Speeches

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, LGBTQI+ people in Italy have become an easy scapegoat for the nationalists in power. The situation of children born to same-sex couples is worrying and this is even more evident for children of female couples. Everything is done to make life more difficult for these families. Legal uncertainty and obstacles are increasing and homogenitorial families are treated as ‘anomalies to be remedied’ – I quote – and not as realities to be respected. If you're gay and migrant, it's even worse, because the far right in Italy would like to revoke the protection of homosexual or transgender migrants, amending the expulsion law and putting them at risk of persecution in their countries of origin. But the real problem, colleagues, politicians and Europeans, is that some citizens are treated as special categories. The far right in Europe is trying to make citizens and rainbow families invisible. Our battle is to make all citizens visible and equal and to protect their rights, which are also our rights, universal rights.

Mr President, let me once again thank all the colleagues who have spoken and Commissioner Ferreira. I believe that this debate confirms the unity of all political groups on this issue and also the excellent cooperation between Parliament and the European Commission. It cannot be overemphasized that this BRIDGEU proposal is not intended to replace any existing treaty or agreement between Member States. On the contrary, the strength of this proposal is that it aims to complement, to make more effective the existing agreements. And it is an instrument that is strictly voluntary, so it does not in any way affect the sovereignty of the Member States. We must fully exploit the potential of this cross-border regional cooperation. BRIDGEU is more than just a political tool, it is an imperative necessity. I fully agree with your intention – which I hope will become a concrete act – to present a revised proposal, because the revised proposal, as you said, Commissioner, saves us time and would allow us to resume negotiations with the Council as soon as possible. And I still want to believe that, during this term of office, we will be able to offer this new instrument to our citizens. Let us not pass up this historic opportunity that stands before us. Thank you all for your support and attention.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, BRIDGEU is an initiative that is the result of close cooperation with the Chair of our REGI Committee, Younous Omarjee, and all the political groups, which highlights one of the most worrying issues: the continued violation of the rights and opportunities of the 150 million citizens living in border regions within the EU. Border regions, which encompass 40% of the territory of the European Union and are home to almost 30% of its population, are the scene of legislative and bureaucratic challenges that are often insurmountable and unacceptable. European citizens living in these border areas are constantly confronted with obstacles, large and small, that hinder their daily lives and their quality of life. For example, parents are forced to travel long distances to bring their children to the crèche or school, simply because the school closest to their home is on the other side of the border, where many obstacles prevent students from enrolling. Let’s take a moment to look at the case of the Spanish hospital in Cerdagne, located on the border between France and Spain. This hospital, managed by a European grouping of territorial cooperation, is often unable to hire French health professionals due to administrative formalities, thus endangering the health and well-being of patients who depend on these services. Examples like this, I could cite dozens or even hundreds of them, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Ignoring these problems has an unbearable cost, according to several analyses by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. Every year, we suffer a colossal economic loss of EUR 457 billion, and we are witnessing the loss of nearly 4 million jobs, in addition to the infringement of rights such as education, health or free movement. Faced with this growing injustice, BRIDGEU emerges as a bulwark, a beacon of hope for our fellow citizens. BRIDGEU stands for ‘Border Regions’ Instruments for Development and Growth in the EU’. Bridge: a bridge, a bridge to overcome the invisible and absurd bureaucratic walls. We have made a considerable effort to take into account the concerns and perspectives of the Council. BRIDGEU is not a new obligation, but an innovative and promising opportunity. We fully recognise that some entities, such as the Nordic Council or Benelux, are fully satisfied with their existing regional cooperation, and we respect their choice. Our aim is to provide new opportunities for all other actors who aspire to better cross-border cooperation. All this in full respect of the constitutions of the Member States, of course, and in particular as regards relations between Member States and regions. We propose that Member States develop concrete, tailor-made solutions on a case-by-case basis. As rapporteur, I have done everything to bring the Member States to the negotiating table, and I would also like to welcome all the efforts that the European Commission has made in this direction. But this was not possible. That is why we use our prerogatives, our indirect right of initiative enshrined in Article 225 of our Treaty. This morning, Ursula von der Leyen gave an excellent State of the Union speech, which reminded me of another of her speeches, held in this Chamber before being elected President, in which she promised that any legislative own-initiative report adopted by Parliament would be followed by a new Commission proposal. I am confident that the Commission, and in particular Commissioner Ferreira here, whom I thank very much, will be able to live up to this commitment. We must start negotiations on a new text as soon as possible, as our citizens and our territories have been calling for for years.

