Speeches

Madam President, Mr. Sell, fortunately, every word you have said has made you feel that you would most like to submit immediately to Putin and Russia. Ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely grateful to our Commission President for feeling a massive change in European politics in the last twelve months in the European Union. We have the situation that we are now saying clearly, Mrs. von der Leyen, what matters. You have said it – and I am grateful – that we are in a fight to see whether we remain independent, whether we remain independent, whether we can live in peace, freedom and security. This is also reflected in the European Commission's policy: Unlike in the last legislature, we have not yet received proposals from the Commission in this legislature that reduce our defence or competitiveness. This is a huge change! On the contrary: We see that we are finally making progress in the field of defence. We see that we are finally making progress in the area of competitiveness with the ambitious so-called buses, i.e. the relief packages that your Commission has presented. But one thing is also part of it: If you want to address social issues, if you want more housing, if you want to pay for social services such as child guarantee, you need a competitive industry. If you want to finance defence spending, you need a competitive industry. That's why I can ask everyone in the house: Please help us to do this without lowering standards – that is not what this is all about now! – but with a massive reduction in bureaucracy and requirements and costs, quickly give the economy and thus the people new freedoms and the competitiveness of the European Union ...

Dear Mr Sieper, thank you very much for your question. We see, when we remember the picture in the Rose Garden, where the American President showed this giant panel with all the tariffs, that not only we are affected, but in principle he attacks everyone in the world and questions everything. And that is why, in conversations with representatives of other states, I experience a great willingness to move forward together with us, if we remain steadfast. And the second is then, but we have to go through the things. And I say quite frankly: If, for example, Mrs Werbrouck mentioned earlier, the impact on France, yes, why does she not say that, for example, French agriculture has a massive export surplus? So that, for example, the French farmers, the French economy in general, would have completely different and much bigger problems without exports? And that is why it is so important that we remain steadfast here, do not allow ourselves to be divided, do not go nationally alone, but trust the European Commission and have real courage in this difficult time and do not make ourselves small.

Mr President! I am proud of how the European Commission has dealt with this massive pressure from the United States in recent weeks. Namely, prudently, without reacting quickly, without falling into actionism, without taking any countermeasures that simply fuel the dispute. But the Commission has so far left the attacks ineffective, and it is in negotiations – and that is a good thing! What shocks me, however, is how the United States is massively destroying the global system they are building. A number of colleagues have already commented on this. This means that the first task is to try, Commissioner, to finally conclude our trade agreements with other countries – with India, with Indonesia, with Mercosur. That we show we have an interest in keeping the rest of the world stable. That we do not allow ourselves to Wild West à la America prevails, but that we become the new anchor of stability in the global trade world. And secondly: I just wish we were stable. I firmly believe that if we do not sell ourselves below value – and I do not understand what some colleagues have said here – but if we remain firm: We are at least as big economically as the United States. With the platform just described, we are significantly larger together with the partners. So if we have some courage, do not give in immediately, then we will get a good agreement in the next few days. It must be our interest to stand together, not to be dispersed. Then we will end up being the ones who wear the friendly smile of a winner on their face.

Dear Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It has been said quite often today: We have not responded sufficiently to Russia's aggression in the last three years. And it has also become clear: Europe is always strong when we are under particular pressure. I would like to draw your attention once again to one thing that our Group Chairman Manfred Weber rightly described earlier: We are good in times of crisis. But in times of crisis, are we not only able, as the European Union, to help the Member States do their homework, but are we also able, together with the Member States, to finally take the next step in Europe? We saw it during the corona crisis: The Corona Reconstruction Fund was a huge step by the European Union to help the Member States. But we have not been able to build Europe-wide electricity networks, for example, to upgrade Europe-wide rail networks. We have not managed to bring Europe together as a continent with a common major project. And now too – ReArm Europe is urgently needed. But here again: Exactly the joint European projects are missing. It is not only a question of supporting the Member States alone now in making the necessary rearmament, of finally becoming able to defend themselves, but we must also enforce joint European projects. I can only call on the Council, Mr Costa, I can only call on the Member States: Please put pressure on the Council to do some projects together! The examples that Manfred Weber mentioned today: with the common surveillance satellite system, with a common air defence screen, with a possibly also common aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, drone carrier or whatever. As Europeans, we must take a big project forward together in order to show it to the outside world: We are serious about European integration, especially in times of crisis.

