Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! We all have the pictures of the last few days in mind: the destructive flood, and at the same time the forest fires in Portugal. Therefore, first of all, of course, the thanks to all helpers and emergency services – they are doing superhuman things right now. We are on the side of those affected, we are even more on the side of those who have to mourn a loss. Today's debate has shown: We have a lot of instruments at our fingertips on the part of the European Union – that is all well and right – but I would like to emphasise once again an aspect that I believe we can further develop, and that is the civil protection mechanism, and that is rescEU. It is not only an expression of European solidarity, of standing together in the face of disasters and crises, but it is also a mechanism through which we have already gained a great deal of experience. In the case of forest fires, it has become almost normal for it to be activated; This can also be the case in the area of flood control. That is why I am advocating that we commit ourselves to an ambitious further development of this mechanism, that we advance the strategic reserve, that we strengthen material, personnel, joint exercises, because the effect is not only European solidarity, but also a strengthening and modernization of our civil defence forces.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, More than half of victims of trafficking in human beings in the EU are EU citizens – victims in their own country. At the same time, the number of non-EU citizens has increased in recent years. In some places, it already exceeds the numbers of domestic or intra-European victims. The majority of the victims are women and girls, the goal: sexual exploitation. The proportion of male victims, mainly for the purpose of labour exploitation, is also increasing. About one in four victims is a child. Most human traffickers in the EU are EU citizens. Nearly three-quarters of the perpetrators are men. The latest Europol report on the most dangerous criminal networks in the EU lists 55 of these networks, the main activity of which is trafficking in human beings. The boundaries between legal corporate structures as camouflage and illegal business activities are becoming increasingly blurred. Trafficking in human beings unfortunately remains one of the most stable and lucrative crime phenomena in the EU. Unfortunately, the previous Directive on combating trafficking in human beings of 2001 has not changed this. Why? For two simple but even more frustrating reasons: Firstly: It has so far not been implemented or has not been sufficiently implemented by the vast majority of Member States. Secondly: The area of crime has developed significantly, not least through the Internet. The recast therefore focuses precisely on providing criminal investigation and prosecution authorities with stronger tools to look at old and new forms, such as forced marriage and illegal adoption, to improve investigative and sanctioning tools against persons engaged in trafficking or knowingly using victims’ services, to address more consistently the cynical possibilities of the online dimension, and to improve procedures for early identification and assistance to victims. The almost most important point, I think, is cooperation between all European bodies, such as the Anti-trafficking-coordinators, Europol, Frontex, on the one hand, and national coordination, investigation and prosecution authorities, on the other. We would like to thank the colleagues, the entire teams who have worked on it. But, ladies and gentlemen, this can only lead to success if the Member States also implement and apply the instruments. This applies to this Directive, the improved police information exchange, the strengthened fight against money laundering or the use of AI. We will only come up against this inhuman business if our law enforcement and investigative agencies have all the tools they need to carry out their task.

