What Juan Fernando spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, the representative of the Spanish Presidency, to the extent that the European Union – which started 70 years ago with six Member States – has been expanding, expanding and becoming more diverse and complex, with a land border no less than on the African continent – Ceuta and Melilla – and, at the other end, with Russia and Belarus, the chances of rogue rulers around us trying to pressure or blackmail the whole Union, exerting direct pressure on some borders, have been increasing. And we have two options. The first, to panic and act reactively without strategy, without binding rules and, in addition, with the trial and error that lead again and again to failure and, therefore, to failure. The second option is to act together, with respect for our law – and, of course, for our values – and to build a response system that tells our entire neighbourhood that the European Union will not give in to any pressure because it will act together, in accordance with its values and in accordance with its law. This is what we are trying so hard to build, at last, a Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will not be the complete answer until we achieve a global scale, a global stature and a diplomatic muscle, so that we can talk about you to our neighbourhood and to all the world's relevant actors. Until, in addition, we undertake illicit trafficking at source and are able, by opening legal channels, to incentivize third States to negotiate with them, where appropriate, dignified and voluntary conditions for the return of persons who have entered the European Union irregularly. That's the answer. And I insist that there is no way to panic in violation of the rules of European law: That temptation has been tried again and again and leads to failure.

Dear colleague, I thank you for your question. Don’t you think I’m ready to answer? Don’t you see that precisely because in Spain, there has not been any legal change in the Constitutional Court, any legal change in the Supreme Court, any legal change in the judiciary, the only challenge, the only threat on the independence of the judiciary in Spain is precisely the blocking of the Judicial Council imposed by the PP, which is denying the necessary votes in order to shape up the three fifths. Besides, precisely because judges are independent in Spain, they are free to raise their constitutional questions before the Constitutional Court, which suspend the legal procedure and the judicial procedure, which is underway, and to raise the preliminary rulings before the European Court of Justice accepted to do the same. Why do they so in Spain? Precisely because... (The President cut off the speaker)

Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on the threat to the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, and the European idea in Hungary, goes back as far as 2010, thirteen years ago. As of 2015, the discussion extends to Poland. What is the common thread? What is the causal nucleus of this sequence? Well, obviously, an absolute majority in both countries that has imposed its programs without regard, without respect for minorities, with restriction of pluralism and with a special sadness with the independence of the judiciary. That is exactly why we put in place the permanent framework of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. That is exactly why, four years ago, Commissioner Reynders, you presented the annual report and the accompanying national report to the committee I chair. That is exactly why we in this European Parliament adopted a regulation on conditionality to make access to European funds conditional on strict compliance with European legislation. Because that's the rule of the game. We all stick to it and all Member States are obliged to comply with it and, of course, so is Hungary. Conditionality should therefore not be lifted until there is at last alignment with the judgments of the Court of Justice as the ultimate guarantor of the direct and binding primacy and effectiveness of European law over that of the Member States. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure)

Mr President, Commissioner, Spanish Presidency, this 2019-2024 term started with high expectations: a Conference on the Future of Europe which brought together here, in this very Chamber, representations from all strata of open societies, drawing the European Union in its diversity. The European Parliament took up these conclusions and has worked hard on them for two long years. And all the committees in this Parliament have been involved, including the one I chair, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. And the result is eloquent (what will it be!): a strengthening of the parliamentarisation of European policy and, consequently, of the investiture of the Commission Presidency; a strengthening of the legislative initiative so that it is not indirect, but direct, in the European Parliament; a strengthening of social policies, of course, and a strengthening of equality and, in particular, of gender equality. And now, what's left? It is clear that the Council will finally transfer those conclusions in order to trigger the procedure for reforming the Treaties referred to in Article 48 by means of a Convention. And I add: Without a reform of the Treaties it is not only impossible, but unfeasible and even unthinkable, that enlargement with which we fill our mouths. Reform of the Treaties is a precondition for the enlargement we are talking about.

