Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Climate neutral, inexhaustible, baseload-capable – these are just three of the many benefits of geothermal energy. And that is why geothermal energy should play a much more important role in Europe's energy supply than before. This own-initiative report is the right first step. We as the EU must be fast now, because geothermal energy has long since arrived in practice. However, high investment costs and long approval processes are currently slowing down further progress. In Berlin, we recently adopted a geothermal strategy that helps break down barriers, accelerate processes, improve investment security and scale technologies. A European strategy that supports these points and creates a European Geothermal Alliance would be just the right signal. Private projects such as the Behrens-Ufer in Berlin-Oberschöneweide show that there is interest and demand. There, a complete new business district is to be supplied with energy by geothermal energy. If we also support such lighthouses from the EU in the future and learn from good examples from other Member States, our goal of achieving climate neutrality will once again become a bit more concrete. Let us therefore continue along the path per geothermal energy consistently and strategically together.

Dear Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen! Deep-sea mining is an extremely complex matter and that is why we as a Parliament have so far positioned ourselves in such a way that we want to wait for further scientific findings. The International Maritime Authority has also been working on guidelines for a very long time, which are now announced for 2025. Since last week, we have had the situation that a very large majority of our colleagues in the Norwegian Parliament, at the initiative of the socialist government, have decided to examine their seabed for critical raw materials. The rich, democratic, rule-of-law, experienced in mining and known for high environmental standards, with which we as the EU are connected via the European Economic Area and a free trade area, has made this sovereign decision for its economy. So it could be that in a few years, instead of China, Russia or the Congo, we could source critical raw materials from proven sustainable deep-sea extraction from Norway. So we will have to answer the Gretchen question: Is mining on land always better when rainforests are deforested, when children work in mines, when people are relocated? Could it perhaps be that minimally invasive mining technologies also exist for the deep sea and mine areas on the seabed can be renaturalized as well as on land? Our Norwegian colleagues do not want to wait until all possible effects of deep-sea mining activities have been scientifically studied down to the last detail. They obviously rely on environmentally friendly mining technologies. I think we should talk about these technologies and their latest findings in person, for example in the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, because I think that belongs among value partners and also among allies, before we start any processes in this Parliament.

Mr President! The fluorinated greenhouse gas SF6 is 25,000 times more harmful to the environment than CO2 when it enters the atmosphere. Our European medium-voltage grids alone contain 8,600 tonnes of this gas. This is equivalent to the Netherlands' annual CO2 emissions. As early as 2016, we as the EU signed an amendment to the Montreal Agreement to reduce the production and use of these highly polluting gases. So it is high time to act regulatoryally. It is also wise in terms of industrial policy, because in Europe, thanks to our innovative strength, we have developed a technology in recent years that is able to completely replace this harmful gas in the switchgear of our energy networks with a sustainable alternative. This alternative of natural gases is non-toxic, patent-free, is provided by several suppliers in Europe and can be used without great effort. And at the Siemens site in Berlin, ladies and gentlemen, this was recognized at the earliest, and that is why we are home to SF6-free switchgear. Thanks to tireless research and development over decades, history has finally been written in Berlin for environmentally friendly industrial production. And since Berlin's technology is also immediately ready for use, I think we could have remained more ambitious in the high-voltage sector and on schedule with the abolition of the SF6 gas. But the bottom line is that we are now paving the way for this technological success story to be transferred to the EU and for mass production of the parts to begin with the new, climate-damaging replacement gases. A big thank you to all visionaries in Berlin and to all colleagues in the Commission, Council and Parliament who have contributed to this important building block for a climate-neutral Europe!

Madam President, I would like to join my colleague Michael Gahler. The agenda is very, very full, and even if this might be an important issue, it’s not an urgent issue. So I would also like to ask to postpone this debate to one of the next plenaries in February.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, COP28 is over – time for us to evaluate it. I think we should do this calmly in committee with all the colleagues who have participated, and also with Commissioner Hoekstra. As a diplomat, I say: COP28 is a value in itself. It is good to talk regularly with the whole world about the goal of climate neutrality and more and more about energy and technology. Whether you have to fly 250 German government officials to Dubai in times when the ecological footprint is supposed to play a role is a different matter. Ursula von der Leyen has highlighted the expansion of renewable energies and the increase in energy efficiency as important successes. This is perfectly reasonable, of course, but not now either. rocket science. But, of course, better than an artificial ban discussion, which has now also made it to the international level. Why not take a more sophisticated approach and engage all decision-makers in what seems to be most important to them – the wallet? Let's work to introduce emissions trading globally, because it will certainly reduce CO2 emissions in the most cost-effective way. Yeah, that's a thick board we have to drill. But it is not impossible, because some important players such as China are already experimenting with it. For this, we need a European John Kerry, an international climate commissioner who negotiates permanently.

