Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, dear absent Council, ladies and gentlemen! We directly elected representatives of the people clearly stated in February: The EU must be able to join in order for enlargement to generate added value for all citizens and with all. My urgent question to you, the Commission and the Council is therefore: What is the roadmap for the next five years to implement this task – concretely, clearly, with time constraints? Despite the Communication, there is a lack of a convincing strategy paper and a concrete set of measures that will allow for the social acceptance of enlargement in the Member States in a transparent manner and with the involvement of all citizens. The farmers' protests have shown us: Budgetary issues and allocation of funds, reform of the common agricultural policy, and the continuation of structural and cohesion policy based on solidarity need to be put to the test in order for it to work. Enlargement cannot and must not be a top-down process, given the potential opportunities but also risks in a variety of overlapping areas, but must be a bottom-up process, just the other way around. There can also be no doubt that the EU's institutional framework needs to be reformed in order to remain operational in the course of enlargement, as Mr Verhofstadt has pointed out. Finally: The most important prerequisite for enlargement to improve the living conditions of all citizens is peace. Without peace in Ukraine and Moldova, enlargement will not be successful. This is how I see the geostrategic investment as an assignment to the Nobel Peace Prize laureate EU. As this is my last speech here in the European Parliament: I thank everyone for the cooperation. Let us make enlargement a common concern of all citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, Secretary of State! Article 14(1) of the Treaty on European Union is very clear: Parliament performs ‘political control tasks’. When the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, I was a Member of the European Parliament for just a few months. Since then, we have tried – contractually, and I believe, also the right and condemn the legislative obligation – to adopt a regulation that is fully binding and directly applicable. This is intended to replace the Interinstitutional Agreement, which hitherto governs the parliamentary right of inquiry, and not to shrink further. Since then, we have done a lot of work and have tried again and again to involve the Council in the question of how we can anchor together an important pillar for the democratic design and necessary transparent work of the EU institutions. Fourteen years later, after my first work on this subject, I will leave the European Parliament with the coming elections. And the Council – and unfortunately also the Commission – has still not managed to respond adequately to Parliament’s proposal. This is unacceptable, and after all these years it is more than overdue for Parliament to vote in its 10th place after the European elections. The legislature must seriously and bindingly examine all political and legal avenues in order to achieve the implementation of the Treaty obligations with regard to the full right of inquiry, with or without legal support.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Almost eight years ago, investigative journalists published the so-called Panama Papers. That was shortly after the shocks of the global financial crisis. They revealed how extremely wealthy people use complicated ownership networks or even insurmountable corporate structures to protect their money from public control, to avoid taxes or even to launder money. Just as these networks of the rich and powerful operate globally, it is therefore important that the fight against money laundering also takes place across countries. From the perspective of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I expressly welcome the fact that the present trilogue result creates the necessary conditions for EU-wide cooperation between national FIUs, builds up the appropriate staff and also makes use of the new digital media. It is also important to strengthen the transparency registers with regard to beneficial owners. Strengthening controls and closing gaps will provide authorities, citizens and, of course, journalists with a clearer regulatory tool. Undoubtedly a far-reaching step, although certainly even more far-reaching powers would have been important.

Mr President, Commissioner! Despite the long-running accession negotiations, the countries of the so-called Western Balkans had fallen out of sight and needed social debates. Let me therefore turn to the outcome of the last summit of the 13th century. In December, I would like to underline again: a clear commitment to accession and, above all, to speeding up the lengthy process while ensuring the necessary reforms. In this context, the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans can provide important support. In order to achieve the desired convergence of living conditions between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans, one thing must therefore be clear: We need equitably distributed growth. Today, one in five people in the region is at risk of poverty. Instead of white elephants, we need investments that strengthen the economic viability of the Western Balkan countries and that respect human rights and environmental standards, including with regard to Green DealLaws such as the Supply Chain Directive. In addition to all the important conditionality, this facility sends a clear message to our partners in the Western Balkans: We haven't forgotten you.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. It has already been emphasized how much good this law can bring. I like to join in principle. Tomorrow's vote is truly a historic one for human rights and links political and economic responsibility, similar to supply chain legislation. We do not want products on the internal market that are produced from forced labour, neither in the EU nor in third countries. We are sending this as a strong signal to our citizens, but at the same time we are also setting a positive example on the international stage. However, we should be honest: The present compromise does not relieve us of the obligation to fundamentally question an economic system that accepts children and forced labour for its growth. For the 28 million affected worldwide, the next positive quarterly report is likely to be a weak consolation. Because we have not succeeded in bindingly enshrining compensation for victims of forced labour in the legal text. It is indefensible that those affected by forced labour do not receive reparation. Let us ensure that companies or state actors take on the corresponding legal and direct financial responsibility here! I therefore see this law not as an end but as a starting point for bringing social market economy into line with human rights and sustainability. Perhaps at the end of one: We have done a lot to get closer to the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Today's legislation directly affects Objectives 8, 10, 12 and 1. Let's stay tuned! The next Parliament must continue our efforts.

