Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, ladies and gentlemen, the GI system is a successful model for the European Union. They are key for our producers and our exports because they confer an added value, a seal of quality to our products. The text we are debating is positive for a number of reasons. In that regard, I congratulate rapporteur De Castro on his excellent work. It increases the powers of GI producers, improves protection for the European Union, and internationally, and streamlines the registration system by eliminating bureaucracy. In addition, the European Union Intellectual Property Office will establish a domain name alert system and play a crucial role in the fight against counterfeiting of geographical indications. However, I miss some proposals that came out of the JURI Committee. Since 2019, when the EUIPO and DG AGRI signed the protocol agreement, the EUIPO has participated in the pre-examination and registration of indications in an effective and efficient manner. Still, I think the text we voted on is a big step forward, but I also hope that in the next revision of the Regulation the Commission will again be able to transfer competences to the EUIPO.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, dear colleagues, today indeed we address a pivotal issue for the future of the European essential patents, which highlights the ever-relevant concept of European strategic autonomy. We need indeed to update our tools and systems to both safeguard and empower the European innovators. However, there is a palpable concern that this report, despite its noble aims, falls short on addressing many of our existing problems. This regulation has cruised through the Parliament surprisingly fast, overlooking certain key aspects that we want to amend. On one front, we have tried to raise awareness on the geopolitical risk. Promoting the entrance of third countries into the core of the patent systems will affect our innovation. Also, I believe that we should not overload our European Agencies with new tasks without giving them the resources and knowledge needed. It just doesn’t make sense and could actually kill the overall purpose of the file. Adding up bureaucratic layers will not help our companies. Ultimately, our stance is just as cautious as the approach observed among numerous Member States within the Council, as several Member States have raised more than 200 questions casting doubts on this regulation. Let us then transform these uncertainties into proven, effective solutions.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, it is very sad that today we have to be here, once again, talking about the interference of foreign autocracies in the European Parliament. After the shame caused by Qatargate, we now accumulate the journalistic and judicial investigations that point to members of this House for conspiring with the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin is not only a threat to the European Union, with bombs at the gates of our borders, but he wants to blow up our democracy from within. It happened with the BrexitIt happened during the coup of separatism in Catalonia and is happening here now, in the house of European democracy. Same objectives, in some cases, same protagonists. And today, although I am not in this debate by chance, I say this to Mr Puigdemont: Everything will be known. And collaborating with the Russian regime from his seat is not going to be free. And is that the gravity of this issue forces us to reach the end, fall whoever falls. Sadly, some are more in a hurry to amnesty these crimes in exchange for votes than to investigate them. That is why I say to the European Socialists, make no mistake, that some Members of your group were involved in Qatargate may be a coincidence, but that your entire group votes against condemning Russiagate with names and surnames would be a shame. Open your eyes. Do not be pressured by your Spanish colleagues, because this is not a national issue, it is a European issue. Or to see if in the next term the partners that no one can trust will be you.

Madam President, Mr President of the European Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, the last European Council once again demonstrated our firmness against the threat of Putin's war, even overcoming Orbán's blackmail in our support of Ukraine. An achievement that is a new test of European unity and determination. However, that same day we saw the streets of Brussels burning with the discomfort of farmers and ranchers, who took out their tractors to protest and show their frustration, more than justified. Some of us have been listening to them for years. I myself have visited all the provinces of Spain – from Orense to Almeria, from north to south – to see on the ground the difficulties of the orchard, extensive livestock farming or olive grove. Their protests remind us of the importance of a just transition to sustainability that leaves no one behind. However, some prefer to keep looking the other way. Many in this plenary are unaware that changes, while necessary, take time. And we all want a more sustainable and ecological future. But let us not forget that ignoring the present of those who work the land can turn their discontent into a force that makes us no longer stop advancing, but even go back. And Europe cannot afford to ignore their demands.