Mr President! In 1989, the people of East Germany liberated themselves from the communist dictatorship. Already in 1994 the Magdeburg model, a SPD Prime Minister, elected by the SED-PDS. 1998 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the first coalition of Social Democrats and SPD, SED-PDS. And in 2014, Bodo Ramelow was elected Prime Minister by the SED-PDS Left Party, the SPD and the Greens. Or the red-red-green minority government in Thuringia, which until recently was in office. Mr Repasi, almost 50 cases of majorities of red-red-green with the AfD. Or last year in November: I was a guest at the French National Assembly when the French Social Democrats and Greens, together with Le Pen and the Left Mélenchon, voted out Prime Minister Barnier and brought France closer to political chaos. And when I look at you and your parties, I can only say: Stop teaching us how to deal with populists, extremists, communists or Nazis. Unlike you, it is: We will not work with them. We won't let ourselves be tolerated like you. We will not form coalitions, nor will we elect any of them as prime minister. But you confuse cause and effect. You're talking about the firewall. We'd like to put out the fire behind it. The AfD had 10% in the last federal election. In the surveys, it is double. And why? People are afraid of economic stagnation. They have fears of the future. You have the impression that the state is not working. You have the impression that this red-green slumping federal government no longer has any feeling or understanding of what is really important to the people in our cities and communities, and that was also made clear in your speech today. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, we already have a third of extremists and populists in this European Parliament. This Parliament may be the last in which democratic forces have a majority. So please stop insulting us. Stop setting the mood here, but let's quickly solve the problems that really drive people around. Our hand is outstretched. We want to fight populism and extremism through good politics and not through insults and division.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! Ursula von der Leyen pointed out today: The programme of the new Commission is a programme of the political centre for the breadth of society and for the citizens of Europe. Now the German SPD says that it will not support this commission together with the AfD, BSW and the Left. This shows the whole political insincerity, irresponsibility and also tornness of the SPD. It joins the procrastination and hesitation of the SPD chancellor, which is driving the European partners more and more to despair. You seem to feel more comfortable than others in the pro-Putin anti-Europe camp today, and it is good that the German FDP and the German Greens are on board together with us Christian Democrats, unlike you. Then justify your conduct with the Italian Commissioner. Even the Italian Social Democrats will vote in favour of the Commission today, while you know better and thus isolate yourself in your own group. I can only call everyone: We urgently need the capacity to act in Europe. We need the strong Commission presented by Ursula von der Leyen. Happiness, so that we can set Europe up well and successfully for the future.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! We talked a lot today about the person of the new US president and about the possible impact the election could have on us in Europe. But I really want us to think more. What are the homework we are facing? And the homework we face as Europeans is completely independent of who will become president in the United States. Because the core challenges – are we able to create our own, stronger contribution to greater security, to greater defence capability of the European Union and its Member States in the framework of NATO? – that is our homework, which we must tackle independently when we look at the situation in Europe and the world. Or even the economic issues: Will we finally be able to unleash our companies, our crafts, our small and medium-sized enterprises, not continue to build up European regulation, but also take it back in some places? Then that would also be another contribution we could make to increasing our ability in Europe. And then we would continue to be a pleasant, reliable and interesting partner for the United States.

Madam President, Dear High Representative! You have said that Europe is absent from this conflict. If you weren't leaving office soon, I'd ask you: How many times were you in Israel before October 7, during the four years of your tenure, to talk to those responsible about a possible solution to the conflict? Ladies and gentlemen, this weekend was, I think, a remarkable editorial in the German newspaper World on Sunday. Jacques Schuster writes, I quote: "Israel's third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it in a nutshell: There is only one thing in the world worse than the use of force, namely the capitulation to violence. Israel is resisting. It no longer allows Hamas to indulge in its bloodlust. It no longer tolerates Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel day after day under the eyes of the UN mission. It protects itself from the fact that Iran has threatened the Jewish state with annihilation since 1979. Is Israel's government making mistakes? Is it sometimes too brutal? Does it pay too little attention to the civilian population? Yeah, she does. However, anyone who has to be crushed by force as a violent person has to accept the consequences of his acts of violence – be it Germany between 1933 and 1945, Iran today or Lebanon, which lets Hezbollah murder in peace of mind.” And I add: Anyone who places command centres, weapons depots, combat stands in civilian settlements and facilities bears responsibility for the civilian victims. I would also like to draw attention to the many Arabs who, partly as citizens of Israel, live in freedom and democracy and are able to participate in Parliament. So what is the lesson for us? We have to be on the right side. If terror, unfreedom, violence prevail, then we too have lost. This is true in Israel, in the Middle East, in Ukraine and around the world. Ladies and gentlemen, it is therefore our responsibility to face up to this responsibility with all our strength.

