Debate contributions by Mohammed CHAHIM

Madam President, you have to allow me to say something about the process because until now, we still didn't receive a text. I have to say that the communications also from the Commission were very unclear, with many contradicting messages. And it's, of course, strange to have a debate without having a full overview of the package. But, let me quote one of the Commissioners who stated that this was a 'lifeline for the European automotive industry'. My friends, I have to be very honest. I cannot see how this proposal will help the car industry in Europe. I think the message today is a message of slowing down at a time when Europe should accelerate, and we risk with this package to increase the gap between European and Chinese producers on batteries, on EVs, on software, on components. And it really feels as if we are throwing in the towel, with more and more uncertainty. Last week, the EPP was saying that this proposal will be a Christmas gift for Europe. My dear friends, this is a Christmas gift, but to the Chinese car industry. Because the problem is clear: European producers are selling less, not only in Europe but globally. Two out of three cars in Europe produced are sold outside Europe. Making our cars more competitive in those markets will do far more than endlessly tweaking and diluting our ambition at home. What we should do instead is create demand, and that needs courage and leadership. Partly, I think, with the approach of the corporate fleet, that's something I support, when it comes to green steel, that's something I support. But we should not lower the bar, but lower the cost of components. I call for a European 'Airbus approach' for our car industry, combining forces to tackle foreign competitors together, like we did in the past. That means pooling production of batteries to lower costs, it means joint purchases of green steel to give more demand certainty and create win-win situations across sectors, it means a social leasing scheme, it means corporate fleets to boost demand. That is how we form an answer to the growing pressure. That is our answer that protects workers' future jobs in our industry. That is the way forward and else it will be a slow agony indeed.

Madam President, you have to allow me to say something about the process because until now, we still didn't receive a text. I have to say that the communications also from the Commission were very unclear, with many contradicting messages. And it's, of course, strange to have a debate without having a full overview of the package. But, let me quote one of the Commissioners who stated that this was a 'lifeline for the European automotive industry'. My friends, I have to be very honest. I cannot see how this proposal will help the car industry in Europe. I think the message today is a message of slowing down at a time when Europe should accelerate, and we risk with this package to increase the gap between European and Chinese producers on batteries, on EVs, on software, on components. And it really feels as if we are throwing in the towel, with more and more uncertainty. Last week, the EPP was saying that this proposal will be a Christmas gift for Europe. My dear friends, this is a Christmas gift, but to the Chinese car industry. Because the problem is clear: European producers are selling less, not only in Europe but globally. Two out of three cars in Europe produced are sold outside Europe. Making our cars more competitive in those markets will do far more than endlessly tweaking and diluting our ambition at home. What we should do instead is create demand, and that needs courage and leadership. Partly, I think, with the approach of the corporate fleet, that's something I support, when it comes to green steel, that's something I support. But we should not lower the bar, but lower the cost of components. I call for a European 'Airbus approach' for our car industry, combining forces to tackle foreign competitors together, like we did in the past. That means pooling production of batteries to lower costs, it means joint purchases of green steel to give more demand certainty and create win-win situations across sectors, it means a social leasing scheme, it means corporate fleets to boost demand. That is how we form an answer to the growing pressure. That is our answer that protects workers' future jobs in our industry. That is the way forward and else it will be a slow agony indeed.

Mr President, when I look to my right, I see a Commissioner who fought long and hard in Brazil. In his speech on Friday evening, he stood his ground and did not accept the poor and flawed text that was on the table. I want to thank you for that. However, despite these efforts, the conclusions of the climate conference were not what we all hoped for. We, as the EU, must look in the mirror because the inconsistency of the EU has, in my view, contributed directly to the problems we have seen in Brazil. You cannot ask partners to stop deforestation and then delay the EUDR. You cannot demand more mitigation while trying to water down the Climate Law. You cannot preach about higher social and environmental standards while flushing CSDDD down the drain. So let's reflect seriously on these inconsistencies in our policies and messaging in the last year and on what has it done to the COP and to its outcomes. When you don't walk the walk, others see it and they will exploit it. The biggest takeaway from my perspective is that we need more climate diplomacy. We need to make deals with China, with India, with Indonesia before the COP, not only at the COP. We need to have arrangements and agreements with African partners way before their delegates arrive, because in those 14 days at the COP, you would need a miracle to secure everything. And I don't believe in miracles. I believe in preparation. I believe in credibility. I believe in leadership. It's time to build new alliances next to the COP process. The Netherlands and Colombia already set a strong example by organising a summit on phasing out fossil fuels. This should be the first of many, and I trust that the Commissioner will do everything possible to ensure that the next global climate initiative comes from the European Union. We should lead again. One final comment: talking about reductions of emissions without mentioning fossil fuels is like talking about lung cancer prevention without talking about cigarettes.