Madam President, Prime Minister De Croo, Vice-President Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, today we welcome the Belgian Presidency in a key semester to close many of the still outstanding legislative texts and thus fulfil our mandate. At the end of this presidency, European citizens are called to the polls and to submit our work to democratic scrutiny. These are elections that are likely to change the composition of this institution and where solutions to the major challenges facing our Union – geopolitical, economic, social – such as immigration, the environment, the social pact, digitalisation, etc. will be confronted. But this Presidency will also be about values, it will be about the rule of law, which is more threatened than ever and remains a pending task that you with your Presidency, Minister, will have to address. Mr De Croo, I wish you the same fate as your predecessor, Mr Sanchez, but I am going to ask you for many more successes. The rotating Presidency allows each State to direct and coordinate the work of all, to demand of others, but that forces one to demand even more of oneself, to lead by example. Respect for the rule of law is also judicial cooperation between Member States. This is the only recipe for building mutual trust, consolidating a Union that is a common area of rights and obligations, not à la carte. I ask you that this Presidency does put respect for the rule of law at the heart of the debate, that it does not fall into the error that many in this House fall into: political Daltonism of only seeing attacks when they come from one side of the bench or from some Member States. Attacks on our core values do not understand colors or geography. You have the opportunity to correct that double standard, that selective Daltonism, in the coming months. Prime Minister De Croo, do not let yourself be taught by the Socialists. They have enough with the complicated situation regarding the rule of law in some of their governments to tell us liberals what we have to do or not do. We can only tell you that this liberal group will be with you throughout this semester, supporting you in your decisions.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, rapporteur Leitão-Marques, the Regulation we are discussing today aims to guarantee, once and for all, the full legal recognition of parenthood throughout the European Union. With the regulation, parenthood that is recognised in one Member State, automatically will be recognised by all, fully and mandatorily. By doing so, we put children first and we ensure the rights of all kinds of family, regardless of their sex, country of origin or country of residence. This will prevent any Member State from backtracking and hindering progress and rights. A victory in one Member State shall be a victory in all. This text also contributes to harmonising the norms of international private law in the area of parenthood, strengthening the rights and protection of children when they move within our Union. We are providing legal security to minors and reducing litigation in the cases of divorce of parents that reside in different Member States. Ultimately, we are advancing on European rights and freedoms, bringing our entire Union to the 21st century and protecting European children.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr Vice-President Borrell, Mr Sánchez, we have been waiting for you for six months in this Parliament and in the end you have done what you always do: explain to us priorities that are not true, because the priorities really cannot be explained by you. I wish I had used these six months to advance the great challenges of the Union: unblock the Pact on Migration, push for trade agreements as important as Mercosur or achieve the much-needed agreement on fiscal rules. But no, you have used this time to defraud the Spanish citizens with an early election in which you betrayed everything you promised and with which you have erected a wall, in your own words, to divide the Spaniards. He has used this time to place ministers in European posts and half-world embassies or to force the debate on co-official languages out of mere interest, squandering the political capital that this presidency had. And, of course, he has used this time to grant an amnesty law that breaks the principle of equality between Spanish citizens and gives impunity to escapees from Justice, escapees who stare at us from above. They look at us soberly, because yesterday also their comrades pointed to judges and police from the Congress of Deputies. You who care so much about history, know that yours, if you don't rectify it, won't end well.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing the rule of law in Spain, my country. I wish this debate had never taken place, but recent events leave us no choice but to denounce them here, at the seat of European sovereignty, where our values are represented and defended when they are attacked, despite whoever you regret, Mrs Garcia. Today, where we have said Poland and Hungary before, we say Spain, and that should embarrass many of you here. This week the new Government of Mr Sánchez has been formed, a legitimate government but based on a political agreement that begins to blow up our rule of law. To cling to power, Mr Sánchez not only hands over the government to a fugitive from justice – whom even Deputy Iratxe García called a fugitive until a few weeks ago – but he does so in exchange for a tailor-made amnesty law, drafted by those who are going to benefit from it: politicians who stop being equal to the rest of the citizens to become an untouchable caste, and are watching us from up there. Crimes of prevarication and corruption... prevent further investigation of terrorist offences... yes, Mrs Garcia, prevent further investigation of terrorist offences and also constitute the parliamentary committees of the lawfare to intervene the judiciary from the back door. And this is not just me, it is said by millions of Spaniards who have taken to the streets in recent weeks. And so do the General Council of the Judiciary, all associations of judges, bar associations, prosecutors' associations, academics: civil society in general. And now I turn to you, Socialist MEPs, who are comrades in this House. Partners with those of us who have defended the rule of law in Hungary, in Poland, together. What's the matter, it's different now? What has changed? Are we so different now not to stand up for what we thought was right twelve weeks ago? Do it. Raise your voice. Do not frivolize with this topic because we already know how it ends. We are seeing it in two countries of the Union. Use your influence. And I warn you, history is written on days like today. Think about it: If this is done by one who claims to be one of yours, it is that, perhaps, he is no longer so much of yours. As for the European Commission, we trust in your courage. We know it will be a long road and many battles remain to be fought, but, Mr. Reynders, don't trust it. You know how Mr Bolaños spends it, who is now the super-minister who concentrates everything: executive, legislative and judicial. But I know that the Commission - and I am finishing, President - will do the hardest thing, which is only the right thing to do.

