Speeches

Dear President! Despite the tragedy we are witnessing, the future of Palestine and the Palestinian people remains the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. Israel's military operation, although condemned to failure from the outset, has gone into a dead end, as the Palestine issue has no military solution and no solution in violence. If I had it, all the bloodshed would already exist. What we see today is the unnecessary suffering and death of the innocent. Some talk about genocide, others about war crimes. All of this will ultimately be decided by the right people, not the right people. Not in this building or any other. The fact is that even the most dramatic speeches and virtual protests on social networks do not solve the key: How to break the cycle of violence and bloodshed? The only hope is not virtual, but it is boring and very analogous diplomacy. The EU urgently needs to reach a political agreement on a sustainable humanitarian ceasefire and the release of all hostages without any conditionality and blackmail. Then talks can begin about the future, about two countries and a series of other matters, but first the violence must stop.

Mr. President! The energy package ahead of us is the conclusion of more than two years of intensive negotiations and the response to the rapidly changing challenges in Europe's energy sector. Undoubtedly, it was marked by the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the energy crisis. Part of this process was the regulation on gas stocks, which, as is already clear today, has helped to bring down energy prices. Why our people do not yet feel this in their wallets is a challenge for a new mandate that must prevent energy war profiteering and strengthen the functioning of the common market. We didn't make it. Well, at least not entirely. The package before us, in particular the regulation for the natural gas and hydrogen markets, sets a good starting point for achieving the climate objectives set, while ensuring the competitiveness of the European economy. It establishes legal and institutional frameworks to ensure that the transition from fossil-intensive energy to zero-carbon energy is regulated and that the emerging hydrogen market develops according to market needs and with appropriate coordination with the development of the gas market. Legislation may not respond to all the challenges ahead, but it certainly ensures the necessary predictability and stability of the energy market as a key factor for the competitiveness of the European economy.

Mr President. Dear Sir/Madam, In terms of prices, the internal market is not working as we wanted and planned. On the one hand, we have a price rise that threatens the well-being of citizens, farmers who are dissatisfied with farm gate prices. We observe unusual and extreme fluctuations in raw material prices. It is true that the energy crisis and high energy prices contributed to inflation and price increases, but on the other hand, we see the high profits of energy companies, banks, which, at least in terms of interest rates, played, to put it mildly, a dubious game. Trade chains, which control a huge share of food and food sales, have been doing business at record levels. Of course, it is not a problem if companies do business well. However, it is the responsibility of regulators to monitor market developments and ensure that these profits are the result of legitimate business rather than unfair commercial practices such as abuse of market position or market manipulation. The Commission and the Member States have mechanisms in place to intervene and prevent unwarranted market enrichment and abuse through fiscal measures and mechanisms to safeguard competition in the market. What is more, if they have been caught, they must also punish such a commercial practice. So, what are we waiting for?

Mr President, dear colleagues! After the tragedy in Nagorno-Karabakh, when more than 100,000 Armenians were forced to leave their homes, the South Caucasus is boiling again. Instead of taking a sincere approach to finding a lasting peace agreement with Armenia, Azerbaijan threatens and already threatens territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as its inviolability of borders. In light of the Ukrainian tragedy, the EU must send a clear message to Azerbaijan, even if it is our important trading partner, that this policy is completely unacceptable to the EU and undermines EU-Azerbaijan cooperation. A lasting and just peace in the region is in the interest of the EU and the countries of the South Caucasus. I therefore welcome the increased engagement of the European Union and the Member States, in particular France, in the region and the strengthening of cooperation between the EU and Armenia. It is right to support Armenia's ambitions to cooperate more closely with the EU, thereby contributing not only to the stability of the region, but also to the well-being of its own citizens. Armenia needs our support in the face of Russia's destructive policy of deliberately destabilising the region through its actions. The peace and stability of the South Caucasus is important for both the EU and the whole neighbourhood, including Central Asia.

