Speeches

Thank you, dear colleague, for the question. You have rightly pointed out that in many places there is a very clear commitment to no cooperation with the AfD. But you have also rightly heard the colleague: It's not just right-wing extremist anti-Semitism. There is indeed – and with a very increasing degree of increasing violence – also the left-wing extremist. When it comes to the fight against anti-Semitism, political considerations must not stop us.

Madam President, Commissioner, the latest Europol assessment and reports, including the mentioned Joint Action Day and the results of that backed by the findings of our Fundamental Rights Agency, state again a worrying and an unacceptable reality. Since the horrific attacks of 7 October, antisemitic offences, hate speech and online and offline harassment have significantly surged. Physical attacks against monuments, against synagogues and assaults on people reached an unprecedented height. New and old networks and groups threaten not only Jewish life and culture, but by doing so, individuals and society, all of us. Jewish security and safety is our security and safety. So the colleague rightfully asked, what can we do? And I think as frustrating and as disastrous as it is, we need to further strengthen the physical protection for Jewish sites and synagogues. We need to strengthen our fight against those intolerable acts by fostering the information exchange between law enforcement and intelligence on these terrorist threats, because it is nothing less than that. By strengthening our security and law enforcement tools to react to that, and by monitoring and acting against online radicalisation, as it was rightfully mentioned, by tackling the online recruitment of attackers, including those when it's about minors doing so. Acknowledging that this is not only about antisemitism, it's not only about jihadist terror, but it is part of a hybrid attack on all of us. Again, Jewish security and safety is our security and safety.

Madam President, Commissioner, cyberbullying is a silent monster. It cuts social bonds, it undermines human interaction, it erodes trust in society, and it can ultimately – and we just heard the reminder of Coco's example here – put the lives of children at risk. Contrary to their public humiliation in group chats, in social media forums and gaming channels, effectively in real life, victims far too often suffer in silence. Because they feel not seen, they feel not taken seriously, that their interests and their vulnerability do not matter. For years now, reports and warnings have been skyrocketing. By now, one in six children between the age of 11 and 15 in Europe alone states that they have been victim to cyberbullying. It is high time to end that. For that, we need a clear mixture of short, mid and long-term instruments – instruments that we need to strengthen because they are already there and new ones where we need to deploy the possibilities. Digital literacy and prevention, including all relevant actors, is important. Further support helplines and easing their usage across the EU is also very important, but we also need to assess the possibilities of streamlining the EU's and Member States' approaches, foster a common understanding and definition and, if needed, streamline criminal law. Ultimately, we need to strengthen law enforcement's capacity and possibility to react. And a plea to ourselves: let us not simply accept that there are legal gaps and put them forward as normal. Let's act on it.

Madam President, I think we really need to urgently have a division here between two things. Tomorrow's vote would have been a very easy one – just on a simple date, on the prolongation of the application of the interim regulation. Because it is about protecting children when they're online. And reports on children's sexual abuse online have multiplied by twenty in the last ten years – so from 1 million reports to 20 million reports. So what we are going to vote on tomorrow is the simple technical prolongation – just another date for what we had agreed on. And what the Greens had actually tried here, together with the support of some here in the House, is to turn the interim regulation into shadow negotiations on the CSAM proposal as such. We will address everything that is up to the point in the CSAM regulation, which is ongoing with the Council and the Commission, but for tomorrow, we need to vote on the application so that we meet the deadline on 3 April, because if not, we fail to prevent a huge legal gap in the protection of children online.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, today this House has in principle taken an important and necessary decision, because when it comes to the protection of children online, uncertainty is not neutrality; it is a risk. The temporary derogation was always meant to ensure that companies can continue detecting and reporting online sexual abuse while we negotiate the permanent child sexual abuse regulation. Without this legal certainty, companies face a real dilemma: act to protect children, face legal uncertainty or stop detecting abuse altogether. And we have seen what happens when this decision needs to be taken. In 2020, when companies were unsure whether detection was permitted under EU law, reports of abuse from EU-based accounts – and I emphasise that – dropped by 48 % just in a few weeks. So, let us be clear: a drop in reports does not mean a drop in abuse. It means fewer victims are identified and fewer perpetrators are stopped. At the same time, the digital landscape is evolving rapidly. Generative AI now enables the creation of abusive material that has never existed before. That makes detection even more urgent, not less. So, working on the current rules, based on the compromise expressed by EPP, S&D and Renew, is therefore not a technical detail – it's the difference between proactive protection and turning a blind eye. We had always been clear: protecting children must come before protecting perpetrators, and this is why we urge this House, but also the Council, to really rapidly conclude the trilogues and work with ambition on the standing framework for child sexual abuse material and the fight against it.

