What Eider spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, enlargement – especially after Russia’s war against Ukraine – has returned to the top of our political agenda. That is why the final approval of this growth and reform plan for the Western Balkans is so important. With this EUR 6 billion for 2024-2027, we once again demonstrate our commitment to this region and give a definitive impetus to a much-needed reform agenda to best address future enlargement. With regard to the rule of law, democracy, equality, the environment or social policies are priority areas for the European Union and are therefore also an essential part of this Regulation. In addition, half of these funds will be channeled through an investment platform that will mobilize funding to invest in areas of transport, digitalization, education or skills development. With this regulation we put an end to the intense and good work that we have done this legislature in the Committee on Budgets. But we put an end to it with a look into the future.

Mr President, this is the umpteenth debate of this legislature on the violation of the rule of law in Hungary, an issue that has been at the forefront of our list of concerns and also at the forefront of our actions during these five years, because this has been the legislature in which we have approved the mechanism of conditionality of funds to respect the rule of law, undoubtedly a key instrument in this fight. This has also been the legislature in which we have seen how this violation of rights has serious financial consequences for the Government that perpetrates it. The Hungarian government, through its actions, has prevented the recovery plan and part of the European budget from being invested in its country. The Commission must analyse the situation in Hungary with the utmost rigour and demand and must not defrost funds until each and every one of the conditions has been fulfilled in an effective and real way. And the Council has to move forward on Article 7. We must use all the tools we have at our disposal, because we cannot and must not falter in defending our values.

Madam President, this is the end of the debate we have had on three fundamental dossiers. One of them is the revision of the multiannual financial framework; As we said, this is the first time in history that the multiannual financial framework with more funding for the programmes has actually been revised. Another one is the Ukraine Facility; This is finally a structured plan to help Ukrainians resist and win. And finally, the STEP Platform, which is the cornerstone of that path to strategic autonomy. They have been six rapporteurs, we have been six rapporteurs, three committees, many shadow rapporteurs from other political groups, they have been great working teams. I believe that we have worked in coordination, we have worked to improve the proposals and I sincerely believe that we have achieved it. So I am convinced that these negotiations, these agreements, are going to have great support, that they are going to be widely endorsed and that finally, in the case of Ukraine, the money is going to come in the next few days. But this is not the end point of any discussion, because as soon as we approve this we have to start working on the next proposals. We have to start thinking now, designing, what the next multiannual financial framework has to look like, what the new fiscal capacity has to look like. And we do not need to wait for the Draghi report, which we will all read with great interest, to know that hundreds of billions of euros are needed if we are to catch up in competitiveness, if we are to catch up with China or with the United States. What we are talking about is almost an annual recovery plan, in terms of volumes, and therefore we have to start designing those plans to see how we incorporate them into the 2028 multiannual financial framework, but we cannot wait until 2028 to launch these new capabilities. We have to see, above all, how we are going to finance it, because the own resources are still pending to be able to finance the recovery plan and we will have to continue looking for resources where there is more: in the rich, in the companies, in the superheritages, to be able to finance all this great public and private investment, because if we are not going to be left behind and that we cannot allow it.

