Debate contributions by Lena DÜPONT

Madam President, colleagues, today's challenge follows the logic of a position that some had taken already earlier on, by tabling a rejection before negotiations had even started. This is certainly not my position, but I respect that. The only thing I don't accept is don't blame others, me or the EPP for decisions you had taken on yours. Let us look into the files: in the border procedure, both co-legislators tasked the Commission to revise the 'safe third country' concept within one year's time, and the Commission delivered. Member States had asked for an assessment of the safe countries of origin to increase coordination in the application. Again, the Commission delivered. The Council is ready to start trilogues. So now it is on us. Nothing in the mandates breaches or undermines international law. Saying so is simply false. Both instruments are about making procedures work. They will speed up asylum procedures, increase the efficiency of the process, alleviating pressure and helping people out of legal limbo. Colleagues, citizens expect us to deliver. The mandate at hand allows us to do exactly that and I respectfully ask all colleagues to support it.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, it was always clear that the path to the implementation will not be an easy one: too large, the challenges comprehensive, our answer. Conclusion of the agreement was always only the first step. The ongoing implementation in the Member States is the next one, and the solidarity pool we now have at our hands. The more concrete it gets, of course, the more we need to live up to our responsibilities. Knowing how sensitive it is for Member States, I thank the Commission that they took the necessary time in order to come to an agreement with the Member States, although, of course, we are always in favour of respecting timelines. The paper is one thing, but making the system work in reality is another. And guess what? The interests of front‑line Member States, the interests of secondary‑movement Member States can be true at the same time. Taking into consideration Member States' positions is not questioning solidarity, it is not giving Member States leeway: it is making sure that things work. And if for that constant work with the Member States, acknowledging their unique positions, trying to bring everyone to the table, is needed, well, we do it. Because we do not give in to populism: we roll up our sleeves and work. At the same time, the second part of the proposal is important as well. Foresight and preparedness will further strengthen our common approach. Now we all need to do our homework: we here in Parliament delivering on returns, the STC and SCO with the proposals at hand, but also the Member States with going on with the implementation of the pact and working on the outstanding issues like Eurodac, the infrastructure and so on and so forth.

Madam President, Commissioner, the EU is based on the principles of the rule of law. We promote it for good reasons, as a basic political toolbox that allows societies to thrive and businesses to grow. As such, it requires constant work and good care. It binds all political actors, whether in opposition or in government. At the heart of today's debate is the question of proper checks and balances, and, more specifically, of the independence of the judiciary. So, in principle, today's debate shows the importance of the rule of law for all of us. But why do I say 'in principle'? Because exactly that independence has been put into question by some communications. So let's look into the example at hand: the case of the Mayor of Varna. For that case, the anti-corruption framework and structure is relevant – which, by the way, was put in place by the previous government. The allegations are about being part of an organised criminal group and about significant bribes in connection to public procurement – for sure something for the Commission for Anti-Corruption. Detention has been upheld by five different courts. Although not related to the case, GERB has signalled support for the release from detention. But an independent institution is doing what an independent institution should do: it's investigating, free from political influence. Having said that, does that mean that there is no room for improvement? I think we should always aim for better. The 2025 Rule of Law Report describes the task, but for the first time after four elections in a row, we now have a stable government. So, colleagues, let's be really careful with the difference between improving and reforms, and, I quote here, 'the ongoing assaults on institutions'.

Thanks, colleague, for that very important question. I assure you that this is indeed part of our policies. If you just heard what the colleague from the left side told about her understanding of police work in a democracy, I can easily sum it up by saying this is for sure not my understanding.

Mr President, Commissioner! Sometimes it helps to look at what we have already achieved. The area of security, freedom and justice – the idea of Tampere in 1999 – is now being brought to life with Europol’s daily fight against crime, as recently in Latvia, together with Austria and Estonia, in the field of cybercrime. Frontex officials who are at the external border every day, working together with Member States to combat organised crime, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, cigarette smuggling and trafficking in human beings. These selected examples alone make it clear: European police cooperation is a crucial building block of our European security architecture. It is our police officers from all Member States and in all Member States who ensure security and order on a daily basis. And so a heartfelt thank you from here. At the same time, the situation is changing dynamically and in some cases dramatically. Internal and external security are inextricably linked. Organised crime, terrorist groups, third-country actors are challenging us as long as they haven't. We do not need to reinvent Europe's security architecture. We need to strengthen what we already have. This applies to Frontex and Europol, and this applies to the exchange of information. And because many things have already been said by the Commissioner today - rightly said - let me take a closer look at cross-border cooperation. We have such wonderful examples in the field as recently the anniversary of the Franco-German operational unit, the joint centres in Kehl, which Fabienne Keller mentioned. In other words, we must focus on removing practical obstacles for them, organising joint exercises, financing language courses and, above all, recognising their excellent contribution to our European security architecture. We expect police officers to protect us, our society, our democracy. Let's do the same for her.