Madam President, dear colleagues, you all know that on 6 April, Mexico’s diplomatic mission in Ecuador has been raided by police forces violating international law. This violation of international law has been firmly condemned by the United Nations Secretary-General, and has led to a crisis in the bilateral relationship between the two countries. Furthermore, it aggravates dramatically the situation already very aggravated in the region. We believe that this House should not remain silent as the Vienna Convention is under attack, and encourage our partners to maintain relations based on international law. I therefore ask you to support our request for debate to be added on this week’s agenda, and to extend the session on Tuesday to 23:00.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear rapporteur! ‘The opposite of good is well-intentioned.’ This quote sums up the Commission’s approach to compulsory EU-wide licences. Of course, it is important that this instrument comes and harmonises the fragmented system in the EU – as far as the good intentions are concerned. But sticking to the ban on exports makes it clear that the wrong conclusions have apparently been drawn from the pandemic. The current proposal aims to ensure the health care of EU citizens, while at the same time signalling: Europe First. This logic leads to the sidelines. International solidarity and cooperation in times of crisis must not only be part of Sunday political speeches, but must also be expressed in concrete instruments such as this fundamental one. An example that illustrates the inconsistency: In the current form of the regulation, no vaccine could be exported to Ukraine, a country that we would otherwise, rightly, support by all means. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, let us be sensible and tomorrow we will vote in favour of such an export option and thus in favour of the amendments tabled by the Trade Committee, because we will only be able to survive the next pandemic or crisis together.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Let's not fool ourselves: The world is looking at us. Can we make it clear and binding for our companies to respect fundamental workers’ and children’s rights, to respect habitats worldwide and even to create the same rules of the game – for all – as companies demand? But after two years of deliberations, negotiations, debates and a trilogue compromise, the project is now facing a heap of shards, the consequences of which we certainly cannot yet foresee. Without a minimum of reliability and trust, our ability to act is ultimately at stake. Unfortunately, the elephant in the porcelain shop is sitting in my hometown of Berlin with the German government – I have to say it clearly. Despite all the excuses and opposition from the FDP – I agree with all colleagues – the situation is clear: The chancellor sets the guidelines of politics, as the German Basic Law says; One of the constitutional pillars of German politics is undoubtedly the further development of European legislation. So let's make an effective supply chain law, now. The Council must follow the path... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The agenda of the ministerial conference in Abu Dhabi is long – the revival of the dispute settlement mechanism, the second part of the fisheries agreement or the extension of TRIPS, to name but a few. But we must realize that the big, unanswered question is the WTO reform. How can this institution become fairer and more sustainable? Two-thirds of WTO members are developing countries. Nevertheless, the interests, structures and the previous logic of the global North determine. That's why I say: If we want truly fair trade and cooperation and a functioning, manageable world trade system in the urgent time of climate change, it is time to abandon the structures and mechanisms that no longer work. We must finally implement the Doha Development Agenda. We need to organise our world trade system in a way that is more oriented towards the prosperity of all and the preservation of the planet. Trade is not an end in itself. In times of crisis, cooperation is essential. I therefore hope that the parliamentary dimension of the WTO makes it clear that the WTO can no longer duck away, that trade rules are linked to labour rights, inequality, climate and environmental issues.