Speeches

The Commission, when preparing its 2022 Work Programme, should take into account the positions expressed by Parliament, in particular in the following committees. Committee on International Trade: we invite the Commission to make progress in the ongoing bilateral negotiations with Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia and others, ensuring that the Agreements reflect the EU’s latest commitments and ambition; to follow up on the Joint Declaration of the EU-India Leaders' Meeting last May. We invite the Commission to develop a new comprehensive strategy for the Asia-Pacific region. We welcome the new EU agenda on strengthening transatlantic trade relations and the moratorium on the Airbus/Boeing dispute. We call on the Commission to complete the Mercosur process if it is not completed this year. Committee on Budgets: we call on the Commission to take all necessary steps to ensure the full implementation of the binding roadmap to introduce new own resources in the course of the current MFF, including a regular structured dialogue between the institutions in line with the IIA. We call on the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties, to ensure the application of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. Committee on Economic Affairs: we await from the Commission the necessary legislative initiatives for the revision of the economic governance rules.

Mr President, Secretary of State, Commissioner, twenty years after the 2004 enlargement, there is a clear trend: there is convergence between Member States, but in convergence between regions there is still a long way to go. Even today, convergence is less consistent when comparing rural and metropolitan regions. We know that the different population density and wealth generated in one or the other is cause and effect on performance in innovation, competitiveness, economic growth and social convergence, educational attainment, job creation and quality. It is essential that Cohesion Policy retains its long-term investment nature. This is helped by the recent decision to withdraw national co-financing from the calculation of net expenditure in the framework of the economic governance of the European Union, approved yesterday by this Parliament. In my last speech in plenary, Mr President, allow me to express my thanks to you for all the cooperation of all my fellow Members, but also to all those who run the day-to-day business of this house of democracy. But, I said in my last speech, I repeat what I have been saying in recent years: Cohesion Policy can and should benefit from the lessons learned from recent mechanisms, but it must not lose its identity as defined in the Treaties. It cannot support social convergence and the territorial dimension.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague Jonás Fernández on this report and, above all, on the speeches we have now heard here in the last speeches, on the progress we have made on Banking Union. Is that all we wanted? It was not, but we managed to have and resolve and move forward on some pillars when it comes to the Banking Union. But the completion of the Banking Union is a crucial step and is eternally delayed. It is crucial for ensuring stability and reducing systemic risk in the European Union banking sector. But not only. The Banking Union is an essential part of the galaxy of instruments and initiatives that we must have on the ground if we are to secure the resources needed to achieve the European Union's priorities, to ensure robust long-term economic growth that leaves no one behind. We cannot see the Banking Union in isolation. The European Union's new fiscal rules, approved yesterday, will give more flexibility and room for investment in national budgets, but we need to move forward in creating a permanent investment capacity after 2026. We need to implement the Capital Markets Union to diversify sources of corporate finance. And, of course, we must finally complete the Banking Union, a union to ensure the soundness of the banking system and the circulation of financial resources between states, companies and financial markets. We can't wait another ten years. All these mechanisms working together in full to boost the internal market and maximise the volume and sources of funding are needed. I welcome the agreement reached last week in the Committee on the Economy on EDIS. It is a first step and a political sign of commitment given by Parliament to the Council to finally move towards a genuine European deposit insurance. But we have other challenges ahead to complete the Banking Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, about a month ago, in this Chamber, as a member of the Committee on Budgets, I strongly opposed the use of an urgent procedure to make EUR 150 million available to Tunisia. We were surprised. In March this year, the process is repeated, now with Egypt, in the amount of EUR 7.4 million. Loans, investments and aid for migration-related programmes. All this without this Parliament exercising its role of democratic scrutiny. The way in which the European Commission has circumvented this Parliament in concluding these agreements is unacceptable. Is it inexplicable – and remains unexplained – how agreements of this nature, which must have been long prepared, do not pass through Parliament? We want to know what conditionalities – in addition to the general conditionalities – the Commission has established with these agreements with Tunisia and now with Egypt. Was there urgency? We cannot validate these agreements on the grounds of urgency, because that is not true. Today we have a new asylum and migration pact. The European Parliament has shown throughout the 9th parliamentary term that it can act quickly. We did so, for example, in the European response to COVID-19. The European Parliament is the budgetary authority. It does not abdicate its powers and we cannot think that it is through urgent disbursements that we will become relevant in the southern neighbourhood. This is a very limited and very unstrategic view of the problem.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I have already said that the agreement we are voting on today will represent a new chapter in the economic governance of the European Union. More fiscal space for investment, more flexibility for Member States to smooth their fiscal adjustments. And we have, for the first time, a real social dimension. We can indeed talk about economic and social governance and a case-by-case approach. And for colleagues who say that this framework creates austerity policies, what they are actually doing is whitewashing governments that develop austerity policies and justify those policies with the framework of European rules. It's not true. This framework does not lead to the need for austerity policies. Now is the time to look to the future. We need to create a permanent investment instrument at European level that complements these rules, that joins these rules to deliver on European priorities. Parliament can be proud of the result it has achieved. We played a decisive role and succeeded in improving what had been the Council's compromise, with a more balanced and progressive agreement. In the 25th year of the euro, we could not leave the single European currency without rules, exposed to the markets and without a credible, long-term future. I would like to end by thanking Esther de Lange, co-rapporteur on the EPP side, Gaby Bishop, all the shadow rapporteurs who have participated in this work and all those who have spoken here in this debate. And I would like to remind you that this process was led, on Parliament's side, by four women: three rapporteurs and one chair of the Committee on the Economy.