Madam President, Commissioner! This time drones, last time cable, before that there were overnight shifted border buoys – the Russian playbook It's always the same. There is something for every country in the EU, a message for every part of society. The objective: Unrest, worry, undermining our resilience, creating division. We must therefore be clear: Fear is always an indicator of what's important to us, but it's never a good guide. Therefore: straighten the shoulders, put the money where the mouth is, Finally, we must consistently think together defence, crisis preparedness and internal security, streamline procedures, simplify acceleration, strengthen information exchange and cooperation between security authorities, and take our people with us. But I also say at the same time: Take the Member States with you. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland were and are right. We have a common enemy, we need a common answer. That's exactly why we created the treaties. Security – in the beginning – in front of each other, today: Safety for each other. This is what the assistance clause is designed to do: not for good weather – this is far too easy – but for this very time now. Solidarity proves itself in bad weather. That's what counts.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, in a world of free movement, of close trade ties, of prosperous exchanges between countries, visa regimes – or, even more so, visa-free travel regimes – are an important tool for a better, closer, connected world. They are important for international policies; they complement our toolbox in third country cooperation. They are based – and they should be – on good faith. They should rely on mutual recognition, on the overall willingness to work on a shared policy. What are they not? They are not an allowance to turn yourself against your partners, to misuse trust, to exploit visa-free regimes for malicious actions. Since we have seen that in the past within the European Union, we as Europe also need to be clear on that side: we are open, we are engaging, we look forward to cooperating, but we will not turn a blind eye to actions that undermine mutual partnerships, are directed against the European Union or threaten our – the Member States – or citizens' security. That is why we, as the EPP, have always been fighting for the revision of the visa suspension mechanism for quite a while, and we welcome the solution that has been found. Concretely, we welcome the new grounds for suspension, namely irregular migration, security risks and – most important of all in these times – hybrid threats, including the instrumentalisation of migration. The systemic deficiencies in document security, security risks related to citizenship-by-investment schemes, the lack of alignment of third country visa policies and the deterioration of external relations, including hostile acts, are undermining EU security and underline that, in that sense. These grounds take stock of a dynamically changing geopolitical context, and they give us a clever tool at Europe's hands. They turn the visa suspension mechanism into a small but – if used wisely – very effective tool with tremendous effects on our security. Some of the grounds of suspension have been there before, so I really call on the Member States to now actively use them to strengthen our security. At the same time, let me underline one point – what the tool is not: it is not an individual asset by Member States showing their discontent with partners of ours. So proposing to use it against Israel is not only outrageous, but it will have serious repercussions for Israel and Europe's security.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Minister, we also created that committee to protect ourselves and to better prepare ourselves for hybrid threats. But what actually makes hybrid threats so successful? They usually go into the grey zones of society. They go into discussions and values that we actually need to balance, where we need to find not an easy balance between them. They tackle and address unclear competences. They address the lack of protocols, especially the lack of emergency protocols. And, of course, they are running on the lack of attribution. So as a day like today, where we have seen an attack on Poland and immediately a disinformation campaign starting next to it, let me be loud and clear here: that wasn't an accident, that was deliberate. And we can and we should do whatever we can to stand aside Poland and really defend not our democracies but as well the European Union and each and every Member State of that European Union, because we are in it together and we will face it together.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, what have we found last term? We found Member States that were not able to conclude on a common asylum and migration policy. We found a Parliament that had led heavy discussions, intense debate, in order to find a way forward. What have we done? We are taking stock of the common asylum and migration policy, what was left of it from the previous term before that. And we are taking that stock critically because we saw the Dublin transferees, for example, were and are still dysfunctional. But why so? Because they were not connected to solidarity. Because we did not find the right balance between frontline Member States and Member States of secondary movement. We added safeguards against secondary movement. We added an efficient procedure with the border procedure, and we added the Eurodac in order to prevent double and triple applications. We are also taking stock of the geopolitical situation because it had changed in the meantime. So we added something on instrumentalisation in order to defend the Member States that were faced with that, and we are still doing that. Are we done yet? No, we are not. We see that the numbers are going down, but there are still deficiencies in the system. There are still loopholes that can be exploited. And make no mistake, this system is exploited by criminal gangs, by networks, by smugglers, and, of course, also by third-country actors. We should not let that out of mind. So we focus now on the missing pieces to the pack, which is the return policy, which is the safe third country concept and the safe country of origins. And we will continue with that, with a strengthened Europol, with a strengthened Frontex, and a stronger answer when it comes to a sanctions regime on organised crime and smuggling business.