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! On February 25, the citizens of Belarus will vote. On this day, the Lukashenko administration has placed both parliamentary and local elections. It is already clear: There can be no question of free elections. After all, it is clear to everyone what characterizes the political reality in the country: the prohibition and dissolution of all opposition parties; the repeated and intensified arrest and expulsion in January and February of hundreds of opposition activists, journalists, including their relatives, in particular women; steadily intensified repression against active trade unions, media, arts and culture; an atmosphere of intimidation and insecurity of many people in the country; the injustice against at least 1 500 political prisoners – many of them seriously ill and ill-treated. All of these are attacks on internationally certified personal and political rights of the people of Belarus. And the intimidation should be further promoted. We therefore say loud and clear: This madness must be put to an end! Instead of preserving power for the regime, it must again be about future prospects, about a sovereign and democratic Belarus. It is precisely for this reason that we remain in contact with the people of the country, with Belarusian society. Let us use the few remaining bridge pillars to support all those in the country who want to go a way out of the current impasse. Let us use all our weight so that the concrete concerns of the people in the country are not forgotten.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Whether it is about expanding the electricity grid in Madagascar and its rural areas or improving the supply of drinking water in Ecuador: It is important for the European Union to follow words with the finally real deeds. Let's not fool ourselves: According to UNCTAD, there is an annual investment gap of $4 trillion in developing countries. The €300 billion allocated by Team Europe by 2027 is therefore just a drop in the bucket. The investment needs show: The EU is certainly not up to the challenge alone. That is why I would like to mention the fundamental problem of this instrument: The geopoliticization of development cooperation. No discussion about it Global Gateway without a comparison to Belt and Road Initiative off. The prevailing misunderstanding in this context is that we are in a development policy race with China. The real race, however, is against the time that remains for us and the partner countries, which are to be involved on an equal footing in shaping a self-sustaining economic development, to fight climate change in a socially acceptable way. The urgency of the problem calls for a massive acceleration of the implementation of the projects. Instead of carrying out geopolitical rivalries on the backs of developing countries, we need to pool our resources and invest money meaningfully and in line with the 17 SDGs, with the help of existing multilateral institutions.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President! First of all, I would like to thank both rapporteurs and all shadow rapporteurs for good reports, the importance of which should not be underestimated for the future of European citizenship. However, I would like to emphasise, in particular with regard to the report on European citizenship, that with this report we are confronting a key challenge of European policy offensively. Many people are unaware of their European citizenship and do not exercise their rights under the Treaties. It is therefore necessary to identify instruments and ways and to summarise them in the Citizenship Statute so that they can and want to exercise their rights. Our proposal for a European Citizens' Card can not only create identity, but also enable and improve participation in elections and European citizenship, i.e. participating democracy. Citizens would literally carry their right to democratic participation with them at all times. Finally, Mr President: Already the Future Conference called for strengthening European identity and citizenship. Let's turn it into reality. Self-confident EU citizens are also a guarantor of closer cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments of all Member States in the interests of Community responsibility in and for the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner! If human rights and political freedoms are disregarded and virtually abolished in our neighbouring country, we as the European Parliament cannot look the other way. We rightly denounce the persecution, ill-treatment, imprisonment or expulsion of critical voices, such as Mikalaj Statkevich's, the suppression of all independent social or political forces, the attempt to eradicate any contradiction and thus eliminate democracy! Today we strongly demand from the Lukashenka administration the immediate release of Mikalay Statkevich and all other politically persecuted people in Belarus. Let us show in practice that the EU institutions and the EU Member States stand with Belarusian civil society. People who have to flee the country need easier access to entry visas and residence permits. Let's keep the doors open! The efforts made at the UN level to hold perpetrators accountable deserve our full backing. Let us act as a credible and reliable partner in our Eastern neighbourhood!