Madam President, dear colleagues! The tragedy we are witnessing in Gaza, after months of fighting, does not have a military solution and the extreme positions so often defended in the past, even today, do not bring a solution for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. With all the suffering we are witnessing, the time has come for a diplomatic solution. We must achieve an immediate cessation of fighting, the release of all hostages, and ensure humanitarian access to Gaza. In parallel, we need to launch the political diplomatic process initiated in Oslo, which should lead to a solution to the Middle East issue in accordance with the principle of two states in relation to the 1967 borders, living side by side in peace and without jeopardising each other. This requires both sides to change their policies. Israel must put an end to its policy of segregation and settlement building, and Hamas must unconditionally recognise Israel's right to exist and renounce all forms of terror and violence, renouncing foreign patrons such as Iran, who bring nothing good either to the Palestinians or to the region. And such can be actively and in good faith involved in the political-diplomatic process of reconciliation and the establishment of two states.

Mr. President! If we are serious about the technological breakthrough under the Green Deal and if we want to be among the champions in green technologies, then we need a unified and fully harmonised European system of intellectual property rules and norms, the backbone of which must be the unitary patent system. All global competitors are strategically building patent families, which are the basis for key patent standards that we continue to vote on today. Despite some positive trends, Europe as a region is lagging behind both Asia and North America. Although the European patent with unitary effect was an important step forward, and this is already reflected in the statistics of the European Patent Organisation and the Office, it has become clear, with the strengthening of global competition and also due to the tight political situation, that the EU needs a unitary patent system that is globally competitive both in terms of patent quality and affordability, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am convinced that this is the next major challenge facing the European Union, without which I cannot imagine a competitive and technologically advanced European Union and European economy.

Mr. President! Dear Sir/Madam, Water, which is a natural resource and a source of life that we are accustomed to using in unlimited quantities and for various needs – from drinking, washing, watering, production to cleaning – is becoming less and less self-evident due to climate change, and water is simply not enough for all our needs. We therefore need to act now and take a sustainable and comprehensive approach to the issue of water management in the EU. We need a unified concept of water management and supply as a priority for both the European Union and the Member States. Weather extremes, either the floods we witnessed last summer in Slovenia, or the droughts and associated restrictions on water consumption, which we are now witnessing in Catalonia and in the past also in parts of Slovenia, are just two sides of the same climate coin. In addition to the concept of governance, we must attach to it well-defined financial resources that will enable local communities, agriculture, the economy and the Member States to manage water and drinking water resources for all in a sustainable and integrated manner in the public interest.

Madam President, dear colleagues, once again the certified irregularities that occurred in these snap elections have proved that Serbia has a serious issue with meeting basic democratic standards and in conducting free and fair elections. We have been aware of these issues for years. However, what is new is the brutal openness with which these irregularities took place. In fact, it looked like the Serbian authorities did not even care. Why? Because they are still confident that nothing will happen. And unfortunately, they are right: the Commission and Council’s reaction has been, to put it mildly, very soft. This is the essence of the problem of our enlargement policy as a whole. The question is: will the EU insist on the implementation of our fundamental democratic values and principles, such as the principle that free and fair elections are the foundation of the EU? Or will we be politically pragmatic and, for the sake of quasi-geopolitical stability, sacrifice the democratic hopes and aspirations of the Serbian people? For me, the answer is simple, but I know that many in the EU have a huge dilemma. Supporting democracy is difficult, time consuming and demands a lot of work and dedication, while stable autocracy brings quick, short-term, pragmatic benefits. But if we look back to our own past, we will recall that when democratic standards and principles are in question, pragmatism does not bring the expected results. On the contrary, it usually brings more instability and in the end, even violence. If we truly care about the future of Serbia, of the Western Balkans and of the EU itself, we must support the democratic aspiration of the Serbian people and ensure that they can vote in free and fair elections.

– Mr President, when we speak of China as a direct or indirect owner of critical infrastructure, we need to bear in mind that its socio-political system is profoundly different from ours. The main element of the Chinese system is a full and complete military-civilian fusion that means the state leads state-directed programmes and plans to make use of all state and commercial power to strengthen the PLA. There are several security and defence risks associated with it: a risk of transfer of technology and technological know-how to companies directly or indirectly connected to China’s military; the risk of China’s monopoly in certain technology fields, such as batteries, silicon production, not to mention a monopoly on rare earths and other critical materials that constitutes a risk to EU defence and industry. Undersea cable communication is a third important security concern, due to the technology used, and services provided to EU diplomatic and military structures. As President von der Leyen said, we should not strive for decoupling from China, but rather de-risking. We need to develop a toolkit to efficiently address the EU security and defence concerns. European critical infrastructure remains vulnerable. Therefore, we need to develop a holistic model of screening foreign direct investments, as well as all actors involved in EU critical-infrastructure projects. We need a swift adoption, and full implementation, of an expanded regulatory framework to exclude entities that could have security implications for the EU, especially in the field of enabling technologies with military applications. Dual-use technologies need to be clearly defined and based on forward-looking criteria, and we need a legal framework to mitigate the security risks coming from the suppliers of undersea cable systems and services to prevent unauthorised intelligence and data gathering – and we must support and strengthen the resilience of our closest partners, especially candidate countries and strategic allies. I would like to thank all who took part in the preparation of this report.