Mr President, many colleagues had said it before: the recent decision by the Spanish Government raises concerns, as clearly can be seen here in plenary. Why is that so? Because the move is somewhat surprising to Member States in the European Union. While, legally speaking, Member States have the right to do so, unilateral measures at such scale should deserve careful scrutiny and consideration and coordination. This move was neither coordinated nor announced before entering into force. Using the emergency procedure without Parliament's reading on top of that adds to the quirky picture of rushing through a decision without taking care of the repercussions. Because the timing could have been better. With the run up to the pact implementation deadline, no one disputes that the Spanish asylum system is under significant pressure. To the contrary. But precisely because of that, migration management and the European Union cannot function if major structural decisions are taken in isolation. Rushing through regularisation cannot be a scapegoat for the lack of capacities or the efforts to follow procedures. And lastly, because the move runs against one core principle that we have always been fighting for: access to regularisation is the reward for integration efforts, not the other way round.

Mr President, the EPP has always stood for asylum and migration policies that are both fair and firm, because they are two parts of the same coin: in order to be fair, you sometimes need to be firm as well. A lot of that comes down to procedures –⁠ procedures that are effective, that are efficient, that are pragmatic and flexible in order to be used. Today's two files are exactly about that, and let me highlight to colleagues that we are speaking about manifestly unfounded claims in asylum procedures. So what we are doing with the two files is giving Member States the flexibility they urgently need at hand to assess asylum claims quickly, efficiently and in a way that helps alleviate the pressure from national capacities. Colleagues, citizens expect us to deliver on migration policies, and we are doing exactly that today.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, the pact had always two layers of work. Firstly, the internal dimension, our own procedures and rules. For that dimension, last year has been crucial, and the next months will be decisive. We are further increasing efficiency and consistency of procedures to reduce caseload and alleviate pressure from Member States. The second layer is the external dimension of asylum and migration policies, where there is still significant room for improvement. Since we find ourselves in a dynamically and sometimes rapidly changing world, the same is true as has been for the internal dimension. We are the strongest if we are united, decisive, and coordinated – and turning inwards, like some proposed or actually just did with the recent vote, will not serve the cause. Visa policies, including visa suspension, return and readmission agreements, better coordination of our own return policies, a stronger role for Europol's Migrant Smuggling Centre and a Frontex role in returns and third country cooperation – these tools are already at our hand. Again, if applied united, coordinated and consistently, they create the best leverage, but they will still fall short if we are not ambitious with one missing piece of the pact, which is the return regulation. It is on this House now to advance ambitiously on the regulation and keep up to the Council. We as EPP had always been working consistently and clear-headed towards a European policy that is both fair and firm, and increasing returns is an integral part of that, and we will deliver on that.

