Speeches

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, dear Prime Minister, dear Petteri, first of all, thank you for addressing the European Parliament and as an EPP Group leader, I want to congratulate you for the trust you received from the Finnish people for being elected as Prime Minister and after your success, Alexander Stubb was elected as President of Finland. So it is in good safe EPP hands today, thanks to the trust of the Finnish people. Finland is a true EPP – European – success story, and also an EPP success story. The first country in Europe to introduce a universal election law for parliamentary elections in ‘96. In ‘97, when women had no voting rights in most of Europe, they were already 19 members in the Finnish Parliament – women, female members – in the Finnish Parliament. Since gaining independence in 1917, Finland has made an incredible journey: from being one of the poorest countries in Europe, it has become one of the most successful. And today, Finland is a European leader in gender equality, climate policy and innovation. Probably it has something to do with ‘sisu’, the special determination that defines the Finnish national character. And, dear Petteri, you and Kokoomus have definitely shown some special determination in always standing up for Finland’s accession to NATO. The Finnish Socialists and Greens changed their minds about joining NATO only after the invasion of Ukraine, while already in 2018, you were warning Europe, I quote: ‘The crisis in Ukraine, recent terrorist attacks and hybrid threats have shown that both the EU’s defence cooperation and NATO are needed and that they can complement each other.’ And that is really true EPP leadership. Finland makes both NATO and the European defence stronger. Not only do you bring the strongest artillery in Western Europe, an army capable of fighting in -40 degrees, but also the experience of guarding Europe’s longest border with Russia. Finns know what it means to have Russians as neighbours. Like the Ukrainians, you fought in cold trenches and frozen forests to stay free. The only difference is that you stood up to Stalin alone, whereas today we stand together against Putin. This means not only supporting Ukraine as long as this takes, but also stopping Putin’s hybrid warfare against the Finnish border, as you said. Finland also is currently building up a fence to protect our external border. We, as the EPP do what is necessary to do and, dear Petteri, the Finnish border is a European border, as you said. The Finnish border is NATO border. No dictator can use illegal migration as a weapon to blackmail us as Europeans. Standing together always means to build up also a competitive Europe. And when it comes to innovation, the Finns are hard to beat. Finland is today a world leader in digital infrastructure, the first country in Europe to build up a 5G network and it is already ready to implement 6G. Finland, Europe’s forest, has made innovation the basis of its climate policy. Companies are investing currently EUR 200 billion, 70 % of Finland’s GDP, in our green transition. Almost 1 in 3 Finnish employees works directly or indirectly in the tech sector. So you are proving that innovation is the way to more, to better quality jobs. And how do we do so? High quality education, investment and research and development for more than 3 % of GDP and cutting red tape. To become more innovative, Europe must become more like Finland. Dear Petteri, your leadership is making Europe stronger, safer and ready to face not only today’s challenges, but also tomorrow’s challenges. Thank you for being with us.

Madam President, Commission President, Council representative, dear colleagues, I first of all want to thank the Commission President for today’s announcements, first of all, on the active help for Gaza, together with our Cypriot friends, and also the announcement that Bosnia-Herzegovina gets the status of really starting the negotiations now. Good news, thank you so much. Today, I want to focus on the perspective of the citizens of Europe and the biggest demand in this moment of time is security in a broader sense. Europe must take its security into its own hands. As Adam Smith wrote, I quote, security is more important than wealth. There can be no successful economy and social security system in an insecure society. That’s why we have to prioritise now security. For us as EPP, we had our congress last week in Bucharest. This is deeply rooted in our DNA. We were shaping NATO of today in the past and, even today, we are leading the way towards NATO in Sweden and Finland. Our member parties, as EPP, were the first to call for NATO membership. Socialists, I have again to say, opposed over decades for joining the NATO in Sweden and Finland. Today, we welcome both of them inside of the family. And we think NATO and EU, together now with a commissioner for defence, a single market for defence, our EPP initiatives, EPP has put this also in our manifesto for the next five years and we will deliver. But, after this, we have to do to do further steps, security in a broader sense. Example one: production security. Europe must become more competitive but also use its competitiveness against Putin. We are the third-largest economy in the world, 10 times in size as Russia’s economies. If we work together, no aggressor stands a chance against our production and innovation capabilities. But, are we really using them? The terrorist debate is damaging, but just as damaging is that we are not ramping up our production. We are simply harming ourselves. Every war-relevant product that is not manufactured in the European Union benefits Putin. We must do more so that Ukraine does not run out of weapons and ammunition. Example two: food security. The first thing Putin interrupted in Ukraine was grain production. Food security is not a luxury, but a vital asset. Farmers must be able to produce affordable and safe food at critical times. In the first year of the war, food prices rose by one-fifth. We were able to counteract this not with bureaucracy, but with reducing the burden on farmers. More grain instead of less helps the free world. The next CIP must place a greater emphasis on its own food security for Europe. Agriculture is a strategic economic sector to make Europe more sovereign. Every farmer contributes to making Europe stronger. Example three: energy security. Energy is not just a commodity. It keeps hospitals open and factories running. It is not without reason that European integration was founded on the defence and on energy. They are two sides of the same coin. They provide security. Example four: raw materials security. Innovation and access to necessary raw materials goes hand in hand. There will not be any innovative Europe if we depend on autocratic regimes to produce our innovation. To be secure, Europe must ensure access to the most important raw materials for technologies of the future. We have to stop being dependent on Russian gas, yes, but now we should not become depending on Chinese lithium. Europe’s security is being defended in Ukraine, but we are creating the conditions for this inside of the European Union. Let us think comprehensively about security for tomorrow. We can do it, so let’s do it.

