Speeches

Madam President, if I may, I would like to remind Mr Garraud that this committee is included in the resolution adopted by this Parliament in December. I remind him of this good reading, and I will also remind him that the way in which a committee of inquiry can be established here in the European Parliament is not by a resolution of Parliament, but by a procedure that is set, of proposing a mandate and collecting signatures, which allows the plenary to take a decision. I think what you are doing at the moment, Mr Garraud, is more gesticulation than serious parliamentary work.

Madam President, good morning, everyone, this time I think I’m going to speak English because I want first to thank Mr Bek and congratulate the Czech Presidency. It’s the second time that your country is leading the work of the European Union for six months, and I must say that you have already brought quite a number of important pieces of legislation across the line and also helped not solving – because it is not solved – but at least moving forward on the conundrum posed by the Hungarian Government because indeed, a few weeks ago, I was afraid that indeed the Council would succumb to the blackmail of Viktor Orbán and this was not the case. Actually, in a subtle way, you reminded Viktor Orbán that we can circumvent his vetoes. Of course we didn’t have to go there, but the threat was enough for him to basically bow, and indeed the funds put on hold have been reduced, but not by a significant margin. Je voudrais juste dire à Stéphane Séjourné, qui a un art consommé de tirer la couverture à soi, que dans l’affaire hongroise, le président Macron n’était pas du côté de la rigueur; il était de ceux qui voulaient lâcher la bride à Viktor Orban. Je pense qu’il faut aussi mettre au jour ce double langage. Now I’d like to focus a bit on what you said, Madam President, because there’s a lot I agree with on what you say, starting with the point that no, we Greens do not dream of a continental European Union deprived of industry. I’m an engineer by training. I think industry is a key part of our economy. But then again, everything will be in the execution, and in the details. Because what I hear from industry often times is ‘Not too much pressure please! Not too much pressure and please, a lot of subsidies’. Why is that? Well because to be honest, when I look especially at large European companies, I see that we have moved from a capitalism of entrepreneurs to a capitalism of rent seekers, and they prefer to channel profits into bonus and dividends rather than into productive investment because these will generate profits down the line. This is why we are saying, in order for European industry to lead the transition, we need to put them under pressure, and that’s the targets that we adopt, that’s the whole Fit for 55 package. We need serious pressure and that includes on the nature protection package because if you want innovation, you need pressure. Then, if support is needed, I would just take up what you have said about support to the citizens with high energy bills – support must be targeted, targeted to the companies who really need it, who really need public support to bridge the transition because, yes, transition is difficult and requires investment. But, quite frankly, we have deep pockets in some Member States. We have very deep pockets in some corporations as well, and they don’t need an inch, a cent of support. So that’s what I would urge you, is to find the right balance. But all in all, when I look at the architecture, your four points, I think that we can agree with that. So with that, I wish you also a good Christmas recess and look forward to continue working with you.

Madam President, welcome to the European Parliament, Prime Minister. It’s good to hear sincere words of, I would say, a decent person who is in politics. We have at least two things in common. I started my career in the private sector as well for 22 years, and what made me enter politics was the fact that in my municipality, the same party, held a majority, an absolute majority for 65 years, they considered power as their property. And this is why I said, well, I need to step in because a former prime minister in Belgium once said, you know, in politics, once all the disgusted people will have left, only the disgusting ones will remain. And so we don’t want this to happen. So welcome. And it’s such a relief to see Slovenia under your leadership stopping the slippery slope and reversing the slippery slope on which it was. We are witnessing within the European Union enough of trampling on the rule of law and European values not to see it happen in one more Member State. And that was exactly what was happening in Slovenia. So for all this, thank you. I am really happy that you are there. I have also been touched by the fact that you have been tearing down fences. You know, asylum and migration are serious challenges, but you understand that indeed it is beyond the capabilities of any single Member State to find a solution, certainly not with barbed wire, and that we need a common response to that in solidarity with each other. And again, for that, thank you. Now, you said a lot about energy and about the green transition. And of course, there is a lot with which we agree. You are remarkable because you are the first head of government that I hear asserting that there is speculation on the energy market. You know, when I engage with the Commission on that, their answer is no, no, no, no. the price reflects market fundamentals and only market fundamentals. And yes, we have to go after that. I totally agree with that. No. Is the price cap the best way? Well, maybe there are other financial regulation instruments like position limits and curbing the entry into market of some players that we need to activate. And there we are totally your allies on this. Now, on the green transition, I know that you feel that this is absolutely crucial to our future. You do not present that just as a defensive thing, but also an ambitious thing. And I agree with that. But I might have some questions for you because, well, my friends in Slovenia tell me, for instance, that the red tape to install solar panels on roofs in a country where basically most people have their own house, that all these red tape has not been cut yet. Also that you want to prolong the extinction of this fossil-based power plant, three more years until 2033. And then there’s the issue of nuclear. Now we can have a debate about nuclear energy. But again, this is presented in Slovenia as the silver bullet that will solve all problems in energy. Really? I mean, if the business case for nuclear is so good, it shouldn’t be afraid of a fair and square competition in the public debate with other forms of energy. And indeed, you mentioned renewables, and there we would like a more balanced public debate on that. Another thing that you didn’t mention, but where Slovenia is strong, I think your country is probably the European champion of biodiversity. I understand that, per capita, your country has the most beekeepers in Europe. So I don’t understand why Slovenia is not more proactive in supporting the sustainable use of pesticides regulation, because you know that there is a lot of resistance and we need support, including in the Council, not just in the Parliament, to make it happen. So, Prime Minister, a lot to agree with. Frankly, we want to work with you and well, let us hope that indeed what you are doing in Slovenia is not just a parenthesis, but the beginning of a new future. So I’m glad to work with you.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since 2015, the EU Heads of State and Government have been unable to agree on a common response to these humans seeking refuge in our territory. This lack of an agreement increasingly hides a de facto agreement to make the European Union an impenetrable fortress. Our governments have, deliberately or through inaction, chosen the policy of refoulement and violence, preferably remotely and behind closed doors. This is in defiance of the legal commitments to which they have freely subscribed, in particular under the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and international maritime law. And, out of indignity, even as they flout the law, they choose to reproach and even criminalise NGOs that, against all odds, try to save the honour of the European Union. Without any evidence, some governments accuse these NGOs of complicity with human traffickers. On the contrary, it is the EU and its Member States that finance a predatory and deadly system. By giving the keys to our asylum and migration policy to countries like Libya, we are complicit in violence, torture, rape and ransoms. Libya is a failed state and its so-called coastguards are armed gangs in uniform, uniforms paid for by the European Union. Faced with this denial of the values on which the European Union is built, we would expect the Commission to remind the Member States of their responsibilities. Mrs Johansson, Mr Schinas, we would like to hear you say to the Member States: How much longer will you relegate your humanitarian responsibility to commercial boats and NGOs? When will you respect the law by opening the nearest port to save lives in danger on board? When will you understand that the only solution lies in the organisation of safe routes and in a solidarity-based distribution of reception between Member States? And rather than making it a de facto accomplice to this policy of refoulement – I see you are interested in it, Ms Johansson – we would expect you to bring your own Frontex agency to the forefront and ensure that it complies with European and international law. Instead, what is the Commission actually proposing? More of the same. In other words, a timid accompaniment of this collective resignation. Meanwhile, the sinister death counter at our borders keeps spinning. And to date, 29,000 people have paid the ultimate price for European cowardice. So, ladies and gentlemen, those who have made Europe the fortress of their electoral trade fund, Mr Bardella, say they want to defend European civilisation in this way. The reality is that you are the gravediggers. By treating human beings in this way, the European Union is scuttling their foundations, starting with the defence of human dignity as a cardinal value. Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has allowed the European Union to demonstrate its ability to play its full part in welcoming our distressed neighbours. So what is lacking in the Mediterranean, the Balkans or the North Sea is not capacity, it is willpower.