Mr President! For me, there are and have been three convictions in the debate: Asylum and migration takes responsibility at every level: Europe, Member States, federal states or regions. This results in: What we can deliver in Europe, we must deliver. And thirdly, the principle ‘Human with those in need of protection, firm with those who are not.’ In 2019, we were faced with the fresh heap of shards of the old, failed pact. No common policy, instead five years further emergency solution after emergency solution. We fought here in this house, we fought, we debated, we listened and sounded out, we kept getting together. We have been stuck so many times, have left negotiation rooms and, especially when it became difficult, have continued to search for the delicate balancewhich the pact brings with it in the end. That is the strength of this House, which can do so much more than it shows in the meantime. Today we stand here and decide whether all these efforts, all these debates were worth it, whether they were right or in vain. It is about nothing less than the question of the European Union's capacity to act. It is a question of whether, in the middle of the House, we are able to defend ourselves against populists, demagogues and inciters and to deliver for the citizens of this Union. It's about making a promise to those who are entitled to protection that we keep. It's about us, autocrats and unfriendly neighbors, taking the tools out of our hands to destabilize our societies. It's about not letting criminal networks and smugglers have sovereignty over who comes to us and who doesn't. It's about correcting 2019. The Pact is not perfect – you have heard it in many places today – but it is the crucial means to move forward together at European level, to be better positioned together, to deliver solutions and to bring back the booklet of action.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Energy security, digitalisation, fragile economic prospects – the coming years will not be easier for our economy. The urgent need to reduce overregulation and return to the principles of the social market economy must therefore be at the forefront, which is exactly what has made the single market successful for 30 years. Immediately thereafter, however, and as the Commissioner has pointed out, as Mr Moreno Sánchez has pointed out, there is already a shortage of skilled workers, which has increasingly become an obstacle to economic development; It will be much stronger in the next few years. Already, one in five within the European Union is over 65, and the share of workers in the population is expected to continue to decline. Europe needs an answer to this, and this agreement is yet another piece of mosaic for it. Three things were important to us in the negotiations. The starting point lies in the legal, verified residence and work status. The Member State shall decide on the type and extent of immigration. The labour market and the labour market test define the criteria and the needs. The recast therefore focuses on more efficient and streamlined procedures for granting this single permit, with ambitious deadlines, while at the same time allowing Member States flexibility where justified, on a set of common rights and obligations for third-country nationals, which will in particular improve working and living conditions, on the possibility and condition for a change of employer after examination by the Member State, and on the possibility of staying in the Member State for a limited period of time in the event of job loss and change, provided that subsistence can be secured independently. We are thus striking a new balance between the interests of companies, candidates and the Member States. And further instruments will be available in view of the ongoing or upcoming negotiations. Supply and demand can be reconciled even better through the talent pool. Cooperation with third countries needs to be coordinated through talent partnerships. If we want to maintain our prosperity, our innovative strength, we have to face the competition, especially with the United States, Canada and Australia, because they are still in the process of promoting the brightest and most talented minds before us. With the agreement before us, however, we open up clearly to them. And that is why I would like to end by thanking the rapporteur, the whole team, the technical level behind it and working for us to reach this agreement.

Madam President, I do not want to speak against it in general, because it has indeed been pointed out that it is a very important issue that has been repeatedly addressed here from within the House. However, I would like to propose an alternative title in which we take out the reference to Thessaloniki, not because we want to do it in terms of content, but simply because we have not yet been able to fully clarify the facts – the investigations are still ongoing. In the second place, I would like to point out that, especially in recent weeks in Greece, the legalisation of same-sex partnerships has just taken place and has been enshrined in law. We should not play the game of those who oppose this legislation and the law itself, but we should address the general issue here in the House.

Mr President, following the recent judgment I would like to add a new sentence after recital G, recital ga (new): ‘Whereas on 13 December the General Court dismissed another action brought against the Agency as manifestly lacking any foundation in law’.

Mr President, following the recent judgment just yesterday, I would like to move the following oral amendment on behalf of the EPP group, changing the last sentence of recital G as follows: ‘Whereas for legal actions in relation to alleged pushbacks have been brought against Frontex before the General Court of the EU, of which two were ruled inadmissible and two are pending.’

Mr President, Commissioner, dear Council representative! What eventful times we went through with the agency: Founded in 2005 with only 50 employees, first steps as a full-fledged agency up to the introduction of the . For the first time in the history of European integration, we have an operational agency operating under the EU flag. The need for this has become more than clear in recent months, whether in the fight against migrant smuggling, in border security, in sensitive but important cooperation with third countries or in the further development of integrated border management. The agency takes on crucial tasks in an increasingly difficult environment. Has the work always gone smoothly? Of course not! Sometimes this has had to do with expectation management, sometimes with political challenges that we have had to and must address. The Frontex Control Panel has been set up precisely for this purpose. Because with more tasks, more staff, more budget, of course, there is also more responsibility. The work of the control group, but also, for example, the judgment of the ECJ of today, make it clear: A factual discussion is just as necessary as the support of the agency in the implementation. The agency's changes in recent months have been important, and they have been right. In the meantime, all the recommendations of the Supervisory Board have been implemented, and improvements have even been initiated. As a supervisory body, we have also made recommendations to the Commission and the Member States in the same way. One or the other is still open. So can we do more together? Yes, we can! We have to do it too. Because times haven't gotten any easier. The geopolitical situation has worsened. The need for support to Member States has increased rather than decreased. Frontex is and remains an integral part of our area of security, freedom and justice, an essential pillar of our European security architecture. We need to ensure that officials who dedicate their time and work to a European cause find the best possible conditions – legally, organisationally and operationally. Here, too, we can get even better. So let me close a little bit with the plea for more courage in European domestic policy. Our agencies can do more, and we need to set the framework and accompany them in their implementation.