Madam President, I join those who cry out against the pain caused by this humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. They condemn the violence inflicted on innocent people, whether they are Israeli victims of Hamas, whether they are Palestinian victims of the Israeli military response. But speaking of humanitarian tragedies beyond our jurisdiction, I would also not like to ignore that there are some humanitarian tragedies that do fall within our jurisdiction and require a response on a European scale. The humanitarian tragedy of the lives lost at sea and crying out for a European rescue and rescue mechanism for which we have urged so much from this European Parliament to the Commission. Just as people knocking on the door of the European Union are calling for a more humane response and encountering fragmentary responses that lead to absolutely wrong steps, such as the one we have seen in the agreement of the Meloni Government with Albania to create internment camps outside the territory of the European Union. Let us be consistent, offer a humanitarian response at once within the Pact on Migration and Asylum and complete that Pact in this legislature.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the abominable murder of Daphne Caruana, a courageous investigative journalist in Malta, now took place six years ago. And, unfortunately, she has not been the only journalist or the only journalist killed in the Member States in recent years. And yet this Parliament has deduced the lessons. It has passed legislation against truculent litigation to intimidate journalists or silence (SLAPP), and the Media Freedom Act. In addition, it has put in place a rule of law framework that teaches us a very clear lesson: the difference between those states that have been flagged for a clear risk of a serious and systemic violation of the European idea of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and those in which there may be an episode of concern but which do not pose a systemic threat to the rule of law. And I think it is unfair to point out Malta as a threat to the rule of law, because it is not. In fact, Malta is undergoing reforms aimed not only at updating its judicial system, but also at incorporating the recommendations of the Venice Commission and protecting freedom of expression in the sense indicated by the mandates of this European Parliament. Therefore, if we do not want to practice double standards, let us start by saying quite clearly that a systemic threat to the rule of law is not the same as using the rule of law against a Member State of the European Union.

Mr Vice-President Šefčovič, Spanish Presidency, on the issues to be dealt with by the next Council, I focus on the opportunity to close the commitment with this European Parliament to approve in this mandate the Pact on Migration towards the five regulations. But you, Vice-President Šefčovič, have alluded to three outstanding issues that are not in the five regulations. The first is to combat illicit trafficking networks. The second is to incentivise and enhance the returns decreed by the Member States. And the third, legal pathways —open legal and safe pathways. What happens is that you have mentioned them consecutively, when in reality the relationship is causal in reverse order. Only by opening legal and safe channels will it be possible to dismantle the business model of the mafias that traffic in people and, in addition, to get third States, of origin and transit, to accept returns, which currently does not happen. And I tell you, moreover, that I have heard nonsense about the failure of immigration policy in the European Union. What fails is non-policy and it is high time we closed the engagement with the European Parliament.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Dalli, Spanish Presidency, you yourselves have described the issue. Since Putin’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, 11 million displaced people have fled the conflict and entered EU territory. 90% of these people are highly vulnerable women and children. They are protected by the Temporary Protection Directive, which means free movement, choice of residence and access to public services guaranteeing fundamental rights. This European Parliament adopted a strong resolution in May 2022 stating that among those fundamental rights are sexual and reproductive health rights, including obstetrics – the termination of the unwanted pregnancy of Ukrainian women in any territory of the EU. It happens that 60% of these women are in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. Not by chance – they are countries bordering the conflict zone, but they do not guarantee that obstetrics and termination of pregnancy and, in particular, not even the necessary care in pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum when the pregnancy is finally consummated. This Parliament is therefore doing the right thing by drawing the attention of European public opinion and the citizens it represents by saying that it is necessary to guarantee the rights of women in vulnerable situations in any corner of the European Union with equality. And, of course, it is also necessary to guarantee sexual and reproductive health rights.

