Speeches

Mr President, Madam Minister, dear Commission! We have it in our hands whether we want to allow it to continue – that such blackmail manoeuvres really end and that they are no longer possible at all in the future. And it has already been said here several times that it was a dark hour of European politics that Orbán was successful with his blackmail maneuver. This only encourages others to do the same. And Mrs. von der Leyen, she can dress it in beautiful words, but the citizens outside understand what blackmail is when they see one. That is why it is important that we abolish this veto – including my plea once again to the Belgian Presidency of the Council. A reform proposal is on the table, but for fear of the goalkeeper before the penalty, it is not even discussed. We are making a clear resolution, including for the steps that are now possible. But I would like to say one more word about Ukraine here, because, in fact, there have been positive reforms. But we must also see that workers' rights and trade union rights are being dismantled in Ukraine at the moment, and I ask the Commission to make sure that this does not happen, because it is part of democracy and they are moving further and further away from our social situation. acquis here. It shouldn't be. And so, to conclude, once again: Nor can we allow them to U.S. Chamber of Commerce It is in Ukraine that such legislative proposals are initiated. Here we have to make sure that Ukraine is also a good fit for Europe.

Madam President, Prime Minister De Croo, Vice-President! We have heard that Belgium has an excellent reputation for forging compromises in difficult negotiations – a lot of praise, but of course also a huge responsibility. Once again, I would like to mention three dossiers that are particularly important here: One is really the reform of the Economic governance. We cannot afford to go back to austerity. We need space for social investment. And that is why, I believe, the Convergence Framework is a good and important focus of yours. A second issue is platform work. When it comes to fashion, I think it's always good to expose yourself to French influences and be inspired. But here would going french in platform work, reduce the protection of workers, and we should not do so. The third point is a very difficult one: Coordination of social security. You want to advance fair mobility, then don't drop exactly this part in the difficult negotiations, show that you can: good compromises that move Europe forward, strengthen it and protect people.

Mr President! Today there are quite a few colleagues here who have thought about how it can be that we, who stand for good work and good working conditions all over Europe, have such a gap in our regulations that assistants, if their MEPs die, have to vacate their office within three days, that they no longer have access to their e-mails, that there is no transitional arrangement. I don't know what time this arrangement comes from, but I am really advocating that we change that. That we manage to get a reasonable transition period for people in this house too, so that they know that they can actually look for a new job in safety. I know everyone thinks you've got the series Parliament As you can see, they are all well protected. But this is an element that is really the opposite of good work, that people fall into the ground at the moment. And that is why a reasonable regulation should be found here. We are also always ready to see what such a solution can look like. It is not a question of wanting something that is inappropriate, but of having the rules that apply everywhere in professional life also apply to assistants in Parliament.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The ELA, as many have underlined, was really important in order to create the confidence that we really want fair mobility and that we can achieve it and that we also have cross-border institutions for it. I would really like to thank the two rapporteurs for this proposal, for this document. I would like to underline two points, including Mr Kósa: If we want to bring more third-country nationals to Europe right now, because we have a skills problem, but at the same time do nothing that we have wild west methods in certain sectors, exploitation – Gräfenhausen has been mentioned here – then this does not go together. In addition, we now actually have digital tools to ensure that we can really identify much more strongly: Where are the critical sectors? Where are companies that systematically exploit, for example, as was the case with Mazur in Poland? We can use artificial intelligence for this. All of this can only be achieved if we give ELA the tools it needs to support fair mobility.