Madam President, colleagues, today's challenge follows the logic of a position that some had taken already earlier on, by tabling a rejection before negotiations had even started. This is certainly not my position, but I respect that. The only thing I don't accept is don't blame others, me or the EPP for decisions you had taken on yours. Let us look into the files: in the border procedure, both co-legislators tasked the Commission to revise the 'safe third country' concept within one year's time, and the Commission delivered. Member States had asked for an assessment of the safe countries of origin to increase coordination in the application. Again, the Commission delivered. The Council is ready to start trilogues. So now it is on us. Nothing in the mandates breaches or undermines international law. Saying so is simply false. Both instruments are about making procedures work. They will speed up asylum procedures, increase the efficiency of the process, alleviating pressure and helping people out of legal limbo. Colleagues, citizens expect us to deliver. The mandate at hand allows us to do exactly that and I respectfully ask all colleagues to support it.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, it was always clear that the path to the implementation will not be an easy one: too large, the challenges comprehensive, our answer. Conclusion of the agreement was always only the first step. The ongoing implementation in the Member States is the next one, and the solidarity pool we now have at our hands. The more concrete it gets, of course, the more we need to live up to our responsibilities. Knowing how sensitive it is for Member States, I thank the Commission that they took the necessary time in order to come to an agreement with the Member States, although, of course, we are always in favour of respecting timelines. The paper is one thing, but making the system work in reality is another. And guess what? The interests of front‑line Member States, the interests of secondary‑movement Member States can be true at the same time. Taking into consideration Member States' positions is not questioning solidarity, it is not giving Member States leeway: it is making sure that things work. And if for that constant work with the Member States, acknowledging their unique positions, trying to bring everyone to the table, is needed, well, we do it. Because we do not give in to populism: we roll up our sleeves and work. At the same time, the second part of the proposal is important as well. Foresight and preparedness will further strengthen our common approach. Now we all need to do our homework: we here in Parliament delivering on returns, the STC and SCO with the proposals at hand, but also the Member States with going on with the implementation of the pact and working on the outstanding issues like Eurodac, the infrastructure and so on and so forth.

Madam President, Commissioner, the EU is based on the principles of the rule of law. We promote it for good reasons, as a basic political toolbox that allows societies to thrive and businesses to grow. As such, it requires constant work and good care. It binds all political actors, whether in opposition or in government. At the heart of today's debate is the question of proper checks and balances, and, more specifically, of the independence of the judiciary. So, in principle, today's debate shows the importance of the rule of law for all of us. But why do I say 'in principle'? Because exactly that independence has been put into question by some communications. So let's look into the example at hand: the case of the Mayor of Varna. For that case, the anti-corruption framework and structure is relevant – which, by the way, was put in place by the previous government. The allegations are about being part of an organised criminal group and about significant bribes in connection to public procurement – for sure something for the Commission for Anti-Corruption. Detention has been upheld by five different courts. Although not related to the case, GERB has signalled support for the release from detention. But an independent institution is doing what an independent institution should do: it's investigating, free from political influence. Having said that, does that mean that there is no room for improvement? I think we should always aim for better. The 2025 Rule of Law Report describes the task, but for the first time after four elections in a row, we now have a stable government. So, colleagues, let's be really careful with the difference between improving and reforms, and, I quote here, 'the ongoing assaults on institutions'.

Thanks, colleague, for that very important question. I assure you that this is indeed part of our policies. If you just heard what the colleague from the left side told about her understanding of police work in a democracy, I can easily sum it up by saying this is for sure not my understanding.

Mr President, Commissioner! Sometimes it helps to look at what we have already achieved. The area of security, freedom and justice – the idea of Tampere in 1999 – is now being brought to life with Europol’s daily fight against crime, as recently in Latvia, together with Austria and Estonia, in the field of cybercrime. Frontex officials who are at the external border every day, working together with Member States to combat organised crime, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, cigarette smuggling and trafficking in human beings. These selected examples alone make it clear: European police cooperation is a crucial building block of our European security architecture. It is our police officers from all Member States and in all Member States who ensure security and order on a daily basis. And so a heartfelt thank you from here. At the same time, the situation is changing dynamically and in some cases dramatically. Internal and external security are inextricably linked. Organised crime, terrorist groups, third-country actors are challenging us as long as they haven't. We do not need to reinvent Europe's security architecture. We need to strengthen what we already have. This applies to Frontex and Europol, and this applies to the exchange of information. And because many things have already been said by the Commissioner today - rightly said - let me take a closer look at cross-border cooperation. We have such wonderful examples in the field as recently the anniversary of the Franco-German operational unit, the joint centres in Kehl, which Fabienne Keller mentioned. In other words, we must focus on removing practical obstacles for them, organising joint exercises, financing language courses and, above all, recognising their excellent contribution to our European security architecture. We expect police officers to protect us, our society, our democracy. Let's do the same for her.