Madam President, on 14 July 2009 I sat in the European Parliament for the first time. I will never forget my pride in becoming one of the 736 representatives responsible for working in the public interest of 500 million European citizens. I can tell you, and it is a bit of emotion, this pride is intact on this day when we celebrate the 70th anniversary of our Parliament. The European Union is the first attempt in the world to achieve transnational democracy, and while it remains an imperfect and incomplete construction, it is more than ever a prototype to be developed in an increasingly fragmented and polarised world. Together, we represent only 5.6% of the world's population. Therefore, acting together, united in our diversity, is the sine qua non for asserting our sovereignty, sovereignty being understood as our ability to make together and autonomously the choices that determine our future. If that is our objective, the European Parliament seems to me to be facing three challenges in its role as the direct representative of European citizens. The first challenge is ambition. Keeping our planet habitable for humans, reducing growing social injustices, opening a future for humans forced to leave their country, establishing international relations based on law and not on violence, our world is facing existential trials. For us, the temptation can be great to curl up in an idealised comfort, that of a fantasized past. If the European Union is to forge a future for itself in the 21st century, it must instead redouble its audacity and regain a pioneering spirit. The second challenge is compromise. All around us and within our countries, the polarization of our societies into antagonistic blocs seems inevitable. On the contrary, and more than ever, our Parliament must demonstrate the strength of dialogue and compromise, which alone can produce lasting solutions that guarantee the possibility for all to live together in peace. Let us prove that our diversity and differences, far from being handicaps, are all assets to build our future. The third challenge is to preserve democracy and the rule of law, i.e. the very foundations on which our Union is built. Without them, neither peace nor prosperity, essential conditions of human dignity for all, can sustainably exist. In the last century, Europe has seen democracies sink, a prelude to the horrors of the Second World War. As we know, this political regime, which Churchill said was the worst except for all the others, is fragile and deadly. And in the name of urgency, opportunity or simply power grabbing, we see the assaults on democracy and the rule of law within our Union itself. The European Parliament must respond to these attacks, regardless of the Member State in which they take place or the political affiliation of those who commit them. But let us never forget that democracies die first of all from the loss of trust of our societies in their institutions and in those that embody them... those that embody them – yes, there are still a few men, but you are right, they were many men at the beginning. It is up to us to play our full part in restoring this trust by constantly adopting the public interest, and not the interests of a few, as the only compass for all the actions we take. I believe that our Assembly is capable of meeting these challenges and of asserting itself more than ever as the place par excellence where our common future is built.

Mr President, dear colleagues, really striking to see how much interest a debate on the Commission work programme for 2023 elicits here in this House. I’d like to spend my two and a half minutes talking to my friends of the European People’s Party, arguably the biggest group in this Parliament. Let me just tell you a story. Forty years ago, the European car industry convinced the European Union not to regulate them. They promised: ‘We are going to reduce emissions, improve our product and all the rest of it. Trust us. Don’t regulate us’. And they succeeded. Now, when they failed to deliver, the European Union started regulating them and putting them emission targets. And then they fought tooth and nail against really ambitious targets. When that failed, then they started fighting to make sure that the measurements – the way we would measure the emissions – would be totally removed from reality. They succeeded. But of course, when the European Union reconsidered and started measuring real emissions, then they started cheating. What is the net result of that? Well, the world champions of the electric cars are Tesla (US), Build Your Dreams (Chinese). That is the net result of such a strategy. And the European People’s Party was aiding and abetting the strategy of the European car industry, not least Angela Merkel, who even destroyed a trilogue deal just to weaken the objectives. Now the EPP does it again, targeting the REACH regulation. And of course in the name of moratorium, one in, one out, because all this, you know, is a burden on our companies. A burden? Are you serious? We are talking about keeping this planet liveable for humanity. You call that a burden or the hobbyhorse of the Greens? It is about life and death – right? – and also about leadership, industrial leadership. And your calls have been partly heard. Maroš, I regret to say that, because indeed the European Commission delayed by three quarters the revision of the landmark Chemicals Regulation of the European Union, whereas actually this text is almost ripe. Don’t do this. I mean, don’t listen to the, not the sirens, but the cries of the European People’s Party. By the way – when I have to judge as to their presence – they do not carry a lot of weight. Ignore them. I mean, yes, I know you put that on the fourth quarter, but there’s no legal obligation for the Commission not to be earlier if you already do it. And so at least this Parliament will be able to adopt it in the first reading before the end of the term.

