Discussions

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, the reasons for this Communication and for making humanitarian aid a priority for the European Union are many.

This Communication comes at a particularly difficult time—surely the most difficult we have experienced in recent times—for humanitarian aid. In the year 2026, 239 million people will need humanitarian assistance, but, at the same time, the global humanitarian system expects to reach only 135 million; in other words, just when a robust and strong humanitarian system is most necessary, we have fewer resources available, there is less political will, and there is more violation of the international humanitarian system.

During this time we have seen everything: we have seen humanitarian workers deliberately murdered, we have seen international humanitarian law violated over and over again, and we have even seen humanitarian aid used as a weapon of war.

There are other figures that should make all of us here reflect. The United Nations hyper-prioritised humanitarian appeal for 2026 amounts to 33 billion dollars. A little over 1% of a single year's global military spending would be enough to finance that entire appeal. Put another way, just over four days of global spending would be enough to cover that appeal.

I make that analogy to understand, once and for all, that working for a world at peace, in equilibrium with human rights, is also working for the best guarantee of security, the most intelligent way to exercise influence, and greater security for everyone.

Madam Commissioner, I want to thank you for your work. The direction of the Communication is tremendously positive, but the real test will be implementation, a monitoring and supervision plan, and continuous exchange with Parliament and the sector.

On the first pillar—to protect—that is the heart of humanitarian action and I believe that is what we must strengthen. We are living through very dark times for international humanitarian law. In 1997, 39 humanitarian workers were killed. In the last three years, almost a thousand humanitarian workers have died or been killed while carrying out their humanitarian mission to save lives. They are uncomfortable witnesses to genocides and they are also the ones who put an end to the alibi of impunity of those who commit them.

When and how did we come to normalise this, as our friend and head of OCHA, Tom Fletcher, would say? Therefore, we give our full support to humanitarian workers, such as the "Protect Aid Workers" initiative, which should be permanent and adequately funded.

The European Union must be very clear: humanitarian aid cannot be instrumentalised, politicised, or used to support military agendas or other non-humanitarian objectives.

As you well know, Madam Commissioner, humanitarian diplomacy is one of the areas of this Communication with considerable potential, if applied well. Humanitarian diplomacy must be a practical, useful, effective tool. The European Union needs trained staff who know how to do humanitarian diplomacy with the right information, the right level, and always respecting humanitarian principles.

Members, on the second pillar—to act—we support the ambition to make humanitarian aid more effective, more flexible, and people-centred. We also support the objective of making humanitarian supply chains more efficient, where a significant part of the costs of humanitarian aid is concentrated. But efficiency gains must return to the response on the ground, not translate into a reduction in the overall level of assistance.

The localization of humanitarian aid is also essential. The commitment to channel 25% of humanitarian funding, as directly as possible, to local actors by 2027 is very positive, but we must be aware that, to achieve this, we must strengthen the capacities of local actors, which are not always guaranteed. Nor can this be limited to a numerical target.

On the third pillar—to partner—we warmly welcome the specific approach to fragility, a historical demand of Parliament and of the humanitarian and development sectors. The European Union must work better between humanitarian action, development, and peace. In fragile contexts, there is no single model applicable to all cases; we must adapt it to each context. The European Union must use conflict analysis, adapt programmes to each context, and give flexibility to European Union delegations when situations deteriorate rapidly.

All actors have a role to play in fragile contexts and, depending on the context, they must be adapted, but all actors must be integrated into an approach tailored to each situation. At the Commission level, this means that all relevant services must have a clear role in the implementation of this strategy for fragile contexts.

Madam Commissioner, humanitarian diplomacy is absolutely essential: deploying all capabilities to guarantee humanitarian corridors, to guarantee that the humanitarian effort truly arrives, is extremely important. Therefore, today, having built a consensus on this Communication that we hope will be reflected in the vote, we want to work so that this Communication is implemented, and therefore, I want to ask you today what the plan and the first steps are to make this a reality as soon as possible, because Europe's humanitarian credibility will not be judged by its commitments, but by its results and also by the coherence of other Commission departments.

Mr President, honourable Members, the joint communication on humanitarian action comes at a critical moment of unprecedented challenges – unprecedented in terms of the number and severity of global crises and the ever-expanding humanitarian funding gap; unprecedented in terms of systematic attacks on international humanitarian law, civilians and humanitarian workers, with deliberate attacks on civilians, destruction of schools and hospitals, widespread sexual violence and weaponisation of humanitarian access.

This is also why our new humanitarian communication is also unprecedented. It is, for the first time ever, a joint communication presented together with the HR/VP. It is a joint effort of our humanitarian, development, peace and foreign policy. It is not about mixing up what is humanitarian aid, what is development cooperation and what is foreign policy. Nor is it shifting away from our long-standing and firm commitment to humanitarian aid principles like humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. These will always remain our non-negotiable compass, where it is better using all of our tools and policies in complementarity for a better impact.

We have outlined three pillars: protect, perform and partner. Protect our humanitarian principles, defending international humanitarian law; protect aid workers and civilians, securing humanitarian access and developing a strategic approach to humanitarian diplomacy.

Today, 300 million people's lives depend on humanitarian aid while we are reaching the lowest level of funding in decades. To save more lives, we need to perform. This is our second pillar: improving the efficiency of humanitarian aid, avoiding duplication, reforming supply chains, delivering our aid closer to those in need through localisation.

And finally, we need to work in a more sustainable manner, addressing protracted crises and their root causes. That is why we need our third pillar: partner. Partner with the private sector, the international financial institutions, the philanthropic sector to find new blended finance, encourage and secure investments in fragile countries, strengthening the humanitarian development peace nexus and increasing global resilience.

This joint communication is our comprehensive answer to the challenges of today. And I hope I can count on your support for bringing this important work from policy strategy to achievements on the ground.

Madam President. Commissioner, you're the first commissioner in this House who has kept within the speaking time. You were even briefer and said a lot while doing that. I'm really impressed by that, and that's a big contribution to parliamentarism.

Dear colleagues, the European Union is the strongest soft power on earth, and we have to remain in that role because we contribute to a better life for many people, to rescuing people from difficult situations and to giving life to what we call European values. But it is also important that people know we do that, and we should speak about it, because the world is full of confrontation, of actors who seek to use their hard power – not always for the best (in very many cases, for the worst). Europe is developing its hard power, but we have to strengthen our soft power and keep our soft power also as a leverage – not only for pure European interests, which is also good and fine and for the sake of the Europeans, but for the universal approach with European values.

So communication on humanitarian aid is important. To include all stakeholders is important. To respect the very traditions and the culture of the countries and the societies we deal with is extremely important. Might there be a coordination with religious leaders or respecting the values of a given country when we go there to help?

So Europe, as a strong soft power, also has to set an example all over the world, for an evidence‑based approach, especially – and I time and again repeat that – when it comes to health. There are already, like in the pandemic, conspiracy theories about health crises on our planet, such as Ebola, such as the hantavirus. Again, extremists try to misuse these health issues for their purpose of division, of separation, of polarisation, far away from any evidence‑based approach.

This is where the European Union comes in again. We are not only the strongest soft power. We are not only values‑based. We are also more reliable than any other actor on earth when it comes to evidence. And when we talk about communication and humanitarian aid, of course you must never forget that we are dealing with taxpayers' money, meaning we have to explain, time and again, and also show our responsibility, time and again, towards the citizens of the European Union, Member States, the European Union citizens, what we are doing with their money and that it is worth it – that it is worth it for the people affected by the crisis, but it is also worth it for the European interest, European values and the proper future for everybody. Because Europeans will have a better future when everybody has a better future.

Mr President, dear colleagues! Hundreds of millions of people in acute distress, more forced to flee than ever before. Madam Commissioner, you have the full support of this House for your dedicated work.

Every Ebola outbreak that we do not nip in the bud will come back to us. Every hunger that is not satisfied will at some point express itself in violence, and every war that is not prevented and, if it cannot be prevented, then at least quickly ended, will result in infinite misery for displaced people.

We must act, provide the funds – yes, you are doing the right thing by increasing effectiveness, spending funds locally, but we need the entire arsenal: no trade agreements with those who have blood on their hands; no diplomatic contortions towards those who fuel wars. We expect this from the Commission and from the Member States.

Mr President, I try to follow the wise words of my colleagues, but in my mother tongue, Hungarian.

Dear Madam Commissioner, dear Mr President! If the European Union has been able to show any success in the world in recent decades, it is truly humanitarian aid, the aim of which is—as mentioned here—to alleviate human suffering. This is especially true now, when two million people in Gaza have no access to healthcare and education. When in Sudan, amidst the world's largest refugee crisis, 14 million people have been forced to leave their homes, when in Yemen 20 million people depend on international food aid. Worldwide, 90 million children have dropped out of school because of armed conflict. The question is simple: what will happen to them? Unified action is now more important than ever. The basis of this, as has been said here, is: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and, of course, independence.

Dear fellow Members! Here in the European Parliament, the race for the resources of the financial framework for the next year has already begun. For now, in a way never seen before, it is unfortunately undetermined what amount will actually be available for humanitarian aid and how it will be distributed. Is the Commission really using this to alleviate the suffering of those in trouble, or does it want to finance another political intention? It is strange to say—and I am careful with it—at the expense of the sufferers. Unfortunately, we also have to state that recently humanitarian policy is being mixed with ideological endeavors. This is certainly a bad direction. The portfolio of humanitarian aid must not be mixed with other areas.

Dear fellow Members! The task of the coming months is to ensure: with an appropriate budget, the Union's humanitarian action is truly credible and independent, and can help those in need more effectively than before—I very much hope so.

Mr. President! The Commission's opinion points out that the global aid system is facing a collapse. That is serious, but at the same time I think we must look at what we from Europe have done?

Sweden has quadrupled its aid budget over 25 years and the European Union has doubled it many times over during these 25 years. Still, the world is in the state that it is in. Then one must ask oneself if one has failed? If you pump in more and more money and you get worse and worse results, then something is not quite right. I think there is a flawed way of thinking at the root of this.

Europe cannot save the world. It is a colonial, outdated way of thinking. We cannot do that, but we must ensure that we become strong instead. We as democratically elected officials represent the people in the union and we have a very large number of major problems to take care of here, socially and economically. There is no reason to increase the budget. It should instead decrease.

Mr President, the marker of humanitarian aid is the irreducibility of human dignity. The European consensus on humanitarian aid reminds us of this. But in the meantime, MAGA's destructive rage has passed this way. It threatens everything in its path.

European humanitarian policy, for its part, resists – let's say it still resists. It resists because it is impartial. Impartiality means assisting those in need. We do not assist the one we like, we assist the one who needs our help and without whom they could not survive. It still resists the transactional aspect, which seems to invade all sectors – whole swathes of European policy – including development aid policy. And this policy has a face: it is the face of our Commissioner. She deserves our support because she defends what is most noble about the European Union in its foreign policy. She and the values she defends represent the marker of this humanitarian aid policy, the character of which we must preserve.

I invite this entire assembly to resist the temptation to vote for amendment 15, which aims to put an end, in a very insidious way, to this impartial and selfless character of humanitarian aid policy.

Mr President! In the Gaza Strip, more than 2 million people continue to suffer from poor access to water, electricity, and basic supplies; over 1 million people live there in tents. And we also have many other crises in this world, such as in Sudan, where we have almost 20 million people suffering from famine. Overall, over 230 million people – just imagine that! – depend on humanitarian aid because they live under conditions that none of us can even imagine.

And we are currently discussing here in the European Parliament, but also in other places, what the global instruments of the European Union should look like in the future. I want to say very clearly that what the Council, what the Member States are doing, namely proposing cuts in this area, is the completely wrong approach. We not only have an obligation towards other regions, but we also have an interest in continuing to have strong humanitarian aid, and therefore it is important that we campaign to ensure that part of the budget continues to be reserved for humanitarian aid.

Mr President, Commissioner, 22 million people are going to lose their lives between now and 2030, 5 million of them will be children. This is the consequence of cuts to humanitarian aid.

When the arrival of food, water or medicine depends on the will of a government, humanitarian aid becomes a tool for political blackmail, a privilege and not a right; an instrument for a few to decide who lives with dignity and who survives waiting for a convoy, watching to see if water or bread arrives that day. We see it in Gaza, where humanitarian aid is still not getting in and hunger is used as yet another weapon of war to continue the genocide. We see it in Cuba, where the United States is suffocating an entire people and there is not even the possibility of getting aid through due to a criminal blockade. And we also see it wherever USAID aid has been dismantled, such as in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Western Sahara, which have been resisting for 50 years.

The European Union, Commissioner, must reinforce humanitarian aid and fill the void that Trump has vilely left unfilled if we do not want to be accomplices to these attacks against humanity.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The less real influence the EU has worldwide, the more it presents itself as a moral superpower. Nothing against aid in acute emergencies and the protection of humanitarian personnel, but your resolution wants to turn humanitarian policy into a permanent, multi-billion instrument with its own implementation architecture and sprawling political commitments.

It is always the same pattern: the Greens demand an additional 3 billion euros in the Bundestag, but as long as bridges in Germany are dilapidated, hospitals suffer from a shortage of staff and pensioners have to collect returnable bottles, such a deployment is simply inappropriate.

And what happens to the money? In Yemen, GIZ embezzled German aid money for years - forged invoices, gang fraud, double-digit million damage. This is the system that is to be further cemented here: the financing of NGOs and often corrupt regimes without us in Europe getting anything out of it.

And where our aid shows good results in the world, it is often others who benefit from it. China pursues its development policy strictly geostrategically and exclusively for its own benefit. If Europe does not want to be the useful idiot who prepares the field for China's investments, then this world-salvation claim must stop. Z Humanitarian aid - yes, but needs-based and strictly controlled. It must not be viewed in isolation from other development policy. We need conditionality: whoever wants our funds must cooperate in combating illegal migration, for example. The blank cheque for global NGOs and endless transfers demanded here by the left half of this House up to the EPP, that is the sell-out of European interests, and therefore we reject this motion for a resolution.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues! Humanitarian aid is an expression of our European values. It saves lives, it relieves suffering, and it must reach those who need it most.

But precisely for that reason, we must not be naive either; humanitarian aid is never completely apolitical. After a natural disaster, that may be the case most of all, but the mere question of who actually receives humanitarian aid in wars, and particularly in civil wars – here there is always a political dimension as well. Who gets access, who distributes, who controls, and who profits – all of this can influence the balance of power on the ground. All the more so when humanitarian aid is not just temporary, but becomes permanent or even the sole source of livelihood.

This also applies with a view to Gaza and the West Bank. Aid must reach the civilian population, but it must not contribute to stabilizing terrorist organizations, violent actors, or corrupt structures. Or it should, as for example in the case of Afghanistan, be linked to conditions adapted to the local context that at least lead to a gradual improvement in the situation of the oppressed.

If relief supplies are diverted, if funds end up in the wrong hands, or if international organizations do not exercise sufficient control, a massive loss of trust arises among the citizens of Europe, but also in the international community. Neutrality must not mean blindness; impartiality does not mean renunciation of control, and humanity precisely demands that aid is not abused.

Therefore, we need clear answers from the Commission on whether humanitarian aid is arriving, what auditing mechanisms exist with partner organizations, and how misuse is responded to. Europe must help, but also control.

Mr President, humanitarian aid should alleviate abrupt emergencies, but many of the situations now calling for our help are not abrupt at all.

We know that stopping development programs for healthcare leads to outbreaks of preventable diseases. We know that indirectly supporting illegal mining disrupts and displaces communities. We know that continuing trade deals with a state that commits genocide causes unprecedented human suffering.

Humanitarian aid is not separate from our international partnerships and must not be a substitute for a consistent foreign policy. Because if we continue with one hand to create circumstances that lead to crises and with the other hand offer aid, we solve nothing.

The international system is broken, and that costs millions of human lives. When 300 million people need humanitarian aid, it demands more than incidental support. It demands a way of acting that no longer causes harm to people and nature.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner how she is working with her colleagues on a genuinely consistent foreign policy.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, in the Aeneid, Virgil reminds us that the suffering of mortals appeals to the conscience of men.

Faced with human pain, Europe cannot turn its face away. Our aid must continue to protect the most vulnerable and those who risk their lives to rescue them.

But Aeneas also teaches us that true compassion requires responsibility.

Today, there are more dead humanitarian workers, more hunger, and development funding has regressed to levels from a decade ago.

Faced with this reality, the Commission's response too often arrives late and, frequently, accompanied by the same scourge: inefficiency.

The truth, however uncomfortable, is this: spending more is not helping better. With hundreds of millions of people in need of assistance, every euro lost in bureaucracy, opacity or dispersion is a euro taken away from those who need it most.

Because Aeneas's lesson remains current: compassion honors a civilization, but only responsibility ensures that it endures.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the fact that we are able to help each other in difficult times by providing humanitarian aid is the highest expression of humanity. It often becomes a factor uniting countries when political disagreements are put aside.

Unfortunately, the need for such aid is not decreasing, but is only growing as conflict zones expand. One of such countries is Ukraine, which is fighting Russian aggression. A significant part of its society is facing extreme difficulties, and humanitarian aid support must be continued.

However, humanitarian aid and funds must be allocated extremely responsibly so that they are not used to solve problems but to create them. They must not fall into the hands of terrorists and create opportunities for using those funds for aggression against neighbours. Some finance mechanisms may discredit humanitarian goals, like in the cases when the money went into the hands of Hamas terrorists. Therefore, the EU should act extremely cautiously and responsibly in the future.

Madam President, let me first start with thanking you, dear Commissioner Lahbib, for your principled leadership and commitment to international humanitarian law. The humanitarian communication is a testimony of this leadership.

Three hundred million people need humanitarian aid. Behind every number, there is a face, there are dreams, hopes, aspiration. There is a life that is uprooted and destroyed. It is the women in Sudan who walk through the desert in search for help. They are raped, they are beaten, they are witnessing massacres, only to find that there was no one to help. It is the children in Gaza who survived the war, but their parents and communities did not. Many of them are disabled and all of them traumatised. These are the voices that are never heard in this Chamber. They are never invited. Still, it is their need and experiences that must shape our acts.

My plea today is clear. Please, dear Commissioner, we need to urgently increase the funding to those – especially women-led organisations – who are the first responders when the catastrophe happens.

Mr. President! Unfortunately, the number of wars and conflicts in the world is increasing right now, and at the same time, something even more frightening is happening. Respect for international humanitarian law is being eroded, and completely innocent children and people exposed to these conflicts are suffering. We see small children in Gaza trying to create a daily life among the rubble and trying to sleep in camps invaded by rats.

At the same time, we see how aid has been prevented from getting through. We also see attacks on medical personnel, hospitals, and aid workers. When humanitarian aid is used as a tool for control, when access to aid is made conditional on political or military goals, not only are the people in the current conflict threatened. Then the entire international system that was created after the horrors of the Second World War is threatened.

If we accept that, then we are on a slippery slope. We in this chamber must stand up for international law, that it applies always and to everyone. We must defend the UN's role, protect the ability of humanitarian organizations to operate, and demand that life-saving aid reaches the innocent people who need it. Otherwise, we are all in danger.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues. Humanitarian aid is not charity, it is a strategic investment in European security and credibility. Today there are about 130 active conflicts in the world and they generate roughly 70 percent of global humanitarian needs. Needs are growing exponentially, while financial resources and operational capacities are decreasing. However, the need to reform the system is also obvious: to reduce duplication in supply chains and to demand that funding reaches the people. The quality, accountability and strategic orientation of the European Union's humanitarian aid are just as important as its scale. In recent years, violence against humanitarian workers has reached an unprecedented scale. People who risk their lives to help others are themselves becoming targets. International humanitarian law is being violated with near impunity. We must demand accountability for attacks on aid and medical workers. At the same time, we must realize how important the role of local actors is: they are always the first on the scene in a crisis even before international organizations arrive. Operational results also depend on factors that Europe cannot control: a decreasing number of donors or the disrespect of conflict parties for humanitarian law. However, this is not an excuse for passivity, but an incentive to persistently exploit every opportunity available to us.

(The speaker agreed to reply to a blue-card question)

You spoke about humanitarian aid. Do you know that the Commission refuses to publish the reports on the destruction of humanitarian projects in Gaza, because it says it harms its international relations? To me, it seems like a clear expression of European hypocrisy, because, with one hand, projects are financed there and, with the other hand, whoever destroys them is financed, they are given weapons to destroy those projects and to murder Palestinian victims.

I wanted to know your opinion, if you agree to deny European citizens access to information regarding those reports.

I apologize, it was difficult for me to understand the question. I will try to answer somewhat. Is the talk here probably about information and information flows? So that feedback must be programmed and every investment, whatever it may be, in humanitarian aid must be properly evaluated and dictate certain further actions. That is how I would understand your question.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, humanitarian aid is not a bargaining chip, it is a duty, the duty to weave the thread that keeps human beings alive and recognises their dignity when everything is in ruins.

Yet today, near and far from our Europe, that thread is being systematically broken. Organisations opposed and defunded, aid workers killed, operations interrupted, local actors sidelined, communities deprived of food, medical care and shelter.

International humanitarian law is being torn to pieces by those who are formally at peace and by those who wage war. And if it happens in war, it is not a justification, but an aggravating factor.

The most affected are women, minors and minorities. With you, Madam Commissioner, let us defend humanity and the generous substance, sustainability and freedom of relief work. Let us oppose those who want to turn aid into a brutal instrument of political pressure and let us reiterate that public funding is an obligation, not an option.

Therefore, to the Member States and the right wing, we say: no cuts.

Mr President, my first words are of support and solidarity for the earthquake in Venezuela. This Parliament has not had the courage to speak about that issue. I am very sorry, truly, when other topics are so often discussed.

Humanitarian aid is a civilisational commitment due to the impact of conflicts or humanitarian disasters. It is an international obligation, it is a commitment, it is empathy, it is humanity and solidarity. That is why I also want to thank the Commissioner for her work in this regard, because I believe she is the only brave Commissioner to have denounced the genocide in Gaza, and I want to acknowledge it publicly.

We support this Joint Communication on humanitarian aid in the face of the increase in conflicts, the lack of respect for international law, and the lack of support for human rights and humanitarian organisations. Gaza has been the example of leaving humanitarian workers alone, of leaving Palestinians alone. Gaza has been the example of the death of humanitarian aid, and therefore, we must continue helping. That is one of the...

(the President cuts off the speaker's microphone)

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, talking about humanitarian aid is above all talking about human lives. It is talking about thousands of people who, for lack of resources, simply no longer have access to essential aid. In 2025, international funding for humanitarian aid has reached its lowest level in ten years: a situation which forces humanitarian actors to make impossible decisions – deciding who will receive aid and who will be deprived of it, who will be treated, who will eat, who will be protected.

These choices should not exist. It is a matter of political will. Defending ambitious, predictable and flexible funding, refusing the instrumentalization of aid, ensuring the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence, protecting humanitarian workers, taking care of their mental health and guaranteeing their access to justice: these priorities must be translated into concrete actions, urgently. This is a matter of human dignity and the lives of thousands of people.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, yesterday Israel murdered ten civilians, two of them minors. The day before yesterday, it murdered the head of the Egyptian humanitarian aid agency. Nearly 600 humanitarian workers have now been murdered in Gaza. Let's stop sending weapons to Israel.

Today here we are talking about how to get humanitarian aid to many places and, among other places, to Gaza. But our priority should be to stop cooperating with Israel in the extermination of that people, of the Palestinian people, in which we participate.

Earlier I was asking a member of the Partido Popular about this. The Commission refuses to publish reports on the destruction of its own projects, the projects it funds. That, to me, is the clearest expression of European hypocrisy. Just as it refuses to comply with judicial rulings from courts of justice.

I think that the humanitarian aid thing looks like a marketing strategy. It may look like it to hide our participation in that genocide.

Mr President, amidst global disorder and the multiplication of natural catastrophes largely due to global warming, humanitarian aid is more urgent than ever.

Never has there been a greater need for humanitarian aid, nor such urgent need, as at this moment while we are speaking. And yet, the European Union, which is the world champion in development aid and humanitarian aid, has the obligation to improve the diplomatic effectiveness of its humanitarian aid. This is the purpose of this oral question: to improve the level of protection, commitment to international humanitarian law, and the performance of humanitarian aid, so that all this investment in aid translates into transformation and real change in the recipients of the aid.

And, of course, special emphasis must also be placed on distinctive values that should link the foreign policy and also the humanitarian aid of the European Union: the empowerment of women, sexual and reproductive rights, and support for humanitarian workers who are harassed as never before and subjected to violence in a large part of the countries in need of aid.

Mr President, a government's first moral contract is to its own citizens. Making its own citizens' lives better, safer and more prosperous comes before everything else. It doesn't mean we can't do things like give humanitarian aid; of course we can, and we should. But pouring inefficient development aid around the world is another question.

European aid should serve European interests. We are not a charity and we don't have limitless piles of money to sink into agencies and NGOs that someone here finds worth supporting. So we must be strategic: focus on true life‑saving aid without ideological creep.

Funding leftist ideas and NGOs through development aid serves only leftist interests. Saving lives serves everyone's interests.

Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, dear parliamentarians, for this debate full of humanity and heart. I would like to start with one of the sentences that was said. One of the first speakers said that the European Union and humanitarian aid were:

'The strongest soft power on earth.'

This led me to reflect, because I tried to translate it into French. Is easing the suffering of women, of children, displaced by earthquakes, by wars, by epidemics, is that a light power – soft power? Is stopping epidemics before they contaminate other countries, before they spread, before they reach us, before they propel us into nightmarish blackouts, as we have had in the past, is that soft power? Is it light? I do not think so.

So, admittedly, humanitarian aid alone cannot solve everything, and that is why we published this humanitarian communication, which is more of a strategy, in reality, in the face of the challenges we are facing today. For it to be effective, it must work hand in hand with diplomacy, with development aid, to have a long-term vision. That is also why we proposed for the next MFF to have Global Europe with a cushion of 25 billion and principles that will be protected, since the 1996 regulations specific to humanitarian aid will remain applicable.

So, will this money be well spent? That is also a question that we can, of course, ask ourselves. There is not zero risk, but in any case we have zero tolerance and a solid control system in place, with monitoring by our own ECHO offices which are on the spot, which are in contact with our partners who distribute humanitarian aid, with audits by the European Court of Auditors, with detailed reports. So yes, everything is in place to ensure that our citizens' money is well spent.

Humanitarian aid – I agree – is the noblest, most dignified face of the European Union, and if we were to give it a face, it would certainly be that of a woman. A woman in Sudan fleeing war, who is displaced among the 13 million displaced people, or a woman looking for her buried child in Caracas. That is humanitarian aid. That is what I see, that is what I am confronted with every time I go on a mission. It is hope, it is a vision of the future for us all, and we must be proud of it, keep it alive.

I count on you, I thank you and I wish you a good vote shortly for your resolution.

Mr President, honourable Members, the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation is the European Union's foundation for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. This April, one decade after its last revision, the Commission's evaluation confirmed that the approach adopted in 2013 to reconcile the three core objectives of the CFP – environmental, social and economic sustainability – remain valid. The evaluation further demonstrates that the regulation's effectiveness depends not only on its overarching framework, but also on the operationalisation of its tools, including technical and conservation measures, control mechanisms and multiannual plans.

Starting with the environmental pillar, the evaluation finds progress in reducing overfishing, but stock abundance has not increased as expected. The landing obligation has fallen short of expectations on selective behaviour or catch composition. This matters beyond the environment, because conservation underpins long‑term socio‑economic prosperity. And here the evaluation finds that the sector's socio‑economic performance also falls short of what the 2013 reform envisaged. This is linked to several persistent challenges facing the EU fisheries sector, including an ageing fleet, high energy dependency, rising operational costs and difficulties in attracting young generations. Access to marine biological resources is also an issue for the small‑scale fishers. Profitability has not improved as expected. This is not only due to the challenges I just mentioned, but can also be explained, to a large extent, by decreasing landings due to slow recovery of fish stocks and by an incomplete adjustment of the fleet capacity to available fish stocks.