Mr President, Vice-President, Secretary of State! We were all in a tremendous shock and shocked a year ago – a shock that shook this house. As a S&D Group, we immediately actively and ambitiously campaigned for far-reaching reforms to strengthen transparency and integrity. Let me give you a few examples of how, together in this House, we have changed our own Rules of Procedure, which I am responsible for as rapporteur: From now on, all lobby meetings must be disclosed. Rapporteurs must also give an account of who they met when they prepared their reports and received input. From 2024, we will have full transparency on part-time jobs, including on the cent exactly what contributions MEPs deserve, on the side – also in terms of the Transparency Register or events. There is much we have done, especially with regard to third countries, to strengthen transparency. Because transparency does not restrict, it does not attack the free mandate, it creates trust. However, further implementation will be crucial here. We could have imagined more here in the House, including in terms of control competences. And in the end, the best rules don't help if they aren't applied. Therefore, it is important that we continue to look at it here and not say after a year: All right, we've got the rules in place. But we really have to look and evaluate that these rules are also applied. I also know that they do not go far enough for some, but that was the compromise here in the House. We would have liked to have gone further in some places, but in the end we did not have majorities for this, including as far as a true ethics authority is concerned, and so we must continue to push for an independent ethics authority because what is on the table is not enough.

Madam President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen! Please re-imagine that you are 20 years old, full of energy, you want to try yourself out, you want to experience yourself and contribute to society. And for us this is a good memory, for many a hope, but for quite, very, very many in a really far distance. And not because they do not want to get involved, but because they have no chance to find affordable housing – if they are apprentices, if they are students, if they are newcomers to the profession or if they are also young and receive a minimum wage. That's why it's so important because it has dramatic consequences. This youth needs confidence in the future, and it cannot have it if it is forced to stay at home, if it cannot develop and if it does not have the perspectives it needs. Because we know: In young phases of life, when we do not have certain development opportunities, it is very difficult to catch up afterwards. That is why the EU needs to invest much more in social housing. It has leverage, it has funds, which have been mentioned here, but also the Youth Guarantee has been mentioned. That's all too little, and it's not really strategically positioned here. That's why I believe we need a Youth Perspective Package, that we need to give young people a good perspective and support them, especially at the beginning of their own independent lives, so that there is more equality of opportunity. Therefore: The EU should use the levers, it must make better use of them, it must pool them and support them so that young people really have the opportunity to become self-employed. And it has been mentioned again – I do not want to forget that – that there are young people who end up on the streets because they lose their homes because of inflation, rising rents, rising non-rental costs. More support from the European side is needed here, because our promise is to leave no one behind.

Mr President, Commissioner Schmit, ladies and gentlemen! I think you are experiencing something special right now – that pressure is being put on the Commission from all sides except the far right to say: But that has to be done quickly, we have waited three years. And I think when we think about the situation we're in, we realize that we're not in a bad situation at all. We have the work of the social partners who have bowed to it – this is what we can build on. And I think it's also an important message that we can no longer waste time on things like impact assessments because we have the work of the social partners. For me, this is functional subsidiarity. They're up to the problems, they've bowed over them. In the end, it wasn't enough for employers. I would like to say once again that unanimity is not only a problem in the Council, but possibly also in other organisations. Don't waste time, make a good proposal - there is broad support for this. We asked for this because one third of the employees – new survey in summer – still accept requests from their superiors on leave. Stress and mental illnesses are on the rise. It costs a lot more money than legislation.

Mr President! I think it was an important debate that we have had here, as the end of a long process where compromises were really being fought for, because between six political groups – Mr Saryusz-Wolski has just come in – and in the end there were still five; It's a pretty exhausting process. But that is the core of democracy, that we are struggling for compromises. And that will continue if we have a convention to wrestle with even more stakeholders, which is the right way to make Europe fit for the future. Europe is more than just an ATM. Europe is the answer to the fact that we need peace, progress and security in Europe and that we only gain sovereignty if we really pool our forces here, together, in so many areas. What happens to states, to companies that can't reform when the environment changes? They're going down. That's why it's important that we make sure we adapt. And we can argue about the right way – and we have argued a lot, including among the rapporteurs. We agreed on a compromise, and I don't like everything. But this is also the essence of compromises and then also common large packages. That is why I would like to appeal once again to take this step, because if we do not take it, there will be no further steps. And I believe that the citizens have clearly written to us in the pedigree that there is a need for change, even for their future. I would like to say once again to the ID and ECR Groups – I think this has been seen today: They don't want to argue about which better way Europe wants to go, they want to reverse Europe. And I believe that this is something that the majority in their countries, including citizens, do not want. (Interim calls)