Madam President, Madam Navalnaya, I was informed about the death of Alexei Navalny at the beginning of the Munich Security Conference, Friday, 11.00. Andrius Kubilius sent me a text message. My first thought was, ‘This is not a coincidence. This is planned. This is the killer, Putin, behind.’ Last week was another final wake up call. No one today can be so naive to doubt about the brutal and murderous nature of Putin’s regime. Dear Mrs Navalnaya, our thoughts are with you and your children and all those who loved and admire your husband, Alexei Navalny. All of Europe mourns a brave man killed by a brutal regime. Alexei Navalny loved freedom, and for that he was deprived of it and locked up in prison. Alexei Navalny wanted a free Russia, that’s why he couldn’t be tolerated in Putin’s unfree Russia. Alexei Navalny believed in people and knew how to inspire them. That is why the Putin regime prevented him from speaking. Navalny was a hope for Russia, but above all, he had hope. He had hope that the corruption will not be unpunished. His work helped identify many of Putin’s friends who are now facing the toughest sanctions in Europe’s history. He had hope in a democratic future for Russia. He showed Russians that one man saying ‘no’ is enough to scare a regime. He had hope in power of truth, the truth that Putin hides, that Putin fears, but to which he will have to answer. Dear Mrs Navalnaya, we admire your courage. You are keeping alive the hope for a free and a democratic Russia. As Europeans, and as democrats, we will carry that hope with you together. Alexei Navalny died for freedom and democracy in Russia, just as people died for freedom and democracy in Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, in their fight against an unfree communism. Before 1988, not many could have imagined that once we would be here together, living in a free and democratic Europe. So what I want to say is, everything is possible. That is why we will never give up the dream of a free and democratic Russia.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, Council, dear colleagues, as EPP, we are, first of all, happy to have the debate today. Such an upgraded top-level debate about the Defence Union. EPP was asking for this for a long period of time and that’s why it is good to have it. For us, first of all, I want to underline that the subject itself is not innovative at all. I said it already in my last speech: in 1945, Adenauer, Schuman, De Gasperi started with the Defence Union. The French Parliament rejected, De Gasperi had tears in his eyes after it failed in the French Parliament. The idea, in 1954, was, after the Second World War, unifying armies, never again war in Europe. What a fascinating idea behind it – and we are back to this debate. We are back to this debate – again we discuss this subject with the idea never again war in Europe. But that means today to be strong, and that’s why we are so happy to have this debate. The first point, from an EPP perspective, is: the debate about NATO-EU is, for us, not a debate at all. The NATO is fundamental for us. We also welcome Finland and Sweden joining the NATO. The EPP parties in Finland always were in favour – even when it was unpopular in the country – in favour of joining. Socialists finally also are supporting now joining the NATO from the both countries, so welcome in the club. But there is a good outcome. We have them now among us and, in the long run, we must understand that 330 million Americans will not defend, in the long run, 440 million Europeans. We have to do it by our own means. That’s why it’s not in contradiction, it’s the same as what we are doing here to strengthen NATO with a strong EU pillar. The concrete actions is now to implement the European single market, and there we welcome very much the presentation of Ursula von der Leyen, the ambitions of Ursula von der Leyen. The Americans have one tank, we have 17 different kinds of tanks. The Americans have 30 weapon systems, we have 160 weapon systems. It’s so obvious that we are wasting money. We have to buy European. We have to care about our jobs. We have to do common export rules for the future, to have common industry in defence. We need to coordinate all this. That’s why the idea to have a Commissioner responsible for doing so is exactly what we need – and on short term, we have to finance it. So, the EIB development is a good one, but I want to add also that, on the taxonomy rules, we have to rethink them, because, currently, taxonomy rules are also an obstacle for financing defence goods. That’s why we have to make it possible that the private sector is financing this. Listening to the Council speaker, I have to say that we heard so much already about these kind of speeches, that it is national responsibility. My clear demand is: stop speaking, please act now, on the Council side. We need also joint actions about the areas where we have an obvious European added value, and it is about cyber defence, about a missile defence shield, about the joint mission, for example, in the future of sub-Sahara to not hand over the region to Wagner troops or to the Islamist terrorists. That is another point for us that we have to care about the current state of play, on defending Ukraine. Erlauben Sie mir, auf Deutsch weiterzumachen. Wir spüren, dass die Geschlossenheit in der Europäischen Union leider Gottes bröckelt. Ich bin enttäuscht über das, was manche Führer auf nationaler Ebene die letzten Tage von sich gegeben haben. Emmanuel Macron hat eine sinnlose Debatte angestoßen über die Fragestellung, ob französische Truppen in der Ukraine eingesetzt werden. Diese Debatte war sinnlos und sie hat Europa und die westliche Hemisphäre gespalten. Und das Zweite: Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hat in Deutschland die Weisung ausgegeben, mit der Lieferung von-Taurus Raketen würde Deutschland Kriegspartei werden, was rechtlich falsch ist und was er ja leider Gottes bei den Leopard-Panzern auch schon formuliert hat, was nur die russische Propaganda bestätigt, nämlich, dass damit einige Teile Deutschlands, Europas Teil des Kriegs werden könnten. Beide Führer haben zur Spaltung Europas beigetragen und nicht zur Einheit Europas. Ich kann nur sagen: Hört damit auf! Putin hasst die Art, wie wir leben. Die Ukraine darf nicht fallen. Wir müssen Russland stoppen. Appeasement funktioniert nicht, wie wir es bei Nord Stream 2 erlebt haben. Und deswegen: Danke an Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Donald Tusk, der sehr stark war. Ich möchte auch Giorgia Meloni erwähnen, die im G7-Gipfel eine starke Rolle gespielt hat. Wir brauchen jetzt Menschen, die zusammenführen, die Einigung zeigen, und nicht Menschen, die spalten. Und deshalb: Putin versteht nur die Methode der Stärke. Und ich möchte am Schluss George Washington zitieren: ‘The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it.’

– Madam President, Commissioner Šefčovič, President Iohannis, it is good to have you in the European Parliament. Welcome. I want to start with a quote: ‘We cannot ignore the challenges we face on the eastern flank. Security and defence are fundamental components of the Union’s future’. These, Mr President, are your words from the Munich Security Conference in 2019. I was in the audience. You were right then, and you are right now. The war in Ukraine has been a wake—up call for many, but not for you. When you entered into office in 2014, you said that defence was one of the priorities for Romania and for Europe. In 2017, you managed to get the Romanian Parliament to increase defence spending to meet the NATO 2% commitment, and in 2023, Romania committed to spend 2.5% of its GDP for defence. It is your determination that made Romania a strong pillar of European defence and one of Ukraine’s greatest allies. This is leadership at its best – not speaking about problems, but solving them. Dear President Iohannis, when we look at Romania today, we see a true European success story. Since joining the European Union in 2007, Romania has become Eastern Europe’s second—largest economy at an impressive speed, and a modern, attractive country. Bucharest is number one in the Balkans for building up start-ups; Cluj—Napoca is a true European tech hub. This is a country full of talent that is fighting to turn brain drain into brain gain. Great leaders are not only great at the national level, but they are also great on European level. You also reminded us that in the Sibiu EU summit in 2019 – the first EU summit to be held on Europe Day – you got all leaders to agree on a Europe that protects its citizens. You have advanced many EU defence initiatives, always working for a strong EU pillar in a strong NATO. You started many strategic discussions on enlargement, and it was also your strong voice in the European Council that made it possible to open the accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova last December. Europe owes a lot to Romanian leadership and Romania owes a lot to your leadership. You showed Romanian citizens that a modern, pro-European Romania is possible and is successful. I also want to thank the Romanian Commissioner and all Romanian colleagues in the plenary who also served this broader perspective. Dear President Iohannis, for us in the EPP there is no doubt that Romania must fully join the Schengen Area. You have been ready for 13 years on this subject. If planes and ships are crossing borders without inspection, why should cars and trucks have to wait in endless lines? Romania and Bulgaria must mean Schengen. It’s good for security, it’s good for the business, and it’s good for our citizens. In the middle of the Brexit crisis in 2019, the spirit of Sibiu was fresh air to relaunch Europe. Now, five years later – if I may say this from an EP point of view – the EP family will go to Bucharest for the congress. We will go to Romania to kick off our campaign and to kick off the campaign for the European elections. Once again, Romania is the place to shape a safer home for all Europeans. Thanks for your leadership.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Madam Minister! Agricultural policy is at the heart of the debate this morning – and that's a good thing! Let me be clear: Agricultural policy is not a sub-division of environmental policy, but an independent, important topic that we are talking about. It is about the production of food – healthy food. We may take it for granted that the supply is ensured. From our point of view, it is an important point, and we thank the farmers for their work. Agricultural policy is also the future of rural areas – which are not peripheral but important habitats, the foundation of Europe. Yes, there are big tasks ahead of us: Farmers know this. We as the European People's Party support the initiatives on climate protection, animal welfare, species protection and groundwater protection. We have to tackle the tasks of our time. But we must not pursue ideological politics, we must address them with technical arguments, with substantive arguments. In the European Parliament's Environment Committee, there was initially a majority in favour of no longer classifying wood as a renewable raw material. This shows with all severity how ideologically politics has been made here in part. Every forester shakes his head when he hears this. For us as EPP, politics starts with listening. Strategic dialogue is therefore important. We are all out in talks at the moment, and many of my speakers will also describe that they like to listen to the farmers. I just want to make it clear: Twelve months ago today, when we, as the EPP, launched the debates on sound agricultural policy, and above all in the debate on the Nature Restoration Law, We had very different moods here. We said at the time: Both laws are simply ill-made laws. Nature restoration and the SUR initiative. Set-aside at a time when Egypt needs food is the wrong approach. And percentage cuts in pesticides are also the wrong approach to make sense. That's why we vetoed it and said: These initiatives are going in the wrong direction. We were insulted by the Social Democrats as climate deniers, Peter Liese for example. We have been insulted by Renew, the chairman of the Environment Committee, as Trumpists for making Trumpist policies. Today I hear that the French Prime Minister is scolding and criticizing Brussels for excessive regulation. Ladies and gentlemen, the EPP was right a year ago. Farmers know they can rely on us. The farmers know we're the lawyer. That is why we have asserted ourselves in terms of content. Yes, for climate protection, yes for species protection – but with the farmers and not against the farmers.