Madam President, Commissioner! This time drones, last time cable, before that there were overnight shifted border buoys – the Russian playbook It's always the same. There is something for every country in the EU, a message for every part of society. The objective: Unrest, worry, undermining our resilience, creating division. We must therefore be clear: Fear is always an indicator of what's important to us, but it's never a good guide. Therefore: straighten the shoulders, put the money where the mouth is, Finally, we must consistently think together defence, crisis preparedness and internal security, streamline procedures, simplify acceleration, strengthen information exchange and cooperation between security authorities, and take our people with us. But I also say at the same time: Take the Member States with you. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland were and are right. We have a common enemy, we need a common answer. That's exactly why we created the treaties. Security – in the beginning – in front of each other, today: Safety for each other. This is what the assistance clause is designed to do: not for good weather – this is far too easy – but for this very time now. Solidarity proves itself in bad weather. That's what counts.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, in a world of free movement, of close trade ties, of prosperous exchanges between countries, visa regimes – or, even more so, visa-free travel regimes – are an important tool for a better, closer, connected world. They are important for international policies; they complement our toolbox in third country cooperation. They are based – and they should be – on good faith. They should rely on mutual recognition, on the overall willingness to work on a shared policy. What are they not? They are not an allowance to turn yourself against your partners, to misuse trust, to exploit visa-free regimes for malicious actions. Since we have seen that in the past within the European Union, we as Europe also need to be clear on that side: we are open, we are engaging, we look forward to cooperating, but we will not turn a blind eye to actions that undermine mutual partnerships, are directed against the European Union or threaten our – the Member States – or citizens' security. That is why we, as the EPP, have always been fighting for the revision of the visa suspension mechanism for quite a while, and we welcome the solution that has been found. Concretely, we welcome the new grounds for suspension, namely irregular migration, security risks and – most important of all in these times – hybrid threats, including the instrumentalisation of migration. The systemic deficiencies in document security, security risks related to citizenship-by-investment schemes, the lack of alignment of third country visa policies and the deterioration of external relations, including hostile acts, are undermining EU security and underline that, in that sense. These grounds take stock of a dynamically changing geopolitical context, and they give us a clever tool at Europe's hands. They turn the visa suspension mechanism into a small but – if used wisely – very effective tool with tremendous effects on our security. Some of the grounds of suspension have been there before, so I really call on the Member States to now actively use them to strengthen our security. At the same time, let me underline one point – what the tool is not: it is not an individual asset by Member States showing their discontent with partners of ours. So proposing to use it against Israel is not only outrageous, but it will have serious repercussions for Israel and Europe's security.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Minister, we also created that committee to protect ourselves and to better prepare ourselves for hybrid threats. But what actually makes hybrid threats so successful? They usually go into the grey zones of society. They go into discussions and values that we actually need to balance, where we need to find not an easy balance between them. They tackle and address unclear competences. They address the lack of protocols, especially the lack of emergency protocols. And, of course, they are running on the lack of attribution. So as a day like today, where we have seen an attack on Poland and immediately a disinformation campaign starting next to it, let me be loud and clear here: that wasn't an accident, that was deliberate. And we can and we should do whatever we can to stand aside Poland and really defend not our democracies but as well the European Union and each and every Member State of that European Union, because we are in it together and we will face it together.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, what have we found last term? We found Member States that were not able to conclude on a common asylum and migration policy. We found a Parliament that had led heavy discussions, intense debate, in order to find a way forward. What have we done? We are taking stock of the common asylum and migration policy, what was left of it from the previous term before that. And we are taking that stock critically because we saw the Dublin transferees, for example, were and are still dysfunctional. But why so? Because they were not connected to solidarity. Because we did not find the right balance between frontline Member States and Member States of secondary movement. We added safeguards against secondary movement. We added an efficient procedure with the border procedure, and we added the Eurodac in order to prevent double and triple applications. We are also taking stock of the geopolitical situation because it had changed in the meantime. So we added something on instrumentalisation in order to defend the Member States that were faced with that, and we are still doing that. Are we done yet? No, we are not. We see that the numbers are going down, but there are still deficiencies in the system. There are still loopholes that can be exploited. And make no mistake, this system is exploited by criminal gangs, by networks, by smugglers, and, of course, also by third-country actors. We should not let that out of mind. So we focus now on the missing pieces to the pack, which is the return policy, which is the safe third country concept and the safe country of origins. And we will continue with that, with a strengthened Europol, with a strengthened Frontex, and a stronger answer when it comes to a sanctions regime on organised crime and smuggling business.