Mr President! The United States is undoubtedly a central partner of the European Union, a partner with whom we have been united for decades, indeed for centuries. But the world beyond this partnership is changing rapidly. And we all know it: The challenges facing the world community are colossal. My appeal is therefore: Let's rethink transatlantic relations. Not in contrast to the new, to the coming heavyweights of the international scene. Not by using our currency as a weapon and thus sawing ourselves on the branch on which we sit. Let's take US economist Nouriel Roubini seriously. So let's use our solid relationships to break new ground. An example: the Joint Trade and Technology Council. Let us create a permanent parliamentary body with this Council and show what parliamentary scrutiny of international trade relations can look like. A multipolar world deserves transatlantic partners who strengthen multilateral fora that work credibly and seriously to solve global problems.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! What Parliament insists on in this report is anything but a revolution. A uniform electoral procedure, a common election date – these objectives were already formulated in Article 138 of the Treaty establishing the EEC for the then Parliamentary Assembly of the Community. More than 60 years later, we seem to be on the spot when it comes to harmonising European electoral law. We need to be able to act, yes, and that includes being able to meet the challenges we face as a continent. We must also be able to count on the trust and active commitment of citizens. The organisation of the European elections is of symbolic importance for this, and the strengthening of European political parties is also overdue. Above all, however, the Member States should finally have the courage to take the next step towards truly European elections. An additional European constituency and the establishment of the Spitzenkandidaten system would have the potential to implement the Community character of this election, to give the electoral act a completely new meaning and to strengthen democracy. It was only last year that we, as Parliament, adopted a new proposal for a uniform electoral system. Once again, it is the Council that is delaying the reform and, unfortunately, it is not present in this debate today either. With this report, we reaffirm our vision. In my view, it would be a mistake to wait for further years to harmonise the European elections. I therefore support this report and congratulate the rapporteurs on their work and wish us all enough courage and foresight to act accordingly after the European elections in June.

Mr President, Vice-President, Council, having listened carefully to this debate, I would say that I am proud to be part of this report’s working structures and team in this House. That means that I remind all of us, all of you, that the founding document of the integration process was and is the manifesto of Ventotene. When it had been written in the darkest times of the European history, when Spinelli and others thought about the question of how we would organise the co-existence and co-living in friendship, in peace, of citizens who shot each other. I think we should always remind ourselves of this antifascist founding consensus of the European integration process. Yes, today we have to face that changes to the Treaties are necessary. The social reality – you have described it from the varied points – is under danger because there are neoliberal policies which are worrying the citizens in a lot of Member States. And we have to think, has an internal market foreign policy interest? Has an internal market interest in struggling against the climate change to keep the biodiversity alive? Etc. And these are the challenges we have to face. Therefore, the citizens in the Conference on the Future of Europe expressed a strong will in their recommendations to change the Treaties in their interests. So we have to deliver to the citizens to make the European Union working for their interests and not from national interests. It is not any longer only the nations and the states who are playing a role. The citizens have to take part in the decision-making, and therefore we need to open the Treaties and change them in that direction.

Mr President, assembled Vice-Presidents, dear Presidency of the Council! First of all, I would like to thank my four co-rapporteurs and all the staff who have worked on this report as assistants, as staff of the secretariats of the Group, the committee secretariats. But I would also like to say thank you to Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, who brought ECR's perspectives to the work, but who did not want or could not support our offer today. Together, we have ventured through the Treaties, paragraph by paragraph, over the past year, and have made historically significant attempts to find compromises on the implementation of the recommendations of the EU Future Conference as the red guideline of our work, to translate the conclusions of the Future Conference into politics, both in the citizens' aegis and then jointly in the plenary conference with representatives of representative democracies at EU and Member State level through to the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee or the social partners, organised civil society and freedom of expression on the digital platform. Thank you for the initiative, Vice-President Šuica! This was the promise and assumption of responsibility by the Council, Parliament and the Commission on 9 May 2022. The report is now delivered by Parliament. We want strategically and legally bindingly to enable the Council, together with the European Parliament, to convene a Convention amending the European Treaties in accordance with Article 48. Such an undertaking, I think, should be understood not only as an unusually large legislative initiative report, as a parliamentary legislative proposal, but also as an experiment in democracy. From the outset, our approach was consensual to work out treaty changes in the institutional sector as well as in the policy areas for which the Future Conference highlighted the need for change. Instead of voting paragraph by paragraph on our proposals, we tried to discuss the usefulness of the approaches and to always think along and understand the red lines of the other groups. The fact that we have managed with all our efforts to achieve a good result, in my opinion, is therefore a success in itself, but also a lesson in how deliberative democracy can work. Without this process, this report would not exist. It was also an extraordinary fileNot just an extraordinary process. Einerseits der Versuch, unseren Versprechen gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern der Zukunftskonferenz und vielen anderen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU nachzukommen, die tagtäglich von sozialen Problemen gekennzeichnet sind, die von Sicherheitsfragen, von Umweltherausforderungen usw. in krisenhaften Prozessen geprägt sind und verunsichert sind, und andererseits auch im Wissen darum, wie nötig eine Reform der europäischen Institutionen gerade angesichts dessen ist, um den globalen Krisen und der potenziell anstehenden Erweiterung souverän begegnen zu können. The fact that these upcoming attempts at reform are now taking place against the background of a large public participation on the future of the European Union is therefore a historically unique process. And that is why it is right and important that the left in Europe, in the EU, also participate in this discussion in order to help shape the treaties for a better EU. It is clear to me and it is at least as important to implement the recommendations as far as possible. I hope that the report will find broad support here in this House tomorrow, so that Parliament, with its promise, will also win the Council to take up this work and then initiate the change of the Treaties in a broad social dialogue.