Mr President, the terrible attacks perpetrated by the Hamas terrorist group on the civilian population of Israel bring us back to the worst moments in the history of the twentieth century. These attacks have provoked new clashes, conflict and pain. Faced with the threat of a new war in our neighbourhood, we Europeans need a firm stance and to speak with one voice. The most geopolitical European Commission - we were told. However, more than a clear voice, the European Union often seems like a cacophony. We have seen commissars publicly contradict each other about the aid we send to Palestine. While President von der Leyen traveled to Israel to stage a seamless support, Mr Borrell, on the other hand, put nuances, and the Council issued a separate statement. Who represents us European citizens? It's not clear. And, like this, what happens to us happens: that on the one hand we have states of the European Union projecting the flag of Israel on official buildings, while on the other like mine, Minister Ione Belarra is denouncing that Israel is committing a genocide. I only ask you in the next Council to make an effort today more than ever and to speak once and for all with one voice.

Mr President, we are witnessing the resurgence of official campaigns by European governments that directly undermine the dignity of their own citizens on account of their sexual orientation. These campaigns, which refer us to dark times in our continent, range from determining physical areas of LGTBI exclusion to denying paternity certificates to homosexual couples, to wanting to declare surrogacy as a universal crime. And those who advocate these policies claim to do so on behalf of the family, while striving to prevent thousands of children from having one. And they do so using words such as sovereignty, freedom and autonomy. But it must be that sovereignty and freedom only want them for governments or flags, but not for people. They are very brave and very free to shout from the rostrum, but not so much to let everyone love whoever they want or to have the kind of family that everyone wants. Yes, Mr. Dzhambazki, there is more than one kind of family, even if you don't want to see it. That is why, to those on the right of the right, I would like to invite you, first, to embrace human rights. And second, to the 21st century. And so, perhaps more than one could begin to do in freedom what they later catch you doing in secret. (He agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure.)