Mr President, our party calls for a larger budget, with which we can do more from Europe. I note that, given the current geopolitical questions, we need a Europe that also invests in defence. We need a Europe that invests in the economy and industry of tomorrow. If the budget remains the same, then you have to make choices and then you have to reform. Then you need to see if you can bet the money you have smarter. That is what the European Commission is aiming for. We will look at all these cuts together with you. Everywhere we cut, we want to see whether we achieve the goals that we have imposed. Especially when it comes to our farmers. I agree with you on that, but we have to make choices. They are sometimes difficult, but that happens when you take responsibility.

Mr President, shaping the Europe of tomorrow, that is what we talk about today: a Europe that's more competitive, more autonomous and able to defend itself. For that, we need funds that shape the clean industry of tomorrow and ensure that we have a Europe worth defending, a Europe that should always protect its most vulnerable. And for that, we don't have many instruments at European level. One of the few is the European Social Fund – a strong social fund that is accessible to the regions and reaches the most vulnerable. Another important element is skills. Our industry cannot be competitive without having suitably skilled people. One of the most critical elements we need for any transition – whether digital, energy or industry – is skilled people. That is why the social dimension of the European Competitiveness Fund is crucial. A European skills agenda enables us to achieve the prosperous, autonomous, competitive and clean Europe of tomorrow.

Madam President, allow me to start to introduce the oral question on behalf of the ENVI Committee: 'Minister Bjerre, Commissioner Hoekstra, dear colleagues, to achieve an outcome from the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) that meaningfully advances the agenda on mitigation, adaptation, finance and loss and damage, the EU needs to strengthen its climate diplomacy. What actions are the Commission and the Council taking individually to ensure that the COP30 in Belém concludes with significant progress, particularly in relation to the following three points: 1. raising the collective ambition in nationally determined contributions, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement; 2. mobilising climate finance by the public and private sectors towards the goals agreed at COP29, including through innovative financing schemes and equitable burden-sharing mechanisms; 3. implementing and further strengthening the commitments and actions agreed in the first global stocktake, which forms part of the UAE Consensus?' Commissioner, Council, colleagues, the climate conference lays ahead. In less than a month from now, we hope to reach a conclusion that will deliver on climate neutrality in 2050, on climate finance, on ending fossil fuel subsidies, on climate adaptation, indigenous rights, improving biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gases massively. Parliament's draft motion for a resolution calls for the Union to lead by example and underlines the need for a science-based EU climate target for 2030. It highlights the triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity and pollution because these are interlinked and we need an integrated response. Importantly, it recognises that climate change is a threat multiplier. Climate diplomacy is building stability and building peace. I hope that when the resolution is adopted, the Commissioner and the Council feel that the Parliament stands ready to report a great outcome at the climate conference. As global warming accelerates, we have no time to hesitate because we are reaching a scale of climate consequences which almost seems unimaginable. The Commissioner himself recently warned us of the collapse of the Gulf Stream. He rightfully called it a wake-up call that would start an era where we cannot prepare for what will come. With that news came just recently a scientific discovery on the coral reefs. They are close to almost irreversibly dying off, while more than a billion people depend on healthy corals. Just imagine these people seeking refuge elsewhere, as they rightfully would. Our farmers already face increasing droughts, which causes more and more crop losses, not only here, but across the world. Harvests of coffee and cacao, but also close to home, grapes are noticeably delivering less and less. People feel this directly. Prices are rising. There are no quick fixes. There is no clever trick or path to become climate-neutral. It sure will be hard. It tests our society's capacity to innovate, to adapt, to stay at course. Because each compromise on climate, each delay on environment will hit us like a boomerang. Stalling our efforts now would only mean accelerating the climate crisis. There is no scenario where the cost of actions outweighs those of inaction, and action delivers not only for climate but also for our economy. Decarbonising and competitiveness go hand in hand. It offers sustainable growth in every sense of the word. We have to address the elephant in the room. We must avoid that Europe shows up empty-handed, and I have to say, I have a lot of trust in this Council, the Presidency of Denmark, and this Commissioner. Because what will we tell those island states that are shrinking year by year beneath rising seas, to countries facing droughts that destroy livelihoods, to the regions overwhelmed by floods, without the means to prevent such catastrophes? I'm afraid that we will disappoint them while we know all too well what lies ahead because their present is our future, and our future is not that far away. Today we remember the DANA floods in Spain from last year. This summer, wildfires raged through Portugal, while in July, heatwaves claimed hundreds of lives in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus alone. There would not be a more cynical time for Europe to arrive at the climate conference empty-handed. But again, with this Commissioner, I have confidence that it will not happen – because not so long ago, we led, we guided, we inspired and we united, we built alliances with countries and shared our ambition. We show that climate action works by bringing down emissions in record time. This is not the time to stall our efforts.