Mr President, before the summer recess, we already had a debate and the outlook was gloomy even then. The reality now is that we have faced a devastating wildfire season, and the scale and intensity were as bad as expected. So let me, first of all, thank all the firemen and women that have done the almost impossible, that have been fighting day and night against the odds. We – the European Union, the people of the European Union – owe you for that. Nevertheless, a few messages cannot be repeated and stressed enough. This is indeed European solidarity in action, so we need to make it easier. We need to scale up on readiness and deployability. We need to scale down on administrative procedures and ease the financing. We need to enlarge the pool of experts and the equipment. Everyone has a role to play. Local, regional and European measures for preparedness and prevention – especially if there is European money connected to that – need to go hand in hand. The division of competences and the territorial organisation of Member States can never – and I repeat, can never – be an excuse to not protect the people. It's the central task of any government to do so. European foresight is key, so you need to improve the information exchange there. But it will only help if the information we provide is taken into consideration on strategic and on operational levels. And lastly, we need to protect our first responders, our firefighters, better than we are able to do now. It concerns their health, it concerns their working conditions, the statutes and so on and so forth. So this is European solidarity in action.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Madam Minister, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism is a European success story. Since its creation, numerous emergency responses have been carried out. Equipment for firefighters and first responders have been financed and delivered. Firefighters are pre-positioned throughout Europe to help faster than before. This is – like you just said, Madam Commissioner – European solidarity on the ground. As we speak, 22 firefighting planes and four helicopters stand ready to support in the current wildfire season; 650 firefighters from 14 countries are pre-positioned in high-risk areas; more ground firefighting teams are ready to be mobilised. And that solidarity is needed. If you compare this year's wildfire season to the previous, threats and dangers are multiplying. Colleagues from Portugal, from Spain, from Greece, from France will soon tell us about the devastating effects on the ground. As the threats are emerging – man-made and natural – we also need to adapt as well. We need to be better prepared for larger incidents, for simultaneous and escalating incidents. And that means we need to scale up the pool of experts and the deployments; the investments in equipment and material, in resilience and readiness; the common risk assessment, the forecast and the situational picture. And, Madam Commissioner, we need to scale down on administrative hurdles – a common task for all of us here. In the end, it is our task to support those on the ground who are bravely fighting wildfires today and floods tomorrow. We owe it to them. May they all return safe and sound from their deployments!

