Speeches

The debate, which took place in plenary on Wednesday afternoon, 6 October, follows the latest journalistic investigation that revealed the extent to which the international and European financial ecosystem in particular are generating tax evasion across Europe and helping money laundering. MEPs expressed their frustration at having to discuss once again the scandalous loss of tax revenues, especially at a time when the pandemic demands so much from national treasuries, but congratulated the Commission on the adoption of the anti-money laundering legislative package, which meets one of the demands that we have long been defending from the S&amp Group;D. In addition, it is considered shameful that, following the revelations of the Pandora Papers, the EU Council of Finance Ministers decided to cut the list of EU tax havens, removing from the blacklist of jurisdictions that do not comply with international standards on transparency and exchange of information, countries that appear in the revelations of the Pandora Papers.

Madam President, allow me to take the floor today of course as an MEP, but I will speak also in my capacity as President of the Union of European Federalists in order to tackle this topic. Thank you to Commissioner Sinkevičius, particularly because you lately are filling in for every other Commissioners, which of course we thank you, but I think it’s a very bad sign that, I mean, debate after debate, the responsible Commissioners are not showing up, like yesterday on the right of inquiry debate we had McGuinness and not Šefčovič. As it has been said I have to say that your communication – that you defended very ably because probably you got the speaking points – is a shame, is totally disappointing, is unacceptable from the part of Parliament. You allowed yourself in this communication to refer to our proposal, which is the official proposal to reform the Treaties in Article 48, as a ‘reflection’ at the same level as think-tanks’ opinions on the matter. How can you allow this lack of respect to be in a Commission document? Secondly, we were thinking, right, some of us, OK, maybe the Commission will try to avoid referring to the ordinary procedure to review the Treaties and will refer to the simplified procedure, or will refer to the accession treaties as a mechanism to do the necessary adjustments. Not even that! Not even that! You only refer to the passerelles – never activated, not even once since 2009. And then you refer to enhanced cooperations. So do you really think we want to build Europe not as an exception, but as a default by the club of Schengen, the club of the euro, the club of home affairs, the club of defence union? Do you do you think this is sensible? I mean, you are defending here an untenable position and you have to reflect, because otherwise what I will also recommend, as has been said, I will recommend to my political family, the Socialists and Democrats, not to give the confidence to the next Commission if they don’t back the Parliament proposal to reform the Treaties. And by the way, you have to take a position, because Article 48 says that once the European Council considers our proposals, you are to be consulted and you have to give an opinion. And I say here as well: it has to be positive, because otherwise, if we are here and we are back, we won’t give you the confidence.

Mr President, first of all, here we must emphasize that the coalition government of Carlos Mazón of the Popular Party with VOX intends to replace the Democratic Memory Law with a law that equates the Francoist period with the democratic period of the Second Republic. It should be remembered – or stressed – that this initiative falls outside the European framework. The European framework states the following: democratic memory is defended through the CERF (Commemoration of the Victims of All Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes) programme. The People's Party comes here to talk about other things and says that this has nothing to do with the European Parliament. It does have to do, because this project of supranational unity was founded precisely on the victory against Nazifascism and, therefore, Francoism - we all know it - was an ally of these regimes and is just the opposite of the spirit of the European Union. We must therefore ask the Commission to protect us because we cannot tolerate this comparison, which, as I say, falls outside the European framework of historical memory.

