Debate contributions by Bas EICKHOUT

Madam President, first of all, a warm welcome, Mr President, good to see you again. Also, on behalf of the Greens, we are looking very much forward to working together with the Cypriot Presidency because it's going to be an interesting half year, let's put it this way. First of all, I really want to thank you for your immediate actions also towards Mr Zelensky and showing support for Ukraine, also by receiving him in Cyprus at the beginning of the year. I think that was a very strong and important signal to give and I really want to thank you for that. Nevertheless, and I think we all know, the Cypriot Presidency will probably be a bit overshadowed by a certain person on the other side of the Atlantic, that being Donald Trump. I think your priorities on security and autonomy are well chosen, but maybe even more urgent than you would have thought before, or you were really visionary in coming up with those priorities. But, let's be honest, Donald Trump is in a hurry because after the summer he will be occupied by midterms. So all his plans that he wants to do will be happening in the coming months under the Cypriot Presidency. So it will be very important that Europe is acting decisively and also accurately. This also means that we have to look at how Europe is functioning. Manfred Weber was asking, should we not also look at how Europe is functioning? Well, I think the answer is quite clear: we have to. We probably also need initiatives on this from the Cypriot Presidency; how can Europe react more forcefully, stronger and more urgently? But also we need to fight indeed for our autonomy, our sovereignty, on three fronts: military, digital, economic. Military – we have talked a lot about. Digital – we need to come up with Europe's alternatives. We need to fully implement the Digital Services Act to preserve free speech, we need to come up with digital service taxation to make sure that the digital dominance of the US is being handled by the EU. On economics – it's a very simple issue. Europe needs to come up with the alternative to Trump. It is fossil autocracy versus renewable democracy, and Europe stands on renewable democracy so therefore stop with this agenda of deregulation because that's a Trump agenda. We need to come up with our own agenda, and therefore also next week's Accelerator Act and coming up with European provisions are going to be essential if we really want to be autonomous as Europe economically as well.

Madam President, a divided Europe is the biggest gift you can give Putin and Trump. And this Council is a moment of truth. After the US national security strategy, people are saying that this is a wake-up call for Europe. The wake-up call was on 14 February, when JD Vance was exactly laying out what is now in the national security strategy. So this is not a wake-up call, not for the first time, we have been woken up. How many times do we need before Europe really wakes up? The US strategy is clear; it's the same as Putin's. It wants to divide Europe. It wants to weaken Europe. It is against our liberal democracies. We need to stand up and fight for a European sovereignty. And that means the Council needs to deliver. On Ukraine, first, we need to use the Russian frozen assets and we demand a solution and a deal in the Council tomorrow. Get it done, show solidarity and help rebuild Ukraine! But we also need serious security guarantees for Ukraine, and there will only be long-lasting peace in Ukraine if Ukraine has a future within Europe. But we need to discuss our relationship with the United States as well. Madam President, you said we need our own strategy. Well, since 14 February, we only made ourselves more dependent on the United States. Yes, we put away our dependency on Russian gas, but we exchanged it for dependency on American gas. That is the wrong direction after 14 February and that needs to change. When is Europe finally going to learn? We need a strong, united, sovereign Europe; a Europe that fights for our freedom of speech and not speech being determined by algorithms designed by US tech autocrats. Truly implement the Digital Services Act – our citizens deserve real free speech and needs protection from the US tech bros. But also economically, we need to be strong. It makes you think, dear EPP, when the American ambassador is applauding what you are doing with the due diligence law. That is an American agenda – an American deregulation agenda – that the EPP is providing too. Be proud of that, you are serving the Trumpist agenda. And also, sorry to say, Madam President, what you did yesterday on the car regulation proposal, it's the best Christmas gift you can give to China. You are throwing the European car industry under the bus. You said the future was electric, and you were right. But now you are casting doubt for our own car industry, and that's the best gift for China. The future is electric, and the only choice is will we be part of it or will we just import future cars? That's the choice. So therefore, Madam President, rethink your omnibus agenda because it is a deregulation, Trumpist agenda. Last point for the EPP: you promised during the elections to only work with those who are being pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, pro-democracy. Well, you have heard the speeches of your new friends. Rethink under your Christmas tree, and not during Easter, but over Christmas.