Mr President, dear colleagues, the rule of law is based, among other things, on the integrity of democratic processes, on the fight against corruption, on proper checks and balances and accountability in decision-making processes. So where are we? We have 154 so-called 'royal decrees' being pushed through the parliament. We have reports about warning signs of a growing irrelevance of the parliament. We have smear campaigns against Guardia Civil officers investigating corruption, which means they do not only have the backing of the government for that important job. In fact, they are targeted because they are doing their job, further undermining the fight against corruption by not only not being on the forefront of investigation and prosecution, but being in the midst of numerous scandals involving the highest level of allegations themselves. Selling amnesty as a political tool, putting independent judges and prosecutors under pressure, undermining checks and balances further by draft laws on the judiciary, sparking not only protests by judges and prosecutors associations, but treating their rightful criticism in a way that actually five out of seven associations call now for a strike. Above all, instead of being at the forefront of accountability, the government now faces thousands on the streets demanding exactly that accountability, while the government decides to attack opposition leaders. This is not only a worrying trend here, it is a call to action by all of us here in the House, in Spain and in the Commission.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the rule of law in itself is neutral. It is a collection of procedural rules to guarantee that a political system is fair, is free, is democratic, that encourages engagement and debates, that fosters cooperation instead of sowing divisions, so that societies can thrive, that businesses can grow, that a country can prosper. Today, as usual, we hear colleagues saying they are fighting for their citizens. They are fighting against the Brussels elites. They are fighting for sovereignty. But let's remind everyone: the Hungarian Government is not in the midst of that debate because they want to protect children. The Hungarian Government is in the midst of the debate because for years now they have been undermining the integrity of the political system, undermining the independence of the judiciary, clamping down on citizens' rights, threatening journalists and opposition leaders. They are caught in the midst of various corruption scandals at the highest level. So why frame the debate like today? Why focus on underwear and lacquered leather? Because it is meant to hide the blatant lack of respect for the rule of law, for the government's incapability to solve real problems on the ground, for not being able to deliver on behalf of their citizens. The economy is weak; inflation is still high; businesses experience numerous obstacles. And in the need for money, the Hungarian Government reaches out to China and Russia. How on earth shall that help delivering for your citizens, shall that constitute a sovereignty act? The reality is that the government is responsible for their action and their inaction, which is the most fundamental principle of the rule of law: accountability to your citizens.

Mr President! Commissioner, you just got it. Once-in-a-generation moment called. If we look at the history of the development of the European Union, we have emerged from the lessons of the Second World War. At that time, we created security primarily in front of each other. We have become economically successful, we have shaped the internal market, we have become a very strong economic player in this regard. We are now in a situation where we need to restore competitiveness and we are in a situation where we need to create security for each other. Peace, freedom and stability – as has become clear in recent weeks, months and years – are not self-evident. This Defence white paper, the Internal security strategy, the Preparedness strategy are an expression of this, and I would like to thank you very much, Commissioner, for your contribution to the strategy or your strategy in this case. I want three building blocks To highlight, so to speak, those which are of course just as important alongside all the others, but which are part of the basic condition of a successful resilience strategy, so to speak. One is the situational picture and the exchange of information. We need to quickly reach all relevant actors, including those from the inside of our agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs involve, so that we can establish a common perception of risk at European level in order to derive political action from it. We also need this common perception of risk among the population. We need to make a very significant difference through schools – as the proposal foresees – to alert about public debates without being alarming. Because the goal is to empower the population to deal with crises, to be more resilient than we are now. You also mentioned Erasmus and the Solidarity Corps. Why not bring together and support Erasmus for Civil Protection, for example? And last but not least: Civil-military cooperation works when we allow them to practice, practice, practice, play through processes, define and test tasks. And I want to close with three requests. Once to the Member States: Your own security, to take European security seriously, to be ambitious. It's a time that takes courage, but also rewards. To the Commission the request to take Parliament along, not only in the development of the strategy in the common perception of risk, but also as communicators in the constituency, as those who can also carry the strategy forward, and the request to take all actors and agencies from the interior with them. And to all of us: whole-of-government, whole-of-society, All-hazards approach bind us all. And that's why it's not less time for Europe, but more. On with courage and determination.