Moreover, the evaluation found that while science and data collection have improved, there is a growing demand to better quantify the socio‑economic impact of this on the sector, and to integrate the data into the scientific advice that feeds into our policy decisions. Here, we have already taken steps forward with the first dedicated social report on the sector, published just two weeks ago.

In aquaculture, the evaluation shows the limits of the non-binding EU tools the sector relies on. Where measures depend mainly on guidance and voluntary uptake, progress can be uneven and too slow, particularly in areas such as administrative simplification and enabling conditions for growth.

External disruptions are also increasingly affecting fisheries and aquaculture: COVID‑19, the war in Ukraine, Brexit, and systemic changes such as demographic ageing, geopolitical shifts and accelerating climate change. While these factors go beyond the direct remit of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation, stakeholders rightfully expect the policy framework to offer ways to respond and adapt.

On the international stage, the EU remains a global leader in sustainable fisheries. We must uphold this role, especially in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and ensure fair competition for our operators with third‑country fleets.

Honourable Members, the evaluation provided a diagnosis of the rules in place. Now we need to take political decisions on the way forward, including looking into the question of which shortcomings identified in the evaluation require legislative changes and to what extent. I look forward to the discussion that will follow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to thank Commissioner Kadis for his willingness. I believe he has shown a willingness from the outset to work on this very important issue. He has always been very open-minded and has listened to fishermen and also scientists in this regard.

Ten years after the 2013 reform, the question is whether we have progressed rapidly. I believe we have achieved ambivalent results and now we must change the paradigm in order to resolve situations that have arisen over these years.

The simplification package cannot wait—and we know that—and at the same time we must slowly work on the CFP, which is a fundamental issue for the future of the fishery. A 15% drop, a loss of 2 000 vessels per year in Europe, consumption has dropped by 22.8 kilos per person in ten years, with a sharp rise in price. Therefore, we are not feeding ourselves with protein, we import a lot of fish and our fleet capacity is declining.

Therefore, we have to work on this important set of circumstances. What does this mean? That there is much to reflect upon. Of course we must be committed to the sustainability of the fishing grounds: that is a non-negotiable issue, but it is also non-negotiable because at this moment fishermen see it that way and want to do so, but with the necessary tools provided in the CFP to be able to do it: landing obligation, social tonnage, going further in the Control Regulation, the Mediterranean Regulation, the deep-sea Regulation and the 87 closed areas regarding longlines or the EMFAF and the economic resources that we are going to have for the future, which is one of the first issues that this Parliament has to fix, fisheries being a fundamental issue for the future of food supply, coastal areas and, of course, the work of our fishermen—men and women—and the diversification of the coast. Therefore, that is our objective.

Mr President, Commissioner, in May, the Committee on Fisheries went to the Azores. We heard from fishermen, vessel owners, researchers, and the message was clear: stocks are improving, fleet income is falling. The sector is aging, vessels are losing efficiency. Costs are rising and international competition is tightening. Marine protected areas are growing, but compensations are not reaching the fishermen.

Commissioner, I know of your commitment to the common fisheries policy, but now is the time to act. I therefore leave four appeals.

Simplify, yes; unprotect, no. We need effective controls and modernized fleets. It is not paperwork that saves fishermen; it is income, stability, investment, and the promotion of sustainability.

Second, generational renewal. Without a present for fishermen, there is no future for the common fisheries policy. It is therefore necessary to make this sector more attractive, to draw more people in.

The third element concerns the international dimension: combating illegal fishing, strengthening cooperation for the oceans. The European Union must lead in responding to these challenges.

Finally, the budget. It is not possible to talk about the future of fisheries with a 66% cut in funding.

This Parliament and this political group will continue to fight for more funds for fisheries and for the outermost regions, because, as I have said several times, only in mathematics does minus times minus equal plus.

Mr President, today there is a debate on the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy. When you took office at the end of 2024, the landing obligation was already discussed: an obligation that in practice is unworkable for many fishermen. You indicated at the time that this needed to be looked at again, but now, almost two years later, we must conclude that no visible concrete action has been taken yet.

In December 2025, my own-initiative report on the modernisation and sustainability of European fisheries was adopted in this Parliament. In it, we asked to relax and simplify rules so that innovation can be authorised more quickly. We asked to be able to modernise vessels and to decouple rules on gross tonnage from actual fishing capacity, creating room for safer ships, better working conditions and new engines. But unfortunately no concrete action there either.

We have discussed innovative fishing techniques such as pulse fishing, a technique that consumes less fuel, has less bycatch and practically does not disturb the seabed. And yet this technique remains stuck in political blockades, unwillingness and distrust, instead of being assessed on the basis of science. No action there at the moment either.

And then the budget. While fishermen have to make investments to modernise and become more sustainable, the fisheries budget is going down by approximately 68%. And then the Commission says: funds can come through national and regional plans. But let's be honest: if fisheries have to compete with all the major priorities, then our fishermen are at the back of the queue. Here too, no concrete action was taken to defend the fisheries budget.

Fishermen do not need new roadmaps or new strategies. Nor a new ocean pact. What they do need is workable rules, room for investment, legal certainty and a future perspective. And that is why I keep repeating: actions speak louder than words. Action on the landing obligation, action on innovation, action on modernisation and action on the budget.

Thank you. Commissioner Kadis, dear colleagues, at the plenary session we are finally discussing fisheries policy. It is no exaggeration to say that the situation is alarming. It is worth repeating the fact that Europe imports over 70 percent of the fish we consume. In a way, with our regulations we are helping the competition, we are creating stronger competition than necessary, and our fishermen are still dealing with a very heavy burden. I have not yet met a fisherman who tells me that it has been easier for him since Croatia joined the European Union. The situation must change urgently. The Mediterranean Regulation has been in force for 20 years. It is outdated. The situation has changed. We have a shortage of small pelagic fish, we all know that, but nothing is happening to correct this situation. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, new restrictions have been imposed on fishermen for years, while concrete solutions are lacking. That is why an urgent revision of the Mediterranean Regulation is necessary, as well as this regulatory framework, which will simultaneously protect fishing interests and ensure stocks. Therefore, it is time for action, and not just empty phrases.

Mr President, the common fisheries policy stems back for more than 55 years and is, together with the common agricultural policy and the internal market, one of the core policies of our Union, and that is why this discussion is so important today.

For Renew Europe, our priority is on policies that deliver for fisheries, for the marine environment and for the coastal communities that depend on both of these. The Commission's evaluation of the CFP shows that there is room for improvement, and as we all know, evaluation is only worth something if it leads to action. We see a need for a landing obligation that meets the objectives – which this evaluation showed that it does not. We see a need for an energy transition within the sector, but the proposal for the new MFF risks burying funding under administrative red tape. And we see the need for the Commission to respond to the crisis, not least in the Baltic Sea, and not least since Parliament adopted our report on the management plan.

Commissioner, you have a lot to do and this evaluation shows that. But the main fight today should not be on the revision of the legal text or not. It should be about real action for real people. Our simple task for the Commission is simply to act. The time for reflection is over, and we need to make sure that we have a CFP that delivers thriving oceans, fisheries and coastal communities.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, the 2013 CFP reform took more than four years to perform. There was a white paper, a green paper. We had impact assessments. We had discussions in Member States, evaluations, discussions in the sector. It took a very long time and it was a thorough work.

The evaluation now shows that what we did was the right thing to do. We haven't reached all the objectives – that's true. But the evaluation shows that it's not because the objectives were wrong, it is because there hasn't been enough commitment in Member States to really implement the policies needed. The landing obligation – there's funds to be used. There's ways and technical measures to avoid unwanted catches. But the evaluation shows that very few Member States have invested in that.

Rebuilding stocks at biomass levels above those that can produce maximum sustainable yields. Well, here we have to apply the precautionary approach with quota-setting. And we need accurate stock assessments. But that's impossible without sufficient control and data collection. Still, again, Member States have not invested in that enough. We still have overcapacity of fleets. The fact remains that with more boats, we will not have more fish in the ocean. The only thing we will have is less profitable fishermen, and this fact needs to really be understood. We need to focus on these things.

We also need to understand we have a climate crisis that is not only affecting people in Paris or us here sweating in Strasbourg, it's also affecting fish stocks and the ocean, and we need to take that into account. Now we have the chance to really harmonise and clarify our legislation with the Ocean Act, and that is what we should be focusing on.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, I was glad to see that the evaluation clearly recognises that healthy ecosystems are a prerequisite for sustainable and profitable fisheries.

In the PECH Committee last month, you said that improving daily life for small‑scale fishers is a priority for the Commission. However, the findings of the evaluation are stark. It finds that the CFP is not effectively supporting small‑scale coastal fishers, the value of their catches is declining, and there is no generational renewal, which is key to face the persistent challenges regarding access to fishing communities.

When I asked you last month if the Ocean Act would allocate preferential access to small‑scale, low‑impact fishers within the 12‑nautical‑mile zone, the reply was that it is up to Member States to designate areas at sea, which of course you are correct on. But no matter how much support for small‑scale fishers is expressed in policies and legislation, and it really is – you would be really positive if you read it and you thought it was going to happen – the reality is that the power to improve daily life for a small‑scale fisher largely lies with Member States, and we don't see that happening.

We need to be talking about access to quota, access to funding, and this should be a debate at home in Ireland, because all we hear at home in Ireland when it comes to the fisheries debate is: 'Ireland got a bad deal when it came to getting quota'. Yeah, I agree we should have more quota, but that does not seem to be changing. And to me it's just a populist debate that goes on and on. We need to discuss why more of the quota we have doesn't go to small‑scale fishers. Thank you for your work, Commissioner.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues! We are standing here again, discussing the so-called mixed results of the Common Fisheries Policy. For Europe's fishermen and coastal communities, however, these results are anything but mixed; they are a threat to their existence.

This is deeply unfair, because Europe's fishermen were willing to make sacrifices and believed the false promises of this EU. They accepted lower fishing opportunities, stricter regulations, and costly adjustments in order to achieve the goals of climate ideology in particular and the sustainability circus of the Common Fisheries Policy. They were promised that these sacrifices would lead to richer fish stocks and better economic prospects.

European fishermen are still waiting in vain to this day. Even after taking Brexit into account, the EU fishing fleet catches around a quarter fewer fish today than it did ten years ago. 25% less in ten years; that should put us in a state of alarm.

We are experiencing a shrinking fleet, declining employment, and an aging workforce that no longer sees a future in fishing for its children. When the Common Fisheries Policy was reformed in 2014, there were still 150,000 fishing businesses in Europe; today there are only around 120,000, and these are permanently threatened by bureaucracy, low incomes, and increasingly strict rules that ignore the reality of mixed fisheries.

This is not sustainability; this is a managed decline of our food security; we must be clear about that. Brussels has created ever new levels of regulation, monitoring, and control, while foreign imports flood our markets. In 2000, this EU imported around 40% of the seafood consumed; this share has now risen to 70%. 70% - and we have our own fishing industry: you have to imagine that.

And there sits the Commissioner for Fisheries, still telling us his green fairy tales. At the same time, European waters are increasingly being fished by third countries, which makes the recovery of stocks particularly difficult in the Mediterranean. The EU's response to this is merely to further reduce the number of fishing days for European fishermen, instead of taking consistent action against illegal fishing.

The Common Fisheries Policy is a perfect symbol of everything that is going wrong in this Union: centralized power in Brussels that sidelines national and regional knowledge; ideological environmental targets that ignore economic and social realities, and worst of all, the refusal to put our own European fishermen first.

What is to be done? What will we as Alternative for Germany do? Food sovereignty, food security is priority number one for us. Competitive European fishing fleets and thriving coastal communities must be given priority over a globalist, green, unrealistic ideology - away with it!

Commissioner, the assessment is clear: the Common Fisheries Policy has let down our fishermen; you and the Commission are the downfall of European fishing. I am sorry, I cannot spare you that.

Mr President, Commissioner, following the presentation of the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy to our committee on 3 June last, the EPP requested this debate with you in plenary. The evaluation now calls for an evolution, guided by one objective: that the expectations of European fishermen and the entire sector are concretely and finally taken into account.

Starting with the renewal and modernization of the fleet, without which it is illusory to believe that we can attract young people to the profession. We have identified the articles of the CFP and the EMFAF that must be revisited to decarbonize vessels and improve working conditions. Nothing and no one should now stand in the way of this necessity, and the financial means to achieve this must be safeguarded. Just as the time has come to simplify and group together in a single text the expected revisions: landing obligation, fisheries control, common organization of markets... So many rules, some of which are inapplicable, others inoperative. You have been able to see this for yourself, Commissioner, during your very numerous trips to meet fisheries stakeholders.

Hence the urgency to act while preserving the advances of the CFP – and there are some – but also by accepting to correct what needs to be corrected. You have announced targeted amendments; our EPP group is ready to work on them without delay.

Mr President, as you know, Commissioner, (the speaker speaks in a non-official language).

It is true that the common fisheries policy has helped to improve the sustainability of European catches. But now it is important to guarantee the sustainability of fishing communities, because that is what is at stake. Let's admit it: the evaluation of the common fisheries policy notes the destruction of 30% of employment in the sector, a loss of purchasing power, a lack of generational renewal and the obsolescence of the fleet. We are not talking about implementation problems, we are talking about design problems and new realities, problems that are going to be exacerbated by an inadmissible cut in fisheries funds that we must prevent.

Commissioner, it is time to propose imminently a specific reform of the common fisheries policy to rebalance the three dimensions of sustainability, boost generational renewal, tackle the aging of the fleet with aid for its decarbonization, reform the obsolete approach to fishing capacity, promote multiannual TACs and introduce limits on year-on-year variations in TACs and quotas.

And the sector is running out of patience and believe me, I return to the beginning, I am Galician (the speaker speaks in a non-official language).

Mr President, today we must talk about the common fisheries policy and its evaluation since 2013. It is a vast programme, and what can really be said about it? Should we talk about the inaction of the Commission, which flits from evaluations to meetings, from meetings to summaries, from summaries to working groups, from working groups to evaluations, before starting the infernal cycle all over again? Because in fact, Mr Kadis, nothing moves. At every hearing, it is the same empty terms, the same political dead ends that are leading our fisheries to their doom, and I sincerely believe that this is the ultimate goal: to kill our artisanal fisheries for the benefit of financialised fisheries. However, it would be too easy to stick solely to the responsibility of the Commission.

I believe we must also speak here – rather – of those who never have harsh enough words on the ground to denounce Brussels, but who have voted and vote for everything that the Commission imposes on our artisanal fishermen. This is in fact, I think, what our fisheries sector is dying of, and they bear full responsibility for the situation of our fishermen today.

So our commitment is quite different: to resist, to defend our fisheries, to defend our food sovereignty, to change course and finally to carry the hope of our fishermen for tomorrow. For it is by their side that we are fighting. We will give nothing up and everything is still possible!

Mr President, honourable colleagues, the evaluation of the common fisheries policy confirms what our fishermen have been denouncing for years.

The Commission itself acknowledges that the sector suffers from the progressive aging of operators, the difficulty in attracting young people, and excessively modest profitability.

The report substantially admits that the economic and social objectives of the reform have not been achieved. Precisely for this reason, the time has come to change pace. A model built almost exclusively on constraints, bans, and bureaucracy ends up weakening the entire sector, makes our fishing fleets weaker, and increases dependence on the Union and on imports of fishery products from countries that do not respect our same environmental and social standards; in Italy, 70-80% of fishery products are imported.

Sustainability is not only environmental: it must be economic, social, and food-related. Without competitive businesses, without profitability, and without new generations willing to commit to fishing, there is no transition.

With a revision, we expect more resources for the sector, a radical simplification of superfluous rules, the overcoming of measures that have shown all their limits - such as the landing obligation - investments for fleet renewal, safety on board, innovation, and the relaunch of European mariculture, which is essential.

Let us defend our food sovereignty, the work of coastal communities, and the future of young people who still want to engage in this profession. The sustainable transition cannot be an ideological path against fishermen; it must be a pragmatic transition.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner! The evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy provides a good opportunity to take stock. Fisheries policy must be based on a balance between environmental, economic and social sustainability. We must protect fish stocks, but we must also ensure that there is still an industry and vibrant coastal communities. In Denmark, fisheries are an important part of our food production. Therefore, we should also dare to talk about the real challenges we are facing. Fish stocks are under pressure from many sides: pollution, oxygen depletion, a particularly large cormorant population significantly affects the stocks.

New research in Denmark shows that 88% of cod fry and flounders are taken by cormorants. Therefore, we do not solve the challenge by imposing more requirements on fishermen. We need a fisheries policy that addresses the factors that affect life in the water. This is how we can protect the marine environment, healthy fish stocks and preserve a competitive industry.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues! Do you actually know what tomatoes in Spain have to do with the topic of today's debate? Quite a lot. In Europe, we have more and more aquaculture everywhere in our oceans, for example for salmon, and these are very often declared as particularly sustainable. But these millions of salmon also need something to eat, need feed, and for this, tonnes of wild fish are caught just to be processed into fishmeal afterwards in order to feed it to them. There is enormous overfishing of these wild fish in all regions, for example also in the coastal regions of West Africa, especially affecting small-scale fishers.

Fishing in these regions has partly completely collapsed, and many people and entire families are losing their livelihood as a result and are thereby driven into migration, for example to the Canary Islands. And many of those who survive the dangerous crossing end up as illegal undeclared workers and under precarious working conditions in the greenhouses of tomato production in regions like Almería and other regions in Spain.

Industrial fishing, as it is currently practiced, not only destroys oceans and habitats, it also creates an enormous amount of human suffering.

Let us finally stop here in the House looking exclusively at the interests of the fishers and the industry. We need many more protected areas, and we need much less fishing. There are many living creatures in the sea that depend on fish; we as humans do not.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The fishermen in the Baltic Sea are doing everything that politics demands of them: catch quotas have been cut, herring and cod have been protected - and yet stocks have not recovered.

What is the EU's reaction? Premiums for decommissioning - for the last time this year. Compensation for seal predation expires at the end of 2027. And after that? Nothing more! This is not fisheries policy, this is a swan song for an entire profession.

Yet the fishermen were never the problem. It is eutrophication; it is seals and cormorants eating more fish than the fleet is even allowed to catch; in the North Sea, wind farms are occupying the fishing grounds; in spatial planning, fishermen are the last - if at all - to be consulted.

We need predator management, financial aid for fleet renewal, the protection of fishing grounds and quotas that honestly take predatory fish and nutrient inputs into account.

None of this is to be found in your follow-up programme. This policy punishes those who abide by the rules and ignores the true causes of the decline.

(The speaker agreed to answer a blue-card question.)

blue card". - Hello, dear colleague! I actually wanted to leave the room just now, but I simply had to stop because these sham debates are constantly being conducted by you and many others.

Seals, cormorants, animals are always being used as scapegoats. Can you prove that scientifically? Because there are verifiable figures, for example from Stockholm University, which show the impact of cormorants to be minimal.

It is overfishing, it is climate change, it is fertilizers, it is garbage - that is what constitutes the problem of fishing, and please not the animals. If you are going to claim something like that, then please provide proof!

Blue Card. - Thank you, colleague, for the question. Of course, there are a multitude of problems that are bringing fishermen to the brink of ruin; I did not dispute that either. But it is very clear that seals and cormorants are also part of the problem area.

I come directly from Schleswig-Holstein, I live on the Baltic Sea, and the fishermen there are giving up because the cormorants are truly eating their fish. It is a fact; there are also verifiable studies and figures, and that cannot be ignored.

I did not dispute the other, but I emphasized what in my view is not being sufficiently taken into account.

Mr President, Commissioner, between 2017 and 2023, the sector lost 15% of its workforce and, at this moment, our external dependence is greater than 80%. Low incomes, undignified working conditions, a lack of generational renewal, and excessive bureaucracy threaten the future of fishing and, consequently, of our coastal communities.

I am well aware of your commitment, Commissioner. It is important that this commitment, and your defense and support of the fisheries sector, is also followed by others. As we need regulatory stability and predictability, I advocate a revision of the common fisheries policy focused on four priorities.

Multi-annual fishing quotas that guarantee predictability and reconcile the three pillars of environmental, but also economic and social, sustainability.

Simplify legislation and reduce administrative burden. We need a true simplification package for fisheries. CATCH IT is important and must be reassessed to simplify procedures. And the recent obligation to eliminate the exemption from registering landings up to 50 kilos was also a bad measure that urgently needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the aid regime must always take the production unit as its reference rather than the company.

We must invest in the renewal of vessels and put an end to the limitation by reference to gross weight and engine power. Better vessels guarantee greater safety, better storage of fish, and more income for fishermen.

It is essential to keep the EMFF autonomous and properly funded for fisheries and sustainable aquaculture, and, at this moment, it is urgent to protect the outermost regions by re-establishing POSEI Fisheries.

We also need a level playing field. We cannot demand the highest environmental, social, and labor standards from our fishermen, while accepting imports from third countries that do not comply with these same rules.

Without fishermen there is no fishing, without fishing there are no strong coastal communities, there is no food security, nor is there European maritime sovereignty.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

of the "blue card". – I agree with what you said regarding fisheries policy and the revision of the regulation. However, you did not say anything and I am interested to know if your political group, if you view all fisheries regulations also from a social perspective, because in many areas, just as in my country, it is a source of income for very many, for small-scale fishermen. And you spoke about the need for financing. Do you not think, or do you think, that there should also be financing for small-scale fishermen? How can they manage in the maze of regulations and, at the same time, without the possibility of investments?

Fully in agreement, we, in our group, defend both possibilities.

At a time when we have an external dependency of over 80%, we need to have a much stronger fishing force here, starting immediately with small-scale fishing, artisanal fishing, which is essential and is the engine of European fishing and coastal communities.

For example, in the Azores, we also had a very large body of work here in defining marine protected areas and this has to be compensated. We managed to mobilize public and private financing, and the European Commission cannot block it now either.

Therefore, it is necessary to streamline procedures and ensure that the money effectively reaches small-scale fishermen.

Mr President, I will start with a simple question: if you control how much you fish but those around you do not follow the same ambition, will you really succeed in protecting the fish?

The Common Fisheries Policy is important, and its principles must remain. But simplification is also important, with more simplification, with more fairness and with support for our small fishermen who depend on the sector for their livelihood. The problem here is not necessarily the law. The problem is that the law alone cannot succeed in its environmental ambition if those with whom we share the sea do not have the same intention as us. In the Mediterranean, we share the same sea and the same fish. Therefore, responsibility must be everyone's. Europe must be stronger with third countries within regional organisations. I have worked to give Europe the strongest possible tool to take action against countries that allow unsustainable fishing. In another four weeks, the lampuki season starts and Maltese and Mediterranean fishermen will go out to work again.

Dear Commissioner, are we going to let our Maltese and Mediterranean fishermen face illegal and unsustainable fishing from a third country in the Mediterranean again? I ask you to speak to third countries before the season starts, increase patrols and protect those who follow the rules. The Common Fisheries Policy must be a guarantee that we protect our fishermen.

(The speaker agreed to take a 'blue card' question)

I agree with you in talking about illegal fishing and unfair commercial practices, but previously, in another speech, Mr. Everding dedicated himself, instead of supporting fishing in this very important debate, to attacking Almeria's agriculture. I am from there. I have seen that you have affirmed and applauded. Would you not agree that immigrants are exploited there to grow tomatoes? Because, otherwise, we can show you that reality and you will see that you are facing a powerful agriculture, the most important and technified and with respect for human rights in Europe.

I think it was neither a direct question to me nor was it a question. However, I respect the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries so that we also respect the discussion which is on the fisheries sector. And here we must continue to see that we remain focused, all of us deputies of the Committee on Fisheries, to protect our fishermen. And let us continue to do this because our focus must be on them and let us continue to give our support to them and towards the protection of our sea.

Mr President, Commissioner, Europe has had a common fisheries policy for over 40 years and the promise was very simple initially: to protect the sea without abandoning those who live from it.

Well, the European Commission itself has just admitted that it has failed the exam. In the official evaluation published on 30 April last, it admits that 12 years after the last major reform, the promised economic and social results have not arrived. Just two weeks ago, its first social report also confirmed what fishermen have been denouncing for years: one in six fishing jobs has disappeared since 2017, a fisherman earns on average less than half of what a European worker earns, and only one in four is under 40 years old. In other words, young people obviously see no future at sea.

The sector summarises it with a phrase that I believe anyone understands: more and more boats find that going out to fish costs more than staying moored in port. But make no mistake, because this is not an exclusive problem for fishermen, it is a problem for all Europeans, since seven out of ten fish we consume now come from outside, from countries to which we do not demand the same health, environmental or labour standards that we do impose — as always — harshly on our own.

While here we reduce our capacity to produce food, look across the strait: Morocco now has close to 17,000 artisanal vessels, 370% more than in 1980. They expand their fleet, we pay to scrap ours. Without fishermen there is no European fish. They will decide how, when and where we will eat fish.

Mr President, anyone who reads the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy might easily get the impression that it is primarily the member states that are falling short. What is completely missing, however, is a critical look at European policy itself. Does it still connect with practice? That is what the debate should be about now. Our fishermen want to treat the sea responsibly, but they are also entitled to rules that are workable and do not bog down in bureaucracy.

A thorough simplification of the Common Fisheries Policy is therefore urgently needed. For instance, the landing obligation must be reversed. And the same applies to the ban on pulse fishing. The fact that this technique, of all things, which ensures lower fuel consumption and promotes more selective fishing, is given no room is truly no longer justifiable. In short, let us offer our fishermen a perspective again with a policy that is realistic, workable, and future-proof.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

I think we share the ambition that we want to have a lot of fish in the ocean and profitable fishermen. But how do you foresee that we will have more fish in the ocean and more profitable fishermen with fewer rules? Is that really something that you believe in? Because what we need is, in fact, a level playing field for all the fishermen, that all the fishermen abide by the same rules, and that we really get stocks back into a good shape.

Blue-card answer. – Thank you very much for this nice question. You are asking about the necessity of rules and whether there is a need for rules. I would like to say this: I see rules first and foremost as solidified mistrust. And I think we need to go back to the idea that we must also give trust back to the entrepreneur, to the fisherman. And that means that you must dare to cut red tape, that you must dare to cut regulations. What I observe is that we are dealing with various rules that actually work counterproductively and that do not promote sustainable fisheries at all, which we all actually want. Consider something like the landing obligation; that is simply counterproductive. We need to enter into a discussion about that.

Mr President, two very clear messages for today.

The first, regarding the multiannual financial framework: we absolutely reject the centralization and reduction of fisheries funds in those national allocations, which, in our case, would mean everything being decided from Madrid. We have a sector in the Basque Country that deserves to be listened to from proximity.

The second, regarding the common fisheries policy: we believe it must be thoroughly revised to face the challenges the sector is experiencing, which are seriously jeopardizing its viability in the future. And we are talking about energy prices, generational replacement, fleet decarbonization, definition of fishing capacity, the fight against illegal fishing, and the review of landing obligations. We want administrative simplification —also for our fishers— and we want and need a balance between environmental, economic, and social objectives. And the report presented in the month of April demonstrated that there are shortcomings that we must address as soon as possible.

Mr Commissioner, we know that you have the political will to address them, but the time for reflection is over and we need to act now.

(The speaker agrees to take a blue-card question)

You, like me, defend fishing here and also defend fishermen, shellfish gatherers and also net makers - I do not know how it is said in Basque, but you will tell me now.

We consider that social sustainability has not been taken into account in the common fisheries policy. Therefore, it is something that we have been demanding from the Commissioner for a long time, because there have been rules, decisions - such as fishing bans -, in which social sustainability has not been taken into account.