Mr President Marc Angel, thank you to those present, also to the colleagues on the negotiating team for this report in Parliament, particularly those who have maintained a line of coherence, such as Helmut Scholtz. We are obliged to take this step of putting oral questions to the Council and the Commission on this matter because Parliament's right of inquiry, Parliament's powers of inquiry are currently regulated by a 1995 decision. The Council is not in a hurry to correct this situation. The Treaty of Lisbon says that a new regulation on the subject must be adopted, that Parliament must propose and that it must then obtain the consent or approval of both the Council and the Commission. Parliament made a proposal in 2014 and we are here ten years later. We have not yet developed a legal basis that is in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is therefore an obligation. And what we are seeing is that, of the three institutions, there is one that is working to develop and fulfill that obligation, with that legal basis, and there are two that are not doing it. There are two who aren't doing it. And both have a serious responsibility in the matter. To begin with, the Commission itself. It is true that the Commission has so far said 'well, get the support of the Council and then I will say what I think'. It has even been said that the Commission is an impartial mediator, but it is not true. Mrs McGuinness I know that you are here replacing Mr Šefčovič and you will say: What strange things does this Member say to me? But it's true. You are not an impartial mediator because you can be the subject of an inquiry by Parliament, in the same way as the Member States. The Commission is therefore an interested party, not an impartial mediator. But, at the same time, there is the fact that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and, therefore, you are obliged to help that legal basis of the Treaty develop, but you have not taken much interest and have not supported Parliament in that task. They have remained on the sidelines pending the Council's action. But the Council also has a very important share of responsibility because this Parliament has made - starting with the 2014 proposal - up to three proposals. And all three have not only been rejected by the fund, by the Council, but also indirectly by the Commission: because the Commission is still in time to give a positive assessment to Parliament’s latest proposal – it can do so today at best, unless Mrs McGuinness comes with very strict instructions. The Council has rejected the latest proposal we have made. I say, the third, in January, with a letter that is not motivated, from the legal point of view it is not motivated. The Council has repeatedly said that in order to open a negotiation with Parliament we would have to accept 11 objections to the initial proposal, subsequently amended in 2018. Parliament made him a proposal - which, by the way, cost me a lot of work because there are two important groups in this House that, depending on the day, take a position and the opposite or depending on who I talk to about the group. And it took me a lot of work for it to be accepted in Parliament that we unilaterally, before opening a negotiation with you, accepted your objections. Of the eleven - I note, Mrs McGuinness - of the eleven objections the Council had, we have accepted nine. Nine. Eleven, nine. And there were two left that we did not accept, because to accept them, even before opening a negotiation, would mean - in our opinion - that we would be worsening the acquis communautaire. We would be in a worse situation than in 1995. I therefore believe that the proposal we have made to you, Mr Minister, is very reasonable. A proposal to negotiate, not even to accept, but to sit down to negotiate. A proposal that resolves nine of its eleven objections. Anyway, what else do you want us to do? Of course, we are not going to worsen the current legal framework of 1995. We can't do that in any way. I therefore encourage you to reconsider your position. President Metsola herself, by the way, whom I thank for her cooperation, raised the issue at the last meetings of the European Council. Maybe one of you remembers. I don't think it's ever happened. Because, of course, ten years later, things are starting to get really serious. I encourage you today to take a constructive position, because you have not had it so far, Minister, you have not had it. When you reject three proposals and do not even negotiate them - I do not say that you accept them, or even negotiate them - you are not being constructive, you are violating the obligation of sincere cooperation, Mr Minister. And so does the Commission. If we have resolved nine of the eleven objections... I'm done, President, but this is very important. If we have accepted nine of the Council's eleven objections, I believe that the Commission should have it, Commissioner, it should have it. It is not understood that you do not want to accept Parliament's proposal either or that you are imitating the Council. I say to them: I do not know if I will be here in the next parliamentary term, but I see no other solution – if you still do not open negotiations with Parliament on the latest proposal – than to take you both to the Court of Justice. Because there is no longer a political alternative. Parliament, in my opinion, is not going to make a new proposal that would worsen the acquis communautaire, that is to say, that would put us - even before opening a negotiation - in a worse place than in the legal framework of 1995.

Madam President, thank you very much to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell, for his presentation. I believe that, in view of the debate, we can conclude that there is a very large majority in the House in favour of using the profits from frozen assets for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine – as the High Representative has pointed out and as the vast majority here support – but that we must also go to the use of the underlying assets. An absolute right – in this case immunity from jurisdiction – cannot, in my view, be invoked in law, particularly by an aggressor State which is condemned in that capacity by the United Nations General Assembly. I am of the opinion that the countermeasures doctrine provides a more than sufficient legal basis to act also on the underlying assets and not only on profits, as – on the other hand – has just been approved by the US Congress.

Madam President, thank you to the Commission for your presence. Unfortunately, the European Council is not present although we are discussing its strategic agenda and the conclusions of the last Council meetings. I imagine that there will be someone taking note on your behalf and, therefore, I take this opportunity to remind the European Council that it still does not include on its agenda the proposal for reform of the Treaties that the European Parliament has launched in application of Article 48, which is the ordinary article. All this despite having already held three meetings since the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the Union, to which I am grateful for its work, transmitted this reform proposal to you in December. Well, it is true that there is no deadline in Article 48, but the European Council cannot claim to postpone this issue. sine die ad calendas graecas thinking that, simply by the mere fact of not taking a position, the reform procedure is paralyzed. Otherwise, we will see ourselves in the position of having to propose other measures that go beyond the strictly political sphere. And I would remind the European Commission that under Rule 48 there is also a consultation on Parliament's proposal and that it will have to take a position. And you will have to do it positively, not as you have done with your last communication because, otherwise, I believe that this House should not give its confidence to the next European Commission.