Mr President, before the summer recess, we already had a debate and the outlook was gloomy even then. The reality now is that we have faced a devastating wildfire season, and the scale and intensity were as bad as expected. So let me, first of all, thank all the firemen and women that have done the almost impossible, that have been fighting day and night against the odds. We – the European Union, the people of the European Union – owe you for that. Nevertheless, a few messages cannot be repeated and stressed enough. This is indeed European solidarity in action, so we need to make it easier. We need to scale up on readiness and deployability. We need to scale down on administrative procedures and ease the financing. We need to enlarge the pool of experts and the equipment. Everyone has a role to play. Local, regional and European measures for preparedness and prevention – especially if there is European money connected to that – need to go hand in hand. The division of competences and the territorial organisation of Member States can never – and I repeat, can never – be an excuse to not protect the people. It's the central task of any government to do so. European foresight is key, so you need to improve the information exchange there. But it will only help if the information we provide is taken into consideration on strategic and on operational levels. And lastly, we need to protect our first responders, our firefighters, better than we are able to do now. It concerns their health, it concerns their working conditions, the statutes and so on and so forth. So this is European solidarity in action.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Madam Minister, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism is a European success story. Since its creation, numerous emergency responses have been carried out. Equipment for firefighters and first responders have been financed and delivered. Firefighters are pre-positioned throughout Europe to help faster than before. This is – like you just said, Madam Commissioner – European solidarity on the ground. As we speak, 22 firefighting planes and four helicopters stand ready to support in the current wildfire season; 650 firefighters from 14 countries are pre-positioned in high-risk areas; more ground firefighting teams are ready to be mobilised. And that solidarity is needed. If you compare this year's wildfire season to the previous, threats and dangers are multiplying. Colleagues from Portugal, from Spain, from Greece, from France will soon tell us about the devastating effects on the ground. As the threats are emerging – man-made and natural – we also need to adapt as well. We need to be better prepared for larger incidents, for simultaneous and escalating incidents. And that means we need to scale up the pool of experts and the deployments; the investments in equipment and material, in resilience and readiness; the common risk assessment, the forecast and the situational picture. And, Madam Commissioner, we need to scale down on administrative hurdles – a common task for all of us here. In the end, it is our task to support those on the ground who are bravely fighting wildfires today and floods tomorrow. We owe it to them. May they all return safe and sound from their deployments!