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Secretary of State, few people now doubt that the Dublin Regulation is not enough to address the major migration and asylum challenges we face. The Regulation must be based on solidarity, but also on the shared responsibility of all Member States, not only those with external borders. And yes, granting asylum to those fleeing war and persecution, to those who want to build a dignified and honest life, is part of who we are and also makes us more diverse and stronger in the future. It rejuvenates our population and makes viable the sustainability of our welfare state. But if we close our eyes to illegal immigration and do not regulate it, our capacities to integrate those who arrive and create situations of serious social instability are overwhelmed. And we must be able to say it without being labeled as heartless. We must be able to say it, above all, by those of us who believe in orderly and regulated immigration. Because, if not, only those who prefer to whip up fear and hatred to the different will be heard. To those who want a closed Europe rather than to those who want a Europe with a future and where diversity has a place. That is why we need this Pact on Migration and Asylum as soon as possible, because the one we have is broken. And, if we don't, it will be those to whom we have been listening all morning to say barbarities who will come out stronger.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, you have said today in this House that the rule of law is the pillars and glue of our Union. But we already know that there are countries that have gradually degraded their democracies and we have only acted when it was too late. And yes, we have major economic, social and environmental challenges ahead of us. But believe me, President, there is no State of the Union without the rule of law. And today there is a European government that appoints and dismisses the Prosecutor General to appoint one of its ministers, that has expired and blocked the body for the election of judges because it cannot control it, that approves the reduction of penalties for embezzlement and corruption and grants pardons in exchange for votes and that is negotiating with an escape from justice the impunity of those who attacked the rule of law in order to remain in power. And I'm not talking about Hungary or Poland. I am telling you about the country that holds the rotating presidency of the Council today. Therefore, today I ask you to listen to this SOS call from millions of Spanish citizens, European citizens. I'm asking you not to look the other way. And then you can't say we didn't warn you.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to assess the recent European Council in a plenary session in which, sadly, the President of my country, Pedro Sánchez, should have appeared, but he did not do so because he was in the middle of an electoral campaign. The Spanish Presidency of the Council begins and begins as a missed opportunity. A Spanish semester, which we do not have every decade, to project our image inside and outside Europe and which we will already have, at most, five months because one will be lost in an early election by the sole will and electoral calculation of those who have called them. I would like us, in this Presidency under the responsibility of my country, to continue to work on building European influence, defining our priorities in an increasingly complex world and without giving up on the unconditional support we owe to the Ukrainian people. We cannot lose sight of what our goals are at the end of this complicated path. Ukraine has to end up being part of our Union and it has to end up being part of NATO. I believe that the coming months will be key for us to continue working in this direction, seeing the clear weakness of the Russian government. Hopefully in the coming months we will be able to meet those objectives.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, Ukraine has signed and ratified the convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, which is called the Judgments Convention, which has also been signed by other countries such as Uruguay, Israel, Costa Rica, the United States and Russia. The Judgments Convention enters into force one year after the first two parties deposit their instruments of ratification and accession. The European Union acceded to it and Ukraine ratified it in August 2022. If the European Union tacitly accepts Ukraine’s accession to the Judgments Convention, it will enter into force on 1 September of this year. Parliament understands that the Commission’s assessment of Ukraine’s accession is positive and that the Commission will be in favour of tacitly accepting it. Nevertheless, the current situation in which two sides of a war happen to be signatories of a new convention, to which the European Union is a party and which is entering into force now, calls for an explicit statement accepting Ukraine’s accession. It is important, dear colleagues, that the European Union uses every occasion we are presented with to stand with Ukraine and to stand against the Russian aggression. Such a statement also will reflect the European Union’s geopolitical relevance in the current circumstances and emphasise the political significance of the decision. In full respect of each EU institution’s prerogatives, a statement will allow the Commission to accept Ukraine’s accession to the Judgments Convention on the EU’s behalf under the relevant provisions of the convention. Given the deadline set down in the Judgments Convention, the need for the institutions to act without delay to show the EU’s acceptance of Ukraine’s accession to the convention and Parliament’s intention to make an appropriate statement in this regard, could the Commission confirm its assessment of Ukraine’s accession to the convention? What steps does the Commission intend to take in the future to ensure that Parliament’s prerogatives relating to third countries’ accession to the Judgments Convention are always fully and formally respected under the Treaties?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot begin this speech without expressing my deep disappointment and rejection of the title that the ECR Group, the VOX Group, has wished to give to this debate. Associating surrogacy with exploitation and trafficking is not only an insult to thousands of children and families, it is also an interested manipulation of those who only want to hide their moral radicalism. But fortunately, it is always European citizens who, generation after generation, advance and progress, leaving behind old taboos about how to live a full and happy life today. In the European Union, there are many different types of families – with it – that share and maintain what is truly essential: love and commitment to drive a common project, often through motherhood or parenthood. For many of these families, surrogate, altruistic and guarantor gestation is the only way to start a family. It is a fact that, as a society and in the face of the demographic winter we face as a continent, we should always support, promote and celebrate. We cannot allow European minors to be discriminated against simply because of how they have been gestated. Children are children. Nor should the new moralists on the left and the right mark the way for all European citizens. No one has to give me any kind of morality. That is why, as I called for in the debate on the rights to recognition of paternity, I ask here again today that the European Union be courageous and give cover to those countries that are also courageous and want to face the debate on motherhood with a view to the future. But above all, let it cover and not throw away thousands of families and thousands of children, who are the ones truly harmed by debates as regrettable as the one we are unfortunately celebrating here today.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a little over a month ago marked a decade since the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza textile factory: an accident and negligence that claimed the lives of 1,134 people and left more than 2,500 injured. Today we know that this could and should have been avoided. Those workers should never have been forced back to work after structural cracks were detected in the building that eventually collapsed. A tragedy that makes it more important, if possible, that we push for laws that raise our standards, grant rights to our citizens and also protect our planet. Tomorrow we will vote on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, a rule that aims to make economic development and social progress more compatible with the protection of people's rights and the environment. It is a balanced text that has taken hours and hours of negotiation. It is balanced because it balances freedom and economic competitiveness with responsibility and protection. Because freedom without responsibility is unjust and responsibility without freedom is unbearable. That is why I call on all Members, all political groups, to support this directive, which is going to be a milestone in this legislature and also in the future of our continent. Let us leave with a firm proposal so that it cannot be said that this House has not done everything possible for this.