Madam President, Commissioners, the reform of the European Union's economic governance rules was one of the main priorities of this mandate. We can say here today that we have fulfilled. It has complied with the European Commission, it has complied with the Council, it has complied with Parliament. The role of the European Parliament was decisive. Many believed that reforming the EU's current fiscal rules would be impossible. Others have done everything to block any advance in the current rules they have always criticized. Reforming fiscal rules was urgent and an act of courage. The courage of Commissioner Gentiloni, who put the first proposal on the table and whom I thank for all the collaboration he has had with this Parliament. I thank the Commissioner and his team. Courage of the Council that had to find a compromise between all Member States. I know that for some finance ministers it was difficult to give their agreement. The courage of Parliament and some parties to assume that the responsibility to protect citizens and improve Economic and Monetary Union is more important than the political discourse of the moment. All of us, without exception, had to make concessions, many of them difficult. If this is the deal, the reform I would like to have or dreamed of? No, it's not. We also wanted more ambition, more flexibility, more room for investment, less roles and simplicity. But for reform to be effective, everyone needs to accept it and see it as their own if it is to be credible, for citizens, for governments, for financial markets. It is a fact that the new rules we are voting on today are much better than the previous ones. The rules we are voting on today are more flexible, transparent, democratic, progressive and, for the first time, have a strong social dimension. The rules we are voting on today change the structure of economic governance, in the sense that the European Parliament has called for: case-by-case analysis; multi-annual approach; Focus on spending and investment priority. The socialists introduced historic reforms such as the exclusion of co-financing from the expenditure rule. This will open up fiscal space for investment in many Member States. It will represent on average 1% of gross domestic product. For the first time, we have introduced a genuine social dimension into economic governance. We have created a social convergence framework, we have been able to protect investments in defence, climate transition and the European Pillar of Social Rights, ensuring sustainable and inclusive investments. We have introduced more flexibility, with more favourable criteria to achieve extensions of the plans from four to seven years and thus allow Member States to smooth out investment, adjustment. We have made the excessive deficit procedure more flexible when it comes to strategic investments or the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans. We have strengthened the democratic dimension by giving Member States the possibility to discuss their baseline trajectories with the European Commission in advance. We have given a concrete role to the European Parliament, the national parliaments and the social partners. As I said at the beginning, we have fulfilled our mandate. We now need to move towards the creation of a permanent investment instrument at European Union level. And this will have to be done in the framework of the debate on the next multiannual budget of the European Union. This instrument should support the huge investments that the European Union will have to make in the coming years. One element, a decisive instrument for the successful implementation of this new economic governance framework.