Mr President, Mr Secretary of State! I am also pleased that the Commission has such a high level of representation here. In fact, as Sven Simon has said, tomorrow we are facing a next step that we are taking. In the party I come from, there has been a slogan for mobilization for over 150 years, and it says: It never fights badly for freedom and justice. And what we want to do is take a first step to ensure that we do not continue to impose in the small; We are always trying to deal with the next crisis in this way, but we cannot really position ourselves well for the future. It has already been said here: Everyone is talking about the huge geopolitical challenges we have to face and how fast the world is turning and how it has changed since we made the Treaty of Lisbon. We've had global financial crises, we've had pandemics, we've had wars, we've had trumpism, populism on the way, a lot of challenges. And one thing is clear, I believe, and that is why I was very glad, Mr President, that you reminded us once again that the Conference on the Future of Europe took place in this area and that we took up this spirit, these proposals made by the citizens and tried to translate them into corresponding Treaty amendments. Why do we do this? We don't do this because we have nothing better to do. We do this because we know that the European Union is our guarantor of freedom, progress and also security, precisely in a world that is changing dramatically. It has already been said here: A key point – and this was also something that the citizens wrote to us in the pedigree – is unanimity. We are not able to act quickly. We have seen this in the sanctions packages, but also in other issues, where we really need to act and act quickly and unitedly. That's why it's so important that we replace it. But we don't just get rid of it, we make a suggestion where we really say: We have three new alternatives, a triad: a simple majority, a qualified majority, where we give more consideration to the small Member States, and a super-qualified majority. Simply to ensure that, depending on what is appropriate, this is applied accordingly, but not to give more veto power, no more cross-dealing with each action. One thing is also clear to us: We are discussing enlargement again. And I believe that if we want to continue to have security, if we want to play a role in the world, enlargement – as we have seen – is extremely important. Reform and enlargement are two sides of the same coin. You won't get one alone, nor do I think it makes sense to reject the other. That's why it's important. Just imagine we have 35 veto options in the future, we have 35 Commissioners, Commissioners. It is clear that we must make ourselves more capable of acting here and also set up. I think the Union is just a promise, a promise that it is also equipped to do so when we look at the fight against the pandemic. That's why it was so important to us: Especially in health policy, when faced with cross-border challenges, the Union needs new competences. We've experienced that. We must now also take the step of doing so. The same is that citizens have told us that they really want fair working conditions in Europe, including labour markets, a strong social policy. We have also taken this into account and included it accordingly. I want to end with one. Willy Brandt said: We have to dare more democracy. And it is very important that we strengthen democracy in Europe because democracy is under pressure. That is why I would like to close with the words: Don't beg, don't ask, just quarrel courageously.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. We in the S&D Group have also taken a close look at the conclusions and analysed what evidence we find in the Council's position on the important negotiations on the migration package. And if you look at the two short sentences – not very meaningful – then you know how important it is for us to exchange more information. I would have liked to talk to Mr. Michel about it. How ready is the Council for good compromises? It is one of the most important dossiers, especially when it comes to counteracting the uncertainty that prevails in our societies. I liked it, Mrs Blanchett reminded us once again of our heritage in terms of human rights and humanity. And it is indeed very important that we establish a double solidarity with the people fleeing, but also solidarity with the Member States where most refugees arrive. I find it all the more shameful that I have to hear from Members in this House that they equate migrants with terrorists and try to do this populist business here. In this House, it will be important that all democratic political forces work on a good compromise and do not give in to populism, which does not want solutions, but simply uses this to further divide. That shouldn't happen with us. And let me say one more word about the agreement with Tunisia. It's just a declaration of bankruptcy that you can't... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Madam President, Thank you for putting anti-Semitism on the agenda here, here after the last few weeks. I am a bit shocked – I say this quite clearly – that here in this House of Democracy we are talking about anti-Semitism after 7 October and hardly anyone is here in the room. I think there are many opportunities where you have other things, but I find that really shocking because we know very well that anti-Semitism is a poison. And if it rages in societies and is not opposed enough, we also know what anti-Semitism leads to. I come from a country where anti-Semitism has invaded all areas of life the most. And it is, I believe, no coincidence that we also have so many speakers here who come from Germany and see with great concern this increase in anti-Semitism all over Europe, but also new forms of anti-Semitism that we see here and where we are at a loss and urgently need answers and, in particular, actions. Because in my country it has been very clear so far that there was really a basic certainty that all democratic forces are gathering behind the news: Never again! And I can tell you, I woke up after October 7th, and I suddenly knew that something had completely changed. And what has changed is that I felt – I believe how many people – that this security of ‘never again!’ is no longer there and that we in Europe have to do a hell of a lot more to make sure that no one here in Europe who lives here must be afraid to show that he or she is a Jew or a Jew, cannot wear symbols and cannot live in peace. I would like to end here once again with a quote that Hannah Arendt once said that one is probably only safe from anti-Semitism on the moon. In Europe, too, one must be safe from anti-Semitism.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, distinguished representative of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! I have to admit that, after the previous debate, I find it a bit difficult to simply move on to the discussions with EUCO, because we all know and feel that after this barbaric attack by Hamas, with its consequences, the world has become a different one – not only in the Middle East, but also with us. And when I look at the conclusions, I see that these developments in the world are meeting with a society that is already extremely divided. People are extremely unsettled and, of course, they expect Europe to address the many issues. But they also expect Europeans to be addressed and to see their concerns, their uncertainty. They expect Europe – with regard to inflation, with regard to cost increases, with regard to the fact that some really have enormous concerns about getting through everyday life at all – that we do not have conclusions in which the social is a complete void, where American measures are pointed out but no European answers are given. That has to change. Please pack this!