Mr President, Honourable High Representative, ladies and gentlemen! It is very important that we talk about the release of the remaining hostages in this plenary session, and that we talk about it precisely in the order and the wording of the title of the debate. 'Need to release all hostages to achieve a humanitarian ceasefire and the prospect of the two-state solution'. Because the issue of hostage release has already disappeared from the headlines again, and there is little new, hopeful information about negotiations for the release of more hostages in recent times. We need to keep the issue on the agenda. No one should let go of their efforts; on the contrary, we must strengthen them. Today we honored Jina Amini with the Sakharov Prize for her extraordinary courage as an individual. For us, every human being has an innate dignity and the right to freedom. That's why we can never be satisfied until all the hostages are released. And last but not least: The release of all hostages is, in my view, a condition for a humanitarian ceasefire. It is up to the terrorists to make a change. Every second, every minute, every hour, they could release hostages. Why are they still being held? To free convicted criminals? Palestinian civilians could also contribute to a turnaround. They, too, could distance themselves from Hamas and also promote the release. For us as Europeans, the commandment of humanity is at the top. We must demand it from everyone and for everyone.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, ladies and gentlemen! Habemus EU Raw Materials Act! Together, and I would say with a lot of women’s power, we have managed to bring the issue of raw materials supply from the expert niche to the centre of our EU industrial strategy, sending clear signals to the global economy: that we, as the EU, take action in the future, including by raising our domestic potential, to meet the increasing demand for raw materials, in particular for future technologies; that we want to build new, stable relationships with trusted partners and create win-win situations; that we demand a genuine social dialogue with all stakeholders, transparency and comprehensible sustainability criteria for raw material projects; that it is not a question of a stupid more and more, but rather, where it is concerned, of exploring all efficiency improvements and systematically using waste as well as recycling and substituting it. We send a clear signal to investors, companies and employees. For strategic projects, approval procedures are drastically shortened and made predictable. Controllable risks also make them more interesting for banks. This gives companies more options for safe and clean sources of raw materials. You yourself will have to manage raw material risk internally, but without any new bureaucracy. In this way, we make industrial workers in mining, processing and recycling part of the Green Deal and create new job prospects. With the EU Raw Materials Act, we are laying the foundations for further digitalisation, greater efficiency and climate protection. This new framework is intended to give you, dear citizens, more certainty. For you, I would now also like to work on the implementation of this law.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If you want a very good example of what the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Energy and Research is actually doing, you have a very good example in this initiative, which we, as the EPP, have been instrumental in initiating and for which our colleague Franc Bogovič is responsible. We operate within a clearly defined framework in EU energy policy. We want to significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the energy sector, and that is why we are pushing for the expansion of renewable energies. But of course, all forms of energy production that are low in CO2 come into focus here for all those who really take climate protection seriously. And this includes nuclear energy, on which a large majority of Member States rely as a baseload supplier, as a necessary complement to fluctuating renewables. In this respect, it makes perfect sense for us as the EU to work together with the latest developments in nuclear technology. And that includes them. small modular reactors. An EU strategy will ensure that nuclear remains a natural part of the energy mix in the EU, that further research and investment is carried out. Above all, we all get a precise picture of the performance, efficiency, costs, but also the risks of waste disposal and the raw materials used in this new nuclear technology. For us as the EPP, when it comes to energy decisions, the top priority is to what extent the relevant technology contributes to a secure, affordable and low-carbon energy supply. I look forward to seeing what contribution small modular reactors can afford to do so. With an EU strategy, which Mr Bogovič and we as the Industry Committee are calling for today, we, the European public and national decision-makers will hopefully soon know this. In this respect: Please broadly agree with the report.