Madam President, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister. On behalf of the Greens and the European Free Alliance, it’s really a pleasure to see you here because your presence reminds us that, actually, every national government also, as part of the European Council, has European responsibilities. It’s really important that we keep that spirit, that Member States are absolutely crucial to the advancement of the European Union. Many things that you said were actually music to my ears. And I would say there is little to disagree with you on. Your country is certainly better placed to know the true nature of the Russian dictatorship. Your warnings and those of many former Soviet bloc countries, now Member States of the European Union, have been ignored. For too long, there has been complacency, I would say, especially in the biggest Member States – Germany, France, Italy – towards Russia, and now we are paying the price for that, and you were right to point that out. Your affirmation, of course, that united we stand stronger – you know, this is the motto of my country: l’union fait la force, and this is the motto of the European Union as well. I like also very much – and coming from you, it’s interesting –your insistence that, yes, fiscal rules are needed, but actually, they need to take into account the social and environmental dimensions, and that is also welcome. Also, a Prime Minister saying that we need to tackle energy speculation is good because there’s many people who still assert that speculation is good for the markets, you know, but we also know the downsides and the extraction possibilities that give these gifts to economic players. Having said this, I think real friends have a duty to be frank with one another. And I would like to confront at least two of the key aspects of your speech to the reality of policy—making in Finland. Of course, the first is through a green transition. Finland often portrays itself as a leader of the green transition, and indeed, at the last climate conference, in Glasgow, your country boasted about its ambition to be climate—neutral by 2035, 15 years ahead of the European Union. These bold plans turn out to be, actually, a false promise: the massive carbon sink provided by your country’s forests was supposed to be the cornerstone, the foundation of the plan. I say ‘was’ because it turns out that in reality, the land sector, including forests, of course, now emits more carbon than was thought, so it’s no longer a carbon sink due to harmful industrial forestry practices disguised as sustainable forestry management. But forests are not only vital to our climate strategy; when properly managed, they are also a haven of biodiversity. There again, I cannot understand that your government has actively worked against every EU initiative to include the preservation of biodiversity in forestry legislation in agricultural policy. The other source of major disappointment is your government’s decision to join the so-called Frugal Coalition. At the height of the pandemic, when fiscal solidarity was most needed, your government, rather than extending a helping hand, stood in the way. Sure, you came around in the end, but the impression remains that for your government and for many people in Finland, every euro cent invested in our common endeavours would actually be better spent at home. Let me remind you – and you said it yourself – that all the members of what I call the ‘Stingy Coalition’ are massive net beneficiaries of the European integration project, if only because of membership of the single market. And sooner or later, even the frugal end up needing the solidarity of others. Both Sweden and Finland are now seeking the security guarantees of their new NATO partners. So my message is simple: membership of a club is not and can never be a one—way street. Its benefits come hand-in-hand with responsibilities and commitments. Prime Minister Marin, under your leadership, I hope and I believe that the Finnish Government will come to realise that it is in Finland’s best interest to actually be – rather than claim to be – among the leaders of the green revolution, and that fiscal solidarity between Member States is not a waste of money, but a sound investment in our common future. Under your leadership and with the Finnish Greens at your side, Prime Minister, this can actually happen, so just do it.

Madam President, I am a little surprised by the request from the ID Group, because the ID Group did not mention this request in the Conference of Presidents, which is the place where the agenda is discussed. Far be it from me to eliminate the idea that it is the plenary that is sovereign, but I do not see the new element that justifies putting this item on the agenda instead of – because it is indeed instead of – this point that has been emphasised, namely the espionage of opposition leaders or journalists by an EU government. Without ruling on the merits of Mr Garraud's request, I think that if it is so important, well that his group leader comes with this request to the Conference of Presidents and we will take a decision on it.

Madam President, Prime Minister, on behalf of the Green Group, welcome here to the European Parliament. Last Sunday, I was debating with Piotr Tolstoy, the Vice-President of the Duma, the Russian Parliament. He told me that he did not care if Ukraine became a candidate for the European Union, because if all goes well, within a year, Ukraine will no longer exist. That's how he used to say it! He was calling for a new Yalta in Europe. In other words, we had, and you rightly denounced, the reaffirmation of the Brezhnev doctrine, that of unlimited sovereignty. In other words, there are states, the superpowers, which can be sovereign and the others only have to submit to the will of these great powers. This is called, in other words, imperialism. Nothing could be further from this concept than this idea, which you have rightly pointed out, of shared sovereignty. A freely shared sovereignty. And I would like to tell you how much it touched me to see, after the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and the nationalism that was expressed during the war, as you said, Croatia choose. Choosing for your European vocation, choosing to give up... I would not say to give up, but to share its newly acquired sovereignty with some 30 other states here in Europe. And the fact that Croatia is joining the euro, joining Schengen, continues to make me happy. I was a Member of the European Parliament when your country became a Member and today I remain absolutely convinced that the European Union is the governance of the future. I would like to tell you, perhaps because it is up to the friends to tell each other their respective concerns, two points, two concerns that I have about what is happening in your country – I obviously dream that all Member States are exemplary in every respect. There are two issues that I would like to raise. The first is how EU funds are allocated in your country. It is my responsibility that all too often European money is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis rather than on the merits of the projects submitted. However, the value of the European budget, the value of European projects, is precisely to be able to do together things that each of us is unable to do alone. With regard to these projects, you will obviously not be surprised if a Green reminds you of the challenge of the ecological transition to respect the biophysical limits of the planet. Croatia is also at the forefront of climate change, but also has enormous potential in terms of renewable energy. So I would like Croatia to be a pioneer in this transition. Second point of concern: you mentioned the accession to the Schengen area. As you know, because I told you when we came to Zagreb for the opening of the Croatian presidency, we continue to receive substantiated messages that there continue to be violent pushbacks at the country’s borders. You promised us at the time that all this would be investigated and that it would stop if illegal things happened, but we continue to receive these messages and therefore our concern remains. Yes, absolutely, Croatia has its place in Schengen, but not at the cost of contributing, somewhere, to making Europe a fortress. I would like to conclude, Prime Minister, on a somewhat more personal note. For more than 30 years, I have had the joy of having a brother-in-law of Croatian origin. He's in the stands as we talk. His father, from Varaždin, who arrived in Belgium in the 1960s, was a construction worker, but he always had a passion for writing. One of his many works describes the reality of life in Yugoslavia in the 20th century. In it, he describes his visceral attachment to his ancestral land, where he returned to live the last chapter of his life, to his customs, to his religion, to family values. So I know how esteemed he is for you, and so I know that he will be proud that you will receive this work from my hands.

Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor, because I was attacked by my colleague Manfred Weber and I want to answer him. Mr Weber, I have never said, thought or implied that one of the 705 Members of this House has fewer rights to speak or fewer responsibilities to speak than any other. We are all equally elected by European citizens. The only thing I said, Mr Weber, was that if from the outset, at the beginning of the discussions on the Fit for 55 package, there had been a willingness to discuss between the four groups – who were, moreover, ready to support your candidacy at the beginning of this legislative term at the head of the Commission; the EPP, the Social Democrats, the Liberals and us – if we had worked in this configuration from the outset, we would have arrived 15 days earlier at the result that you and I will see in a few minutes. That’s all I said! And let me not be led to believe that for the Greens there are Members who are more equal than others. There are Members with whom we do not agree. That is something else. But they are all equal, as much as they are – Mr Zanni, Mr Legutko, I do not agree with their ideas, but they are Members, just like me.

Madam President, I would like to tell you that you have exercised one of your prerogatives, namely the use of Rule 183 to change the normal order of votes on the text on the emission allowance market in Europe. This is your prerogative, but normally we vote starting with the most ambitious proposal and then back down until we find a solution that wins a majority. I can't challenge the legality of what you did. However, after we spoke last night, I read your message and I have a problem there. Indeed, the main argument you use is to say: there are three political groups representing a majority that tell me that they have an agreement – first of all, the first way to know that there is a majority is to vote – but above all, if this is considered an admissible argument, then I am very afraid that most of the amendments from the groups that are not part of the von der Leyen majority will never be voted on again in this House, since the argument you used to justify the use of Rule 183 is an argument that can be applied to just about every piece of legislation in this House. And I'm not saying it because I'm upset, because we're going to vote against it. On the contrary, I can already tell you that my group will vote for the compromise, because we think it is a much better compromise than the one we reached two weeks ago. But as far as the procedure is concerned, we have a real problem, because if this becomes the general rule, then you are in fact depriving the minority political groups of any real right of political expression in this house.

Madam President, I would like, on behalf of the Green Group – and I know that this is supported quite widely in this House – to propose to you an exchange, i.e. to replace the debate scheduled for tomorrow at 9 a.m. on ‘the relations of the Russian government and diplomatic network with parties of the extreme right and the extreme left in Europe in the context of the war’ with statements by the Council and the Commission on national vetoes on the taxation of multinationals, and thus putting at risk the OECD Global Agreement, for which the European Union is increasingly ridiculous, since, after one state, another state is vetoing it for reasons which have nothing to do with substance, but simply to block the functioning of the Union. So I would like us to debate this in Parliament in plenary tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.

Madam President, I would like to address colleagues and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Liese. I heard his frustration. And as curious as it may seem, I share it. I recall that at the beginning of the treatment of this ‘Fit for 55’ package in the European Parliament, I repeatedly proposed that the pro-European political groups in this Parliament work together, in a structured way, precisely to avoid this kind of scenario. And I make a point, my message is very simple: If you want strong pro-European, strong pro-climate majorities, they are built and not improvised. So we're ready to work with you to get there.

Madam President, Mr President, since Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, the European Union has demonstrated a unity and determination that many had underestimated. And I want to say, there's a lot of work for both of you. Our first responsibility is to preserve them over time. The collective dynamic initiated with REPowerEU can contribute to this. Removing Russian hydrocarbons would both strengthen our energy independence and weaken Vladimir Putin. This phase-out of fossil fuels is urgent and indispensable, but it remains terribly complicated. After coal, last week’s summit confirmed the abandonment of Russian oil, but this will not happen before the end of the year. This is enough to give Putin all the time to prepare for it, by making over-profits, given the rise in prices that our own decisions will certainly feed into. As for an embargo on Russian gas, in reality we leave the initiative to Vladimir Putin himself. I think many of us would have liked an immediate break with this double dependency, Russian and fossil. But the choices of the past make this scenario impossible. Energy infrastructure has been designed to last, and replacing or adapting it requires considerable time and resources. The fact that European governments are still considering putting coal mines back into service or simply replacing Russian gas with gas from elsewhere is therefore a total aberration. This means once again making sure that we will be enslaved tomorrow by fossil decisions taken today. On the other hand, we welcome the boost that the European Commission wants to give to the energy transition with the REPowerEU plan. More renewables, more efficiency: This is the beginning of energetic wisdom. However, the plan remains too timid on the third, essential part of the transition: the reduction of our voraciousness. You alluded to this, Madam President, when you talked about the temperature in buildings. The ever-more, ever-faster, ever-farther energy costs that we simply can't afford anymore. The time for just sobriety has come, and everything remains to be done. And, Mr Michel, in this area, the bulk of the resources, the bulk of the levers, are in the hands of the Member States. The second concern I want to share with you this morning is the European attitude to the authoritarian excesses of the Hungarian and Polish governments. Right now, they are using the war in Ukraine both as an alibi to make people forget about their systematic attacks on the rule of law and as a lever to blackmail Europe. On the one hand, Viktor Orban is trying to make joining the oil embargo conditional on securing several hundred million euros without any rule of law conditionality. On the other hand, Mateusz Morawiecki managed to get the Polish recovery plan approved by the Commission despite opposition from several prominent members of the College. And like them, we have no confidence in a Polish government that has so far refused to take any concrete action in response to the many complaints made by the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The three conditions laid down for the payment of the recovery fund to Poland constitute only part of those complaints. And now the Commission is no longer making a pre-requisite for the relocation of illegally dismissed judges. For us, this is out of the question. We therefore call on the governments of the Member States not to approve the Polish recovery plan as it stands. Like most Hungarian, Polish and other EU citizens, I want to repeat, we sincerely aspire to a lasting pacification of the EU’s relations with these two Member States, which have their full place in the EU. But this can only be done if their governments renounce their liberticidal excesses. To see the European Union abandon its core values would be a victory for Vladimir Putin. Maintaining the determination and unity of Europeans can never, ever come at the cost of such denial.