Mr President, I would also like to stress once again that, from the point of view of the composition of the European Parliament, the Council’s decision fully reflects the position I have defended since February as co-rapporteur, as well as that of my group. As far as the composition of Parliament is concerned, I think we are moving forward. I fought to increase the number of seats in Poland, Belgium and France, because I think that this corresponds to a more correct application of the principle of degressive proportionality. From this point of view, congratulations to the Council! So you can succeed, whenever you want. Even unanimously. So I encourage you, dear President-in-Office of the Council, to make the same efforts and achieve the same successes on the European electoral law. Because you can see it. And you see that when there is a dialogue – even a muscular one, sometimes – between Parliament and the Council, even in special procedures such as consent, we can achieve results. That is why I am counting very much on your presidency. You should not wait until you have found the lowest common denominator in the Council on the electoral law before starting discussions with us. Let's start discussions together. Let us start discussions between institutions, even – I repeat – on the basis of the French Government’s proposal. It is much less ambitious than ours, but it is for us, as we wrote in a letter to you, a good basis for negotiation. Let us speed up and intensify the negotiations, because it is still possible to reach an agreement on the European electoral law. I believe that we must do everything possible not only to respect the will of this Parliament, but also to respect the will of the citizens who, in the Conference on the Future of Europe, explicitly called for this democratic advance at European level. And we have a duty to act on that request.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Loránt Vincze, and my fellow shadow rapporteurs for the work of the last nine months. The text on which we are going to vote largely reflects the priorities we set ourselves at the beginning of the work. With the increase of 15 seats, we will ensure a fairer and fairer representation of citizens, which will also reflect demographic changes in the Member States, a necessary change to respect the Treaties. That is why the Renew Europe Group welcomes the allocation of additional seats to France, Belgium and Poland, for which we have been fighting since the beginning of these negotiations, even here in the European Parliament. However, we cannot ignore that the identification of the best solution requires an objective and definitive approach, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is already working on a formula to ensure that the allocation of seats is defined by a mathematical, objective and impartial criterion. As the European Parliament, however, we had set a clear political priority: that 28 seats be reserved for candidates elected through transnational lists so that our proposal to reform European electoral laws can be implemented swiftly, as soon as it is adopted in the Council and enters into force. The deletion of this paragraph – and I am addressing the Presidency-in-Office of the Council in particular – is politically wrong and legally meaningless. I would even say that this sounds like an unnecessary and short-sighted provocation on the part of the Council. Even more serious from a legal point of view: the addition of a recital which, despite the four additional seats added to the eleven proposed by Parliament, instructs the budgetary authorities to keep Parliament’s budget unchanged, thereby ignoring Parliament’s prerogatives over the annual budget. Moreover, the excessive pressure exerted on the Presidency of the European Parliament by the Presidency of the Council, and the hesitations and reversals of some political groups – which I regret, as I said yesterday in committee – have accelerated the procedure and prevented a political debate on how to ensure real progress, including on the other files related to the composition of Parliament. The very ill-advised President of the European Council has indicated a date on which the European Parliament should speak, namely tomorrow. The President of the European Parliament, who was very ill-advised, decided to act on it. For this reason, I would like to ask the Spanish presidency how it intends to follow up on our proposal to reform the European electoral law, which was adopted more than a year ago and which the Council has finally begun to discuss, I would like to underline, under the Swedish presidency. This has also led France to present a proposal for a revised electoral law, on which we are ready to discuss. This makes it even more important that the Presidency of the European Parliament, in its letter to the Council, reaffirms the objectives and prerogatives of the European Parliament in this matter. Cooperation is two-way, but for the Council it is often one-way. It too often ignores the demands of the European Parliament, and even more so the expectations expressed by citizens at the Conference on the Future of Europe. Attention, dear representatives of the Presidency of the Council in office, because if we always drive one-way, sooner or later, we will have a big accident. Nevertheless, we, as a Renew Europe Group, undertake to approve the proposal, for the reasons given at the beginning of my speech. It is a step in the right direction, from the point of view of the composition of the European Parliament, as well as from the point of view of demographic change and full respect for the Treaties. But we will continue to fight for a new electoral law that is fairer, more effective, more modern and, above all, more European.