Dear President! I know it's unpopular to talk about spending public money on military equipment and armaments, but unfortunately we live in a time when credible and dissuasive defence has become a necessary part of our daily lives. The time for peace dividends has come to an end, and the time has come to respond rationally to this as the European Union. We therefore urgently need a legal framework for a common European defence investment programme. We can indulge in the comfort of populism about cannons and butter. I would very much like to talk about this and get cheap political points. But my professional and political responsibility simply does not allow me to do so. The situation of the vast majority of European armed forces is, to put it mildly, bad. If we look at the strategic stockpiles of ammunition, it is actually catastrophic. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has exposed the limited production capacities of the European defence industry. Not only in supporting Ukraine in its fight, but even more so in replenishing our own stockpiles of equipment and ammunition. A common defence investment agenda will thus need to eliminate duplication and irrational spending and ensure that we acquire modern and modern security environment-appropriate defence capabilities, while avoiding overburdening our budgets through EU-level integration.

Madam President, honourable! The report on SMRs opens a debate on the role of nuclear technology, adding to the range of technologies that will be key to the success of the green transition, including nuclear and especially new technological solutions such as SMRs. While I am in favour of nuclear technology and particularly innovative technologies, I am also aware that neither nuclear technology in general nor small modular reactors are a miraculous solution to our energy problems. At the moment, the real nuclear industry cannot produce much more than it already does. Of course, it is crucial to give this technology, like others, the opportunity and create the conditions for it to develop competitively, technologically and cost-effectively in the market. But we must be aware that even with increased financial and other investments, there is no guarantee of success. But an opportunity alone will not be enough. Like all energy industries or industry in general, the nuclear industry also faces similar problems, such as a lack of production and development capacity, limited access to raw materials, a lack of human resources both for industrial work and for the realisation of complex nuclear infrastructure projects. It will and will continue to face fierce competition. As the report also states, this will require massive and thoughtful investment not only in technology, but also in the people who will develop and operate these complex systems. At the same time, we cannot overlook the fact that all Member States face considerable difficulties in preparing and implementing large and complex infrastructure projects, be they nuclear or non-nuclear. Therefore, the path of technological and industrial integration between Member States and companies is a rational development path for both green technological breakthrough and SMR technology.

Madam President. The package before us does not communicate much new. I am disappointed that the Commission has not found a way to open negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina already at the end of this year. This would be a blue geopolitical move, politically and even more so given the importance of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Western Balkans. The second concern is that the Commission, and this geopolitical one, still in the face of the growing challenges facing the EU, has not found the right balance between geopolitical needs, enlargement and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the democratic principles that lie at the heart of the enlargement process. It is the foundation on which the European Union is founded and its prosperity. Growth plans alone will not solve the key social and societal dilemmas of candidate countries. This therefore remains a challenge that the European Union as a whole will have to respond to in the future. It will probably be the task of the new Parliament and the Commission, of course, if we want enlargement and the enlargement process to be a success story again, and not the squander we are in now.

Madam President! Dear Sir/Madam, Although the Commission has declared itself geopolitical, the actions and, above all, the recent public announcement of the different opinions and positions of the Commissioners on one of the biggest crises we are witnessing in the Middle East, unfortunately reinforce us in the belief that it is anything but a truly geopolitical Commission. The cacophony of views and attitudes witnessed and still witnessed in the wake of the Middle East tragedy threatens to push the EU as a whole into irrelevance, even though developments in the Middle East may have a fatal impact on the security position of the European Union as a whole and on each of its Member States. If a united response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine gave us hope that the EU had embarked on a common thoughtful foreign policy and security stance, then the events that took place in Nagorno-Karabakh only allowed us to ignore and wonder how such passivity with ethnic cleansing was even possible. It seems that neither the EU institutions, let alone the Member States and the EU institutions together, are able to clearly identify the principles or values, let alone the interests, that are supposed to guide our global geopolitical action. It seems that for every case we face, we are always looking for new, unique solutions that then lead us to a dead end. The EU is somewhat unaware that those strategic attributes or levers of power, if you will, with which it can co-shape the modern world as a credible geopolitical actor. That's certainly not military power. These are certainly the values and principles on which the EU is founded, its soft power stemming from the integration of the 27 Member States and one of the strongest economies in the world, and its commitment to global cooperation and multilateralism.