Mr President, Commissioner, when we look at the area of freedom, security and justice from 1999, we've come a long way. We have overcome hurdles administratively, but most importantly, sometimes mentally. We increased cross-border cooperation. We built the agencies. We beefed them up on mandates, on staff and resources, on the tasks. We aligned important policies in order to have full leverage on the to the outside world. But somehow during the process, we but more prominently the Member States, lost ambition, while criminals, like threats, like malicious actors, did not. Cynically enough, time has come to once again step up on security. So the strategy of today is more than a strategy. It's a promise to keep Europe safe. It's an illustration of a security governance that is fit for purpose and time, including information and intelligence gathering and sharing, feeding into a clear situational picture, innovative and thriving capabilities and businesses, agencies that are strong and well coordinated, from border protection to critical infrastructure, to cyber, to law enforcement and to the judiciary side, the fight against organised crime, radicalisation and terroristic threats. The tasks are numerous. So to the Member States, let's be ambitious. That requires strength, that requires courage, and it needs to match the stakes. The most important promise that we can give to our citizens is their safety. To the Parliament, we need to adapt and arrive into the new security landscape, on content and on procedures. And altogether, let's do what is needed to serve the European Union, our citizens, our way of life. This is no time to shy away. This is no time to close our eyes, on with courage and determination.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, just yesterday, Commissioner Brunner presented the new proposal on returns. It is not only a welcome proposal, it is a missing piece to the pact and it's signalling to our citizens that we do hear and see their concerns. But it also proves that the Commission is delivering on key aspects, in time. Mutual recognition, harmonised procedures, new balances of rights and obligations for third-country nationals, tools and means to address security cases and suspected criminals, stronger measures to prevent absconding, and a way forward for enhanced third-country cooperation: these elements will not only strengthen our ability to increase the number of returns, it will put the common asylum and migration system back on its feet. Still, the proposal is only the start and the EPP stands ready, of course, to work constructively and in a good spirit in the upcoming negotiations. Looking ahead, we also welcome the Commission's announcement to follow up swiftly with the safe third country concept – another crucial part of the pact. But yet again, the world does not stop changing. We will need to further follow developments on the eastern border of the Union, not only as regards instrumentalisation, but also in the broader security context. So, looking ahead, there is an urgent need for a broad understanding of security, ranging from defence, to internal security and preparedness. So citing the Niinistö report, our security landscape requires a whole-of-government, whole-of-society, all-scenario approach. And in that sense, I am looking forward to another quick delivery on the closely linked defence white paper, the internal security strategy and the preparedness strategy.

Madam President, Commissioner, those who don't have a right to stay in the EU should not be in the EU: A simple, self-explanatory sentence. Yet only one in five third-country nationals where the return order takes is effectively returned. This stretches Member States' capacity. It undermines the promise of international protection for those who are in real need of protection. It can have devastating security consequences. Long procedures, shifting responsibilities between authorities, lack of coordination between Member States, lack of cooperation by the returnees and lack of cooperation with third countries are the core weaknesses. Yet an effective returns policy is an integral part of a fully functioning common asylum and migration system. This is why I very much welcome today's proposal as finally closing the gap, as presenting the missing piece to the pact. It clearly paves the way forward. Mutual recognition and possibilities for common enforcement, obligation to cooperate for returnees and consequences for non-compliance, rules to prevent absconding, stricter rules on security cases, enhanced third-country cooperation: that will equip the Member States with a real tool to coordinate, cooperate and to increase the numbers of effective and sustainable returns. With that, we will not only react to our citizens' expectations, we will restore trust in a Union that can uphold the values, and act symptom and effectively, if needed. Colleagues, challenges at this scale need to be met by the democratic forces. We as the EPP stand ready. And one last sentence: I am pleased that my previous speaker has just made it clear that you will not be part of the discussions.

Mr President! Commissioner! Communication is not just a deeply human need with social impact. Communication skills in times of crisis are essential for maintaining state and social order. This requires reliable structures and resources. This applies in the context of national security as well as in the European context. Being able to ensure information and communication flows, to produce situational pictures and to provide leadership skills has a decisive influence on the course of different scenarios and on our ability to cope with them. The Niinistö report on Preparedness Union Not without reason writes us many things in the logbook, including the accelerated roll-out of a secure, autonomous, interoperable system for communication and information exchange; accelerating and expanding the European Critical Communication System on the civilian and military side; avoid dependencies in supply chains; research, development and production of safety-related products in Europe; To make components and services so attractive that we can use them. Preparedness, dear colleagues, needs a comprehensive approach that also goes a little way out of the usual silos. That is why ITRE, SEDE, LIBE, IMCO, TRAN, INTA, SANT – we will all have to contribute. And that is why I may conclude with Niinistö's most important demand, in addition to prioritising budgetary resources: Security reservations and impact review in all legislative procedures that we have here in the House.

Madam President, Commissioner, yesterday, the Munich Security Conference published their annual security index. Compared to the previous years, there are remarkable, although not surprising, changes. Migration as a result of climate change and war still ranks first, followed by rising concerns about Russia, followed by fear of terrorist attacks, worries about cyberattacks and threats by international organised crime. Amongst other worries, perceptions of disinformation campaigns, worries about trade wars have seen a stark increase. This is, of course, a snapshot, but it is not the first one and it's one that requires a clear, bold and united answer. Security is a collective effort – it requires a whole of government, a whole of society approach, both at European and at national level, in terms of defence, in terms of internal security and in terms of preparedness. Thankfully, these three policies are a crucial part of the Work Programme, and they need to be connected in the best way possible. There's a lot at stake, but this House, this Union has always risen to the challenge and I ask us to do that again. We have the tools and we have the means to do things better, but we need to be bold and we need to be ambitious. It is a testing time, but we have it in our hands to work for a Europe that is strong, that is prosperous and that is safe.