Mr President, Commissioner, this week the European Parliament has appeared in the media around the world, but unfortunately not because of the many positive actions we take here for our citizens. Allegedly, there are third countries that would have been buying the will of MEPs and parliamentary assistants illegally and illegitimately, which is not only a frontal attack on this institution, but on the democratic values that inspire it. But democracy and the rule of law are much stronger than some think. To the corrupt, both those who have corrupted and those who have allowed themselves to be corrupted, I say one thing: You're all going to get caught and you're going to pay for it, sooner or later. Because here the rule of law works, and a few bad apples won't rot the rest. What is certain is that it is now our responsibility – and it will not be easy at all – to return this Parliament and its reputation to the place they deserve. Whatever it takes.

Madam President, tomorrow will be just one year since the Council met in October 2021. The priorities of that meeting were the deployment of vaccines, the recovery of travel and the recognition of certificates for future health emergencies. It's only been a year, but there seems to be a world of difference: the war in Ukraine, the economic and social situation... Reality has changed a lot and changed very quickly. Only the rise in energy prices, which a year ago was a nascent threat and today is a reality that worries millions of European citizens at the gates of winter, is repeated in this list of priorities. Vice-President, the time has come for pragmatism and that means giving answers now, not just promising them; It means putting results before ideology and, above all, putting the well-being of European citizens before big ideas or ambitions. We have been in an energy crisis for almost a year and many things have been proposed, but the bill has not stopped rising. We have spent a lot of money on energy subsidies that have gone anywhere but to the homes of European citizens. It's time for decisions to be made and for us to really show results.

Madam President, this is not just another EU debate. Mrs von der Leyen, the measures you announced today and how we manage to carry them out will largely define the future of our common project. And we need, more than ever, courage, solidarity and resistance. And I congratulate you on the boldness of your proposals, which I hope will alleviate and reduce the impact that this perfect storm will have on European citizens during the coming winter. But we are also aware that this winter is not going to last four or five months, it is going to last much longer. And that is why we also need medium- and long-term solutions. Solutions such as the construction of infrastructures that better interconnect us, that allow us to achieve that energy independence that we need so much. Solutions such as supporting a nuclear moratorium that allows us to move towards green goals without demanding greater sacrifices from our citizens. We've asked them enough. Solutions that we should have made years ago and that can't wait any longer.

Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the Commissioner for his presence and his proposal and, above all, his excellent work to the rapporteur, Mrs Niebler, with whom, of course, I share the conviction of the absolute need for our Union to have a Data Governance Act: a law that increases trust in data intermediaries and strengthens exchange mechanisms; a law that puts the focus on the protection, privacy and confidentiality of data, and also on the re-use of some of them that are held by the public sector. It is also essential to ensure that micro-enterprises, SMEs and start-ups do not face any artificial restrictions or barriers: public data should be available to them at all times and, where possible, free of charge or at reduced rates. That is why, of course, we support the provisional agreement, since it also provides, among other things, for public sector bodies to be able to conclude new contracts that allow the exclusivity of the right to re-use the data held by them for 12 months, instead of the three years that initially came in the Commission proposal, or also the establishment of special conditions applicable to the transfer of non-personal data held by the public sector that are considered very sensitive and where the transfer could jeopardise the objectives of the Union or entail the risk of re-identification of such data.