Mr President! For more than ten years, we have been promising people that Europe will have a common asylum and migration policy, that the dangling from emergency solution to emergency solution will finally come to an end. The Commission's proposals have been on the table for two years. For two years now, we have been trying to maintain the balance in between, continue to need emergency solutions and finally create common ground. It is more necessary than ever if we look around our communities, if we also look at the situation outside the European Union. Because a pandemic, a brutal Russian war of aggression later, the world around us has changed. This has cynically widened the way for an agreement, but increased the pressure to act enormously. I think I speak for many who are working on the subject when I say: During this time, we have gone through every emotional state imaginable – everyone! Now we are on the verge of reaching an agreement. We are very close to finding a solution to this issue. It's going to be a lot of hard work, but it can be done. Maybe this is one of the reasons why everyone gets nervous: the smugglers because their cynical business model is threatened, the Member States because they have to commit themselves, the political groups here in the House because they have to take the step towards realpolitik. But, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union can either do it together or not at all. That's what they have to do, that's what everyone should pull themselves together for. And perhaps we should also stop shinning our European partners when we are on the verge of a solution. Because the next weeks are crucial – not the next months, not the next years, the next weeks are crucial! So let's do our job, roll up our sleeves and, if in doubt, prepare for night sessions. Otherwise, the forces outside the European Union, which are not in favour of us, the forces within the European Union, which have no interest in a solution at all, and, above all, the traffickers are jubilant. For all these reasons: Choose your side, I know mine!

Mr President, since Groundhog Day was mentioned just in the previous speech, there is one important message about Groundhog Day, which is the possibility to learn, to improve, to get better, to break the cycle. Does that apply to the new draft adequacy we are discussing? It’s true the previous ones had been nullified by Court. Obviously there was something to learn and to improve. Both partners, the Commission and the US counterparts, listened. What we have in front of us is now a complete other agreement than before, because thanks especially to the judgment, it was for the first time clearly defined under which conditions, restrictions and guarantees access by US authorities can be possible. And this is reflected in the adequacy proposal in front of us. It clarifies that the United States ensure an adequate level of protection for personal data of EU citizens, including the important conditions and restrictions of proportionality and necessity for national security reasons and the obligation to delete personal data. Moreover, the draft adds safeguards as well. It entails strong remedies and binding redress measures for our citizens. Do we have in mind the uncertainty with elections looming? Of course. And so does the Commission with the possibility to immediately withdraw once there is a reason to. And surprisingly, these improvements had also been acknowledged by the European Data Protection Board, whose advice we normally happily follow in this House. So let us work with these points and the remaining concerns. Will the draft be tested before Court? Quite sure, since you’re all following the debate, it will be, which, by the way, is a quite normal procedure for our system of checks and balances. But if we don’t give it a try, there’s only one certainty – Groundhog Day forever!

Madam President, What a spectacle! First hardly participate in negotiations, then boycott votes and then claim to have always admitted to content. Dear colleagues, this Pact on Asylum and Migration is decided with parliamentary work, with struggles between the political groups in the middle of the House. So where are we? The mandate includes the external dimension. We make it clear that we want cooperation on an equal footing. Third countries also bear responsibility for people fleeing. We have many instruments at our fingertips for this – they have already been mentioned today. All of these are promising levers when combined with incentives and conditions. Expectations on all sides must be clear. As an EPP, we have always made it clear that we want to have a decision on vulnerability as early as possible in order to ensure that all parties involved from the Legal limbo to get out. We can best maintain our claim to humanity in an orderly manner. I can only say to Berlin: Welcome to Government Responsibility!

Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Presidency of the Council! It goes without saying: Saving people in distress at sea is a national, international, European, moral obligation. But this also includes: Dangerous crossings are the result, not the trigger. The causes are still on land and not at sea. It is therefore right that the Presidency should refocus on cooperation with countries of origin and transit: Improving living conditions on the ground, preventing dangerous crossings and, above all, taking decisive action against smugglers, criminal networks and this extremely cynical but unfortunately profitable business model. It is not easy to bring together three institutions, 27 Member States and most political families. We all know that in the house. But we are judged on whether we can contribute to the solution of the current situation, whether we can stop the dangling from emergency solution to emergency solution. The Pact cannot conjure up, but it can create sustainable structures and procedures and restore trust among Member States. The Balkan route in recent weeks has shown: Joint action as a European Union has an effect. The Pact has instruments for crises, it has elements for effective return, for rescue at sea, for cooperation with third countries. It is flanked, flanked by the proposals on legal pathways. It is based on effective border controls. It can have the best impact in all its proposals. In 2021, I said in a similar speech: It is good that we are discussing again. For this year: Delivering is better. With the increase in illegal border crossings and the increase in secondary movements, more speed, more ambition and more Europe are urgently needed. That is why I am appealing to the House, and perhaps especially this week. In the past, it was far too easy to criticize the Council. We also need to deliver now. The only thing we don't have anymore is time.

Mr President, Commissioner! No one is above the law. The right in itself is neutral and does not differ according to good or bad motives. This is one of the basic principles of our rule of law, democratic order. This includes: If there is an initial suspicion of a criminal offence, then it must be investigated. Anyone suspected of having violated the law is subject to prosecution and, accordingly, to the jurisdiction. It enjoys the protection of procedural rights and the independence of the judiciary, which is also an expression of our legal system. This is exactly what the procedure has shown so far: Procedural errors are not to the detriment of the accused, but of the accusing authority. Ladies and gentlemen, of course this is a highly sensitive topic and a challenge that is difficult to balance. Saving people in distress at sea is an international, European and national obligation and – as we have heard more often here today – of course also a moral obligation. There is no discussion about this. But the fight against migrant smuggling is also an international, European and national obligation, against those who cynically exploit the suffering of people, put them in danger of life and thus make huge amounts of money. Navigating between these legal challenges and requirements is not easy for states, nor for NGOs. Therefore, it would be wise to work with each other instead of against each other. It would need reliability, it would need trust, joint agreements such as a code of conduct. But the starting point for this must be all the more that the claim that we have to state authorities also fulfill civilian helpers. Compliance with the law, full transparency on cooperation and, above all, disclosure of financial support and financial flows – moreover, in the NGOs’ own interest. They have a reputation for defending themselves against those who use their name and work as a cover for illegal activities. There can and must be no double standard here.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In December, there was a major anti-terrorism operation against Reich citizens in Germany: 150 searches, 25 arrests, 54 trials. First of all, I would like to thank the emergency services and the security authorities. The accused were armed, they trained tactically, they radicalized. Trivialisation as a ‘rollator overthrow’ does not do justice to the occasion. Age is not an excuse for estimating danger and radicalization. The stakes were important, he was right. He has shown what defensive democracy is all about. What's the point now? Firstly: No one is above the law. If we look at the last few weeks, we have to say: No one, no Reich citizens, no Iranian bombers, no clans, no radical activists. The rules of decency and the rules of the free democratic basic order apply to all. That is why we also have full backing for those who exercise their service in enforcing the law and are all too often in the midst of social conflicts. Secondly, the Commissioner referred to it: Cooperation and exchange of information between security authorities is key. See the close cooperation on counter-terrorism at European level, the important work of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator or the police cooperation reportThe one we just talked about. But, ladies and gentlemen, all this can only prevent harm if our services, our authorities, nationally and Europeanly, have the right means at hand to protect us. In the end, they can only protect us as well as we as legislators can. Thirdly: It doesn't matter whether from the right, left, ideologically or religiously motivated: Anyone who is opposed to our democracy, our values, our way of negotiating compromises, meets with resistance. Our democracy thrives on rules, on negotiating rules, on adhering to rules. Democracy demands, democracy demands, democracy is sometimes strenuous, but in the end it is the guarantee of social balance and cohesion. She deserves the best protection we can give her.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The fact that domestic political debates are blocking the further development of Schengen is not only regrettable. A look at European history also shows that this calculation rarely works. Last week's decision causes damage, damage to the political credibility of individuals, but also to the EU as a whole, damage to legal credibility, this crucial reliability of procedures, and damage to personal credibility, the so important trust between one another, both humanly and between states. Bulgaria and Romania have been meeting the necessary requirements for a long time. You deserved the recording, and not just since yesterday. Of course, we can and must – all, by the way – get even better: from securing the external borders to a reliable asylum and migration package, cross-border police cooperation and information exchange. All this serves to protect Schengen both internally and externally. But Mr Mandl, who unfortunately is no longer here, once said: Open challenges need to be addressed in the legal acts where they can also be solved. Can we increase our commitment here? Of course we can, and it is urgently needed. But it is and remains unfair to blame countries that are not even in the Schengen area. Now it is time to formulate the way out of the blockade. We need a concrete roadmap. We owe this, and no less, to the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Today's debate has brought a lot back to the point. Firstly: We argue passionately, with emotions, with good and less good arguments. Secondly: We do not have a problem of knowledge – we have a problem of implementation. We all know the positions of the national delegations, we know the positions of the political groups, we know the positions of the institutions. Thirdly: The truth also includes: Agreements have so far had little validity because Member States no longer trust each other, because commitments were not reliable, because national decisions are taken that do not first take their own country, but the already burdened Member States at the external border. Fourthly: We can no longer afford to move from emergency solution to emergency solution. We need a logical, an efficient, a crisis-proof system, not elegant solutions, but improvements in reality. We here, especially here in the house, have it in our hands to break the deadlock once and for all. So far, it has been relatively easy for Parliament – the Council has blocked. I do not want the story to be called in the next legislature: Parliament has blocked. We celebrated 70 years of the European Parliament here yesterday, and perhaps we should watch the video more often. None of this would have been possible without courage, without politicians who ascribe responsibility, and I refuse to accept that we cannot do the same for asylum and migration. That's why today's decision is actually a pretty simple one: Do we belong to the team of responsibility or do we belong to the team of discouragement? And my position here is perfectly clear.