Madam President of the European Parliament, President of the European Commission, President of the European Council, traditionally, a debate about the outcome of a European Council meeting is a moment of criticism. I have to be honest. ‘It’s too slow, it’s too little, it’s too chaotic’. Today, I want to start with a ‘thank you’ because thanks to all the engagements, we achieved the result, we showed unity and we also didn’t allow Viktor Orbán to blackmail the whole European Union. So the result of last week is a good one. There was no option to fail again. And you managed to succeed. The European Council gave a green light to a recovery plan for Ukrainian people. A recovery plan to rebuild the destroyed villages. A recovery plan to put nurses and doctors in hospitals and teachers in schools. A recovery plan to build rehabilitation centres for wounded Ukrainians. And a recovery plan to help Ukraine to do all the key reforms for their European future. And I want to thank all of you for contributing to this. Just as also the Commission President did four years ago with the European Recovery Plan to unite Europe again, to bring Europe on one line, one voice and one goal, Ukraine will win the war and become a new member. And I want to thank Ursula for her leadership in this regard. Orbán came back to Budapest empty handed, or, I still hope, convinced a little bit that threats do not work. The only possible way for him to achieve anything is to work with Europe, not against Europe. And let me also thank in this regard the strong leadership and determination of Donald Tusk. I think it was important last week to have him there and to show a clear direction. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we achieved now. I was two weeks ago in Kyiv, and what I took away from Kyiv is that they respect and welcome what we are doing there. It gives them hope. It gives them motivation. But they still need a lot from us. And the most important thing they need is the weapons, the ammunition. We have to be faster. We have to deliver all the Taurus missiles from Germany. The end of this war will only come with weapons. Only weapons will shorten the war. Only weapons will tell Putin: ‘Stop! It makes no sense’. Europe’s economy is ten times bigger than Russia’s economy. That’s why we can be successful if we are united and strong. Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, lassen Sie mich noch einen zweiten Punkt heute einbringen, und zwar die Diskussion, die uns unsere Bauern auf den Straßen Europas auf den Weg geben. Ich möchte Ursula von der Leyen heute danken für die Botschaften, die sie an die Bäuerinnen und Bauern europaweit gegeben hat. Wir als Europäische Volkspartei verstehen uns als die Bauernpartei Europas. Ich erlebe, dass jetzt viele versuchen, sich als Bauernvertreter zu profilieren. Ich darf daran erinnern, dass wir vor gut neun Monaten hier im Europäischen Parlament Debatten dazu hatten, Bauern bereits hier vor diesem Plenum demonstriert haben. Ich war draußen. Ich habe damals mit den Bauern gesprochen, wie viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen meiner Fraktion. Wir wurden damals im Plenum beschimpft als Bauernlobbyisten – als Bauernlobbyisten, die hier nur ihre Interessen vertreten. Wir haben nur eines gefordert, nämlich: Hört zu, nehmt die Bauern ernst! Und dafür wurden wir beschimpft. Uns war immer klar: Bauern sind Bürger, und sie wollen keine linke Ideologie. Sie wollen ernst genommen werden. Sie wollen beteiligt werden, und sie wollen gute Politik. Und gute Politik startet aus unserer Sicht mit Zuhören, mit Ernstnehmen. Und als Europäische Volkspartei können wir auch Bilanz ablegen. Die verbindliche Flächenstilllegung im Rahmen der Nature-Restoration-Law-Gesetzgebung hätte weniger Nahrungsmittelproduktion in Europa bedeutet. Sie ist jetzt vom Tisch. Und auch die Europäische Union, die heute schon hohe Umweltauflagen hat, wurde mit dem SUR-Vorschlag, mit der SUR-Verordnung, die reine prozentuale Kürzungen vorgesehen hat – eine nicht sinnvolle Regulatorik wäre auf unsere Bauern zugekommen. Und dank auch der Arbeit der EVP ist diese Vorlage jetzt vom Tisch. Wir wollen Artenschutz, wir wollen vorankommen, aber gemeinsam mit den Bauern. Unsere Bauern in Europa sind keine Umweltsünder – nein, sie lieben unsere Natur und kennen sie besser als viele. Unsere Bauern sind keine Tierschänder – nein, sie arbeiten jeden Tag mit ihren Tieren. Unsere Bauern sind keine Agrarlobbyisten – nein, sie helfen den ländlichen Räumen, eine lebenswerte Region zu sein. Und dafür sagen wir als Europäische Volkspartei: Danke! Alle Bauern können sich sicher sein, dass wir auch in Zukunft die Bauernpartei Europas sind. Wir stehen an eurer Seite.

Madam President, Commission Presidency, I will start with a quote from a former Belgian Prime Minister and founding father of the EPP. Wilfried Martens once said: ‘There will be only an ambitious Europe or no Europe at all’. And at the beginning of this electoral year, we proved this. Ursula von der Leyen has demonstrated together with us in the last years that we are ambitious on climate policy, the Brexit agreement, COVID vaccines, RRF, Ukraine support and the migration policy. The EPP is not building castles in the air like some of the left are doing, and we are not having a wrecking ball in our hand like the radical right is doing. The EPP’s Europe is an ambitious Europe and we deliver. I want to thank for this. The European Council in December showed leadership: yes to Ukraine, yes to Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal on enlargement to start the negotiations, especially with Ukraine. This was an historic decision and gives certainty to the Ukrainian people. Yes, you can be part of our family. Yes, it’s worth to fight against Putin. Yes, Ukraine must win the war. But the European Council also failed when it was about the money – to create certainty on our long-term financing of the European Union. And yes, there is a question now with Viktor Orbán and Hungary on the table. For us, as the European Parliament, it was a huge success in this mandate to establish a binding rule of law mechanism. It was our common effort, our common success. For us, as the EPP, it was always important to have a fact-based assessment about rule of law in individual cases. And for us now, the important thing is that we need further clarification. As the EPP, we initiated a letter to ask in the BUDG Committee and also in the CONT Committee about the reasoning behind the decision of the Commission. And we are welcoming Commissioners Schmit, Reynders and Commissioner Hahn to inform us about this. That’s the next step in front of us. Hungary has for a long time here in this Parliament been seen as a difficult case. We have initiated an Article 7 case against Hungary. And if I may say so, it’s great to hear the Council telling us that the Commission decision must be assessed. But the most important thing – what I would love to see from the Council side – is to answer our request on Article 7, because that is on the table and until now the leaders had no courage, and obviously no time even, to discuss the Hungarian case on substance on the Council side. So please answer the demand from Parliament. The question now on the table for Ukraine is how to pay teachers, how to pay nurses, doctors and all of the soldiers? How to convince our American friends and the IMF to continue supporting Ukraine? Having this in mind, the end of January Council must deliver. We must be prepared for all options at the end of this month and we, as the EPP, also insist on the other elements on the MFF: don’t forget about migration, for example. At the beginning of 2024, I want also to speak about the broader perspective. An ambitious approach is needed – I said it. What do we have to do? First of all, we have to come back to a very old idea in Europe. Belgium had already ratified the European Defence Union before it was stopped by the French National Assembly in 1953, nine years after the end of the Second World War. Another former Belgian Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary General, Paul-Henri Spaak, said rightly afterwards: ‘There are only two types of states in Europe: small states and states that have not yet realised that they are small’. Europe must stand united against Putin. Now it’s the right moment to build up a European defence pillar. We cannot have 180 different weapon systems while the US only has 30. Imagine how much we could increase our defence capabilities only with the introduction of a single market for defence systems. Let’s build up our own defence capabilities in the next years, for example, with a European missile defence shield, a cyber-brigade or even a nuclear shield. With ambitious investments in European defence, we can keep the biggest promise of Europe, and that is a promise of peace. Alongside defence, migration is a second important pillar for our family. We have to finally complete now this legislation. Le Pen, AfD and Orbán are trying to torpedo the European solution because they want to use the substance of this problem for their egoistic political benefit. They don’t want to solve the problem. They are the problem. And that’s why we must finalise this legislation. And my appeal today goes especially to the Greens. I understand that they are not yet decided whether they can support the final outcome of this migration deal. Imagine for a second the Migration Act failing in this House. Imagine for a second. That would mean that we help Le Pen, AfD and FPÖ, that we would fuel extremists all over Europe. And that’s why it’s now the moment to take over responsibility and finalise this migration deal. And the last point I want to mention is economic issues for us as the EPP. This will be the driving issue for this election campaign – to have jobs, to have good incomes, to have prosperity, to have a strong economy. Germany is already in recession and we need not another European traffic light coalition. What we need is economic strength for Europe and that is what the EPP will be asking for.