Madam President, the report I am presenting to this House today focuses on the protection of the rights of the child in civil, administrative and family law proceedings. The main objective is to achieve child-friendly justice through common standards and recommendations across the European Union to ensure three key elements. The first is a treatment adapted to the age, maturity and needs of each child who goes through a judicial procedure. The second is effective access of the child to justice and, where necessary, free legal representation by public administrations and also other ancillary services such as psychological counselling, which is very necessary, as we know, in traumatic cases for the child, such as divorce proceedings. And the third is better training of judges and legal professionals in skills to deal with children whose future is decided in a judicial or administrative procedure. The report also includes mediation as an instrument for resolving disputes involving minors. We therefore urge the Commission to present a new regulation regulating cross-border mediation involving minors through common rules ensuring the recognition and implementation of agreements obtained in such proceedings; also that the quality of cross-border mediators can in some way be asserted or confirmed through a European Certificate of Mediation, and also with common rules for cross-border mediation contracts. We also urge Member States that have not yet done so to set up mediation offices to inform affected parents and children about the possibility of using mediation as a less aggressive method than traditional judicial litigation, to ensure legal aid where necessary and to explore the use of new technologies in mediation frameworks. Last but not least, when drafting this report we have thought - and a lot - of parents like Marton and Adam, who wanted to start a family in Hungary and could not, because the Constitution of that country only recognizes families composed of heterosexual couples. Marton and Adam wanted to adopt a child, but eventually that child could only be legally adopted by one parent, by Adam, for all intents and purposes. Therefore, under the law, Marton today is not the father of his son Andris for legal purposes. In that sense, I believe that this report can be a cornerstone of many others that will have to be put in place for the Member States to comply with the rulings on the recognition of paternity of LGTBI families and for all those families of two fathers or two mothers to see before the law the recognition of the paternity of children, as they are today.

Mr President, Commissioner, after three and a half years since the European Commission presented its legislative proposals, today we are finally voting on the new common agricultural policy. I am aware that this new CAP is not perfect, but I am also aware that this new CAP ensures the legal and financial security of our primary sector. It maintains the productive capacity of food in the European Union, while ensuring that our farmers do so in fair economic conditions and respects the environmental objectives of the Green Deal, without losing sight of the social sustainability of our rural environment. I insist: Although it is not a perfect PAC, I appeal to the thousands of men and women who leave their skin every day in the countryside so that we have basic food of excellent quality in our supermarkets to understand that it is a necessary PAC. That is why my party, Citizens, is going to vote in favour.

Mr President, Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, by acceding to the European Union all Member States – including Poland – accepted a set of principles and values, including the primacy of Community law and respect for the rule of law and individual rights and freedoms. Since then, membership of our Union has allowed all Member States, including Poland, to benefit from a number of advantages, including the receipt of European funds. What you and your party have been trying to do for too long is to get away from compromises and continue to enjoy the benefits. Benefits which, by the way, I have not heard you enumerate in your speech, Mr Prime Minister. I advise you to call your former partner, David Cameron, who got on a train: the train of populism and blackmail. The same one you're going up to right now. And I also advise you, when you talk to him, to tell him the unfortunate consequences of not being able and not knowing how to get off that train to your country in time. And you're still in time to get off that train to Poland. And do it before it's too late, because you know what the last stop is. Madam President, after what we have heard today, I can tell you little else. Quite simply, if the Commission does not act now... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, achieving the environmental sustainability of the food system is vital for the future of our societies, but it is also vital to do so without taking the economic sustainability of our primary sector forward, it is also vital to do so by achieving these environmental objectives without provoking a social revolution among European farmers. I therefore, like many other honourable Members, urge the European Commission, when quantifying targets, to do so on the basis of impact studies; to begin with, you could hear, read the report - which the Commission itself has had hidden in a drawer for six months - which indeed confirms to us that this Farm to Fork Strategy is going to greatly harm the economic sustainability of Europe's primary sector. In that regard, I wanted to ask the Commissioner a question: the future legislative proposals that the Farm to Fork Strategy may bring about in the coming months and years, will the Commission bring them only in political terms or will it bring them in on the basis of impact studies and scientific data, and also by listening to European farmers?