Mr President, Commissioner, two years have passed since the beginning of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and in these two years the EU's support for Ukraine has been unequivocal and unwavering. From a humanitarian point of view, we have not only sent humanitarian aid, but Europe has welcomed millions of Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war. From a military point of view, both the EU and most of its Member States have sent military equipment and supplies, in addition to having participated in the training of Ukrainian personnel. From a political point of view, we have adopted 13 packages of sanctions and it has also been agreed to start accession negotiations. And from an economic point of view, we approved in 2022 and 2023 macro-financial assistance packages worth €25.2 billion, to which we now add €50 billion from the Ukraine Facility. We would have liked to be able to approve it sooner, but Hungary's veto in December blocked any progress and any negotiations with the European Parliament. In February, we finally got that agreement to revise the Multiannual Financial Framework that I want to value, starting because it is the first time we really revised the Multiannual Financial Framework by adding resources for new needs and new challenges. With this review, we have strengthened migration and neighbourhood programmes, increased the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve and, in addition, created the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, better known as STEP, and we have also achieved some more flexibility and a new mechanism for the payment of interest on Next Generation debt. But, as always, many good proposals have fallen by the wayside. We should have been more ambitious or even more consistent with our own position by funding a genuine strategic autonomy programme, we should have looked for a way to compensate for the loss of real impact of European programmes due to high inflation rates, and we should also have made more progress on a new system of own resources that would make it possible to repay the Next Generation EU without having to resort to increased budgetary transfers from Member States. But what we did get was the EUR 50 billion to continue supporting Ukraine, so that it can defend itself, so that it can win and so that it can start working on its future. With this programme we will provide decisive financial support to the Ukrainian Government so that it can maintain its functions and continue to provide basic public services. We are going to help them recover, rebuild and modernize their country. And we will also provide them with technical support to establish a reform plan that will allow them, in the future, to join the European Union. Our negotiations with the Council were relatively simple, as we shared the need to give the green light to the programme as soon as possible and we also shared the content of the programme. However, in these negotiations we have strengthened the conditions of access to the fund as regards the rule of law, the fight against corruption, the fight against money laundering, circumvention, tax evasion and fraud and organised crime. We have also strengthened the role of the Verkhovna Rada, civil organisations and, in addition, allocated 20% of Pillar I investments to local authorities. On the other hand, we have strengthened the social dimension, the fight against inequality and gender-based violence, mental health care in a context of war, special attention to children and people with disabilities. The fight against climate change is also a basic pillar of this programme and we will allocate at least 20% of Pillar II and Pillar I investments in this regard. And finally, I want to reiterate that Russia must be held accountable and pay for the enormous damage caused. And we pledge to continue working to ensure that confiscated Russian assets can be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Ukraine has had our support since the first day of the invasion and will have it until we manage to put an end to this barbarism. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, the fact that there was no agreement last December on the revision of the multiannual financial framework was not good news. We have to make urgent budgetary decisions, because fundamental policies depend on it. We can start with the most obvious: financial support to Ukraine. With no agreement in December to mobilise EUR 50 billion, we will have to pull once again imagination and exceptional instruments so as not to cause a bigger problem for Ukrainians than they already have. We can continue with STEP: an obviously insufficient response if we really want to support investments in critical technologies. And it is an insufficient response, yes, but at least it would exist if the revision of the financial framework were approved. We can also talk about the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which has no funds, or about the consequences of the war in Ukraine in neighbouring countries, to name just a few of the needs and problems that we have on the table. So I hope that in the February Council they will not leave the room until they have found an agreement, but an agreement consistent with their own commitments. I also hope that the February meeting will not be overwhelmed by any casual release of funds for Hungary. We warned you at the time that we did not share your assessment of the compliance of the Hungarian Government at all and that is why, as we have agreed, we will evaluate that decision and act accordingly. This Union – which is based on values, principles and commitments – cannot falter before anything or anyone. And at the next Council, the Commission and the Council have a great opportunity to discuss.

Mr President, on 10 November we had the Conciliation Committee meeting at which we reached the budget agreement for 2024 and I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteurs, the European Commission and Commissioner Hahn and, of course, the Spanish Presidency for their work and for their efforts to be able to achieve this agreement. A much-needed agreement to start a year that will be full of uncertainties, with several crises and global challenges, which will only be able to be faced if we have the political will, but, above all, the financial capacity. The agreement reached last Friday is not a bad deal. We have been able to reinforce essential policies with almost 800 million euros, one of the highest figures in recent years. Research on persistent COVID, young farmers, the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), culture through Creative Europe, the fight against gender-based violence and, of course, our Erasmus students will also be able to count on that extra funding. And, on the other hand, taking into account the global context, humanitarian aid, the southern and eastern neighbourhood and, of course, also the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East will be able to count on these important economic reinforcements. But in this negotiation we have pushed the budget to the limit using all the flexibility instruments and leaving just a little room for possible unforeseen events. And this demonstrates the need to revise the financial framework. So I ask the Council, and especially the Presidency, for a final budgetary effort, a major budgetary effort, so that we can reach an agreement in the Council in December and show that Europe is where and with whom it has to be.

Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, today we are debating a proposal on new resources for the European budget and it is a first step, but it is obviously very insufficient. NextGenerationEU, Ukraine, Gaza, enlargement, strategic autonomy, immigration, support for businesses, young people and farmers, investments in new energies ... are needs of the present. And, to our mind, yesterday the Commission presented a €6 billion support plan for the Western Balkans. To want to face all this with dignity with a budget of 1% of GDP is ridiculous. And ridiculous is also to listen to some countries ask for cuts in fundamental policies to be able to finance all these new needs because there is no money. Banks and utilities are making record profits; financial transactions remain untaxed; big companies pay less tax than any citizen; The superrich pay between 0 and 0.5% of their wealth. There's the money. So be brave and make a proposal to make our system fairer and our budget stronger.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, today we bring to the debate this Parliament's position for the 2024 budget. We propose increases to strengthen the green and digital transitions, to improve the competitiveness of the economy, to support small and medium-sized enterprises, to develop the Union’s strategic autonomy, to increase the Erasmus programme, to further support the cultural industry or also to enable our young farmers to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, war and price increases. That is, with this budget we have and want to protect our sectors and our citizens. And that solidarity is also more necessary than ever outside our borders, for the war against Ukraine, for the situation in the Middle East and for the millions of people who, for economic, political or natural disasters, have lost everything. And, although it seems a lot, I would say that our position is almost a position of minimums. We are asking for an increase of EUR 6.3 billion, which compared to the total European budget is a very moderate increase. And with regard to the Union's GDP, it is a derisory increase. But that increase can change the lives of many people inside and outside our borders. But under the current financial framework we cannot begin to talk about needs, priorities or even vital emergencies, because we have no room for manoeuvre. And even the Commission has said so. So first things first: Let us negotiate a revision of the financial framework that will allow us to include all these proposals in our budget for next year.

. – Mr President, the truth is that I think we have already said everything about the content of the Mechanism. There was a good basic proposal from the European Commission and I believe that with the work we have done between the political groups we have substantially improved the Mechanism. So I would like to use this minute and little I have left to thank especially my co-rapporteur, Mr Gahler, for his great willingness, good cooperation and dedication also to be able to find an agreement as co-rapporteurs. And then, of course, this proposal could not have gone ahead without the commitment, the work and all the input from all the political groups and shadow rapporteurs. I think we saw very quickly those points where there were nuances. And I say nuances because we didn't have different opinions, but we had somewhat different ways of looking at things, but we sorted it out quickly. There has always been a willingness on the part of all political groups to work fast and to have a proposal at the height of the circumstances. I believe that this is what has enabled us to have this proposal as the European Parliament: a plan aimed at supporting Ukraine, the Government of Ukraine, municipalities, regions and civil society in Ukraine. A plan with the greatest possible participation, with clear objectives, with very strict controls. And that's what we've put a lot of emphasis on. And that is, in short, what has united us in all the groups, which I hope will receive majority support in this House, because the important thing is that we can start negotiating quickly with the Council and that this plan - as I said in my first speech - enters into force in January 2024 because, otherwise, we will not have arrived in time. And the Ukrainians, of course, need our full support.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine we have mobilised funds to support Ukraine politically, economically and socially. Continuing this support is a priority and it is therefore absolutely necessary and urgent that we approve this new mechanism of EUR 50 billion in loans and grants. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has caused multimillion-dollar economic damage to Ukraine, as well as a significant drop in public revenue. Public expenditure to address the humanitarian situation and maintain the continuity of State services has increased markedly. They will agree with me that it would be fair for Russia and its allies to pay for the damage done to Ukraine. That is why in our report we call on the Commission to establish, in close cooperation with other institutions and countries, a legal basis allowing us to confiscate Russian public goods in order to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine and compensate the victims of Russian aggression. The amount confiscated would be in addition to the amount already entered by the Union in the mechanism we are discussing here today. A mechanism under which we want to bring together different support programmes for Ukraine and thus give it greater coordination and coherence. With this mechanism, we will provide predictable and flexible support to the Ukrainian government so that it can maintain its functions and provide public services. We will help the recovery, reconstruction and modernisation of the country and we will also support a reform plan in Ukraine as part of its path to EU membership. To this end, the Government of Ukraine, together with civil society and local and regional authorities, will have to draw up a plan which will also have to be approved by the Rada. This plan, as we did with the European Recovery and Resilience Plan, should have a detailed list of reforms and investments, with defined milestones and a clear timetable. The aim is also to invest in Ukraine’s transition towards a green, sustainable, digital and inclusive economy. It is urgent to provide decent living conditions for the Ukrainian population, rebuild critical infrastructure and ensure the generation of decent employment. It is clear that key challenges remain, essential for Ukraine to be able to fully assume its obligations in its future membership of the Union. This mechanism is also an opportunity to do so. Ukraine needs to strengthen the rule of law and ensure the independence of the judiciary. The fight against corruption, against oligarchic structures and against organised crime must be improved. It has to fight money laundering and tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax fraud. And it has, among other things, to strengthen transparency and public access to information. Reconstruction is a long-term goal, very ambitious and with unquantifiable needs. But if we want to achieve this we need both the private sector and international organisations, financial institutions such as the EIB or the EBRD, Member States and third countries. To this end, this mechanism has an exclusive pillar dedicated to the support and coordination of all these actors in which we want to pay special attention and specific support to small and medium-sized enterprises. Finally, the mechanism also has a third pillar that will provide technical assistance and other support measures to municipalities and civil society. As was the case in the pandemic with the Recovery and Resilience Plan, I believe that the EU is also right not only to provide economic support to Ukraine, but also to do so through a coherent, flexible mechanism with short-, medium- and even long-term investment and reform objectives. The content is ready; now we have to approve it here - I hope - and negotiate it with the Council so that it arrives on time and is in force in 2024.

