Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When I look at the outcome of the negotiations on the Euro 7 revision, I have to say: There would have been clean air up there. We must note that the limit values are indeed not sufficient to achieve better environmental protection and better health protection in Europe. Thousands of people are still dying as a result of bad air in Europe and also in Germany. I heard today that this result is important for the industry. The fact is, however, that the supplier industry in particular has developed technical solutions for the automotive industry, has invested money in them and these solutions are not needed now. In addition, the CDU/CSU always argues: "We don't need a strong Euro 7 standard at all, because the combustion engine will be abolished anyway. So why burden companies now?” At the same time, however, they are discussing in their election program to abolish the combustion engine and to keep the combustion engine running. That is why the danger is all the greater that these weak standards risk more lives. That is why this result is not sufficient, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Presidency of the Council, dear Lara as rapporteur! We have fought together here in the European Parliament to get a supply chain law that protects human rights, protects environmental standards, ensures that our consumption here in the European Union does not contribute to the suffering of people anywhere else in the world. We have negotiated this intensively over the years. We have ensured that small and medium-sized enterprises are not in scope. We've made sure you can't just impose obligations on them that are simply passed on in the supply chain. And, above all, we did not introduce new reporting obligations with this law, but we used the existing CSRD. Incidentally, the CSRD has also approved the FDP in this Parliament, which, of course, is not present in this debate, but which is doing everything in the German Federal Government to ensure that this law does not come, even though the important part has already been approved. The FDP enters the European election campaign with the slogan ‘Economy loves freedom’. Clearly, the economy is more important to them than human lives, as environmental standards and as human rights all over the world. I very much hope that there will be a change of heart in the FDP, because we owe it absolutely to the people for whom we make this law. In addition, the FDP will post: ‘Backbone: EU standard from now on’. It must prove that it has a backbone and finally give up its blockade against the supply chain law. Otherwise, it's all just campaign laundry, and that's actually not worth the paper that says it. So let's keep working to make this directive a reality!

Mr President, Commissioner! Thank you for your explanations. Just like right now, I want to say something about the SPCs first and then about the SEPs. About the SPCs: It is already possible that pharmaceutical companies can obtain these protection certificates. However, we are now regulating a single SPC across Europe to end market fragmentation, and this also helps generic drug manufacturers because it increases and improves predictability. It is already the case that patent protection is independent of the origin of the company, so both innovative companies within Europe and outside Europe can benefit. That is why I believe that we have drafted a very balanced report here in the Committee on Legal Affairs, and I look forward to the support tomorrow. But I would like to say something about the SEPs again as shadow rapporteur, because what I have heard here in part is outrageous. I believe that we have chosen a very balanced proposal in the JURI Committee: on the one hand the IMCO report and on the other hand the INTA report, which could not have been more different, and I think we have brought the threads together very well in the JURI committee. The JURI text is also compatible with WTO and TRIPS requirements. Explicitly, regulations are allowed if there is a market failure, and we have a market failure here. Commissioner Breton has made this very clear once again. Lack of transparency is a problem. Der Änderungsantrag aus dem INTA-Ausschuss hingegen öffnet Tür und Tor, dass wir uns dem Diktat der Unternehmen aus anderen Jurisdiktionen unterwerfen müssten, insbesondere aus China. I really need to ask the question: Where is the strategic autonomy if we let Huawei and Qualcomm dictate the conditions under which we have to license these technologies? There is no strategic independence, that is the purest dependency. One last one: We do not interfere with existing license agreements. Everything else is really false, and that is why I very much support Mrs Walsmann's draft report and thank her once again for the good cooperation and hope that we will get broad support for it tomorrow.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wouldn't have expected so much interest in these four topics, but that's nice. I would like to start with the topic of supplementary protection certificates and then I will also say something about the standard essential patents, where I was shadow rapporteur. First, the supplementary protection certificates or SPCs: An SPC extends the term of a patent for a drug or plant protection product by up to five years and aims to compensate for the applicant's loss of time in terms of patent protection that comes with the thorough official examination. Currently, there are SPCs at national level and protection is very fragmented and we now want to introduce a unified European protection construct. This is good for the industry, as costs and effort are reduced. And it is also good for generic manufacturers, because it ensures better predictability. That is why, in the Committee on Legal Affairs, we voted unanimously in favour of all four reports. Thank you again for this. I hope this will happen in plenary tomorrow. This brings me to the second issue: Standard Essential Patents. If a company invests a lot of money to develop a new technology standard such as 5G or Wi-Fi 6, then this company should also be fairly paid for it. We all