Mr President, it is clear – as many Members have repeated – that war crimes are being committed in Palestine. The indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime. The use of famines as a weapon of war is a war crime. And, in the face of this, we have to react strongly as the European Union. And I think that we in Parliament have already sent very clear signals. We need the Council to act. And what can the Council do about it? As has been said, we need to review the Association Agreement with Israel to verify whether Israel is complying with its obligations under this Agreement on fundamental rights. Secondly, we can recognize, as Member States of the European Union, the Palestinian State. And thirdly, we must continue to demand that Israel cease its military activities so that we can proceed to humanitarian activities, to the delivery of food by land, sea and air.

Mr President, Minister Lahbib, as President-in-Office of the Council, you have explained to us in great detail the agenda for the European Council meeting. They practically address any topic: agriculture, competitiveness, the crisis in the Middle East, the war of aggression against Ukraine. But institutional reform, nothing at all. It seems almost done on purpose: We are going to fill the agenda with all possible topics so as not to talk about institutional reform. A reform that is inevitable when today the President of the Commission announced the opening of accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. You have a proposal from Parliament. The Parliament has activated Article 48, which is the article of the constitutional reform procedure. Mrs. Lahbib, please tell your colleague Charles Michel. They have to put the subject on the agenda. They can't leave him. ad calendas graecas. How long, Minister Lahbib, will you abuse our patience?

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for your presence. By the way, the first thing that should be said is that it is regrettable that the Council does not participate in this debate and that it is not present. This is a debate on a report that connects and raises the question of enlargement together with deepening and it seems to the Council that this does not seem important and does not interest it. Really deplorable. But, going into the subject, I must first of all congratulate – and not in a protocol way – the rapporteurs – Pedro Silva and Petras Auštrevičius – and the other shadow rapporteurs, because it was not easy to put the two perspectives together: the foreign policy perspective and the constitutional perspective. And they have done a great exercise, which was necessary because, just as we cannot say that everything has to be reformed in the Treaty and all the institutions modified to advance enlargement, it is also not sustainable to propose an enlargement on autopilot without adapting our institutions. I believe that the report has struck the right balance. They are two mutually reinforcing processes.

Mr President, I want to support the colleagues that have already expressed that we don’t need, in this debate, a collection of eulogies or remembrance. Of course, Navalny has been killed, has been murdered. And what we need to propose here is concrete answers to this crime and also to prevent these type of crimes in the future. For this reason, I want to emphasise two measures. First, to use the Navalny list. Six thousand people that are proposed for a long time to be sanctioned, coming precisely from the Navalny Foundation. This is what the Commission should be working on. And second, we need personal sanctions for all those that are involved in the incarceration of Navalny since he came back into Russia, meaning since 2021 onwards: prison responsibles – he has been in more than one, two or three prisons – judges, police officers. All these people have to be targeted.

Madam President, I wanted to take advantage of this debate on European security and defence policy to add a concrete proposal to those that have already been put forward. In the same way that a proposal for a European diplomatic academy has already been launched by Nacho Sánchez Amor and Josep Borrell, I believe that we must also launch a true European military academy, updating and strengthening the current European School of Security and Defence. We need an annual and permanent programme to train the officers of all the armies of the Member States, as a preliminary step so that they can participate in the EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, in the missions of the common foreign and security policy and also to do so - with a truly European approach - within a framework of multinational classes, developing a esprit de corps and personal complicity prior to participation in missions.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, thank you for your presence in this long debate. Actually, I agree with many of the things that have been said, but I also think that we need to be more concrete and more practical when it comes to tackling this problem. It is not enough to give ourselves blows to the chest, to say that anti-Semitism is very wrong, of course, Islamophobia too, but we need concrete action. It is true that the Commission has a coordinator for the fight against antisemitism who is working on this issue and the Commission has valuable initiatives in this regard. But we believe that we must go a step further and, in addition, we have had the opportunity, dear Mr Schinas, to deal with it. The proposal of the programme for young people in Europe so that any young person in secondary school in Europe can visit at least one of the death, death or concentration camps. As President Metsola said during the inauguration of the Holocaust Memorial, nothing is comparable to the experience of visiting Auschwitz.