Madam President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, I have only two minutes to convince the 27 countries of the Council of the need to revise the multiannual financial framework, to provide it with more resources to deal with all the challenges that lie ahead with dignity. In this review we are not talking about being ambitious or preparing for the future, we are talking about giving urgent responses to several crises and, also, the opportunity cost of not doing so. Responses to several crises, starting with the war against Ukraine, where our support as a Union is not in doubt, but where we now have the opportunity to finance a plan with clear objectives and controls. But we cannot concentrate our entire foreign policy on Ukraine: Moldova also needs our support. The Pact on Migration and Asylum also needs resources, not to mention all the refugees we need to protect; how we protected our citizens in the COVID-19 crisis: We protected their health and jobs by launching Next Generation EU funds. Unfortunately, inflation and rising interest rates have put even more financial pressure on our budgets. The COVID-19 crisis and the war against Ukraine have exposed many of our weaknesses as a Union; These include our extreme dependence on third countries and the need to develop a European industrial policy with key investments in strategic sectors. And here we come to the opportunity cost. Are we willing to be dependent on everything and everything from third countries, not at all reliable in many cases? Not to have a political voice because of our weaknesses? Are we lagging behind in innovation, in the digital transition or in the fight against climate change? Are we willing to return to the austerity policies of 2010, to not have funds to help our citizens in the face of natural catastrophes or to not be able to protect our workers in a new crisis? This Parliament is not, and I hope the Council is not either. In this negotiation, its content is as important as its approval in time. Mr Michel was not happy to discuss with us today. I hope that he will not waste a single minute, that he will stand side by side with the Spanish Presidency and that, with the rest of the countries, he will be able to present a worthy proposal at the height of the circumstances to negotiate with this Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the economic and political context in Hungary is certainly not a good thing and this, in part, is a direct consequence of the actions and omissions of the Orbán government. The European Union has rules and, above all, more than that, it has principles and values of which we are very proud. If these are respected, we are in a winning situation: wins the country and wins the European Union as a whole. But if not, it is mainly Hungarian citizens who lose because they live in a country that does not respect fundamental rights, freedom of expression, minorities, freedom of the press or the independence of justice; It also loses the country as a whole because it cannot deploy Next Generation EU funds as we are doing in the rest of the countries of the European Union. And it also loses the government, because it will not be reimbursed for the European projects already carried out. The situation in Hungary is so raw and so sad. The solution is for the Orbán government to rectify and implement all the agreed measures, because here we are not going to take a step backwards in the defense of the rule of law.