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, Secretary of State Navarro Ríos! Everyone here says one thing: Having a roof over your head is a fundamental right. We note and criticize unanimously here in the house that we have the housing question again as a big social question. This was one of the issues before we made the modern European welfare state; It is therefore very important that we do not analyse further, but that the Commission present a coherent action plan, because indeed, this is predominantly a national competence. But we can do a lot in Europe to contribute to the solution and, among other things, really scour the EU funds. We have earmarked funds in the Youth Guarantee to ensure that we create apprenticeships. Why can't we ensure that certain funds are also allocated to building housing for young people, for apprentices, for students? At the same time, we have to realize that, in fact, we have an unleashed market that no longer works. Airbnb, for example, is pulling out housing, driving up prices. Here, too, we can do something, as well as in state aid law. A coherent action plan to ensure that we all find truly affordable housing is overdue.

Mr President! Some express it diplomatically, others directly: EU migration policy, as it is, has failed. Why did it fail? Not because so many people are coming, but because it has failed, because many want the benefits of membership of the European Union; But when it comes to refugees, for example, they prefer to deport them to their neighbouring countries, or they deliberately do not register the refugees at all, but hope that they will move through quickly. I believe that we must address this lack of solidarity and that must be at the heart of the new Pact on Migration. Nor can we, just because we are unable to act, go to Tunisia and say: "We give you money, you solve your problems!" We have to solve the problems here, and we have to conclude an asylum and migration package based on our values, but with which we show that we can manage it, in solidarity with the Member States where the refugees arrive, but also with the refugees who come here and seek protection. And Tunisia: The Secretary of State said: You can dream of it, it doesn't work anyway. That's why it's important that we learn the lessons, that we work to really find compromises here. I also want to make one thing very clear: We're going to negotiate hard, and that's important. But we will never question the fundamental right to asylum, because when we do, we betray our own values. That's why they let us find solutions together! Whether we find them is decided here, in the middle of this House – whether we succumb to the poison of populism to make points, or whether we negotiate hard and find good solutions. With this in mind, you can know the S&D by your side. One more thing, including your last objection: We discuss it, and unlike you, we don't wait for people to leave voluntarily.