Mr President Angel, Vice-President Jourová, Spanish Presidency, for more than a year, this European Parliament set up a committee of inquiry of which I had the honour of being a member, and we worked very hard to account for the reported abuses of an intrusive espionage technology, in principle incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We drew conclusions and the Commission is taking a long time to fulfil our mandate. The first conclusion was, of course, an unmitigated condemnation of any abuse of that spying technique aimed at intimidating, blackmailing or silencing not journalists and press freedom, but legal professionals or political opponents, something indiscriminately incompatible, therefore, with European law. But, in addition, we demand that the use, sale or acquisition of these espionage programs be regulated, and that the necessary judicial authorization be regulated by the European Union with data protection, confidentiality of personal communications and also special protection for those people who enjoy immunity or professional secrecy because they are journalists. In addition, we want there to be a national security clause established by European law and for there to also be an independent reference laboratory of the European Union to account for when a personal communications device has been intrusively intervened by these espionage programs available to many Member States of the European Union.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, we were very pleased to hear you begin your speech by highlighting the value of Schengen, equivalent to free movement, which was for a long time the distinctive domain of the Member States of the Union. But it ceased to be so when we set up what is now the most precious asset of the European experience: freedom of movement, a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter. And now we are connecting nothing less than the Schengen acquis, which integrates 500 million people who move freely in an area without internal borders, with a competence that was also for a long time distinctive of the Member States and that ceased to be so when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: the competence on visas; that is to say, the authorisation to enter that area of free movement. It turns out that, just as we have put into force since the European Parliament a Schengen Borders Code and a Schengen Governance Code, updating it recently, there is also a European Visa Code - for which I was indeed rapporteur - with an annex that identifies those third states that are exempt from the visa requirement on reciprocity conditions so that their citizens can enter the European Union in the same way that ours move freely around the world. We are now giving European visa policy and legislation a decisive tool because we are simplifying, modernising, unifying and harmonising the conditions for issuing visas. And, at the same time, we are reducing the levels of fraud possible because we are digitising them, because we are putting in place an advanced digital tool, the database of which will be managed by the specialised European agency, the Tallinn-based eu-LISA. It is therefore a major – even a giant – step in this European harmonisation of visa policy, so that we can share up-to-date and digitised biometric identification of all persons entering through the Union’s borders, in order to reduce levels of fraud and increase levels of legal certainty. We have not done the full work because we wanted to take the opportunity to finally mandate Member States to incorporate the humanitarian visa that reduces irregular immigration. legal and safe pathways, including humanitarian visa. We have lost the opportunity because the Council prevents it, but we will not give up on our efforts because it also has to do, indeed, with the change of sight that is required by the whole European Union towards regular migration. Persons wishing to enter the European Union for legitimate work purposes should also be able to enjoy free movement.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner Reynders, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I hope that in the face of other common challenges such as migration and asylum, the European Union will be as united as it has been in the face of Putin's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. This Parliament has adopted all the packages of measures that have been happening over time: humanitarian measures, with the Temporary Protection Directive; economic, with the restriction of gas, coal and oil imports; and diplomats, excluding the Council of Europe and even the G-8. But, after eleven packages of measures and a timed war that lasts more than two years, now it remains to focus on ensuring the correct implementation to avoid, in the first place, that Russia can bypass the globalized economy and avoid the impact of sanctions, and that we do not end up buying Russian gas through India or exporting cars to Russia through Kazakhstan. And there are also two pending decisions to be made. The first is to ensure that the confiscation of Russian goods and assets serves the financing of the reconstruction of Ukraine; and, secondly, to implement remedial measures for those economic sectors most affected by the maintenance of sanctions, such as the port or the carrier.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, Mr representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, yesterday we celebrated with excitement the 10th anniversary of a tragic shipwreck in Lampedusa and, since then, there have been many tragedies and, on every occasion, we have heard the desperate cry of 'where is Europe?' in some corner of the European Union's external borders. Well, Europe is represented here and this European Parliament represents it and has done its job. In recent years, we have continuously called for a European rescue and rescue framework and have done our work to adopt our negotiating mandate with the five regulations that make up the Pact on Migration and Asylum, seeking a finally acceptable balance between responsibility – which we want to be shared – and solidarity – which we want to be binding and effective – after rescue and rescue operations to prevent tragedies, in fulfilment of the Lisbon Treaty mandate. This Parliament has agreed with itself, overcoming its differences. It is high time for the Council to agree with itself, overcoming its differences. We already know that this issue is divisive, but it is high time for the Council to think of more than national interests in contradiction and think of Europe, Europeans, solidarity between Member States and solidarity with migrants. Mr representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, to end this mandate without results in this Pact on Migration and Asylum would be not only a discouraging message, but a devastating one, because it would mean acknowledging that Europe is incapable of fulfilling not its promise, but its obligations in terms of law, its own primary law and its legislated law. This Parliament is therefore prepared to work night and day to seek agreement with the Council. There's not a minute to waste.