Mr President, Commissioner, I have to admit that I am passionate about tax. I am passionate because I believe that taxes are the basis of politics. They are the ones that allow public policies to be financed and investments to be made. They are the ones that allow defining the development model. They are the ones that allow redistributing wealth to reduce inequalities, to protect the most vulnerable. For me, taxes are a matter of principle. They have ideology and ethics. And as much as I am passionate about this debate, I am surprised at how much it costs some to talk about some taxes, especially those that have the most. Because it seems that we have no problems with a VAT of 27% or with an income tax of up to 50%. There's no problem, because it's paid for by the working class. But what about the 1% of the population that owns as much as the remaining 99%? What about the superrich? What about companies leaving a country to avoid paying taxes? What about the super profits of the companies that have taken the most advantage of the crisis? Do you know that the oil companies last year won more than the entire budget of the European Union? And are banks and multinationals contributing to the best of their ability? We need to revise our tax model and it's time to do so. What do we do here if it is not to respond to the needs of society? We have to take a hit on the fiscal board. Let's be brave and turn it around.

Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that, after these years of shocks, what we are asking for when we look at 2024 is for it to be a quiet year. And, as a Parliament, what we need next year is to approve the maximum number of proposals and close with good note a legislature that has been obviously complicated. Because we are talking about key proposals that will define our transport network, energy interconnections, the tools we are going to implement to achieve climate neutrality, how we train our young people or how we help companies in the digital transition, and even how we welcome migrants and refugees. And all this is at stake in the coming months. For all that, we have to be prepared from a budgetary point of view. Precisely for that reason, I think that from the Committee on Budgets we look at 2024 with some budgetary anxiety - I would say - because we are aware that at the time when we closed the financial framework in the middle of the pandemic and, after the effort that was made with the Next Generation EU funds, it was not appropriate to tighten the rope more, but we also knew that the financial framework was not going to be enough. Time has proved us right. Every new need or every new decision that we have had to make, and that the Commission and the Member States have taken, has meant opening the budget and we have had to decide which programmes we cut in order to be able to give funds to new ones, reaching absurd cases such as cutting research funds and digital transition policies to finance semiconductor programs. So, and I finish, President - I know I have no time left - we need to be consistent with reality. We need the Commission to make a good proposal and the Council to take it as a priority.

Madam President, thank you all very much for this debate. I would like to take these last few minutes to thank Siegfried and Dragoş, my co-rapporteurs, once again for the great work they have done and all those who have collaborated in the REPowerEU negotiations. Just over a year ago we put forward the recovery plan, which marked a milestone in the European response, in European policy, and in this plenary we completed it with the REPowerEU. I think the deal is good. As we have seen, most of the political groups support it and I hope that tomorrow that support that we have already seen here will be reflected in a majority vote. But, obviously, this is not the end point, because we have many more needs on the table. I mentioned this earlier in my first speech: the European Commission has put in place an industrial policy strategy that needs to be clearly funded and unfortunately the money from neither the recovery plan nor the REPowerEU will not be available, because the objectives are different and the Member States are already perfectly determined on what they will use European funding. So I encourage the Commission, but also this Parliament, to work on new tools, on new methods of financing, and that we can put a powerful strategy, at the level of what the European Union needs, to move our industry forward with decent conditions for all.