Madam President, I say to the Taoiseach: welcome to the European Parliament. Actually, when one looks at the history of your country, a history marred by war, occupation, famine, poverty, mass emigration, a global financial crisis which hit you like few other countries, one might expect a country of anger, bitterness, revenge. And we have none of that, none of that, I’m really struck every time. And you embody that, every time I meet the Irish colleagues that we find at the same time, gravitas but also a sense of optimism towards the future and humility. There’s no grandstanding, it seems, in your country, you don’t need to grandstand to be great. And this is what I love so much about the contribution that your people are making to the European Union. And being future-oriented, an optimist to me comes out of your speech as well. Again, not with big words, but let’s take one: ‘sovereignty’. Instead of looking at this concept, which means the ability to decide on your own, basically, instead of looking back towards the nation-state, you – and these are your words – said: ‘the European Union is an enabler of sovereignty’. It makes us more sovereign, contrary to what some in this House are saying. What I like also – and this is a change from your predecessor and successor, who was also humble enough to recognise four years ago that Ireland was a laggard when it comes to the climate transition. And it’s true, Ireland was a laggard, but you embraced the new government, and indeed thanks to the participation of the Greens. But your support, your personal support as Taoiseach has embraced the green transition. Now, I do see the great plans and the commitments. Last year Ireland’s emissions grew by 6%, so we are still not there. There are still massive efforts to be made. But you and I see that the future of Europe’s prosperity lies in leading the transition rather than following, being laggards. We need to be leaders here if we want Europe to be prosperous. A last point that I will make is to tell you that we will stand united and in solidarity with Ireland when it comes to preserving the Good Friday Agreement. We know that we are facing a British Government that we can’t trust, and I think that even his own party – well, many in his own party – recognise that he is not a trustworthy person. But we have to endure. We have to endure and find ways to keep peace in Ireland. And believe us, we are with you on this.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Draghi, welcome to the European Parliament. Avec vous à la tête de son gouvernement et Paolo Gentiloni à la Commission européenne, on peut dire que l’Italie renoue avec un engagement européen résolu à la hauteur de ses responsabilités de membre fondaur et de troisième puissance économique de l’Union. S’il est un domaine, Monsieur le Président où l’Italie n’a pas seulement assumé sa part de responsabilité, mais bien plus que sa part de responsabilité en Europe, c’est l’accueil des migrants. Pendant de nombreuses années, l’Italie, pays de première ligne face à la Méditerranée, a pris plus que sa part du devoir moral d’accueil de l’Union européenne, sans pouvoir bénéficier de la nécessaire solidarité de ses alliés européens. Et je me réjouis de pouvoir dire que ce Parlement, déjà lors de la législature précédente, était prêt à une très large majorité à faire ce que vous demandez: dépasser la règle de Dublin. The va vraiment falloir que nous dépassions cette doctrine de l’unanimité au Conseil pour que nous décidions, comme vous le disiez d’ailleurs, à la majorité qualifiée, y compris en matière de migration, où c’est déjà le cas en réalité. ‘Whatever it takes’: par ces trois mots, alors à la tête de la Banque centrale européenne, vous aviez pris la mesure de l’enjeu. Face aux attaques des marchés financiers, il fallait sauver l’euro ‘quoi qu’il en coûte’. Avec la pandémie, le quoi qu’il en coûte est devenu l’alpha et l’omega de la politique économique au sein de l’Union. Sauver des vies, tout en soutenant les travailleurs et les entreprises face aux répercussions de la crise, that qu’en soit le prix. Telle était l’ambition. Aujourd’hui, vous l’avez dit, c’est l’invasion de Poutine en Ukraine qui testae notre détermination. À nouveau, l’Union européenne doit se montrer prête à faire ‘tout ce qui est nécessaire’ pour à la fois come en aide aux Ukrainiens et assurer notre autonomie énergétique. L’Italie est d’ailleurs exemplaire puisqu’elle agit dans un esprit d’unité aux côtés de ses alliés européens, et ce malgré, vous l’avez dit, sa dépendance massive et exagérée à l’égard de la Russie. Contrairement à d’autres, elle a bien compris que cette guerre est le moment où l’Union européenne doit prouver qu’elle peut devenir une puissance géopolitique. Dans l’immédiat, les efforts de l’Italie pour diversifier ses sources d’approvisionnement en énergies fossiles sont compréhensibles. Corn, vous l’avez dit vous-même, ce n’est pas une solution de long terme. Seule la transition vers les énergies renouvelables et la sobriété énergétique peuvent à la fois assurer durablement notre indépendance énergétique, tout en nous permitnt de relever notre part du défi climatique. Et là-dessus, je vous ai bien écouté, j’ai l’impression que nous partageons la conviction, mais quand j’entends votre ministre de l’environnement plaider, comme une monomanie, pour l’arrivée du nucléaire en Italie, alors que cette énergie a été rejetée massivement par le peuple italien il y a à peine dix ans, je ne comprends plus. Et j’entends dire, peut-être que vous pourrez infirmer cela, que votre gouvernement remettrait en cause le principal programme de rénovation du bâtiment, le SuperEcoBonus 110 %, alors même que la Commission européenne le prend en exemple de bonne pratique. Je me rappelle que, dans nos nombreux échanges, le Mario Draghi banquier central refusait d’intégrer la contrainte climatique dans sa politique monétaire, au motif que cela relevait de la compétence du politique. Je vous ai bien écouté et je suis heureux d’entendre que Mario Draghi, devenu chef du gouvernement italien, a entendu le message: appartient aux responsables politiques de faire preuve de leadership, et la transition énergétique est un impératif non seulement climatique, mais aussi géopolitique. Pour financer cette transition, nous avons besoin de moyens colossaux. Vous avez à juste titre plaidé pour une réforme des règles budgétaires, mais il faut aller plus loin et passer à la vitesse supérieure en réalisant, enfin, une véritable union budgétaire. Qui doute encore que ce n’est qu’ensemble que les États membres parviendront à faire de l’Union européenne le leaders mondial de la transition écologique et solidaire et une puissance géopolitique respectée. The nous faut donc des emprunts communs, remboursés par des impôts communs pour financer des projets communs. Le plan de relance NextGenerationEU, dont votre pays est le premier bénéficiaire, est le prototype d’une telle Union budgétaire. J’ai envie de dire que le plus grand service que l’Italie peut aujourd’hui rendre au projet européen, c’est de faire de ce plan un succès pour en assurer la pérennité. Aussi, au nom du groupe des Verts, je me réjouis de vous entendre plaider avec nous et vous engager avec nous et les citoyens présents au cœur de la conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe, pour une réforme des traités européens. Monsieur le Président, This is what it takes, voilà ce qui est indispensable à ce fédéralisme à la fois pragmatique et idéaliste que vous appelez de vos vœux. Président Draghi, votre capital politique dans votre pays et au sein de l’Union est incontestablement grand. Je vous encourage à continuar à mobiliser sans compter pour que l’Union européenne soit une actrice clé de ce XXIè siècle. Je vous le dis: Go ahead!