I call it the 'Airbus approach', you know, when our aviation sector was having trouble – also with unfair competition coming at that time from the US, I think our car industry has the same but now it's about China. I think we have to stick our brightest heads together, invest together in European reuse of batteries, European battery infrastructure, European software and components. All the car manufacturers are competing with each other by having their own Chinese company that they cooperate with – that does not help. I think the European electric car has become more affordable, but social leasing schemes are also very helpful. You help the sector and you make a product acceptable and accessible for all Europeans, and this is something we should all support.

Mr President, the question today is: will we invest in our future or keep pretending that short-term thinking and lowering ambition will save us? Let me give you an example with the car industry, because every expert agrees – the future of the car industry lies with the electric vehicle, and we are behind. A single American or Chinese manufacturer produces more electric vehicles than all European car makers together. Instead of focusing on catching up, instead of using common sense by investing in social leasing and investing in battery infrastructure, some here are asking to subsidise expensive synthetic fuels or biofuels. Mind you, these limited fuels are needed for aviation, for maritime and for our defence. Then there are the rumours about lowering safety standards for small cars. Just imagine that your grandmother or mother is driving that car and then has an accident. Is that European competitiveness? I truly hope that these are just rumours because I'm disgusted by them. When companies choose profit over our safety, over our lives, then this Parliament, whether it is about cars, chemicals or agriculture, should stand firm. That's the Europe I believe in.

Madam President, Europe is facing a Kodak moment. Back in the 1970s, Kodak invented the digital camera – a groundbreaking technology – but they feared it would destroy the business model of cameras and film. So they delayed, they resisted and they have practically vanished. Today, our automotive industry stands at the same crossroad, and history is clear: horse and carriage lost to the steam engine; the steam engine lost to the combustion car; and the combustion engine will be, for a big part, replaced by electric vehicles. Instead of focusing on meeting of the current standard emissions, some start delaying with range extenders, very expensive synthetic fuels and other distractions. That's not innovation; that's sabotage. Because around the world, others are moving ahead: 42 % of new cars in Vietnam are electric; Ethiopia has already stopped importing combustion engines; and Chinese EV sales grew 40 % last year. We owe Europe honesty and ambition. This debate today is not only misguided, it's also dishonest. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Choosing for short-term profits will go at the expense of long-term gains for our auto industry, for cars being built in Europe. Let's instead invest in electric corporate fleets, in social leasing programmes, so that the nurse, the teacher, the farmer can all drive electric cars, and not just the consultant, the lawyer and the banker. Otherwise, I sincerely believe our car industry risks ending up like Kodak: as a mere snapshot of history.