Madam President, Commissioner, exactly one year ago, Russia invaded Ukraine by declaring a war with terrible human, geopolitical and economic consequences. The increase in energy prices has caused this year a rise in prices in food, supplies and products, with very negative consequences for families and companies. But, as with the pandemic, we have put in place a shock plan, in this case to lower the cost of energy, reduce the economic impact of the war and further advance the green transition. Because that is the priority objective of REPowerEU. To this end, Member States will have available existing appropriations under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and an additional €20 billion to propose measures, fight energy poverty, accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, reduce energy consumption, increase energy efficiency and expand storage capacities. When we negotiated the recovery plan, the context was totally different. Therefore, in part, the objectives and needs of that time were also different from those of today. Therefore, REPowerEU is a new and specific chapter of the Facility, containing special conditions in line with the new scenario. For example, and in line with the demands of the Member States, we have negotiated a limited derogation from the do-no-harm principle. But, as I say, limited. Because war cannot divert us from our climate goals. We remain determined to be a climate-neutral continent by 2050. To this end, we have introduced five conditions for granting this derogation. They have to be truly urgent and necessary measures to secure the electricity supply. Compensatory measures for extra carbon emissions have to be proposed and the 2030 and 2050 targets cannot be jeopardised. And, in addition, we have also set a cap on European funding. Negotiations with the Council were intense, but we have managed to make a number of changes to the Regulation. We have introduced a retroactivity clause at the start of the invasion. We have agreed on 20% pre-financing to provide liquidity to states. We have introduced the need for more transparency and Member States will have to provide a list of the 100 largest beneficiaries. We have also made cross-border projects a priority, and at least 30% of REPowerEU needs to be invested in it. These cross-border infrastructure needs are also reflected in the latest Commission Communication on how to improve the competitiveness of industry. In fact, that Communication has a lot to do with the recovery plans and the REPowerEU objectives. Because we are talking about the digital transition, the green transition, and also about structural funds, infrastructure programmes and innovation programmes. And don't get me wrong: I believe that an analysis of all existing programmes is appropriate, because it can help to achieve the objectives of this Communication. But we can't fool ourselves. These instruments respond to previous needs. They were already programmed, and so were their funds. That is, we cannot count three times because money only exists once. So, the sooner the better, let's all get to work on how to achieve the goals that are included in that industrial strategy. But let us design the right instruments, provide them with funding and put in place, once and for all, a real revenue policy, so that those who are making the greatest profits out of the European Union contribute their fair share to the success of the European project.

Mr President, Commissioner, today we are taking a very important step in the construction of Europe, we are moving forward in a crucial debate for our future because we are making progress in obtaining new resources that will allow us to reimburse the NextGeneration, an unprecedented plan that was launched to fight the effects of the coronavirus and now to fight the consequences of the war. This is a clear success of the European project, but, in particular, of this Parliament because, without having real legal powers in tax matters, we have managed to condition the political debate and, after many years, we have made this a reality. We have a roadmap to deliver on imperatively, because European credibility and the success of NextGeneration will depend on it. But we have to start working on new proposals, because Europe needs to strengthen its budget in order to be able to comply with everything that the citizens demand of us and with everything that the Member States entrust to us. Above all, because it makes much more sense for us to have a common fiscal policy that contributes to those who escape national systems, to those who pollute, to those who speculate and to those who benefit from the crisis. So, let's go for it.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, we can start from different points of view, we can have different views or nuances, we can even have different strategies, but there is nothing that can justify a different conclusion. Listening very carefully to the Commission's assessment, I understand that we have come to the same conclusion: the Hungarian Government does not respect the rule of law and that is seriously affecting the financial interests of the Union, which is the subject of the regulation we voted on in this House. Therefore, there is not much room for manoeuvre, there is not much room for nuance. We can only make one right decision: approve the freezing of funds. And why do I say this? We can start right at the end. Of the 17 measures agreed with the Hungarian government, only three have been put in place, and half of them, moreover, cannot be assessed, given that they are going to be put in place in a while and therefore we do not have enough information now. Thus, it is not being met and therefore the budget is still at risk. This is what the European Commission has to assess. But, in addition, if we analyze the seventeen measures, we can conclude that they are clearly insufficient and many of them inadequate. If we add to this that we are only talking about public procurement, that is, a small area where there are problems, obviously, we get a picture of the unpositive situation. In conclusion: three fulfilled measures cannot justify the decommitment of the funds. Because what message would we be sending if we gave in to Orban's blackmail?: that we don't care what's going on in a Member State? That twelve years of nonsense can be fixed in two months? Or is it that we're from Black Friday and, in addition to giving you the EUR 7.5 billion of cohesion funds, are we also going to approve the recovery plan? This would be neither understandable nor acceptable nor justifiable. We have to be consistent with what we have been defending for so long.