agree on that. And this is exactly why there is a worldwide system in which patent holders have to make their essential patents available to everyone, but in return receive a fair and non-discriminatory license fee. That sounds good, doesn't it? The problem is that the practice is very different. Because companies that want to launch Wi-Fi or 5G products on the market would have to negotiate with the patent holders from a bad position. They usually simply do not know what a fair price for a license would be and cannot compare license rates of competitors. And if you do not accept the offer directly from the patent holder, you quickly risk an injunction, which can lead to product destruction and massive economic damage, especially in Germany. Fair conditions are different. A few companies benefit enormously from the current system. They earn billions with their licenses, especially companies from the USA such as Qualcomm or from China such as Huawei. And they are also lobbying with flimsy arguments against this new regulation, while European small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are lagging behind and, as patentees, are at the mercy of the conditions of the patentors. If a proposal, which is primarily intended to increase transparency, is intended to be such a deep intervention in the current licensing system, as Huawei and others claim, and thus provokes aggressive backlash, then we must ask ourselves the question: What is really happening in secret? And a recent example of why the current system is absolutely dangerous for most EU companies: The German company AVM, which manufactures the well-known Fritz! routers, is currently being sued by Huawei for the use of Wi-Fi 6, i.e. by a large Chinese company. And also in the 5G area, as I said, most patents are in the USA or China and not in Europe. And that is why the SEP Regulation is also extremely important in order to protect EU interests. European industrial companies will benefit greatly from this Regulation through increased legal certainty. This greater clarity is particularly beneficial for SMEs. On the one hand, this could make them feel safer, and in fact, they will also be able to bring more products to market. Ladies and gentlemen, that is why the proposal is not immature. It is not anti-SME. It is not directed against European innovation, but creates more transparency and clarity in a market that desperately needs it. I would like to thank Mrs Walsmann for the good cooperation and wish her every success in the vote.

Mr President, dear colleagues, SLAPPs are strategic lawsuits against public participation. They are a form of legal harassment and abuse of the justice system. They are used against journalists, NGOs and human rights defenders by powerful individuals and organisations who try to avoid public scrutiny. This is why we need this Directive so badly, and with today’s adoption, we will, for the first time ever, have a definition of SLAPP cases to help our courts to tackle them. We will have an early-dismissal mechanism to cut lengthy proceedings, save costs, and shorten the victim’s suffering. We will give victims the possibility to get reimbursements of all costs, including the legal representation. We will be able to shield victims against third-party SLAPPs. And finally, we will have a definition of cross-border cases – and this is a crucial point, because the broad definition impacts how many cases will fall under the scope of this instrument, and therefore how many victims will profit from the SLAPP Directive. We made sure that as many victims as possible will benefit from the new rules. Dear colleagues, just last year we saw a record-breaking number of SLAPP cases – 160 cases – where journalists may have been deprived of their fundamental rights. At the same time, these 160 cases are a threat to our democracy, to the rule of law, and seriously undermine the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, information, and association. So SLAPPs run counter to our European values, and we stop them today. This is a major win, and I want to thank again everyone who worked so hard on this file to achieve this outcome.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The promises attached to the STEP programme – they were huge. The Commission wanted to give a strong answer to that of the Americans. An additional €10 billion should be invested, of which €5 billion should go to the Innovation Fund to stimulate and support climate-friendly investments throughout Europe, in the regions, to invest in the future. There is almost nothing left of this announcement: a missed opportunity and another empty promise from Commission President von der Leyen, who could not convince Member States to invest in this important area. This law is actually very important. What has remained - and for this we still need it - is the simplification of rules for the existing funding programmes. This is where our efforts come together. But STEP could have been so much more, it should have been so much more. And that is why it remains a simple first step towards a stand-alone EU Sovereignty Fund, which we must continue to tackle.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We want to be climate neutral by 2050 at the latest and we need to achieve this goal; We owe it to the Europeans. And for this we need an ambitious interim target: We must save at least 90% of our greenhouse gases in 2040 – otherwise we will fail with our efforts, otherwise we will not make it possible for Europeans to live well here in the future. That is why I am very grateful that the Commission has followed the scientific recommendation at this point. However, it is also very clear that support for the poorest, especially support for those who cannot simply afford a climate-friendly life, for example by moving to air-conditioned houses, is still lacking. We also don't have enough resources for transformation. And honestly, I am surprised that the Commission evaluates the sinks so positively, when we are always achieving results here, where the natural sink is at the collar. At this point, it needs more clarity and, above all, straightforwardness.