I accept the lesson of Professor Rangel. There wasn’t any question. Je vous dis seulement en français: faites le deuil de votre défaite. La loi électorale a été adoptée. Les listes transnationales ont été adoptées. Faites le deuil, cher collègue, de votre défaite.

Madam President, dear Minister, dear colleagues, I would have a point of order, because I think that some colleagues, President, haven’t understood what we are talking about tonight. We are not talking about the electoral law. We are asking the Council: when will you start to negotiate with us on electoral law? The electoral law has been approved one year ago. So, the question is not whether we like it or not – the electoral law – the question is to invoke the principle of mutual and sincere cooperation, which is blatantly violated by the Council, which for one year has ignored the proposal of the candidates. So, I am saying we are preparing the European elections. We are doing our job on the composition of the Parliament. When will you start serious negotiation? We appreciate the effort, the questionnaire. We appreciate the effort of informal discussion, but we want formal negotiation on how we want to prepare the European election in 2024. And this means that we have to discuss the composition of the European Parliament and we have to discuss the electoral law. We are still waiting from the Council to know this and I’m very happy about your letter. That means that you have taken notice that the Parliament exists. But don’t take notice that the Parliament exists only when it suits you for the composition of the Parliament, take notice that the Parliament exists all the time and start negotiation of the electoral law. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... see you again, dear President, dear Nikos, in this function, I have fond memories of our past cooperation. And I know we can fully count on your leadership for a sovereign and democratic Union. You mention in your speech Jean Monnet and the change of context. I do believe that the Ukrainian conflict has changed the context and that enlargement has become a fundamental geopolitical tool and geopolitical question. Against this background, I think that it is not credible to go towards the next enlargement without a deep reform of the European Union, of the institutions, of the common policies, and that we must address the unresolved territorial issues within the Union, in particular in view of the next enlargement. Against this background, again, and in view of the Cyprus Presidency in 2026, I would like to better understand from you what are your key priorities for the reform of the European Union and what do you expect the Union to do more or differently with regard to the Cyprus territorial issues to break the deadlock?

Madam President, in 2021 Belgium and Germany, in 2023 Italy. Same scenes and same pain. The lesson is clear: In the face of climate change, we are all the same. These were days of great concern and pride for me. Concern because Romagna has been hit hard, and in particular the places where I was born, Sogliano al Rubicone, and where I grew up. There are people who have left us. Friends who had to leave their homes. Places disfigured by the violence of the floods. But also pride, because all of Europe has seen the strength and courage of the people of Romagna, who with their feet still in the mud is already projected on the restart. Proud of how Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was welcomed in Cesena, bringing concrete solidarity to Europe. Some in Italy commented: This is the Europe we want. I think differently: This is the Europe that already exists, concrete solutions, support for suffering citizens, the Europe that is ready. We are ready to quickly activate the solidarity funds that Italy will ask for. We will also have to activate the fund for agriculture and Italy will be able to use the cohesion funds and part of the European recovery plan for reconstruction and prevention. It has been remembered, in Romagna it is said "tin bota", it means "keep hard", "be brave". We too, like the people of Romagna, dear colleagues, must be swift and courageous and do everything necessary for a more efficient, sustainable and resilient reconstruction.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we want a Europe of concrete solutions. Today, 9 May, we recall the Schuman Declaration, which set out, in concrete achievements, the way forward to build the European Union. We want a Europe that multiplies opportunities, rights and protections. In fact, we want a Europe that is consistent with its societal choices, and the proposal on consumer empowerment is a very concrete example of that Europe. It is impossible to achieve our green transition objectives without modernising the Single Market. We need to build a fairer and more transparent relationship between producers and consumers. We need to encourage and support our businesses to win together the challenges of the circular economy. How many times have we been presented as too ecological a common sense practice that should be common and mandatory? How often do our mobile phones and washing machines crash irreparably when it is clear that they could last much longer? That is why we are adapting the Single Market to enable consumers to make environmentally friendly decisions and to encourage companies to offer them sustainable products. We are tackling greenwashing, which is far too much used by some companies to improve their image. And we want to end the early and planned obsolescence of products, and fight against misleading claims that insidiously incentivise consumers to make unnecessary purchases. We also want to guarantee the right to repair, which must become a common practice, and to ensure better information for consumers, while encouraging sustainability initiatives for small businesses. Concretely, we will drastically reduce the number of phony labels touting products as sustainable when they are not. We said it in this Chamber, we did it. Let us now be as ambitious and fast in negotiations with governments, as 150 million consumers and citizens are waiting for us at the turn.