Madam President, Commissioner, I absolutely share your conclusions on the debate we have had. The first thing is that, as I said in my speech, we have to be able to balance the energy emergency with the climate emergency and I believe that, there, the proposal made by this Parliament with regard to the principle of 'do no significant harm'. It's pretty balanced. In any case, the important thing is that this Parliament is already going to vote tomorrow on a position which, because of the debate we have had here today, removing some discordant voices, is going to be an absolutely majority position and shared by the large groups in this House, and that, with that position, we are going to go to the negotiations. We are aware – and that is why we have worked very quickly in Parliament – of the urgency of reaching this agreement and, although we also share the need to improve and increase resources, of course this is not going to be something that will paralyse the negotiations. The important thing is that we have the instrument and that I believe that we are not far from being able to find a quick agreement; then, I wish that new resources were not needed, because it would mean that the instrument works and that we are getting out of that dependence on Russian gas, but, obviously, if it were necessary, it will always have the outstretched hand of this Parliament to be able to work on it. I conclude by thanking once again my co-rapporteurs Siegfried Mureşan and Dragoş Pîslaru, because we worked a lot on the recovery mechanism and this time, because we already knew each other better and it has been easier to reach these agreements, we have had a job that I believe has been perfectly embodied in this agreement, and the same with the rest of the groups that have made it easier to find a quick agreement, because they were political groups and committees with very different legitimate interests, but I believe that in the end in our proposal we have found that balance that we so badly need. So tomorrow we will vote and we will quickly open the negotiations.

Mr President, Vice-President Dombrovskis, Commissioner Gentiloni, in February 2020, a virus paralysed the world and tested the resilience of our health systems, education, research, even our institutions. At the beginning of the pandemic the responses were uncoordinated and insufficient, until, little by little, the governments were agreeing actions and from the Union we also began to take the first joint measures that allowed a much more effective response. We activated SURE to finance the TENs, mobilised regional funds to fight the pandemic and, of course, created the Recovery and Resilience Facility. At a time when everything was standing still, when the demand had disappeared and when there was only uncertainty, we knew how to send a clear message to citizens with NextGenerationEU funds. Not only did we mobilize a large amount of money to revive demand, but we designed a future strategy with investments and reforms focused on the green transition and the digital transition, without forgetting, of course, the social pillar or the young people, who, in the end, are the ones who pay for this crisis and the previous one. When we thought that the worst had already happened and that we could return to a certain normality, Putin orders to invade Ukraine and causes a geopolitical, humanitarian, food, energy and inflationary crisis to which we have had to react and respond through different instruments. And one of them is REPowerEU, which is what we are discussing here today. With REPowerEU we want to achieve three concrete objectives, which we share with the Commission: to become energy independent from Russia by diversifying energy suppliers, saving energy and, in addition, accelerating the green transition. To this end, we must encourage investment in renewable energy and encourage the replacement of the use of fossil fuels in industry and transport. To achieve these three objectives, the Recovery and Resilience Facility has to be a key piece and will be a key piece. But to do this we need to amend the Regulation and make available to Member States those resources that have not yet been committed under the recovery plan. This is not a problem because the objectives are shared, but it does demonstrate, once again, that we have a certain limitation to put new resources before new needs. That is why I think it is important here, too, to point out that in our proposal we include the idea of being able to supplement existing financing with part of the taxes that would be collected with the taxation of superprofits. Many countries are already making progress in establishing these taxes and I think it would be reasonable for those who are taking advantage of this crisis to contribute to financing investments and helping the most vulnerable. That brings me to another proposal that we have also included in our report: to add the fight against energy poverty and support for the most vulnerable households as one of the objectives of this new chapter. Because we are well aware of the terrible impact that the price of electricity is having on households, businesses and SMEs in general. The report we are presenting here today has quite a few developments compared to the European Commission's initial proposal. We have included, for example, a retroactivity clause for investments made by Member States at the start of the war. We have strengthened the role of local authorities and social partners, and we have also incentivised the inclusion of cross-border projects. But I would like to analyse our position on a point concerning the principle of not causing significant harm to the environment. We are perfectly aware of the urgency we have to disconnect energy from Russia, especially some countries, but that cannot make us forget that we are also facing a climate emergency. Therefore, what we propose is that only for gas, only in case the project is critical to ensure the security of energy supply, only in case there is no viable alternative project with clean energy and it is truly urgent, only when all these circumstances occur, can an exception be requested from the European Commission. I believe that, with all these conditions and limitations, we have managed to find a balance between the energy emergency - which we have - and the climate emergency.