Mr President, let us be honest, the COP30 result is disappointing. I understand why the Commissioner needs to be a bit more diplomatic, but we can say what it is: it was a disappointing result for the world and for Europe. Ten years on from Paris, where we are at now, has brought us, in the first five years, down from a 4 °C warming to around 2.5 °C. But in the last five years, we have not made a lot of progress. The last five COPs have been stagnating, whereas we need to go below 1.5 °C. The promise of Paris is still not being delivered by the COPs and we really need to change. I think there are also some lessons for Europe to be done. First of all, on money, on financing: Europe seemed to be surprised that tripling of adaptation was going to be a big demand. I can promise now already for COP31 – prepare for it, M Commissioner – money will be an issue again. For example, on the tripling of adaptation, we do not know what the baseline is. So, be prepared that that question will come in COP31. If then again the 27 countries are surprised about that demand, then we again have a big problem with Europe. Secondly, transitioning away from fossil fuels: Europe in Belém was standing behind it, but Europe in South Africa was questioning that maybe we should talk about the emissions of fossil fuels and not fossil fuels themselves. I really think the coordination within the Commission is not good enough. It was not helpful that Ursula von der Leyen was making these statements in South Africa, while you were fighting in Belém for transitioning away from fossil fuels. But also here, the big question is what is Europe going to do itself on it? Next year there will be a roadmap for phasing out the fossil fuel subsidies at European level. We expect an ambitious plan for Europe to show that we are credible on this issue. Last point: diplomacy. Europe needs to increase its diplomacy towards the world because it was not enough, we were standing too much alone, and for that we also need to look at a different way of organising these climate conferences, because now they are too big, too legalistic, too technical, whereas they are highly political and should be shorter, sharper and more targeted on the ambition that Paris needs to deliver. But I'm looking forward to doing that together with you, Commissioner, to work on that.

Madam President, Commission President, the two main topics that you also addressed in your speech at the Council were, of course, Ukraine, and climate and the Green Deal. First, on Ukraine: I am happy that you're saying that negotiations are ongoing, because yes, the conclusions were that Europe will stand by Ukraine. But then, if we look at the concrete measures, the Council is not delivering enough, and we all know how it got stuck with Belgium on the Russian frozen assets. The simple question is: you said there are three options on the table. One was headspace in the current budget. How much is left, I would say. That doesn't sound like a lot of money. The second option I don't think is very serious either. So, how are you going to break the Belgian blockage that we saw happening in October, so that there will be a deal in December? Secondly, on the Green Deal: first of all, happy that we have a deal on 2040 in the Council. Let's see in the Parliament for today. The only price we are paying is a big price. I want that colleagues realise that 5 % international offsets means that by 2035, in achieving our decarbonisation, we will pay up to EUR 100 billion outside Europe – money we could have spent inside Europe to create jobs inside Europe. These international offsets are just another bill that Europe is paying outside Europe. These offsets are not a smart solution. Secondly, the biggest lesson of Draghi was that Europe is lagging behind on the development of clean tech. I still have the feeling that a lot of our colleagues are living in the 20th century when they talk about their technologies, like Mr Procaccini. When we talk about cars, they can only talk about combustion engines, and in Italy it's even only with biofuels. That's the only thing they can mention. Those are old technologies. If you think you can keep the electric revolution outside Europe, you will pay the price later on, because we will be importing then Chinese cars. We want to prevent an import of Chinese cars. We want to make sure that electric cars are being built in Europe for jobs in Europe. That's what needs to happen. Therefore, last call to the Commission President. You've done a lot of roundtables on a lot of industry, but when is the roundtable on clean tech? Europe has to start looking to the future instead of every time looking at the industry of the 20th century.

Madam President, thank you to the Commission President and also the Council for being here at your own discussion. First of all, of course, there are many topics on the agenda that need to be addressed and we're very happy with all that, especially, of course, the attention to housing, as has already been mentioned. Just saying that if I then read the Council conclusions on housing, it's quite marginal, right? I mean, the Council has discussed it and asked the Commission to take it further. Thank you, but we expect a bit more if the if the Council is going to discuss housing. But I think the biggest discussion – and I'm also thanking you, Madam President, for the main topic – is about competitiveness and the Green Deal and our climate targets. And let's be very clear: tomorrow we will see the biggest attack on the Green Deal by the heads of state. That is very concerning, because for Europe's future, we need a long-term vision, we need stability, we need certainty. That is what the Green Deal is providing, and questioning the Green Deal is just throwing away Europe's future. If I then look at the simplification agenda that is being mentioned in the Council conclusions over and over, but also by you, Madam President, it's not helping because it is creating uncertainty. Which law is still there? Which law is going to be there in a couple of months' time? But it's also deregulation. What we are doing to the due diligence law, what we are doing to chemicals, it is deregulation and not simplification. If you want to compete with the US on deregulation, we will always lose from the US. It's the most stupid thing to do to compete with the US on deregulation. It's not in our advantage of competitiveness. Secondly, the attention to clean tech is very important, and thank you also for raising that in your speech very clearly, because that is where we are still losing from China, and that is also where Draghi was putting most of the attention, which I think people have forgotten. Clean tech is essential for electrification, and I am happy that you are mentioning taxation – that needs to shift from a taxation on electricity to gas because that's where the taxation needs to be. But if we're talking about new technologies and with the cars, we are every time coming back to the old technologies like the combustion engine or, in your letter mentioning biofuels, that is not clean tech. That is the old industry. If we are not changing that, we will lose from China also on the car industry, and as you have said, we want to make that in Europe, but then also be consistent in your policies on the cars – because, in the end, the only way to be competitive in the future is to maintain our Green Deal and to keep our targets up also for 2040.