The walls in the Mediterranean, as Manfred Weber did yesterday, are a real monument to demagogy. How do you want to make your walls in the sea? Giorgia Meloni campaigned about naval blockades, then discovered that when people at sea can't block them, you have to save them. Colleagues, democracy does not solve the real problem in any case: How do we regain control over immigration? With responsibility and humanity, we say, with walls and inventing an emergency every day, says the extreme right in Italy and in the rest of Europe. And just today an Italian minister spoke of ethnic substitution with respect to immigration, a real shame. The President of the Republic Mattarella has defined the European rules of Dublin as "prehistoric"; Well, we too, but it is the allies of the current Italian government that have prevented Dublin from reforming in recent years, from Morawiecki to Orbán. Because, you see, when you evoke solidarity at the top of Europe and then invasions at home, you remain prisoners of your own propaganda. More than open walls or doors, we need common policies to control and manage. Instead of selling cheap demagoguery, we should all explain, as Members of this Parliament, that we are working for real solutions, that the Pact on Migration and Asylum is one of those solutions. More coordination, more effective relocations and returns, solidarity and fair distribution of responsibility: I would have liked to see these words in Manfred Weber's interview with Corriere della Sera, instead of chasing nationalist propaganda. Let us not chase the populists and their hasty and illusory responses. It is a time of courage and European solutions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy, with the far-right government of Giorgia Meloni, there are many decisions that we do not agree with. But that could be said to be politics. But differences become unacceptable when ideology is made on people's skin. They become even more unacceptable when ideology is made on the skin of our children. Denying the rights of LGBT couples, in fact, as the Italian government is doing, means creating heterosexual couples of series A and homosexual couples of series B. Now I wonder, dear colleagues, if it would not be better to use our time to guarantee rights for all, to eliminate the barriers to freedom of movement in Europe, rather than always raising, every time, new walls of division and discrimination between European citizens based on sexual orientation. Look, it's really bleak to take children's rights hostage to wave ideological flags, as we heard tonight. Because this is happening in Italy and this has unfortunately also happened in this House, in violation of the international European principles of the UN, as Commissioner Helena Dalli recalled. Here, against this Renew Europe fights and will always fight.