Mr President! At least since the Russian attack on Ukraine two years ago, it is clear: We need to do much more for Europe's security and defence capabilities. But instead of working on it, our German Chancellor Scholz splits, for example, with too little Franco-German coordination, with too little interest in Europe or with his obviously false statements on Taurus deliveries. He's trying to position himself as chancellor of peace for domestic reasons, but I'm afraid he's doing exactly the opposite and motivating Putin to move on. Putin's Russia started this war. That is why Putin must lose this war, and Ukraine must win this war. Because if the aggressor achieves his goals and wins this war, then we will all lose together. So what does Europe need for security, peace and freedom? Our Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is right when she says: Europe urgently needs a genuine European Defence Union with well-equipped armed forces, with joint European procurement, development and production of military equipment – explicitly with close links with our transatlantic partners in NATO. This is the only way for the European Union to be credible in its defence. Only in this way will we stop Putin's Russia from further attacks. Only in this way will we be able to secure our peace in the future. The following applies to us members of the CDU and CSU: Ensuring peace, freedom and security is the most important task of the European Union. Let's do this task together successfully!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think today's debate has made it clear: There is cross-party and very broad support for our trade agreement between the European Union and New Zealand. During the debate, it became clear that: The agreement will help us protect what is important to us – our prosperity, our good and secure jobs and our global competitiveness. We Europeans are an important trading power today, but we are in constant competition with other states, and that too has become clear today. This trade agreement is exactly a good tool to steer economic globalization into a regulated path with like-minded and familiar partners. For in the future, the power of law must continue to apply in international trade, not the power of the strongest. This is why it became clear today: The trade agreement with New Zealand is the most modern agreement we have ever concluded as the European Union. Many good examples of new opportunities, new perspectives for our companies and thus also for our employees were shown. The agreement is a good example of a prudent, forward-looking and really good trade policy that balances all interests. Tomorrow it is. I would like to see a broad majority in favour of this agreement. Please let us open up new opportunities and opportunities for our employers and our employees together! And please, Commissioner, help to ensure that, after this long period, the relevant decisions can also be taken quickly in the Council, so that the agreement can enter into force quickly! Many thanks to you and your team for the good preparatory work and for the good text and many thanks to all colleagues for today's debate.

Dear colleague Vedrenne! Do you agree with me that European agricultural exports go far beyond European agricultural imports – that is, that the bottom line is that European agriculture benefits from this trade agreement? And do you agree with me on the second, that there will always be some reason why the French left will vote against any trade agreement?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Finally, today and tomorrow we are paving the way for a new trade agreement – our agreement between the European Union and New Zealand. What does this trade agreement mean? The agreement helps us to protect what exists: Prosperity, good and secure jobs with us and our global competitiveness. It means improved and new export opportunities for our European companies, also and especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. The agreement intensifies and broadens our economic exchanges with New Zealand. Why do we need this and other trade agreements? We Europeans are still a global trading power today. But we are in constant competition with other countries and regions of the world. Not all of them are democratic and work according to the same rules as we do – think, for example, of China. So far, together with our partners, we have often succeeded in setting rules for global trade through the World Trade Organization and through our trade agreements and in shaping global trade in this way. The new trade agreement is just that: a tool to channel economic globalisation into regulated channels with like-minded people, with trusted partners, for the benefit of citizens and our businesses. The trade agreement with New Zealand is the most modern agreement we have ever concluded as the European Union. A few examples: An independent contact point will be created for small and medium-sized enterprises. We are putting the rapidly growing digital trade on better, legally compliant feet for both companies and consumers. Sustainability requirements and climate change mitigation are enshrined in accordance with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and in New Zealand indigenous people are fully protected. In short: The New Zealand Trade Agreement is a good example of prudent, forward-looking and meaningfully balanced trade policy. For the number lovers: For European companies, customs duties of around 140 million euros per year are eliminated when exporting to New Zealand. Our European companies benefit enormously from this. A few concrete examples: Tariffs on cars will be 10%, which means that our cars will become cheaper and more competitive in New Zealand. Or in the case of pharmaceutical products or confectionery, they also fall to 0%. We can increase our trading volume by up to 30%, and the volume of investment in New Zealand can increase by up to 80% for our companies, opening up new growth opportunities. New agreements always provoke criticism. This is also good for us, because we have looked at it accordingly critically. However, it is crucial to look at the criticism and carefully consider which criticism is justified and which is not. And that's why: A few headlines and likes benefit some, but they don't have much to do with reality. Example of climate protection: Compliance with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is firmly regulated. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to sanctions. It also criticises the sell-out of our high European level of protection, e.g. for food standards, or maximum residue limits for pesticides and others. But here, too, the following applies: In none of the areas does the agreement deviate even a millimetre from our rules, which have been in force for a long time. So what's next? We have the debate today and the vote tomorrow. I would like to see a large majority of us back this – in my view – once-in-a-lifetime good agreement. After that, the ball is with the Member States and, with a little luck, the Council could already agree at the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting next Monday. With this in mind, many heartfelt thanks to all those who have participated constructively in recent years. I look forward to today's debate and exchange. Thank you very much for your interest in this topic.