Mr President, dear colleagues, the rule of law is based, among other things, on the integrity of democratic processes, on the fight against corruption, on proper checks and balances and accountability in decision-making processes. So where are we? We have 154 so-called 'royal decrees' being pushed through the parliament. We have reports about warning signs of a growing irrelevance of the parliament. We have smear campaigns against Guardia Civil officers investigating corruption, which means they do not only have the backing of the government for that important job. In fact, they are targeted because they are doing their job, further undermining the fight against corruption by not only not being on the forefront of investigation and prosecution, but being in the midst of numerous scandals involving the highest level of allegations themselves. Selling amnesty as a political tool, putting independent judges and prosecutors under pressure, undermining checks and balances further by draft laws on the judiciary, sparking not only protests by judges and prosecutors associations, but treating their rightful criticism in a way that actually five out of seven associations call now for a strike. Above all, instead of being at the forefront of accountability, the government now faces thousands on the streets demanding exactly that accountability, while the government decides to attack opposition leaders. This is not only a worrying trend here, it is a call to action by all of us here in the House, in Spain and in the Commission.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the rule of law in itself is neutral. It is a collection of procedural rules to guarantee that a political system is fair, is free, is democratic, that encourages engagement and debates, that fosters cooperation instead of sowing divisions, so that societies can thrive, that businesses can grow, that a country can prosper. Today, as usual, we hear colleagues saying they are fighting for their citizens. They are fighting against the Brussels elites. They are fighting for sovereignty. But let's remind everyone: the Hungarian Government is not in the midst of that debate because they want to protect children. The Hungarian Government is in the midst of the debate because for years now they have been undermining the integrity of the political system, undermining the independence of the judiciary, clamping down on citizens' rights, threatening journalists and opposition leaders. They are caught in the midst of various corruption scandals at the highest level. So why frame the debate like today? Why focus on underwear and lacquered leather? Because it is meant to hide the blatant lack of respect for the rule of law, for the government's incapability to solve real problems on the ground, for not being able to deliver on behalf of their citizens. The economy is weak; inflation is still high; businesses experience numerous obstacles. And in the need for money, the Hungarian Government reaches out to China and Russia. How on earth shall that help delivering for your citizens, shall that constitute a sovereignty act? The reality is that the government is responsible for their action and their inaction, which is the most fundamental principle of the rule of law: accountability to your citizens.

Mr President! Commissioner, you just got it. Once-in-a-generation moment called. If we look at the history of the development of the European Union, we have emerged from the lessons of the Second World War. At that time, we created security primarily in front of each other. We have become economically successful, we have shaped the internal market, we have become a very strong economic player in this regard. We are now in a situation where we need to restore competitiveness and we are in a situation where we need to create security for each other. Peace, freedom and stability – as has become clear in recent weeks, months and years – are not self-evident. This Defence white paper, the Internal security strategy, the Preparedness strategy are an expression of this, and I would like to thank you very much, Commissioner, for your contribution to the strategy or your strategy in this case. I want three building blocks To highlight, so to speak, those which are of course just as important alongside all the others, but which are part of the basic condition of a successful resilience strategy, so to speak. One is the situational picture and the exchange of information. We need to quickly reach all relevant actors, including those from the inside of our agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs involve, so that we can establish a common perception of risk at European level in order to derive political action from it. We also need this common perception of risk among the population. We need to make a very significant difference through schools – as the proposal foresees – to alert about public debates without being alarming. Because the goal is to empower the population to deal with crises, to be more resilient than we are now. You also mentioned Erasmus and the Solidarity Corps. Why not bring together and support Erasmus for Civil Protection, for example? And last but not least: Civil-military cooperation works when we allow them to practice, practice, practice, play through processes, define and test tasks. And I want to close with three requests. Once to the Member States: Your own security, to take European security seriously, to be ambitious. It's a time that takes courage, but also rewards. To the Commission the request to take Parliament along, not only in the development of the strategy in the common perception of risk, but also as communicators in the constituency, as those who can also carry the strategy forward, and the request to take all actors and agencies from the interior with them. And to all of us: whole-of-government, whole-of-society, All-hazards approach bind us all. And that's why it's not less time for Europe, but more. On with courage and determination.

