I do not need it. So I think the urgency is to target. Thirdly, I will, and this will astonish Manfred Weber, express my agreement with certain statements made by the Swedish Prime Minister yesterday. It is true that one of the factors of competitiveness for the European economy is investment in research and development. This is absolutely crucial, we are behind on this, we are suffering again from rentier capitalism instead of entrepreneurial capitalism. We really need to increase R&D efforts because that is where the foundations for future competitiveness lie. Finally, I think that we will not spare an extension, a perpetuation of this great achievement that is Next Generation EU. In other words, in response to Covid, we found collective energy on the basis of a Commission plan and with unanimous agreement in the Council that was still not easy to obtain. We launched Next Generation EU, we think that doing it for three years is good, but we will have to make it sustainable throughout the transition if we want to put the public resources needed to make Europe the leader in the transition. In any case, I hope that Next Generation EU will be perceived, especially in the net contributor Member States, as a success, so as to convince them and us that this is the way of the future.

Madame President, welcome to the European Parliament, Prime Minister. We, the Greens, European Free Alliance, have absolutely no doubt that Sweden, has the logistical and administrative capabilities to successfully conduct the work of the EU Council of Ministers for the coming six months. However, I need to be very frank with you. We have grave concerns regarding the direction which your government will choose to lead the coming legislative work. The three parties of your minority government have certainly proven time and again to be loyal and committed partners of the European project. After all, it was the moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals who, together with the Centre Party, brought freedom to the EU. That’s a fact. But unlike 30 years ago, your government is now being held hostage by the Swedish Democrats, an extreme right-wing populist Eurosceptic party that is actually the largest member of your coalition. And despite your claims to the contrary, your agreement with them gives them a direct say, not just on national, but also on EU policies. Asylum and migration is the most glaring example of that influence. Since 2015, the EU Member States have been unable, I should say, unwilling to find common response to a challenge that is unlikely to fade away anytime soon. As a result, people have been dying at our borders in a blatant denial of the values on which the EU is built. And even before taking the helm of the Council, your government has already renounced any effort to solve this crisis. What is this, if not the influence, the direct influence, of your anti-migrant coalition partner? You may say that, at least on climate, the Swedish Democrats, who deny the gravity of the challenge, did not dictate the agenda, and the priority given to the green energy transition is indeed welcome. But the other issues crucial to the preservation of the planet as our common home are completely absent from your roadmap. This is so surprising when we know how much the Swedish Democrats block any serious effort to restore the ecosystems on which we depend for lives and livelihoods. I am thinking in particular to the urgent need to drastically reduce the use of pesticides, an issue that your presidency seems to totally neglect. So beyond the nice slogans, we will judge you on what you will deliver, and we hope you will positively surprise us. Mr Prime Minister, when we met in Stockholm, I asked you why on earth you and your government partners chose to engage with a party that is rooted in nationalism and white supremacism? Your flabbergasting answer was because we agree with them on so many things. Your priorities include the safeguarding of our democratic values and the rule of law. Still, you chose to collaborate with those who threaten these very extreme values. So tell me, Manfred Weber, tell me, Stéphane Séjourné, where will this end? How far are you prepared to follow your Swedish colleagues in their new friendships with a party that openly opposes the values that you yourself profess in this House? Is it your secret dream, hope, ambition that the Swedish alliance will become the blueprint for the EU after 2024?