Madam President, Jewish students who are afraid to move freely in their hometown. Parents who are afraid to let their children travel by public transport. Mockery protesters spit on guests of a coffee house chain because the long-time CEO of this chain is a devout Jew. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations in which posters with the relativization of the Holocaust are shown. Speaking choirs calling for the destruction of Israel. Since 7 October, around 600 anti-Semitic acts and more than 300 arrests have taken place in France, and over 200 anti-Semitic incidents have taken place in Germany. Anti-Semitism is on the rise – in Europe and worldwide. The continuing inhuman terrorist attack by Hamas against the people of Israel cannot be justified by anything. The more than 200 hostages must be released immediately. Missile bombardment of innocent civilians must stop. Hospitals and schools must not be used as rocket launchers or command centers. Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its people. And Israel knows that it must comply with international law. But do Hamas and other actors in the region know that? What about the Christian Democrats? We are not losing sight of the goal of a two-state solution and a functioning neighborhood of the Arab world with Israel. We want to make sure that terrorist organisations are not promoted with European money. We want the European strategy to combat anti-Semitism and promote Jewish life to be consistently implemented in all Member States. We want to have a dialogue with the Islamic associations about the dangers of Muslim anti-Semitism, and we demand that their financial support be tied to a commitment to Israel's right to exist. We demand that Member States finally close existing criminal liability gaps in anti-Semitic hate demonstrations. We expect anti-Semitism to be consistently combated on the Internet. These are just a few examples of our very specific demands. It is clear: Human dignity and freedom of religion or belief are non-negotiable. They apply to everyone. To respect and protect them is the responsibility of all state authorities. But above all, it is up to all of us to respect and protect them.

Mr President! The inhuman terrorist attack by Hamas against the people of Israel cannot be justified by anything. Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its people. I therefore have no understanding of how some speakers here today criticise Israel. Israel is sincerely trying to protect the civilian population, even with the inclusion of disadvantages. Anyone who criticizes Israel in this way must at least at the same time call on the Hamas terrorists to immediately release the hostages, not to hide command centers and rocket launchers in civilian buildings and to finally stop their thousands of rocket attacks on the civilian population in Israel. What I found very good in Europe: We had a very good trip to Israel by our President of the Commission and our President of the Parliament. It was a strong signal, determined, fast and symbolic. What disappointed me in Europe: I found it strange that you, Mr Foreign Representative, would then publicly criticise the President of the Commission for the trip. I hope that we will be united in these difficult times and formulate possible criticisms of our representative internally. Let us act together on the outside, condemn the terrorist attacks, support Israel and all peace-loving people in the region, and do our part to finally bring peace to the entire region.

Mr President! When we talk today about trade relations between the European Union and China, it should be about how we can reshape these relations in the light of the political situation in China, in the interest of European citizens. But it seems that not all Members of this House also represent the interests of Europeans. As was read in German media these days, the top candidate of the AfD, Mr. Maximilian Krah, established a Chinese lobby network here. According to the media research, financial contributions from Beijing should have flowed to Mr. Krah and his environment. The fact that Mr Krah, for example, voted against the China resolution and questioned ‘the alleged exploitation and internment of Uyghurs’ in China appears in this context in a new light. Apparently, the colleague is acting as a branch of the Chinese Communist leadership here in the European Parliament. While the AfD shows itself to be national-patriotic in Germany, its deputy here sells himself to China for small money. My question to the Commission is: Are you aware of these reports? Do you see China's influence here in the European Parliament? And what do you think of these accusations?