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear citizens! Europe must become more democratic. Your voice, dear citizens, must count more. Especially in the case of the institution that proposes all the laws: at the European Commission. I am firmly convinced that: In order to give more weight to the will of voters in the occupation of the EU Commission, we must expand and consolidate the Spitzenkandidaten principle. The EPP developed the blueprint for this over ten years ago. Each party that competes in the European elections sets up a top candidate who presents himself with a face and program throughout Europe. This can lead to a genuine European election campaign and a genuine European public sphere. We German Christian Democrats think the principle ends and also support the establishment of a Europe-wide constituency for the top candidates, so that they can be directly elected anywhere in Europe with a second vote. But the council, which is not there today, remains deaf and clings to power. In this legislature, there has been no legal change in favour of more democracy in the selection of the head of the EU Commission. Therefore, this urgent appeal to you: Put an end to the 27-eyed backroom deals in the Commission President's selection process. Allow for more democracy, respect the voice of citizens! Let the 720 directly elected MEPs make a staff proposal for the head of the EU Commission on 9 June 2024. Because we pay the political price for the legislative proposals that the Commission makes and which you, as co-legislators, play a key role in shaping. The European Commission is a political authority, and this political responsibility must be reflected much more strongly in its leadership. We finally need a binding commitment by the Council to more democracy, more transparency and more political will, now – before the elections.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are in the last year of a legislature in which there has been a massive increase in new regulations. Yes, some were justified because we have legally enshrined our climate goals, as well as the necessary instruments. We had to change our energy supply due to the war, and new product specifications were also necessary for a more resource-efficient economy. But the Commission, and in particular the left-hand side of Parliament, have made many extras – in particular, expecting companies to make significant improvements in social and environmental conditions worldwide through the most detailed sustainability reporting requirements, and increasingly making financing options dependent on this, which is the cherry on the cake. For many small and medium-sized enterprises – I can tell you for sure – this has meanwhile led to a bureaucratic burnout. And that's fatal. Small and medium-sized enterprises are our innovative backbone, and in Berlin, for example, small companies with fewer than six employees are the main employers. We in the EPP are now fighting for ‘less is more’ in every dossier and say – perhaps unusually radically for us: We do not need this Commission proposal.

Mr President! Dear Commissioner Sinkevičius, you mentioned at the beginning of the debate that we will only achieve our goal of reducing packaging waste by expanding reusable options. In this context, I believe that it is very important to use standardised life cycle assessments. There is no shortage of studies. Each manufacturer produces its own, often with the desired results. That is why I appealed to the Commission, which I also heard from rapporteur Torvalds: Formulate uniform specifications for life cycle analyses and make them more clear that your specifications are based on comparable scientific criteria! Then we can have a better and more factual debate.

Madam President, It is again a climate conference, and this time we know that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, as envisaged in the Paris Agreement, will no longer be possible. We have to adjust to over two degrees of warming, with all the consequences. For me, actions count more than words. Last week's announcement that the industrialized countries have finally reached their goal of providing 100 billion euros for international climate finance is therefore a good one. This lack of credibility has been a constant issue and an obstacle at recent conferences. Particularly important was the recently reached Sino-American agreement to massively expand renewable energies. Renewable energies thus occupy their permanent place in the energy mix of the main emitters and are thus becoming increasingly affordable and practicable. But not everywhere there are deeds. I am particularly concerned about the situation of international forest protection. So far, there have been more promises than results. And we all need to be clear: We cannot restore our systemic rainforests – the lungs of the earth – once they are broken. Therefore, a large number of uncoordinated, small, ineffective measures do not help. We need to get faster and think bigger. For example, let's give the rainforest riparian states their fair deal on international climate finance through debt-for-nature swaps or payments for ecological services. The concepts for this are on the table. Dear Commissioner Hoekstra, I trust in you that we will finally move from speaking to acting when it comes to protecting existing forests.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It is a good thing that we are talking about Montenegro today, because Montenegro is at the crucial stage of forming a government and reconstituting parliament these days, at last, it must be said. I personally do not want to hide my concern about the participation of openly pro-Serbian and pro-Russian forces. From this, in my view, there is an even greater responsibility for the Prime Minister-designate Spajić to really address Europe now – as his party is called and as many citizens in Montenegro hope – and to leave no doubt as to the sovereignty of Montenegro’s decisions. The new government would even have a three-fifths majority. This means that there are really no more excuses for internal blockades and non-implementation of the EU acquis. We need to move forward with the enlargement process. People who see injustice and little economic prospects are more susceptible to propaganda and hate speech, and countries that are not firmly anchored in the European camp, that have no solid rule of law and no convinced democrats, run the risk of being destabilized from the outside. In this respect, Mr Picula, thank you very much for your report and let us continue to be vigilant and supportive towards Montenegro together in the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I am proud that we are acting. Tomorrow we will conclude a two-and-a-half-year process with one result: Our parliamentary position on the EU Raw