Madam President, Commissioner, the use of cohesion policy in response to the crises that have followed and as a stabiliser in economic downturns has been decisive in protecting citizens, families, businesses and regions. I congratulate the Commissioner on the way she has managed flexibility, but this policy is also decisive in ensuring a balanced recovery by reducing the widening of asymmetries. But it is important that cohesion maintains its long-term investment nature, focusing on growth, innovation and job creation. It was also important in the recent agreement on future economic governance rules that the European Parliament was able to withdraw co-financing from the calculation of net expenditure. In the future, cohesion policy should benefit from the lessons of the Recovery and Resilience Plan. But cohesion policy must not, under any circumstances, lose its identity as defined in the Treaties.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union's annual budget is the instrument for financing European ambition. The annual budget debate is the time to put people at the heart of European political decision-making, to make a real and tangible difference in the lives of Europeans by ensuring that there is adequate funding for European political priorities, that we support citizens in the green and digital transition, that opportunities like Erasmus+ are for everyone and not just for those whose families can complement Erasmus+ grants, that there is more and better European research. It's not just a debt management exercise, cut here to sew there. To this end, we approved, in the revision of the multiannual budget, a separate instrument, the EU Recovery Instrument (EURI), the end of the Cascada tunnel. Finally, and without hesitation, it is clear that the report advocates the protection of citizens and security at the external borders of the European Union, but under no circumstances can we accept that the European Union budget should finance the construction of walls. Once again, what drives us are European values.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioners, in 2024 the European Semester will be a year of transition between the current and the new rules of economic governance. That is why we must prepare for the future, and the future requires the creation of a permanent investment instrument at European Union level, as we argued in the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. We want this permanent instrument to support strategic investments, be a rapid mechanism to respond to unexpected crises and support the effectiveness of the next economic governance framework and European Semester. This new permanent instrument must be financed from its own revenues and cannot be created or financed at the expense of strategic and founding policies of the European Union, such as cohesion policy. The new economic governance rules will make the European Semester more flexible, with a case-by-case approach and defined investment priorities in the social, environmental, digital and defence areas.

Mr President, Council, Commission, today the European Parliament has decided to take a break from its work, from its powers. We have zero tolerance for corruption. We are for absolute transparency, for collaboration with justice, for non-obstruction. We are in favour of the rule of law, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the fact that investigations and trials take place in the courts themselves, and are taking place – the Spanish Parliament, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, OLAF – to determine whether European funds are at stake. The European People's Party really needs to look inward, at the cases of the CDU/CSU in Germany, of the PP in Madrid, of the Balearics in the government of Rosa Estaràs, of Valencia... You have a lot to look at, a lot to work for within your own political family. But don't get contaminated. Resist and do not feed populism – it degrades democracy, it degrades the European institutions.

Madam President, Commissioner, in June 2023 we were surprised when President Von der Leyen went to Tunisia to propose an agreement: €700 million to curb irregular migration and support investment in five pillars. An agreement in which no guarantee was required from the Tunisian government, a country where democracy and the rule of law have been emptied, where there is no trade union freedom or freedom of expression. If we were already surprised and critical of the agreement, we cannot now understand the use of an urgent procedure that will immediately provide EUR 150 million without this Parliament exercising its role of democratic scrutiny – not this Parliament, not even the Tunisian Parliament. We cannot accept decisions of this nature either within the European Union or with our partners. Has any conditionality been put in place? Can the European Parliament visit the supported projects? Yes, Tunisia has already prevented a delegation from the European Parliament from entering. It is not enough for the Commission to say that progress is being made and that the number of departures of migrants from Tunisia has fallen substantially...

Mr President, Madam Minister, Mr Vice-President, I would like to begin by congratulating the European Council on inviting António Guterres to the next meeting. A geopolitical European Union means being able to act for peace, progress and multilateralism. This is what is required of the European Union in the Middle East. The European Union cannot remain silent. Humanitarian aid, UNWRA funding, no doubt, but, as President Von der Leyen said, aid alone will not solve the crisis. We need to be more active in respecting international law, in respecting international humanitarian law, in respecting the decisions of the International Court of Justice, but above all in defending a permanent ceasefire, in defending a political process leading to the two-state solution. We know that the European Union cannot do this alone. That is why this dialogue with the Secretary-General of the United Nations is so important.