Mr President, Europe is having a hard time. We are having a difficult time in geopolitics, in trade and in energy prices for industry. We have a hard time evolving with new technologies. Where we came a few years ago with great prospects in connection with the Green Deal, Our man-on-the-moon moment, it seems like we've lost that inspiration. With the conservative agenda of recent years, we will not make it. There is a threat of a standstill and a standstill is a deterioration. Take the automotive industry. Instead of really moving them forward and getting ready to compete with China, we have adjusted the ambitions and there seems to be no end to that. Imagine that we are really going to help that sector and look for cross-links with other sectors that are struggling. Imagine that in Europe we make cars with green steel and recycled plastic, so that lead markets Create for green products. Imagine that we make that car, through social leasing, affordable and accessible to the teacher, the nurse and the worker. Just imagine. It takes courage. That requires vision. This requires creativity. Otherwise it ends, as Draghi said: A slow but silent death awaits us.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, I very much welcome our swift trilogue agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. This is not a small achievement, and we should really be proud of what we have done. It shows that within this Parliament, pro-European parties can work together and we are capable of moving fast and delivering when climate and industry and our credibility is at stake. CBAM matters. It's the backbone of our climate trade policy. It ensures that the polluter pays, that our European producers are not undercut by imports from producers that refuse to decarbonise. In short, and I've said it many times here: you are welcome to sell your products in Europe, but only if you play by the same rules – either you reduce your emissions or you pay a CO2 tariff at the border. But colleagues, my intervention today is not only one of praise; I also need to raise the alarm. The signals that the Commission has hinted at the extra flexibility for President Trump in CBAM deeply concern me. What do these flexibilities mean and why would we undermine our own instrument? No European industry has asked for this. And let me remind you what we've always stood for: no exemptions, no carve-outs, no special deals for anybody. Not for our neighbours, and certainly not for a global superpower. Our Parliament's position is crystal clear. I don't see what has changed here. If the Commission starts undermining CBAM by doling out perks before it has even fully entered into force, then the credibility of the entire system is at risk. This would not be a success story, but the beginning of the end of CBAM and maybe even the end of the beginning before it's fully in place in January. Colleagues, we owe it to the climate and to our industry to defend CBAM as it has been agreed: firm, fair and future-proof.

Madam President, a single mother from the Dutch region Twente is taking classes to finally realise her dream to start at the police academy. In Zadar, a coastal town in Croatia, a secondary school has been equipped with computers and tablets. And in Prague, victims of sexual violence have been able to receive support in a newly-built shelter since last year. The mother, the student and the victims have all been helped by European funding. Across Europe, there's a surge in applications for new projects. In the Netherlands, hundreds of thousands of people have participated in EU-funded employment and skill initiatives. And I think it's bad that the European Commission wants to cut this. Irresponsible, in my opinion, and inappropriate. If this happens, we sideline the most vulnerable, the most needed. We need to invest in industry. We need to invest in energy. We need to invest in defence. But the European Social Fund is the main European instrument to invest in people. And if we cut the ESF out of the budget, you hit Europe at its heart. And what will remain is a Europe without a soul.

Mr President, research shows that almost all Dutch people have too much PFAS in their blood. I am afraid that is also the case for many Europeans. Last year I did such a test myself and the results were worrying. Because if you say chemistry, then you say PFAS, then you say pesticides and microplastics. Two-thirds of Dutch citizens want the government to come up with stricter legislation. I hope that the Commission will really listen and not, as it does today, come up with a report or a proposal to remove reporting obligations from, for example, make-up companies. In fact, the Commission is making it even easier to use toxic substances. Do you really believe that's what people want? Profit at the expense of health? If we want to help the chemical sector in Europe, we have to get rid of our energy dependence. What companies really run into is a full electricity grid. Investments in the grid, that is what the industry demands. A European Chemicals Investment Agenda for greening. Access to green molecules. Because chemistry can also be hydrogen, biodegradable plastic or chemical recycling. All crucial for our industrial future. Some loose ideas on paper, a staple through it, that's not what we call an action plan. We're not gonna make it. An action plan, without the necessary investments, is for the chemical sector what an empty test tube is for a researcher: You can keep looking at it, but nothing happens.

Mr President, when the new Philips was looking for a new home base at the end of the 19th century, they ended up in Helmond. A city, my city, with a lot of economic activity. The innovative Philips was eager to sell their light bulbs from Helmond. However, there was a problem: The established companies in Helmond did not like Philips. They convinced the city council that such a newcomer would only cause unrest. They promised security, employment and did not want change. What about Philips? He left for Eindhoven. Almost eighty years later, the city council received a harsh reality check. The industry in Helmond had largely left, while Philips in Eindhoven continued to grow and expand. To combat the unemployment crisis in Helmond, the city council asked Philips to open a factory in Helmond. What about the dominant industry of the past? There's very little left of that. They left the city and a lot of Helmonders behind. Unfortunately, Helmond had missed the boat and there is nothing more speculative than thinking that the big players of today will be back in fifty years. History proves that time and time again. So let us as Europe avoid that mistake, so that not years later we still have to do everything we can to bring the companies here. You can now. By focusing on the future and not on certain or some interests. This means a lower energy bill, no longer keeping the doors open for fossil fuels, better investment capacity, but above all a look to the future. A look forward.

