Speeches

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.

Madam President, Commissioner! Digitalisation, sustainable economy, solid growth: The coming years will be challenging for the European Union – for our economy. On the other hand, one in five people in the EU is already over 65 and the proportion of workers in the population will continue to decline in the future. Europe needs an answer to that. With the report today, we are setting another mosaic stone. After all, well-managed legal migration can be a key component of our economy if and because it responds to labour market needs and skills shortages. Three things are essential for us: The Member State shall decide on the type and extent of immigration. The labour market defines the criteria and the needs. In addition to highly qualified professionals and entrepreneurs, this may also include other criteria and other qualifications. In some areas, we lack not only doctors and engineers, but also workers in agriculture, construction and healthcare. Crucial for this: Supply and demand need to be better reconciled. The talent pool, the talent partnerships, which have also been mentioned today, can play a very important role here. And thirdly: Legal migration can and must be an integral part of cooperation with third countries, both positively and, where appropriate, negatively. The talent pool and the talent partnerships on the one hand, the full set of instruments of the Visa Code on the other. If we want to maintain our prosperity and innovative strength, we must not lose touch with global competition, and this is exactly the case at the moment. The United States, Canada and Australia are a big step ahead of us in promoting the brightest and the most talented. With this report today, we are working together to make the European Union fitter for the future. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their great work.

Madam President, The use of migration as a means of pressure is unfortunately not new – not worldwide and not even in Europe. We all have the Turkish interpretation of last year in mind. What has a new quality: the dictator's ruthlessness, the cynicism of instrumentalization, the perfidious combination of artificial migration routes with tangible economic benefits for the authoritarian regime. So far, all attempts to blackmail the European Union have failed. This is not self-sufficient; It took a lot of work on our part. I would particularly like to thank Margaritis Schinas, who has been on the road intensively over the last few weeks and has worked excellently and tirelessly – especially with countries of origin and airlines. What counts now: Europe's unity must be maintained with regard to sanctions, border management, the involvement of international aid organisations in Belarus, and consistent repatriation. The message is very clear: Europe cannot be blackmailed. At the same time, we need to better equip ourselves for such challenges: with the asylum and migration package, with the revision of the Schengen Borders Code, with geopolitical guidelines and full backing for our agencies. We are the ones in charge of Europe's external borders, not dictators who threaten the stability of the Union.