Mr President, Commissioner, Ambassador, colleagues, I would like to highlight two fundamental chapters on which the Socialists and Democrats and the European Parliament have fought. The EU-Chile Agreement, a key partner of the European Union, is a progressive agreement and includes two key chapters: One, Trade and Sustainable Development, which includes legally binding commitments on environmental protection, climate change, but also social and labour rights. It requires the commitment of both sides to effectively implement the Paris Agreement and to respect the conventions of the International Labour Organization. Another is gender equality. This, as an autonomous chapter, was for the first time included in such an agreement. It is essential that the European Union continues to promote fair, rules-based international trade by negotiating agreements that are appropriate to the diversity of political and economic contexts of our partners, but that advocate high standards of sustainability. But it is also a progressive agreement because it respects the interests of both partners in a balanced way. This is also a mutually beneficial agreement. The current Government of Chile announces its economic development strategy based on industrialisation. For this, the protection of their raw materials is a key point. That agreement complies with that principle. At the same time, it allows the European Union to diversify markets and build more resilient supply chains. The efforts of this government to make the agreement that had been signed by the previous government in December 2022 more friendly to the citizens and the Chilean economy have worked. It worked for the Chileans. It worked for the Europeans.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, what has been agreed is not really great for us to have the results that the citizens expect of us. We know that the trust of the European Union comes with results and, we have repeated several times in this House, the funding of the European Union, of policies, of European priorities, must be consistent with the political ambition for what we want today and for the future. We cannot want to strengthen the strategic autonomy of the European Union, or make the green or digital transitions, or tackle the enormous inequalities that we live in the European Union, whether social, geographical, or valuing people or strengthening the European Union's defence capacity, particularly in the current global context, without the financial resources that these challenges require. It remains to be done, and it is urgent to start working on building an investment capacity at European level after 2026, post-NextGenerationEU. It remains to be done, and it is urgent to start working on a new appropriate European Union budget architecture that will allow the European Union to welcome new Member States. Finally, none of this will happen without respecting the commitments of the Interinstitutional Agreement in the financing of these new challenges, the timely adoption of new own resources. We have a well-defined schedule, just stick to it. The entry of new own resources into the budget of the European Union is urgent. Finally, I would like to thank the co-rapporteur, Jan Olbrycht, for all the teams that have supported us during this long work, and I would also like to thank the Presidency and the Commission for the opportunity we have had, for the first time, to review the multiannual budget of the European Union and reach an agreement that allows us to respond immediately to the new challenges.

Mr President, Commission, Council, I would like to begin by expressing my satisfaction at this revision of the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. This is the first time that there has been a genuine revision of the multiannual budget. Parliament requested it in December 2022, the Commission presented it in June 2023. An understanding was reached allowing the European Parliament to give its consent. What is positive about this agreement? the establishment of the Ukraine Facility. And the establishment of the Ukraine Facility as a stable and predictable support within the EU budget. Only in this way is the European Union able to support Ukraine and, at the same time, the powers of the European Parliament as budgetary authority are respected. Budget unit. Transparency. Democracy. The creation of the STEP programme, although it is not yet the promised Sovereignty Fund that we wanted. But we hope this will be a step in that direction. the creation of conditions for the payment of the debt burden of the Recovery Fund. A special instrument, without ceiling, to be mobilised when necessary, to cover amounts exceeding the amounts initially foreseen. But also, and because recent history has shown us that the unforeseen can be more than many: greater flexibility should be emphasised, bringing greater responsiveness also on the budgetary side. Strengthening the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Global Europe and the Solidarity Fund. And the Emergency Aid Reserve, which will provide increased support to Member States facing consequences of natural disasters. In addition, increased funding for the implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The limits of this agreement or what we don't like: This agreement highlights a limited ambition in the European Union’s strategic autonomy. He made inexplicable cuts: In the Horizon Europe programme, although the European Parliament managed to reduce this cut. Indeed, the European Union's research and innovation programme is a decisive programme for the future of the European Union. It has excellent results and has a full capacity for execution. In CAP and Cohesion. Although it has fully respected the national envelopes, we see the part of the funding managed directly by the European Commission reduced, leading to a reduction in the capacity for technical assistance. In EU4Health, the health programme, although the European Parliament managed to spread the reduction more evenly by the end of the MFF period. This programme aims to prepare the European Union to better support citizens and Member States. It lacks appropriate funding. And we must not fail the citizens. For all this, we do not limit ourselves to giving our consent. The citizens would not understand it! The vote of consent shall be accompanied politically by a motion for a resolution. This resolution highlights the European Parliament's position on this revision of the 2021-2027 budgetary framework.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Presidency on the agreement on the revision of the multiannual budget of the European Union and on the agreement to set up a Ukraine Facility within the European Union budget. It is the only way to respect the powers of the European Parliament, the unity of the budget, transparency and democracy. But, Commission, Council, we need explanations and we need to reverse cuts in programmes such as research and health, both of which are essential to deepen the European Union's strategic autonomy and to protect citizens. Either in cohesion, or in financing farmers. Everyone talks about supporting farmers, but can we accept cuts to the CAP? We refuse to pay the costs of debt at the expense of cuts to European programmes. The introduction of new own resources, as we all know, is urgent. What has been agreed is not enough to have the results that European citizens expect. And the European Parliament needs this to give its consent. Confidence in the European Union is built on communication, debate, listening to citizens, but above all it is built on results.