Madam President, Commissioner! Many European farmers are currently demonstrating to express their disappointment with agricultural policy. They are furious about the market power of food retailing, which spills valuable food and doesn't pay decent prices. They are faced with new requirements for animal and environmental protection, which are necessary, but whose additional costs are not rewarded. And they fear unfair competition, even within the common market, because different standards apply. When I talk to my farmers in Lower Saxony, one thing becomes clear: None of them want to be dependent on subsidies, but as long as there are no fair prices, they are. De facto, we must therefore target the monopoly in the food retail trade and also the processing companies. And at the same time, we need financial support, especially for small and medium-sized and family businesses. That is why we must finally get to the common agricultural policy, which also pays subsidies for the big corporations, even though we would need it for the regional farms on the ground. This commitment is also needed from the Union, which is now resonating for the small and medium-sized. And in the direction of the AfD, which is no longer following the debate, I want to say: As long as your basic programme states that you want to leave agriculture to the market and do not want subsidies, you do not need to act as a savior here at all. They are the opposite.

Can I reply now again, Madam President? OK! I never had that so thank you very much for this opportunity. Once again, if we agree that the wording at the moment is already allowing patients to say ‘no’ to register their data initially into the electronic health record, then it’s fine. But then we can also adopt Amendment 555, which would precisely make this legal and we wouldn’t have to depend on the interpretation of the rules. Hence, I think that we agree in principle, and that the wording of the Amendment 555 is better and hence should be supported.

Our amendment will ensure that the interpretation is very clear. You have just said yourself that the wording now permits this possibility of contradiction, but that is not really clear. And that is why I did not understand your statement that you would explain it as a red line if this amendment, which would find a clarification of the wording found so far, were supported. We could easily accept this text by agreeing that with Amendment No 555 we will clarify the interpretation you have just proposed, and then we all agree.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Undoubtedly: The European Health Data Space is a key building block of the European Health Union. The digitalisation of healthcare with improved cross-border patient care and improved pan-European research through better data access can actively save lives and will strengthen the European research location. But this digitalisation will only succeed if patients in the European Union can also trust this system. Trust is the basis, and unfortunately this is not yet clear in this proposal. I very much regret that the rapporteur, Mr Sokol, recently took to the stage and vociferously fought against more rights for patients and even spoke of a red line for him. Apart from the fact that this is not yet covered by the text: How can we seriously oppose more control for citizens over their data? That is why tomorrow we must support Amendment No 555, which ensures a balance between the objectives of this proposal and the fundamental rights of citizens. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am already somewhat fascinated that the colleagues from the CDU, in particular, are now running against the same wall with the same head for the eleventh time and then find out again: This time, too, this wall will stand up. It makes no sense at all to underline a technology here, so to speak, and to demand it again and again, of which we know that we do not have these fuels at all to a sufficient extent, and now also with the carbon-correction-Factor to ensure that control over the achievement of climate targets is taken away from vehicle manufacturers and given to oil companies. This does not make sense and makes absolutely no sense. And no wonder that the big manufacturers oppose your idea of the carbon-correction-Factors are. You are suggesting a solution where there is no solution. Quite the contrary. The manufacturers, including the trade unions, are quite clear: There is a solution for climate-neutral transport, including for trucks. And that's not e-fuels, it's electrification in the long run. And then we should make that clear and finally stop wanting to make the same mistake again and again.