We see how the shellfish sector is now, which is suffocated. So, I wanted to ask you: what is your opinion on the inclusion of social sustainability?

I believe this is something very clear to those of us who have a sector in our regions and nations and those of us who want to defend both the sustainability of the oceans and the sustainability of economic and social activity, also valuing women, whom I mentioned and whom it is important to recognize at this time as well.

And from there we will work and fight hand in hand, because we know that, furthermore, the fishermen — the fishing sector — are the first interested in guaranteeing the viability and care of the ocean, because that is what truly guarantees their future, so that is what we believe we must defend.

Mr President, every year, billions of fish are caught from the sea worldwide and then thrown overboard again. Fishermen throw those fish back if they are too small, or simply because they yield too little money. More than 70% of all fish thrown overboard still die afterwards. For nothing.

That is why Europe banned this wasteful practice in 2015. But now, eleven years later, unwanted fish are still being thrown overboard en masse in Europe. Instead of exercising stricter control over illegal practices, Europe is now considering rewarding the misconduct of this fishing industry and allowing the dumping of fish of low value to be permitted again.

A fish has the most value when it swims healthy and well in the sea and keeps the ecosystem healthy there. Our seas are still being seriously overfished. Protect our seas and protect the strict fisheries rules. We desperately need them.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

Blue card question. - Mrs Hazekamp, once again you are doing it, once again you are targeting our sustainable Dutch and European fisheries, which have to comply with strict rules and want to fish more selectively. Once again you are targeting our fishermen. How do you actually reflect on your legacy over the past years and the fact that you are calling for even stricter rules, now that the EU is already 70% dependent on fish imports from third countries, where - indeed, you are right - fishing is not always sustainable. But why are you targeting our fishing sector? You should be proud of our European and Dutch fishermen.

Blue card" answer. – Yes, those Dutch fishermen. Let me first state that they have the largest ships in the world, which in many other parts of the world are called ships from hell and which indeed sail under other flags, for example that of Panama. And let us not forget that of all fisheries, let us look at the Baltic Sea, there is almost no cod left there. Mediterranean Sea: more than half of the fish are still being overfished. The North Sea: plaice and sole have been overfished for decades. Let us just give each other the figures honestly now and say that something has to change.

Mr. President, esteemed Commissioner Kadis, ten years of the Common Fisheries Policy have clearly shown what our fishermen need today, which you saw during your visit to Croatia, for which I thank you. Simpler rules, fair market conditions, and less administrative burden. As rapporteur for the implementation of fisheries rules in the Mediterranean, I call once again to ensure more flexibility for fishermen and rules adapted to the actual conditions at sea, especially for Croatian fishermen who mostly fish with small coastal vessels. Croatia's membership in the European Union has brought concrete results. Through European funds and policies, the fleet, ports, and aquaculture have been modernized, and more than 700 million euros in support have been secured. Croatian fisheries today are more resilient, competitive, and sustainable. But fishermen must remain at the center of European fisheries policy. We are talking about sustainable jobs, the survival of our coastal communities, and food security. The new European budget must therefore match the ambitions we place before this sector. We cannot ask more from fishermen if we do not provide them with appropriate financial support. Only a policy that simultaneously protects our sea and the people who live from it can secure the future of European fisheries.

Mr President, Commissioner, in recent years the European fisheries sector has lost profitability, the fleet has aged and many shipowners are unable to invest in modernization or to improve conditions on board, which are essential to attract new generations to this sector.

Parliament warned in its report on the decarbonization and modernization of fisheries that the current framework restricts or prevents public aid, which deters private investment and stalls fleet renewal.

All of this disproportionately affects small communities that depend on the sector, as is the case in my region: Madeira.

In terms of the budget, it is also incomprehensible that the European Commission should propose a reduction of more than 66% in the allocation for the fisheries fund in the next multiannual financial framework.

If we want to have a revitalized fisheries sector that contributes decisively to strengthening our strategic autonomy, we need ambition accompanied by financial resources and appropriate instruments.

Mr President, Commissioner, last week I boarded a fishing boat in Calpe, a small Mediterranean town. I got up at dawn with them and saw how they work, how they plan each haul, how they monitor each catch and how they comply with increasingly demanding rules.

I left there with a reflection: our fishermen do not feel part of the solution, they feel permanently under suspicion. They have been making huge sacrifices for years and yet, every year they have fewer days to fish, more uncertainty, more difficulties in keeping their family businesses afloat and they genuinely think that the European Union wants to finish off the sector.

While we talk about sustainability, many ports are disappearing, many boats are also disappearing, many jobs are also disappearing and, most worryingly, the young people who want to continue with this profession are disappearing. That is why we need sustainability to have three pillars: environmental, economic and social. And we need a deep review of the common fisheries policy, a policy that stops measuring only tons and also begins to measure people, jobs and communities.

Mr President! When we finally get time off and are to enjoy sun and swimming, well then we have to stay on land. Because the Baltic Sea's algal bloom puts a stop and is a sign of how bad things are. For decades, the Baltic Sea has been mistreated and functioned as the final station for sewage and emissions. Now, Putin's shadow fleet is also a ticking environmental bomb.

Fish has been regarded as a resource that never runs out, but now it is acutely threatened. We know that, and that we must get a completely new fisheries policy based on reality and science, everyone knows that. A brackish archipelago bay in Roslagen is something completely different from the salty, deep Mediterranean, and we must adapt the policy accordingly. We must put a stop to bottom trawling.

The Commission must evaluate, but above all act, and the member states must start taking responsibility.

(The speaker accepted a question ("blue card").)

As an MEP from Poland, a country that has access to the Baltic Sea, I would like to ask my female colleague, who also represents a country that has access to the Baltic Sea, about the European Union's policy towards this sea, and especially the fisheries policy. Listening to the discussions here of female and male colleagues from various countries of the European Union, I see that everyone is criticizing the European Union's policy. Question: why is it that the policy of the European Commission, of the European Union, is against European fishermen? Why do we import more fish from countries outside the Union rather than from Union countries?

Thank you for your question, this is something we need to debate. We may have different opinions on how policy should be formulated, but I would wish that we could agree on a common goal for the Baltic Sea: that it should be a healthy and sound inland sea and that we have a policy that ensures our fish stocks survive for future generations.

It is not like that today, and there is no country around the Baltic Sea that can manage to solve this major problem on its own. Therefore, we must cooperate, and that is why this debate is so important.

Mr President, Commissioner, the evaluation of the CFP offers an accurate diagnosis: a declining extractive fleet, stagnant aquaculture and a more prosperous processing industry, but I cannot share the conclusions, which are too self-complacent.

In my opinion, Commissioner, the Commission should do two things. First, a simplification omnibus for fisheries. I welcome your intention, Commissioner, to reform the multiannual management plan for the Mediterranean —something urgent that we have been demanding for a long time— and the EMFF, but it does not seem sufficient to me. The omnibus must address at least two other issues: the exclusion of longliners from the Deep-Sea Regulation and the revision of certain specific aspects of the Control Regulation, which have proven very difficult —or even impossible— to comply with. For example, Article 14, regarding the obligation to record catches from the first kilo. Furthermore, the omnibus must be presented as soon as possible. Fishermen cannot wait any longer.

Secondly, in addition to the omnibus, we need a reform of the CFP, which must address the following elements: making both the landing obligation and the application of maximum sustainable yield more flexible. Secondly, reforming the concept of fishing capacity to allow for the decarbonisation and modernisation of the fleet, which are essential for generational renewal. Also redefining the concept of small-scale coastal fishing, so that it is not based exclusively on length. And also introducing socioeconomic considerations when setting TACs and quotas.

Commissioner, it is time to act, to finally make political decisions. You yourself have just said it, and it is the Commission that has the monopoly on legislative initiative.

Madam President, last week, and more specifically on Sunday, I met with representatives of fishermen in Agios Ioannis Rentis, in Attica. They asked me to convey to you—both to the European Commission and to you personally—their voice and their anguish; I think you know it quite well. They spoke to me about the high cost of fuel, the aging fleet, the suffocating bureaucracy, the difficulty for young people to enter the profession and unfair competition, illegal fishing from third countries and especially from Turkey, which does not apply the same rules.

The evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy shows progress in stock management. This is important, but its success cannot be judged solely by environmental indicators. It must therefore also be judged by whether a professional fisherman can make a decent living from their work and whether coastal communities have a future.

Mr Commissioner, fishermen are not asking for privileges. We say it again and again. They are asking for fair rules, less bureaucracy, substantial support and a level playing field. I know, Mr Commissioner, your remarkable, highly remarkable work and I want you to stand by the people of the sea with substantive initiatives.

Mr President, the Commission's own evaluation confirms what our fishermen have been observing for years: the landing obligation has failed. Failed. It has not led to greater selectivity. If the legislation clearly fails to achieve its objectives, the solution cannot be better enforcement. Then the rules themselves must be revised. Our fishermen are asking for solutions, not paperwork.

The EU needs a fisheries omnibus, revision of the landing obligation, generational renewal and realism about the energy transition. Europe is already 70% dependent on imports from outside for our fish. Commission, do you defend rules that demonstrably do not work? Or do you finally have the courage to restore the sector's competitiveness via an omnibus? Fishermen are counting on you.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

Mr. Member, you spoke about the issue of bureaucracy, you spoke about the issue of external dependence, and let me give you two clear examples.

In the Azores, under the leadership of José Manuel Bolieiro's Government, we defined 300,000 square kilometers of protected marine areas and these compensations, through the mobilization of private and public funds, are stalled in the European Commission.

In Madeira, we have public financing for the renewal of vessels and, once again, these decisions are stalled in the European Commission, not in the Commissioner for Fisheries (I know he has done everything), but in the Commission's structure.

How do you think we can streamline these procedures?

"blue card" answer. – Yes, that is a very valid point by Mr do Nascimento Cabral. I think that outermost regions and areas definitely deserve support in their specific challenges, and I think the Commission as such should also reflect on that. The European Union is not only on the continent, but also on islands in overseas territories, so they also have my full attention. And I also hope to be able to cooperate with you in this area in the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome this evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy. But these results are genuinely a cause for concern for European fishers and Irish fishers. Environmental sustainability, of course, is of vital importance. But without social and economic sustainability, there will be no protection for the environment at all.

Irish fishers have accepted the difficult decisions that were and are before them, adapted to them, and walked the walk. But nevertheless, there is immense, immense pressure on them with quotas, increased bureaucracy, costs, uncertainty about their future, and worst of all, will there be boats left for the next generation in Ireland?

Let's be honest, a fisheries policy that reduces fleets, undermines businesses, and empties our coastal towns is not a successful policy. Commissioner Kadis, I ask you to do four things: protect the Hague Preferences, support fleet renewal, reduce bureaucracy, and, number four, ensure a fair deal for Irish and European fishers.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Cynthia, I have a very important question.

Eighty-seven percent of fishers in Ireland are small-scale fishers. There is nothing stopping the Irish state from giving small-scale, low-impact fishers access to more quota. Nothing stopping us.

There is nothing stopping the Irish state from providing small-scale fishers in Ireland with funding, front-loaded. But it isn't happening. And you can actually do it. So the question is: why don't you do that? Because they can't get this funding for their marketing plans – 87 % of the fishers and they have less than 10 % of the quota...

(The President cut off the speaker)

There is no strength without unity. Unity with strength. As you know, Mr Ming Flanagan, that is mana Uachtaránacht na hÉireann. All of our fishers are being looked after by Minister Timmy Dooley – my government, Fianna Fáil, who is now leading out on the Council of the EU. Rest assured, all efforts are being made.

All work is being done diligently on behalf of every fisher in Ireland. Not only the large fishers but the small fishers as well.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, I want to start by thanking the Commission for its evaluation. A sustainable and competitive fisheries sector is crucial for Sweden's and Europe's preparedness and for our food security.

Every sea is unique. That is not something an individual country can handle on its own. The seas belong to us all, and therefore cooperation is required to manage them. The EU plays an important role here, but countries outside the EU also affect our seas. When we develop the fisheries policy of the future, we also need to see the consequences of other countries' actions.

This means, among other things, that we must work actively with regional fisheries organisations, but also that we must be prepared to use tougher tools against countries that do not respect international rules.

In the Baltic Sea, this particularly applies to Russia. Russia is currently not fishing in a sustainable way, and the Russian shadow fleet continues to expose us and the Baltic Sea to risks. The maritime and fisheries policy of the future needs to take this into account. We must put a stop to the seas filling the Russian war chest. Our security and our seas are united.

A viable and secure Baltic Sea is a prerequisite for a secure Europe.

(The speaker accepted a question ("blue card").)

Respected speaker, Lithuania borders the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon, together with Russia. Does it not seem strange to you that, based on European Union requirements, Lithuania banned industrial fishing, while nearby Russia did not ban that fishing? I, as a Member of Parliament, could not support such a stupid law, because the fish from Lithuania end up in Russia. Russia catches, fishes, and Lithuania cannot fish for those fish. How do you assess such a, I would say, rather stupid decision?

Thank you for the question. Yes, I believe we agree on precisely this. That was precisely what I also pointed out in my speech, namely that the countries around the Baltic Sea must consider what we need to do, and it cannot be exploited by, for example, Russia.

Therefore, we must continue to implement sanctions and ensure that we do not fuel the Russian war chest based on what the Baltic Sea can offer in terms of transport and fishing.

Madam President, Commissioner, what future for the common fisheries policy if we forget the market? Decarbonisation, generational renewal, adaptation to climate change: all these ambitions will remain promises if our fishermen are victims of unfair competition.

Today, imported products that respect neither our environmental standards nor our social requirements, sometimes even coming from illegal fishing, compete with those of our professionals. Regulated competition, yes; dumping, no!

The solutions are known: strengthen border controls, impose compliance with our minimum standards to gain access to the European market, better inform consumers and promote our products. Europe cannot be demanding with its fishermen and indulgent with their competitors. For a young, innovative and sustainable sector, let us finally be coherent. Protecting our market also means protecting our future.

Mr President, as the European Union's northernmost parliamentarian, I bring you greetings from the spawning river of the Atlantic wild salmon. This is a truly critical matter. I have grown up along that European largest salmon river, the Torne River, and I do not downplay the perspective of the fishing industry nor professional fishermen at all, but salmon stocks are at such an alarming level that if salmon fishing in the Baltic Sea is not restricted, an environmental catastrophe may lie ahead in my lifetime and we will see the extinction of the Atlantic wild salmon.

If this happens, then fish will not be caught anywhere else either, not further south, if the salmon cannot ascend to the northern spawning rivers. That is why this is such a big issue, because it is truly an environmental catastrophe if wild salmon cannot ascend to these northern rivers for many different reasons – dams have been built, there has been overfishing. And now we here debate time and time again whether there has been too much or too little fishing. We know that fish stocks have collapsed, so I appeal to you on behalf of the Atlantic wild salmon.

Madam President, honorable Commissioner, it is clear that the Common Fisheries Policy is necessary to protect fish stocks and ensure a sustainable future for fishing. However, we must ask ourselves why so many fishermen feel that this policy works against them, why the sector is in decline. Environmental protection and endangered species cannot be considered more important than the survival of our fishermen. Strict restrictions combined with constantly increasing energy costs and the rapid spread of alien species are suffocatingly pressing their incomes.

Commissioner, you know very well the importance that fishing has for the coastal and island communities of the Mediterranean. For many of them it is the sole source of income. If therefore we want to keep our seas alive, we must also protect the people who dedicate their lives to them. The truly endangered species today are the fishermen themselves.

Madam President, Commissioner, challenges force us to look to the future, and the Common Fisheries Policy designed more than a decade ago needs to be updated.

Basque fishermen are waiting for answers from Europe, and yet today we have an outdated and underfunded policy. It is not a matter of starting from scratch. The Common Fisheries Policy has promoted more sustainable fishing, improved management with scientific criteria, and strengthened international control and governance, and this must be preserved. But challenges remain for us: effective enforcement of the rules, fleet renewal, lack of generational handover, and loss of profitability in many coastal communities.

Sustainability and profitability are two sides of the same coin. The Common Fisheries Policy has recovered resources, but now it must focus on economic viability and the future of coastal communities. Europe must recognize fishing as a strategic sector and must provide it with resources and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

But simplifying cannot mean weakening the environmental and social objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. We need more budget, not less, Commissioner.

Madam President, fairness and burden‑sharing should be at the heart of the common fisheries policy, if we were truly to live in a European Union where we try to treat all citizens and all sectors fairly. But, Commissioner, there has been an unfair burden placed on the Irish fishing communities: a 23 % decrease in direct gross value added and a 15 % drop in numbers employed over the last number of years. We have 12 % of the waters, but we catch less than 4 % of the fish. And at the same time, in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Russia, Norway, Faro, Greenland, Iceland and the UK continue to fish in an unsustainable way. Migratory patterns of fish species are changing dramatically due to global warming and temperature rises and seas, and yet there has been no solid review of quota allocation and new quota allocation because of changing fishing patterns. For example, bluefin tuna off the coast of Ireland is now very prevalent – something we would not have seen 50 years ago.

So, Commissioner, in doing the evaluation, we also have to look at a review to make sure that we have sustainable fishing in all parts of the European Union, not on sustainable fishing in the North East Atlantic and undermining fishing stocks in Irish waters.

Madam President! I come from Darłowo. This is a small town on the Baltic Sea. Next to us we have Dąbki, then we have Mielno, Dźwirzyno, Kołobrzeg, Świnoujście. These are towns, cities and villages by the Polish sea and I hold meetings with people there.

At each of these meetings, I meet hundreds – if not thousands – of former fishermen and their families who had to sell or scrap their cutters as part of the quotas imposed by the European Union. These people probably wouldn't be against it and understand the need for ecology and environmental protection, the fight for fishing quotas and so on, if it weren't for the fact that along these beaches in these towns, hundreds of fish fryers smoking with burnt oil have been built, where the owners of these same fish fryers buy the exact same fish from the exact same sea, frozen, from suppliers outside the European Union at four times the higher price, often under the Russian flag.

I am a doctor and I know one thing: that when a person convinces themselves of an untruth when they are sick, and pretends to be treating themselves, it must end badly.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, I believe that the common fisheries policy must be adapted while maintaining its fundamental principles, because the Commission concludes in its evaluation that many of the current problems are not due to a lack of legislation, but rather to insufficient and uneven implementation, as it says.

An example is marine protected areas. The legislation allows conservation measures to be adopted—incidentally, also regarding bottom trawling—. But too often these decisions are blocked or delayed for years. Therefore, the Nature Restoration Law reinforces the procedure, sets clear deadlines for joint recommendations, and gives the Commission more capacity to act when there are no agreements.

Therefore, the way forward is implementation, more cooperation, and more science-based decisions. The future Ocean Law must serve to reinforce this framework, not to weaken it.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not have healthy seas there will be no sustainable fishing nor any future for our fishermen.

Madam President! Thank you for the floor. Approximately 1.1 million Swedes fished in their spare time last year. They spent over 9 billion SEK on rods, fishing permits, and lures. On boats, life jackets, and guided tours.

But sport fishing is bigger than that. It is a child's shout of joy when a perch bites for the first time. It is fisheries conservation associations that take care of lakes and tarns. It is enthusiasts who include more people. Local communities that receive visitors. It is generation upon generation learning about life in the water.

And yet, when the EU talks about fishing, sport fishing is almost always forgotten. Made invisible. We need to change that. Sport fishing should be a given part of the Common Fisheries Policy. I believe that could lead to more jobs in smaller localities, more children and young people experiencing nature, and a better economy for our recreational fishing.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Commission's own assessment paints a worrying picture for European fisheries. It acknowledges the drop in landings, the deterioration in profitability, the ageing of the fleet, the loss of jobs, the increase in dependence on imports, and the deterioration in the competitiveness of our sector.

However, despite all these findings, the Commission's political conclusion remains the same: there is no need to reform the common fisheries policy and it is enough to fully implement it. Therein lies the main contradiction of this assessment. Instead of asking whether any of the decisions adopted in 2013 should be revised, the Commission once again blames the difficulties on the Member States and the sector itself.

Commissioner, if the implementation problems are persistent and widespread throughout the Union, do you not think that perhaps the problem is not only implementation, but also the very design of the common fisheries policy? Is the Commission really willing to revise some of the pillars of the 2013 reform, such as the inflexible discards ban, the rigid application of maximum sustainable yield or the rules on fishing capacity?

Madam President, during a working visit to the fisheries last week, it became clear once again that the sector is struggling significantly with the landing obligation and associated camera monitoring. The fisheries do have more challenges, but the most urgent to solve is the landing obligation. In practice, the landing obligation is simply unworkable. When can we expect an opportunity to adjust this regulation? Commissioner, can this be placed on the agenda as soon as possible?

Madam President, dear Commissioner. Thank you for a truly very substantive presentation of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. I remember well your predecessor Karmenu Vella – he was the Commissioner responsible from Malta, responsible for the common fisheries policy, and he raised the same issues that my colleague Bajada is now raising regarding third-country fishing problems in the Mediterranean and other seas. It is completely understandable that we must pay a lot of attention to the relations between the European Union and third countries – whether in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean, or elsewhere. After all, we receive a very large amount of imports from fisheries, and at the same time, third countries heavily exploit fish stocks and indeed cause many problems. And there should be a very high focus here so that in this international aspect, the common fisheries policy in the European Union would be even more progressive and at the same time stronger. We need active action.

Madam President, Commissioner, from the considerations in this evaluation of the fisheries policy, I take note of those referring to the outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, where artisanal fishing is not only a contribution to the economy or employment, but above all to culture, as well as to sustainability and even food sovereignty itself.

However, artisanal fishing requires responses that listen not only to the sector, but also to local and regional authorities, who have very well-founded demands regarding the burden imposed by early landing obligations and, above all, the electronic logbook. These obligations are disproportionate to what artisanal fishing represents and, of course, they also require financial support in the next multiannual financial framework.

It has been clearly stated, and I subscribe to the message. The merger of fisheries policy into national envelopes that forces the outermost regions to compete with other regions, ignoring their legal singularity, is unacceptable. There must be the necessary financial allocation to support the sector and its sustainability.

Mr Speaker, the green conservation ideology regarding cormorants and barnacle geese has reached proportions that cause massive damage. Imagine a fisherman living in the archipelago who early in the morning pulls his nets from the water only to find there is no catch. Cormorant populations have exploded and they peck and destroy fish stocks and the profitability of the entire livelihood. In agriculture, on the other hand, huge flocks of barnacle geese graze fields down to a barren state.

Both the cormorant and the barnacle geese are protected under the EU Birds Directive. Both are viable species and have even increased significantly in recent years. If the EU lacks common sense, the Finnish government has it. The Finnish government is pushing to lower the EU protection status of both species. This is not a green line, this is a line of reason.

Madam President, Commissioner, this planned reform of common fisheries policy is not just a test for fisheries, in my mind. It is a test for fairness and trust in Europe.

As a result of Brexit, Irish fishermen lost quota, and boats were decommissioned. And then last December, when Ireland needed help, the long‑established Hague preferences – that safeguard meant to protect us in a quota crisis – were blocked by a minority group of other Member States. Now we hear reports of fisheries flexibility for Iceland, ahead of their referendum on 29 August.

Now let's be straight. Ireland is not against Iceland. We support sustainable fishing, science and a strong North Atlantic. But do not tell Irish fishermen that rules are fixed and then go and bend them for somebody else. Any deal must be open, fair and not at Ireland's expense.

Commissioner, this matter matters for all future accessions. Europe cannot attract countries in with flexibility, then leave existing Member States frozen into unfairness.

Madam President, Commissioner responsible for Fisheries and Oceans, as a Galician MEP, if you ask a sailor, a shellfish gatherer from my country, they will say that the CFP sank us. We urgently need a reform of the CFP.

But today, Commissioner, I am going to talk to you about a current topic that is having a lot of repercussion in my country. Many years ago, there were 222,000 drums of nuclear radioactive waste dumped in the Atlantic trench. The French CNRS institute went to see them in the Atlantic trench and investigate this radioactive waste and these dumped radioactive waste drums.

I ask: how can this situation be considered compatible with the objective of protecting the health, sustainability and safety of our oceans, fishing areas and coastal communities?

Will you begin to assess the potential implications of these discoveries for European fisheries and safety at sea?

Madam President, dear Commissioner. The members of parliament here have indeed expressed quite a few problems related to fisheries. I have already mentioned – Lithuania borders Russia in the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon. In 2023, Lithuania banned commercial fishing, which Russia is very happy about. That is not enough – many of our fishermen were required to cut up their ships. Of course, they gave compensation from the European Union. For this, it needs to be understood logically, in order to improve Russia's fishing resources. How do you assess this policy? And do you not plan to review your fisheries policy, which is very disadvantageous for the European Union countries, as well as for our state Lithuania? Almost every Member of the European Parliament talks about this.

Madam President, Commissioner, climate change is already altering the temperature and chemistry of the seas. It causes species migration, biodiversity loss, and increasing pressure on coastal ecosystems. Nevertheless, the Common Fisheries Policy continues to treat marine ecosystems primarily as a habitat for fishery resources and not as critical infrastructure for tackling the climate crisis. In particular, "blue carbon" ecosystems, such as Posidonia meadows, coastal wetlands, river estuaries, and lagoons, are important natural carbon storage reservoirs. They contribute to coastal protection, water quality improvement, and the maintenance of fish stocks. However, despite their importance for achieving the Union's climate neutrality targets, their protection and restoration remain inadequate, particularly in Greece. The evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy is therefore an opportunity...

(The President cuts off the speaker)

Madam President, Commissioner, the common fisheries policy has failed to deliver, and while there is no silver bullet, CFP reform must address the following.

One, levelling the playing field post-Brexit.

Two, protecting the Hague preferences. It cannot continue to become an annual bargaining chip.

Three, the EU budget: while we in Parliament have restored Commission cuts, we need to deliver as part of an overall package, including small-scale fishers.

Finally, overfishing: Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, setting unilateral quotas and getting away with it. The EU must better leverage its own influence in international negotiations.

Yes, we want sustainable fisheries, but let me be clear, Commissioner. There are two components to that concept: 'sustainable' and 'fisheries'. The Commission cannot keep forgetting about the latter.

Madam President! Commissioner! Today we are discussing the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy, but there is nothing left to evaluate in the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea is dying. For years we have cut fishing quotas, deluding ourselves that this would rebuild cod and herring stocks. But fish are still as absent as before because we ignore the true causes of the catastrophe: dead zones, lack of oxygen, chemical and agricultural pollution flowing into the sea. Polish fishermen are losing their life's work through no fault of their own.

Therefore, I call on the Commission for concrete actions. First, flexible support from the maritime fund for compensation and retraining. Second, an actual ecosystem approach. Instead of finishing off fishermen with restrictions, let us start saving the sea from suffocation. Leaving the Baltic Sea to its own devices is not a policy. It is a sentence on the entire coast.

Madam President! I am another speaker here who draws attention to the absolutely tragic situation of Polish fisheries in the Baltic Sea. It is in a giant crisis. In 2025 alone, the number of fishing vessels fell by 5%. The limits that are imposed on Poland, restrictions, regulations - all this is finishing off Polish fisheries. Fishermen who are losing their life's work end up in employment offices. Is this what the European Union's policy towards this important sector is supposed to look like?

On the other hand, imported fish from outside the European Union flow into the European Union and tourists on the Polish coast do not eat Polish fish from the Baltic, but imported, frozen fish from outside the European Union. Is this what the European Union's policy is supposed to look like? What is the European Commission's strategy to save Polish fisheries in the Baltic Sea?