I hope this is on record, please, how people are reacting here. So what I would like to make very clear, we are concerned about a colleague, about her safety, about her health, about her position, and we should all be. Therefore, I ask you, Madam President, in all kindness, because that is sometimes very complicated on the right, to do your utmost to make sure that she is released and gets all the help that she needs. Thank you very much! (Loud applause from certain quarters)

Thank you, Madam President. What we hear now, and we do not know for sure, but what we hear now is that she may have been taken to a maximum security prison. We are very much ... (Cheering and clapping from certain quarters)

Madam President, (in response to an off-mic comment from another Member) ... No, this is another topic, colleague. So hold your horses. This is another topic. It has to do with Gaza, though. This is about our very highly esteemed colleague, Mélissa Camara. She was on the Freedom Flotilla and she was detained by the Israeli authorities. She is a Member of the European Parliament, who was part of a humanitarian mission ... (Laughter from certain quarters)

Madam President, thank you also dear Prime Minister of Luxembourg, as a co‑Benelux member, I warmly welcome your words on the leadership of Europe. That is, of course, something we always expect from Luxembourg. It's very great to hear also your words on Ukraine, the accession and also, of course, on today, 7 October. When you are talking about leadership, I think what we also need in Europe is to start talking honestly to each other because I think that one of the problems is that, yes, we all talk about leadership, but then stay a bit general. Therefore, if we are talking about our international credibility, we very much welcome that Luxembourg was one of those countries that was accepting, indeed recognising, the Palestinian state, but we do not know where Luxembourg stands on the proposals of the Commission on further sanctions on the Netanyahu Government. So, it would be good if you speak out because there will be an upcoming Council and the Council is being blocked. I think a country like Luxembourg can really unblock matters, but that also means that you need to speak out very clearly in this plenary on where you stand. I see you know where we stand, but it would be good to have that also in this plenary. The same goes for Orbán. We need to call him by name on his problem and his veto that needs to change. Then, on competitiveness, I have to say it's a bit old school what you're saying: simplification, internal markets, mobilisation of capital. What we really need is clarity on where our economy should go. Investors need to know where Europe is heading. That is the Green Deal as a provision. It would be good to hear that and not only talking about simplification, but also where do we need lead markets? How do we put the Clean Industrial Deal into practice? That's the guidance that we need from Luxembourg as well. Last point, it would be very good for a country like Luxembourg to also take a step on changing the Treaty, but then mainly on changing and getting rid of unanimity, not only on foreign affairs, but it would be great if Luxembourg says: we need to get rid of unanimity on taxation. That would be a lovely statement by Luxembourg.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, let's just go back one year. The political guidelines that you published in July last year, they were very balanced. But we have to say, over the last year, we have been disappointed in what was implemented of those political guidelines because the focus was very much on defence, Ukraine and deregulation. Especially on the latter one, it was deregulation – what you do to the due diligence proposal is deregulation; it has nothing to do with simplification. Your tone now in the State of the Union is different again. You promise differences, but now we really want to see that you deliver on that. It boils down to real implementation, real proposals, and then you can find us because we are very well aware, we want to work on security, on competitiveness, but in a broader definition, and we will work with you. Thank you for making also very clear that you want to work with the pro-Europeans. But I do think you still have one minute, Manfred Weber: use that wisely with whom you want to work.