Madam President, The Prime Minister is leaving, but he has now attacked me directly for almost five minutes. That's why I just want to make one thing clear: In my country, in Germany – and you know that as a German colleague of Social Democracy – the Democrats would find a consensus in the middle and form a government together, a grand coalition to keep right and left out of government. He does the opposite. Just to make that clear.

Madam President, so it is obviously another supporter and fan of Ms von der Leyen during the plenary. So, Mr Sánchez, welcome and congratulations on your election as Prime Minister of Spain. You know, politically I’m not happy, but as democrats we respect the outcome. You are present today to present the main outcome of the Spanish Presidency and you reported today quite technically, but you are not here as an official. You are here as a Prime Minister and politically, I have to say, the EU Presidency is not a success story, and I give you some arguments for this: you spoke about the economic future of Europe, Mercosur, 700 million consumers, the biggest single market in the world. We expected that you make sure that we sign it, that South America doesn’t fall into the hand of China. Have you spoken with Macron about this? Ukraine membership support, you spoke about this. Have you also spoken with Orbán about this? If the Council fails in this historic moment this week, it is also Sánchez’s failure. On the Hamas attacks to Israel, you overshadowed the last Council meeting, you divided Europe when you were applauded by Hamas terrorists, probably to please more the left Sumar, but not to unite Europe. Mr Sánchez, you have spoken and also I have spoken about democracy, and the basic principle of democracy is to tell the people the truth before the elections. You cannot promise not to give an amnesty until three days before the elections, and then give it. You cannot be in power for five years saying that an amnesty is not constitutional, and then you do it. Yesterday, the Spanish Parliament started a debate about the amnesty law, a law which your socialist predecessor, Felipe Gonzalez, opposed publicly and also called a risk for the Spanish Constitution. Europe is worried. The Commission is asking serious questions, Mr Sánchez. Today I only want to prioritise one special point: in the coalition text you signed, you promised Puigdemont a special committee in the Spanish Parliament to check judgements, a special committee on ‘lawfare’ that goes fundamentally against the rule of law, against the separation of power. And yesterday in the Spanish Parliament, when the team of Puigdemont were putting individual judges in the speech, even the Socialist team in the parliament were silent and shocked about what happened there. So I have only one question: will you go with the Socialist team in the Parliament in favour of such a committee, yes or no? And I am sure you will not deliver today, I am sure, and that is then a proof that the investigation from the Commission is urgently needed to have a look at what is happening in Spain. Europe is proud about very strong socialists: Willy Brandt, Francois Mitterrand. And today, Iratxe, we see now the developments in Spain, where people are concerned. We see the problems in Portugal, where the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was caught with EUR 78 000 in his office in bags of cash. Costa immediately resigned. We had this Kaili case now one year ago. And just to remember, to recall ourselves, it is not a Parliament scandal, it is until now only a Socialist scandal which is on the table. We have also Slovakia, where we have a pro-Putin team being there, still a member of the S&D Group in Europe, Pellegrini and also Fico. So I think you have a lot to do in your camp to clarify the situation there. On the European level, Mr Sánchez, I finally want to express one general point. We may have different opinions on content – Socialists, Christian Democrats – but for this European project this was always clear to unite, that Europe can only stand on two feet and not only on one. That’s why Socialists and Christian Democrats must find a common understanding. That was exactly the same as what Alberto Feijóo – together with others, Greens and Renew – was proposing in Spain, to bring the country together, to heal the wounds, to exclude separatists, extremists from left and right from getting power. You refused this. I want to underline that for us as EPP, the next Commission must be based on a cooperation on the centre parties in this Parliament. And I hope that the European Socialists will not do the same as you did: to refuse the cooperation with the centre parties in Europe. You will meet tomorrow in Brussels my predecessor as President of the European People’s Party, you will meet Donald Tusk, now elected Prime Minister of Poland. He defeated Kaczyński and he will restore rule of law in Poland. That is EPP. That is Alberto Feijóo’s party in Europe, and we are proud about this. Tusk will bring back rule of law to Poland, and we will also do the same in Spain. Madam President, as a final point, let me recall the words of Martin Luther King, which should be an inspiration for the upcoming Christmas break. I quote: ‘Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.’ Dear Madam President, Madam Commission President, Ministers, dear colleagues, this is a quote which we can reflect on. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Secretary, dear colleagues, I start with a quote: ‘The General Council of the Judiciary expresses its intense concern and desolation at the degradation, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain’. The General Council of the Judiciary a few days ago published this. Civil society in Spain is asking for mass demonstrations, hundreds of thousands are participating. The pictures on Sunday were very impressive. And first of all, I have to say that here in this House, Socialists, Greens and The Left were not even ready to allow a debate, a simple debate about what’s happening in Spain in this moment of time. I have to say, the Socialists and the Left lost all credibility to defend the rule of law on the European level with such behaviour. The Left is silent in this House, but Europe is not. That’s why I add another quote of a socialist, of Felipe González – a socialist, a statesman who brought Spain into Europe. I quote: ‘This amnesty destroys society. It is not part of the Constitution. It can put an end to the Constitution’. This is not a party issue. It’s about the rule of law. When corruption, violence and even terrorism goes unpunished, it breaks the rule of law. When people in Spain are no longer equal before the law, it breaks the rule of law. When misuse of public funds are not sanctions anymore, it breaks the rule of law. When people who are on the payroll of Vladimir Putin and do not respect the Constitution of Spain have the Spanish Government in their hand, it breaks the rule of law. And when there is a coalition text signed by the party leader, Sánchez, asking for a special committee of the parliament to check judgments of independent courts, then it’s fundamentally breaking the rule of law, dear friends. Commissioner Reynders, the people in Spain are expecting a Europe that protects the rule of law. You have to give an answer to all the European flags among the demonstrators in Madrid. Sánchez is elected – no doubt about this. He will come to Strasbourg in December. He is Prime Minister. We respect the majority voted for him. But the problem is you cannot promise not to do an amnesty until three days before the elections, and then you do it. You cannot be in power for five years saying to the people that an amnesty is not constitutional, and then you do it. That’s not acceptable. And as a Bavarian, let me also say that we have nowhere else in Europe with so many regional rights than in Catalonia, not even in Bavaria or in South Tyrol. So please stop separatism. We need more unity in Spain and we need more unity in Europe, dear friends. There was an alternative, and that was the alternative showed by Alberto Núñez Feijóo. Whereas Alberto tried to negotiate with Sánchez until the end to keep Spain in the centre, to form a government of national unity, Sánchez chose the votes of separatists. Whereas Alberto wants to bring the country together, Sánchez prioritised his personal egoism, chose to split Spain, stays from now on in the hand of extremists and risks a new referendum in Catalonia. Colleagues, the Spanish people have a Spanish and a European flag in their hand. Why? Because they believe that Europe is for freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and the EPP will never give up on defending these principles. Pavel defeated Babiš in the Czech Republic. Tusk defeated Kaczyński in Poland. In Portugal, our friends will defeat the corrupt socialist government and Luís Montenegro will become Prime Minister. And in Spain, Feijóo will finally defeat Sánchez. Sooner or later, Feijóo will be the next Prime Minister of Spain, whether you like it or not. History is on his side. The rule of law always wins at the end. And while Sánchez will go down in history as the man who broke the rule of law, Feijóo will be remembered as a Prime Minister who stood for the future of Spain and saved the rule of law in Spain.