Madam President, to begin with the obvious, the European Union, each Member State, everyone acting on their behalf need to comply with fundamental rights obligation. At the same time, they are also by national, European and international law obliged to protect borders and to fight criminal networks, smuggling and exploiting the most vulnerable ones. Even more so when these networks are state sponsored – an instrument like migratory flows – like done by Erdogan or Lukashenko. In this sense, this obligation is even more crucial when we speak about European borders, because then Schengen and our four freedoms rely on that. No doubt it is a sensitive balance, and we witnessed just yesterday in plenary a government that does not live up to our expectations. But there are other Member States working together smoothly with European support, answering hybrid attacks together, cooperating with the Commission on alleged cases. And because it is a sensitive balance, we need to make a few things clear. Let’s not expect from our officers, European or national, land or sea border, to first open up a legal review of complex questions when acting on our behalf. The principle of non—refoulement is, of course, to be respected, but neither does it mean that access to a procedure can be practically applied at every inch of the border, nor does it mean that everyone asking for protection is eligible for that. And see, and this is the key. It is on us finding the right balance politically, legally and enforceable under difficult circumstances. Half-way to that is a pact screening border procedure, the crisis mechanism which prepares us better. The second part is the upcoming revision of the Schengen Border Code. But the need for better coordination – measures to prevent manipulated crossings – instruments to trigger in critical situations. We are the ones that need to be in the driving seat of any orderly management, not dictators threatening the stability of the Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. As a rule, you will reach the age of 18, get new rights, but also new duties and responsibilities. Now an agency cannot reach the age of majority, and yet it is time for the Support Office to grow up ten years after its foundation. That is exactly what we can welcome today. With almost three years of discussion, a success in the field of asylum and migration and thus in itself a memorable moment. The Asylum Support Office has become one of our main instruments in the field of asylum and migration in recent years. More than 400 experts working for us, helping frontline Member States, providing practical assistance on asylum applications, training and coordination in building a European common asylum system. With the agreement on the new mandate, with the development of EASO to the EAS, not only a support office will finally become a full-fledged agency. It is also a crucial step towards a functioning and resilient asylum system. We are thus drawing lessons from the challenges of recent years and putting European solidarity on firm feet. Experts can now go into action even faster, providing their important operational and technical support. The pool is a crucial step forward. Its role as an early warning system in refugee movements and trends in asylum applications, the important contribution to country reporting for the national authorities, can be expanded. Coordination with other European agencies and Member States is finally being improved. However, the signal effect of the agreement goes far beyond the Agency. It's more than a growing up of our agencies. It is – and must be – the necessary impetus for the work on the overall package. It shows that we can agree when the will to compromise is there, when pragmatic solutions are sought. This is what we owe our citizens: a Europe that protects and supports each other in challenging situations – as seen most recently in Lithuania, but also in Greece, Cyprus, Italy and other countries. Let us continue right there and finally move forward with the common asylum and migration package.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It is not the first time that we are dealing with a neighbour who does not shy away from state human smuggling, who cynically exploits human suffering, instrumentalizes it for his own power interests. It is the approach that Erdoğan has already tried on the Greek border. It is the copy-paste moment of autocratic and dictatorial brains, united in the desire to destabilize the Union. Our response is the same as before: A hybrid attack against a member of the Union is an attack on all of us. But the process also has an internal dimension. That we are susceptible to blackmail attempts is unnecessary and superfluous. The proposals for the Pact are on the table. They may not taste good to everyone, but that's exactly what negotiations are for. All Member States that have so far taken a less ambitious approach to the work should urgently reconsider their positions. There is a European response to this challenge, with practical and financial support from the Union, using our agencies and in the spirit of European values. Otherwise, we risk continuing to face hybrid attacks – perhaps not a good idea given the sensitive international shift in power.

Madam President, the situation in Afghanistan is serious and the repercussions go far beyond a single regime change. The progress made, especially on women’s and girls’ rights, their participation in society and political life, and their access to education and health care vanished in a shockingly short time. Already now we see women and girls disappearing from public life, forced to fully cover themselves when entering universities, and threatened when standing up for their rights. That’s why we need to be vocal on their behalf. Respecting and protecting their rights has to be at the heart of our humanitarian aid and prerequisite to development policies within that country. This is what we owe to them. But Afghanistan is not solely a European issue. Our support will only have an impact when embedded in a broader global approach. An increased European budget is good, but international actors have to fulfil their pledges as well. The same applies to the support for neighbouring countries hosting the largest amount of migrants and refugees. We will step up our financial help, but also our support in asylum capacity building and the fight against criminal networks exploiting the most vulnerable. This is only one reason why we need to have a full picture of those arriving in Europe. Reinforced border protection, sound registration and security checks on those being evacuated from the region are of the utmost importance for our internal security. Our agencies like Europol and Frontex stand ready to support, and security will be served best when combined with an increased information exchange between the national level European agencies and international partners. This is what we owe to our citizens and to those fleeing war and persecution: that they are not threatened anew by criminal networks and terrorists.

Madam President, at the beginning of this term we made a promise, a Europe that protects, and while we saw new challenges emerging we also prepared ourselves better. An important part of that other funds we’re debating right now is an increased budget supporting not only border protection and migration management, but also measures of solidarity and integration. But where funds are crucial and closer cooperation is well received we also need to be aware of the broader dimension. Last week, the last year, unfortunately proved that the European Union is, and probably will be again, faced with neighbours like Erdoğan, Lukashenko or others, neighbours that are not only questioning our way of life but that are trying to attack and destabilise the European Union as a whole, instrumentalising both the current stalemate on the pact and people already in a vulnerable situation. Our answer to that needs to be firm. Protecting our Member States under pressure, solving the stalemate, and backing the European agencies providing their support on our behalf, for a Europe that protects.