Madam President, honourable Members, I have listened very carefully to your remarks, and let me recall that this is the first time since the 2013 reform that the CFP Regulation is evaluated with such comprehensive data and trend. Based on this diagnosis, but also on your views and the positions of the Member States and all stakeholders, we will take a political decision as to the follow‑up, including on whether addressing the challenges and shortcomings identified in the evaluation requires any legislative changes, and to which extent. Issues you raised, such as the need for modernisation and the decarbonisation of the fishing fleet, generational renewal, securing a level playing field for our sector, simplification, fair treatment and further support to the small‑scale fishers, the consideration of socio‑economic elements in the scientific advice that we receive for developing our proposals for fishing opportunities and better implementation and enforcement of our legal framework, will be at the centre of our attention.

On the landing obligation, the evaluation shows that it did not deliver the expected results for several reasons. In particular, there was a low uptake in buying at the industry level. However, it is clear that we cannot go back to the old situation of massive and unreported discarding, and our sector agrees on that principle. And that is why I have invited the representatives of the sector to discuss their and our ideas on how we can address this challenge. It is important that the measures that we will develop are applicable and well received by those who will implement them at the end of the day.

Having all this in mind. I will consider making a proposal to the College of Commissioners for a targeted amendment of the CFP Regulation, subject to the Commission's better regulation procedures. Combating IUU fishing is one of our top priorities. We are proud of the first‑ever digital certification system – IT CATCH – which has been operational for six months and ensures that no product stemming from IUU fishing enters the European Union market. IT CATCH has already proven a success thanks to real‑time EU‑wide data. We are also strengthening the legal and governance frameworks for fighting IUU fishing through bilateral agreements and our participation in regional fisheries management organisations.

Honourable Members, the findings of the evaluation will also feed into the Commission's Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture, which will include the external action strategy and the energy transition roadmap in the early autumn. Parallel to this work, we are proceeding with our simplification initiatives, listening also to your calls, and particularly the simplification of the multiannual fisheries management plans – we want to make them easier to implement and to address the challenges identified so far – and the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund Regulation, to align it with the new WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies and to simplify its implementation.

Honourable Members, I assure you that your feedback is highly respected and will be taken into account in the development and implementation of these policy initiatives.

The evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has confirmed that it has made it possible to improve the sustainability of European catches: there has been a substantial reduction in overfishing and the proportion of stocks exploited at maximum sustainable yield levels has multiplied, in addition to an improvement in scientific knowledge.

But the CFP has not functioned as predicted: while the impact assessment anticipated a 125% increase in salaries, wages have lost real purchasing power, employment has fallen by 30% and today we depend more than ever on fish imports. Furthermore, the sector is not attractive to new generations and there are so many obstacles to fleet renewal that it is obsolete, with an average age of over thirty years.

We are not just talking about implementation problems. We are talking about design problems and new realities that must be addressed; problems that will be exacerbated by the inadmissible budget cut proposed by the Commission and which we socialists reject. Therefore, a specific reform of the CFP is urgently needed to rebalance the three dimensions of sustainability, boost generational renewal, address the ageing of the fleet, promote multiannual TACs and introduce limits on their year-on-year variations.

The evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has found that it has helped improve the sustainability of European catches: there has been a substantial reduction in overfishing and the proportion of stocks exploited at maximum sustainable yield levels has multiplied, in addition to an improvement in scientific knowledge.

But the CFP has not worked as predicted: while the impact assessment anticipated a 125% increase in wages, wages have lost real purchasing power, employment has fallen by 30%, and today we depend more than ever on fish imports. Furthermore, the sector is not attractive to new generations and there are so many obstacles to fleet renewal that the fleet is obsolete, with an average age of over thirty years.

We are not just talking about implementation problems. We are talking about design problems and new realities that must be addressed; problems that will be compounded by the unacceptable budget cut proposed by the Commission and which we socialists reject. Therefore, a specific reform of the CFP is urgently needed to rebalance the three dimensions of sustainability, boost generational renewal, address the aging of the fleet, promote multiannual TACs and introduce limits on their year-on-year variations.

Dear President, Commissioner, colleagues, Europe is facing a new geopolitical and economic reality. Rules matter less than they once did. Power and scale matters more. In this context, our single market remains one of the most underutilised assets at our disposal. The European Union is clearly punching below its weight. We are failing to fully leverage the strength that comes with providing access to a market of 450 million consumers.

The evidence is striking: among the world's 50 largest companies by market capitalisation, only one is European. In 2025, Europe had just 331 unicorns, compared with almost 2 000 in the United States. Since 2008, nearly 30 % of European unicorns have relocated their headquarters outside the EU. Venture capital investment in Europe amounts to around EUR 30 billion, compared with USD 177 billion in the United States. The million dollar question is, why? The answer, from my perspective, is twofold. First, the EU lacks sufficient high risk investments due to the absence of a genuine savings and investment union. Second, even in areas requiring lower-risk investment, we underperform because of fragmentation.

What are the main obstacles to cross-border growth? When we ask SMEs, start-ups and scale-ups, they consistently identify three major challenges. First, navigating different business environment across Member States. Second, the complexity of accessing information, understanding rules and complying with administrative procedure. Third, taxation.

I welcome the Commission's proposal for an 'EU Inc.'. It really represents an important first step towards creating a genuine single market for start-ups and scale-ups. Its objective is to enable companies to operate seamlessly across borders without unnecessary barriers. However, the proposal is not ambitious enough, as it focuses primarily on corporate law. This presents two shortcomings. First, without addressing the entire lifecycle of a company, its impact will inevitably remain limited. Second, the proposal should draw more extensively on successful international best practices.

In our report, we advocate a modular approach that builds on the corporate law framework as its foundation. At the same time, to ensure political feasibility, the tax module should initially apply only to a limited group of companies such as growth oriented start-ups and scale-ups. These companies usually generate only a marginal share of overall tax revenues.

I would like to highlight a few points from the report. First, we propose a framework based on fully digital procedures, a one-stop shop, harmonised templates. Second, we call for a single consolidated corporate tax base and the uniform methodology for determining taxable income. Third, we propose effective measures to eliminate double taxation. Fourth, we support the creation of a centralised VAT framework. Fifth, we recommend introducing a mandatory employee stock option. Sixth, we call for targeted rules to provide tax certainty for employees moving between Member States. Finally, we encourage better coordination of tax incentives across the union.

Madam President, honourable Members, in March this year, the Commission adopted the proposal for the 28th regime corporate legal framework – 'EU Inc.'. The 'EU Inc.' initiative is a key measure aimed at enhancing Europe's competitiveness and improving the business environment for EU companies. As part of the broader instrument, it includes limited ancillary tax measures designed to support businesses.

As you know, the 'EU Inc.' proposal is based on five main pillars. First, digital-by-default procedures throughout the lifecycle of 'EU Inc.' companies. Second, extension of the 'once only' principle for provision of information. Third, facilitation of investment. Fourth, support for the attraction and retention of talent. And fifth, access to digital and simplified insolvency procedures for innovative start‑ups.

I am pleased to address you today at the occasion of the debate of the own initiative, which is, of course, a different subject entirely. We thank the European Parliament, in particular MEP Ľudovít Ódor and his team for the important work. We are pleased to see that the report welcomes the Commission proposal on 'EU Inc.'. The message we received from stakeholders was clear: companies need EU‑wide rules that are harmonised and simple. Companies also pointed to the need for more digital processes in Europe. The 'EU Inc.' proposal responds to these needs. It provides for an ambitious, harmonised corporate legal framework which will be available in each Member State for both founders and existing companies.

From a tax perspective, the proposal already includes two concrete, but strictly ancillary, measures:

First, the application of the 'once only' principle to reduce the administrative burden on 'EU Inc.' companies. This means that, in the registration process, the 'EU Inc.' information submitted to the business register will be automatically shared with tax authorities in view of obtaining the tax identification number (TIN) and the VAT identification number. There will be no need for 'EU Inc.' companies to resubmit paperwork multiple times.

Second is a tax deferral for employee stock options to support the ability of 'EU Inc.' to attract and retain talent. This means that employees investing in an 'EU Inc.' through an EU employee stock option plan will benefit from a simpler scheme with a harmonised set of characteristics. From the tax perspective, it also means that the employees to whom warrants under the stock option plan are issued will not be taxed until the actual sale of the underlying shares. The tax elements in the 'EU Inc.' proposal strike exactly the right balance. They deliver highly targeted and practical measures that support our broader objective, but by enabling businesses to reap the full benefit of the single market, while respecting Member States' competences in tax matters.

The own‑initiative report highlights the room for simplification. We agree with that. We also concur that there is room for additional and more targeted harmonisation, as you rightly said, of tax matters to improve the business environment in the single market. So we can we can improve this.

Madam President, the Commission proposal for the creation of the 28th regime is one of the most visible, important and possibly impactful proposals that we have got on the table in this term. It would make the single market much stronger and it will provide start-ups and scale-ups with a better framework on how to keep their activity within the EU, because this is a very substantial problem.

We have in Europe excellent education. We are rich in ideas and innovations. We have entrepreneurship, but unfortunately most of the companies, when they are starting to take off and are on the way to success, they are leaving our market. The Commission proposal that is now being discussed is a first step towards creating such a regime. Digitalisation is very good because it will provide companies with a simplified environment. A key component is clarity in the regime of employees' shares.

This is a very good proposal and I just call on our House and the Council not to water it down: make it stronger and pass it quickly. But this is by far not enough, especially for scale-ups to stay in Europe. Better to have a tax regime that will simplify life, especially for the companies operating across several Member States. Clarity of taxation, avoidance of double taxation, a good regime for R&D expenditures and many other aspects are very important to enable them to stay in our market. So that's why we will ask today the House to vote for the proposal that will allow all of this.

We opt for the CCCTB to simplify the life of companies operating across the market. We call for reducing the risk of double taxation and the creation of uncertainty, and for the expenditures to be dealt with. This is the way to create a genuine market for successful start-ups in Europe; to allow them to flourish, but also allow European investors to invest safely in these companies and not go abroad. I hope we will we will succeed in that, and I hope the Commission will come with more modules that will make this regime more usable and richer.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we are living in a historic moment. And, as Mario Draghi warned us, the European Union is moving towards a new era of competitiveness, or we risk falling behind definitively. And that is why today we challenge 27 Member States representing 450 million people, but also 450 million consumers.

This is the first sign so that start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe that want to grow can innovate and create jobs. Instead of 27 bureaucratic regimes, we advocate the creation of an alternative pathway that allows operating immediately in all countries, in an agile and fast way.

This is the time to put an end to the national egoisms that prevent a less complex, but inevitably also more effective tax system; with less paperwork, but also less tax evasion.

This 28th regime is not meant to circumvent the rules and, therefore, we make it clear that social protections, namely labor protections for the worker, remain alive, and that tax planning schemes are avoided. Neither social dumping, nor fiscal dumping, nor the ability to fill out paperwork can define which are the most competitive companies in the European Union.

So that start-ups and small family businesses can compete with the most powerful ones, we need to offer them ways to attract talent and retain the brightest. It was precisely for this reason that we accepted, agreed, and negotiated a modernization of labor income, admitting that workers' stock options should not suffer a penalty compared to investors who buy and sell shares. This is indeed defending workers, defending the youngest, but this is also a new labor agenda for the youngest.

This incentive is a specific and isolated case, but one that should motivate us for a broader reflection. What sense does it make to tax a worker more who decided to invest in themselves and a promising start-up than a speculator who just buys and sells shares? The answer is very simple: it makes no sense at all.

The moment and the desire is for the Commission and the Council to work on this great challenge and for us to begin thinking about the great challenge that is the common European challenge.

Madam President! It is not by chance that tax policy falls within the competence of member states. The treaties clearly respect national fiscal sovereignty, the differing economic endowments of the member states, and fair competition. Yet the Parliament's grand coalition, from the left to the People's Party, is making repeated attempts to hollow out this competence. This report is not really about competitiveness. This is a master plan for the gradual dismantling of member state tax policy. First, a voluntarily applicable so-called 28th taxation regime would be introduced. This would be followed by a harmonized corporate tax base, which has already failed several times before, and finally, qualified majority voting would be introduced for certain tax matters. This clearly goes against the treaties and the principle of unanimity, which serves precisely to preserve the sovereign tax policies of the member states. Tax competition between member states is not a problem, but a strength. It encourages governments to operate a more efficient state with a more attractive business environment and responsible management in order to keep European companies in Europe.

Today, the problem is not caused by differing corporate tax systems, but by high energy prices and still-growing bureaucracy. These are the issues that should be addressed, rather than confiscating further competencies from the member states. Moreover, the report would shape the system of tax allowances on an ideological basis: they would be tied to politically preferred green investments, while sidelining the development of many traditional, currently competitive European industries. The task of tax policy is not to reward ideological goals, but to stimulate investment, create jobs, and strengthen businesses. We, Patriots, want a Europe that preserves the tax sovereignty of member states and strengthens economic competition through freedom rather than centralization. Not a Europe where Brussels institutions are constantly busy increasing their own power.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, the issues of simplification and tax harmonisation are fundamental when we speak about the competitiveness of our enterprises.

For example, in Italy we have just transposed the global minimum tax to bring the principle of tax harmonisation into the area of corporate income tax.

We agree, for example, that start-ups could be precisely the right target for this initiative, given the large gap we must bridge in terms of investments to try to transform start-ups into scale-ups.

However, we do not agree that there is a need to move to qualified majority voting, because if these proposals are truly made in the interest of enterprises, we are certain that all Member States unanimously will agree.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Mr Rapporteur Ódor, this text is an important founding text to enable our SMEs, our mid-sized companies and innovative players to operate fully on the scale of the single market, by limiting administrative formalities and obstacles to development within the European Union – all companies wishing to have an activity in several countries of the European Union must be able to do so without hindrance.

By facilitating access to capital, by offering a more predictable environment, this text takes an essential step. Obviously, the fragmentation of our tax systems remains a major obstacle, in particular for cross-border activities. This text is therefore only a first step. Complementary reforms will be necessary, which will pave the way – I hope, we hope, many of us hope here – towards essential tax harmonisation for the development of our markets.

Madam President, thank you very much, first of all, to the rapporteur of this file. Europe needs companies that can grow, innovate and compete across borders. For too many start-ups and scale-ups, the single market still feels too fragmented, too complicated and too slow.

To counteract this, I think we all agree that we must ensure harmonisation of the single market. But, in the pursuit of harmonisation, it is very important that it doesn't become deregulation. Because when we create a new European tax framework, it must not become a shortcut for companies looking to avoid their responsibilities. It must not become another loophole in a system that is already too easy to exploit for those with the best lawyers and the best accountants.

That is why we, from the Greens/EFA side, have insisted on clear safeguards, because a 28th tax regime should support real economic activity, not artificial structures. It should help European start-ups and scale-ups, not large corporations shopping for the lowest obligations.

And it should go hand in hand with workers' rights, social protection and upward convergence. Because Europe's competitiveness cannot be built on tax avoidance, weaker standards or a race to the bottom. It must be built on fairness and transparency. That is the balance that we have worked for in this report, and that is the balance that Europe needs.

I would like to thank the rapporteur again for the good cooperation, and I hope a broad majority will support this today in the plenary.

Mr President, those who benefit most from our system should also contribute most to its financing. However, the largest companies and their wealthiest owners pay the least amount of tax. This is not a law of nature, this is the result of political decisions: taxation is full of loopholes.

It is indeed a real problem that we have one market, but 27 tax systems, each country with its own. The largest corporations exploit this fragmentation to evade taxes. That is a problem for the financing of welfare states, but also for smaller companies that do not have the resources for tax bureaucracy.

But does it help if we create yet another, 28th tax system? It would be more sensible to harmonise the technical systems so that a growth company could handle its taxes through a single window without bureaucracy. Member states could continue to decide the level of taxation, as long as they do not fall below the OECD minimum levels – hopefully in the future UN minimum levels, which would be higher than the current ones.

If the 28th tax system is built, its sole objective must be to facilitate business growth across member state borders. We on the left do not accept any arrangement aimed at reducing taxation. I am voting in favour of the report currently under consideration because it recognises the dangers and demands accountability from the Commission. And I too want to thank the rapporteur and shadow rapporteur for very good, constructive cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioner, a 28th tax regime for start-ups and scale-ups has the potential to help these companies have better funding options and have access to larger markets to expand and innovate.

This can help Europe move away from the medium-technology trap that is currently keeping the EU's economy behind. To keep up globally, we need far more disruption and innovation in our economy. That is how a prosperous future for all is built.

That is why I want to encourage the Commission to act with ambition to use this new single market integrating tool to the fullest, expanding its application to the largest possible scope of firms and topical areas. This is a testbed for what this new tool can deliver to culminate a common market that IMF data is showing is far away from completion.

Let me close with a new potential disruptive application of the 28th regime, namely, bringing with legal certainty the full potential of DLT technology and tokenisation to the very core of our financial system to reduce costs and increase the scale and speed.

This is an area where Europe could get a double dividend. Firstly, new financial markets that would be pan-European from the start, avoiding current fragmentation, and secondly, a first-mover advantage that could attract global liquidity.

Commissioner, the name of the game is ambition. Act here.

Madam President, Commissioner, this parliamentary term we have focused one of the major debates, at least in the economic field, on the objective of improving the competitiveness of the European economy.

In these two years of the parliamentary term we have discussed various initiatives to try to simplify, adapt and improve regulatory frameworks. But we have truly been lacking in ambition when it comes to tackling the central challenge to truly raise competitiveness: putting an end to the fragmentation of the single market.

It is hard to understand how Europeans could have agreed to have a shared monetary policy and yet, year after year, we have been unable to agree on having a tax policy or a fiscal policy to accompany the development of that single market and to help, at the same time, remove national barriers.

In this regard, the initiative to have a twenty-eighth regime—which in this Parliament is being led by my colleague René Repasi—is central to putting an end to these national barriers, to offering companies and workers a space in which to grow, in which to offer services and goods throughout the single market. This report—I want to congratulate the rapporteur—which addresses the taxation matter approaches the issue from a new perspective—a new contribution—to a discussion that, as I say, is central.

If we want to raise the competitiveness of the European economy, consolidating the single market is the essential path.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I do not refute the effects of market fragmentation within the EU on the competitiveness of businesses. But the EU must not seize upon every flaw, every pretext to advance its agenda and defy the principle of the fiscal and social sovereignty of States.

It is the EU that undermines the competitiveness of businesses through its energy policies. It is the EU that destabilizes social systems through its migration injunctions. It is the EU that produces most of the standards that paralyze activity. It is therefore the EU that must consent to the simplification effort, without this amounting to flouting the States. Via the 28th regime, what is presented as optional could become the Trojan horse of a forced-march fiscal and social Europe.

We do not want the EU to provide false solutions to the problems it has created. The EU embodies the aphorism that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." However, we want Europe to liberate itself.

Madam President! It was supposed to be a simplification for businesses. What do we have? Federalist ambitions. Under the slogans of competitiveness and facilitation, an attempt is being made to deprive states of one of their most important prerogatives – tax policy. Why? To appropriate tax revenues, turn them into the European Union's own resources, make the Commission independent of Member State contributions, and create one huge EU budget. A budget from which Brussels will arbitrarily, under an increasing number of conditions, distribute funds.

This has nothing to do with state sovereignty and the competences enshrined in the treaties. Brussels is taking it step by step. Let me remind you: VAT harmonization, administrative cooperation, corporate taxes, windfall taxes. This is nothing other than centralization and building Brussels' position as a superstate.

There is no and will not be our consent to this. There is no consent to a fiscal union, there is no consent to depriving states of their treaty-based competences. We will not allow the Federal Republic of Europe to be built through the back door.

Madam President, Commissioner and colleagues, the EU's single market is bigger than the US's, with roughly 100 million more consumers. Yet our businesses struggle to grow because the market is really a patchwork of 27 fragmented legal systems that suffocate any small business that attempts to navigate it.

We often boast about having more start-ups than the US. Yet 1 in 3 of them move abroad – mainly to America – just to have a chance to grow.

The 28th regime is one of the most urgent steps to fix this. An optional European framework that businesses are free to choose. Quick, simplified, fully digital registration automatically valid in every Member State with common rules for incorporation, insolvency and labour.

On tax, it generally takes the right approach – harmonising procedures while leaving tax decisions to Member States. As we advance, it is crucial that the fiscal autonomy of Member States remains respected.

This is one very important step for our competitiveness. Let's deliver it urgently and ambitiously.

Madam President, dear colleagues. Europe is not short of talented people, nor of impressive companies and success stories. In Lithuania alone, we have more than one: whether it is Nord Security, Vinted, or carVertical. Each of them is a success story. However, for them to grow, they needed to jump over different barriers. Well, our single market – which is our greatest achievement – cannot be fragmented, and every time you want to grow and expand, you encounter 27 different regimes. Therefore, this discussion is very necessary, but it must lead to real practical steps. First of all, let us start not with talk about taxes, but with a single digital window for company registration. Then that same window, without any doubt, can also be used to declare those same taxes. And, of course, one clear value-added tax regime. There can be no duplication of procedures between member states. And without any doubt, clear rules on talent. There are not many of them, so companies must have the freedom to share them.

Madam President, I think that we cannot separate the two proposals of the so-called "28th regime" – or "Europe Inc.". So, we must look at the concrete problems we are facing today in terms of taxation.

A first one is, obviously, tax avoidance and tax evasion, which today, according to conservative estimates, can reach up to 200 billion euros at the European level. The second problem is that, obviously, this often happens through shell companies, through "letterbox" companies and other small techniques, tax tricks.

However, the question is: are we going to have a proposal today that will allow us to combat this, to combat this shortfall for the State, and therefore the lack of budget to invest in our infrastructure – and it is this infrastructure that will make it possible to have an industry, to have innovation, for precisely a Europe that you call competitive in your dogmas?

Or are we going to do the opposite and destroy further, and offer more tax backdoors to companies that will create small businesses to bypass the rules?

Madam President, the so-called "28th regime" is stepping up the enhancement of the profitability of business groups. Through a single framework at the European Union level and providing for the simplification of procedures, it unleashes the cross-border activity of European monopolies in order to attract investment by pooling capital against competitors from China and the USA. With the tax unit, it foreshadows new tax reliefs for capital, which in Greece are even constitutionally enshrined; new gifts to the groups, which are accumulating record profits at the expense of the working people's income and are budgeting for over 1,000,000 sales. A prerequisite is to compress workers' rights to the limits of the fiscal tolerances of costed programmes, since the European Union cynically demands the linking of wages to business profitability.

The plan is custom-made according to the Draghi report, which was welcomed by New Democracy, Tsipras, PASOK and the other bourgeois parties in Greece. The working people must turn their backs, and choose organized struggle for their own modern needs, against the European Union of monopolies and their governments.

Madam President, today, a European company that wants to grow in the European space does not just find a market, it finds 27. It is confronted with dozens of different corporate forms, and distinct tax and legal systems.

Dear colleagues, last week, I promoted the EPP Startup/Scaleup Summit in this Parliament. We welcomed founders, managers, and investors to debate the barriers to the growth of European companies. The conclusion was clear: we lack a market that is truly single.

"EU Inc.", the 28th regime, solves part of this problem, but it must be viewed only as the first step. We also need to intervene in taxation and improve access to capital conditions. Data shows us that about 82% of startups that manage to scale end up moving to the United States looking for financing.

And that is why this report is ambitious, but necessary. And that is also why I ask the Commission and the Council (which, unfortunately, is not here in this debate) for commitment and speed so that it is possible to close an agreement on this matter by the end of the year.

Because, if we continue to delay, it is not competitiveness that will wait for us, it is Europeans who will fall behind.

Madam President, dear colleagues! A local start-up pays its taxes where it operates economically, but a global corporation can often shift its profits to where it is most tax-favourable. That is an imbalance that we naturally do not want to exacerbate with the 28th regime. Therefore, our position is clear: Yes to the 28th regime for more competitiveness, to deepen the single market and to keep and strengthen our innovative companies here in Europe, but no to tax dumping through the back door.

We do not want any new loopholes, no circumvention of binding protection standards and no erosion of our tax base. We want harmonization, a common corporate tax base and also more effective measures against tax avoidance. Therefore, it is also good that the report calls for examining the transition to qualified majority voting in parts of international tax policy, because that is exactly the institutional further development that we need.

Madam President, our continent is falling behind. Faced with unfair competition from China and the United States, our industry is retreating and our businesses are suffocating under the weight of your regulations. Faced with this economic decline, what does this report propose? Yet another bureaucratic invention: the creation of a 28th tax regime.

We are being sold a supposedly optional framework to simplify the lives of our cross-border businesses. But no one is fooled. This 28th regime is a Trojan horse.

Sitting on the Committee on Budgets, I know your strategy inside out. Behind this technical jargon lies your federalist obsession of always bypassing member states, destroying our fiscal sovereignty and laying the first stone of a major direct European tax. Instead of easing the burden crushing our SMEs, you are adding a 28th bureaucratic monstrosity. This is Brussels's evil par excellence: responding to a crisis caused by technocracy by inventing even more technocracy – instead of further easing that burden. True competitiveness cannot be decreed with federal arrangements.

Faced with this disaster, we demand a clear break. If you really want to save our jobs, introduce strict European preference. Instead of inventing new taxes, protect our industries against Asian dumping. Instead of punishing our businesses with your green dictates, restore economic freedom to our nations. The right to levy taxes is the beating heart of our sovereignty. We will never let you steal it from us!

Madam President, against your socialist tax buffoonery, I choose poetry:

"A bee, at dawn's uprising,

Visited a thousand flowers.

The pollen became treasure.

Honey flowed.

The entire hive, workers and queens, lived.

In exemplary order.

A hornet appeared.

Round belly.

Coming from Brussels or Paris.

Escorted by a thousand bumblebees.

Your honey is fine: I levy from you.

A tax on wax,

The tithe on your sap.

A tax on your hive.

A toll on the sun.

The octroi for your wings.

The royalty for your sleep.

The bee, weary of the scandal:

What is the use of so many loyal works.

If my work mostly feeds.

He who produces not a single penny?

Clemenceau said it: "France is a fertile country".

Bureaucratic and servile killjoys are planted there.

Taxes grow there every day, invented by fools.

Fortunately, one risks losing by wanting to tax too much.

And he who thought he could take without working is always caught.

You are a thousand tax collectors.

We are millions of producers.

Smaller but more numerous.

We will drive out the hornets.

For here is the hour of the counter-revolution!"

Madam President! It sounds good when we talk about better access to capital, better competitiveness, and clear and easy-to-understand rules. All that sounds good.

But we must remember that it is also about combating tax evasion, shell companies, other abuse of the tax system, and financial crime – also for the benefit of the companies that behave honorably.

And if we get a system here that is used for tax evasion, for tax competition, and for undermining workers' rights, then it is certainly going in the wrong direction. It is also important to maintain that we need tax revenues in the member states because there is a bill to be paid. And if the tax base is eroded, we risk that it is the wage earners and welfare that will have to pay. So the crucial thing is how do we design these rules? Do these rules protect us against tax cheating and fraud, or are they rules that open up for it? That is really important to us.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr. MP, I have a question: do you think that this proposed tax regime will not actually become the first step towards limiting the fiscal and financial sovereignty of the member states of the European Union? Is this not a stage aimed at tax harmonization, but in fact it is the first step to force other European Union countries in the future to also adopt such a form of taxation? Will this not lead to a situation in the future where it will limit the ability of European Union countries to pursue their own fiscal policy?

Thank you for that question. It is a very relevant question. There must be no doubt that I am opposed to making a harmonization of the tax system in the EU.

I still believe that there must be national sovereignty in relation to that, and that will also be included in my assessment of the proposal which is up for adoption here today, which contains very, very many good and sensible elements.

However, I agree that we run the risk that such a system can be used to hollow out the member states' sovereignty and ability to determine their own tax revenues themselves, and thus also have the opportunity to themselves decide the level of tax and the level of what should be in a country.