Mr President, representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, not far from where we are talking is the seat of the Council of Europe, whose most important product is the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights, also based in Strasbourg. The enormous prestige enjoyed for a time by the Council of Europe was to promote the rule of law, human rights and peace on the European continent. Everything was twisted when Ukraine, Georgia... and Russia entered simultaneously, which fought a war against Georgia first, and then against Ukraine, until it was expelled last year. And now we see that intermittent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both also members of the Council of Europe. The European Union has not only the challenge of making full use of humanitarian aid for people fleeing oppression in one of the enclaves at stake, Nagorno-Karabakh, but also the challenge of restoring security in Europe through diplomacy so that Europe is not only a continent free of the death penalty, but also a guarantor of peace.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, Schengen is the most precious asset, surely the best achievement of the European experience and the fundamental right that Europeans enjoy the most. Therefore, based on mutual trust, any violation of the rules of that area without internal borders – which needs governance – must be taken very seriously by the Commission, which is the guardian of the Treaties and European law. And we are talking about nothing less than a large-scale corrupt sale of visas to enter the Schengen area. Therefore, the Commission has every duty to go absolutely to the heart of this investigation, whatever the country concerned and whatever the number of visas - and it is alarming what some media outlets are publishing! - that have been exposed to this corrupt scheme. We are not just talking about the fundamental right to free movement and access to a Europe without borders and the proper governance of Schengen in accordance with mutual trust; We are talking about the fight against corruption. And if this European Parliament has put the accent on asking the Commission to eliminate citizenship and residence programmes for investors, how is it not going to ask the Commission to take seriously this corrupt scheme of selling visas for access to the Schengen area, something absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with the fundamental right to free movement, and to demand all responsibilities in this regard?

Madam President, without free access to information and information pluralism, there is no democracy worthy of the name. It has been known since the constitutional debate in the United States 250 years ago, and it is known by the European Union because of the binding nature of this freedom of information and this freedom of the press for which, at last, this European Parliament is making a legislative commitment. Transparency, independence of public media, protection and shielding of journalists from truculent litigation to intimidate or gag them, let alone spy on or prosecute them. This is a step in the right direction of history and a step in the right direction of full compliance with the binding mandate of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It must therefore be said that now is the time for freedom of information and pluralism of information to also be part of the framework of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights that the Commission regularly reports to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs so that all Member States know that this Parliament is absolutely serious.

Mr President, Commissioner Ferreira, citizenship and democracy. We heard about it in a debate with President von der Leyen, unfortunately undermined by interventions in Spanish that, despising the European agenda, only had as an obsession to denigrate the Government of Spain and the Spanish Presidency. But the truth is that none of the major objectives of democratic deepening, including the recognition of even linguistic diversity, will be practicable if we do not clear up the difficulties of the method of decision-making and the unanimity rule, with the consequent reform of the Treaties. And of course it is the case of the enlargement to a European Union of up to thirty-three members of which President von der Leyen also spoke. But we also heard him say that the New Pact on Migration and Asylum is a combination of sovereignty, solidarity and security. The truth is that sovereignty and security are the aspirations and demands of the Member States, while solidarity and cohesion – not only between Member States, but also solidarity with the citizens of third countries trying to reach the European Union from despair – are the real challenge and that is the outstanding account not only of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, but of the democratic deepening in the European Union.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, I am speaking in this debate on a European initiative to regulate prostitution, which is being promoted by our colleague, Mrs Noichl, to support it. Because it connects with a reality that describes a landscape of exploitation of women in a phenomenon of transnational dimension and connected with cross-border criminal networks. Therefore, it does deserve criminal treatment that is also connected with the Anti-Trafficking Directive, in which I have the honour of being the rapporteur of the Socialist Group. The initiative aims at three objectives: prevention, exit programmes, but also, very importantly, demand reduction by sending a message to the Member States to criminalise the use of prostitution and, therefore, to criminalise the purchase of sex which is taught about the body, freedom, equality and dignity of women. And it must also be done because this criminalization is the only way to dismantle the business model of networks that traffic in people, illicit trafficking and the exploitation of women. And it is an objective not only perfectly consistent with those supported by the Socialist Party in Spain and its Government, but also within the reach of the living generation of European citizens.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Hahn, challenges as enormous as the pandemic and Russia's illegal war against Ukraine have accelerated the European Union's proclaimed will to achieve its strategic autonomy as soon as possible. And here we have it. A recently unthinkable initiative, a European law to secure the supply of critical raw materials, which aims to reduce our dependence on a small number of countries, including China, from which 90% of imports come. But an essential chapter of this European law is precisely the one that commits funding and investments in the research of the supply of fundamental materials in the European Union. I have learned that there are ongoing research projects in the Member States, including a pioneering project by two Canarian universities that has found two rare earth deposits and critical raw materials in Fuerteventura. Projects as innovative as this deserve the full support of the European Union. Be it in this unsuspected corner, Fuerteventura, as in any corner of the European Union, we must do everything possible to ensure the safe and sustainable supply of critical raw materials.