Madam President, the commitments made must all be honoured, pacta sunt servanda. On these points, until today, dear Vice-President of the European Commission, we have been very disappointed by our friends from across the Channel. Thanks to the Windsor agreement, we can turn the page without tearing it apart. Did you say way forward? All right, all right. This is very good news, especially for British citizens, who are bearing the brunt of all the negative effects of Brexit. A point of attention though. This must also be good news for Europe's greatest achievement, the single market. The Windsor Agreement, through the so-called Stormont brake, gives the possibility to 30 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to oppose the application in their province of a European law. This is an exceptional procedure modelled on the 98 peace agreement and therefore cannot set a precedent in the rest of the single market. This is another very concrete proof of our willingness to establish a new relationship with our British friends, which must always be based on mutual trust.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, dear Věra, ladies and gentlemen, in 2019 there was a very worrying democratic event – during the European elections – about which no one spoke. What happened? Abstentionists among expatriates were 9 million people, equivalent to 70% of the population of a medium-sized state in Europe (13 million). These are Europeans residing in a Member State other than their country of origin. Their fundamental right to democratic participation has been severely constrained by bureaucratic inconsistencies and lack of information. As an Italian citizen, resident and elected in France, I am convinced that we are missing out on the best opportunity offered by our Union: to be a full citizen, everywhere in our Union. Our report goes exactly in this direction: We need to remove, very quickly, unacceptable obstacles to democratic participation ahead of the 2024 European elections.

Mr President, in accordance with Rule 59(4), I would like to request that the matter be referred back to committee, for interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, I cannot overemphasise the relevance and importance of this file in the current political context. With tomorrow's vote, we need to have a very strong position, with a very large majority of the European Parliament, to start trilogues well, and we have no time to waste if we want these new rules to be implemented before the next European elections – Pablo Arias Echeverría rightly pointed out this. I am convinced that once this text is in force, the elections in the European Union will be more transparent and resilient – as all colleagues in my group, Renew, have pointed out. Of course there is no risk to independent media and journalism – this was also very well explained by Ms Verheyen. Colleagues, the record is clear: you are well aware that platforms simply need to check the existence of political sponsors, and whether the information they provide about them is complete. We will not introduce any general monitoring obligations, let alone any form of censorship. But, as Paul Tang said, in the end it is the voters who have to decide, not the digital platforms. Daniel Freund and Alexandra Geese pointed this out: more transparency is needed to protect our democracies – and Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques is right: the European database that we will introduce with our proposal will no doubt help in this. Last point, Madam President: in response to Angelika Niebler, I do not believe that the proposal adds disproportionate obligations. It is unlikely that our candidates or elected representatives will be made more difficult to live in local elections; I therefore see no danger from this point of view, given the proportionality of the obligations that we are going to introduce. We are therefore giving a very important and long-awaited answer. Let us go, ladies and gentlemen: What we do is common sense.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear: There is too much manipulation and abuse in our elections and in our democracies. Foreign interference has become a real scourge. Cambridge Analytica, ‘Qatargate’, and I could go on – the context in which we find ourselves speaks for itself. As political decision-makers, we must take all our responsibilities, provide appropriate solutions and responses to fight more effectively against all forms of disinformation and interference in our democracies while preserving the openness that must always characterise European public debate. This regulation was a first response to the increased demand for political transparency, a question which is obviously linked to the actions that our Assembly has been taking, against interference, for several months in the INGE Special Committee of Inquiry on Disinformation and fake news. We are at a time in our history when we must send a very strong message to our fellow citizens. We want more transparency, we want better protection against disinformation and foreign interference, we want to build a genuine single market for services in political advertising – especially for our European small and medium-sized enterprises – we want more legal certainty and fewer barriers, obstacles and bureaucracy for providers of political advertising services. European political parties will no longer be blocked by 27 different regimes, but will have the opportunity to carry out genuine transnational campaigns more easily. More market liberalisation, therefore, and more protection for our freedoms. We have all denounced the attacks on our democracies, the manipulations on social networks, the dangers of fake news. We have to ask ourselves if we are serious with these intentions or if we are just pretending. We have worked really well with all the groups in this Parliament in the Committee on the Internal Market. All have shown a sense of responsibility and cooperation, and I really hope that this work will be rewarded and supported by a very broad consensus tomorrow in plenary. As regards the use of personal data for the targeting of political advertising and the lively debates surrounding it – I refer, of course, to Article 12 – I would like to quote Mark Twain: "The rumors about the death of political advertising are vastly exaggerated." Sorry, I should say: "are widely amplified" by some large platforms, very active, with their propaganda, lately, against our initiative. We will always fight for everyone’s freedom of expression, but not necessarily for the unregulatory and unconsented amplification power of large digital platforms. It seems to me that this is the aim of the compromise on which my colleague Anna Donáth worked in the Committee on Civil Liberties. In Cambridge Analytica, 87 million personal data were used without consent. The rules we want to introduce will ensure that no other Cambridge Analytica can happen. At the same time, these rules neither block personal political discourse nor the freedom of each of us, nor do they interfere with them. They only regulate content related to the paid services of political advertisements. I would like to thank all my colleagues, who have contributed a lot for having this text on the table today. Thank you for your cooperation and thank you for your political will to work together. Colleagues, we have a unique opportunity to work for a better democracy and a better European market; Let's grab her.