Madam President, Over the past four difficult years, we have achieved a lot together. We have come almost no other region through the corona pandemic. We managed to hold together on the issue of war and peace in Russia's war against Ukraine. We have made it, the European Green Deal We want to make our contribution against the human part of climate change. Thank you very much, Madam President, for your tireless efforts at this difficult time. But with all the success – you made it clear: In some areas, we need to improve or restart. We must now really prove that climate protection and economic competitiveness go hand in hand. We now really need to prove that we are giving entrepreneurship in Europe more leeway and perspective. We must now really prove that there is more dialogue and less polarisation with agriculture and rural areas. We really need to prove that we are setting the course politically, that inflation is falling and that the social question is not reopening. We really need to prove that we can improve on Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy issues and better protect Europe externally. You raised all these issues today. Let us lead Europe together to the next successes.

Madam President, I am amazed and shocked, Chancellor, how leading representatives of the governing parties are talking about you. The latest highlight is the speech of Mrs. Reintke today or her name contribution in yesterday's WORLD. I quote: “The disappointment with our neighbours is great. The Chancellor’s European policy raises questions.” I ask you, Mrs Reintke, which European policy? Last year you, Chancellor, block the supply of battle tanks to Ukraine, and in your desperation, the German Greens are making a request here asking you to finally deliver. Or you say in your government statement in February that there is a need for effective control of Europe's external borders, and almost all members of the traffic light parties are voting against it here in April. Or in March, the members of the SPD and the Greens vote here for the forced renovation of buildings, and a few days later, your Federal Minister for Construction is against it. It is unfortunately obvious to everyone in Europe and again here today: In your federal government, in the traffic light parties and also in yourself, self-employment and chaos prevail instead of ambition and interest for Europe, which Europe so urgently needs. That's why many in Europe today say that with Chancellor Merkel, Europe has not always delivered in Germany, but with Chancellor Scholz, Germany almost always does not deliver in Europe. Mr Chancellor, it is time for a European response, but unfortunately your speech today was not.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, We have seen in recent days what it means for the European Union to stand up for the rule of law. We have seen that the Council, the Commission and Parliament were united, and that is why we have managed to ensure that money to Hungary is not disbursed. Mr Vilimsky, that is exactly the difference from what you have said: We in the European Parliament are dealing with such accusations. If someone does something, the prosecutor's office investigates, then police officers investigate in case of doubt, and that goes to court. This is also the difference with Hungary, where corruption is taking place and those are not being charged, do not go to court and we have to worry that this abuse will not be punished. That is why it is right for us to do both, namely to take up and deal with the allegations here in the House, but also to ensure that countries where governments are on a questionable journey – such as Poland or Hungary – do not receive the funds. Please take note of this at last. So for the weekend: I hope that the Heads of State and Government will continue along this path, that the proposals made by the President of the Commission here today will also find a majority among the Heads of State and Government. I think we are well on our way to taking our continent to better days.

Dear Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, In my view, we can look back on a successful year for relations between the European Union and the ASEAN countries. Together this year, we signed the world's first air transport agreement between two major blocs of states, namely the ASEAN region and the European Union, which will enable people from both regions to have better connections. The new EU-ASEAN Energy Dialogue and the European Union's efforts to support the transition of ASEAN countries to clean energy are further positive signals from this year. At the same time, we remain committed to the common goal of consistently expanding our parliamentary relations. We must continue to work vigorously for the establishment of a joint Parliamentary Assembly between the European Union and the parliaments of the ASEAN countries. Dear colleagues! More than 60% of the world's population is home to ASEAN countries. At the same time, 40% of the European Union's external trade is channelled through the seas of these ten countries. This means that peace, security and stability in Southeast Asia and the region as a whole are fundamental for our partners in the ASEAN countries – but also for us. Specifically, this means: We are not only achieving our goal of moving away from a strategic dependence on China by potentially slowing down economic relations between the European Union and China – we should not do that – but we should also reduce our dependence, above all in relative terms, by intensifying economic relations with other countries. And that's where the economic potential in the South Asian and Southeast Asian states really comes in. For ten years now, as the European Union, we have been trying to conclude trade agreements with various ASEAN partners, sometimes with success – as with Singapore and Vietnam – but sometimes we are also on the spot – as with Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines, to name a few examples – and this with countries that offer tremendous opportunities for us, as in the case of Indonesia with 270 million inhabitants. Beyond agreements with individual states, we must also advance negotiations for a bloc-to-block trade agreement between the European Union and ASEAN. The new partnership agreement between Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN impressively demonstrates what is possible when the political will is in place. We've been too sluggish here for far too long. The Commission is now called upon to make rapid progress – in all areas, on trade, but also on climate, security, energy and human rights issues. The potential is there. Now it is necessary to raise this together.