Madam President Metsola, Mr President Iohannis, thank you for your words. I congratulate him on his commitment to European integration and for his Europeanism. I am also grateful that you mentioned the institutional dimension in your speech. It is clear that, with an enlarged Europe, with the relaunch of the enlargement process, that process must accompany the deepening of our political project in federal terms. You referred to the issue of not excluding Treaty reforms, which I welcome, and I believe that we must also take a step further in that direction. You have referred to the passerelle clauses. It is true: can be activated; are in the Treaty of Lisbon to be able to decide more matters by qualified majority. But in fourteen years the Council has not been able to activate a single one of them. I hope we don't have to wait another fourteen years. Please support Parliament's proposal to reform the Treaties.

Mr President, it is clear that droughts are unfortunately becoming more frequent because of climate change. Therefore, certainly our first weapon, the great priority to combat droughts, is precisely to maintain, or even increase, all our efforts in the fight against climate change. But in the meantime, we need to do other things: certainly increase the amount of water we reuse, which we purify; improving the efficiency of irrigation; increasing desalination – my country, Spain, is a leader in water desalination – and also, to this arsenal of tools, we must add, without dogmatism, the instrument of water transfers between basins – and not only between basins – unfortunately, also in the past demonised. I hope, Commissioner, that you will include them in this water resilience strategy. In Spain we have just made the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer. We are also making transfers from the Tagus basin to the Segura and even... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Madam President, President Michel, Vice-President Šefčovič, I would like to highlight one topic that was not part of the speeches that you delivered, which is the institutional reforms and linking, as you know, President Michel, the enlargement process with the political deepening of the EU. I encourage both of you, the Commission, to come to our next plenary to present your communications on Treaty changes that you are working on. Also, I encourage President Michel, please help us, putting the topic in the agenda of the next European Council meeting in March so you can tackle the proposal that the European Parliament has done on Article 48 for Treaty changes. Because we really need, in our view, to get this important file done before the next European elections and the beginning of the next political cycle.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, Minister Lahbib representing the Belgian Presidency, I would like to tell you – as Juan Fernando López Aguilar has already said – that coming to the House, after Hungary has spent five years in the Article 7 procedure, to propose that you organise another meeting or other hearing, forgive me for telling you, is a joke. It's a joke, I'm really telling you. After five years, what you have to do, since you are the President-in-Office of the General Affairs Council, is to call on the Council to vote on the first paragraph of Article 7 by a four-fifths majority. It's not hard. You have the power to do so. Call it - you are the Presidency, you have the power to do so - and proceed to the vote, because after five years it is clear that there is a risk to the rule of law in Hungary. Finally, please help us put the reform of the Treaties on the agenda of the European Council - this or the next one.

Mr President, I thank Vice-President Šefčovič for his presence and, of course, the rapporteurs of these important reports: Paulo Rangel and Maite Pagazaurtundúa. These reports deal with two issues of great importance to all of us. On the one hand, the relationship with national parliaments. We are also parliamentarians, there have always been attempts to oppose national parliaments with the European Parliament, and this report shows that this is not the case. On the contrary, what we are promoting is an alliance between national parliaments and the European Parliament, because that is the common interest: promote the participation of national parliamentarians in the construction of Europe. The idea of extending the deadline to 12 weeks so that they can carry out this subsidiarity check more effectively - dear Mrs Bresso, Socialist shadow rapporteur - and also, on the other hand, the other report - a very good proposal that we also support, Pascal Durand, Socialist rapporteur - to build, dear Mrs Pagazaurtundúa, this Statute of European Citizenship, to bring all the rights - those of the Charter, those of the Treaty - into one instrument. I believe that these two ideas should be taken good note of, also by the Belgian Presidency, which, incidentally, I also encourage to promote that, before the European elections, the European Council can discuss the proposal for reform of the Treaties of the European Parliament.

Mr President, congratulations, in the first place, to the rapporteur, Tonino Picula, for this excellent report that I fully support. I just wanted to bring something else to the debate. In 1939, on the eve of World War II, Clarence Streit published a book, Union Now. In this book, he proposed a federal union of the Atlantic democracies to face Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt signed the Atlantic Charter in Newfoundland. Then, in 1949, the NATO treaty. 1995, in Madrid, the new Transatlantic agenda was signed. So we have a big Atlantic acquis on which to build. And I think we have to go beyond just partnership. We have to move into a transatlantic community. We need a vision that can include a common transatlantic market. Also parliamentary and political cooperation instruments. I think we have to seize the moment now for that.