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! My group is critical of this agreement, and farmers in Europe are also concerned, do not feel sufficiently prepared and supported by politics. But without hiding the risks and downsides, in my view, this is also about the question of how to make international trade in goods and services fairer, what standards we want to set for modern trade agreements. And with a far-reaching and enforceable sustainability chapter, the agreement with New Zealand undoubtedly takes up an important demand from Parliament and civil society. Trade must not be to the detriment of workers, indigenous people or the environment. This requires clear standards that we have been able to agree on here with our New Zealand partners. These are important advances towards a fairer trade policy, and at the same time we could have achieved more: measurable milestones on climate action, better rules on the liberalisation of environmental goods and joint efforts for more sustainable agriculture; Too many parts of the sustainability chapter are not enforceable. When it comes to the Commission, New Zealand is only the prelude to many more agreements. My appeal is therefore: Instead of celebrating what has been achieved as the new gold standard, we should make sure that it becomes the minimum standard for all future agreements. Let us make Europe a trading partner that does not conduct its business on the backs of employees, not at the expense of the environment!

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Madam Council representative! In 1985, the EU's trade dispute with the United States began. The recent EU-US summit also failed to bridge the main differences. In the dispute over protective tariffs on aluminium and steel, no agreement is in sight. The conclusion of the critical raw materials agreement, which is so important for Commission President von der Leyen, remains a long way off. Let's be honest, especially due to differences with environmental standards and workers' and women's rights. So what remains of this summit? The final declaration underlines the role of the Trade and Technology Council as a key forum for economic cooperation and will be upgraded to a negotiating framework in principle. What does that mean? Where is the parliamentary control that we are struggling for? In addition, the two blocs want to set rules for the technologies of tomorrow. Multilateral fora are thus circumvented and with them also the need for clear mandates. But this is worrying in a rapidly changing multipolar world.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! We all know: The mid-term review of the Sustainable Development Agenda is staggering. 85 percent, that is the proportion of the targets that we are not likely to achieve by 2030. We are even falling behind on key issues such as the fight against hunger and extreme poverty, climate protection and species protection. Sure, the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises have caught us cold. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what course changes are needed now, what setting screws we can immediately turn to deliver on the promise of sustainable development for the entire planet. For too long, political decisions have been guided by the need for growth in our economic system and by GDP as the only target. The Beyond-GrowthConference in the spring of the year here in our house has made it clear that it cannot go on like this. At the same time, profit logic ensures that developing countries are crushed under a growing debt burden, rather than being able to invest their own and other money in building their own economy. That is why we need a rethinking towards an economic form that works for people and not the other way around, including a debt cut that should be part of it. In the remaining years, the SDGs must be made the central horizontal guideline for all policies, at international, European and national level. To achieve this, we need strong multilateral institutions. The implementation of the various commitments taken on by the G7 and G20 with regard to funds in the amount of tens of billions is finally to be realized. COP 28, MC 13 should be used in a concrete way that ensures that rules are respected and responsibility is shared fairly and inclusively. And that's now, not tomorrow, because we're all running out of time.

Madam President, Mr High Representative! We now have a geopolitical commission since 2019, and I think we should actually put the debate upside down. We talk about apples, pears, we throw foreign policy interests and world economic issues into one pot. But what do we really want to talk about? How do we want to shape geopolitics and geoeconomics of a European Union that still sees itself today as a customs union and internal market and not as a common entity that has foreign policy interests? By wrestling for it: What must a foreign policy union, a defence union, look like, and then where are the tasks that lie ahead? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we have 30, a maximum of 40 years to have the existence of human civilization on our own. That means we shouldn't look: What are the Russians doing now, what are the Chinese doing, what are the Americans doing, the Africans doing? What are the real tasks to preserve planet Earth and human civilization and, in this sense, to position the European Union as a geopolitical actor? Let's focus on this question. Let's strive to develop instruments where we can work together with others to tackle precisely this central challenge. And what colleagues have already said: Yes, it is a question of mitigating the climate catastrophe. It is about tackling the challenges of the future. It is about protecting the poorest and implementing the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. The outcome of the September summit in the United Nations was so pathetic that it is actually tragic. That is why I believe: Not militarization, not increasing defense capabilities should be the yardstick for a geopolitical commission and geopolitics, but the shared responsibility for the survival of our civilization.