Materials Act, with which we will significantly improve the security of our raw materials supply. As early as 2021, we as Parliament took the initiative and, with the Critical Raw Materials Strategy I drafted, provided essential elements for the regulation that is now in place. This compromise is good. It makes raw material projects a priority. It shortens the approval process. It defines clear contacts in the administration. It introduces stress tests, monitoring and crisis adjustments, as well as the necessary domestic mining and EU-wide exploration. The strengthening of recycling, consistent waste protection and the promotion of substitutions will also advance us. However, we will never be independent of imports in Europe. Therefore, with EU raw materials diplomacy and adjustments to the financial framework, we need to develop and transform our partnership with reliable countries and ensure that the local population benefits from it. We have a great opportunity to make an attractive offer here as the EU and thus also to improve our geopolitical situation. Ladies and gentlemen, the almost unanimous vote in the ITRE Committee speaks very clearly. Nevertheless, I am advocating for our plenary amendments, such as including aluminium in the list of strategic raw materials. Let's make the design a little bit better to form the basis of the Green Deals to be strengthened: a secure supply of raw materials.

Dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The Sustainable Aviation Fuels Regulation is a very important part of the Fit for 55 legislative package. With a binding roadmap, we are tackling the necessary decarbonisation of air traffic in the European Union and at the same time sending much-needed market signals. As you know, our European aircraft operators and airports face relentless international competition. The EU Commission has therefore opted for a rather cautious approach with only very moderate increases in blending rates, which, as we now see, is shared by the Member States. Nevertheless: Higher quotas for synthetic fuels would have been possible. Now, unfortunately, with the regulation, we are sending the signal that the European Union considers innovation and investment in synthetic fuels not so important and, above all, not urgent. A safeguard clause would also have been important for our SMEs so that they would not be disadvantaged in the competition for the same raw materials. We are breaking new ground with this regulation. The application, including in conjunction with the revised emissions trading scheme, will show what works and what does not. In this respect, the revision clause enshrined for the year 2027 is of great importance. In any case, it is certain that, in these difficult economic times, we have ensured the much-needed planning certainty by defining what sustainable aviation fuels actually are and under which conditions they fall within the scope of application. That is why, and I ask you to do so, I am voting tomorrow for the adoption of this important regulation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As an environmental politician, as an industrial politician, but above all as a Christian Democrat, I immediately come up with three important points about the risks of the EU's path to climate neutrality. We will jeopardise this path if it does not become a business case for European industry and the economy. If the reorientation associated with high investments is not foreseeably also financially worthwhile and our European companies cannot withstand international competition, then we will get the massive problem of deindustrialisation, and then no one will follow our high standards. Money is not everything. There is also a risk that we will literally blow the air off companies with unachievable, unrealistic and unnecessary climate protection requirements or stifle innovation – with all the consequences for locations and jobs. The second risk is that we overwhelm citizens with too fast and too radical climate measures. Those who cannot afford an electric car, not the renovation of the house or the exchange of heating, not the food that has become more expensive – and if we destroy livelihoods in rural areas, then open-minded Europeans will also protest and, unfortunately, strengthen the right side here in Parliament. You, Mr Timmermans, have an example in the Netherlands with the BBB before your own eyes. A climate protection supported only by elites and technocrats is doomed to failure. Please listen to our representatives. We listen to the local people. And last but not least: Climate protection must be done internationally. We would achieve the greatest success if we expanded the market-based and successful instrument of emissions trading globally. We need to start where it is most cost-effective and efficient to save CO2. The European Commission should focus on this goal as the supreme authority and not on the helpless attempt at a European climate tariff.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The Battery Ordinance, which we will finally adopt tomorrow, is a good result - for the economy and for the environment, for manufacturers and for consumers. In line with the circular economy, we are for the first time comprehensively regulating the design, manufacture, in part the use and reuse of a product that has become strategic for the EU and that we want to bring to the markets in the next few years in the millions. In doing so, we have ensured that batteries are used very efficiently on the European market, inter alia because - and I say this in particular as rapporteur on raw materials for my group - the regulation explicitly stipulates that critical battery raw materials such as cobalt, nickel and lithium must be collected and reused to some extent. My impression is that the Battery Regulation is already being used as a reference for other regulations. This means: Here, a kind of model regulation has been achieved in close coordination between the Commission, politics and industry. Congratulations to all those involved and to consumers in Europe who will be able to use sustainable batteries in good conscience in the future, be it in the bicycle, be it in the car, be it stationary. And the industry will also be able to set global standards with this new standard.