Mr President, Commissioner Nicolas Schmit! In fact, the problems have been named, and I believe that this is important because, in fact, the statistics do not tell all the stories, let alone that there are families, children and many people behind them. Poor despite work – it has been mentioned – is now a widespread disease that is really feeding on society and destroying trust in democracy. It is therefore essential that we, as Europe, also have a coherent strategy. We have many programs, many individual measures. But people still have the feeling that they no longer come on a green branch, that they have to go to tables, that prices are rising. That is why I would like to remind you once again of one thing: This week I have an article by Adam Tooze in the Financial Times read – he addressed this to Germany, it is the same for the EU – really a call for social investment – also to neutralise the extreme right – in social housing, education and employment. A word to the ID Group: If you blame foreigners for this and at the same time reject poverty-resistant minimum wages, then you have a problem. This is not how we can act in Europe.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission! Together, we have set ourselves the goal of having 15 million fewer people in poverty in Europe by 2030, and if we continue as we have done so far, we will have 15 million more people in poverty. When you talk to people, they just feel like they're pressed into a vice: that prices are rising for food, for energy, that at the same time homelessness is growing, the tables are reaching their limits, etc. That is why it is important for Europe to look at what part of the solution it can contribute to minimising the pressure. And here, for example, to look at the EU funds: Can we support more social housing, can we look at the procurement rules to see if we can find solutions faster? This is extremely important for trust. And you are calling for professionals from third countries – I support that. But I ask you to go to the truckers in Gräfenhausen who are on strike and talk to them about how they are being exploited. What is Europe doing to prevent mobile work from actually becoming dirty work in the end? Therefore: A joint summit for fair mobility or a round table would be a good first solution.

Mr President! Good morning, colleagues! Let me say it in advance: My group of Socialists and Democrats will vote in favour of this proposal. Why? We all know that we are obliged to make this distribution of seats before the European elections. And we all feel that this European election is really around the corner. And this milestone, and colleagues have been working on it, we really need to agree here now. In fact, demographics have changed, and we want and need to take that into account. And for my group, it was very important that we at the same time - the population has increased - adjust the seats, have better representation, but also that no country loses a seat in the next legislature. We are, like the rapporteurs, Not amused on the recital and are of the opinion that the Council is not entitled to do so here and that, on the contrary, we expect the Council to finally deal with our proposal for a European electoral law. The proposal has been in place for two years without any negotiations being launched. It doesn't go on like that.