Mr President, our energy market can be much more European. The price differences are large and the capacity is not the same everywhere. I dream of a Europe with improved connectivity between the power grids of different countries, where, for example, wind energy from the North Sea can be used in Spain and we can cook in winter on solar energy from Portugal. Our power grid is full, full. This means more risk of breakdowns, but also that people from Utrecht, Gelderland and Flevoland, for example, sometimes have to wait until 2030 before new homes can be built and connected to the grid. And what about all those companies and people who are eager to invest in sustainability? Who wants to invest in solar panels or charging stations? Nothing is more frustrating and demotivating than hearing that it's just full. If we take these problems seriously, we must ensure that the electricity grid is not an obstacle, but an accelerator. We can do that together today.

Mr President, last year the EU imported 23 billion euros worth of Russian energy. That's more than we're spending on support for Ukraine. Anyone can see how crooked that is. We can't wait until 2027 to stop Russian oil and gas. Billions of dollars continue to flow to Russia every year, while European and Ukrainian security demands that we stop now. Because with every windmill and solar panel, Putin's war greenhouse shrinks. Commissioner, we can do more today. Reduce the maximum price of Russian oil to $45 per barrel, including all additional costs, including transportation. Do the same for LNG: a price cap and an import quota. Because every euro that doesn't go to Putin is a euro for peace and a euro that we get out of his war greenhouse. As the European Commission, take on an international leadership role through the G7 to get this done this week. Because all Europeans and all Ukrainians ask only one thing: peace. So stop oil and gas from Russia today.

Mr President, it's good to be here, let me first start by thanking the political groups, the EPP, the Greens and Renew, together with the S&D, who supported the swift adoption of the Parliament position on the CBAM simplification. I also want to compliment the Commission for their strong commitment to CBAM and to making it more effective, because this is a textbook example of what simplification can and should be: technical changes that safeguard our goals and improve the effectiveness of the instrument. The opposition against CBAM is, for me, totally not understandable, because for years our producers are paying the CO2 price while their foreign competitors get a free ride into our internal market. We all want a level playing field. So, our message is clear: you're welcome to sell your products on the European market, but you need to decarbonise or you need to pay for your pollution. CBAM, in itself, is already a success. We were pioneering in 2019, but many have followed us. They have introduced or are considering their own ETS. The Chinese, the Canadians, the Turks, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Moroccans, even the Kazakhs have their own ETS and the list is longer. It shows that when the EU leads, others follow. And that is what European citizens and companies are demanding. And that is something that we should be proud of – that I am proud of. Again, CBAM is already a success, whether you like it or not. And if I look at the so-called nationalists here in this parliament, defending the interest of the big global multinationals above their own small, medium-sized European interests, businesses, I can tell you a little secret. There is a way to circumvent CBAM. If I was a populist, I would tell you: it's very simple, it's called 'buy European'.

Mr President, over the past few months, we've witnessed what some journalists have called the 'Trumpisation' of the EPP. EPP members have been actively tearing down structures of our civil society, and, let me be clear, this has been a deliberate strategy from day one and we've witnessed it also today. EPP members are claiming that they have seen secret contracts, and that these contracts show that the Commission gives money to environmental NGOs on the condition that they lobby the Parliament. When we ask them about these contracts, they don't share them with us. They become very vague and confusing. Even the EPP's own Commissioner has fuelled the confusion. At the beginning of April, the Commissioner stated that the LIFE programme finances so-called undue lobbying. Exactly two weeks later he refuted it, admitting that the Commission did not instruct NGOs to lobby members of Parliament. So the only thing I'm seeing now is an EPP that didn't know what they got themselves into, including the damage to the credibility of the European institutions. However, I must also take a moment to recognise the brave voices still within the EPP. In a world where more and more people in power are seeking to dismantle our democratic checks and balances, I commend those who continue to uphold our democratic values and refuse to bow to internal pressure, especially when they get money from other organisations. Today, we social democrats say enough is enough.