Madam President! Our companies are under pressure, not because of national taxation, but because energy prices are too high, because our infrastructure is dilapidated, and above all because large US tech corporations often pay less than 1% tax on their profits in Europe, while our SMEs pay up to 30% in the single market.

I have my doubts as to whether we will get this problem under control by creating a 28th tax regime alongside the 27 national tax laws, which would then also allow Apple, Amazon, or Coca-Cola to pick the most attractive tax law in Europe in the future.

Instead, we should have closer cooperation between the large member states—France, Spain, Italy; that is where Apple wants to sell its iPhone, not in the Caribbean or in Luxembourg—and finally enforce source taxes or punitive taxes on financial flows into tax havens. With that, we would fight back, also against the blackmail by Donald Trump; then the tech oligarchs would be on his doorstep, and we could protect our SMEs.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Europe's competitiveness does not depend solely on innovation. 27 different national authorities create towering obstacles, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Setting up a successful business with international growth potential requires a favorable and simple business environment. The 28th regime is the European response to the complexity of the single market. It is the possibility of setting up a company at the European level, in a single framework with less bureaucracy, simpler procedures, and greater legal certainty.

It is imperative to create an environment that encourages innovation, promotes investment, and develops European businesses. The 28th regime is Europe's broader offering, so that innovative companies can secure access to financing, operate seamlessly regardless of borders, and secure a clear and predictable legal framework. The essential political message is that Europe needs increased simplification and stronger unity with a very clear orientation. One Europe, one single market.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues! EU Inc. is an important proposal for our single market, and I am in full agreement with our colleague Niedermayer from the Christian Democrats on this. We must dare to have more single market. If we dare to have more single market, this means, on the one hand, more liberalization, but at the same time European protection standards. We truly do not need a competition in dumping where national protection standards and national tax laws are pitted against each other in competition, because only one party loses in that scenario—and that is the public interest.

The dangers that arise for workers from unlimited competition between national legal systems are the same for tax legal systems, namely a race to the bottom. Ľudovít Ódor's report finds the right tone here: no discrimination in the tax sector for EU Inc., because otherwise the idea will end up in the trash can very quickly. But we also need clear protection standards so that there is no further harmful tax competition in our European Union.

As the rapporteur for the legislative procedure, I expressly welcome the text. EU Inc. must become a quality seal and not another vehicle for dumping.

Madam President, the 28th regime is not a simple tool of competitiveness, it is a real political project. It is the creation of a new European legal order, without a people, without a territory, but with its own rules. We are told that it will be optional, that national codes will not be abolished, but you know very well that they will gradually become useless. This is the new method of European integration: you no longer officially remove powers from member states, you organize their circumvention. Today, it is company law. Tomorrow it may be taxation, the day after tomorrow labor law, and it will always officially be in the name of competitiveness.

You are fooling no one. As is often the case, it is a Federalist flight forward. European competitiveness will never be built against nations. It will be built with states free to decide their rules, their taxation, and their economic model. The European peoples have never voted for a 28th state and they do not want one any more today.

Madam President, this 28th regime is a veiled federalization of the European Union. It is a project that defies the sovereignty of the European Union's nations and the principle of subsidiarity. Through the fiscal module added to the project, an attempt is also being made to bypass the unanimity principle in order to introduce the majority rule through the back door.

The 28th regime means a set of parallel rules that large companies can choose when it suits them. What company would not prefer a fiscal and social regime that is favorable, more favorable? The harmonization of company law does not mean a legal, social, and fiscal regime that denies the legal systems of the 27 member states. The proposed fiscal model will undermine all 27 member states' tax regimes and, socially, will cause dumping, social dumping, and unemployment.

Companies, labor law, and taxation must remain competences of the member states. Competitiveness cannot be reduced to a segment of companies that choose the 28th regime.

Madam President, Commissioner, according to the International Monetary Fund, Europe's internal barriers are equivalent to a cost similar to a 44% tariff for goods and 110% for services.

A company that wants to grow in Europe faces 27 different legal frameworks, to which must be added regional disparities within the Member State itself. That means more costs, more time spent on regulatory compliance instead of innovating, investing, growing, and creating jobs.

Madam President, Europe does not have a talent problem or a lack of ambition. There are too many obstacles and a lack of an environment that facilitates expansion and attracts investment. That is why the twenty-eighth regime represents an opportunity. Of course, it must be a voluntary, digital, flexible instrument that provides legal certainty and reduces administrative burdens.

If we manage to reduce this fragmentation, attract more private capital, promote entrepreneurship, and allow our companies to be born, grow, and stay in Europe, this regime will have succeeded.

(The speaker agrees to take a blue-card question)

I would like to ask you a question because I liked your speech. You spoke a lot about investments. It is very important to me that the EPP notices this problem.

Therefore, I would like to ask your opinion, because right now there is a group of countries in the European Union that state outright that if in the new budget for 2028-2034 we implement the principle of "do no significant harm to the natural environment", many industries in the European Union will not benefit from the budget. We will stop being competitive compared to China and India. What do you think about that? Are those who say that all industries should be allowed into the budget in the new perspective and access to it should not be restricted right?

Your question is about the multiannual financial framework. I understand that you are referring to the European Competitiveness Fund. It is a debate that is open and it is not the debate we are having here.

I am referring to the importance of attracting investments. One of the most important problems we have in Europe is the mobilization of private investment, both savings and attracting foreign investment for our companies. That is the reference I am making.

An important debate remains, of course, around the financial framework, around the European Competitiveness Fund, how to structure it, what priorities it should have and to which priorities it should be allocated. And, of course, I will be delighted to have it with you when the time comes.

Madam President, today we are debating the 28th regime for innovative start‑ups and scale‑ups. But underneath this report lies a bigger question: what do we do when 27 national tax systems slow down innovations? If we cannot have full taxation harmonisation, we need a common European layer so that our innovative start-up and scale-ups no longer have to fight 27 tax administrations to grow. It is a sensible answer.

I ask all of us to remember it also when we discuss biotech, health and start-up issues. The same fragmentation is burdening a patient waiting for multi-country clinical trials, or an innovative company wanting to create new medicines. If a single base can serve our companies, it must also serve our people who need innovative medicines, available only through multi-country clinical trials. We know what to do. The question is whether we will act for innovative biotech start-ups today and for patients waiting for innovative treatment tomorrow.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Dear colleague, I heard your arguments. They are important, but I want to raise a question.

My country's health system is very generous, but also highly dependent on taxes and social payments, which the companies pay according to our Czech law. Do you think you can guarantee that this new 28th tax regime would not deprive our nice national system of its income?

My answer is clear: no. We need to understand now, and we need to encourage Member States to cooperate. Cross-border Healthcare Directive requires cooperation. An open method of coordination requires cooperation. Mutual recognition requires cooperation, and of course, also possibilities to encourage Member States to understand that a single market can deliver treatment to people and organise access to treatment. This is reality. We need to move into that direction.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, in our territories there are thousands of small businesses that every day waste time and resources on bureaucracy, instead of dedicating them to growing, hiring and innovating.

The 28th regime must be forged as a tool aimed at simplifying the lives of those who invest, produce and create jobs. And this is the primary objective that we all share. But for it to be effective, the tool must remain voluntary, it must not create complexities that would otherwise become unmanageable for Member States and would therefore hinder the intentions that we all commonly have.

Today, I think we must think about creating the conditions to increase European competitiveness and added value, and the text we are voting on today risks being a source of ideas that would instead deteriorate competences which it is dangerous to centralise and take away from national sectors. Harmonisation of tax bases, overcoming unanimity in tax matters, labour law and co-determination are all elements that risk derailing a noble and potentially very useful project.

Therefore, I invite you to focus on what businesses are asking for, such as a European VAT number, a single digital register and, overall, streamlined and operational procedures. Let us not create obstacles to this path even before it takes off.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European single market still feels like 27 separate islands when our companies try to scale. Europe is not losing competitiveness because we lack innovation, but because our market is too fragmented. Different rules, different forms and procedures, different tax systems. The 28th regime could be a flexible solution.

My home country, Lithuania, has already proven that a flexible regulatory environment creates a massive competitive advantage. Look at our fintech sector: in 2018 it was just starting, and by 2025, over 250 companies were thriving. We had what European companies need. One trusted digital entry point. A single legal company form valid across the entire Union. Clear rules and a unified tax base for cross-border activities.

Let's listen to them. Let's make it easier for European companies to grow at home, not elsewhere.

Madam President, my dear colleagues, a single market and 27 company law systems. That fragmentation costs European businesses the equivalent of 44 % tariff on goods and 110 % on services inside our single market. We tax ourselves out of our own market then act surprised when our start-ups found themselves in Texas instead of Riga. That is the broken infrastructure we need to fix not qualified majority tax rules.

So let's simplify: one digital registration, one rulebook for companies scaling everywhere in the EU. That is the actual precondition to competitiveness.

This file does not stand alone. It sits alongside EU inc., insolvency rules and one more pillar that matters: European business wallets – one digital identity instead of 27 separate logins. Today, an SME expanding abroad spends on average EUR 10 000 and 14 weeks on paperwork. Get the wallet right and that time and cost falls by roughly half, saving businesses some EUR 150 billion a year.

Real benefits, no Member State loses its tax base, and every founder who left for Texas gets a reason to come home.

Madam President, building a company in Europe today means 27 rule books. Unfortunately, many see it as 27 reasons to move to the US. So we need to make it easier for European companies to stay in Europe. We must make it easier for them to scale in Europe and not just scale the paperwork. That is the ambition that we should set for 'EU Inc.': one European company form, one rule book, one single market. 'EU Inc.' companies must also offer good employee stock option programmes and be easy to list in European stock markets.

We have a unique chance to make Europe a single market for real – that will make us competitive globally and that's what's going to make Europe rich and prosperous in the future. So let's make 'EU Inc.' happen and let's make it easier to become an entrepreneur in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, without bold innovations, without new investments and without a real single market, Europe is, unfortunately, only a sleeping economic giant that is strong in its potential, but slow and sluggish in a world that will not wait for us. Therefore, the proposal for a single, simpler European framework for business growth is one of the most important, but also one of the most positive proposals of this term.

This means a voluntary, digital and clear legal framework, from the establishment of a company in a maximum of 48 hours, through standardized forms and easier attraction of capital, to doing business and growing throughout Europe without 27 different barriers. This would dramatically improve the business environment and remove unnecessary barriers and reduce the administrative burden with additional legal certainty.

The price of fragmentation today is enormous. The burden is sometimes greater than the largest and highest tariffs. Europe has the knowledge, it has the people, it has the capital and it can no longer afford for ideas to be born here and companies to be registered somewhere else.

(The speaker agreed to reply to a blue-card question.)

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. You rightfully said that we have a lot of potential. I am sure you are also aware of the exceptions to the basic freedoms of the internal market that national Member States can impose. Do you think that, as long as these exceptions still exist, like 'EU Inc.' can really work? Or should we not think even further to dig out our potential?

Thank you for the question.

I think that we should definitely think and move beyond only this proposal. You were mentioning the exceptions that do exist. I wouldn't put them all in the same category, so I think that we should really make a smart choice, but in general I think that it is quite clear that really Europe has the knowledge, Europe has the people, and Europe has the potential to do it. We can do it because I think, in this case, that we have to have also one rulebook for those who want to scale up, and this is something that we will do with this proposal.

Mr President, today innovative companies run up against 27 national systems, 27 registers, 27 legal thresholds. Who wants to grow? As a result, the European Union loses a great deal of time, capital, potential. And Europe has talent. We have talent, we have knowledge, we have drive. But scaling up is far too difficult. Fellow Member Andriukaitis referred to the biotech regulation and I completely agree with that. I have previously called the proposal for the 28th regime administrative simplification squared, but then it must be much more ambitious. It must not remain an empty box, no extra layer on top of the 27 national regimes, because then we might as well stop right away.

Commissioner, that is why I also ask you: let us get to work on a 28th regime with a truly supranational framework, one European register, low costs and minimum capital, robust harmonization of corporate rules, digital procedures that can work in the same way everywhere, and access to the specialized European commercial court. Let us not start from fear or national reflexes. What I have heard here: on the far-right side they say: “But we are not going to give up national rules.”; on the far-left side they say: “Yes, but that might give us less revenue.” Do you know who the biggest victim of this is? That is the European consumer: €4,000 per year we can return to the consumer. Through this we can create economic growth and we can ensure that innovation and capital can remain here in Europe.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

of the "blue card". – Sure, you said that we have an extreme need for this single European framework, but do you think it can only work if we institute this single framework now, as long as we have, for example, 27 public procurement systems? Because we asked, the Parliament, and the Council blocked it. We asked for a regulation. We have 27 laws for late payments. Again, it is blocked at the Council. How do you think we should harmonize everything so that we have a single framework? Otherwise, an entrepreneur, especially an SME, will have to know 27 (...)

(The President withdrew the speaker's floor)

"blue card" answer. - Yes, I completely agree with your analysis, but that is no reason at all not to go for a 28th regime. That is an even greater reason to say: let us be more ambitious in the economic field, to harmonize what needs to be harmonized. If we can do Europe a huge service for our economic growth - and that means for our prosperity, for our socio-economic market model - it is economic harmonization.

Madam President, my colleague Ressler said Europe was a sleeping giant. And this is a sleep that is self-inflicted because of overregulation etc. So now we need to wake up and get rid of the sleeping tablets.

I think the report by Mario Draghi has been followed through very sensibly by the Commission in relation to omnibuses and now the 28 tax regime. But also crucial to that is investment money, and that can come from the savings and investment union, which is a priority for the Irish Presidency over the next six months. And if we get the cooperation we need and require, then the billions of euros that citizens have in banks, sleeping there, losing money for them, can be utilised to create the investment that will help us to not only research, but also innovate, scale up and manufacture in Europe, and that will benefit all of us.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the twenty-eighth regime —EU Inc.— is an ambitious objective: to create harmonized rules for the constitution, governance, and capital structures of innovative companies consistent with what the Letta and Draghi reports propose —with which this term began— and, furthermore, to do so by means of a regulation, meaning it would only require a qualified majority in the Council.

Well, this Parliament not only clearly supports it, but wants to lead this initiative. But we must be aware of its difficulties, because we will do so concurrently with the absence of fiscal harmonization —which continues to belong to the Member States as a competence—, labor harmonization —likewise 27 different regimes— and, also, despite the fact that company registration is harmonized, it will coexist with 27 different registry models in the Union.

Therefore, the objective is plausible, but we must be aware of the difficulties. What must be achieved is that the legislative outcome lives up to the proclaimed ambition.

Mr President, this house cannot get over its green craze. When discussing the simplification of cross-border business taxation, entries from the red-green party program are being dragged in through the same door. Namely, in connection with this simpler tax system, it is proposed as the position of the European Parliament that green innovation should be able to receive temporary additional deductions or tax payment deferrals.

I ask, why on earth does this green innovation need all these deferrals, additional deductions, and state subsidies that you are constantly pushing? Could it be that green projects cannot survive in competition and therefore must be supported by all possible means. Europe is still waiting for that green growth that you have promised for years. Realism is to stop waiting for it and start respecting market economy principles, which are not built on the foundation of green subsidy dance.

Mr President, as Ireland takes over the Presidency of the Union, strengthening Europe's competitiveness is a major priority. Therefore, I welcome this report by MEP Ódor, rapporteur from my own political group, Renew Europe, and I thank him for the in-depth study he has carried out on the 28th tax regime which is optional - optional for our SMEs.

Start in Europe, grow in Europe, stay in Europe and do not leave home. The fragmented market in Europe has not been working for our SMEs for a long time, but rather it has been working against them.

I commend this optional European framework to harmonize the various incorporation, financing, investment, insolvency, legal, labor and tax systems, while recognizing the political sensitivity surrounding tax matters at the national level of the Member States.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, obstacles to businesses, cross-border operations and expansion constitute a major hurdle to an effective single market. We complain a lot about the 15 % US tariffs, but we tend to forget that existing barriers in our own single market account to much more.

And yes, a single business code would be a game changer. Today, a company expanding across Europe must navigate different tax procedures, authorities and reporting requirements. This is where the 28th regime can make a practical difference by simplifying this procedure through a one-stop shop, a single interface and stronger coordination between tax authorities.

But if a company can register under one European framework and still has to navigate a different national rules every time it hires, raises capital or expands into a new market, we will have changed the rulebook without changing the reality of doing business in Europe.

The question is simple: will this regime remove complexity or merely add another layer of it? Let's do our best to achieve the first, because its success will ultimately depend on whether companies can operate more easily across our single market and compete more effectively.

Madam President, esteemed Commissioner. In pursuit of a single market, I believe that we should also standardise taxes. In Lithuania, the value added tax is one of the highest in the European Union. In particular, the value added tax is high on food products. In many European Union countries, the value added tax on food products is much lower, but no exceptions are made for this in Lithuania. I believe it is necessary to seek that the value added tax on food products has a zero rate, especially for essential food products. I have repeatedly suggested, as a Member of the European Parliament, that these taxes be lower, but unfortunately neither the one nor the other government would agree. Does the European Union not think that it is necessary to reduce taxes on food products? Especially since in Lithuania there is a very large wealth disparity and nearly 20 percent of people are impoverished.

Madam Commissioner, I call on you to withdraw this proposal. The so-called 28th regime is not an innocent administrative change. It is a dangerous door for letterbox companies, social dumping and the weakening of collective rights. The European Trade Union Confederation ETUC itself warns that there are no binding guarantees for workers. The European Trade Union Institute warns that it paves the way for competition at the expense of wages and rights.

We say no to the "race to the bottom". If the Commission believes that workers' rights are not at risk, then explicitly enshrine in the regulation that the labor law and collective agreements of the country where the worker actually works will always apply. Until binding guarantees are enshrined for every worker, our position is clear: Withdraw this proposal.

Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your valuable remarks and for your recognition that this proposal is a good step in the right direction. 'EU Inc.' is a corporate‑law proposal, which is part of a broader strategy to strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy. Yes, we want to remove complexities and we want to simplify but not lower our standards in combating tax evasion.

We will ensure fair taxation and a level playing field, and maintain a high level of protection against tax fraud. The objective is to enable companies to operate under a single, harmonised set of EU‑wide rules, instead of having to navigate different corporate‑law frameworks of the Member States.

We commend the fact that the European Parliament recognises 'EU Inc.' as a strategic step forward towards a further deepening and improvement of the single market and competitiveness. We also acknowledge the Parliament's general call for further legislative actions related to the 28th regime. We are ready to listen to the businesses and work together with the Member States to create an environment in which companies can thrive.

Thank you for your exchange, and all the best.

Madam President, first, I wanted to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and also MEPs for the lively debate. I think it also showed that this is an important topic.

Second, I wanted to highlight maybe three issues which are really important, and I felt a little bit of misunderstanding in the plenary.

The first one, the regime is optional. It is optional not only for the companies but also for the Member State to opt into this regime. So, this is not forcing targeted harmonisation among Member States.

The second one, it is not mainly about tax revenues, since start-ups and scale-ups usually generate at the beginning of their life very, very limited revenues.

The third one is that it is important to highlight that we are not an isolated island somewhere in the Pacific, but we need to be competitive internationally. What are the benchmarks internationally? If you look at the situation in the US, they have a special regime for scale-ups, start-ups and innovative companies. It is called the Delaware regime. I do not advocate to simply copy that situation, mainly because of worker rights and others, but still, we need one regime for having scale in Europe, because what is the alternative? If we are not able to create big companies, globally competitive companies, if we are not able to utilise the full single market, then of course somebody else will decide about our future. And that is at least not what I want for the future of Europe.

So, thank you once again very much for the constructive discussion.

Madam President, I rise under Rule 202(1) and (4), and Rule 180(1) in conjunction with Rule 202(4).

On Monday, the President reminded us that there should be no chanting in this Chamber. Yesterday, it happened again. The reaction of the sitting President? Nothing.

Later, a colleague requested a personal statement. Under the plenary reforms that were introduced, it should be granted immediately. He was ignored.

And finally, yesterday evening, a colleague said, talking about Muslims – and I ask the interpreters to make it very clear that this is a quote – he said, about Muslims, 'They spend a lot of time with goats'. The reaction of the sitting President: 'We will look into that'.

Let me be very clear: I do not blame the sitting presidents. I blame the culture. Breaches of our Rules of Procedure are rarely addressed in this Chamber. They disappear into administrative procedures instead of being dealt with transparently. If we want the plenary reform to succeed, we need to change the culture together.

Mr President, I will be as quick as I can.

Yesterday, at the first debate on the conclusions of the European Council meeting, a lot of Members – understandably at the time – were critical of the non-attendance of the Irish Presidency. Having already looked at the reason, I can now assure Members that it was not the fault of the Irish Presidency. The European Council decided, because it was the conclusion of the meetings in the relation to the Council, that that only President Costa, who was in Ankara at the NATO summit, could attend. The Irish minister was here and available to attend the meeting, but he was not allowed.

To be fair to the Irish Government, we had a meeting with our Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, on Monday night, and there we discussed the need to attend and show respect to Parliament. The Irish Presidency will attend all meetings that they are required and allowed to attend here in Parliament.

Madam President! Based on Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament regarding the independence of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament, which has just been violated, I request the immediate halt of the accelerated accession of Ukraine to the European Union.

The Ukrainian services maintain the Myrotvorets list, on which they place the names of people reported for harassment, intimidation, and elimination. Today, I was added to this list. Previously, my colleagues from Patriots for Europe were added. This is an attack on EU diplomats, whose lives and security may be endangered. This is gangsterism and scumbaggery.

I expect a reaction from the head of the European Parliament in order to protect diplomats from this institution, because our lives and our security are currently endangered.

Madam President, colleagues, I rise for a point of order under Rule 202, regarding Rules 60, 73 and 170, regarding the derogation that we will be voting today. This House has already sovereignly expressed its position and voted down this extension twice. The President had no mandate to ask the Council to proceed to a second reading, yet we are here today. This urgent procedure hit our agenda before we even received the Council's position, and then the required plenary debate under Rule 170(4) never even took place.

We cannot rubber‑stamp the mass surveillance of our citizens. Furthermore, by rushing this temporary, flawed fix, we drastically weakened Parliament's position on the long‑term file, which is exactly where we should come to a conclusion to protect our children. The Council had every opportunity to find a reasonable middle ground and even now they can still adopt our position if we amend this text. So colleagues, please help us save the face of this House, protect our children and secure the privacy of our citizens.

Madam President, my intervention is based on Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and on our obligation to respect Article 2 of the Treaty which binds us all regarding respect for democracy, the rule of law and the values of the European Union, and on Article 10 of the Treaty, which stipulates that the functioning of the European Union is based on representative democracy.

But how, dear colleagues, can parliamentarians fulfill these conditions with all the seriousness that this requires, when we, parliamentarians, receive voting lists that often change until the very last moment? This is not serious. Voting lists and amendments should be frozen a few days before the vote.

I call on you, dear colleagues, to all work to change our operating rules, so that we can vote with the seriousness that this requires, also out of respect for all citizens of the European Union.

Madam President, honourable members, paying and accessing cash is becoming increasingly difficult for citizens.

Europe depends on digital payment providers controlled by third countries. Ignoring this is no longer an option. This package protects cash like Community law has never done before and also offers the digital euro: just another alternative, not an imposition.

However, dear citizens, some prefer to frighten you with a dystopian world in which the digital euro is used as a tool of control. I do not know if they are confusing the continent, reality, or simply want a frightened citizenry that they can control.

I assure you that they are lying, because a majority of this House has designed a system with the highest privacy standards; standards higher than those of the payment methods we already use. No one will know or decide what we spend our money on.

Cash and the digital euro: two ways to pay for a single freedom, that of each citizen to choose. Let us continue working to make it a reality.

Madam President, the digital euro answers a simple question: who should control Europe's financial future? The answer is Europe.

To those behind the motion to block over there, when amendments weaken access to cash by reducing ATMs, you remain silent. When we challenge the foreign payments duopoly, you sided with the status quo. When we fought to cut fees for merchants, you opposed us – even today with your motion.

You claim to stand with ordinary Europeans, but too often you stand with powerful financial interests. Enjoy the rewards of populism while they last. The people of Europe will see through the contradiction sooner than you think.

Madam President, Patriots raise objection to the mandate to enter interinstitutional negotiations on the digital euro, as it fails to strike the right balance between strengthening Europe's strategic autonomy and safeguarding innovation, competition and security in the European payments market.

I mention just two reasons. First, the Parliament's draft would exempt unidentified asylum seekers from standard customer identification requirements, while law-abiding European citizens must comply with strict identification rules. This is a clear and nonsense discrimination against respect for European citizens.

Secondly, separating the digital euro's offline and online functionalities would have reduced Europe's dependence on non-European payment providers, while allowing European private payment solutions to innovate and grow. EPP, together with the leftist groups, have impeded that.

So, for these reasons, I urge this House to support this objection.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the introduction of the digital euro is not a technical issue but a first-rate political issue and deserves the response of this entire Parliament. While we are discussing numerous reports in this place, one of the most important legislative proposals, the creation of money in digital form, is not coming before the full house for an open debate. The question is why?

I participated in the negotiations and I think this project cannot be saved. We have heard from the European Central Bank, according to their own estimates, this will cost between four and six billion euros. That is not a negligible amount, especially at a time when the European Union is lagging behind others in competitiveness.

Finally, it must be said that the only major country that has introduced digital money in this form is communist China.

Madam President, today we are too dependent on non-European payment methods, particularly American ones, and this dependence, dear colleagues, must end.

Private solutions are developing, and that is very well, but we must also provide the Union with a public digital, pan-European, sovereign currency, which will be the digital equivalent of our cash – an additional and guaranteed payment method available to all European citizens, even those who are currently deprived of access to a bank account.

It is a tool of sovereignty, a tool of freedom, and I invite you to vote in favour of the negotiating mandate so that this fine project becomes a reality.

Madam President, dear colleagues challenging the digital euro. I have listened carefully, but your arguments simply don't add up.

First, you call yourself patriots, and yet you oppose the one instrument that could loosen the grip that Donald Trump has on all our payments. If you are true European patriots, vote for the anti-Trump coin.

Second, you tell us how much you love the privacy of cash. And who doesn't love cash? And yet you oppose the one instrument that could bring that privacy and anonymity into the digital world. If you like cash, vote for the anonymous digital coin.

And third, you claim to stand with ordinary people and businesses, and yet you oppose the one instrument that would make digital payments finally affordable for your bakery, for your corner store and for your cafe. If you like your bakery, vote for the affordable digital coin.

Sovereignty, privacy, affordability – colleagues, why are you opposing these three? Think harder, stop the conspiracy theory, read the law and vote for the digital euro.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, if today you pay in cash, tomorrow you can continue to pay in cash, exactly as you do today.

But, if you choose to pay electronically - digitally - the digital euro will offer you the European, public and independent possibility for your data to remain in Europe and to pay in Europe, rather than letting millions of data and millions of euros in commissions pass overseas, mainly to the benefit of Visa and Mastercard.

The introduction of the digital euro is a response mainly to this. It does not want to and cannot replace cash, it wants to flank it instead, to replace Visa and Mastercard, and to offer a public independent alternative.

The digital euro represents the attempt to reduce our dependence and those who say it is a gift to banks are lying. The digital euro is the European attempt to recover monetary sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Precisely those who call themselves sovereignists and patriots should vote for it. If you are sovereignists with borders, you should also be sovereignists regarding the data of European citizens.

Vote for the digital euro.

Madam President, esteemed colleagues! The proposed legal framework for the digital euro includes elements such as mandatory acceptance rules, the integration of digital identity systems, identification mechanisms, and further interventions in payment market structures. Furthermore, the project could have significant impacts on the existing banking system and the structure of private deposits, as well as fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and public monetary institutions.