Madam President, Commission President, your call for unity has not really landed with your own group leader, I have to say. But we will work on that. And maybe that is also true because the summer was very painful, let's be honest. The EU has to back Trump to be at the peace table and is forced to swallow US tariffs. Putin's drones are flying over Poland and children are bombed and starved in Gaza. And we do nothing. Europe has entered a world of power, yet we are still playing chess in a boxing match. 'Business as usual' is a recipe for another three years of humiliation. Europe has to stop thinking as a market and start acting as a power. And I have to say: today in your speech, you really changed in your tone. You stepped up, you came up with proposals. Of course, the question is a bit, 'why now, and what will follow?' What will be very important now: all the elements that you put on the table here need to be followed up by action and implementation, and we will work with you to deliver on that. But there are also still inconsistencies that we have to address, because if we are going to step up as a leader and step up in the ring to work on our own independence on security, economy and digital services, we need to be consistent. On security: you made a lot of proposals for the security of us and Ukraine, and rightfully so, and we will support them. But security is more than weapons alone. This is about moral leadership, and here we have to talk about Gaza. Will we only start acting on Gaza when there is no Gaza left, when all the buildings are razed to the ground and all the people have fled or are being killed? We need action, we need sanctions. And we do welcome the proposals that you made, but we need more: we need to suspend the Association Agreement immediately. We need an arms embargo. We need to stop imports from illegal settlements. Our credibility is at stake. You gave signs to very well understand that, so now we also have to turn to the Council. When is the Council finally going to understand that our credibility is at stake and is undermining our position in the world? Security also means acting on climate change, and you mentioned the forest fires and you showed the fire fighters. This is really towards the EPP: that you think you can slow down on climate action shows how disconnected you are from reality. We need a thriving economy that stays within our planetary boundaries, and that's what we need to work on. If we go to economic independence, we have to talk about energy. You said we need to be energy independent, but at the same time you sign a Trump deal that delivers and promises a USD 750 billion investment in American energy, which is dirtier than we have seen before and will replace Russian LNG gas that is only EUR 10 billion per year for now. These numbers don't add up. This is really a crazy part of the deal with the United States and it has to change. Because we should invest this money in European renewables, in European industry, because renewables are the worst enemy of fossil autocrats and are crucial for our competitiveness. That brings me to competitiveness: it is being framed too much as deregulation and, to the EPP, I ask: do you really want to fight America on their turf of deregulation? We will never win from the United States on deregulation. That's not the fight we should do. We should fight on our own investments – investing in our workforce, our education, our infrastructure, our green innovation. That's what green investments have to mean and, for that, we also still need to change the Stability and Growth Pact to create that room for investments. You took your initiatives. You mentioned the initiatives on how the Commission can work on demand, on circular economy, on clean tech. But I think it is very important to stress – and you did it – that the problem for Europe isn't the Green Deal. The problem is that Europe isn't delivering enough on the Green Deal. On digital dependence – and I will conclude, Madam President – you are also inconsistent because, on the one hand, you say we will keep to DSA and DMA, but what about the AI Act? You are saying that we want to invest in our own digital sovereignty, but what will this omnibus then do? We will make sure that your omnibus will not undermine our own digital sovereignty, and for that, by the way, we still need a digital services tax proposal. To conclude, we need to step up our security, economic and digital policies. We do not need deregulation, we need a confident European leadership and ambitious plans and for that, Mr Weber, the shouting showed very clearly that you cannot work with them. So if you want unity, work with the centre.

Madam President, the themes were competitiveness, security and defence, and the EU in the world. Well, that's a good coincidence, because those are the topics I'm addressing as well, but maybe in a bit more of a challenging way. It seems that we're all very happy with how the Council went, but to be very honest, I don't think there's a good reason to be so happy about what happened in the Council, because the Council conclusions are quite empty and not really forward-looking. Let's start with competitiveness. Then we should start with our green economy, our future economy. You mentioned that the climate targets will not be debated, but they were. Macron is attending the Visegrád group meeting at the moment, fighting climate action while Marseille is burning. That's the real state of where we are, and that's really condemning to watch. Madam President, you said we are going to end the fossil era in Europe for good. That's lovely to hear. No, you said in general. Yes, I did take you by your word, and indeed I'm going to ask: what are you going to do in the negotiations with the United States? Are we now going to replace our fossil dependency on Russia with one on the United States? That's not ending the fossil era for good. This shows we are not really solving our problems for our future economy. I hope you will pick up on the fact that we need strong industrial policies in the MFF. It's not deregulation; we need clarity for industry, strong guidance, industrial policy and lead markets. Those issues need to be delivered on. On security and defence, the big elephant in the room, Orbán, is not even mentioned. He's blocking negotiations with Ukraine, and you are not doing anything. Where's the Article 7 procedure? When are we going to take Orbán to court? These are measures that we need to take, but meanwhile we are silent while he is banning Pride in Budapest. Finally on Europe in the world, Europe's inaction on Gaza is shameful. The Council took note of a report that is making it very clear that human rights are being violated every day. When is Europe finally going to suspend the association agreement with Israel?