Mr President, with today's decision, we are asked to add flexibility for the 2025 target for the European automotive sector. There is no secret that my group has not been particularly fond of this proposal, but it is an urgent proposal. Tariffs on European cars, tariffs on steel, energy extortion from autocratic states: we cannot sit around and wait. That's why today I'm calling on all my colleagues to agree on the urgency procedure today. We're only doing this because we recognise the legitimate fears and the uncertainty that many European automotive workers are facing today. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will suffer from the failures of their bosses to recognise the sign of the times. It also means that this is a one‑off measure, because if we do not want to lose the race in the long run, European manufacturers must see this as their final warning, and finally push for smaller, more affordable electric vehicles to come into the market before they are pushed out of it instead.

Madam President, the steel produced in Ijmuiden, Lulea and Donawitz is not just for Dutch, Swedish or Austrian cars, or the Austrian market. It moves in German cars, it sails in French ships and it travels in Italian trains. It even forms our beautiful five cent coins and, of course, Dutch bikes. We're all connected in Europe, and Europe thrives on a strong steel and metal industry. The European Commission's plan for the industry is a good step forward, but in my opinion, sometimes a bit too isolated. We still treat each plan as if it stands alone. But industry does not work in vacuums – we need coordination – and neither should this action plan. We need a broader vision by maximising synergies between sectors and creating lead markets – green lead markets. Green steel is costly, but with a strong green lead market, it becomes an investment, not a risk. Imagine European cars built on green steel. Imagine European windmills built on green steel. These prospects we can realise here. Let's forge them together.

Madam President, for me, cohesion policy is not only about economic growth, it's about building a strong social Europe that works for all, where prosperity is shared and no one is excluded. The social or the Cohesion Fund is also one of the few connectivities we have with regions and cities. While we grant them direct access to European funds, we give Europe a social face. So now is not the time to cut funds that give Europe the social face. The S&D is eager to discuss the Commission's idea to improve the absorption levels of the funds, especially to reach the underrepresented regions, but that does not mean that we can reallocate unspent cohesion funds unconditionally. Cohesion policies are an answer to inequality both between Member States and within Member States, including my own, where bus stops disappear, libraries close, and as said, many other social projects are financed through the social fund. We cannot let this go without a good debate, without conditionality. It's very important, at the end of the day, that this fund that gives access to European funds for millions of citizens should stand, and we should improve the accessibility and not only shift funds to other targets. For me, that's very important from an S&D perspective.

Mr President, every solar panel we place, every windmill we build, every heat pump we install weakens Vladimir Putin's war machine and should be seen as an act of resistance, because last year we imported Russian fossil fuels worth billions of euros. The sooner we step away, the better. Relying on fossil fuels, on imports from abroad only prolongs price shocks, the blackmail and the uncertainty. We have seen it. One tweet from Trump, one incident in the Middle East, one natural disaster and the price rockets. With renewable energy and the energy independence we achieve, we protect ourselves from this uncertainty, so households no longer have to deal with gas price shocks and rising prices in the supermarkets. And we can finally benefit from cheap, reliable energy. We have every reason to phase out Russian gas. The sooner the better.

Madam President, we all have strong feelings when it comes to the car industry, we all have the same nostalgic feelings. But I must say that nostalgia is good, but not if it lets you stick in the past. Not if it blocks innovation, not if it blocks change. Today, I feel like I'm in the boardroom of Nokia when the iPhone was just released. The touch screen, the ability to browse on the internet and play music – it was revolutionary. The response of Nokia was to try to make the keyboard phone more attractive instead of responding to innovation – and we all know how that story ended. Because by allowing carmakers to not fulfil the mid-term goal it's like telling Nokia to keep on producing the keyboard phone. It will not cut it for our industry. And with these plans, with these delays to switch to zero-emission vehicles in Europe, I only see two winners: the companies that are lagging behind, that are only looking at short-term gains, and China, who already leads the EV market and sees the competition sabotaging itself. Because with this delay, we also delay the second-hand market, which is very important to the access of electric vehicles. We need to create the conditions for EV cars to thrive within Europe. We need to push for an electric corporate fleet, introduce social leasing to make EVs accessible for all Europeans. And while we are talking about range extenders and debate on flexibilities of penalties of companies that made more than 100 billion in profits in the last few years, China invests in solid-state batteries with a range of more than 1 500 kilometres. This could not be our answer to plan for a successful response to these developments. And just like Nokia, it's the lack of innovation that threatens our future, not the goals we've set eight years ago.