Yes, I heard you well. What is true for energy is true for agriculture: It will be necessary to free our agriculture from its dependence on fossil fuels. But I would like to continue on Stéphane's line. Will Vladimir Putin’s second collateral victim be the rule of law in the European Union? There's a real risk. We clearly have problems, you mentioned them. I would like you to develop a little bit the actions you intend to take in the coming weeks, because what happened last Sunday in Hungary shows the result of total control of the media by the government.

Madam President, in the face of the first unexpected ordeal of the pandemic, you have been able to steer the course of the European Green Deal and make it the central focus of the recovery plan. The Russian aggression in Ukraine is a second ordeal and I must admit that I am a little worried. On the energy front, you said that the only credible independence strategy is to focus on renewables and energy savings, and I welcome that. But for the time being, it is gas that is the central part of the device, which is also confirmed by the line chosen for the taxonomy. Moreover, the original sin of the Green Deal was to allow a common agricultural productivist policy based largely on fossil fuels to run. The Farm to Fork Strategy should allow us to correct the situation, but now the first two texts to implement this strategy have been removed from the agenda. The agro-industrial lobby claims that only intensive agriculture based on fertilisers and pesticides can ensure our food security, when the truth is not only that agroecology is capable of feeding us, but that it alone is capable of doing so by absorbing rather than emitting carbon, and restoring rather than massacring biodiversity. My question is simple: Is the European Green Deal going to be Vladimir Putin's first collateral victim at a time when the IPCC is asking us to accelerate?

Madam President, I would say to our dear Ukrainian friends: we do not have enough words to praise your courage and determination to defend your freedom. Your resistance is a wake—up call to all democrats around the world. Without the will to fight, democracy will perish. To your aggressor I say: your lies for justifying war cannot, and will not, remain unchallenged. No, Mr Putin, Ukraine is not ruled by Nazis. On the contrary, its legitimately—elected President stems from a family which was bloodied in the Holocaust. No, Mr Putin, there is no genocide going on in the Donbas. What is happening there is a war that you yourself started eight years ago, which has already taken 14 000 lives, and which your invasion brings only to a new level. No, Mr Putin, Ukraine has never intended to get nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it relinquished voluntarily those it inherited in 1991 from the Soviet Union in exchange for its territorial integrity, which you have been trampling on ever since you annexed Crimea in 2014. No, Mr Putin, there was no perspective for Ukraine to join NATO in the foreseeable future. If there is such an aspiration in Ukraine, as there was in so many nations once subjugated by the Soviet Union, your aggression against Ukraine explains why. No, Mr Putin, the NATO member states have no intention to deny the Russian peoples’ right to peace and security. It is your reckless actions that imperil those legitimate aspirations. The reality, Mr Putin, is that the people of Ukraine chose freedom, democracy, the rule of law and peace. That choice, made by a people so close to Russia’s by history and geography, was never a threat to Russia’s security, but to the very existence of your authoritarian and kleptocratic rule. This is the real reason for the invasion and the cost of precious human lives and livelihoods, both Ukrainian and Russian. The reality, Mr Putin, is that your brutal aggression against the Ukrainian people is doomed to fail. You wanted to deny their very existence as a people, but your aggression is cementing their unity against the invader. As citizens of the European Union, we know that the war on Ukraine is more than just an aggression against a sovereign state. It is a direct challenge to the values that lie at the foundation of our Union. Ever since it was started, the European project was – and remains – a peace project, so that the rule of brute force be replaced by the rule of law and so that democracy, dialogue, compromise and cooperation across national borders provide the best basis for shared and sustainable prosperity. We Europeans cannot stand by idle when a partner country is invaded and when our fundamental values are challenged in such a brutal way. This is why – short of direct military intervention, which would be foolish – we must, and we will, provide the Ukrainian people with all the support we can in order to face the aggression. This is why we must, and we will, provide safe haven without any discrimination to all those who are fleeing the war to seek refuge on our territory. This is why we must, and we will, mobilise all the political, economic and financial means at our disposal to exert maximum pressure on Putin’s Russia in order to make him stop his aggression. Let me be clear to the people of Russia: we have no quarrel with you. You too have the right to live in dignity, and many of you are standing up daily to defend it at great personal risk. We know that resuming the diplomatic dialogue with your country is the only path to sustainable peace on our continent, but this can only happen if the aggression stops. As for us Europeans, meeting the challenge put to us by Putin’s war will test our strength, our determination and, above all, our unity. It will not come cheap. Therefore, it will force us to make hard choices. The first must be for cohesion within and across Member States. The global financial crisis, the eurozone crisis and the pandemic have deepened social and economic injustice in our Union. It cannot be that, once again, the brunt of the massive efforts required to counter Putin’s war will be carried by the weakest shoulders. Should that be the case, the legitimate resentment would sap the very basis of our social contract, as well as those of our Union. This would fulfil one of Putin’s unsaid goals – dividing us. The second must be for energy independence. Indeed, our massive dependence on Russia for raw materials and energy is a primary reason for Europe’s lack of determination to deter the Russian regime up until now. That is no surprise when 40% of our gas, 30% of our coal, of our oil and of our nuclear fuel – don’t forget that – is provided by Russia as the EU is almost devoid of those resources. Is our plan really to replace this massive dependence on Russia with another equally massive dependence on anyone else? We say that energy independence is the key for the EU to become a respected geopolitical player, and that will never be achieved by putting gas and nuclear at the heart of our energy strategy. As the President said, only renewables and energy efficiency can give us the strategic autonomy we seek. It is not just for the climate that we must accelerate the energy transition. It is for our security and for the resilience of our economies. Dear colleagues, never before has the European Union been challenged in such a direct and brutal way. I have no doubt that we collectively – and only collectively – have the strength, the resources, the determination and, above all, the wisdom to meet this challenge together, and together with Ukraine, because we belong together.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, alongside ever more invasive surveillance capitalism, the surveillance state is sneaking in, shamelessly attacking our fundamental freedoms. From now on, it is not only the mass surveillance programmes of China or the United States that must be feared, but also the targeted cyber-espionage practiced by more and more governments, inside or outside the European Union. This Pegasus scandal reveals nothing less than the illegal and abusive use of these cyber-surveillance weapons on our citizens. Make no mistake: Pegasus is not a matter of espionage between the powerful of this world; This scandal illustrates the risk for each and every one of us to be watched, including you and me. The official mission of this spyware is to monitor individuals suspected of terrorism or organized crime. What the Pegasus scandal shows, however, is the use of this targeting outside any legal framework, including within the European Union. Women and men politicians, journalists, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights activists...: We are all concerned. Cyber-espionage technologies provide those who use them with a real master key to all of our personal data. Imagine that every time you take your smartphone out of your pocket, you are not alone in reading your messages, listening to your conversations, seeing your photos and videos, being able to activate your camera, microphone or geolocation. And then, when you understand that your life is peeled without your knowledge, these questions strike you: Why am I being spied on? How did they get access to my phone? What did they see? What do they know? – But by the way, it is who, they? This was the experience of a Belgian human rights activist, presumably supervised by the Moroccan services. It was this feeling of insecurity that was reported by a Belgian journalist and his Rwandan wife, who were probably hacked by the Kigali authorities. It is these issues that tarnish those who have been spied on by their governments in Hungary and Poland because they inform, militate, defend, oppose. The United States blacklisted Pegasus' parent company. The UN is calling for a moratorium on the sale and transfer of this technology. It is time, more than time, for the European Union to act – I can only agree with what Sophie in’t Veld has just said – and first of all to understand what is at stake. That is why we demand the opening of a European Parliament committee of inquiry, in order to shed full light on the extent of these illegal cyber-piracy practices, starting with establishing which Member States own Pegasus or equivalent spyware. Responsibilities must be established and sanctions taken accordingly. This committee of inquiry is an essential step towards a framework for regulating the conditions for the export, sale, transfer and, above all, use of cyber-surveillance technologies. The question arises: How can we still conclude police or judicial cooperation agreements with states that spy on us and our fellow citizens? Ladies and gentlemen – I conclude, Madam President – we all know the risks inherent in these technologies, which are now being misused to monitor, intimidate, silence and ultimately endanger our democracies. We need to protect our fellow citizens from this new era of surveillance, and that starts with getting the truth about these serious violations of our fundamental rights. I can only join Sophie in addressing my colleagues, from the EPP, the Social Democrats, ECR and the other groups, to join us in setting up this committee of inquiry. I believe that this is where the European Parliament can play the most useful role before, of course, legislating with you, Commissioner.

Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the Greens in the European Parliament – the Greens/European Free Alliance – I would like to congratulate you on your election. I want to say: Finally! Finally, 20 years after Nicole Fontaine, 40 years after Simone Veil, a woman at the head of the European Parliament! And that is true, Manfred, it must be acknowledged: together with Ursula von der Leyen in the Commission and Roberta Metsola in the European Parliament, the EPP presented two very high-quality women to lead European institutions. The misogynistic or, in any case, patriarchal EPP group is often taxed. There, in any case, you have made gestures that show a real difference. And we have to recognize it. We may often disagree, but we must also return to Caesar what belongs to him. Madam President, you have many qualities. You certainly have the capacity to lead this European Parliament. We are obviously aware of our disagreements – there has been a lot of mention of abortion and women’s reproductive rights. We also have our points of agreement – you have been very eloquent in your advocacy for democracy, for the rule of law. You may have mentioned less about a fight, which is also yours, for a Europe able to welcome asylum seekers who come knocking on its door. We have fought these fights together in the past and we will be keen to continue them. You mentioned in your speech, Madam President, something that touched me a lot, saying that we are rich in our differences. The motto of the European Union is ‘unity in diversity’. It is not ‘unity despite diversity’. In other words, as you said, our differences are assets. I therefore believe that, Madam President, you will be keen to ensure that these differences are respected within this institution. Because – and this is perhaps a little less disingenuous note that I want to make heard here – the process that led to your election, Madam President, is not a very glorious process for the European Parliament. Because once again, once again, the essential parameter of the agreement that was made – with great difficulty – between the groups that supported you, was based on post distributions. And the appetites were so great, and as the groups decided not to eat on each other’s plates, it was necessary to satisfy those appetites to the detriment of the minority groups in this European Parliament. Madam President, I know you are a great democrat. Democracy is not, cannot be, can never be the undivided rule of the majority. I would therefore like to say that you could take a strong step from the outset: launch a reform of the rules of procedure and statutes of this Parliament and anchor in our texts respect for the rights of minorities in Parliament and the proportional distribution of positions of responsibility. It is not normal, it is not acceptable for majorities, wherever they are, whether in Poland or here in the European Parliament, to minorise and marginalise minorities. We are all elected, we all have the same dignity as Members of the European Parliament and there is no question of considering certain Members of the European Parliament, certain groups in the European Parliament as second-class groups. This is a fight we could fight together. There will be many more. But in any case, once again, congratulations and... happy birthday!

Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues will have the opportunity to talk to you about the subjects on the agenda of the European Council, but I would like to talk to you about a subject which, if it is not on the official agenda of the Council, will undoubtedly be the subject of many conciliabules in the corridors: taxonomy. The green taxonomy should be to finance what the organic label is to food. Because under this somewhat technocratic term hides in reality the nomenclature of what may or may not be considered a green investment. And it is urgent because today, the financial sector is making sustainable investments in tobacco, weapons, private prisons, pesticides and so on. Who are we kidding? It is high time to put this in order. With its Taxonomy Regulation, the European Union aims to be a pioneer in more sustainable finance. But everyone knows that lobbies from all sides and some Member States, led by France, are putting intense pressure on gas and nuclear investments to be recognised as green. It's like dreaming, swimming in delirium! Madam President, I urge you to resist, because it is the very credibility of the European Green Deal that is at stake. The gas case should be the most obvious to settle. Even the very conservative International Energy Agency, created in 1974 to ensure the security of our oil supplies, makes it clear: If we want to meet our climate commitments, no more - I say none - investments should be made in fossil fuels. As for nuclear energy, yes, it emits little CO2, but it poses other major problems, including highly radioactive waste over tens of thousands of years, of which we do not know what to do, and security that is increasingly difficult and expensive to ensure, in the face of climatic, geological or terrorist risks. And even if these problems were miraculously solved, the astronomical costs and endless delays of the nuclear bet simply won't allow us to win the climate battle. The construction of some new nuclear power plants in France or Finland has already taken more than ten years and has exploded all budgets. However, we need to drastically reduce our emissions by 2030, eight years from now. It starts today and time is running out. So certainly, there are places where the use of gas or the extension of a few nuclear reactors are considered necessary to ensure the weld with a world of renewables and energy sobriety. Some would have us believe that by excluding them from the green taxonomy, this welding would be impossible: It is an intellectual sham. These investments are still possible, but they will simply have to be paid at the market price. And they will not, of course, be able to benefit from public funds labeled as "green". Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, adulterating the organic label would mean his death sentence. Including gas and nuclear in the taxonomy would make it a stillborn project. Resist, Madam President! Resist 21st century fetishists, look to the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, almost 30 years ago, at the Earth Summit in Rio, the very one that launched the UN climate process. A prominent EPP representative, Jacques Chirac, said "Our house is burning and we are looking elsewhere". If he had come to Glasgow, he could have said that our house is burning ever harder, we are watching it burn and we are not doing anything. Or, at most, we promise to act tomorrow, , . The end of deforestation? Oh, ten years from now. Coal, the engine? Maybe someday. Subsidies for fossil fuels? Only if they are ineffective. In this desolate landscape, of all the major economic powers, the EU has been the best figure. She alone came to Glasgow with a significant increase in her climate ambitions. And if the -55% is not enough, they are at least written into the law. We will now have to make those commitments a reality. The least we can say is that yesterday's vote on the Common Agricultural Policy is a bad start. It can of course, against all evidence, be said to be fully aligned with the European Green Deal. This is a lie. No binding measures to reduce chemical inputs. No quantified carbon removal target. And as a bonus, we reduce subsidies to organic. Ladies and gentlemen, let us not repeat this imposture with the Fit for 55 package. For this, we will have to overcome the resistance. And believe me, the brightest are not on the side of the yellow vests, which, contrary to what is said, are convinced of the climate and environmental emergency. Rather, they come mainly from capital holders who support climate action only on the condition that it does not affect their profits. I was at the summer school of French employers. I heard the representative of the oil industry ask me, as a political leader, to ensure that his sector cash flow. This is a scandal! It is an indecency! Faced with these rentiers of the system, I have also seen many entrepreneurs who, already today, are committed to the transition with us. So to my friends from the EPP and Renew, who sometimes hesitate to fully support the transition, I say one thing: A true liberal will always side with entrepreneurs and against rentiers, especially if, to defend their annuities, they are ready to trash the planet.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if there is one lesson to be learned from the current spike in fossil fuel prices, it is that we must accelerate our transition to renewable energy, which has become the most competitive on the market, and to energy sobriety. Our addiction to fossils was already unsustainable on the climate and geopolitical level, it has also become an economic handicap. Emmanuel Macron and Mr Grudler do not mind, it is not an increased use of nuclear power, whose costs have become prohibitive and deadlines completely unpredictable, that will solve the problem. In the short term, however, this surge in prices and, in the medium term, the cost of investments in the energy transition raises the central question of solidarity, because we can only accept once again that it is our citizens with the most fragile shoulders who find themselves paying the bulk of the effort. In Belgium, the increase in the energy bill should reach at least €100 per month for a household with two children. Add to this the indirect impact on the price of other goods and services, such as food and transport, and as you will have understood, the situation can quickly become unsustainable for a low-income family. Faced with this energy poverty, it is first and foremost up to the Member States to respond to the emergency, in particular by using the additional tax revenue to guarantee and extend the preferential social tariff and put in place direct aid targeted at the most affected households. However, such short-term measures will not prevent us from making more fundamental choices. The ambition of the European Green Deal must be to make the European Union the world champion of the green transition. But as you know, producing sustainable and fair costs more than dirty and unfair. If it were the other way around, today we would not be facing the environmental and social challenges of this century. If we want everyone to be able to afford something to live with dignity, it is absolutely crucial to overthrow the machine for widening inequalities. Europe is indeed rich, but this wealth is increasingly unequally shared. The European Union and the Member States must therefore combine their efforts to ensure that those who make a living from their work obtain a fairer share of this wealth, whether through wages or social benefits. Similarly, and the Pandora Papers scandal reminds us, our taxation must once again become an instrument for redistributing the wealthiest, who consume and pollute far more than their fair share, to the less fortunate, and not the other way around. Ladies and gentlemen, without social justice, the green transition will not take place; Without the green transition, it is our societies that will collapse.

Mr President, Madam President, you are right to point out that you are one third of your mandate, not half. I want to say, despite the pandemic, that the easiest part has been done, which is to open the files and submit proposals. Now we will have to realise the many ambitions in the environmental field, in the social field, in the field of the rule of law and the defence of democracy. In the field of migration, they are perhaps a little rarer. We're going to have to make this happen. And here I want to say that we should not underestimate the fact that there is a dose of conflict, even if we want to be as inclusive as possible. So, at some point, we're going to have to count ourselves and find majorities. And here you will have to put your weight behind building these majorities and accept that not everyone will be part of them, that there are people who will not want more financial solidarity, people who will not want more climate action, people who will not want real action on the rule of law issue. It will be necessary to assume this conflict to build majorities. Like you, I want to be as inclusive as possible. At some point, you will have to rely and be able to count on you and your commitment to build these majorities.