Mr President, in this European Parliament, in all languages, there are protests against this agreement with Tunisia, which is inconsistent with European legislation and with the strategy we have given ourselves - a pact on migration and asylum that is consistent with our values, the only opportunity for it to be effective. 700 million for an authoritarian involution in Tunisia that tries to alleviate the migratory flow that Italy is suffering. What are we going to say in the face of the migratory flow that the Canary Islands are suffering at the moment as a result of the instability in Senegal, following the attempted self-reelection of President Macky Sall? The Canary Islands are currently suffering from the onslaught of no less than 2 000 people almost every weekend – in a context of irregular migration – who, once again, are fleeing despair. How coherent is all this with the commitment we have made that all elements of the equation - including the external dimension, but also, of course, binding solidarity in the redistribution of those arriving from unstable, insecure or absolutely unlivable countries - will finally have a response at European level? How long are we going to continue to patch up what a European policy that deserves that name requires?

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, in 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 40 and 41 of which enshrine state-of-the-art fundamental rights: the right to transparency, access to documents and good governance. There is a whole history of resolutions by this European Parliament ordering that the directive currently in force - which is no less than 2001, the 1049/2001 - be finally updated, which is manifestly obsolete. There is case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: the De Capitani 1 and De Capitani 2 judgments guarantee the right of access even to the information handled in the trilogues, at the final stage of the legislative procedure between the European Parliament and the Council. And the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, always points out that there is an inconceivable, intolerable delay in access to documents, even by citizens who request it. Therefore, it is not only about platforms and portals, nor only about using the available technological tools. The aim is to ensure that European legislation is updated – as proposed in our colleague Evin Incir’s report – to ensure that the right to information, access to documents and transparency are effectively realised as an essential component of democracy. And I add more. This Parliament has taken great care to combat disinformation, poisoning, fake news and hoaxes. It is an essential component to combat disinformation that citizens have the right to access the right information in the way the European institutions operate, which even affects the apex of the European institutions and the European Commission, as has been recalled here. There is a political issue concerning the communications of the President of the Commission with large pharmaceutical companies. This Parliament has a right to know. It is a question of democracy, Madam Vice-President.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Johansson, in 2019 I had the honour of being rapporteur for a resolution of this European Parliament calling for a European rescue and rescue framework. Four years later, thousands of people died – people killed in shipwrecks and tragedies – not only on the Mediterranean route, but also on the Atlantic route, via the Canary Islands to the European Union. A European rescue and rescue framework would give coastguards and Member States that European network with a reinforced Frontex mandate to coordinate rescue operations at sea, and not only those, but also safe-port landings and humanitarian assistance, identification and international protection once ashore. This is the added value of the European rescue and rescue framework: legal and safe routes, safe disembarkation, non-criminalisation of non-governmental organisations and a solidarity network on which they can rest, so that neither coast guards nor Member States are left to their own devices, which is the lament that has become a repetitive psalmody four years after the first time this European Parliament debated rescue and rescue at European level.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, from the Council conclusions I shall focus on the point where you say you regret the succession of deaths, tragedies and shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. He wants to seek a European solution that tackles its root causes – irregular migration – and notes that Hungary and Poland invoke consensus, a euphemism with which they intend to demand unanimity that allows them to continue blocking any European solution in this regard. For there is a European solution, and this Parliament demands it in a monographic debate: a European rescue and rescue mechanism to coordinate the now fragmented and insufficient efforts of the coast guards of the Member States and to create a solidarity network that requires assistance not only to these coast guards, but to the whole of the European Union in the humanitarian situations that arise in the identification and assistance of irregular migrants and, of course, in the protection that asylum seekers deserve. This, and no other, is the effective European response that addresses the root causes of irregular immigration, as well as the opening of legal and safe pathways.