Madam President, this motion should be about transparency, fighting corruption, etc. Corruption by the far right – most corruption cases are within your ranks and I find it quite condemning that Mr Leggeri is talking about all kinds of scandals without mentioning all the scandals under your leadership in Frontex. Or on transparency: you've been blocking any initiative that we took to get transparency in this House and when there was a real issue of transparency, we as Greens are taking the European Commission to court on the contracts of the vaccines. Where were you when we were fighting in court? This just shows you one thing: this is one big political show of the far right to undermine democracy, to undermine our Europe, to undermine European democracy. That's what they're doing. And that does bring me to the EPP, Mr Weber. You didn't want lectures, but sorry, when you are talking about how there are new majorities, which majority are you talking about? There is no right‑wing majority without the far right, so if you talk about new majorities, you are talking about a majority with them. And I can just quote the President of the Commission talking about extremists eroding democracy, that they are only doing conspiracy theories – you are feeding that beast and at a certain moment the beast will eat you. This means it's time for a cordon sanitaire and a cordon sanitaire means not supporting their amendments, which the EPP is still doing. It also means not pushing their agenda on fighting NGOs, on getting migration files with the help of the far right, to kill the Green Deal for us like the Greens claim – that's what you're doing together with the far right. That, of course, also brings me to the ECR. Lovely speech. The first signatory is from your group. Your co-president is one of the co-signers of this. Where does ECR stand? Mr Weber, you said we are having one criteria that's pro‑Ukraine, pro-democracy, pro‑Europe. I think after today it's clear that ECR doesn't fit that criteria. So no, there is no left‑wing majority in this House, but there is also no right‑wing majority in this House. There is a majority of the centre parties and the pro-European democratic parties. Let's work on that. We have work to do together. It's now time to deliver on a green economy, it's time to deliver on social justice, it's time to deliver on peace and we cannot do that with the far right.

Madam President, High Representative, it's very clear that the big topic in the NATO summit will be about the investment percentages in defence. And yes, Europe needs to invest much more in its own defence, and as Greens we see this necessity as well. But the real question will also be: who is going to pay? As the far right is trying to divide us, it's more important than ever that we invest together. Our current European defence system is not functioning because of our fragmented approach. Pouring more money into a non-functioning system will not do. We need a truly European approach with joint procurement and common standards, and we need a European fund for increased investments in security with joint borrowing, and ensure Member States actually use the exemption from budget rules for defence. This is the only way states will not end up tearing down their healthcare, education and social security with destructive austerity measures. You can invest all you want in weapons and tanks, but Europe can only stand stable and strong if we have the support of our people, and people will support as long as we can live in freedom with a roof above our heads and are able to pay our bills. Essential for the future of Europe is a broader concept of security and defence. Security also means energy security, societal resilience, infrastructure innovation and cybersecurity. And a last point: make sure taxpayers' money does not just disappear into the pockets of defence industry shareholders. Let's be honest: with billions of euros coming their way, everyone can predict massive windfall profits will be made. This is why we need a European windfall profits tax on the defence industry, and these taxes must go into a European societal resilience fund so we bring the investments back to our people. Only with this broad approach to defence and security will the extra NATO percentages deliver an EU that stands strong, stable and united on our own two feet.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, let's be very clear. The illegal tariffs that are imposed and announced by the Trump administration will not only hurt Europeans, they will also hurt US consumers and businesses. Trump is playing a stupid but dangerous game. If the current negotiations do not work – and the Commissioner already said it – the EU has to show its strength and retaliate firmly. We have the instruments to do so. It comes down to political will and leadership. We should not back down to a bully. Important in our reaction is solidarity amongst EU Member States, because it's key. We will have to stay united, and therefore the money raised by countermeasures should be invested to support the affected sectors in all countries, in order to keep the unity. However, we have to be smarter than just bashing Trump on his favourite words. We need to develop a strategy that will make Europe stronger and more resilient in the new, chaotic world we are living in; a strategy that should build on the Green Deal that we have put in as a forward-looking and future-oriented strategy. But, on top of that, we need to have three principles in mind. First, we need to build European. We are overly dependent on US energy, defence, financial and digital services. Only strong and common European alternatives can provide us the operating room we need. We need joint investments in those sectors. We need joint EU borrowing measures. Secondly, we need to buy European. In the past months, the European consumers showed the way in showing how you do not buy further Teslas. We should learn from them and use local content requirements and resilience criteria, and give preference to European products and services. Thirdly, we need to protect European – our values, our industry. They will only survive if we act and protect, if we apply our digital rights to the letter, if we stop dumping on the EU market. We will work together with those that still value our rules-based system. Let that be our strategy. Build European, buy European, protect European. Europe needs to stop thinking as a market and start acting as a power – a power to do good.

Madam President, earlier this year, the Chair of Parliament's Delegation to Iran was a victim of a hacking attack, very probably done by Iran. This is a clear attempt to silence our criticism of the Iranian regime and to intimidate. Our only reply can be speaking out, as I am doing now, and also showing solidarity with the Chair of the Delegation to Iran. But this also requires an institutional response, because she is the Chair of the Delegation to Iran, and this attempt to hack the Chair of the Delegation to Iran is unacceptable, and we should speak out here in this plenary, but also as an institution.