Mr President, the single market is Europe's greatest success, a real multiplier of freedom and opportunity for all of us. However, in times of crisis, the latter is too often the victim of national reflexes and selfishness. The evidence? In the face of the energy crisis, rather than pooling all our efforts and creating a European sovereign wealth fund that would give us greater strategic autonomy and protect all our citizens, some argue only for national aid. But only national responses risk exacerbating market divisions and fragmentation. It is utterly illusory to think that with everyone for themselves we can make up for the gigantic crises that lie ahead. In 2022, the cost of national barriers in our market was 300 billion, a loss of 2% of GDP. In 1988, Mr Cecchini had written a report on the cost of the non-market; I think we should write a new report on the cost of the non-single market. We also need to be more effective in enforcing market rules by taking the example of competition policy. That is another good reason to amend the Treaties and to reform our Union.

Mr President, I do not know whether for us it will be like the works of Heracles, to which Raphaël Glucksmann referred. What is certain is that I agree with him: Interference and corruption are the cancers of our democracies. Parliament, together with Qatargate, is paying for it today. Yes, this House has done a huge job since 2019 – I am thinking for example of the Digital Services Act – but this scandal shows that we need to do much more and much better to preserve the integrity of our liberal democracies in the face of any form of interference, whether from Russia, China or the Gulf countries. In the immediate term, it is essential to introduce new measures to ensure the transparency of our institution and to better defend our democratic processes. Promptly adopting, for example, the regulation on political advertising would probably go in that direction. However, we also need to look at where our vulnerabilities really are, because sometimes they are where we don't think they are. Sport, for example, has become a place of interference, political influence, corruption and violation of European law. Qatargate is an example of this, and here too it is time for the EU to fully assume all its responsibilities.

I am not sure I have seen a question here, but I will try to give an answer. I never said that the Council, the European Council or the Council of Ministers is less legitimate than the European Parliament, I said the European Parliament plays a role, but no, I didn’t say that. But I don’t understand why we should not apply the Treaty. And at the moment we are not applying the Treaty because this shift, that push towards the European Council, prevents the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament from doing their job according to the letter of the Treaty. That is the first question. The second question I mean, who did say that deciding by majority is less democratic than deciding by unanimity? Who said the opposite?