Madam President! Although the report on Montenegro was relatively quickly and successfully coordinated, like others in the region, it conceals the fact that there is no expected progress – neither in Montenegro nor elsewhere. Worst of all, while the EU's rhetoric on enlargement is changing, decisions are being taken to encourage countries in the region to implement the necessary reforms, there is again no progress, apart from cosmetic corrections. It is not all the fault of the countries of the region. Much depends on the fact that the EU does not really know what to do with enlargement. We are not sure if enlargement is an opportunity, a risk, even a threat or something. Adding to this the contradictory messages from the Commission and the Member States and the bilateral excesses of some Member States, we get a cacophony of views and confusion, in which the countries of the region find it difficult to find themselves. However, an important part of the blame is also borne by the countries of the region themselves, of which Montenegro is unfortunately no exception. Why? It allowed it to slip into the ranks of another country in the region due to internal political and other polarisation from the Western Balkans Alliance. Nevertheless, Montenegro has the opportunity to be a candidate that could join the EU even before the magical year of 2030. However, in order to achieve this, Montenegrin politics must overcome ideological, political and other resentments and deal more with the European future of the country than with the fears and delusions of the past and the counting of the population. The decision is simple, but at the same time fatal. It's about choosing between the future or going back to the past.

Mr President, events in northern Kosovo are still raising more questions than providing concrete answers. Regardless of the background, we need to condemn in the strongest possible way the use of force by illegal paramilitary forces. We need to have a thorough, impartial investigation for EULEX on what actually happened and who is responsible. Despite the harsh words and accusations coming from different sides, there is still no clarity about what happened more than a week ago. We know lives were lost and we know no one is talking anymore about a holistic and permanent solution to the Serbian-Kosovo dispute as the starting point of the long-term stabilisation of the Western Balkans. There are politicians in the Western Balkans and there are people of the Western Balkans. What we need to achieve with reconciliation among the people of the Western Balkans, within the state borders as they are. I believe this can be achieved through an open and frank dialogue without any malicious foreign interference. But above all, there needs to be a dialogue among the countries of Western Balkans, which are committed to the democratic principles in internal politics to a rules-based international system in foreign relations and truly and fully committed to future EU membership through the implementation of reforms for the benefit of their own people.

Madam President, dear colleagues, in the tragic events unfolding in Nagorno-Karabakh, once again people are forced to leave their homes and traces of their culture are being slowly but persistently erased. At the same time, what is more shocking and devastating is that the foundation of the modern rule-based international order is undermined again. The ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be justified either by the events of the past or by the claims of sovereignty of Azerbaijan. The fate of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh is another stark reminder of how the world would look like if the rules-based international system, with all its deficiencies, were to be replaced by the brutal law of the jungle where the bigger, stronger and more powerful prevail. For small nations, this would present an existential threat to their existence because the appetite of those who would like to play this game is endless. Today it’s Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Who knows who will be next? This is why we, as the European Union, must react; we must support the Armenian people and their legitimate expectations and hopes.

Dear Sir/Madam, Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for just under two thirds of Europe's GDP and more than two thirds of private sector jobs. These are the companies without which our European economy cannot exist, just as our societies would not be well-being without them. We talk a lot about reducing the administrative burden. With each new Commission action, our SMEs are faced with a growing mountain of file folders and endless Excel tables. For projects worth up to one million, supported by various EU funds and resources, let's start by setting up a system that will make it easier for SMEs to access these resources. This is particularly important at a time of rising interest rates. So it should not be a key mountain of documentation, but the results that SMEs will achieve by using these funds. Let's move from over-control and piles of paper into a model for assessing the impact of spending and the consistency of SMEs' achievements with the European Union's policy objectives.