Mr President, Commissioner, when we look at the area of freedom, security and justice from 1999, we've come a long way. We have overcome hurdles administratively, but most importantly, sometimes mentally. We increased cross-border cooperation. We built the agencies. We beefed them up on mandates, on staff and resources, on the tasks. We aligned important policies in order to have full leverage on the to the outside world. But somehow during the process, we but more prominently the Member States, lost ambition, while criminals, like threats, like malicious actors, did not. Cynically enough, time has come to once again step up on security. So the strategy of today is more than a strategy. It's a promise to keep Europe safe. It's an illustration of a security governance that is fit for purpose and time, including information and intelligence gathering and sharing, feeding into a clear situational picture, innovative and thriving capabilities and businesses, agencies that are strong and well coordinated, from border protection to critical infrastructure, to cyber, to law enforcement and to the judiciary side, the fight against organised crime, radicalisation and terroristic threats. The tasks are numerous. So to the Member States, let's be ambitious. That requires strength, that requires courage, and it needs to match the stakes. The most important promise that we can give to our citizens is their safety. To the Parliament, we need to adapt and arrive into the new security landscape, on content and on procedures. And altogether, let's do what is needed to serve the European Union, our citizens, our way of life. This is no time to shy away. This is no time to close our eyes, on with courage and determination.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, just yesterday, Commissioner Brunner presented the new proposal on returns. It is not only a welcome proposal, it is a missing piece to the pact and it's signalling to our citizens that we do hear and see their concerns. But it also proves that the Commission is delivering on key aspects, in time. Mutual recognition, harmonised procedures, new balances of rights and obligations for third-country nationals, tools and means to address security cases and suspected criminals, stronger measures to prevent absconding, and a way forward for enhanced third-country cooperation: these elements will not only strengthen our ability to increase the number of returns, it will put the common asylum and migration system back on its feet. Still, the proposal is only the start and the EPP stands ready, of course, to work constructively and in a good spirit in the upcoming negotiations. Looking ahead, we also welcome the Commission's announcement to follow up swiftly with the safe third country concept – another crucial part of the pact. But yet again, the world does not stop changing. We will need to further follow developments on the eastern border of the Union, not only as regards instrumentalisation, but also in the broader security context. So, looking ahead, there is an urgent need for a broad understanding of security, ranging from defence, to internal security and preparedness. So citing the Niinistö report, our security landscape requires a whole-of-government, whole-of-society, all-scenario approach. And in that sense, I am looking forward to another quick delivery on the closely linked defence white paper, the internal security strategy and the preparedness strategy.

Madam President, Commissioner, those who don't have a right to stay in the EU should not be in the EU: A simple, self-explanatory sentence. Yet only one in five third-country nationals where the return order takes is effectively returned. This stretches Member States' capacity. It undermines the promise of international protection for those who are in real need of protection. It can have devastating security consequences. Long procedures, shifting responsibilities between authorities, lack of coordination between Member States, lack of cooperation by the returnees and lack of cooperation with third countries are the core weaknesses. Yet an effective returns policy is an integral part of a fully functioning common asylum and migration system. This is why I very much welcome today's proposal as finally closing the gap, as presenting the missing piece to the pact. It clearly paves the way forward. Mutual recognition and possibilities for common enforcement, obligation to cooperate for returnees and consequences for non-compliance, rules to prevent absconding, stricter rules on security cases, enhanced third-country cooperation: that will equip the Member States with a real tool to coordinate, cooperate and to increase the numbers of effective and sustainable returns. With that, we will not only react to our citizens' expectations, we will restore trust in a Union that can uphold the values, and act symptom and effectively, if needed. Colleagues, challenges at this scale need to be met by the democratic forces. We as the EPP stand ready. And one last sentence: I am pleased that my previous speaker has just made it clear that you will not be part of the discussions.