Madam President, first of all, we really would like to thank the Commission for coming forward with the European Steel and Metals Action Plan, because this is a very important sector for the European economy. And probably today when tariffs are being announced by Trump, we will even have more issues with the industry. And from our perspective, it's really very clear, the steel and metals industry is at a juncture. We are having competition with the oversupply from China. We have high fossil-energy prices and we still have a challenge of decarbonisation. They can be met together. They have to be met together. If Europe wants to be competitive for the future, if this industry wants to be competitive for the future, we need to put competitiveness and decarbonisation hand in hand. And that's the challenge for the industry. And that's also why we think this action plan is very good because yes, we need grid access. Yes, we need to strengthen protection from overcapacity. We need to ensure demand for green products coming from this sector. And yes, we need to make sure that there is a fair transition. So all these elements we welcome very much in the action plan. However, to be very honest, the action plan is not very actionable now. The first real actions more come in the fourth quarter of 2026 when we look at circular economy, for example, when we are looking at how to deal with recycled content, you will do a review by the end of 2026. There is no clear money in the proposal. It's also a lack of European coordination. So in that sense, we very much welcome the action plan, the analysis, all the elements in there. But now we need urgent action, action that needs to go faster than it's being put there. And last but not least, also to the industry, we are there on your side to make sure you will get the investments to make this transition. But then also be sure that you are not increasing your share buybacks and dividends. This also means that the industry needs to invest in its people and not in its shareholders, and that's also important for a fair transition.

Madam President, first of all, Mr Costa, I would like to thank you for the Council conclusions, and certainly on Ukraine, where you opted for a conclusion by 26 Member States and not 27. And I think that was a very good decision to do, and not every time try to weaken our conclusions in order to get all 27 on board. However, this also means that the Council should act on this asset of Putin within the Council. Doing conclusions with only 26 is a first step, triggering Article 7 is really, really time to act on it. Secondly, Madam President, I want to thank you for your ReArm proposal. And the Greens are fully on board and supporting you for a truly European defence and security Union. However, in your plan, we do have some questions and concerns. First of all, triggering an escape clause. To be very honest, if you are triggering an escape clause in your fiscal rules continuously, maybe at a certain moment you need to wonder whether maybe the fiscal rules are not fit for purpose and you need a proper review instead of every time triggering an escape rule. Secondly, and here I have to agree with Mr Weber, the European approach is not strong enough in your approach. Of the 800 billion, only 150 billion are European, the rest is national. Without any clear indication it will be a European approach. And even with the 150, only by doing it through a joint procurement, I'm not sure this will really have a proper European approach. We don't need more tanks on the Greek-Turkish border. That brings me to the third point. Defence and security is much broader than arms and ammunition. This is about infrastructure. European infrastructure needs to be improved also to transport all the materials throughout Europe. This is about real infrastructure as well. This is about cyber security but this is also about energy independence. And Mr Procaccini, you said it already, looking at how much money we as Europe are spending on fossil dependency, EUR 400 billion each year, and we moved it from Russia to the United States. It's not helping anything. So the green transition is in the same agenda as the security agenda and should not be treated separately. And that is why we are concerned that investments in green and social transition are being at the cost of investments in security, and therefore we need to increase both and we need to increase spending on both. That brings me to the last point. The situation in Ukraine is very dire and very sincere, and we cannot not act and we cannot lack on action and have complacency. The next Council needs to act faster. We need to stand by Ukraine. We need peace in Europe. We need peace in Ukraine. We need peace on our own terms.

Madam President, 'Bolder, simpler, faster' – that's what's below the Commission work programme. So I was enthusiastic and I start reading. Let's start with 'bolder'. Probably the Clean Industrial Deal must be the boldest proposal, that is a non-legislative proposal that will come in the end of February. Let's see what will be in it. Probably then the Commission of Investments is going to be very bold. The Savings and Investment Union – a communication, non-legislative. Maybe MFF – that will come in the third quarter. The Geopolitical Union, then, that's probably the boldness. I only see non-legislative proposals on these chapters. So probably the boldness we can only see in artificial intelligence, maybe, but there the Digital Network Act is the only legislative proposal in the fourth quarter of this year. So 'bolder and faster'? Let's see. Probably we only get 'simpler' – that's probably what you are focusing on. And indeed almost all the legislation that is proposed is simplification. But where is the vision on our European future? Because we have a big risk that we only get stuck in beautiful strategies, communications, action plans, and in the end only end up with deregulation, creating a Trump‑lite in Europe. That will not save Europe. That will not save European industry. If we think that competitiveness will be saved by less reporting, that is not simple, it's simplistic, and therefore we need a self-confident Europe. We need a Europe that knows that we are poor on resources, but we have one very strong resource in Europe, and that's the human resource: we need to invest in human resources, but also there – on the social programme there are only four non‑legislative proposals. We need to think of our values: again, only four non‑legislative proposals. We need to think of the circular economy to make sure that we are good in our resources, maybe in the Clean Industrial Act. Where is investing in clean economy? That is, the Green Deal is more than decarbonisation. Sorry, Commission. This is not bolder, simpler or faster. This is too simplistic.