Dear Mr. President, thank you very much and congratulations again on the election! Dear Commissioner, it is good to see you again! Dear colleagues! First of all, I would like to thank Lídia, our rapporteur, for the great cooperation, for the many meetings we have had together. I believe that this has been very constructive work, which we have done here across the political group boundaries, thus creating a good framework legislation. I am really sure that with this law, if we vote on it, we will create a good framework for regulating carbon in the European Union. And that we need clear rules for this, all experts agree very much. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also said: Without negative emissions, our climate targets cannot be achieved – even if we completely decarbonise energy production when the industry is completely switched over. We will always have areas where emissions continue to occur, and that is why negative emissions are so important – both technological extractions and natural extractions. At the same time, we have seen in recent years that carbon removals – with the offsetting – An incredible amount of shambles was driven, a great deal of greenwashing was carried out. The collapse of the certificate dealer Verra shows this quite clearly: There is an urgent need for strict and good rules, which we are presenting with this proposal from the Committee on the Environment. We create a standard on the basis of which companies, engineers, but also our farmers can establish sustainable business models, and with this standard we also create trust. That trust must be. I think we need to ensure that every extraction actively supports biodiversity restoration – we do. We must prevent monocultures and short-term take-away effects, and in the end we must also ensure that we need clear rules when using biomass in combination with CO2 storage, which we also call BECCS. All emissions, including those from land use, must be included, so that the demand for biomass does not increase even further. I am very much looking forward to the vote and thank you once again for the constructive cooperation and I am already looking forward to the trilogue.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Rapporteur! I believe that the net-zero industry regulation must send a clear industrial policy signal from the European Union that we want to produce the key industries for the future, such as battery production, solar production or wind energy and heat pumps here in the European Union, and that we want to ensure that we do not fall into dangerous dependencies. For this, we need the Net-Zero Industry Act, even if it is not yet the perfect answer. I think it is very important that the net-zero technology list allows Member States to choose their technologies; otherwise, the inefficient promotion with the watering can principle would have meant. Very important to me: There is still no money from the European budget for nuclear technology. It is not recognized as strategic, and this is especially in view of the fact that in the U.S. Small modular reactors It has become a billion-dollar grave, of particular importance. And in the end, I think we need to make it clear: Deregulation does not mean lowering protection levels – and this is what we are doing with this report.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We stand again – no, rather, we are still on the edge of the turning point of international climate policy. Last year was one of the hottest years in the world since records began. This year will be even hotter. Last year, 32 million people fled the consequences of the climate crisis, and there will be even more. Last year we lost over 1.5 million hectares of European forest, and that's why something needs to be done. That is why this COP is so damn important, even if it is led by a former oil manager – or rather, precisely because of it. We need a breakthrough in the International Compensation Fund for the poorest of the poor who are suffering from the climate crisis. Dear Commissioner, dear Wopke, it is good that you are here today, and you have given us a very clear commitment in your hearings to support this climate fund, this compensation fund. I hope that we, as the European Union, will succeed in doing so, and that is where we will actually measure this COP.

Madam President, Commissioner Breton! I want to make it very clear: We honestly knew that Elon Musk would not fulfill his obligation under the Digital Services Act before Hamas' cruel terrorist attack on Israel. A few weeks ago, I asked the Commission a parliamentary question about enforcement. I look forward to an answer, even before the six-week deadline. And I think we cannot allow so much time to enter the country without actually enforcing the Digital Services Act. It was only when the topic of hatred, hate speech, anti-Semitism was, so to speak, inevitable that you ran away and sent letters. Don't get me wrong. That's good, that's right, but I think we've taken too much time. We must not only make the enforcement of European law, especially of such important laws as the Digital Services Act, dependent on what is happening in public, but we need a permanent enforcement of European law with moderation and not driven by the hurricane of political debates. Because then we make ourselves vulnerable to censorship, and that is precisely what the Digital Services Act, with its many protection mechanisms for consumers, prevents.