Madam President, A relief package for small and medium-sized enterprises, an offensive foreign trade strategy and a law to secure the supply of raw materials – Madam President of the Commission, thank you for your concrete announcements that give courage. But we, as a Parliament, must now also send a signal and put aside any incriminating legislation: the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Zero Pollution Package, the proposal for a Soil Health Act, the revision of the Environmental Criminal Law Line, the Supply Chain Act and, and, and. Ladies and gentlemen, citizens are already facing major challenges. You need more room to breathe. We must therefore postpone planned legislation that will impose further burdens. Please check all of them. I beg you, take this seriously! At least we are committed to it. And also applies: The food is getting more and more expensive, and at the same time comes the new plant protection regulation. According to estimates, there would be seven million tonnes of grain less on more than three million hectares in Germany alone. This would further weaken our self-sufficiency. Therefore, my request: Consider whether this proposal can be withdrawn and revised again. We need more domestic agriculture in this difficult time, not less.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Bernd Lange has provided some examples of forced labour, and we all still remember the horrific information and images of the recent revelations about the situation in China. I quote from an oral question to the European Commission: ‘In the United States, the importation of goods made by prisoners is prohibited by law. Accordingly, the sale of products of several such companies on the domestic market was prevented.’ And the question was then referred to the Commission – I quote further: "What measures will the Commission take to prevent direct and indirect imports of such products into the EU? When does the Commission intend to cooperate as closely as possible with the authorities in the United States in relation to the detection of these goods?’ This is not our question today. This is a question that some colleagues and I put together on 7 June 2010 to the then Commission, and on 23 September 2010 was the debate. At that time, Commissioner Füle promised that the issue would be dealt with and that the Commission would make proposals, and not much has happened to date. In 2011, on 15. In December, colleagues and I asked. Answer given at the time by Commissioner De Gucht: Yes, we will do something; There should be some working groups in the Commission and we will come back to Parliament. Then nothing happened again. On the 25th of February 2013 some colleagues and I are catching up again. A written response on 18 April. We all know the result: Nothing happened again for nine years. I could just continue this series. Today we have the issue on the agenda. With our resolution, we are giving the Commission a clear task. And after Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that she would recognise Parliament's right of initiative, I can only say: Please do what we call for in the first paragraph, namely we call for a new WTO-compliant instrument to complement companies' due diligence obligations. And I hope, Commissioner, that you and your colleagues will really come to us with a legislative proposal as soon as possible.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the debate and debate tonight. It looks like we will get a large majority in the vote tomorrow. We had the debate for ten years and it was mentioned – I believe it was Mrs Rinzema and other colleagues – that a lot has happened in the last ten years. And we have indeed experienced – one country has been mentioned by several colleagues, namely China – because we have seen over the ten years that China has not opened up any further. We have also seen in the negotiations on the investment agreement that has been concluded that China was not ready to open up. And that is why, if this instrument gets a majority here in the House tomorrow, I hope that you, Mr Dombrovskis, will also use this instrument, that the Commission will not forget this new possibility in the drawer, but that you please approach our trading partners offensively, that you please campaign to finally open up the markets. Everyone mentioned it again in today's debate: We don't have the goal of closing our market, but we do have a desire for our trading partners to open their markets. And in that sense, I hope that we will have some successes in the next few years. And in the event that we have to rework, we have already provided for the revision clause in order to be able to make a second impact in case of doubt. In this sense: Thank you very much for the debate and I would be very pleased if we could see visible results in this field soon.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Vice-President! What is it about today? If a country or a city or a municipality wants to buy something, then there is usually a public tender, for example when buying new buses for public transport, when building a new subway or when providing a comprehensive service. In Europe, it is almost always the case that: Anyone can apply for the contract, no matter where they come from, whether from the relevant Member State, from another country of the European Union or from any other country in the world. That's a good thing. Through this competition, we want to ensure that citizens get the best and most economical solution for their tax money. At the same time, however, this also means that our European companies are competing with companies from outside the European Union in these tenders. That's good for now, too. As long as these companies operate fairly on the market, do not receive unjustified government support or engage in environmental, wage or social dumping, competition leads to innovation, better quality and cheaper prices, thus strengthening the competitiveness of the European Union in global competition. On the other hand: In many countries around the world, our European companies also have access to public tenders and can apply for contracts. There are agreements within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on this, and we have concluded agreements with individual countries in trade agreements. But now there are some countries in the world that do not let our providers participate in public tenders. Or there are cases where our companies are allowed to participate formally, but other means are used to ensure that they do not get involved in the end. And we cannot and do not want to continue to accept that, and with this legislation we want to change that. And to make it very clear: Our goal is not to keep foreign suppliers out of our market. Our goal is simply that other countries open their markets and our companies have the same opportunities there as companies from these countries with us. This is just fairness and reciprocity. And what does that mean in detail? The Commission may in future put pressure on such countries and threaten either a full exclusion or a valuation disadvantage for these countries. This should increase the pressure on the countries to finally open their markets for our suppliers as well. In order to ensure the effectiveness of our instrument, to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and at the same time to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, we have agreed on reasonable thresholds for contracts, which on the one hand cover around 70% of the total public contract volume and on the other hand represent only around 10% of all public contracts. Secondly, we MEPs have enforced that the valuation adjustment mechanism is tightened and that the Commission can impose up to 100% price adjustment. If you look at the combat prices with which suppliers from China, for example, sometimes operate, then this is necessary. I refer, for example, to the tunnels in Stockholm or a bridge construction project in Croatia, where Chinese suppliers sometimes charge only half or even the third price as the cheapest European supplier. It is therefore also important that our rules against unjustified state subsidies in third countries and also our anti-dumping rules are further strengthened. It is also important to us Members that this set of rules can be applied rigorously and consistently. That is why we have created exceptions for special emergencies, but we have ensured that exceptions do not make the instrument like a Swiss cheese, but that we really limit ourselves to very few necessary exceptions. In particular, I am grateful to the Council for its flexibility and responsiveness. I am therefore confident that this new regulation will make a difference for our businesses and citizens and look forward to today's debate.