Mr President, Madam Minister, Commissioner Gentiloni, in December Parliament reached a comprehensive agreement on the reform of economic governance that we are going to vote on today. It is balanced, progressive and has a strong social dimension. Thank you, Esther de Lange. Thank you, shadow rapporteurs. We propose flexibility, more time for debt reduction. We reject new deficit targets. We reject new austerity policies. We propose fiscal and investment space for the climate and digital transitions, defence and the European Pillar of Social Rights. Based on diversity, we propose more ownership for Member States, better democracy, with a relevant role for national parliaments and social partners. These are some of the priorities that we are going to bring to the negotiations, which begin after the adoption of the mandate. The Socialists and Democrats, we are a responsible political family, a trusted partner, who goes to the fight. Our group will fight to say no to austerity, and yes to investment. We will fight to have fiscal rules that promote growth and a strong social dimension. We will fight for the future of Europe. We are not those parties that depart from the discussion, ask for postponements, refuse, from day one, any negotiation. We are not those parties that say they do not want austerity, but actually advocate a return to the old rules that will bring austerity back to Europe. It is time to start working with the Council and the Commission to have a credible fiscal framework that promotes economic growth and employment in good time. A monetary union, a single currency, cannot live without rules and take risks. Finally, one point needs to be highlighted: any of the proposals of the three institutions will always be better than a return to the old rules.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I wish the Council well for the revision of the multiannual financial framework, for its urgency and political relevance. We know Orbán's veto, we know the 26th deal. Dear Minister, Orbán's veto is unacceptable. The new proposal that Orbán puts on the table does not serve. We cannot, year after year, be revising the MFF. Yes, because that is what the proposal leads us to. This is what would allow Orbán to maintain permanent blackmail. The agreement of 26 resolves the issue of Ukraine and the approval of a Ukraine Facility is urgent, but it does not solve other issues of extreme urgency – increasing funding for migration, humanitarian aid, disaster support or the strategic autonomy of the European Union – as it does not solve the issue of the payment of interest from the Recovery Fund. The proposal to set up a cascade for this purpose is innovative, but we risk cutting programmes such as Erasmus+ or cohesion or agriculture in the very near future, and the European Parliament rejects that.