Madam President, Commissioner. More than 70% of criminal networks operate across borders. They engage in trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, money laundering – increasingly violent and brutal. Seven of the ten most dangerous networks in Europe – 55 in total – include several nationalities. Eight out of ten work under the guise of legal companies. Organized crime has always been and still is an immense threat to our order, our rule of law, our economy, our society. Just as these networks take advantage of every loophole, every possibility, so must we. Unsere Antwort muss koordiniert, unmissverständlich und vor allen Dingen unnachgiebig sein. Let us finally deprive them of the financial basis through the work of AMLA with the reversal of the burden of proof and the confiscation of assets. Our security authorities need to have all available tools for efficient data analysis and linkage at their fingertips. customs, police, services, justice, our Joint investigation teams need access to all relevant information and databases. They are not only an integral part of a security union, they are also at the forefront of protecting our lives and our property. We need to protect them in return. But that alone will not be enough. With the Internal security strategy, with the Preparedness strategy, the Whitepaper on Defence We will have to take the next steps to secure this, our European Union, against threats and hybrid attacks from inside and outside. A resilient democracy does not wait for attacks. She anticipates them, adapts and responds resolutely. We have to do that and not less. One last comment to my previous speaker: On February 23, every vote for the AfD in Germany will be a lost vote. There will be no coalition.

Mr President, Commissioner, I'd like to address the topic of today on two levels: on a procedural one and on a content one. On the procedure, as a representative of this House, of course, I also need to underline the request towards the Commission to respect the timelines and, of course, to adhere to the timelines. There's a reason why we set timelines for the answering of the questions, and I think that we can do more actually also to work together to come closer again in that sense. On content, as it is mainly about instrumentalism – where, by the way, the ECR had the rapporteurship in the previous term – I think the question here at stake does not necessarily reflect the dynamic in the policy field. The Commission, the Commission President, they are in close debate with the Member States concerned. There are proposals on the table, both with financial support and additional money, but also in the adaptation of the policy response. As a general remark, Europe is the strongest when we act together and we, as the EPP, will make sure to do so further down the road. And while I say that some here in the House need to accept that there is a thing such instrumentalism – that it is part of hybrid attacks, and it needs to be seen in the geopolitical context – other parts here in the House also need to accept that as well, because the very same reason why we are speaking about this cynical, state-sponsored and state-accepted smuggling business is Moscow and Minsk attacking – trying to pressure – the European Union. So at least actors, some here in the House, want to align closer with. I would call that cognitive dissonance, but solve that out on your own. Rest assured that we, as the EPP, will go forward working on a common solution as a European Union that is strong and proud of its roots and values.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, the reports on the sophisticated links between migrant smuggling and other illicit activities are numerous, be it our SOCTA report or reports by UNHCR, by IOM, by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. 80 % of criminal networks are, inter alia, involved in drugs trafficking and migrant smuggling; for the latter, with profits ranging from 20 million on one route to 90 million on another. There are organisers, there are advertisers, there are transport providers of smuggling and trafficking people. They exploit people on the move by involving them in drug smuggling and other crimes. They have become ever more aggressive and violent. That means by fighting organised crime and the smuggling business, we do not only protect the European Union, we protect people. Logically, we need to step up the fight against organised crime with the right tools and techniques for law enforcement, by equipping and staffing our agencies like Frontex and Europol sufficiently, by making their mandates fit for purpose, by destroying the business model of organised crime via effective rules of confiscation and the reverse burden of proof, by making full use of AMLA. Lastly – and this is again also a reaction to comments that just have been made – by fully implementing the pact, because via the pact we break the business model of the smugglers by putting in place effective return rules and by stepping up third-country cooperation. This is the way forward here, and I'm looking forward to work together with the Commission on a security union that delivers.