Dear Sir/Madam, Today, on the day of remembrance of the genocide in Srebrenica, it is in a way right to talk about the future of BiH. About her European future. As a post-election candidate country, BiH is at an important turning point, which will determine whether it will follow the path of reforms for the benefit of its people, or whether it will become a scene of geopolitical strife with local nationalist admixtures and all the associated risks of renewed tragedies that we have witnessed in the past. Commissioner, what are we going to do – all of us, me, you, the Commission, this House, OHR, EUFOR – to stop Mr Dodik's destructive policy for the Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, all the people? We'll sanction him or we'll go another round of reassurance with hope, and now it will. How will we help now that the institutions of power in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been formed? That local politicians will not only promise and sell us the fog – to us and to the people of BiH – but that reform processes will begin that will consolidate Bosnia on the path of European Union membership and strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and above all provide the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a better tomorrow and a clear European future. Or will we wash our hands again? How will we ensure that the European funds that are and will be available in BiH are used for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of narrow interest groups and the proliferation of corruption? Are we in order to expand the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and help BiH to take a key step in the fight against corruption and misuse of EU funds? I think we need to do this, for Bosnia, but even more so for itself and for the credibility of our enlargement policy and our policy towards the Western Balkans.

Madam President. Colleagues and colleagues. Srebrenica is a place of remembrance and remembrance. When I remember Srebrenica, I remember in 1995, when my concern was how to complete my graduation, while horrors were happening just a few hundred kilometers away, which were unimaginable then and still are today. During the break-up of Yugoslavia, we saw a lot of things. We saw Vukovar, we saw Škrabinja, Prijedor, Visegrad, Bijeljina and more. But Srebrenica, Srebrenica represents horror. It's not just horror, it's horror itself. My memory as a teenager's memory of Srebrenica reflects two terrible scenes. The first is the separation of families in Potočari and the second is a recording of the execution of unfortunate young Bosniaks, then not much older than me. But more than the horror of these scenes, I remember the immeasurable cynicism, brutality, and the complete absence of empathy from the killers. As one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials said, the source of all evil is the absence of empathy, the absence of humanity as such. And just as Srebrenica caused the absence of empathy, this absence of empathy unfortunately also marks the time in which we live. Somehow it seems that the reminder of Srebrenica and genocide is forgotten that this can never happen again, even though we have said it many times before, but it is never repeated again as the eternal return of evil. The message of Srebrenica is a reminder of what man is capable and capable of today, when he responds to the challenges of modernity with a deadly mixture of extreme nationalism, the absence of empathy, which is provided by the propaganda of controlled and unfree media. That is why the fight for fundamental freedoms and rights, on which our EU is also founded, is always important and relevant. And just as it is important to stress that the responsibility for genocide is always individual, it should also be stressed that there is no place in our Union for all those who deny the genocide in Srebrenica, who glorify war crimes, who are unable to condemn war crimes and genocide.

Mr President. Dear Sir/Madam, The findings of the PEGA Committee have shown that, despite the democratic tradition of the European Union, no one is immune to the abuse of new technologies. If we follow the Citizen Lab report, Slovenia is no exception. New technologies, when used legally and in accordance with democratic values, norms and principles, can of course contribute to our security in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and other security threats. However, regardless of these well-beings, we must unequivocally and legally firmly ensure that new technologies are not misused by state structures, let alone by private companies working for a known or unknown buyer. The information about us, the most intimate information about us that we obtain through these technologies, is not and should not be a marketing commodity of policy or anyone else. Since these technologies do not know national borders, we need at least uniform highest democratic rules and standards of their use within the EU, as well as uniform norms and standards in punishing their abuse, because if we do not do so, the foundations of our democracy and our future will be threatened. No one wants to live in the society of the 1984 novel.