The totality of these elements gives rise to considerable doubts that Article 133 TFEU alone constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the currently proposed legal framework. The digital euro therefore carries the risk of extending the scope of Union competence in monetary law beyond the limits provided for in the Treaties through an expansive interpretation of Article 133 TFEU. A project with such far-reaching impacts on payment systems, market structures, the banking system, and payment mechanisms must not be supported in its current form.

Madam President, as rapporteur on this file, I want us to start the mandate we put forward in as a complete, legally sound and politically strong way possible. In view of the latest developments, I believe that it is important that the committee has the opportunity to address these changes that should be reflected in the mandate.

Therefore, in accordance with Rule 204(2), as rapporteur of the file, I would like to request the ITRE mandate on the amendments to the Critical Raw Materials Act be referred back to the Committee for further discussion.

Madam President, in accordance with Rule 68(4), I want to ask, on behalf of The Left Group in the European Parliament, a final rejection vote with a roll‑call vote. Because I think, and we collectively think, that this mass‑surveillance system deserves proper democratic oversight. That is why we ask for a final rejection vote on the matter.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, for the benefit of the entire House, a procedural clarification. Are we asking for the rejection of the original proposal? Are we asking for the rejection of the proposal as amended by the vote of the House, which saw two amendments pass?

Madam President, colleagues, we will have a vote now. We respect, of course, the request of The Left. We now have some amendments approved. We have the text. I would urge colleagues to vote, of course, in this vote – we should respect it. From EPP I want to be clear: we are standing with the children. We have to protect them from predators.

PRESIDENCY: NICOLAE STEFANUTA

Vice-President

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for participating in this debate on a very important subject that worries the agricultural public space at the European level. Dear colleagues, 20 years ago, a farmer in Romania could buy a house with money obtained from the sale of wool from 600 sheep. Today, the same farmer is forced to take money out of his pocket just to get rid of the wool produced on his own farm, thus transforming a valuable resource into an economic burden.

In the Nordic countries, for example, the value lost annually due to the failure to capitalize on the potential of wool is estimated at 120 million euros. The natural question arises: how did we get here? Not because wool has lost its utility. It can be used in the textile industry, in construction, as insulating material, but also as a natural fertilizer. But the problem is that European legislation has turned the valorization of wool into a complicated and costly process.

European Regulation 1069/2009 and Regulation 142/2011 classify wool as a Category 3 animal byproduct, alongside blood, for example, feathers or other byproducts. This classification imposes strict and costly conditions for handling, storage, transport and processing, even when the wool comes from healthy animals. The natural question arises: how does the European Commission justify the fact that wool from healthy animals ends up being treated more as waste than a valuable agricultural resource?

At the same time, due to increasingly stringent environmental requirements and hard-to-bear costs, Europe has lost a large part of its wool washing and processing capacity. The result is absurd. We produce wool in Europe, we transport it thousands of km to Turkey to be washed, then we bring it back. We pay more, we transport more, we pollute more and we destroy our own industry, while we talk about sustainability and circular economy.

Under these conditions, I ask the European Commission if it is considering urgently reviewing the regulations in question and eliminating the disproportionate barriers applied to wool, because legislation that turns a valuable resource into an economic burden does not protect European agriculture, but condemns it. Farmers, Madam Commissioner, do not ask for privileges, but only the right to capitalize on their work and products.

Mr President, dear Members, first of all, my thanks go to the honourable Members who tabled this oral question, especially MEP Buda.

The Commission recognises in our livestock strategy, which we just adopted this Tuesday, by-products such as wool or manure are not a waste, but rather a resource that has value and serves multiple purposes in a circular bioeconomy. This happened this Tuesday. By enabling the production of bio-based products and supporting circular resource use, wool contributes to the objectives of the bioeconomy and the circular economy. These products also create environmental, economic and rural development benefits.

In the meantime, the Regulation on animal by-products provides proportionate risk-based rules to protect animal and public health. The regulation includes flexible options to collect, transport and store wool, as well as options for other uses like fertilisers. In line with international standards and based on available scientific knowledge, wool is categorised among the animal by-products that represent the lowest but not insignificant risk for public and animal health. It is in the least restrictive category, with a wider range of options for its safe use and valorisation.

Many farmers do struggle to sell wool in the textile industry, which is itself facing difficulties. That means many farmers are instead disposing of their wool, but this is not stipulated by the Animal By-Products Regulation. Instead, it is a decision by farmers and businesses in the wool sector, forced by the problems of the textile industry.

Let me assure you that the Commission continues to work on providing new opportunities for wool producers. As announced in our livestock strategy, the Commission will work on facilitating the use of animal by-products without jeopardising animal health, food and feed safety standards and review potential regulatory bottlenecks. As they stand, animal by-product implementing rules already offer opportunities for different uses of wool. These include making fertilisers and other products from wool as long as specified animal diseases are not present.

The Commission is also exploring new options to help wool producers. This was part of the bioeconomy strategy that we adopted in November last year. That strategy includes a dedicated EU CAP network focus group on innovative and sustainable ways to strengthen the role of farmers in revitalising the European wool value chain. We will continue to look into these sorts of possibilities.

We are committed to supporting farmers to enable different uses of wool, while always accounting for any associated health risks. We are committed to maintaining the EU's highest standards for public health and animal health. We are also committed to fewer restrictions for farmers and wool producers whenever health risks and effective risk mitigations allow it. But we also need to be ready for the possibility of disease outbreaks because the level of risk is higher if that happens. This is what the Animal By-Product Regulation provides for.

I will now listen to your views.

Madam President, Commissioner, a recent study in Ireland found that almost half of our farmers want to add value to their wool, and yet more than 80 % are unable to do so. The big question is: why? Because there are too few markets, too little processing capacity and too much unnecessary bureaucracy.

For many sheep farmers, wool has become a cost rather than an income, and you'll hear that from colleagues today. Yet across Ireland, there are a number of ambassadors working incredibly hard to bring value to wool. In Galway there is Blátnaid Gallagher, who established the Galway Wool Co-op with LEADER support, connecting farmers with new markets for their wool and promoting the Galway wool as a sustainable and locally grown material.

Also in Galway we have Michael Burke, founder of Woolow, which is producing natural wool pillows that offer an alternative to synthetics for people with hay fever and dust allergies. Roscommon-owned business FertaWool is transforming wool into organic fertiliser pellets that can hold up to 20 times their weight in water, helping crops withstand droughts and extreme heat. Once again in Galway, we have Katarina Hruskova, who's leading a crowdfunding campaign to reopen a wool mill, bringing back much needed processing capacity for local farmers.

These are not just inspiring local projects; these are businesses creating tangible jobs in our rural areas. They unlock the value of a resource we already produce. So why are we making it so difficult? Too often, wool from healthy sheep is treated more like a waste than a valuable natural product, which we've heard from MEP Daniel Buda. That means more cost for farmers, more barriers for processors and fewer opportunities for our rural businesses.

If we're serious about supporting farmers, strengthening our rural economies and building a genuine circular economy, then our policies have to reflect those ambitions. That means cutting unnecessary red tape. It means investing in local processing. And it means creating new markets for wool. Let's stop treating wool as a problem. It's part of the solution.

Mr President, today's debate is proof that every topic affecting people is important to the European Parliament.

At first glance, the issues raised about wool may seem purely technical, but for many farmers in Europe, especially in mountain, semi-mountain and poorer regions, this is a matter of survival. Sheep farming is not just one of the livestock sectors, it sustains life in rural areas, preserves pastures, preserves local breeds and traditions, and provides income where alternatives are often few. This is especially true for countries like Bulgaria and for many regions in Eastern and Southern Europe, where smallholders continue to bear the brunt.

And it is precisely these farmers who are placed in an absurd situation today. They are obliged to shear their sheep, this is necessary for animal health and welfare, but afterwards the wool often brings no income, but turns into an expense. Farmers pay for shearing, and then for storage, transport or even destruction because the market is weak, processing is insufficient, and the rules are too burdensome for the real risk. This is not fair. Wool is a natural, renewable, biodegradable and sustainable material.

At the same time, Europe talks more and more about circular economy, sustainable textile products and waste reduction. But what is the point of talking about sustainability if we let our own European wool depreciate while the market is flooded with cheap and synthetic materials, fast fashion and clothes that are worn a few times and then thrown away? Of course, we must also be responsible regarding animal health. In Bulgaria and the region, farmers know very well what severe consequences diseases such as sheep and goat pox, peste des petits ruminants, and bluetongue can have. An epidemic can destroy herds, incomes and years of work.

Therefore, this is not about removing controls. It is about smarter controls. The Commission must propose a proportionate, clear and risk-based regime for wool from healthy animals. When there is no real veterinary risk, the rules should not make the collection and use of wool economically pointless. Smallholders cannot be treated as large industrial operators. They do not have the same administrative capacity, they do not have the same access to markets, and they cannot bear every additional burden.

Therefore, we expect concrete actions from the Commission. First, a review of the current rules so that wool from healthy animals is treated as a resource rather than waste. Second, support for regional collection, sorting and primary processing centers for wool. This is especially important for small holdings that cannot individually build such infrastructure. Third, a better connection of agricultural policy with the European Union's textile strategy. If we talk about sustainable textiles, European wool must have a real place in this policy. Fourth, support for cooperatives, local processors and small businesses that can bring added value back to the regions instead of the raw material being abandoned or sold for a pittance. And fifth, stronger veterinary support, early detection of diseases, better cross-border coordination and fair compensation when farmers are affected by disease control measures.

This is not nostalgia for the past, this is a matter of sound industrial, agricultural and environmental policy. If Europe wants to be more sustainable, it must start with the resources it already has. If we want to preserve life in rural areas, we must help smallholders not only survive, but also get fair value for their labor. If we want to curb fast fashion and throwaway culture, we must support natural and durable materials. Sheep have to be sheared anyway, the question is whether European policy will let wool be a problem for the farmer or help it become a valuable product for Europe again.

Mr President, for years, due to absurd regulations, wool has been unfairly treated as a risk waste, forcing sheep farmers to bury or burn it. This is not environmental protection, it is sheer waste. European Regulation 1069/2009 treats wool as waste, instead of seeing it as a valuable strategic resource. We do not need ideological constraints that bury traditions and suffocate farmers, but intelligent, realistic solutions.

Wool has countless advantages and fantastic applications. It is an exceptional thermal insulator for construction, an excellent organic fertilizer in agriculture, and a sustainable raw material for textiles. Humanity has been clothing itself with wool for thousands of years and, although we are fighting pollution, practically, the blockage of wool only encourages other synthetic materials, such as plastic, and accentuates pollution.

Madam Commissioner, unfortunately, it is not enough to have a European strategy. We ask you for an updated regulatory framework to reclassify and financially support the valorization of wool. It is time to do justice to livestock farmers and to all European citizens who have the right to use natural and healthy products.

A Uachtaráin, sheep farmers have a responsibility to shear their sheep for animal welfare issues, and rightly so. But Commissioner, as it stands, farmers have to pay up to EUR 3.50 per sheep for shearing. In other words, it is a cost, and at the end of that shearing exercise, they have a product that's defined as being waste, as being a nuisance. I believe at this stage we really have to address this fundamental issue.

We have to accept from the very start that wool is a product that has huge potential, and in the past was a very valuable product that was used widely across Europe, primarily in the area of textiles and in other forms. But with the modern technologies that are available to us, the modern building programmes that we use, there are certainly opportunities for us to look at ways of being innovative and of creating new ways to use wool.

So when we look at the livestock strategy and it outlines some of the significant challenges that have been placed on the livestock sector, the area of sheep is quite evident. There are declining numbers, very often in regions that need not just sheep, but the people to look after them. And this is having a knock-on negative effect in peripheral regions and remote regions of Europe that traditionally would have been very active in the context of sheep farming and shepherding.

So I would urge the Commission to look at the issue of the blocks that are being put on us in terms of the definition of what wool is, and if it is still the issue that it is creating difficulties, that we would reclassify to allow wool to be seen in a more positive light.

We also need to develop markets and processing capacity. In Ireland at one time, Commissioner, we had an exceptionally strong woollen industry. In 1984, when the National Wool Council – An Chomhairle Olla – was abolished as a cost-saving exercise, we exported 5 895 tonnes at a value of 14 million. In today's terms that would be the equivalent of a value of 30 million. In 2019, we exported 5 641 tonnes, and its value was only 6.8 million. So there has been a significant decrease in the value of wool itself.

I would urge the Commission to look at this in a very proactive way. There are many people doing good work in Ireland in promoting wool.

I would like to thank John Joe Fitzgerald from Corca Dhuibhne, County Kerry, for all the work he is doing on behalf of the wool industry in Ireland - John Joe, Vice-President of the INHFA.

We should be ambitious with the wool industry and reduce the pressure on sheep farmers.

So, in summarising, I think there's an obligation on national states but equally on the Commission to remove the barriers and the inhabitants to us creating a vibrant wool industry that will reflect well in terms of the markets that could be developed but, most importantly, will allow us to continue to have sustainable circular economies in the areas of sheep farming and, more importantly, in the areas that need sheep farmers and shepherds.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner! And thanks to all the colleagues who still found their way to the plenary for this last debate on the last day before the summer break here in Strasbourg. We are discussing a topic - wool. One can say, yes, how detailed do we want to go into the topics now, but wool is a central topic that has many impacts on our agriculture.

Particularly farmers in disadvantaged areas are involved in sheep farming. In many areas, not much more is possible than sheep farming, and they are sometimes the lowest-earning agricultural businesses that still engage in sheep farming today. And it is one of the last opportunities to still generate any income in disadvantaged areas. As my colleague Billy Kelleher has already outlined: The cost of shearing a sheep is greater than what you get for the wool.

One topic that has not yet been highlighted: Sheep farming has an extremely positive effect on biodiversity. It is one of the few human activities that leads to more biodiversity and not less biodiversity. But please, Commission, do not walk out here and say: Everything is fine here, there is nothing to see here.

We have a problem, and the problem is that firstly we have too little processing for the wool, and secondly we have the problem that wool cannot be used directly as a fertilizer. If I first have to transport, wash, clean, and pelletize the wool, then it is no longer worthwhile. I understand that wool cannot be transported across borders for sanitary reasons; but let us use the wool directly as fertilizer in agriculture, in vegetable growing, in fruit growing. There are no risks involved, and it would be an immediate solution to a problem that we have right across the European Union. I ask you: Please look into this!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The necessity of today's debate is further proof that the EU Commission has moved miles away from the reality of the people's lives. It is complete nonsense that the valuable natural product sheep's wool is still classified by a Commission regulation as an animal byproduct of category 3 - meaning wool as a waste product on the same level as blood or hides. It is almost impossible to show more contempt for the traditional profession of the shepherd and for wool as a valuable agricultural resource.

Actually, this contempt is only topped by the fact that around 700 colleagues are staying away from today's important debate. Now the debates are even being restricted so that the last speech is supposed to have been given by 8:00 p.m.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a member of the AfD for almost ten years now and have had to listen to this bullshit here for ten years - that we would show contempt for democracy. Now, on Tuesday, you decided by a majority here that you want to initiate infringement or review proceedings against our ESN party because you have doubts about EU values.

If your EU values are now a mania for control, waste of taxpayers' money, refusal to work, exclusion of unwelcome political competition, or active promotion of arms deliveries to war zones and the associated promotion of corruption in those war zones, yes, then there are still considerable doubts about the Commission and certain left-wing parliamentary groups here in Parliament.

Back to the wool. I come from a small federal state in Germany, Saxony-Anhalt. How on earth do you explain to the shepherd in Saxony-Anhalt, who tends to his sheep in wind and weather 365 days a year, that apparently hardly anyone in this Parliament is interested in his fate? How do you explain to this shepherd that his product has been classified by the EU Commission as a byproduct and thus practically as waste for years? And how do you explain to this shepherd with his nearly 300 sheep whether he will still be able to practice his profession economically in the future due to impending new bureaucracy or high costs caused by herd protection?

Wool is not just a byproduct. Hats, scarves, gloves, sweaters, jackets, coats, dresses, slippers, hats, trousers, mattresses, pillows, aircraft seats, firefighter uniforms, stuffed animals, diapers, billiard table coverings, dolls or carpets - all this and much more is produced with high-quality wool and thus upgraded.

Now would be the time for us here in the European Parliament to economically strengthen the shepherds and upgrade the classification of wool. Whoever likes sheep must protect sheep; whoever wants wool must support shepherds!

Mr President, dear colleagues! Many thanks to Maria Walsh, Daniel Buda and Herbert Dorfmann for initiating this debate. When I first looked more deeply into the subject of wool, I couldn't believe what we as the EU are doing here – or rather, not doing.

We all know that Europe is truly not blessed with raw materials. Wool is one such raw material: versatile, locally available, water-repellent, flame-retardant, biodegradable. And what do we do? We simply throw the wool away anyway. Or we sell it to China at dumping prices. The consequence: for German shepherds, for example, the revenue from wool accounts for less than 2% of income. The Chinese, on the other hand, buy up wool worldwide; clothing made from wool is a status symbol there.

It is time for us to recognize the value of our wool again. The timing is good; I have some hopes for the Irish Presidency. In my home region of Thuringia, there are very interesting approaches to weaving wool together with hemp. The result is similar to cotton, but more sustainable.

We must promote and drive forward such projects; this is also about value chains and jobs. Consumers are willing to spend more money on sustainable, locally produced clothing, and there is also a demand for sustainable insulation materials in the construction sector. We also frequently discuss scarce fertilizer for our agriculture in this House. Since wool has a high nitrogen content, it is ideally suited in the form of pellets as a long-term fertilizer.

Much is possible if we now adapt the legal situation. I therefore ask the Commission to reconsider the classification of wool in Category 3 in the animal by-products regulation. Wool simply does not belong in the same risk group as animal blood or hides. Wool is not a danger, it is an opportunity: let's use it!

(The speaker agreed to answer a blue-card question.)

Madam Member, you are a representative of Germany, you are a representative of the EPP, a country and a political formation that have been ruling the European Union for decades. During the last and this debate, which was earlier and concerned the fishing industry in Europe, all Members of the European Parliament are criticising the European Union for destroying its agriculture, for destroying its fisheries. How do you explain that Germany, that the EPP have led to a situation where agriculture in the European Union is unprofitable? What is your prescription for this situation?

Blue Card". - Who bears which share of what here is completely irrelevant. It is crucial that we act and that, when we recognize mistakes, we correct them, and we are currently working on that.

Mr President! How many more times will we hear lofty slogans about the Green Deal, while EU regulations punish what is truly ecological? Raw wool – a natural, renewable and fully biodegradable raw material – is still classified as waste. Surely this is absurd. Sheep farmers pay for the storage and disposal of wool. Why? After all, this material can insulate homes, fertilise soil, and replace synthetic materials. This is what practical ecology looks like, not a sick ideology. European climate policy requires common sense, it requires looking at the real problems of people who do hard work every day: farmers, miners, craftsmen. Today we see Brussels being detached from everyday life. It is easy to make ambitious declarations, but harder to remove regulations that harm farmers and the environment.

Therefore, I call on the European Commission to reclassify raw wool from waste to a full-fledged raw material. Let us start by eliminating absurdities, and we will begin to be truly ecological.

(The speaker agreed to take a question signalled by the raising of a blue card)

blue card. – Thank you very much, dear colleague, for accepting the blue card. I think you and I agree on some issues; on other issues we do not agree.

Now, if I understood the translation correctly, you referred to those who disagree with you as a "sick ideology". You have a little more life experience than I do: Do you think it is appropriate and constructive in political discourse to describe those who do not agree with you as "obsessed with a sick ideology"?

Mr. Member, thank you for your question. Unfortunately, I must state that these theses, these absurdities that are repeatedly voiced by the European Commission, as well as in this hall, unfortunately, are ideology. Above all, we should ensure that Europe becomes truly competitive, propose such solutions and prepare concrete solutions so that we are competitive, so that people live well. In fact, the most valuable asset for all of us is human capital and we should invest in it. Today, people in Europe are living worse and more expensive lives precisely because of these solutions that we are introducing.

Mr President, today it's easier to import virgin polyester than to move European wool around. The textile strategy made a promise: textiles on the European market should be sustainable, recyclable and, to a large extent, of recycled fibres. But wool, today, shows us how far we are from delivering on that promise.

We adapted health rules to stop animal disease spreading, rightly so. But wool from perfectly healthy sheep was swept into these same rules. So, in practice, raw wool cannot be sold or moved around like any other farm product. So instead of becoming a beautiful textile, it is thrown away. The paradox does not stop at the farm gate, because when wool comes back to us years later as worn‑out garments it hits the second wall: waste legislation.

There are 27 interpretations of what a textile is, if it's waste or it's a resource. Heavy procedures – every time feedstock crosses a border to a recycler. Two different rule books, the same result and natural recyclable material is treated like a liability at both ends of its life. Meanwhile, cheap fossil‑based synthetics that fuel fast fashion circulate freely all around Europe.

So the Commission should answer the question put forward on the table today, promise during this mandate a specific and proportionate framework for wool and, at the same time, also deliver on the waste criteria with the Circular Economy Act this fall.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Thank you very much for agreeing to take my question. I appreciate your statements. I know that you are an expert on environmental protection, because I have heard your statements many times. Hence, I have a short question for you.

Your group is very involved in the European Commission, you have your people there. What would you say if we all put forward such a project for the European Commission to prepare a special grant for scientists who would consider how to use natural wool? Because I believe that destroying a natural product is pure waste.

So my question to you is: will you support such a motion for the European Commission to prepare a special grant for scientists to analyze the issue of wool?

Well, thank you very much for this question. I think what is important to understand is that we have the knowledge, we have the technology, we have the skills. This is about regulation we've done which is not suitable for what we're facing. So let's just change the regulation around it and use the raw materials that we have done for thousands and thousands of years. We also have the technology skills to do it, so let's scale up this and use European wool, also, in the fashion industry. We have the knowledge.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, wool is one of Europe's oldest and most sustainable natural resources. Instead of being valued as a resource with significant economic and ecological potential, however, for 17 years wool has been considered agricultural waste in Europe, which is an aberration. If we keep talking about the circular economy, wool is the best example of a product to be processed in such an economy.

Our ancestors in Romania have given circular economic utility to wool for thousands of years. Today, however, due to aberrant European regulations, shepherds in Romania, for example, effectively throw wool in the trash, which is illogical. We need to amend the rules to facilitate the collection, transport and processing of wool. At the same time, investments in wool processing and recycling infrastructure must be supported, especially in rural areas, which would produce more jobs, reduce waste and provide farmers with additional sources of income.

Wool is renewable, biodegradable and represents a sustainable alternative to synthetic materials. In the context of the European Green Deal and the circular economy, it is aberrant for this natural resource to be wasted just because European bureaucrats do not know how many legs sheep have.

Mr President! Commissioner! Sheep farming is the foundation of many mountainous areas in Poland, my country, from Podhale, the Beskids, through the Bieszczady to the Sudetenland. This is not only food production, landscape protection, biodiversity, but also European cultural heritage. However, as we know, in Poland breeders receive 0.35 euro per kilogram of wool, while shearing one sheep costs 3.70 euro. This means that this practice is absolutely unprofitable. The natural raw material therefore becomes waste, although the Union promotes a circular economy.

Therefore, Commissioner, my question is fundamental: what specific actions will the European Commission take to restore market value to European wool, improve the income of breeders, protect traditional pastoralism in mountain regions in Poland and across Europe? This is a very important problem. I am an MEP elected from mountainous areas. I encounter these matters very often and this is precisely the appeal of a parliamentarian from mountainous areas for the European Commission to address this problem.

Mr President, dear people of Europe! As the final speaker, I am pleased to leave one or two good thoughts with some of you here for the summer break.

Mr Bausemer, I continually admire the mental acrobatics that you perform here in this hemicycle. You spoke about members not doing their work and wasting tax money here. I would like to point out to you that, according to the Parliament's official data yourself, you do not participate in 25% of the votes in this hemicycle; you can do better than that. Your bosom buddy, Mr Droese, does not participate in only 7% of the votes. I would say: Before you complain about the absence of others, you should increase the proportion of votes in which you participate somewhat.

Mr Mularczyk, I would like to point out to you that, as European members of Parliament, we are members of the entire European people. We do not just represent Germany here, we represent all citizens of Europe.

Madam Commissioner, when you talk to farmers, it is important that these people get the feeling that you are honest about what you are saying. Therefore, I would like to ask you to improve your rhetorical skills somewhat when reading your speech.

Mr President, since this is the last session of this semester, maybe I can also speak a little bit more freely, if freedom can be compared at all. I am representing here my colleague, Mr Várhelyi, who is in charge of this file, but I will try my best to defend our position.

You know that I am Commissioner for the Mediterranean, but I am also Commissioner for demography, so I understand what is going on not only in urban areas, but also in rural areas. This is why I was listening to your proposals and to your concerns very carefully, and I think there is a lot of room to improve what we have been doing. So, I understand and I'll pass the message to my colleagues.

I really want to thank you, Mr Buda, for your perspectives. The debate was very constructive so far as I could hear from across the plenary. I understood your political messages, but in fact, there was support for farmers from all of you and for high standards of animal health, which can open pathways for wool producers. You know, we, as the Commission, share the same position. We are not two sides. We want farmers to be able to sell their wool while also maintaining animal health centres.

Now, a few defensives. First, while several farmers may dispose of wool as waste, that is not required by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009. Second, the Animal By-Products Regulation provides for a specific and proportionate regulatory framework for wool to mitigate public and animal health risks. Within that framework of that Regulation, several options exist for alternative uses as fertilisers and even others, what is suggested in your oral question.

I can understand the urgency. This is why, alongside Commissioner Hansen, who is the Commissioner for agriculture, he is also involved here, we support the acceleration of practical pilots and knowledge exchange, such as the CAP network focus group, which is very important, and workable solutions can start before new rules are in place, but let's see.

I agree that the methods need to to better reflect issues such as microplastic release and biogenic carbon. The Commission is working on the revision of the environmental footprint methods to address or improve several issues that have been identified in the last year, including the wool sector.

On rural areas, once again, knowing that rural area areas cover 80 % geographically of Europe – only 20 % are urban areas, but the number of population is vice-versa, so only one third of the European population live in rural areas and two thirds in urban areas. We have to somehow balance this.

Just to make you aware, the third demographic report will be issued on 14 July, next Tuesday. I already know some results. The problem is not the number of population in Europe, but it's about how the population is distributed. This is the key problem: what are we going to do with this. So, we have to work in order to improve the environment and life for the people who live in rural areas, in order to attract, not those who have right to stay, according to the Letta report, you know, but how to attract newcomers there, and this is our responsibility and your responsibility. We have to work together.

So, we are ready to explore support for innovation and the new or modernised European wool processing and, of course, including cooperative projects that keep value in rural areas where there is a clear market potential.

We are advancing with the development of eco-design requirements, which are expected in 2027, in order to improve the environmental sustainability of apparel textile products. Although most textile products are made of polyester and cotton, products composed of wool may also be included in the scope of this initiative. The impact assessment may consider wool in the overall assessment of possible recycled content requirements and requirements on the content of bio-based fibres. Other measures could also apply to apparel textile products containing wool fibres.

To Maria Walsh, you ask about the pellets and regarding the use of wool as fertiliser pellets. The competent authorities can already authorise this at national level, I have to tell you, under the animal by-product rules.

To conclude, the Commission will analyse the final results of the focus group which we already mentioned. The Commission will also continue to monitor new treatments, new technologies, new uses and innovations that mitigate risks, and we are ready to enact these outcomes into the corresponding implementing regulation. This is what you ask, if necessary, after a risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority.

Thank you so much and have a nice summer vacation.

During the July 2026 plenary session, through a written question addressed to the European Commission, I launched the debate regarding the future of European wool.

It is unacceptable that a natural, renewable, biodegradable material with huge economic and ecological potential is treated, in practice, more like waste than a resource. Currently, due to the European legislative framework, many farmers are forced to pay for the collection, storage, or disposal of wool, even though the European Union promotes the circular economy and the efficient use of resources.