Madam President, Commissioner, disinformation, deception, disruption, destabilisation, destruction – the playbook by now is well known. It is clearly visible in broad daylight. We see GPS jamming, we see cyber attacks, we see disinformation campaigns, attacks on logistical chains and service providers, critical infrastructure on land and sea being under attack, and there are worrying links to organised crime. We see the shadow fleet sailing alongside critical infrastructure and sensitive areas and, from time to time, even filled with highly explosive ammonium nitrate. The recent events are just an ample example and proof of that. In the midst of the playbook, we – the European Union, our allies and friends –because what our adversaries share is the refusal of our values, our democracy and our freedom. It can't be said too often: we are already in it, we are under attack and we need to live up to the challenge. This morning, Ursula von der Leyen has set the tone for the next College. The stakes are high, and freedom will not come for free. We need to be bold and ambitious. The instruments are on the table. We have an initial report on the preparedness. We will have the internal security strategy. We will have the white paper on defence, with the aim to overcome the fragmentation between the EU and the Member States, within the Member States, EU and NATO, between civilian and military actors based on a common threat assessment and risk perception, increasing the information-sharing so that we can build reliable, capable and resilient structures of response guided by the principles of deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment. We have all the tools at hand, and the answer is more Europe, not less.

Mr President, Commissioner, soon we will see three days in one. One will be a day to celebrate. Finally, after long years of negotiations, after fulfilling the criteria since 2011, after going through the gradual approach, finally Romania and Bulgaria will be members of the Schengen Area – hopefully as of next year. By saying so, we leave no space for the Council. The decision needs to be approved, and we will not and cannot accept any other outcome. It will not only mean a significant boost for business and travel, for trade and free movement; most importantly, for Romanians and Bulgarians it means 'welcome to the family of Schengen countries'. Second, it is a day to take stock. Critically, it's safe to say Schengen has been in better shape. By now, nine Member States have introduced, or will introduce, internal border checks for various reasons. But Schengen is not under threat because of the decision of the Member States, because of the reasons to take that decision. The rise of migrant smuggling, organised crime groups exploiting the Schengen Area, terrorist threats we are facing, the challenging geopolitical landscape and the security picture: it is a call to action. And this leads me to the third day. It is a day to restart and to continue the work of strengthening Schengen: by working and delivering on a true European strategy for internal security; by implementing and further developing the Asylum and Migration Pact in all its facets; by taking up the fight against organised crime; by boosting the capacities and the competences of our security agencies, both at national and European level; by allowing them and finally trusting them to do their work, especially in these times; by finally understanding customs as part of our security architecture; and by preparing ourselves for a dynamic and rapidly changing security landscape. That will require strength. It will require capabilities and flexibility. But it's time that we deliver on a European Union internal security strategy that is worth its name. So we celebrate, but we also roll up our sleeves. It's time for more Europe, not less.

Madam President, dear Mr Niinistö, disruption of critical services of supply chains, by pandemic, by sabotage, by hybrid threats, cyberattacks or natural disasters. The reasons to be prepared are multifaceted, and I specifically thank Mr Niinistö for the timely report, his reflection and his ideas. I said it before and I will say it as often as it is needed: the security landscape in Europe has worsened and we need to step up preparedness. So the report focuses, rightly so, on the whole of government, the whole of society, all hazards approach. And I would even add we need a whole of European Union approach and all European approach. So because defence and civil defence are just two sides of one medal: what does it mean? In the short term, we need to come to a common risk perception and understanding. We need to bridge the geographical differences between natural disasters and manmade crisis, enhancing the coordination between the Member States and the EU, between EU and NATO, between the civilian side and the military side, between society and politics. We need to further develop stockpiling alongside the risk perception, and we need to bring together people, material and structures of crisis response. We can build up upon the experience we are already having, and we need to be ready to exercise, exercise, exercise. We need to prepare our citizens via communication, via education, by raising awareness, because, in the mid-term, we need to eliminate bureaucratic and administrative hurdles, we need to prepare the institutions to be capable of delivering, especially in times of crisis, we need to enhance the information exchange wherever necessary and possible, we need to develop emergency protocols. We need to step up and modernise the equipment and the materials for those who will bear a huge responsibility in times of crisis, because in the end, in the long term, it's imperative that we come to a better prepared European Union, that we preserve European solidarity and that we stand strong with those with a comprehensive approach to military and civilian sides. Most importantly, we need to be thankful and supportive for those who really bear a huge responsibility when crisis arrives: to the defenders, the first responders, the rescuers, policemen, firemen and the volunteers, we owe it to them.