Madam President! Last week we were struck by mass shootings in Serbia. The loss of innocent lives is always a tragedy, so I would like to express my sincere condolences to the families and residents of Serbia and to all those affected by the recovery as soon as possible. In these difficult times, the EU must stand by the Serbian people and commit to unconditionally supporting Serbian society in its efforts to address the causes of violence and prevent similar tragedies in the future. The report, the latest in this reference, shows the image of Serbia, which is rather bleak for a candidate country. Progress is limited or simply non-existent. The gap between the commitments made and their implementation continues to widen. Legislation is European-harmonised and its implementation is anything but that. There are too many examples of this. Perhaps the most striking example is the removal of the prosecutors who prosecuted corruption in the Serbian electricity industry. The example clearly shows that judicial independence is still an unrealised goal, despite constitutional legislative changes. The situation of the media, where the dominant position of state-owned Telekom is strengthening, whose business practices are, to say the least, unusual from the point of view of the protection of competition, is similarly miserable. And this points to the position of regulatory bodies, including REM, which remain more or less enforcers rather than supervisors and decision-makers. That I'm not losing words about business games in the National Assembly that don't appeal to this high body. These are symptoms. The reason lies in the fact that such a situation suits the current Serbian leadership. There is no sincere desire on the part of the Serbian authorities to come closer and join the EU in order to improve the well-being of citizens. For them, the EU is only one of the stages of domestic and foreign policy struggles. And as long as this is the case, there will be no more concrete progress. Until then, we will be discussing the same topics, issues and scandals over and over again. Thank you very much.

Madam President, dear colleagues, when we speak about EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, we first need to be realistic. Lessons from the war in Ukraine have sent modern military thinking back to the basics. The war in Ukraine has shown how limited EU and the Western military and defence industrial capabilities are. Any idea of a double approach separating NATO and EU capabilities is meaningless and counterproductive. Even though the existing idea of EU Battlegroups was good, it was very poorly or half-heartedly implemented. Colleagues, this is not the way to form a modern military force. We need first to define the EU strategic ambitions. The goal is to enable the EU to act autonomously, militarily, without endangering nor weakening European defence enshrined in NATO. This is the starting point from which we should develop EU battlegroups using NATO capabilities to the greatest possible extent, at the same time enable the EU to act militarily and protect its interests. These would be actions limited geographically and in scope, such as the evacuation of EU citizens supporting EU CSDP missions and the like. However, before doing this, we need to speed up our work on developing an EU civil-military chain of command, budgeting and logistics support of the EU rapid deployment capabilities. We also need to strengthen the interoperability of our armed forces and ensure regular and sufficient financing not only of our militaries, but also the necessary industrial capabilities to equip troops with modern military equipment.

Mr President-in-Office! Colleagues! Dear Commissioner! Package Fit for 55 i.e. a 55% reduction in emissions is clearly an ambitious and comprehensive response by the European Union to the challenges of climate change, which threaten not only our environment and well-being, but also our lives. As an ITRE member, I contributed my share to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). It must ensure a fair price for carbon in the products we import into the European market and be a tool to encourage non-European countries and producers to pursue our high climate goals. It must also be a safeguard against carbon dumping and ensure a level playing field in the market. Let us not forget, however, that this truly comprehensive legislative framework is not the end of the work. On the contrary, implementation follows with all the challenges it brings. It is the responsibility of this Parliament, the Commission and the Member States to respond promptly to the identified shortcomings. Some solutions will prove insufficient or even insufficient. This must be followed by swift and appropriate legislative complementarities, in line with the climate objectives set, with the needs of European industry and with the changes around us.

Mr President, dear President-in-Office, dear colleagues! On Sunday, the twelfth, we marked the twentieth anniversary of the death of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić. The death of a great democrat and a proven proponent of the European idea was a major blow to democracy in both Serbia and the Western Balkans. Although the anniversary was marked by the commemoration of colleagues from S&D, for which I thank them, I nevertheless consider it appropriate, at the end of this plenary session, for this great man to be remembered by this House of European Democracy.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, colleagues. The issue of raw materials is a question of the future of European industry. Without access to raw materials at competitive prices and in the necessary quantities, there will be neither a green transition nor a related technological breakthrough. That's why we need two things: an effective and economically sound circular economy model that ensures the re-use of raw materials from our waste. These are the cheapest and most easily accessible raw materials. Nazoren je primer odpadnih jekel, s katerih uporabo bi lahko zadostili preko 60 % potreb po jeklu v Evropski uniji. Another measure is strategic partnerships with countries rich in raw materials. We must not enter into an ongoing match with other players, as we are too late to do so. The EU must approach through a mechanism of equal partnerships that will bring well-being to both us and the countries that own the raw materials. This will require the transfer of advanced and sustainable mining and processing technologies, which will bring these countries jobs with minimal environmental burden, and give us the necessary raw materials at competitive prices and in the necessary quantities.