Mr President, Commissioner, once again this European Parliament insists, with a choral polyphony, that Romania and Bulgaria finally join Schengen and fully enjoy that fundamental right so precious to European citizenship, which is free movement on an equal basis with all others. They have fulfilled all the criteria, they have done their homework, their task to enjoy Schengen, and they still do not enjoy it despite the fact that this European Parliament has supported that just claim for a long time. But one of them is this debate that we had in this House twenty-four hours ago: the need to go beyond the unanimity rule and replace it with a qualified majority. Because – let everyone know – if Romania and Bulgaria are not yet in Schengen, it is because there are two Member States out of 27 that are still opposed, and only one of them is opposed to one of the two countries. It is therefore inconceivable that, because two of the 27 states still oppose each other, Romania and Bulgaria will have that account pending with the full enjoyment of their European citizenship which is Schengen.

Madam President, Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Commissioner Reynders, for the fourth time in the European Parliament we are discussing the Rule of Law Report, which seeks to put a European framework in place for the weaknesses shown by the activation of Article 7, for serious risk of breach of the rule of law, against Hungary and against Poland. Precisely it is a permanent, periodic, annual and objective framework in its parameters that already gives clear lessons. The first is the need to distinguish situations of systemic risk against the common values of the Treaty on European Union from those that may present problems that merit comment, but do not represent a systemic threat. As the report is accompanied by 27 reviews of the rule of law in the Member States – in each and every one of them – I cannot help but refer to a reference to Spain, which I have just heard from my colleague the People's Party spokesman, Mr Rangel. Spain has made progress in terms of efficiency and quality of justice, which the report acknowledges, in terms of transparency and registration of interests, and also in terms of the right to defence. Spain has no problem of pluralism in the media that depend on the Spanish public radio and television system. It does have a problem with the Council of the Judiciary, which is the governing body of the Judiciary. And you know what the problem is? The problem is that the Constitution mandates that it be renewed in its entirety every five years. The last time it was renewed was in 2013 with an absolute majority and Government of the Popular Party. Expired in 2018. We are in 2023; It's been five years. Therefore, the General Council of the Judiciary has expired for no less than five years, to the serious detriment of the prestige of Justice, of the Administration of Justice, of the filling of vacancies in the judicial system, of the right to justice, of access to justice, of the effective judicial protection of 47 million Spaniards. And there is a single official, who is the only political actor, who in the Cortes Generales refuses to be part of the three fifths necessary to renew the General Council of the Judiciary at once. The message is therefore very clear: first, it must be renewed in accordance with the rules in force; That is what Commissioner Reynders' report says. Secondly, there is a need to discuss and reform the system for electing members of the Council, the 12 court-appointed members and the 12 jurists of recognised competence. First, to renew in accordance with the rules in force and then, where appropriate, to debate and reform. But first renew. That is the obligation, according to the rules and according to the lessons of Commissioner Reynders' Rule of Law report.

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, it has not only been the Conference on the Future of Europe, when citizens have been heard, but also this European Parliament has rebelled, time and again, against the unanimity that results in blocking not only crucial decisions, but also European legislation, as is the painful case of the anti-discrimination directive, the so-called horizontal directive against all forms of discrimination. That is why this report, which proposes, at last, to use the passerelle clause, which at least makes it possible to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting and, consequently, to the ordinary legislative procedure, makes perfect sense. The first step is the multiannual financial framework. The second step: the common foreign security and defence policy, which cannot be blocked by the unanimity rule. Then, the fundamental own resources so that the European Union can honour the ambitions it proclaims and, finally, the anti-discrimination legislation and, of course, the legislation that affects democracy and the quality of democracy in the European Union, including the electoral system, which will be debated in this same plenary session of the European Parliament. It makes perfect sense: passerelle clause to avoid unanimity.