Madam President, we absolutely share the need for this Parliament to speak once again, because I believe that we have already spoken many times about what we consider to be happening in Hungary and how the conditionality mechanism should be applied. Moreover, in October, also in Strasbourg, we positioned ourselves as Parliament on the Commission proposal sent to the Council and on what we believed Hungary was doing with the conditionality mechanism. Precisely, as we attach so much importance to it, we believe that tomorrow, simply in one round of one speaker per group, we will not be able to have the full debate that we believe this point deserves and, therefore, since we are in a mini-plenary and do not have so much time, we believe that it is much better to pass it to the November II part-session and have the full package: full debate plus resolution. That's our counterproposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, it has been many times that this Parliament has consistently condemned the Hungarian Government's lack of respect for the rule of law. And, in fact, in the previous plenary session we adopted by a large majority a very strong resolution in this regard. But now it's time to take action. Thanks to the impetus of this Parliament, we have the conditionality mechanism that allows budgetary measures to be taken on a country that violates the rule of law in a way that affects the financial interests of the Union. And it is true that the Commission could have been more severe in its proposal. I think he has no lack of reasons or evidence for this. They should have made a proposal encompassing more programmes and larger amounts. In any case, we have a proposal and we cannot wait any longer. And we cannot accept the commitments that the Orbán government now wants to sign as a guarantee that things will change, because so far they have done absolutely nothing. So the Council has to adopt the budgetary measures proposed by the Commission and freeze the EUR 7.5 billion. And if we verify that those 17 commitments, to which Orbán now commits, are not only fulfilled on paper, but also applied and effective, then and only then, we can lift the measures. So taking advantage of the fact that we have the Council here, I want to ask you to be very careful with what you approve, because the order of factors, in this case, does affect the product. Because it is not the same to approve the freezing of funds and reverse that decision, if there is really progress, than to close the file because we believe the commitments and in the end find that the Government of Hungary does absolutely nothing. We cannot forget what the ultimate objective of this mechanism is, because it is not to sanction a country; the aim is to ensure that the rule of law is respected and, until this happens, European money cannot be disbursed. So the decision of the Government of Hungary is very easy: or rule of law or freezing of funds. And he has to make that decision.

Madam President, after the Council’s last decision we need to update our report. So I would like to present an oral amendment that is supported by the PPE, Renew, the Greens, The Left and the S&D. The oral amendment says, ‘Regrets the Council’s decision to approve Poland’s NRRP; reiterates the Parliament’s position that no payment under the RRF can be made in relation to Poland’s NRRP before ...’ and then the text. And we also add, ‘considers that the recent Polish judiciary reform voted in the Polish Parliament on 16 June does not fulfil the requirements of milestone F1 in Poland’s NRRP’.

Madam President, Commissioner, I too have been so proud that, as a Parliament and as a Commission, and I suppose as a Council, we all have approved the recovery plan. And here we have seen unanimous support and, in addition, a very positive assessment of the effects that this has had. I also believe that we have seen, in this debate, the commitment on the part of Parliament to follow very closely the implementation of the recovery plans and, above all, to sound the alarm if we see that we are deviating from the objectives. But I think that also - and here several people have said this - we have to be aware that the situation has changed from when we negotiated the recovery plan to now, after the crisis or the war in Ukraine, which means that we have to look at the recovery plans with some flexibility. We cannot abstract ourselves from the context we are living in. And I also think it has been highlighted, and I think that is the path that we have to go down and that we have to discuss – sharing the Commissioner’s words. But there is a willingness to explore that this Mechanism, which has been a conjunctural response, becomes something structural. Obviously, it has to work so that we can work on those bases, but I think the will is there, and of course our commitment to it.