Mr President, Commissioner! The Temporary Protection Directive had three objectives: ensure immediate protection, send a geopolitical signal, do not overburden national asylum systems. All three objectives are fulfilled. We provide protection to more than 4 million Ukrainians in the European Union. We stand united on the side of Ukraine. There is little use of asylum systems. But, dear colleagues, one thing the instrument cannot and has never been able to solve: practical implementation and organisation on the ground. It was clear from the outset that housing, care, access to the labour market and education needed smart planning and organisation, a pooling of forces at national level. The Commission accompanies this as best it can, as much as it can, with financial resources, with technical solutions, with the Solidarity Platform. But it is the Member States that have to deliver, moreover, also and in particular to their municipalities, their cities and regions – keyword accommodation, keyword energy prices. Because the challenges will not diminish with the approaching winter, neither in Ukraine – if we see the attacks on civilians, the repeated attacks of recent days on vital infrastructure – nor for our leaders in the Member States, who are doing their best in difficult conditions. The Temporary Protection Directive is therefore a One-size-fits-allSolution to the pact? In my opinion: No. It can be a useful complement to the crisis mechanism, but never a substitute for the Pact. Incidentally, this also includes the proposal against instrumentalised migration. And let me make a final comment with a look at our neighborhood: The chain of war, hunger, movement is not a new one. As the European Union, we also have a responsibility in the area of food security – within the EU, outside the EU. That is why we must make use of all possibilities to produce food, and we must refrain from anything that throttles, restricts or makes impossible production.

Mr President! The Schengen area is one of the most important parts of our European Union. He's not perfect yet. He's under enormous pressure. Preserving it, protecting this achievement, is perhaps the task of our generation. However, this also includes an honest inventory. Three Member States want to become part of the Schengen area and should finally be included. The attraction – Commissioner, you just mentioned it – is therefore unbroken. At the same time, internal border controls take place in several Member States, more persistent than provided for in the Schengen Borders Code. Why is that so? Because we have to realize that the times when we were surrounded exclusively by peaceful or friendly neighbors are over. Everything that happens around us has an impact on the external border states, has an impact on the Schengen area, has an impact on all Member States. Acknowledging this requires a mental attitude, but above all it requires practical solutions. Why do some Member States consider internal controls necessary? Because we can and must become better at strengthening and securing the external borders. Because we need to step up the fight against smuggling and smuggling, against illegal migration, against cross-border crime and organised crime. Because we are not as close as we should be. So what do we need to protect Schengen? Better cooperation between national authorities. Strong agencies that support Member States in securing the external borders and in the fight against all forms of crime. And an asylum and migration package that works, that is resilient and, moreover, includes the important proposal against instrumentalised migration.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, what happened since the FSWG had concluded the report on the allegations? The agency had taken various actions to improve, to get better, to live up to the revised mandate and the task. Three new DEDs had taken up their responsibility, a new FRO has taken up his duty. accompanied by now 46 fundamental rights monitors, more than first foreseen. The fundamental rights strategies implemented, the FRO is an integral part of the agency’s work, the steer mechanism is revised. The cooperation with the consultative forum had been reinstated with the quality it has had before the former ED. Does the OLAF report put things mentioned above in question? No, because mismanagement and misbehaviour can be assigned to three persons, and they had to face the consequences. Can the agency, the Management Board, the European Parliament and the Commission step up the efforts ? Yes they can, because times have not gotten easier. The geopolitical situation has tightened and Frontex, even while under serious constraints, had fully delivered what we had expected of them, support the Member States facing Russia or Belorussia, supporting Ukraine refugees and providing shelter and care. So, colleagues, whether we like it or not, supporting the agency and strengthening it is paramount in these turbulent times. The agency has done its homework. Let’s do ours and support them.