Madam President of the European Parliament, Madam President of the European Commission, High Representative, dear Minister, dear colleagues, why do we have today’s debate? On 7 October, Israel was attacked. Israel was attacked in Be’eri kibbutz and 120 children, women and men were killed. Parents used their bodies to protect their children. Israel was attacked during a festival to celebrate peace, and 250 young people were killed. Israel was attacked in shops, streets, at home: more than 2 000 victims. Women being raped and paraded as trophies, including people with European passports in their pockets, which 20% of Israelis do. Israel was attacked, but also Europe was attacked, the European way of life was attacked. Israel was, after the Holocaust, the promise that Jewish people can live safe, in safety and in peace. And now Holocaust survivors were dragged out of their homes, being abducted and held hostage. The images of media broadcast since Saturday are the ones that make us put our hands over our children’s eyes. This is the evil face of terrorism. The brutality of Hamas recalls the worst atrocities of ISIS. Hamas terrorists attacked a party in Israel, as ISIS attacked the Bataclan in Paris. We see in Israel what we saw in Paris: resentful, inhumane attacks against freedom. And terrorists spread like a virus: in France a teacher was killed and in Belgium two Swedish citizens were killed. The virus of terrorism is also back in Europe. And it is a moment when we are tested. I tell you, these terrorists made the same fatal mistake all terrorists do: they underestimate the power of democracy and the will to defend freedom. Colleagues, these are days of mourning for the victims and of hope for those still in the hands of Hamas. But these must also be days of firm determination. We must be crystal-clear: we stand with Israel. No hesitation, no excuses, no buts. In such a critical moment, in such a critical situation, Europe has to stand together. And that’s why I thank Ursula von der Leyen for her trip of last Friday to Israel. I have to be honest, I was a little bit surprised that it took 10 days for the Council to have an online meeting, 10 days in such a moment. High Representative, dear Josep, I respect you personally very much, you know this. But in a moment when our neighbourhood is on fire and we know about the geopolitical importance of the region, Blinken is travelling to Egypt and Israel, and our High Representative is travelling to China in such a moment. And I was told that in the last four years, you never went to Israel to do talks there and try to establish a peace process in a solid way. So that’s why it is, in a way, a lesson learned: we have to come together and define a common European approach. For us as the EPP Group, some points are key. First: we are on the side of Israel. Second: we are fighting against Hamas, against terrorism, not against the Palestinian people. Third: we are ready to support with humanitarian aid and even with additional money, as Ursula von der Leyen proposed it. We care about every victim in this tragic conflict. Fourth: not one cent of EU money must end up in the pockets of Hamas or any other terrorist group. Fifth: whoever supports the terror of Hamas and Hezbollah is Europe’s enemy. We have to rethink also our policy towards Iran. Sixth: it is unbelievable what happened on social media during the last days: Hamas propaganda glorifying terror without limits. The killer of Brussels was online explaining why he was killing innocent people. Our youth listening online to these kind of things. This must stop. This must stop immediately. Zuckerberg and Musk must finally stop being the megaphone of hate messages. And seventh: we in Europe we must activate now our tightest screening mechanisms to make sure that no terrorists enter Europe through migrant routes. Dear colleagues, it is a moment where we are tested. We have to be together. I thank also Roberta Metsola for her trip to Israel. Our position is crystal clear. We stand by Israel’s promise for freedom, peace and democracy.

Madam President, dear colleagues, yesterday an important election took place in the European Union. The Polish people decided about their future, and this was a historic high turnout in the elections in Poland. People in Poland voted for hope, and that’s why they voted for the coalition led by Donald Tusk. I want to congratulate him. I think Donald Tusk will have now the chance to form a government which is clearly a strong defender of Polish interest. As an EP politician, I also want to express that he will be also a frontrunner for the European integration, with a clear mandate to defend the rule of law, to be a constructive and cooperative partner on European level. I think we all can be happy Poland is back different.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! Europe is helping. The right to asylum, the Geneva Convention on Refugees, are fundamental to the identity of our continent. Today, there are more refugees on European soil than ever before in our history – more than three million Ukrainians alone. Europe is not a fortress. We help more than any other continent, humanity is part of the European DNA. The second: Europe has borders: Load limits, reception capacities, many mayors, district councillors tell us that there are no more apartments in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy. The numbers have to go down, and we have borders at the external borders of our European Union, where the state controls who gets in, and not the gangs of traffickers decide who gets in. I would like to express my gratitude to our border guards, Frontex and the national authorities. They do an important service, they save, they help, but they also control. And the third thing that is our task now: Europe needs solutions. The Tunisian agreement is a real agreement. 90% of the boats take off from Tunisia. We can only properly control the external border humanitarianly if we do it in partnership with our neighbours. I would therefore like to thank the Italian Government, the Netherlands Government and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for concluding this agreement. I would like Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron to make a clear commitment to this agreement. We can only do this in partnership with Tunisia, however difficult this neighbour may be. And this agreement is also a model for other agreements in North Africa. Then the migration pact, the second solution we need, after seven years of torturous debate. Thanks to the Czech Presidency of the Council, Petr Fiala, a breakthrough has been achieved. The Commission, Margaritis Schinas, has done the essential work, we in Parliament have contributed, and we are now on the verge of doing so. We want to close by the end of the year. It is now up to the Von der Leyen majority to organise these majorities. It won't solve all the problems. As long as Africa is poor and Europe is rich, there will be migration. But we can manage this migration together, and we can also secure Schengen inside Europe. I would like to go a little further into the hypocrisy in the discussion that we have witnessed on this subject in recent years. We have had discussions about border security, whether we need fences. The highest fence that secures the external border in Europe is in Ceuta and Melilla. If the Social Democrats are of the opinion that fences are not necessary, then it would be good to dismantle this fence. The longest fence in Europe has been commissioned by a green minister in Finland, namely the one between Finland and Russia, which is currently being built. The previous government has ordered this. Denmark, under-social democratic leadership, is discussing whether we are conducting asylum procedures outside the European Union. Social Democrats are proposing this. And I can point out that now Fico has a chance to become head of government. By the way, we have hardly talked about it this week, I wonder why Social Democrats are so quiet. There is a threat of a new axis between Fico and Orbán that will change Europe. Fico, for example, will no longer participate in the migration pact, I assume. The previous EPP-led government was still on board. In this respect, I would like the Social Democrats to be clear on this issue. Where do you stand there? We will now again hear many speeches about the shift to the right in Europe when we talk about migration. I think the Social Democrats should clarify internally how they deal with Fico. Italy has opened all its ports today. The Italian government accepts all refugees. At the same time, the French Minister of the Interior said: ‘I will not tolerate a Lampedusa refugee on French soil’ and send troops to the Italian border. In Germany, NGO boats are financed, which I welcome in principle, but the German government does not think about where the refugees who are taken in in the Mediterranean will then be taken in, denying Italy the solidarity mechanism. This is the hypocrisy in the discussion we have, and we must end these hypocrisies. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the moment of truth before us. We say yes to the European solution. The option is, on the one hand, that we succeed, and with that we could close a large open wound in Europe. I share the suggestion that this is now a historical question that we are facing. Perhaps the biggest and most important reform in this legislature is to complete this issue for Europe. If we do not succeed, it will be a growth program for populists, for radicals, and we must prevent that together.