Madam President, good morning also to the President of the Commission, but especially, of course, very much welcome to you, Mr Costa, as President of the Council. We're very happy you're here. Indeed, as my colleague already said, it didn't happen that often that the Council President was present in Parliament, and I do think it's good that you are showing that you are willing to open up this debate with the European Parliament, because there's a lot at stake, and the Council has a lot of challenges. If we look at the situation of Europe, to our east we have a dictator that is willing to go to war in countries like Ukraine. To our west, in the United States, we have a capitalist autocrat. I can't mention it differently. You have to be more diplomatic, so I can say that. But also on our southern side, of course, in the Middle East, there's turmoil continuously. So we need a Council that is stepping up, that is fighting for a strong Europe and replying to that. But let's be honest, the councils have become a bit obligatory. If you read the Council conclusions – and I think less and less people read those Council conclusions – I just want to mention one example. With all these challenges, EU and the world, and what do the Council conclusions say? 'The European Council held a strategic discussion on the EU's global engagement and priorities in the current geopolitical context.' That's it. That was it! It's great you had that discussion, but what does it mean? What does it mean? And also, here, when the President is saying 'our values will not change', then I hope that you will also challenge the leaders of Europe more in these discussions, because our international credibility is at stake. If we are saying the rule of law is important, international law is important, but when there is a ruling from the International Criminal Court and there is an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and some of our leaders are saying 'we're not going to follow that through', then we have a credibility problem. That should be discussed and not only these lovely broad sentences. We also need more targeted councils, I think, and therefore I very much welcome your specific council on 3 February on defence, because I do think these general councils discussing everything are not solving a lot. We need to have more focus and be challenging enough to each other and therefore I'm happy also that the Commission will come forward with its Competitiveness Compass and that also you already said in March you want to discuss that, because Draghi said this is an urgent matter and it needs to be addressed now. But he said that in September last year. So the urgency is maybe a bit relative here. And I know here Trump is of course changing the world but I think we need to be more proactive and more trusting in each other, because Trump is shooting himself in the foot as well. In his energy definitions, now even renewables are not defined as an energy source any more. What will that do, with all the investors that want to invest in renewables? It is a chance for Europe. And it's the same that he's pausing the Inflation Reduction Act. So he is creating uncertainty in the United States. That is a chance for Europe, but then we need to step up. Then we need to talk about the investment gap. Then we need to talk about maybe not always the bureaucracy on reporting, but the bureaucracy in our State aid rules, access to finance. That's what we should be discussing and not always get distracted by only the blah-blah on red tape but really look at what is hampering our industry. And, therefore, we also need more rules on lead markets, we need more energy cooperation, cross-border infrastructure: that's what we need. And that's also where we hopefully can be more concrete when we are expecting a clean industrial deal from the Commission and the Council to discuss that. We are ready. I hope the Council is as well.

Madam President, it was a very difficult decision for our group, and you know very well we are still of the opinion making Fitto Executive Vice-President of this Commission is a mistake. People that say, 'He is not far right,' tell that to the mothers in Italy whose rights to have children together have been taken away just because they want to live together. Tell that to the judges who are criticised by the government for just doing their job. And tell that to the journalists who feel under pressure more and more just to do their job independently. We as a Green group will always fight for an open and an inclusive society where everyone feels welcome and can love whoever they want. But we see as well that much work lies ahead of us: the climate crisis is accelerating; wars to our east and south threaten our democracy and credibility; our industry is under pressure of China and US; and people fight for the cost of their living. We see a Commission that wants to work with us, and we want too, to work on climate adaptation, to work on a clean industrial act, to work on the energy transition, to work on a just transition for everyone, to work on a stronger rule of law. But also, we will make sure that the simplification agenda will not be a deregulation agenda. It was a difficult decision for us also because of the parliamentary process. And I am just going to say that there is a big responsibility for the biggest group: being harder on a respected minister from the Social Democrats than you were on a Fidesz candidate that called us idiots. How could you do that? So let us at least learn one thing. Let never any more national politics get back into this arena.