Mr President, I was three when the Berlin Wall fell; I was 13 when Schengen became an integral part of the Amsterdam Treaties; I was about to finish school when 10 new Member States joined the European family, so Schengen and Europe have always been a part of my life. I have experienced it as an open, as a free, as a promising continent, and it has become even more so in recent times. I would have been 24 when new Member States could have joined the Schengen Area: some 30 million citizens eagerly awaiting to experience that freedom as well, if the Council had acted. The steps needed had been taken, criteria had been met, cooperation and consultation was not only signalled but brought to life. After all, Schengen remains one of the most important achievements of the European Union. It is more than a political showcase; it is a fundamental right of all EU citizens; it is lived by the people of the European Union; it’s part of our European DNA. Can we do more to preserve it and to strengthen it? Yes, of course. It's an achievement. It must be cherished; it must be nurtured; it must be guarded. Would it be an enormous step, an important step ahead in welcoming new members to the Schengen Area? Of course, yes. It would foster our internal security, strengthen our union, and ease the burden for European citizens. I’m 36 now and I would be more than happy to see these accessions before another birthday passes by.

Mr President! If we look at the history of European domestic policy, the area of freedom, security and justice, we have both a short and a long way to go. It is one of the most recent policy areas, deeply rooted in the sovereignty of the Member States, at the same time a field with not only enormous potential in cooperation, but also one in which the trust of the Member States among themselves is raised to a new level, in which the trust of citizens in the security promise is the guiding principle of our action. Expectations, hopes, lessons, expectations for security, hope for protection from crime, from terror, from cybercrime, lessons from the right balance between data protection and security. In the digital age, the threat environment is changing rapidly. Terrorist groups, criminal networks no longer meet in dark backyards. They communicate via encrypted channels. They commit crimes via the Internet and finance their activities through international financial flows. With the mandate reform, we are providing Europol with the necessary tools to effectively meet the growing demands in the virtual world. Thanks to the excellent work of my colleague Javier Zarzalejos, we have been able to strengthen the agency decisively, to underline our fight against criminal structures, to find a good balance in terms of fundamental rights. Europol is one of our flagships in the fight against crime, the spread of abuse, organised crime, terror, money laundering and much more. Does Europol have all the tools it needs? Not yet, in my view. But this week there will be a crucial, an enormously important instrument.

Madam President, When I was allowed to start here in this house three years ago, legislation was routine. Evaluation was routine. With the onset of the pandemic, this changed fundamentally. Borders were closed, uncoordinated measures on the one hand, and uncoordinated measures on the other. In between, citizens who have simply lost track at some point. The impact of this has been particularly noticeable in our cross-border regions, where Europe is developing a very special cosmos, a very tangible one. That is why it is good that we are subjecting the Schengen Borders Code to a stress test. In addition to external shocks such as the pandemic, cross-border crime, organised crime, terrorism are constantly putting our security and the functioning of Schengen to the test. That is why I would like to thank my colleague Sara Skyttedal for her important work on the evaluation mechanism. It makes Schengen fitter for the future and is an excellent starting point for the upcoming packages, be it the Schengen package or the proposals on Police Cooperation Codex, to improve the exchange of information or to modernise Prüm. All these are building blocks for a strong Schengen and thus for more security internally and stability externally. In the end, the Schengen area of open borders remains one of the most important achievements of the European Union. This is much more than a political flagship project, it is a fundamental right of all EU citizens. It is lived by the people of the EU. It is part of our European DNA. This achievement must be cherished, it must be nurtured, it must be protected. Because trust between Member States, between people can only be won in the end, not regulated.