Madam President of the European Parliament, Madam President of the European Commission, Spanish Presidency, dear colleagues. Madam President, thank you for your speech today. You are right: the state of the Union is strong, also thanks to your leadership and the good cooperation with this European Parliament. Together – you said it – we made the right decisions in the last years. The decision on the European vaccines – not to have first- and second class Europeans – right. The decision on setting up a recovery fund – right. The decision to make Europe the front-runner against climate change – right. The decision to stop EU funds if the rule of law is not respected – right. The decision on the Brexit agreement, on sanctions against Russia and the decision to support Ukraine and its accession to the European Union – right. Together we are stronger: that is the message we can deliver to European citizens. Dear Iratxe, dear Stéphane, I also want to thank you for our successful cooperation during these crucial moments. The political engine of Europe works. The von der Leyen majority made it possible. For us, Europe is people’s home. We have to deliver for everyone and leave nobody behind. We must listen to the people’s concerns and not lecture them. And we have to build our bridges and not deepen the divisions in our society, and set people’s priorities for Europe. I want to speak today about three EPP priorities. First, this week, the European Commission lowered the economic outlook. Inflation is hitting all Europeans hard, the poorest even harder. That’s the biggest social question today. We need growth. We need jobs. We need decent incomes. We need prosperity. We need a strong industry. That is why your proposals today to reduce the bureaucratic burden with a competitiveness check, with a special envoy, with a moratorium, and to conclude new trade deals and to invest more in innovation is the right way. Competitiveness must be a priority for us. And that’s why I also thank you for the consideration to invite Mario Draghi to bring up further ideas. And we welcome the new phase of the Green Deal. To be clear, we as the EPP supported 32 out of 34 Green Deal files. We believe in the basic idea of the Green Deal. It is our generation’s obligation to deliver. But we also listen to workers, to farmers, to SMEs, to youth. Producing, for example, more food, not less, is our answer to cut inflation on food prices. The EPP is the farmers’ party and we are the party of the rural areas. Innovating more, not selling our technologies to China is our answer to lead a world free of CO2. We want a European Green Deal, not a Chinese one. We do not want to see, as you said, Chinese electric vehicles benefiting from our ambitious climate approach. We have to think more in business, not in prohibition models for our industry. We need green jobs for Europeans. And we have to be stronger and tougher when it comes to trade. Tougher because we need to activate now our trade defence instruments and to avoid a second solar panel attack from China, as you said today. And yes, also stronger on trade to build up a union of democracies founded on trade with Mercosur, Australia, India, Africa, and others. For us, trade and values go hand in hand. We have to strengthen our innovation union. Let us pull now the best minds together to be really on the front of innovation when it is about artificial intelligence and cancer research. A second priority for EPP is migration. Europe today welcomes so many refugees as never before in our history. Look what we do currently for the Ukrainians. We help, we welcome, we protect – that’s the European DNA. But on our external borders, we must decide who can enter and who not. The state decides – and not the smugglers – who can enter into Europe. That’s why we welcome the moratorium of understanding between the European Union and Tunisia. We must work with our neighbours to solve the challenges like we did it also in the past with Turkey, and we must finalise the migration pact. It is a unique, even historic opportunity to give a proper answer. Now it is in our hands. Let’s do it. I count again on the von der Leyen majority to achieve this. The third point I want to mention: what’s next for our European project. Twenty-five years ago, the euro was born. Despite many who criticised him, Helmut Kohl had a vision for Europe. What is the Europe of today? What is our project? First, Ukraine must win the war. And yes, Ursula, the merit-based approach of enlargement process is key to our approach towards Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine. We have to keep our promises. But we need to go further. De Gasperi already knew what is needed for a good future. That is why he burst into tears when they told him in 1954 that the European defence community was rejected. I think we have to come back to De Gasperi’s idea. We need a European defence union, with a defence commissioner, joint European forces on land, sea and air by 2030, and all this embedded into a strengthened NATO as a strong European pillar. That is the leading project of our generation. We need to lead – that’s the best medicine against extremists. Not fear, anger or even hate shall define the debate. Optimism, vision, values and the readiness for the next step to become a real European Union is the answer. Let’s start today.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Commission representatives have an intense week. In my view, everything has already been said about the summit, which is why I allow myself today to take my speaking time as an opportunity to say something fundamentally about the political business. First of all, dealing with Democrats. We have a tough argument this week about an environmental law, there are funny videos about Santa Claus, that's fine, and that's right. But yesterday the Socialists published a tweet in which Peter Liese was insulted as a climate denier. ETS, the emissions trading system, the largest climate law in the world, would not be conceivable without Peter Liese. I think we should stop defaming ourselves personally. If we continue like this, we need not be surprised if we lose people's trust. Let's talk about fake news. Yesterday Greta Thunberg was here in the house, and I also talked to young people. But yesterday there were also farmers at the door. 9.1 million farmers – their arguments, are they fake news? Are they lobbyists? Are scientists the only ones who argue correctly? I believe that science must be the foundation, the foundation of our decisions. But I also believe that the arguments of the farmers are important. Politics is not about being right and defaming others, but about listening, taking it seriously and weighing it up. The Commission's conduct. The Commission has proposed to implement Montreal. It is the Commission's right and responsibility to do so. Frans Timmermans has also announced that we will not present a new proposal if we reject it this afternoon. The European Parliament oversees the Commission, not the other way around. If a majority really said no today, it is the respect for the sovereign that the Commission is making a new proposal. It is even a scandal that the Vice-President blackmails the deputies with the statement: ‘Take it or leave it.’ About our institution: After the vote in the Committee on the Environment, the Chairman has publicly said that the result is ‘meaningless’. Everyone knows the European Parliament. In the end, a decision will be taken here in this House in plenary. The EPP will not vote closed this afternoon, we have different opinions, including in our group. The Socialists will vote relatively closed, the Greens probably 100% closed. Is this more democratic if we are united? I believe that if Canfin says that in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, a ‘meaningless’ The result has been achieved, then we destroy trust in democratic procedures. I think these statements are dangerous. Then, of course, the populist accusations. Anyone who doesn't hold these positions is a Trumpist. Parts of Renew are now Trumpists. Parts of the Dutch and Belgian governments are also Trumpists. We have to learn again to argue a thing. More respect, more listening would be good for European democracy. Referral back is also a democratic right of the European Parliament, which we should take seriously. Then, of course, the EPP's proximity to right-wing radicals. We as the EPP in Poland are fighting against the nationalists, not greens, little liberals. In the Czech Republic, Babiš still sits at the table of the Liberals, a close friend of Orbán, and in Slovakia, the parties of the European People's Party are fighting against Fico, who appears pro-Russian and pro-Orbán, still a member of the Socialist Party. The AfD, Le Pen and PiS are not only political opponents, they are enemies of Europe and thus also enemies of the European People's Party. Let's stop defaming and dividing each other. I believe that if we continue in this way, we will rather strengthen the radicals and the dishonesty in the debate itself. Regarding the window debate on migration, I would like to say that we have experienced a lot here on the subject of fence construction. In Ceuta and Melilla stands the highest fence that has been built. Sánchez didn't take it down. In Finland, a green minister has ordered the longest fence to be built between Finland and Russia. In Denmark, a social liberal country has outsourced the asylum procedure to African third countries. This is what we experience when we look at the realities. It's often just about the pictures and not about honest answers. I would like to make it clear to my group: The EPP stands by the Montreal objectives. The EPP believes that this law, which is in place, is a bad law, as three parliamentary committees have confirmed. The EPP takes seriously the concerns of the young generation, but also those of the farmers. We want to build bridges, and the EPP wants a new proposal to be put forward, which we can then also conclude in this legislative period. Last but not least: Yes, the EPP also wants a moratorium – as Emmanuel Macron called for, as Prime Minister De Croo called for. In recent years, we have pursued a lot of ambitious environmental protection and climate protection. We are losing jobs and prosperity. I am very calm as EPP party and group leader because we win. We gain trust in people. We have won all the elections of the last few months. We now have ten heads of state and government in the ranks of the European People's Party. We want to work with all those who say yes to cohesion, to factual work, to ideology, to radicals and to anti-Europeans.