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, With the regulation on deforestation-free supply chains, we are pioneers worldwide. We guarantee European consumers that the cocoa, coffee, beef, soy, palm oil and wood that can be bought raw or processed in the EU does not come from illegally cleared land. In doing so, we are putting a thick stop to the unfortunately persistent deforestation. At the same time, however, we are also making a bet that the countries of origin of these raw materials have robust legal frameworks for forest protection. We are betting that smaller European companies will also be able to provide the new mandatory due diligence documents. And we must hope that the EU Commission will not make too many enemies when it comes to classifying countries of origin into high, medium and low-risk countries, so that these products - and in the worst case not only these - will henceforth be diverted from the European market to other, less regulated markets. Our full focus must now be on implementing the regulation in close dialogue with the countries concerned, the farmers and the companies concerned. At the same time, we should promote the provision of deforestation-free supply chains worldwide. In view of this mammoth task, the extension of the scope of application after only one year seems to me to be relatively utopian. But we definitely need to make a start. I am very happy that, despite the pandemic, we will still be able to do so in this parliamentary term. A heartfelt thank you to all involved!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Why do we need an EU Raw Materials Act? Can we no longer rely on our companies to take care of the supply of raw materials or on our trade relations to provide a sufficient framework for this? Why a new law at European level? Because times have changed. Firstly: Our access to raw materials is no longer secure, and our deep one-sided dependencies on individual supplying countries and individual companies have become too risky. We see it, for example, in the fact that we had to exempt nickel and titanium from Russia's sanctions, that Ukraine, as a strategic raw material partner, is failing for the time being, that export bans are being imposed. But we see it above all in the fact that our biggest competitor China has already secured the entire value chain of critical raw materials with state-owned companies and also dumping years ago – from the mine to the processing and use in the products. Secondly, we have set ourselves ambitious targets for the digital and renewable transformation of our economy, industry, mobility and energy production. According to all forecasts, this leads to a sharp increase in the demand for critical raw materials and already to production delays. Therefore, better safeguarding our supply of raw materials is essential for competitiveness and technological leadership in Europe. We need to act as an EU. Two things are particularly important in the new European Raw Materials Act: Firstly: We must finally open up our own raw material potential in earnest. That is, to speed up approval procedures, that is, to create certainty in funding, that is, to set clear standards and deadlines for the participation and information of those affected, and that is, to launch lighthouse projects. Secondly, EU legislation must not be contradictory or superimposed. This means, for example, that we must ensure that the collection, recycling and recycling of critical raw materials are enshrined in the relevant directives and regulations and, for example, that new due diligence obligations do not restrict our supply of raw materials. EU legislation must also follow priorities. And this priority is: Put our European economy on a safe footing in the supply of raw materials.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We face a huge dilemma in Afghanistan. Should we continue to support the suffering civilian population with humanitarian aid, given that the Taliban is violating our most fundamental principles and is now also violating women's human rights to social participation and education? I think this question is tearing many of us apart. But the EU is the biggest donor of aid, and we as Parliament are co-legislators of the budget, we have to ask ourselves this question. I am speaking to you today in a personal capacity as a Christian Democrat, as the mother of two children, one of whom is a daughter. And I think: We in the EU in particular have given women in Afghanistan a lot of hope, promoted them wherever we could. We cannot turn away from them now, when it comes to mere survival. We must hope – and there are signs of this – that the new rules will be further interpreted on the ground and that they will succeed in being extended further by the pragmatism of aid organisations on the ground. What must not be, is that the Taliban divert some of the aid money for their purposes. Here I ask the Commission to take a clear line and hold us accountable. At the moment, I see the only spark of hope for change among Afghan women. We must not make them weaker, sicker and more marginalized. They need to regain access to education. These must be our demands. I think we have a greater chance of implementing it if we keep a foot in the door on humanitarian aid than if we say goodbye.