Madam President, Dear Commissioner, I am glad that you are here, ladies and gentlemen. It's been six years since journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered. Many of you may not know that they were also subject to over 40 lawsuits – 40 lawsuits that should silence them. Unfortunately, there are still far too many journalists in the European Union who are victims of lawsuits that are meant to silence them, to tie them up, to use up their financial resources, to ensure that they no longer pursue their work. This is a fact that we as the European Union can no longer accept. Free journalism is a cornerstone of our democracy. Free journalists correct and control the powerful, and that's so damn important. I am therefore pleased that we are currently working on the Anti-SLAPP Directive, also known as Daphne's Law. Ich würde mir vom Rat wünschen, dass wir beim nächsten Trilog zu Ergebnissen kommen und insbesondere eine Definition zu grenzüberschreitenden Fällen beschließen, die ambitioniert ist, die Verfahren beschleunigen und zu einem Schadensersatzanspruch für die betroffenen Journalistinnen und Journalisten kommen. We owe this to all victims of free media in the European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Almost exactly one year ago, we adopted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive here by a huge majority. The result was possible because our colleague Pascal Durand negotiated a balanced text that also took into account the concerns of the companies. Three EPP colleagues have drawn up their opinions for ECON, ENVI and ITRE, and DEVE, AFET, EMPL and FEMM have also submitted their opinions. This directive has therefore been discussed very broadly here. In the end, 525 of us agreed, and by the way, almost all of our colleagues from the EPP agreed. I am therefore surprised that the EPP, which has worked with most of the rapporteurs on this directive, is now raising an objection and wants to sabotage the law. On the one hand, agreeing with the law, then saying no when implementing it – that is not a matter of course. In terms of content, I don't understand the rejection either. If we want to create legal certainty for businesses, we cannot now reject the delegated act, while the directive still enters into force on 1 January. This creates legal uncertainty, and this cannot really be desired. In addition, the European Commission has just presented an SME relief package. Part of this is precisely this delegated act, which you now want to reject, and I cannot understand that. If you want to relieve companies, if you want to give companies legal certainty, then today you have to vote on the delegated act and agree with it, and you should not fall into the back of its Commission President again. I suspect that this is not about the companies, it is about the election campaign – and we should not participate. Mr President, dear disciples, please vote today, as you did a year ago and reject this objection to the delegated act with the same broad majority.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I'm from Lower Saxony, and there are now a lot of wolves in Lower Saxony. Many people in Lower Saxony are happy about this, because it is a sign that nature conservation works. But there are always places and conflicts where there are actually problems. For example, if the dyke protection is endangered by the wolf threatening the sheep on the dykes. In order for us to continue to come to a good relationship and cooperation in environmental policy and in nature conservation policy, we actually have to work on many adjustment screws. This applies to municipalities or national countries that can create rules to protect herds from wolves, for example. This applies to those Member States that can and must already take advantage of existing room for manoeuvre in European law. And there is still too little happening at the moment, especially in Germany. This also applies to the European level. However, we must not take a quick shot at this point, excuse the pun, but it is right that we take a very close look at the revision of the directives and weigh the pros and cons. It is clear that many Member States are not yet making use of the existing legal framework. And this does not help those affected by Wolfrissen at the end of the day, if it is always just said: We only have to change the protection status at European level and then the problem will resolve on its own. It's not that simple.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is good that you are here today, ladies and gentlemen. In the European Union, we can rightly be proud that air quality in the European Union has improved in recent years because, as Europeans, we have jointly enacted laws that have ensured that people in the European Union can live healthier lives. And yet: More than 300,000 people die each year as a result of poor air quality. This is a circumstance that we cannot simply accept and that we actually have to address. That is why we need legislation that, on the one hand, ensures that air quality increases even further. And just because it's okay now doesn't mean you can put your hands in your lap. I invite you to go to cities where traffic thunders past residential buildings, where people have to live in areas where the air is bad and cannot afford the house where the quality of living is good, or buy new air filters. Therefore, the question of clean air is an essential one and, above all, it is a political one. It's something easy to say: Well, we don't want to set limits that cause driving bans, and then at the same time don't care that internal combustion engines are cleaner. So you can always put your hands in the lap. But honestly, this is not the way we want to do politics, but we want limit values that we can achieve and actually set the political framework for this, so that fewer people die in the European Union and we all have good air. We can work on that together tomorrow. I hope that tomorrow, in the vote, reason will prevail.

–Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The Renewable Energy Directive is a real success. We are finally getting more renewable energy. And contrary to what my two previous speakers have just said, the future does not belong to radiant nuclear energy, which is expensive and dangerous, where we do not know how to store nuclear waste, but it belongs to the sun, it belongs to solar energy and it actually belongs to a future for the young generation. And that's what we're doing with this renewable energy directive. It is good that we set hydrogen targets. It is good that we have targets in the transport sector. And I am pleased that we are finally accelerating renewables through faster permitting procedures, through priority areas, through clear rules that municipalities can implement. And in doing so, we are making real progress. What we cannot call progress, however, is that we describe woody biomass as an energy source of the future in this Renewable Energy Directive. I think that's a real mistake. We see this summer that our forests are burning down due to the climate crisis. So we can't fire them any more. We are destroying our carbon pools. That's a real mistake. But otherwise, the Renewable Energy Directive is a real way forward. And I think we can build on that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Today is a good day for journalists in the European Union. We will better protect them from lawsuits they want to silence. It helps our democracy. This helps our coexistence. It is more important than ever for journalists to be able to do their job. Thank you very much for this broad support. We want to start the interinstitutional negotiations with the Council tomorrow. That is why I would still need the approval of the interinstitutional negotiations under Rule 59(4). I would be very happy about that.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is good to see you here! First of all, you might think that after we've been talking about food security all this morning, it's about something to eat. But it is not about food, it is about the digital sovereignty of the European Union. For this, we need clear rules that stimulate production in the European Union again, but which also ensure that we not only produce here, but above all invest in the future of chip technology. And that's the design of chips. I am very pleased that we have found a regulation here that makes it possible to design chips of the future in Europe. We are becoming more independent from supply chains, and we are moving away from the pure workbench to technology leadership. I believe that all committees have worked very well together here, including with the Commission. And this today is a good serve for our catch-up, which is so urgently needed. I would like to congratulate Dan Nica on his very good report and once again thank him for the good cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, A lot of fairy tales are told in this debate. This culminates in the fact that the EPP leadership was not too bad to portray a Commissioner as Santa Claus on Sharepic and then not even to appear today to apologize for this action. But this faction has also told a lot of fairy tales about the content. It was about putting food security at risk. The opposite is the case. It was about the fact that renewable energies cannot be expanded – again here today. But the EPP also knows that just a few weeks ago we decided on the renewable energy legislation here with expansion acceleration, that we took back nature conservation in order to get there, and that does not contradict this law at all, but it goes hand in hand. Dear colleagues! Let's stop the fairy tales, let's stick to the facts, let's work for nature restoration! And to all EPP colleagues: This time you can't exchange them. Do the right thing! Vote with us for nature restoration in the European Union!

Mr President, thank you very much to Commissioner Jourová for her words. I hope we will have a successful trilogue. For that we have to really make sure that what we as Parliament will adopt tomorrow will make it to the final text. Unfortunately, the Council’s position is a bit less ambitious, but today’s discussion here made for me very clear that we in the European Parliament are united. We will send tomorrow a strong signal to every journalist in the European Union that his work, that her work will be protected and we will not allow in the future that they will be threatened with illegal, unfounded lawsuits. We will stand at their side. We will make sure that media freedom in the European Union prevails. And for that, we need a strong mandate. And I am very, very confident that we will get this strong mandate tomorrow from what I heard today. So, thank you very much to everyone who participated in this debate today. I will not come to an end without thanking all the colleagues who worked with me on this draft, on this report. So, thank you very much to all the shadows and also to the opinion—giving committees, because their insights have been very helpful for the final report. Dear colleagues, let me finish by underlining that we in the European Parliament will always defend media freedom, press freedom. We will stand at the sides of the ones under pressure and together we will protect them. And we will make sure that Daphne Caruana Galizia’s case, who was mentioned very often today, will not repeat in the European Union. Thank you very much. Let’s have a vote tomorrow which sends a very strong signal to the Council. We will not give up. We will fight for better protection for our journalists in the European Union.