Mr President, thank you to the High Representative, Josep Borrell, for having maintained from the beginning, in the face of this conflict, in the face of this escalation, a clear position, also balanced. Because I am of the opinion – listening to the debate that has taken place – that it should not be the subject of disagreement between us to say that, of course, we support Israel in its objective of disarming, of dismantling a terrorist group like Hamas, which must of course cease to control the Gaza Strip, but that, at the same time, this has to be carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law and, at the same time, that also means that the laws of war must of course be respected and all the deaths of innocent civilians in Gaza that have occurred must be avoided. Why is this position the subject of controversy and debate by some Members of this House? I would add one thing: He is no better friend of the Jewish people or of the State of Israel than he who jerks and condones the excesses of his government.

Madam President, thank you, of course, to the Vice-Presidents for their presence and for the proposals they have brought to us, which I support. In the dimension of strengthening democracy, I do believe, Vice-President Šuica, that perhaps - or perhaps not perhaps, but clearly - it was a mistake to have closed the digital platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe. But they can still correct that decision by creating a permanent platform that can be active during the five years of the legislature for debate, exchange and citizen participation, because the experience of the Conference, as you said, was very positive. With regard to the Citizens' Panels, it is very good that the Commission continues to use them. There, too, it might be good to do so in cooperation with Parliament, so that it is not just an initiative of the Commission. And finally, remember that we had suggested to you the idea of sending all young Europeans who turn 18 a letter enclosing the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for this debate. I think the positions are very clear. References have again been made to the proposal for a pan-European constituency. Of course, I agree with my friend Sandro Gozi that this would be an element that would really have a very profound effect on the Europeanisation of debates and on strengthening the application of the principle of the main candidates for President of the Commission. Parliament has a clear position on this. We fixed it in the proposed electoral law. Therefore, this report reiterates that, which does not mean that, at the same time, we have to find other complementary formulas that give us that Europeanization, such as the visibility of European political parties on the ballot papers and in electoral marketing, and also strengthen the ability to influence that decision on the President of the European Commission as Parliament. There we find important the recommendations that we have included in the report on how to develop the post-electoral process, precisely to ensure that the European Parliament has a candidate, who has an input, in the decision-making process of the European Council. Some colleagues have said that we are trying to take power away from the European Council. But if we think about it, what we are doing is informing the European Council. Because the European Council – like any head of state in a Member State in a parliamentary regime – does not want to propose someone that the House can reject, but needs to know who is the candidate who can count on a majority in the House. That is why we are actually facilitating the task of the European Council if we manage, after the elections, to arrange, present and report to the European Council on our common candidate.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Gentiloni, on behalf of the Commission, thank my colleagues in the negotiating team, EPP co-rapporteur Sven Simon and shadow rapporteurs Sandro Gozi from Renew, Daniel Freund from Verts-ALE and Helmut Scholz from The Left for their constructive cooperation. I think we got a good report at an important time. It is a report on the elections to the European Parliament in June next year, which will take place after a particularly important legislature for the European Union. It is a legislature in which we have faced the coronavirus pandemic and, since February 2022, Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine. We can say that the institutions, and also Parliament, have fulfilled their role. We have launched a European Health Union, with the vaccine purchase plan, and a recovery plan to rescue our economies. In addition, after the war, or during the war, we have strengthened our security and defence strategy and therefore also our Energy Union. In the midst of all this, we have also held the Conference on the Future of Europe and launched Parliament's proposal to activate the Treaty reform procedure. A reform that is inescapable now that the enlargement process is also being relaunched. The forthcoming elections to the European Parliament should therefore be aimed precisely at assessing these five years of activity by the institutions, in a real exercise in European democracy and politics, and not, again, at a collection of 27 parallel national elections that depend on domestic issues concerning the Member States. It is therefore more than ever necessary to Europeanise this political discussion, to encourage participation in the European elections. That is why we urge European and national political parties, in particular, to commit themselves. For example, by strengthening the visibility of European political parties by including their logos and names on the ballot papers of national parties and also in electoral marketing. We also call on the European political parties, of course, to respect the values of Article 2 of the Treaty and to commit themselves to nominating their candidates democratically. And that they are consistent with the electoral mandate, that they reach agreements on how to develop the post-electoral process during the negotiations to elect the president of the Commission. That is why we consider it important that, this time, contrary to what happened in 2019, we can ensure that the principle of the process of lead candidates for Commission Presidents is complied with. That requires a commitment on the part of the parliamentary institution, and that is why we propose that it is the candidate belonging to the political group that obtains the most seats in the elections who has the opportunity to start negotiations with the rest of the groups in the first instance to see if he can form a sufficient majority. Otherwise, the turn will pass successively to the candidates of the other political families. If the process proceeds as we expect, Parliament would have, as was the case in 2014, a candidate whose name would be transferred to the European Council by the President of our institution, the European Parliament. Therefore, we cannot miss this opportunity. We cannot repeat the error of 2019, and I call on the House and colleagues to support this report which proposes to further Europeanise the European elections and preserve this very interesting and much-needed process of allowing voters to also express a preference over who should be the President of the European Commission.