Madam President, Vice—President Dombrovskis, President Christodoulides, dear Nikos, welcome in the European Parliament and congratulation for your success for your re-election as president, for the mandate the people of Cyprus gave to you. In 2004, your country fulfilled a long—time aspiration, joining the European Union. In 2008, you entered into the euro zone, making your common market – our common market and our currency – stronger. In 2012, Cyprus held its first presidency of the European Council, shaping the European agenda from a Cypriot point of view. In the last ten years, Cyprus went from a country on the brink of collapse, suffering from mistakes of a former government to a European role model of prosperity and stability. You have regained your country’s financial credibility after the financial crisis through a remarkable economic recovery with discipline, with hard work and responsible financial management. I want to thank you also personally, because as foreign minister in the cabinet of President Anastasiades, you also contributed to this success story. In 2026 – you mentioned it already – you will hold again the presidency from the European Council for the second time. We all hope it will be a presidency without a bloody and ruthless war at our doorstep. The Russian war in Ukraine has shaken the whole Europe to its core, and it rages on. Europe must continue to stand on the side of Ukrainians, whatever it takes. In these terrifying times, it’s great to see Cypriots next to the Ukrainians fighting for our European way of life. As Cypriots, you know first-hand what it means to be attacked, how it feels to live with the open wound of a divided country, an open wound for the whole of Europe. For us, as EPP, we stand united behind Cyprus. Our position on the Cyprus issue has always been crystal clear: Cyprus issues are European issues. There can never be a united Europe with a divided Cyprus. Dear President, in July 2024 will be the 50th anniversary of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. No one in Europe wants to celebrate this sad anniversary. We now have one year left. It is time to find now a solution to reunify Cyprus; it’s time to finally heal this wound. Now Erdoğan is no longer in an election campaign, perhaps this is also a chance for more willingness to compromise. Turkey must respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Cyprus. The two-state solution proposed by the Turkish side is unacceptable and its military provocations in the offshore drillings in the territorial waters of Cyprus are violating international law. Erdoğan must stop playing imperial games and come to his senses. Dear President, we must protect Europe from Erdoğan’s instrumentalisation of migration on the Green Line. Thank you for continuing the hard work and taking important steps to regulate illegal migration – you mentioned it – and to increase the number of returns of illegal migrants. Europe does not respond to Erdoğan’s blackmailing. Turkey is an important partner, no doubt about this, but we need now to be clear in our talks with Erdoğan. The European Union must win back economic strength, with Cyprus’ contribution. Let us do everything possible so that soon we can stop counting sad anniversaries of occupation and instead finally celebrating joyful days of reunification.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to make a brief intervention because this morning we had a discussion on agricultural policy in the European Union on the agenda. In this discussion about European agricultural policy, the concerns of our farmers were expressed, the concerns for the future that are there. Unfortunately, God was not present at this discussion. Commissioner Wojciechowski entered the Chamber two minutes ago. Now he's here, we welcome him. But I want to make it clear: In the future, we expect the Commissioner for Agriculture to respect the European Parliament for being present in this area during debates on agricultural policy. The behavior is so unacceptable.

Madam President, dear representatives of the Commission, dear Chancellor Scholz! Welcome to the heart of European democracy! Yesterday, May 8th: We commemorate and rejoice in the liberation from the Nazi illegal state. And today, May 9th: We are pleased – and remember – about the courage of the fathers and mothers of European unification. Just a day of the week, maybe it's a whim of history, a coincidence. But it is unbelievable that there were only five years between these two milestones in European history. France: De Gaulle reached out after all the German atrocities against public opinion. What courage, what leadership! Konrad Adenauer took this hand for West Germany. Even Stalin's proposal to accept a neutral, reunited Germany was rejected. He chose European unity. He chose NATO – against public opinion at the time. What courage, what leadership! Yes, today we are good at management, vaccine procurement, RRF, ten sanctions packages, energy crisis – all this has been managed. But De Gaulle, Adenauer, Kohl and Mitterrand were politicians who not only managed everyday life, but also had the power to shape history. Today, as in Prague, they are already talking about the abolition of unanimity in foreign policy, including the building of a European defence towards the European army, to name but two examples. Emmanuel Macron said so. We had set up the Conference on the Future of Europe to discuss these issues. Unfortunately, after Macron's re-election, there was no initiative, there was no convention. Chancellor, I have to say this again for us: We don't need any more keynote speeches. We now need the courage to lead Europe into the future. Europe needs leadership. And we, as the European People's Party, are now calling for a Convention to revise the Treaties in order to make Europe fit for the decades to come. You yourself have pointed out that only such a large Europe is feasible. And as a second consideration, I would like to add today: Europe is very grateful for the clear pro-European stance of the Germans, all the major democratic parties in Germany. But we also need orientation in the everyday life of Germany. The debate over the incinerator shutdown has left many perplexed. The debate on the Stability and Growth Pact is now underway. I don't hear much from Berlin about how to position yourself. We are faced with fundamental questions in our dealings with China. I read today that the German finance minister was not allowed to travel to Beijing. They want to invite Chinese investors to the Port of Hamburg. Your coalition partners reject this. The double worm, the 200 billion in response to the Ukraine crisis, has not been coordinated in the European Union, although the internal market effect behind it is large. And the arms deliveries to Ukraine: Some had the impression that in Berlin one does not believe in the military success of Ukraine. Only then was there the discussion about tank deliveries, and only after months of long, torturous debate are the tanks finally delivered. Many positions of your government – often too late and not ambitious enough. Europe needs orientation from Berlin. As chairman of the Christian Democrats, I would also like to point out that we are fighting climate change together. We have the ETS, Social Fund, border adjustment-Text agreed together here. Nevertheless, I say: That's not enough. The example of Viessmann. The sale of Viessmann is a warning sign. Clearly, our companies do not believe in the Green Deal. business caseThe one behind it. Are we creating more jobs in China than in Europe with our decisions – this is formulated as a question? At least that has to drive us around, and we have to see that competitiveness comes back on the agenda. Food production is also a big issue. Consumer prices are rising, and part of inflation is food prices. We would actually have to export more food to North Africa, which we do not, and at the same time our farmers are stylized as scapegoats. Nor does this fit together where we need a policy approach to coexistence. Last but not least, Mr. Chancellor, when you joined the SPD, Willy Brandt made a promise at the time. I quote: Dare more democracy. I would like to ask you: Was heißt das jetzt für Europa? What does it mean for us here in this Parliament for 2024? For me, as an EPP representative, an election involves a candidate, a candidate and a programme, content, ideas, so that people can decide. It applies to the election of a mayor, a chancellor in Germany, but also to the election of a president, a president of the European Commission. Unfortunately, the proposals of this Parliament on the Spitzenkandidaten process and also on the transnational lists, which have been adopted by majority here, have not been accepted by either Macron or Merkel, I say explicitly, nor by Sánchez, nor have they been accepted by you. In the spirit of Willy Brandt: Less backroom in the Council, more democracy here in this plenary in the European Parliament. Let's start with the future. Not tomorrow, but today.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, High Representative, Madam Minister! Dealing with China is the central geopolitical issue of our decade – our century. In preparation, I stumbled upon a quote from Napoleon, who said: “Let China sleep, because when it wakes up, it will shake the world.” It is clear: China no longer sleeps, China wakes up. Over the past few decades, China has been trying to grow up economically. Now China's economic growth is no longer enough, it's about political influence. China has a massive claim to power. Let's make the world more Chinese. It is therefore good that we are discussing this topic so prominently today. Above all, I would like to thank our President. Ursula von der Leyen has formulated her core messages clearly and unambiguously. Firstly: Respect for China as an important country in the world. Secondly: Partnership where it is in the mutual interest. Thirdly: Putin’s joint stop – we are testing China on this issue. The fourth is the strong partnership with our American partners to jointly respond to China, to defend our values with the US. Thanks to Ursula von der Leyen. From an EPP point of view, the EPP is pure. The second face of Europe was shown by Emmanuel Macron. Just hours after Macron flew back to Europe, Beijing launched an aggressive military maneuver that simulated a war of aggression on Taiwan with an armada of warships as well as ground and missile attacks on Taiwanese cities. It is about preparing for a military annexation. And the Taiwan question is not an abstract problem, it is the fate of 25 million people. It is not Beijing that decides the future of Taiwan, but the people of Taiwan decide their future. Into this military atmosphere, Macron says, I quote: "Europe must not be dragged into the conflict between Taiwan and China". I must say clearly: For me, this statement was a shock because, firstly, Taiwan is fundamental to Europe’s economy, as the High Representative has pointed out. 90% of our high-quality semiconductors are produced in Taiwan. Taiwan stands for freedom and democracy in this region. Anyone who attacks Taiwan wants to destroy a democratic community, as is already being demonstrated in Hong Kong. It is therefore naive to say that Taiwan is not our business. Of course, Europe must act independently. Of course, Europe must go its way confidently. Of course, we do not need to take over unexamined everything that Washington proposes – that is beyond question. But the Taiwan question is about tangible economic interests, and it is about our values. And those who are not clear here betray European interests and European values. Perhaps the French president should also ask himself who has applauded him in recent days. It was Putin, it was Le Pen, it was Mélenchon, it was Podemos, it was the AfD. They commented positively on the statements, and the rest of the Western world was at least silent. The populists wanted to fight Macron – and I am convinced that Emmanuel Macron is a convinced European who cares about European unity and who is on fire for Europe. But you have to hold on: Unfortunately, with his statement, he showed God the opposite. The unity of Europe has been severely damaged. Macron is denying Taiwan the necessary support and damaging transatlantic confidence. And Chancellor Scholz sells the Port of Hamburg or parts of it to Chinese state-owned companies. I understand when I see this that many states in the European Union are more likely to seek protection in Washington and not so much in Paris or Berlin when it comes to big questions. This did not promote the unity of Europe. One should not be surprised when Washington politicians now ask whether Ukraine is actually a European problem, why American taxpayers do so much to defend Ukraine and democracy and freedom. We as the EPP are of the opinion that: It is our transatlantic task to stand up for freedom and democracy. A close relationship with Washington is necessary. Unfortunately, last week's trip together showed God to the world the discord of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen stands for European values and transatlantic cooperation, and Macron destroys European unity and damages transatlantic cooperation against the backdrop of Russian saber-rattling. That's why my request is: At the next EU summit, we need clarity from the heads of state and government. Finally, a coherent plan of all the states of the European Union. Firstly, a transatlantic alliance, secondly, a trade union of democracies – Mercosur must now finally be concluded in order to make the partnership with South America binding. Thirdly, European technology leadership and innovation sovereignty, especially in critical infrastructure. Fourth, a European defence pillar that complements NATO. We are now naked in a world of storms. That is why Europe must finally become militarily strong. Fifth and last: The founding fathers of the European Union started with the Montanunion, with cooperation on steel and coal. That is why today, as a generation, we should complete this idea of building a Resource and Energy Union for Europe in order to be independent. We actually know what to do. The heads of state and government finally need the courage to act. No more naivety. Yes to transatlantic cooperation. Stop the egotism of our heads of state and government. Yes to the common defense of the European way of life.