Madam President, Commissioner! It seems to be an institutional truism that FTAs ensure sustainable growth, competitiveness and the EU's strategic autonomy. This is stated in the Commission's communication of 27 September. It highlights, among other things, the European Union's commitment to a rules-based trading system and the reform of the WTO. But let's be honest: What we need to realise is that every trade agreement reduces the incentive to find multilateral, community-based solutions for sustainability. These agreements are therefore stumbling blocks and not stepping stones on the way to a fair and inclusive world trade system. At the same time, we must increase the number of steps in the face of global challenges, also with regard to a newly established industrial and economic policy, a socially responsible European Union. This also applies to the so-called clubs for critical raw materials, which follow the same logic of exclusion. Hence the question: For whom is the promised growth sustainable in these free trade agreements? For the indigenous peoples of Chile? It is time to challenge the current trade doctrine, build and strive for a trading system that benefits everyone – beyond strategic autonomy and supposed economic security – with contracts for fair trade and cooperation and respect for the borders of our planet.

Madam President, Not quite the Irish conclusion to this debate. I would like to reiterate: The coordinated withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty is an overdue step – more must follow. That is why I can only underline: Misinvestments in fossil energy production do not deserve protection status. A next, mandatory step must therefore be to challenge the ‘sunset clause’ in order to finally cancel the investments in the energy sector, even after 20 years of withdrawal from this treaty, which are secured there. We must also quickly put aside this brake block for a decisive energy transition. But I also call on the Commission to reconsider its commitment to special rights for investors at the Multilateral Investment Court. Because in the event of a conflict between the group and the public interest, it is always necessary to weigh up the legal interests. Our public judges are well qualified for these tasks. The overpaid investment lawyers of the special tribunals are not. This is therefore an opportunity to overcome a path dependence and to tackle a comprehensive turnaround in European energy policy together.

Mr President, Commissioner, Presidency of the Council! Moldova has been an acceding country to the European Union for almost 16 months now, and it is important that we talk today about the path that still needs to be taken. The challenges facing the country and its citizens are huge and enormous. Families are struggling to live their daily lives, and yet the country has taken in countless families of over 100,000 war refugees from Ukraine. But we still have to be honest. The hurdles that the country still has to overcome are great. From a viable solution for Transnistria, the containment of endemic corruption, judicial reform and the preservation of an inclusive, plural democracy, especially in view of the frozen Transnistria conflict and the Russian aggression in Ukraine with its regional and international consequences, lived media freedom to a non-discriminatory life for Roma, LGBTQ and others, much remains to be done. And all Moldovans must have a say, be able to play a democratic role in this accession process. Yes, let's take a decisive approach to accession and build together on a project that holds up, that fulfils hopes – by 2030 and beyond – for which all people in Moldova, including Transnistria and Gagauzia, must be involved.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The trade policy instrument against coercive measures is undoubtedly important. But it also shows clearly – and here I have to pour water into the wine – how the Council and the Commission tie trade policy and foreign policy together. I am critical of this geopolitical and geoeconomic interconnection, because it weakens Parliament through the back door. In trade policy, we are on an equal footing with the Council. However, because of the foreign policy link, it is the Council that holds a political monopoly on this instrument, while we as parliamentarians are banished to the spectator ranks. This law risks setting an undemocratic precedent in EU trade policy. It's time to take off the geopolitical blinders. I recall that in the past, a large part of the economic coercion against European companies came from supposed partners. That's why I mean: We need to further develop the instrument so that economic pressure is really counteracted, no matter from which side and focused on the economic and social interests of the trading partners. We should remember the strengths of the EU and resolve conflicts within the framework of multilateral institutions. Trade must be open, inclusive, fair, rule-based.