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Dealing with shipments of waste may not be particularly sexy, but it is very necessary if we are to achieve our goals: a better circular economy, in which waste becomes new raw materials, namely shorter pathways and more efficiency in waste treatment, by finally also realising the internal market for waste and giving it the long-needed boost to digitalisation, and finally more certainty in waste exports, because we propose that the downstream installation must be independently certified. The positioning achieved by a large majority in the committee is, of course, always accompanied by compromises. But I believe that, overall, we have set a good starting point for more investment in the recycling industry and by targeting recycled content, we have given the right incentives to build stable secondary raw material markets. This revision of the Regulation will give a new and positive impetus to the circular economy. I would like to thank my colleague Pernille Weiss Thank you cordially and explicitly for the good conduct of the negotiations and I am now curious to see what suggestions for improvement the Council, which is unfortunately not present, still has for this file.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The EU-ASEAN partnership has great potential. During a recent delegation visit to the largest ASEAN country, Indonesia, I was also able to personally convince myself of the interest in closer economic cooperation, and I say clearly here: economic cooperation, and not primarily development aid projects. The EU is a player in lower- and middle-income countries among many, among China, among Arab investors, Australia and the US. As a Europe, we must act together, powerfully and strategically. I therefore appeal once again to all those involved in the Council and in the Commission: Change the idea of global gateway as a European response to, among other things, the Chinese Silk Road in large strategic projects. This will not succeed; if we simply relabel many small projects into Team Europe, this does not yet become a strategic approach. Think again. Get the experience of the European economy on board. Finally put this Business Advisory Board for Global Gateway one. We do not need new, cumbersome bureaucratic structures. We need an analysis with our partners of what they need in the area of sustainable economy. We need financing and hedging opportunities from our banks and European companies, who are also implementing these projects. Let's get to work, my dear colleagues!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Three years ago, the European Union restructured its development aid in the hope that it could be more flexible and efficient. As an EPP, we have worked to launch a parallel debate on the reorientation of our European development finance institutions, because in the world there is more competition – let us think only of China – and more tasks – let us think only of climate change. The decision has now been taken not for a complete reform, but for a status quo plus, i.e. the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development should both continue to exist. Against this background, the implementation of the plus is particularly important to me: Improving the EIB's presence on the ground and extending it to sub-Saharan Africa. I would like to add that it will be fundamental that we have to accompany our development banks and the private sector much better than before with suitable financing and risk hedging instruments, because above all through their increased commitment we will achieve real prospects for the people in our partner countries. If we combine consistent political support, then our geopolitical ambitions could actually take shape. Good luck to the EIB and the EBRD for their realignment!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, With a truly integrated European internal energy market, how can we make energy bills affordable and keep our companies competitive? Three short answers: All necessary cross-border connections must be built as soon as possible, i.e. by means of rapid approval procedures. The crisis has shown what accelerations we are capable of if we have to. I call on the Member States to mobilise and implement the available EU funds as quickly as possible and, in particular, to invest them in the energy infrastructure of the future, in the electricity and hydrogen sectors. Secondly, we can get energy prices down if we act as the EU on the world market and buy together. With concentrated consumer power and long-term contracts, we could achieve better conditions and more security. In this respect, dear representatives of the Commission and the Council, overcome the egos and become strategic! We need true European energy diplomacy. And thirdly: Understandably, we are currently discussing a gas price brake. Above all, the price of electricity will be crucial for Europe as an industrial location, for which we need a real solution so that companies can see a future in Europe.

Madam President, Honourable Mr Picula, Honourable Commissioner! I believe that a new strategy for enlargement needs two things in particular: Honesty and genuine will to succeed. And I believe that your proposal, Mr Picula, needs to be improved in both areas. First of all, honesty: Cooperation with President Vučić and maintaining the Serbian government with Russia is simply unacceptable and contrary to our values, and we do not see any departure, nor do we see any sense of guilt. So all our calls you made here are simply not enough. However, I am more concerned about the situation in the Serbian media. They are openly pro-Russian and cheer for the Ukrainian defeats. How should consent to the EU flourish in such an environment? I don't see that. This leads me to the second point. We need to appeal to citizens and get them excited about Europe. They need to know the EU's added value in concrete terms. Thank goodness you mentioned concrete projects in the field of energy. We need investment in this region, we need good jobs. So that is what your report lacks, and I believe that is the only way we can really make progress. With regard to future enlargement, Mr Picula, we need to take a closer look and get more involved. I am firmly convinced of that.