Through this written question, I asked the European Commission to explain why wool from healthy animals continues to be treated, in practice, more as waste than as a valuable agricultural resource and whether it intends to revise Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 to create a specific and proportional regulatory framework for wool.

Wool must become once again a resource with economic value, used in agriculture, construction, the textile industry, and the bioeconomy, rather than a financial burden for livestock breeders.

I will continue to support concrete measures that reduce bureaucracy, capitalize on local resources, and offer European farmers the chance to transform what is considered today a problem into an economic opportunity.

Mr. President, I voted against the report on the feasibility of the 28th tax regime because I do not believe the European Union needs yet another tax regime overlapping with the tax systems of the member states. Under the pretext of simplification for businesses, this report paves the way for increasingly accentuated fiscal centralization, which will not make the European economy more competitive. The reality is simple: European companies are not asking for new rules. They want less bureaucracy, lower taxes, and a stable and predictable legislative framework.

It is not the lack of a new tax regime that hinders investment, but the excess of regulation and the administrative burden that the EU continues to impose on the business environment. Fiscal policy must remain within the competence of member states. Fair tax competition stimulates investment, innovation, and economic development. Tax harmonization will not make the EU stronger, but less flexible and less competitive. If we want a Union capable of coping with global economic competition, we must have the courage to reduce bureaucracy, lessen the tax burden, and allow member states to adopt the economic policies that best respond to their own challenges.

Mr President! We live in a world in which international law is increasingly being replaced by the law of the strongest, in which weapons speak more and more often instead of politics and diplomacy, and in which 239 million people are now dependent on humanitarian aid.

The European Union must not look away; on the contrary: the EU, as the greatest peace project in history, has a special task here. We must help and work to make the world a more stable place again, where international law counts for more than the posturing of any rulers.

That is why I support this resolution, with which our shared Europe faces up to its global responsibility.

Mr President, the world must be taken as it is. The fact is that we here in Europe perhaps do not always fully remember in what difficult conditions many people around the world have to build their lives and survive from day to day. Therefore, I voted in favour of amendment 13, because of religious groups, Christians, especially converts to Christianity, experience the most persecution in the world among religious groups, and we perhaps forget that quite easily here. Of course, there are other groups in the world persecuted because of religion, such as the Rohingya in Myanmar or various minority religions in Pakistan and parts of India.

Similarly, I voted in favour of amendment 5, because in my view the EU must do its utmost to ensure that EU-funded projects and humanitarian aid really reach where they are supposed to go, no matter where in the world these horrific accidents, humanitarian emergencies and shortages take place.

Mr President, dear colleagues, especially after the recent USAID cuts, the European commitment to humanitarian aid has become crucial for millions of people across the world.

Conflicts, climate change and economic factors drive millions of people in various countries into utterly precarious situations. While we can go back to our safe homes at night, millions of people across the world do not have this privilege. Millions of people across the globe do not know if they will have a proper meal today, and many people across the globe have no access to basic necessities.

We must act now, and we must not leave the people in need alone. Even though I believe it is our human responsibility to help these people in need, I would like to say one thing to all the critics of humanitarian aid. We need to invest in humanitarian aid, not only because it's a human thing to do, but also for our own interests. If we do not invest properly where needed, we will face the consequences of our inaction in the form of mass migration, global health pandemics or detrimental economic impacts.

I thank all of my colleagues who have voted in favour, and I did too on this joint communication statement today.

And if I may ask one humanitarian favour from this Parliament before the summer: I would really love to also be able to get a coffee in the plenary after the summer break.

Madam President, honourable Members, to follow up on the Council meetings on 18 and 19 June, the first topic which was discussed by the leaders was Ukraine. For the first time since December 2024 we had conclusions at 27. This is an important step in restoring EU unity on our resolute and lasting support for Ukraine.

We now continue our work to help Ukrainians. First, through financial support, with a first tranche of EUR 3.2 billion from the EUR 90 billion Ukrainian support loan having been disbursed. In the last week, we saw the first disbursement of the EUR 6 billion defence package to support drone procurement.

Second, through raising the costs for Russia. I welcome the Irish Presidency's commitment to reaching an agreement on the 21st sanctions package by next week, and we are banning the entry of former Russian combatants into the European Union.

Leaders were meeting just days after we opened the fundamental clusters for both Ukraine and Moldova, and we will now look to open further clusters before the summer.

Moving to the Middle East, where the interim agreement between the United States and Iran was seen as a meaningful opening towards regional stability; to ensuring freedom of navigation toll-free in the Strait of Hormuz; to making sure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, while addressing concerns related to its ballistic program and regional activities; and ultimately to advancing peace and security across the region.

But events overnight show that much more efforts are needed to ensure long-lasting peace and stability. This just underscores why we see the need to develop other routes and corridors, like IMEC, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. To that end, we will deepen our engagement with our partners in the Gulf and beyond.

We also welcome the trilateral agreement signed by the United States, Lebanon and Israel. Key next steps are the disarmament of non-state groups and preserving Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU is providing support, including in terms of humanitarian aid.

We are also working to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank, while the Palestine Donor Group next week will be an occasion to take stock of the Palestinian Authority's reform progress and to advance discussions on Gaza's early recovery.

Turning to internal matters, leaders also discussed the next multiannual financial framework, and it is critical that we put in place the means for us to meet our ambitions. The work now needs to move forward on two fronts.

First, on sectoral files, I count on the Irish Presidency to adopt the remaining partial general approaches this month, and on this House to advance its work so that negotiations can be opened without delay.

Second, we need a robust and stable system of new own resources. I thank you, honourable Members, for your contribution to this debate.

On the topic of competitiveness and global economic challenges, leaders took stock of progress on the One Europe, One Market roadmap. The overall picture is mixed. There has been real progress with provisional agreements on the Omnibus proposals on defence readiness, chemicals and small mid-caps and digitisation, as well as on the revised FDI screening regulation and amendments to the market stability reserve. But we need to further accelerate work on simplification, EU Inc., the Industrial Accelerator Act and the savings and investments union.

On the international level, leaders had a productive discussion on the need to address structural overcapacities and global imbalances, notably with China, where the EU ran a trade deficit of EUR 1 billion a day in 2025 – and this will be even higher in 2026.

There was clear support for continuing on the path for diversification and de-risking of our relationships. Leaders also agreed on the need to strengthen the protection of our market from unfair trade practices, making more proactive and strategic use of our extensive economic security toolbox to defend European interests. We have also started preparatory work for the new country-neutral instrument that would act as a trade diversification tool.

Having said that, dialogue remains crucial, and I had constructive exchanges with my Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Wentao, when he visited Brussels last week to launch trade and investment consultations. This is a dedicated platform to tackle in a structured way the issues we have identified together. The aim is to deliver the first tangible results ahead of the October European Council.

Last week we also took vital steps towards ensuring the long-term viability of Europe's strategically important steel industry. The regulation protecting the EU steel sector from the damaging impacts of global overcapacity entered into application on 1 July. Here, I would like to thank all Members of the European Parliament for their strong support for this measure.

Madam President, I would end my introductory remarks here, and thank you very much for the attention.

Madam President, Commissioner, the last European Council was the opportunity to reach - finally! - on the fundamental subject worked on here for many months: that of the "return" regulation, the last piece of the European strategy in terms of immigration and more specifically the fight against illegal immigration.

The media have echoed the debates that took place around the Council table between the heads of State. On this essential subject, we have worked, we have negotiated, we have voted: now, we must act. And on this key subject, the essential will henceforth be in the concrete implementation of the measures that have been validated. Nineteen member states out of twenty-seven have signed a joint letter: 19 member states from different political groups, some from the EPP, others from other right-wing groups, some from the Renew group, others from the socialist group, who said together the urgency to act to open return centres.

After we have suffered for so long from trials of inefficiency, trials of illegitimacy, we see today states ready to seize this fundamental tool to be able to guarantee that, tomorrow, no one will be able to settle permanently in Europe without having been legally authorized to do so. How sad it is to see that certain states choose to break with this logic, and to see in particular the French president declare that this is not his Europe.

Of course, this may not be his Europe. He would like today to contest these return centers because they would not be effective. But what is less effective than the current situation when, in France, less than one OQTF out of ten is effectively implemented? This may not be "his" Europe, but it is ours, it is the one we are building together: a Europe that will regain control of its borders and control of its destiny, a Europe that will return to our democracies the power to decide who enters their soil and who cannot settle there, a Europe that will put an end to illegal immigration and all the tragedies that surround it. We are proud to build that Europe! It is the Europe of the future!

Madame President, Commission colleagues, I am really, really unpleasantly surprised that the Council is not here. What are we debating? The Council conclusions without the Council. The Commission is not the problem on defence and support of Ukraine. We are not the problem on defence and support of Ukraine. The 27 capitals are deeply lacking a sense of urgency. The Council, in its conclusions, this time called for investing better and faster together, more aggregation of demand, proper European defence markets. None of that is coming to realisation. We have heard this for years and we have no real progress other than the hugely necessary surge in spending. We are not investing better. Still no joint European approach. It harms our operational readiness and costs billions per year. Narrow and short‑term national interests will override European security. We need a real European defence union.

Oh, and another thing: condemnations of Russian attacks don't save lives or make us more secure. What helps is Member States sending the air defence systems they still have to Ukraine.

Madam President! In recent years, when the usual debates on the summits were held, the position of the Hungarian government was always singled out, and there was constant concern over the state of democracy. But now, as the new TISZA government is actually starting to dismantle the rule of law, there is dead silence. Hello! Is anyone here? They would remove the President of the Republic with a single-sentence constitutional amendment, and there is not even a justification. They are preventing the leader of the opposition from ever running for Prime Minister again. They are limiting parliamentary mandates retrospectively to 12 years, thereby simply excluding the vast majority of opposition MPs from political life.

If such a rule existed here in the European Parliament, 164 MEPs could not run again in '29, Manfred Weber could not run, nor could the group leaders of the Greens and the Socialists, just as the President of the European Parliament could not. So we are eagerly awaiting the position of the Irish Presidency, but most of all the European Commission, which is particularly sensitive to the rule of law. Silence would be proof that the Commission has never actually cared about the state of democracy, only that there should be obedient governments in the member states. We will resist.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, there was a time when the Conservatives' theses on border protection and industrial realism were mocked or dismissed as provocations.

The conclusions of the last European Council demonstrate that that time is over: today, the Union is beginning to move along the path that we have pointed out for years, starting with the management of migration flows.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to erase the mistakes of the past, when the left imposed the tragic policy of open borders for anyone, but we are aware of having changed the paradigm for the future.

Finally, the Union is looking at the external dimension, at the firm management of flows, at the swift repatriation of those who have no right to international protection: in this way, we will combat human traffickers, save the lives of migrants more than has ever happened in the past and work to guarantee them the right not to emigrate.

It is common sense that is winning and that must now find adequate financial support in the next multiannual budget.

The same realism is needed on strategic competitiveness. Next week the Commission will present the revision of the ETS system and we Conservatives will be very attentive to what will be presented.

We will not accept blind rules, incapable of seeing the deindustrialization of Europe and the delivery of our economic destiny into the hands of environmentalist fanaticism and the Chinese regime. We will defend the principle of technological neutrality and the competitiveness of our productive fabric.

Our ability to invest in internal security and external defense, in scientific research, in the health and school system, and in the conservation of nature, which paradoxically seems to interest living-room pseudo-environmentalists less and less, depends on our economic health.

We Conservatives are interested in protecting the land of our fathers and protecting the lives of the people who live there. It is the reason why we are here.

A Uachtaráin, I welcome the Council conclusions of 18 June and 19 June, and just a few observations, Commissioner. First and foremost, the commitment to Ukraine. We really appreciate the fact that the money is now being spent on two capacities, both in terms of support of the state and on defence as well. But it leads to a very fundamental question about the issue of how we fund the European Union itself.

While we're going into the multiannual financial framework discussions and trying to ensure that we have a budget that underpins and supports the values that the European Union proposes, we have to accept that, as it stands, we simply do not have the capacity to do what we must do in terms of supporting Ukraine, paying off the loans that we have taken out previously to support the European Union during the COVID‑19 crisis, and now also facing into a potential round of enlargement. I am very supportive of the enlargement process, and there are two things I believe we have to do, whether we like it or not.

One is institutional reform, and the other area is looking at how do we ensure that we have budgetary capacity in the MFF into the future to facilitate enlargement? It is simply disingenuous of us to continue to say that we will support enlargement, we want to see enlargement, we open the clusters, and yet the most fundamental issue that will be required if we want to continue with the enlargement process, is to have the budgetary capacity to do that, to support the incoming Member States, and also to ensure that citizens within the European Union, as is, have the support and funding available to them through the various sectors.

So I believe we have to have that big debate, and I hope that it happens over the next six months so that we can have an honest interrogation of our budgetary position.

Madam President, dear colleagues, who else in this room has been suffering from the unbearable heat in the last weeks? Well, if we are already suffering, think about the construction workers, the people working and living in care homes, and the nurses in overheated hospitals. We need ad-hoc solutions to this heat crisis, and we need a special EUCO to discuss this. Cool spaces in cities, better protection for workers, funding for climate adaptation. But most of all, colleagues, we need nature.

We need to stop treating our nature as an enemy. Nature is the basis of our existence – we are part of nature. There are people in Europe who have understood this. Look at Albania – in one of the poorest countries in Europe people take to the streets to defend their nature. Nature over money. They say: Albania is not for sale. Instead of billionaires becoming richer with concrete luxury resorts, we want flamingos, we want birds, we want one of the richest biodiversities in all of Europe. They want Europe to speak up for them. They need European leaders and the European Commission to be at their side and defend EU laws in the accession procedure, including laws on habitats and nature protection.

The aim is very clear, colleagues, Albania should join the European Union as soon as possible, but with strong nature protection and anti-corruption laws in place. We owe it to the people who are fighting in Albania. Let us be in solidarity. Let us be by their side.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, Europe is literally burning. The elderly are suffocating in nursing homes, children are choking at school, hospitals are overheating in both the literal and figurative sense, morgues are overflowing, harvests are threatened, forests are going up in smoke... And what is your response, at the European Commission? Put the fight against climate change on hold.

It took some nerve, because the heatwave, whatever anyone says, is not just a weather incident: the heatwave is political, and the deaths from this heatwave are the result of your policy. Is it not you, at the European Commission, who have methodically destroyed more than twenty environmental regulations since the beginning of your new mandate? Is it not you, Mr Commissioner, personally, who are enthusiastically signing free-trade agreements to go and fetch from the other side of the world what we know we can produce here?

So yes, you are not alone. There are the Member States, who are clearly hiding today. But you have also embarked in the wake of the far right, now your favorite accomplice, pioneer of climate change denial and always ready to defend the privileged.

But step down from your air-conditioned office and open your eyes: you will see that not everyone is in the same boat. While the powerful barricade themselves in the cool, the poorest take the hit. The more you are exploited, the more you burn. This climate massacre is actually a class massacre. It is the rich who kill the poor. The richest 1% pollute as much as two-thirds of humanity, 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, Bernard Arnault emits 1,200 times more CO2 than an average French person, but above all, let us not ask them for any effort! Let us continue as before, let us not make them contribute! Above all, let us not touch their lifestyle!

The three heatwave episodes we have just experienced are nevertheless only the trailer for what awaits us in the years to come. Faced with the heatwave, let us adopt the right barrier measures: let us tax the rich and break away from neoliberal ideology! For, through constant retreat, renunciation and inaction, you are condemning us to burn.

Madam President! Europe and Germany already have to mourn several thousand heat deaths, and meanwhile people want to make energy prices even more expensive through CO2 emissions trading in order to influence the climate worldwide. Exactly that is the difference between theory and practice; that is the difference between those on the left side and the patriotic forces in Europe.

We do not believe that higher taxes and additional burdens for citizens would change anything about the global climate – and this approach has already failed in reality. Instead, we want to help people very practically, for example by equipping retirement homes, nursing homes, hospitals, and schools very concretely and systematically with air conditioning systems. We want practical politics instead of castles in the air.

Something else that was on the agenda is the question of the enlargement process. The Balkans are an incredibly important region for us; they are strategically important for Europe. Therefore, we too want the Balkans and the European Union to cooperate much more closely, for example through privileged trade relations – that these be expanded even further.

What we do not want, however, is for these countries to be admitted to the European Union at the current stage. We do not want further recipient countries to be admitted that, at the end of the day, burden the German taxpayer further and even more.

Even the last rounds of enlargement have not been fully processed by the European Union. There are still major conflicts; the institutional rules are still not designed for this size. We first have to work on making this European Union and European cooperation capable of functioning again by concentrating on the essentials and by not constantly taking on new tasks and countries.

We want the Balkans to be brought closer to us, but without burdening the German taxpayer.

Madam President! Thanks to the states of the eastern flank and the Polish presidency, Europe has finally recognized that the Union's eastern border is the frontline of our common security. Therefore, the Eastern Flank Watch program cannot mean mere threat monitoring. Just observing a drone or a missile is not enough. Real defensive capabilities are necessary: early-warning anti-drone systems, integrated air defense, and modern technologies.

Poland sets an example of how to act effectively. We are the largest beneficiary of the SAFE program and are using these funds to genuinely strengthen the security of Poland, the eastern flank, and all of Europe.

Despite the president's veto and the opposition's sabotage in Poland, the war between the East and the West is not a theory. We are in a state of hybrid warfare in Europe and in Poland, where Russian drones have fallen. Airports have been closed, sabotage on railway tracks has been carried out, and Putin has used migrants as human shields. Putin is not only testing Poland, Romania, or the Baltic states. He is testing the entire European Union. Therefore, the eastern flank must today be the most durable and hardest line of defense for the entire European Union.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, the conclusions of the European Council devote space to Palestine, while in this Chamber every proposal for a debate or resolution on the subject is systematically blocked by the right and centre-right.

This month, the proposal for a debate on Dr Abu Safiya, a Palestinian paediatrician imprisoned for 18 months without trial who is risking his life, was also voted down.

In June, European leaders wrote in black and white that: Israel must withdraw from Gaza; the yellow line is unacceptable; Israeli ministers promote human rights violations; the new death penalty law is discriminatory and inhuman and must be repealed; the colonisation of the West Bank is a serious violation of international law.

We already knew this: dear Council, beyond words, however, deeds are needed. Why do you not push your ministers to adopt effective sanctions, like those done with Russia in 2022?

Instead, Parliament must find its voice again. Parliament is silent in the face of a genocide: it is a guilty silence, it is a heavy silence, it is a dishonour for this institution.

Madame President, dear colleagues, I'm going to speak about our budget and the climate – no big surprise. On the MFF, the European Council had one job in June: show ambitions and directions for Europe's future budget. Instead, what we saw was a negotiation box of 27 mini priorities squeezed together. That is not ambitions for Europe and not what this House asked for. At the same time, we can look out the window and we see a third heatwave already, larger and earlier wildfires. And a Council meeting in June will not stop this, but ambitions at the meeting are needed to act.

I read the conclusion twice, searching for ambitions, and I couldn't really see them. I found one sentence squeezed in among competitiveness. But let's be honest: the 2040 target is so far from reach. We need to act. We need ambitions.

This is not a call to reopen every single line, but it is a call for the Council to come back in October with ambitions and green actions. My group stands ready to work with you on the basis of ambitions, but patience is running out.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, Mr Commissioner, in your speech, analysing the issue of the budget, you spoke of own resources, but I have a clear message to send you: enough with taxes, because first expenses are rationalised, costs are cut – often useless ones, which even this Parliament endorses – and then we discuss, and waste and inefficiencies are cut.

Because we must be realistic: European industry is in difficulty, there are many pockets of poverty, more and more Europeans are struggling to make ends meet. Talking about own resources – therefore, about new taxes – is completely out of place and disconnected from reality.

At a global level there are economic models, like the Argentine economy, which are basing the relaunch of the economy on the reduction of taxes. In this Chamber, on the other hand, we talk about increasing them. We are out of this world, Commissioner. A reversal of trend is needed, let alone new taxes.

Madam President, the EU leaders are very concerned about the situation in Palestine. They are so concerned, that several EU countries are still selling weapons to Israel while they continue attacking Palestinians and the Lebanese people. I wish this was not true, but the reality is that EU countries keep selling weapons to Israel for millions of euros in 2026. This is crazy to me. Our leaders use words to say how concerned they are about Palestine, while their actions show they are just being complicit in Israel's destabilisation of the Middle East.

But I have good news: I know the EU loves sanctions. We have to put 20 packages of sanctions to Russia. Maybe it's time to pressure Israel a little bit by stopping selling weapons to them.

Madam President, colleagues, the EU leaders are right. We must work more intensely to control migration. The Return Regulation was a victory for the common-sense majority in this House. It sends a clear signal: if you have no right to be here, you will be returned. That is progress.

But we must be bolder still. The entire asylum process – receiving, assessing and hosting all claims – must be moved outside the European Union. We cannot continue to let illegal migrants set foot on European soil before their claims are even examined. That is the only way to break the business model of the smugglers and end the chaos at our borders.

The only mission of Frontex must be to secure our borders. That requires removing the fundamental rights activists who have captured and paralysed the agency from within. We need border guards, not bureaucrats who see their job as facilitating migration.

Large-scale deterrence campaigns must clearly warn away illegal migrants before they risk their lives and burden our societies. And yes, we must also scrap outdated international conventions that were made for a bygone era. They no longer serve the interests of European citizens in the 21st century.

It is time to take back control for our citizens who want to feel safe in their own societies, for our nations who have the right to decide who enters, and for Europe itself so that it can remain prosperous, secure and recognisable for generations to come.

Madam President, the European economy will experience long-lasting damage from the Hormuz crisis, and that's a fact. When fossil fuel is expensive, European industry suffers deeply – that is also a fact. When sea levels rise, my country, the Netherlands, must build expensive infrastructure or it will drown – also a fact.

In short, our fossil fuel addiction is becoming very, very expensive. We have known this for a while and still, in the weeks after your most recent European Council, your members still call for abolishing our most effective tool, the ETS. Turn this around – kick the addiction. The Green Deal is not an ideological green agenda. It is the future-proof economic growth model. Those Member States implementing the Green Deal are doing much better economically than those who don't. Look at the facts and save Europe from its fossil fuel addiction.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Blue card question. Mr Gerbrandy, you are speaking here about European matters, about the Green Deal. How do you reflect on the fact that the European Commission stated in the new livestock farming strategy that there should be no further reduction of the livestock population, while your government is now working on the liquidation of thousands of family businesses in the Netherlands and thereby jeopardising food security? You speak about the Strait of Hormuz and dependencies, but what do you think of it if we become dependent on third countries for animal production and other agricultural production? Have you ever reflected on that? And what you are doing to agricultural families and family businesses and people at the kitchen table?

“Blue card” reply. – It is always delightful to have national politics in the European Parliament. Food security: perhaps you also recently read the report stating that the Netherlands is an importer of food. Not because of human consumption, but because of the enormous amount of animal feed that we have to import to keep our bloated animal production afloat. If you are truly, truly concerned about Europe's food security, then you know that our diet needs to become more plant-based and that the future does not lie in expanding the livestock population even further, which I believe is the policy of your party, which completely wrecks not only our economy, but certainly also our world.

Madam President, dear colleagues! One topic somehow surprisingly fell short at the last European Council – the future EU budget. Yet it is the topic that forms the basis for everything we discuss here in terms of programmes.

The negotiations for the budget from 2028 are underway, and at the same time many national budgets are under pressure; we must of course acknowledge that, and we do. Therefore, I would have expected more ambition from the member states, because when things get serious, everyone looks to Brussels. But when it comes to financing the joint budget, it suddenly becomes very quiet.

Yet this House has made good proposals on how we can get out of the deadlock, how we can get out of this stalemate in the negotiations: We need more and better own resources for the future EU budget, a digital levy, taxation of cryptocurrencies or online gambling, which is increasing across Europe.

These are good proposals, and I expect the member states to finally pull themselves together and examine these matters closely for the future budget.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, colleagues, the single market is a European project and the 28th regime is the best tool to achieve it.

I speak to you of a regime that offers a pragmatic way to overcome the legal fragmentation that continues to limit the growth of European companies, in particular SMEs and start-ups. By allowing an optional, uniform and directly applicable legal framework throughout the Union, it reduces administrative complexity, compliance costs and legal uncertainty, which today hinder cross-border expansion. In a context of green and digital transition, and growing international competition, the Union cannot afford to waste tools that can increase its economic efficiency and strategic autonomy.

The dossier of the 28th regime must be quickly resumed by the European institutions. While not a silver bullet, it represents a serious step forward that must be taken by a Union that too often insists on staying exactly as it is.

Mr President, the MFF is finally, I would say, also on the Council's agenda. We are at the beginning of this process regarding this new multiannual budget and the traditional contradictions and red lines are already emerging within the Council, the Commission and also in this Parliament. However, we might well transcend the traditional debate and not limit the exercise to a dry discussion about more or less resources.

Europe primarily needs additional reforms that increase efficiency, boost our competitiveness and encourage much-needed investments. The focus must be, among other things, but certainly not least, on strengthening the internal market, the full capital markets union and also deregulation. These are, if you think about it, reforms that cost little or no money, but that do have a high return. The debate transcends or should transcend the accounting perspective. Europe faces major challenges in the areas of competitiveness, security, defence and geopolitics. We advocate a well-defined set of priorities and reforms that allow us to develop a future-oriented European budget.

Respected President, Commissioner, the conclusions of the European Council clearly show that Europe finds itself at a decisive moment.

Disbanding the debate on the new budget is not only a debate about numbers, but also a debate about what kind of Europe we want to build in the coming years. Therefore, I welcome the stronger focus on competitiveness, on innovation, on the resilience of the European economy. However, we must ensure that the new European Competitiveness Fund must be open to everyone and that it must not deepen the differences between member states that already today have strong innovation capacities and those that are only developing them. We must not repeat the situation we have today in the Horizon Europe program, where only six member states use 70% of the funds.

And today we are talking about a Europe that can be competitive and must be globally competitive only if it grows together: north and south, east and west.

Madam President, Commissioner, a debate on the conclusions of the European Council without the Council is completely unacceptable. Tell them and convey three messages to them.

First: support for Ukraine, of course. But when the time for peace negotiations comes, Europe must make sure it is at the table and not on the menu.

Second: Russia's responsibilities. For that, it is necessary to support the activation of the blocking statute to protect the judges of the International Criminal Court who are being unilaterally sanctioned by the Trump administration of the United States.

And thirdly, a very clear message: we have approved in this plenary session of the European Parliament a new extension of the temporary derogation of ePrivacy. Why have we done this? Because the Council has not yet done its job of finally approving the Regulation that the European Parliament approved last legislative term against online sexual crimes against minors. It is time to do so. Convey that message, Commissioner Šefčovič.

Mr President, where is the Irish Presidency here? We have discussed new attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The fertiliser crisis could worsen again. Our food security is being endangered, but the Commission and the Council are refusing and stalling on revising the Nitrates Directive. When can we expect that? This House has demanded it.

In the area of the MFF, the Council just fails to reach an agreement. Food safety and food security are at risk. Restore agriculture and fisheries support. Give more room to animal manure. Stop the Nature Restoration Law: our countryside and our regions are bearing the burden. Speed up the return hubs. Strengthen Frontex and our external border control: the influx is too large. The regions and the countryside are bearing the burdens of the European Distribution Act and the national Dutch Distribution Act. Commission and Council, get moving, take action. Protect our external borders, protect our countryside, protect our food security.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Council believes in law and rules just as much as FIFA.