Mr President, Commissioner, the Europe of vetoes is the Europe of inaction, delays, blackmail and disappointment. This is grotesque. Until recently, at the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens called for European defence, an energy union and global power. All this is now denied by the vetoes of some and the hypocrisy of others. Orbán’s Hungary is the stark example of this, of course – Budapest is using and abusing – but it is not the only one. The problem is much deeper, because the practice of the veto pollutes minds and disrupts systems. This drift is played out in particular in the European Council, which absorbs all important decisions and de facto extends the practice of consensus, and therefore the veto, far beyond the letter of the Treaties. Immigration is a stark example of this. We could take a lot of decisions by a majority, but we have been stuck for several years. Less efficiency, less democracy and less transparency. If you read the Treaties, ladies and gentlemen, the role of ministers – it is not there – is considerable. If you look at the practice, since the President of the European Council is permanent, it is the "sherpacratie" that has it. They're the sherpas, not the ministers. This should therefore also be a problem for the Council of Ministers. This year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Single Market. Well, if we had kept the vetoes, we would still be waiting for the first decision on freedom of movement. I told the Council: you ignore all our requests; you ignore the request on the European electoral law; you are ignoring the request to amend the Treaties; you ignore the request on the activation of passerelle clauses; you ignore the request on the revision of the principle of European political parties. You must learn to respect the European Parliament a little more and have the courage to say yes or no to our demands. (the speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Madam President, Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, dear rapporteur Agius Saliba, thank you for your excellent work. Finally common sense, finally coherence, finally a concrete solution! This is proof that when the EU wants, it can. First of all, the common charger is clearly a common sense choice: 84% of consumers have problems with phone chargers, and the cost of this mess and confusion is huge – not to mention e-waste, from 11,000 to 13,000 tonnes of e-waste produced per year. Then, our choice is a coherent choice: consistent with our drive to create a sustainable single market for consumers and producers, consistent with our circular economy strategy, consistent also with our drive and effort to assert genuine freedom of choice for consumers. We make our products more sustainable, we encourage reuse, we save resources and CO2 while enabling technological innovation, we ensure more transparency and better information, and thus make life easier for consumers. Finally, the Europe we want is that Europe, a Europe of concrete solutions, which increases the opportunities for all European citizens. These rules on common chargers represent a clear victory for all of us.

Madam President, it has become a mantra in Europe: "Think small first". How many times have we recalled that SMEs are the bedrock of our economy. And then there is a reality, very hard: yesterday COVID, today the energy crisis, a reality that requires further action. That is why we, Renew Europe, wanted this debate at the initiative of Martina Dlabajová, whom I would like to thank on behalf of my group. This is the moment for Act Small First: In the face of crises, a plan to support SMEs and for our strategic autonomy as Europeans is a top priority. I also welcome the Commission’s commitment to review the Late Payment Directive. This is an intolerable scandal that can no longer last. Bankruptcy due to government delays is totally unacceptable, even more so in times of crisis. Reform is urgently needed to do justice to our entrepreneurs. Finally, with the green and digital transitions, we need to clarify what is expected of SMEs, make clear, effective, consistent and fit-for-purpose choices for our entrepreneurs.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, a democracy cannot function without functioning political parties and movements. European democracy cannot be limited to 27 separate political spaces; it must be based on genuine European political parties, it must be strengthened in a transnational political space. To this end, European political parties must become real parties and be able to do real politics. That is why we need to change the rules. It is absurd, for example, that a European party cannot participate in a debate in a national referendum that concerns the future of the EU, as happened on the occasion of Brexit. It is necessary to strengthen their budgetary autonomy. It is imperative to impose more transparency. These are questions of credibility and they are questions of political responsibility. This is also in line with citizens’ demands at the Conference on the Future of Europe. The objectives of this report, for which I warmly thank the two co-rapporteurs, Charles Goerens and Rainer Wieland, are also part of a broader strategy of democracy and politics, because we must be able to vote directly for European parties through the transnational list in order to strengthen their democratic legitimacy and we must combat disinformation and foreign interference, in particular, but not only, with new rules on political advertising to protect our democracies. And we have to move fast. In the 2024 European elections, thanks to these reforms, we must increase citizens' power of choice in a new democratic area that is more efficient, more transparent and, above all, more European.

Madam President, Commissioner, during the COVID crisis, border regions wanted to cooperate more. They could not, due to bureaucratic obstacles. In the face of natural disasters and the energy crisis, integration between border regions is needed. They face too many obstacles. Cross-border workers request services in their workplace that local authorities cannot offer. President Omarjee's report denounces all this. The legislative solution, as we know it, is on the Council table. It is called the European Border Mechanism, but negotiations are stalled. We want to relaunch this file taking into account the main concerns of the Council and in full cooperation with the Commission. To this end, ladies and gentlemen, we must adopt a legislative own-initiative resolution, indicate the necessary legislative changes and promote a new agreement with the Council. Because our Europe is Europe of concrete and transnational solutions, solutions that we want to multiply for our regions and for our citizens.