Madam President, I just want to say that we fully support the legislative discussions. We are pleased that it has been released – Stéphane, we have no dissent at all. But we have an urgency now. We now have an emergency situation in Italy, and France does not help, Germany does not help, Austria, others, many states currently do not help Italy. That's why we have an emergency situation. We now have an emergency situation. The Renew Group cannot discuss this away, but it is there. That is why we need a discussion this week, and I would therefore insist on our request for urgency.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The number of migrants in Italy has increased by 300 percent compared to last year. This shows that we have a special situation. Italy has declared a state of emergency, and that does not give a good outlook on what will await us this summer. That is why we believe that it is important now to discuss the situation there. Other European Union countries have offered to help and support Italy. So far, however, this has not been materialized, it has not become concrete. So far, no concrete proposals have been made. This lack of solidarity is what we, as the EPP Group in Parliament, want to discuss. Italy helps – I would like to express my thanks to the people of Italy for helping that there is no blockade of ports – who want to support Italians, and that is why solidarity is now necessary. A debate is overdue.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, President Michel, I first of all want to thank the Swedish Presidency. The top priority of this Council meeting was competitiveness, and this was so urgently needed. In the last 20 years, we lost 30% of our industrial strength on the global share. This has to be stopped, otherwise we cannot defend our European way of life. We need to put aside the illogical positions and speed up with European competitiveness. And that’s why more innovation, less red tape, quicker procedures, more trade: this is what Europe needs and that is what is now also in the Council conclusions. And we have to implement it now. But the Council meeting was also overshadowed by a split inside of the German Government about the famous combustion engine debate. Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? We as the EPP always had a clear line about supporting a technological, open approach, if fuels can be part of a climate-neutral future. But, first of all, markets and consumers decide and not, first of all, bureaucrats and politicians. Other parties had more problems, with Wissing and Le Maire discussing these issues, and also, in other parties, they were to have discussions on this. Now this saga is over, but frankly speaking, a lot of observers ask themselves: what is now the promise to Wissing and the German FDP? So the legal set is unchanged. Do we need now a delegated act? Will the European Parliament be fully involved, in this House? We have a lot of discussions about involving the European Parliament and that’s why I think, in the process, the Commission also must clarify the European Parliament is fully involved. Democracy means the decision will be discussed and decided here in this House. Let me focus on an additional point. We cannot sell off our competitiveness to China, and Ursula von der Leyen underlined this. Our job is to create jobs in Europe and not, first of all, in China. And speaking about China, in November, Olaf Scholz went alone to China after selling the Hamburg Harbour to COSCO. Then our President Charles Michel was in December in China. Now, I learned this week Sánchez will go to China and at the end of the week Ursula von der Leyen, together with Emmanuel Macron, will go to China. In one week, two trips and three leaders, in a way. So, it is good that we are there, but I ask myself: do we really have a common voice? Do we have really a common understanding? Until now, we have no joint, common China policy formulated in one document. I must say, after the visit of Xi in Moscow, we cannot afford to engage with China from a position of weakness, without a clear position. We need European missions to China, not national or personal trips that undermine probably the European unity in the world’s eyes. We need a clear China strategy, especially when it comes to trade, innovation, resources, defending our European values. And we need it now. That’s why, let’s do this together. I want to underline that, from an EPP point of view, we have to do this together with our American friends. We should not allow that China is splitting up Europe, but we should also not allow that China is splitting up the transatlantic cooperation. Europe needs unity and ambitions in these things. Again, coming back to the picture of Xi and Putin in Moscow, everybody sees what are the alternatives: a freedom-based world dominated by us or by the autocrats. For us, the EPP, things are crystal clear. Finally, Council was also discussing a little bit on migration. I heard your statement today, President Michel, but I must say that this was not a sufficient answer to the development. We’ve had more than 26 000 migrants arriving on the Italian shores since January: four times the number for the same period in 2022. Europe is again sleepwalking into a new migration crisis, and that’s why we have to open the eyes. We have to see it. We have to discuss it. We have to give a proper answer. For the moment, I have to say, Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece are quite alone in these things. What we need is solidarity to fight against trafficking of poor people. We need European solidarity with strengthening Frontex and being also present in the Mediterranean to rescue people. And we need European solidarity for an asylum system which really works. Good news is that in the LIBE Committee, we finalised the vote yesterday so we are ready for negotiations. Let’s make now out of this start of the negotiations a success.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think the last half an hour gave us a clear idea and a proof that obviously the European Parliament, in these kind of agenda debates, is becoming more and more a platform for national debates. I think that’s obvious. We feel it all in this room and I want to wish all the best to all contributors to the debate for good headlines for tomorrow in Spain, in France, wherever you want to see these debates. I think, as the European Parliament, we cannot continue like this. That is my feeling. We have to focus on European issues. And I want to underline, like Jeroen already did and last time Iratxe, who is today not with us, did the same, saying we have to focus on European issues when we spoke about Spain. I quote now Stéphane, when he was last time saying on behalf of Renew, ‘But, dear colleagues, in view of the challenges facing in the coming months in front of us, let’s avoid these changes to the agenda. My group will systematically vote against requests to modify the agenda on purely national issues.’ That’s what Stéphane said last time. I really ask us all now, having in mind that we only have one request for rule of law, and that is about Greece, and having in mind that in six weeks in Greece there will be elections, if it’s even worth only having a national debate about this and in having in April a resolution. Dear friends, it’s purely driven by national interests to have a campaign here. That’s why, let’s refuse and let’s vote against.

Mr President! I did not want, dear Stéphane, to politicise the vote we have now. I just want to make it clear: The EPP will accept any outcome here in this room. The problem, however, is that your group does not seem to share a common position. That's the problem.