Madam President, more than 200 people died. That should be the focus of this debate. It feels as if I'm in the Spanish Parliament, where we are blaming each other instead of sincerely looking at the victims of this disaster, and that should be the core of this debate. Some people said it, and after 30 seconds it was a political play and a political game. That is not honouring the victims. What is the big problem is that, for years, climate change has been denied, has been ignored and climate action has been frustrated: that is the problem. There are always natural disasters, but we also know that the natural disasters that we are seeing in Europe are being aggravated by climate change. The heating of the Mediterranean Sea is causing an increase of the hydrological cycle that is impacting regions all over Europe, and that should be the debate. Thank you, Commission, for also the action that Europe is taking, because that is European solidarity, and standing with the Spanish victims is also what a European debate should be doing. Where were those people that are now having a big mouth? Where were they when we were discussing the report of the Environment Action Programme that is saying that Europe is not prepared for environmental disasters because of climate change? VOX was not there then, they were just doing something else. VOX is not here anymore, by the way: they do their one minute of speech and then walk out of the room, that is the politics. We need to discuss better preparedness and to make sure that also we are not reducing our climate impact, but that we are better prepared for climate adaptation with nature-based solutions. That should be the debate instead of this shameful political arena. Shame on you.

Mr President, maybe I have to break a bit with this kind of repetition of arguments that we now see basically in the upcoming Council. Charles Michel even couldn't come to Strasbourg to celebrate his last Council, and if you read the draft conclusions, I think you can see that these are his last Council meetings, because there is no inspiration, there's no energy. It's a repetition of empty words, it's postponing things. It's really, I mean, what are we going to do in October? In that sense, we are looking forward to a new Council, new leadership, and maybe a bit more energy into it, because this Council and all the draft conclusions are not very attractive, I would say. And therefore, if I just go a bit through all the different themes, I can say that one red thread that I can see through all these themes is that our credibility is at stake. Who really believes these empty words that we are putting in the draft conclusions? For example, on Ukraine, again, strong words on Ukraine, and we support that. Also as Greens, we do think something needs to happen and Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself, but then we still need to finalise the work on the European Peace Facility. Ukraine is still hampered to use its facilities outside its borders to protect itself. And indeed frozen Russian assets – it has been discussed what to do with it for many times. The Commission is putting proposals there but the Council is acting slow. And if you read the conclusions, then we will again come back to the matter, you will discuss it again, but when do you now finally take some additional action? It's the same with the Middle East. Again, our credibility is at stake. In the draft conclusions, rightfully so, we are very clearly condemning the Iranian attacks on Israel. But then, when we talk about Lebanon, we are talking about 'the escalation in Lebanon', as if there is not a clear also role there for the State of Israel playing there. When is the Council also finally going to take action on the regime of Netanyahu and make that explicit, instead of every time the vague words that 'we want a ceasefire'? Yes, we want a ceasefire, but we need clear words. We need a credible European Union. And we don't have that at this moment. Double standards: we see that in migration, double standards and vague words. We see that in competitiveness. And I think I want to close with that one, because Draghi made very clear that we need decarbonisation and economic competitiveness, together, and it is an urgency. It was a wake-up call of Draghi. What is the Council conclusion saying? 'We will come back to that matter in November.' That's the state of the Council. We are very much looking forward to a Council that has more energy to really solve the issues of Europe, because it is urgent and our credibility is at stake.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we don't have to look far for an industry in crisis. In the heart of Europe, 3 000 workers building state-of-the-art electric vehicles are possibly losing their jobs at Audi Brussels. This is not an incident, but a key example of the fundamental challenge Europe's industry is facing. For decades, Europe has disregarded its industrial policy, closing its eyes for the new economic and geopolitical reality. And that's what Mr Draghi called the paralysis. And when we opened the eyes, China and the US had built new industrial bases, exporting clean tech and digital innovations. Now that Europe has realised the future of das Auto is electric, it feels like it might be too late. But it does not have to be too late, colleagues. Mr Draghi is offering us some examples and answers to that. Decarbonisation can and should be a source of competitiveness and the driver for new industrial development within Europe. That's green industrial policy that's at the heart of Europe and should be. And we can offer Europeans a future and millions of green-collar jobs. And this is possible, but we need to do a couple of things, and that's also what Mr Draghi said: build a true European power grid and affordable renewable energy for both citizens and industry. We need to finally start coordinating cross-border connections and use our market power on the world stage. Second, modernise our industrial base, providing green steel, paper, chemicals. We will need investments in all Member States and not only the big ones. And to my German Christian Democratic colleagues, an Alleingang will rip up the single market of Europe. And secure European production of clean tech like heat pumps, vehicles and wind turbines mentioned by Mr Draghi as well. We have to create a demand for European production. Europeans have to be able to afford European solutions. But there is also criticism to give to the report. A thriving future is not built on technology and capital alone. It's the people and our environment who are the real source of prosperity. How would we farm without nature? What would we drink without clean water? What would we produce without people, quality jobs and a more equal society? Europe has to be more than a great place to invest in; it has to be the best place to work and to live. And that is our common assignment. We have done it before, from Marshall to Draghi, let's rebuild Europe's economy, and stop the paralysis and dare to dream of a new green economy.