Madam President, Prime Minister, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I enjoyed hearing the Prime Minister's interview in which he said that new resources needed to enter the budget of the European Union – new resources and new own resources. I would therefore like to know – while knowing that the Belgian Presidency has a short period of time in decision-making – to what extent the Presidency is open to moving forward with the negotiation on the financial transaction tax, which is a decisive rate for the financing of the European Union budget. But, unlike my colleague, Philippe Lambert, I would like the Belgian Presidency to succeed in revising the rules of economic governance, so that the old rules do not come back into force and so that it is possible for future economic policies to be growth policies, to protect citizens, to protect countries and to promote the competitiveness of the economy by refusing austerity policies.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, EU-China relations must continue to be guided by the principles of cooperating whenever possible, competing when essential, confronting when necessary. We must continue to demand a trade and investment relationship based on reciprocity and fairness, with economic diplomacy that contributes to promoting fair and equitable conditions of access to the Chinese market for Europeans; to work to limit the risks created by China’s acquisition of critical infrastructure in the European Union; to implement increased surveillance in the internal market. Linked to all these objectives is the requirement to respect universal human rights, which is a founding principle of the European Union. We will thus be able to strengthen the open strategic autonomy of the European Union that we advocate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, several risks have been identified for the economic security of the European Union: the resilience of value chains, security of critical infrastructure, technological security or dependency and economic coercion. Just to mention a few examples, but all of them critical. Having identified the risks, we need to act at European level, but also at national level. We need progress on foreign direct investment assessment mechanisms, their implications for supply chains, technology transfer or critical infrastructure in the Union, such as ports. It is essential that Member States that do not have a national mechanism for this assessment set it up. To continue to benefit from openness in a global context, an inherent principle, the European Union needs to have mechanisms in place to protect it from risk.

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the good news: we have a budget for 2024. The bad news: There are many! We have a reduced budget, a budget made at the expense of reducing the burden on the Recovery and Resilience Fund in 2023. NextGenerationEU, and redeployments from the ITER programme for energy and the Frontex mechanism. Therefore, a limited ability to respond to the challenges we know today. All this highlights the urgency of the revision of the European Union’s Multiannual Framework 2021–2027. That it has, among others, financing solutions for Ukraine, because the continuous war is not over! To deepen the strategic autonomy of the European Union. For the EURI line of debt charges. For disaster impact support, humanitarian aid or dealing with the migration issue. With this budget, we have in fact postponed problems to the second part of the budget period. We must do everything we can to ensure that citizens can trust the European Union. And a European Union capable of leading internationally. And this requires structural solutions that go through the multi-annual budget and that are reflected in the annual budgets.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the ECON Committee I would like to begin by stressing that the vast majority of the proposals of the Conference on the Future of Europe for the economic area can be implemented within the framework of the current treaties. The current treaties should continue to be explored in their entirety for as long as this or any future treaty review exercise takes place. These two processes must be parallel. Of course, further enlargements require institutional and budgetary reforms, but we cannot allow key reforms in the European Union not to move forward in the coming years on the pretext that a revision of the treaties is under way. Economic governance reform, taxation or the ECB’s mandate are three key areas. The ECB should have a clearer definition of price stability and a strengthened secondary mandate. In economic governance, the decision-making process, instruments and institutions must be based on the Community method. In taxation, the priority is to prevent the systematic use of national vetoes, gradually moving towards qualified majority voting.

Madam President, Commissioner, the repayment of NextGenerationEU and the enlargements of the European Union are not for tomorrow, but they are major and urgent challenges for the European Union, both of which have enormous implications for the European Union budget. To repay NextGenerationEU, there is an inter-institutional commitment to mobilise new own resources, with a well-defined timeline, also as European policy instruments in climate or tax justice. In order to create the conditions for further enlargements, it is essential to define a new budgetary architecture of the European Union. The current model is no good. The budget of a Europe of 27 is very different from the budget of a Europe of 35. And here, again, new own resources are key. Either we will cut cohesion, Erasmus grants, support for SMEs, research, or we will ask Member States for more funding. Urgent challenges - we all know the time for democratic political decision-making in the European Union.

Madam President, Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, of the European Commission's 2024 work programme, which has now been presented, I would like to highlight three points. On budgetary matters, the revision of the MFF. The Commission’s political strategy until the elections includes continued support to Ukraine, with the approval of the Ukraine Facility. This requires a revision of the MFF. Promoting an innovative, decarbonised and competitive European industry: we must ensure that STEP is approved and provided with adequate financial means. Again, review the MFF. On economic governance: review the economic governance rules of the European Union. Going back to the old rules is not an option, we have to look to the future and not to the past. Strong political commitment and a clear awareness of the urgency are needed. We need balanced rules to ensure debt sustainability and sustainable investments. Finally, we cannot talk about further enlargements without talking about institutional reform and a revision of the architecture of the European Union budget.