Madam President, Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this debate. I believe it shows that, as I said at the outset, we have different levels of ambition with regard to these rules. For one side it is far too much, for the other side it is far too little. I think we have tried to find a really good common framework for changes that we need to go, that we should go and that are also feasible: Weighed, actually and discussed. In fact, you can't prevent corruption 100% through good rules. But what you can do is make corruption more difficult, by creating transparency and also establishing a culture of transparency, you are actually sending the signal to citizens: What we do, we do it for the general public and it's transparent. We really have nothing to hide here. A colleague asked: Don't we have to analyze the weaknesses first? We have analysed the weaknesses and we have concrete answers in our report. I want to say one thing: Meetings with third countries did not have to be made transparent beforehand. Will you do now and really close a vulnerability that we have. I would also like to thank Mrs Hübner for her experience from the Advisory Committeethat it is important to also involve independent experts, and that it is also possible and practiced here to ensure confidentiality. These rules, which we now want to adopt, are an important step, a next step, a big step even after the 14 points, which must also be put into practice. What you all stressed in the debate is: We have a very, very broad consensus on much of this change in the Rules of Procedure. We have some points that are interpreted differently. But that's how it is with compromises and that's how it is at work. I would therefore like to appeal once again to all to agree with this report, to see it as a really important next step in its implementation. I would also like to quote Mr De Meo as our Committee President: “This will strengthen the EP in order to carry out its work freely and democratically.” And indeed, we have always looked at everything to see that the freedom of the mandate is not affected. I believe that transparency and accountability really strengthen trust in democracy. We need that more than ever in these times. I would also like to thank all of you for your concerns, and I nevertheless appeal: The majority is supported. Bring the report with you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We all know that transparency is a prerequisite for democracy, it is almost oxygen for it to work. And that is why many citizens rightly demand it more. My report on the amendment of the Rules of Procedure proposes new rules. And that concerns the way we work here, in this House. I would once again like to thank all my colleagues, especially the Legal Service, who have made it possible for us to come together on these amendments. At the beginning of the year, the President of the House presented a 14-point plan and gave us the task of implementing these changes in the Rules of Procedure by the summer. We did it under pressure. It was a really big challenge for everyone. But we now have a proposal that really brings concrete changes, even if there were very different ambitions as to the extent to which these 14 goals are to be achieved. We will create complete transparency when it comes to side activities. If you earn more than 5 000 EUR per year, from the sum actually for everything. We believe that being a Member of the European Parliament is not a side job. And that anyone who pursues activities that are still remunerated in other ways will also have to disclose this transparently in the future, in the total amount per year. We strengthen the definition of conflict of interest and introduce the need to make a declaration in the future before you can become a rapporteur or take on certain functions, such as Vice-President or Quaestor, Committee Chair, to submit such a declaration. This is, I believe, a milestone, because it is about demonstrating that one acts in the public interest and that is also the focus. We are introducing greater transparency requirements for appointments. This is also important. There were always a few grey areas here, and it wasn't so clear: Do I have to state this now or not? We are simplifying this and have also included exceptions if such a mention could put others at risk. We also want stricter rules for Friendship groups These are informal friendship groups. Here, too, we have formulated clear rules so that it is also clear that they do not act on behalf of Parliament. They, too, must disclose how they are financed, etc. At the core of this is also, and this is very important: We have an advisory committee, the so-called Advisory Committee, that already exists. We want to strengthen it, especially for people who have questions (‘If I have a conflict of interest here, I can speak confidentially with people, advise myself’), but who can also take action, which is not yet the case, even if there are corresponding indications, and who will actually support and strengthen the culture of trust and transparency. And this is all the more important because we know that there will be no real ethics authority in the near future. Yes, these changes are ambitious. But they will really continue a cultural change in transparency. It is not a question of bans - some people say so - but of creating measures, more transparency and accountability. Democracy takes place in the daylight and not in the dark corners of the night. And that is why it is important to illuminate the light here as well. I would like to thank all my colleagues once again and would like to say it with Goethe's supposedly last words: More light.

Mr President! I wanted to talk about a different topic, but I can't help it now. Mr. Weber, you are very much reminiscent of Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice, who called the spirits that he can no longer get rid of. You left the table to work on compromises, instructed your people to just vote against it. I think it's right that we should press a stop button here, reflect together. Because this House lives on the fact that we work together on compromises and then really put forward proposals for the citizens. And you have with the fake news, I mean, your videos, all that – I believe that it is not good for this House, and I believe that we should really return to factual work, including factual debate and content disputes, and see what compromises we find. But I would like to emphasize again that it does not work if you appeal to the common spirit, but then do not change your own behaviors. This is why I also believe in the issue of migration: The issue is too important for us to operate here with fake news and populism. We have to fight for the best compromises. We have to do this in terms of content, because we need to be able to act, but we also need a migration policy that is oriented towards human rights and our values.

Human dignity is indivisible. We don't have first-class refugees or second-class refugees. This is the crucial value of Europe. The second is: Poland and Hungary did not agree in the Council to this compromise, which the Council found after eight years of blockade. These are just the facts and nothing more.

Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission Šefčovič and also Mrs Roswall! I would like to thank you again for your presence here. We appreciate it in the house. That's not always the case. But if I listen to the speeches that I have to hear in this house, then you can see that the right side here in the house has been polluting the discourse, spreading lies, stirring up resentment, fear and propagating isolation for years. And then one wonders if this is also reflected in the Council mandate and on the other hand Poland and Hungary wash their hands anyway, because they did not agree to it at all. I would like to underline once again that this House has a broad consensus that we want to support a balanced migration package. But I would like to underline again: Human dignity and international law must be taken into account. This is something that the citizens of the Future Conference have written to us once again. That is why I appeal to the Council to actually enter into negotiations with Parliament on this basis to find a good compromise, a much better compromise. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. This was just a great example of how we deal with the fact that we are now planning a proposal from the Commission that pretends to establish an ethics body. But if we look at the data, we can say: Yeah, that's a novelty. But if we look at it, it is definitely not an ethics body, which the proposal contains, but a new coordination body. Nor will it establish binding rules for EU institutions. It will not even set really ambitious common standards or that, as Parliament called for in an opinion, we can really launch investigations and also issue sanctions to Sven Simon, who also at least partly worked on the EPP. If we look at this, we have a toothless tiger in front of us, which still requires a lot, a lot of work. I hope that Parliament will be very decisive in the negotiations in order to really make it an ethics authority. It is the same groups that are preventing us from really tightening up our rules, and they are now saying: No, that's actually a good suggestion, you don't have to do much about it anymore, we stick to it. This is about as if car manufacturers were working out the rules for road traffic, and then all motorists can orient themselves, but they don't have to. Or as if football clubs establish rules of the game, but then each team decides for itself what consequences this should have if you hurt them. That is why I believe it is important that we really get an ethics authority that has resources – we really need to improve – that really has the competences to be called an ethics authority. So I think we should look again: What requirements did Parliament make in a joint own-initiative report that received broad support? In fact, when we look at it: We also need such an ethics authority so that not every institution does its own thing again. That is why it is very important for us as S&D Group that we get an ethics body that deserves its name, that we do our homework here in the house, faster than before, also to change our own rules, and that we do not stick our heads in the sand and give the message: Okay, we're building a house here that has a wonderful name. But it is not at all equipped to really be an ethics authority. We will not accept this from the point of view of S&D. That is why we advocate: Yes, it's a novelty, I agree with you. It is a step in the right direction. But it's not enough at all. That is why we have to work hard here.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the colleagues who have done such a good job here to lift the veil of naivety when it comes to foreign interference. And that was by no means an easy job. But I am also concerned – worried when I hear that the democracy package is being postponed further and further, when we know that the date for the European elections is fixed and we need a stronger shield against interference by then. But I would also like to reiterate the importance of civil society – an independent civil society – for a stable democracy. And that is why I am very concerned that some also want to use this debate to discredit this very independent civil society. We must create the framework so that civil society can also play its role, so that democracy and the rule of law are protected. And that is why I am glad that Mrs Jourová has underlined once again that our approach is different from other autocracies in how we fight disinformation and influence.

Mr President! If we look at the fact that we are talking about the action plan on the Pillar of Social Rights and the years after Porto, we must once again see that without this House, in cooperation with the Commission, this pillar would never have existed. It's like having a child: You want to see that it grows and thrives well. We have a responsibility, and that is what we have here across political groups, because we as a Parliament wanted it to be. That is why it is important to see what we have achieved – the Commissioner has underlined this, others also – but also to see that this child continues to thrive, also in the future, because we have many projects that we need to implement, because we promised that to the people of Europe. That is why another point is very important to me. We have a huge transformation in front of the chest: Green Deal, digitalisation, people are worried about their jobs. You already have less in your pocket due to declining purchasing power. Our signal must also be: We will involve you in this transformation. We are also strengthening your rights to shape this transformation. Not only are you victims and at the mercy of it, but together we will make sure we don't leave anyone behind. And that is why all the projects in the resolution are great, and I thank the rapporteurs – that is exactly the responsibility that parents have.