Mr President! Dear colleagues, I do not know how you are doing, but as the father of five children, every day I only have tears in my eyes when I see the images of the terrible war, the war that Vladimir Putin was responsible for and which he personally ordered and ordered. These are the pictures of fallen soldiers of Ukraine, these are the pictures of grieving parents, these are the pictures of destroyed tanks and planes, but they are also the pictures of destroyed houses, hospitals, cultural institutions, monuments. These are the images – and many colleagues have already addressed them – of innocent and suffering people, to whom everything is destroyed and taken away. We all – and I personally – lack the words to express my concern, my grief and my despair. And the pictures we just had to see in the last few days from Butscha – I think we all feared it would look like this, but we are horrified that it really is. As a father of five, I also know: It is our task to finally take action despite or precisely because of this suffering and to bear even more responsibility than before. We really need to help Ukrainians effectively to defend themselves against this war of aggression and to protect people from attacks. We must not only impose sanctions, but also really implement them in our Member States and in cities and municipalities. If, for example, I have to read in our German newspaper BILD am Sonntag that this still does not work sufficiently in many cities and municipalities in Germany, then I lack the words. We need to help refugees – many colleagues have responded. But I also want us to think beyond the day. My grandmother was expelled from the Sudetenland after the Second World War. She always talked about her homeland. And that is why it is important that we help Ukraine win this war, and that we take responsibility together to help Ukraine rebuild, so that as soon as possible as many people as possible can return to their homes and try to rebuild as much as possible of what is being destroyed in these days.

Mr President! As rapporteur for the international procurement instrument, I would like to request that, after the vote on the amendments from the committee, we can refer the file back to the committee and start the trilogue discussions. It was very important to me that we not only give the trilogue mandate in committee, but also give all Members here in plenary the opportunity to vote on the file. This will happen now, and I would be grateful if we could then start the trilogue negotiations.