Mr President, I would like to express to the House today that I support the proposal for an amnesty law put forward by the Socialist Parliamentary Group in the Congress of Deputies, for a number of reasons which, in reality, are not relevant in this House and which I would not have time to explain. At the same time, I understand that the comrades of the Popular Party – especially in Spanish – disagree with this proposal for a law. You may question its timing, you may question its justification, you may question its effects, but that does not mean that the bill itself constitutes an attack on the rule of law. Because, in addition, you will have the opportunity – as you will surely use the opportunity – to use your fifty deputies or senators to file an appeal with the Constitutional Court, which will be the one that will rule in one direction or another and, in both directions in which it is pronounced, the rule of law will have worked in Spain.

Mr President Othmar Karas, High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell and Commissioner Janez Lenarčič, I believe that the High Representative should be congratulated on his tour of the countries of the Middle East, which I believe has been very useful in making the European position clear. I think it is a good thing that it is also clear from the European Union that we are against Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip. And we must talk about the future of the Gaza Strip, I believe that this debate must also be put on the table: the idea that Josep Borrell has pointed out that the Palestinian Authority will take over the Strip with the support of the Arab League, the United Nations, and that, as he has also said, the peace process and the two-state solution will be relaunched. I also encourage the European Union to consider working towards a European peace proposal, as the United States has done at other times. I believe that this could also add value to the peace process on the part of the European Union.

Mr President, Vice-Presidents Šefčovič and Šuica, present, President-in-Office of the Council, I will start by first thanking the five rapporteurs for this report. There are five rapporteurs representing five political groups in this House – the democratic and pro-European groups – as well as five members of Altiero Spinelli’s Federalist Intergroup and, not by chance, we see this important imprint for moving towards a more democratic and more effective European Union in its functioning. And here, it is also important to acknowledge the willingness of the Spanish Presidency – as explained by the Secretary of State – to transmit the report to the European Council at its meeting on 12 December, as soon as we approve it tomorrow and transmit it quickly. I also hope that the Spanish Presidency will help us to put the report on the agenda of 15 December and that the discussion between the Member States on this proposal can now be opened. A proposal that is necessary because the world in which we live today is totally different from that of 2007, when the Treaty of Lisbon was adopted. At that time, neither the financial crisis of 2008, nor that of the euro, nor the Arab springs, nor the first Russian aggression against Ukraine, nor the first Russian aggression against Ukraine had taken place. BrexitNeither the election of Trump in the United States. Obviously, neither did the pandemic and the second war in Ukraine. It's a totally different world. And when the world changes, Europe has to change, reform and move forward. As if this were not enough, we are now also relaunching enlargement to Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and the Western Balkans. Can we really go to a Union - I also ask the Presidency of the Council (the Commission has already hinted that not) - with 36 vetoes in the Council? Thirty-six sheriffs? I know you are stewards, but it will take a lot of imagination to design 36 different portfolios for 36 stewards. And, at the same time, we cannot resolve all this within the current Lisbon Treaty. It is true that we have the gateways and, if activated, Parliament would of course be in favour, but we cannot solve the issue as a technical exercise without involving civil society, citizens and the European Parliament within the framework of a Convention. Article 7 has been discussed. If we want to include, as necessary, the Court of Justice in Article 7 – because the question of the rule of law is existential – we need a reform of the Treaty. No passerelle clause will save us from that reform of Article 7. And, if we want to consolidate the recovery plan and the debt instrument - a fruit that we must now make permanent - we cannot play it into new battles with the national constitutional courts, nor will the gateways free us from doing that exercise. In short, we have, with tomorrow's vote, a historic opportunity for Parliament. Let us remember that this report is intended to activate Article 48, that is, the reform procedure, because we need to table amendments to the Treaty in order for the European Council to take into consideration the idea of convening the Convention. It is therefore not necessary to agree with all the proposed amendments. It is natural that there should be one, two or three with which one is not fully satisfied. But that's not what's important. The important thing is to vote to activate this reform procedure and move towards a European Union with more capacity to act, more democratic and, ultimately, more federal.