Madam President, the European Union has adopted a unique set of legislation on asylum policy. The protection rights deriving from our acquis are unprecedented in the world. And they go far beyond what the Refugee Convention and the Human Rights Convention provide. None of the conventions contains the individual right to asylum – we have committed to that. So this acquis is worth protecting. It’s an expression of the humanity we base ourselves on. But it also needs to be implemented and it needs to be brought to life. In response to 2015, concrete and collective action was needed to end the undignified reception conditions, for example that the former Greek Government had been watching unfolding. And we did. The then new Greek Government, together with the Commission, changed the reception conditions, aid was provided and at European level, finally, the ambitious new pact was proposed. Can we do more? Of course we can. First, it is now on us here in this House to proceed with the work on the pact, keeping up to the Council, who is for the moment advancing faster than we are. Second, in order to enforce these fundamental rights, consistent training measures, reporting obligations and monitoring is important. And these instruments are in place. Our agencies are bound by those. National authorities are bound by those. Greece and Croatia have already come forward with their independent fundamental rights monitoring. And the Fundamental Rights Officer last stated in the LIBE Committee that there is a significant change of culture within the agency Frontex. And thirdly, we all are also bound to the same extent by European and international law to protect our borders and to fight criminal networks that smuggle and exploit the most vulnerable ones. So it is indeed about enforcing and upholding the law at our external borders with every single aspect of it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! The unspeakable suffering of the last few weeks does not let us all rest. More than four million refugees outside Ukraine, more than ten million internally displaced persons within Ukraine. Anytime on the go, anytime ready to move on. Women and children at the forefront. I spent the last few days in Romania at the border. In the places where I was, the situation is currently quieter. The number of arrivals is steady, but no longer volatile. At the same time, we know that on the other side of the bridge there are thousands of people from the contested areas who have for the time being found accommodation and care with relatives, acquaintances, friends or even strangers, but who will set off at any time if further development requires it. It's a small snippet that I was allowed to see, a country of some at the forefront. But the personal impression of the local helpfulness, the preparation and vigilance of the national authorities, the cooperation with the agencies is impressive. Whether it is Frontex, whether it is Europol, our Asylum Agency, the anti-trafficking coordinators, they are giving their all and they are trying to be everywhere at the same time to support the Member States. One of the phrases that is particularly stuck: ‘We hope for the best, we are prepared for the worst.“Because, dear colleagues, dear Council, dear Commission, we have given Ukraine a promise of protection. We promised them to take care of the children, the women who come to us. I see what the services are doing, Commissioner. I see the staff working around the clock, I see what the agencies and the Member States are doing. But still: We have to keep working on putting a shove on it. This promise of protection must not be broken under any circumstances. We need to know where people are. We need to know where the children are and how they are cared for. We need to know where the women and children are and how they are cared for. With all our strength, with all the tools at our disposal, we must prevent children from being lost, women from disappearing and, at best, reappearing alive, but in forced prostitution or exploitative employment. For this, we need more data sharing, full use of the Solidarity Platform, including for the exchange of child protection strategies and strategies against trafficking in human beings, and still a My More cooperation and involvement of the agencies. But the first and the most important and in comparison almost unbelievably simple step is: Registration, registration, registration!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. In conclusion, I think you can say this very well: The intense debates here in the House are an expression of our long struggle for the rule of law, an expression of a Union that fights for its values, with the establishment of instruments, with the reform of instruments. It's about our core values: the separation of powers, the neutrality of institutions and procedures, the freedom of the press, the protection of minorities, the fight against corruption, no less than the fundamental trust among the Member States. We are all passionate about it, and we fought for the rule of law mechanism for good reasons. Because there is so much at stake, no mistake should happen to us. That's why it's clear today at the latest: The mechanism must finally be drawn. Because we are pulling the mechanism for the first time, it must be legally and politically sound. Commissioner, you mentioned it: Possible actions against the application – against the Commission for the application – must not become a risk to the mechanism itself. But: With today's important judgment, the way is clear. The time is more than ripe. Our goal as a Union must remain: Let's strengthen each other in the fight. Let's focus fully on those who question our values.