We live in a world of impunity: Trump makes a call and a red card is rescinded. But we do something worse: not only do we disobey the resolutions of the international courts of justice and the UN regarding our obligation to halt genocide, to stop selling arms, but we do the opposite. And there is something even worse: we allow those public officials to be persecuted, we cooperate with the United States, without even having received a call from Trump—or perhaps Trump has called us. The point is that there are sanctions against those public officials, there is a rule that must be applied and we are not applying it.

Trump is a cynic, but he tells us the truth. We are hypocrites: we say one thing and do the opposite.

Madam President, the position adopted by the European Council regarding the multiannual financial framework is simply disappointing.

While Europe faces enormous challenges such as the climate transition, competitiveness, digital sovereignty, or access to housing, the response given by the Council has been to cut the budget; in other words, a smaller Europe without the capacity to respond.

We cannot do more with less. We cannot speak of strategic autonomy and, at the same time, give up the European Social Fund, the CAP, or cohesion policies. And all this due to a lack of courage when it comes to approving and unlocking a package of own resources that precisely gives us the capacity to have our own political position in an increasingly uncertain, more violent, and, above all, more competitive world.

For this reason, from Parliament we tell the Council that Europe is not strengthened through resignation, cuts, and a lack of ambition, but rather is built with solidarity and sufficient resources to respond to what our citizens demand.

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for the information you have brought us, but I want to refer to a few points.

First of all: the MFF. Commissioner, you said there are two levels. It is not clear what we are doing with own resources, because we, the Parliament, have proposed many times where these new resources can come from so as not to have a smaller MFF, so as not to have a smaller budget - not even with inflation.

Then, competitiveness: a Europe and a market. You mentioned the trade gap with China, but what are we doing for competitiveness? Because if we want to support industry, as you said, then we need a revision of the ETS and we truly need support policies - not only for the steel industry, but for industry and, of course, agriculture, because food security is very important.

Unfair trade practices. Well yes, but we have agreements where you set customs duties on raw materials lower than on the finished product, which is illogical, because the producer in Europe will then not be able to be competitive. Therefore, I believe that we must, Commissioner - sure, holidays are coming - but let us truly think of an MFF that leads to competitiveness and the re-industrialization of the European Union.

Madam President! Education, culture, competition, social work, research, defense, infrastructure, development cooperation. Fulfilling tasks - that is what we want to do well, but we are not getting more funds for it. If we look at it - the EU budget that is now being aimed for is not even half as large as the German federal budget.

If we want a capable European Union, then we also need proper funding. Striving for horizontal cuts and cutting cohesion funds further is completely the wrong signal. It is regulated by EU treaty law that the European Union invests in the cohesion of member states. With these cuts, we are ensuring that this very cohesion drifts apart in such challenging times; we cannot afford that.

We want to fulfill the tasks well. We want a capable Union. That also means that member states must be urged to provide this European Union with adequate financial resources. Member states must ensure that we live up to this responsibility and that no further cuts are made.

Madam President, I do not have much to say – there would be too much to say, to tell the truth – on the subjects discussed. I would simply like to say to my colleagues that I am shocked by the few members present in our hemicycle.

I want to say it again: Madam President tried to put in place a certain number of measures. This is extremely worrying, including for our fellow citizens. The subjects discussed are decisive. Yesterday, we were talking about cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and then there are so many areas that are important, so, please, ask your colleagues to be present.

This is important, including for the image of Parliament vis-à-vis the European Commission and the Council. Together, let us be stronger, my dear colleagues!

Madam President, honourable Members, first and foremost, I would like to tell you that the discussion this morning very much reflects also the debate which took place among the leaders, the heads of state and government, sitting together in the European Council.

It clearly reflects the mood and the sense of priorities among European citizens, and you, as directly elected representatives, are clearly introducing these topics into the debate in this Hemicycle, and into the discussions which we have on these very crucial topics.

I would start with the references and remarks made on Ukraine. Mr Kelleher and Mr López Aguilar rightly pointed out the need of further support for Ukrainians. In my introduction I was describing to you all the aspects of the financial support, political support, but also moral support I believe we give to our Ukrainian friends to defend themselves.

But I agree with Mr Reuten and also with Ms Wcisło that, first of all, clearly would be needed to do even better when it comes to our defence capacities. How can we be more efficient? How can we pool our strength together? What can we do as Europeans in spending every single euro on these very important priorities in the most efficient manner?

Of course, especially the people from Central and Eastern Europe, feeling the heat from the conflict which is so close to their border, as Ms Wcisło brightly described, are very preoccupied by the fact that the peace which we believed, and had taken for granted for so many years, is under so much threat, even within the borders of the European Union. Therefore they are rightly calling for making sure that the eastern flank and eastern border is better protected. You have seen that this is becoming more and more one of the priority tasks which is done by the Member States, by the European Union, and which is now being discussed in Ankara as well.

So all these are very concrete priorities, which will be followed through by the European Commission, by the European Union, and we, of course, will be working on all of them very closely with you.

The second topic which was appearing in several interventions, and rightly so, because it would be definitely the top priority for the Irish Presidency – and for that ambition, I really thank them in advance – is to deliver an ambitious multiannual financial framework for all of us.

Because – as you rightly pointed out again, Mr Kelleher, Mr Nordqvist – this is the key topic for our European future. It's a key prerequisite for further progression of the enlargement, and this is also one of the key components for making Europe clearly more competitive.

Therefore, we will be working very closely with the Irish Presidency, and with you, because this is a very important, complex task, to make sure that by the end of this year, we will deliver on an MFF, and have that predictability and certainty on what is the framework for all of us when it comes to the budgetary boundaries for the next seven years. As I said, I very much appreciate that the Irish Presidency took this as a priority for themselves and want to devote all necessary resources, time and political focus on these key issues.

Of course, I fully understand and share the preoccupation of many honourable Members who raised the issue of the heatwave. We are suffering it all, and it's the issue for all our Member States. I never believe that in my country we will have temperatures which go over 40 degrees, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be in France, in Spain, in southern Mediterranean countries, where this is becoming a more and more common phenomenon.

But I would like to reassure you that for the European Commission, climate resilience and better preparedness, which you are going to discuss in a moment, especially for extreme weather events, is a priority. Therefore, later this year we will present a new European framework for climate resilience and risk management. We believe that through this measure, we can work even more closely with the Member States and with the regions to better prevent and prepare for these very often dramatic events.

I would say on this, but it applies to other topics which were also raised in this morning's debate, we also have to be fair to ourselves and to make sure that we will implement collectively – starting by the Member States, of course – what we have already agreed and adopted as our laws.

If you allow me to conclude on two topics, Ms Grapini was underscoring the importance of competitiveness and reindustrialisation. I would like to again reassure this House that there is not one College session, not one discussion among the Commissioners, where these two very important topics are not discussed.

We are looking into really alternative ways how to protect Europe from unfair competition, how to lower energy prices, and how to increase the trade among other Member States within the European Union. Because we are still trading by 10 % less than the states in the United States of America, and this could be an unbelievable source of income, of more jobs or more prosperity and more competitiveness, if our Member States among themselves would trade even more. For that, we need to improve how the single market performs. We have to lower the barriers among our Member States, and this is clearly one of the priorities we are taking on.

If you allow, Madam President, on the last point on free trade agreements addressed by Ms Manon Aubry, here I just would like to underscore that almost half of our European GDP depends in one way or another on global trading. Despite what is happening and what is going on in the world, Europe is still the number one global trader when it comes to goods and services – we trade more than China, we trade more than the US. We are the best in doing this, and this is clearly a very important position we have to defend. Not only because we like to be on the podium, but because more than 700 000 companies are benefiting from trade, and more than 80 % of them are SMEs – very often small family companies which create more than 30 million jobs in this regard.

So all these have to be taken into account, because Europe is very good at what it's doing. Our economy for decades has been developing in that regard, and therefore we are doing our utmost to open new opportunities and new markets for our entrepreneurs.

Madam President, I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their interventions. As it was suggested, I will of course pass on all the messages, not only to my colleagues in the European Commission, but also to our colleagues from the Council.

The European Council is once again trying to reconcile things that cannot be reconciled. On the one hand, it speaks of the need to lower energy prices, rebuild European industry, competitiveness and reduce dependency. On the other hand, it calls for accelerating decarbonization and upholds the fundamental role of the ETS system.

This is precisely the source of the problem.

One cannot simultaneously demand cheaper energy and accelerate a policy that artificially raises its price. One cannot talk about the reindustrialization of Europe and impose further emission costs on European enterprises. One cannot talk about competition with the United States and China when we ourselves deliberately worsen the operating conditions of our own industry.

ETS has become an additional tax on European production, energy and investment.

A review of indicators or a correction of free allowance rules will not solve the problem if the mechanism itself continues to drive up operating costs in Europe. As a result, production is moving to where energy and emissions are regulated more sensibly. And along with it, jobs, investment and the developmental potential of our states are disappearing.

Europe must finally stop this economic self-destruction.

We need cheap energy, technological neutrality and real industrial reconstruction. First, competitiveness, investment and economic security.

Decarbonization cannot come at the price of destroying jobs and moving production outside the Union.

Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, just two weeks ago, the most severe and widespread heatwave scorched large parts of Europe. These heatwaves are the most recent testament to the rising average global temperatures, which have been nearing 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. The trend is very worrying for Europe: we are the fastest warming region in the world.

Human-induced climate change is undoubtedly a major underlying cause of heatwaves, wildfires and other extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts. This is why prevention starts with strong policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

First, may I express my sympathies to all those who have been affected and the families of those who have died as a result of recent weather events.

On mitigation, the EU has been contributing its share to global efforts, with one of the most ambitious climate frameworks. In the same vein, the European Union and its Member States are committed to working on strengthening the capacity to adapt, building resilience and reducing exposure to extreme events. We look forward to the Commission's ideas on how to link these different strands in its upcoming European Union framework for climate resilience.

The year 2025 was a record-breaking season for wildfires, with over 1 million hectares burned across the European Union, triggering an unprecedented number of activations of the EU civil protection mechanism. It is entirely plausible that Europe could face a similar scenario this year. Southern Europe has had an early start to the wildfire season, and we have even witnessed wildfires in Greenland, which are particularly rare this early in the season.

Tackling this risk is a priority for Member States and the Council. On 29 June, the Council adopted a recommendation on integrated wildfire risk management, promoting a more coordinated and integrated approach covering the entire disaster risk management cycle. In other words, this recommendation sets out a comprehensive framework to help Member States to better prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from wildfires.

It also encourages Member States to strengthen prevention through sustainable land and forest management; improve preparedness by making better use of data, risk assessments and early warning systems; and enhance cooperation and interoperability in wildfire response. Furthermore, the recommendation highlights the importance of raising public awareness, supporting local communities, and strengthening governance and long-term funding for wildfire risk management.

Beyond efforts to better manage the consequences of these extreme events, let me stress the importance of efforts to increase our readiness. Enhancing our collective preparedness and resilience to major hazards, including wildfires and heatwaves, is a key aim of the European Union's preparedness strategy, tabled by the Commission and the High Representative in March last year. A number of policy actions announced by this strategy have been presented by the Commission, and we will continue to steer their careful examination in the Council.

Let me mention, in particular, the proposal for a regulation on the Union civil protection mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, which represents an essential step to upgrade our preparedness set-up on climate-related risks and to ensure appropriate financing priorities. The Irish Presidency will continue to carry further the discussions in the Council on this proposal, with the aim of reaching a general approach during our semester, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of Commissioner Lahbib and Members here today in this very important debate.

Mr President, honourable Members, just as Mr Thomas Byrne said, Europe is the fastest warming continent on the planet and we are experiencing the impact of this scientific reality in our daily lives, from record heatwaves and droughts to devastating wildfires. This year has again broken records – only weeks after historically high temperatures in June, another major heatwave is approaching. The consequences of the recent heatwave were grave: labour productivity went down, schools were shut, workplaces closed, hospitals overwhelmed, roads damaged, rail tracks buckled and crops ravaged. People paid the highest price – at least 3 500 fatalities could be attributed to the June heatwave. On 3 July, France reported more than 2 000 excess deaths from the last week of June, and these are only preliminary estimates. To date, there has not been an activation of the EU CPM related to heatwave emergencies.

Honourable Members, heatwaves increase wildfire danger. Last year, more than 1 million hectares burned across the EU, the highest figure ever recorded, triggering 19 requests for assistance from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism – this is the largest number ever. This year, the wildfire season started unusually early, with two activations of the mechanism already in late April and early May. This requires swift action; the Commission has already taken a range of actions in the area of prevention, preparedness, response and restoration. While national authorities remain primarily responsible for civil protection, the Commission supports Member States across the entire disaster cycle. The EU invests in science, technology and innovation to monitor drought conditions, improve early detection, and enable faster action, notably through the Copernicus Emergency Management Service. We also promote prevention through analytical tools, peer reviews, funding, cross-border cooperation, and the exchange of best practices.

Last March, the Commission adopted a communication complemented by a Council recommendation on wildfire risk management. Together with Member States, we will develop implementation guidelines and an EU funding portal for integrated wildfire risk management, improve data, raise population awareness and support international engagement. We have also reinforced operational preparedness through rescEU and the European Civil Protection Pool; 22 firefighting aircraft, 5 helicopters and 22 certified ground firefighting teams are available across ten countries. In addition, nearly 800 firefighters from 13 countries are pre-positioned in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Following the lessons learned from last summer, we have strengthened our response capacity in the south of our Union with a new European regional firefighting station in Cyprus, so we can take immediate action when needs arise.

In recent days, Portugal and France asked for assistance due to severe wildfires. In response, nine rescue aeroplanes were deployed: three to Portugal and six to France. The European Union Solidarity Fund also remains important, providing financial support to Member States and accession countries affected by natural disasters and helping them address the burden of emergency and recovery measures. Adding to this, cohesion policy and funding play a crucial role in strengthening resilience, combining prevention and preparedness before disaster strikes, as well as reconstruction, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility includes investment and reforms aimed at increasing resilience to natural disasters.

Finally, we are also preparing a new European integrated framework for climate resilience, which will expect to adopt later this year. The road ahead is a very difficult one, but through cooperation, engagement and solidarity, Europe will move towards a collective and clear objective to raise the protection of our citizens and our territories against the growing and challenging risk landscape.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, firstly, I would like to say that we are delighted in this Parliament to belong to the Intergroup on Resilience, Disaster Management and Civil Protection, which is giving rise to many important issues regarding new technologies and possibilities for the future.

Therefore, at the present time, this Parliament is working—and we will continue to work hard—at a difficult time for countries, in which climate change is producing very difficult heatwaves, both in my country, where there are 57 active fire outbreaks at this moment—in Catalonia, Andalusia—, as well as in other European Union countries in a significant way. This is a very important humanitarian and civil protection crisis and a blow to the rural world at a very critical time.

That is why we have to work seriously and without ideological dogmatism, that is, working on prevention and also working on measures. The European Commission has made available the largest deployment in history with 777 firefighters in 14 States and the reinforcement of rescEU and civil protection and the funds related to it.

But, in prevention, how do we have to do it? We have missed a unique opportunity with NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, because they are fundamental funds that should have been allocated to prevention. On the other hand, countries like ours have not made sufficient use of these funds in this case. There was even a renunciation of the purchase of ten firefighting planes in 2023. This is a major mistake that is paid for later. Therefore, on the one hand, funds must be used for resources, but we must also simplify.

And I will finish with this: making directives more flexible that prevent traditional tasks such as forestry, controlled grazing, sustainable hunting or sustainable agriculture in some areas is essential to prevent. Throwing people or life out of the countryside—as in the past—who respected the issue of nature is a mistake, because it overprotects and, in the end, sooner or later, they fall prey to the flames.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking you for your commitment to this matter. I am well aware of the great work you are carrying out and the work you carried out last summer to respond with solidarity — which is how Europe must respond to misfortunes — in many countries, such as my own country, Spain, where you were on the front line, backing and supporting all needs.

The reality today is that there are more than 2,000 dead in France, more than 1,200 in Belgium, more than 1,000 in Spain and close to 500 in the Netherlands. Thousands of hectares scorched in France, Portugal and Spain. Roads that melt. Deformed railway tracks. Infrastructures that stop working.

These are not slogans, these are the facts: the lethal reality of climate change. And while Europe was burying its dead, a far-right minister, here in Europe, felt able to joke on social media about the heat, boasting — from his swimming pool — with a nice cold beer. That message was infamous, because when climate emergency is trivialised, inaction is fed and inaction kills.

That is why today I want to ask the European People's Party and the false patriots of the far-right: what reports are you using to continue denying climate change? What scientific evidence allows you to justify that we must dismantle precisely the policies that save lives? Because every time you attack the European Green Deal, every time you try to do away with the principle of 'do no significant harm' and every time you weaken the fight against deforestation, you put lives at risk.

The European Green Deal is not a burden, it is our shield, it is the best life insurance for Europeans, because protecting their health, protecting their purchasing power, their employment and their sovereignty is what the European Green Deal achieves. We need to accelerate renewable energies, because it is the cleanest energy and also the cheapest that can be produced.

Mitigating is no longer enough, we have to adapt. And that is why we demand a binding law to protect workers exposed to extreme heat within the future Quality Employment Act. And we also demand a genuine European plan for adaptation to climate change.

Europe cannot keep waiting. We are negotiating the next European budget and in that negotiation it is being decided who wants to invest to protect people and who prefers to cut the instruments that protect them, who wants to reinforce climate action and who remains determined to weaken it.

I began this speech by speaking of thousands of citizens who have lost their lives and, precisely for them, our duty is to ensure that next summer we do not have to begin with this debate.

Defending the European Green Deal is defending lives, defending renewables is defending freedom in Europe and defending the just transition is, simply, defending Europeans.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Mr Minister, actually, current EU climate policy is not able to protect EU citizens from heatwaves because it is primarily designed to reduce EU-based emissions faster than our EU global competitors and to close industrial jobs before having adequate sustainable replacement.

This is, by the way, not at all good for the climate, but mainly this policy weakens the European economy and increases electricity prices. The only way to effectively protect citizens from the impacts of climate change is to prioritise climate adaptation, and for that we need strong economy and cheap electricity – the exactly opposite outcomes than of current EU climate policy.

So you really want to protect citizens from heatwaves? Then please first make the climate policy more realistic and transfer the money to the climate adaptation.

Mr President, Prime Minister, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, I believe we cannot miss the opportunity of this debate by descending into ideological issues, because prevention – and the prevention strategy that the European Union has also set for itself – is the first response that must be given to phenomena like the one we have experienced in recent weeks and which we will very likely experience throughout the summer.

First and foremost, prevention from a health perspective, and those Member States – I am thinking of Italy – did well when they were able to give clear directives on the health front to all Regions to look after the elderly and loneliness in the first place.

Secondly, prevention means adapting our infrastructures to climate change, both energy infrastructure and those dealing with social life. But prevention means prioritizing the need for every investment to be directed towards preventing the occurrence of phenomena that impact the life of every citizen.

You see, Mr President and colleagues who spoke before me, climate change adaptation does not mean that man is an unwelcome presence in the environmental system. Climate adaptation means that States – each government – must know how to adopt policies and make use of the investments that are available.

Then our debate on this issue too will become a seriously sensible debate: abandoning any ideological approach, focusing – and I very much appreciate the work the Commissioner is doing – on pragmatic and practical issues, starting from rules that must be shared.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I wanted first of all to address you: thank you for your commitment to this civil protection policy and the defense of a world that is mobilizing at the moment.

In my country, more than 15,000 hectares have gone up in smoke: that is three times more than last year over the same period. I wanted to thank all the Members who are also involved in the civil protection intergroup. These elements are making the news, but you are still there, alongside us, to defend this policy alongside Hadja Lahbib.

The climate is accelerating, but our response remains too slow. We can no longer choose between mitigation and adaptation. We must combine both policies, that is for sure. Forest fires are no longer just a consequence of climate change: they are becoming an accelerator of it, because when a forest burns, it releases carbon, and furthermore it can no longer absorb it.

Smoke kills, and so does the heatwave. In 2003, more than twenty years ago, we said: "Never again!" However, having been a firefighter for almost forty years, I am sure that by autumn most policymakers will have forgotten the emotion ultimately sparked by this situation.

Preparedness can no longer be an emergency policy. It must be an element supported every day, an anticipation policy carried out by every citizen, every business, each and every one of us.

Mr President, allow me a few more seconds. I have just learned, a few minutes ago, of the death of a young volunteer firefighter in France, who was fighting a fire. We are only at the beginning of July. The summer will be complicated...

(The President cuts off the speaker)

Mr President, dear colleagues, at least 1 300 people died in a heatwave. I want us to be serious about it. Imagine, just for a moment, that 1 300 people had been killed in a terrorist attack. All of Europe would be mourning: the heads of states, the governments would have crisis meetings. We would be in a situation where we understand how dramatic that is, and we would offer our deepest condolences. We would take it much more seriously than we do now.

In this House, we need to finally understand that the climate crisis is severe – for thousands of lives, for real people. Just standing here, with cynical words, a next speech, is not enough. This is a consequence of political decisions taken by governments, taken by leaders, that are killing people in Europe. People are downplaying, blocking and delaying climate action also now – and I think we should make them account for what they are doing. They are responsible.

So here in this House I have a proposal to make: let us name the next heatwaves after the people actually fuelling them, causing them. So why don't we just say the next heatwave is called 'Friedrich' or 'Katherina' or 'Donald' or, I don't know, 'Vladimir'.

Mr President, deadly heatwaves, thunderstorms, flooding and rampant wildfires – this is the world that the wealthy and the powerful have created. These are the consequences of our fossil fuel‑based economies. This is human‑made climate change. And we must be honest – we are not prepared for this. Our buildings and our cities are not designed for this. Our agriculture, our nature cannot stand this. And we are not all affected in the same way – those who are already struggling are hit the hardest. They also lack the resources to change the systems or to change their own circumstances.

So while people are dying from the heat, what is the right wing doing? They also did not bother to show up for this debate. They are calling for the EU's most effective climate‑policy tool, the Emissions Trading System, to be weakened. Under pressure from polluting industries and from far‑right groups, they have been watering down Europe's climate policy throughout this whole mandate.

The most important response, the most important preparedness, is to stand against the weakening of the EU's climate policy. We will stand against the weakening of the EU's climate policy because we know we must cut our dependencies on fossil fuels. We must tax the oil and gas companies and use the money to invest in climate‑friendly choices and adaptations that are accessible to everyone, not only for the rich and the wealthy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in Europe, less than one home in five is equipped with an air conditioner. In the United States and Japan, nine homes out of ten have one. And yet, with taxpayers' money, we are so rich that we are air-conditioning the entire world. The French Development Agency is lending 20 million euros to renovate the air conditioning of a bank in Thailand, it is paying 7 million to equip administrative buildings in Djibouti, it is installing Inverter technology air conditioners in dispensaries in Senegal. As for Europe, it is offering 11 air conditioners to a pediatric department in Montenegro, it is lending 40 million euros to air-condition a new 250-bed hospital in Turkey, it is co-financing the air conditioning of Tunisian hospitals in Gafsa and Sidi Bouzid.

You are financing thermal comfort at the other end of the world while telling Europeans that they must suffer in silence and without air conditioning because it pollutes. So, enough of your moral lessons! Enough of your waste! This is not your money, it is the Europeans' money.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you all for your constructive and positive contribution to this debate so far. What I've heard is really encouraging. I think that we are all on the same page that we need to work without ideology. And what I've heard so far nearly goes far beyond ideology.

Because indeed, as you rightly say, Ms García Pérez, this is the lethal reality of climate change that we are facing today. And we cannot deny this reality. That's why also I count on your support for the negotiation of the next MFF. We propose, on behalf of the Commission, a very ambitious budget, to have a EU CPM here – a comprehensive manner to respond to the climate change and to the risks we are facing today.

You've raised the importance of helping the people who live in rural areas. Yes, people and local communities play a major role in wildfire risk prevention and management. The share of wildfire ignition caused by human activity in the EU by far exceeds those from natural causes and could be as high as 96 % – 96 % caused by human activity.

Complementing the preparedness union strategy, the Commission today proposes to promote and disseminate good practices in wildfire risk assessment and awareness and community involvement, for example through the EU CPM Knowledge Network, develop a toolkit for supporting resilience-building and promote volunteering and exchange opportunities in the field of preparedness.

We are working also with Member States on guidelines to increase awareness about risks and threats, with particular attention to ensuring that information is accessible, inclusive and adapted to the needs of groups at risk.

I totally agree that EU CPM, our mechanism of civil protection, is European solidarity at its best, and we need to develop it further. That is why we presented one year ago our new preparedness strategy. We will present also, as requested by Mr Knotek, a climate adaptation plan that will be presented by Commissioner Hoekstra in autumn.

Yes, I totally agree that the first responders are always Member States. They are the ones who need to spend the money and the budget we allocate on the right funds. That is why also we need to adapt our cities with the RFF, for instance, or the solidarity funds, because we must protect our citizens and particularly those living also in urban areas by making our cities, buildings and public spaces more resilient.

Finally, I will respond to Mr Allione.

Even if our hearts are heavy today because of the death toll which continues to rise – I was looking just yesterday in the newspaper at all those citizens who refuse to leave their village in the south of France because they are attached to it, because they were born there, because they want to see their children grow up there and also because they want to contribute, even sometimes simply with bottles of water, to reducing the scale of the fires –, this is not a moment when we must weep, when we must offer our condolences. Even if our hearts are heavy, we must take action!

And we do not stop acting, as you know: we have already activated the mechanism numerous times since the beginning of the season, which started at the end of April. Never has the "fire season", as it is unfortunately now called, started so early. And yes, when it comes to recognising the status of volunteers and firefighters, we are working on it, even if this rather falls under the remit of Commissioner Mînzatu.

Today we have, for the first time, exchanges of young firefighters, of young volunteers taking place in Warsaw. This has never happened before. We also want to help raise awareness, to have a new generation that is better able to respond to these dangers and to this global warming.

Mr President, the European Union has already recorded more than 118,000 hectares burned by the beginning of July this year, above the average of the last 20 years.

Portugal knows that these numbers are not abstractions. It knows what it means to see villages surrounded by flames, it knows what it means to evacuate populations in a hurry, what it means to lose homes, businesses, farms, forests, fertile soil and collective memory.

For the first time in Portugal, the participation of the Armed Forces in the prevention and direct fight against fires is a sign of commitment and readiness. It shows that Portugal mobilizes all state instruments when populations are at risk.

But if a Member State needs to mobilize all its national resources so early in the summer, then the European Union must respond on a different scale. It is fair to recognize that the European Union has progressed. But let us be clear, it is no longer enough. Europe must stop arriving when the country is already exhausted, it must arrive sooner.

Therefore, I challenge the European Commission to go further. We need to transform RescEU into a true permanent European firefighting force, with its own aerial assets, multinational brigades and automatic pre-positioning in the highest-risk regions.

I also challenge the Commission to change the logic of European funding. Prevention must be a central priority of the next European budget: fuel management, land registry, forest roads, water points, support for the rural world and early detection technology.

And we need firmer justice: the penal response cannot be symbolic.

We have increasingly longer, drier and more extreme summers. The scale of the threat has changed, the European response must change too.

(The speaker declines a "blue card" question from João Oliveira)

Mr President, during the last heatwave my son's football tournament was cancelled. A huge disappointment for my son, but it was simply too warm to still be able to play safely. And a cuddle will get you a very long way to take away that disappointment. But of course that is minor suffering, because in other places in Europe human lives were lost during that same heatwave and wildfires devastated entire areas.

And yet right-wing parties in this house, in Parliament continue to vote against sustainability, against greening, and delay climate measures and protect fossil interests. I really wonder: when will it stop? At ten thousand deaths, at a hundred thousand deaths? When do we stop this cognitive dissonance? When will climate deniers and parties that echo them acknowledge that this is a problem of today and not just of tomorrow? We know what needs to happen. We must stop fossil subsidies. We must accelerate that energy transition. I am asking for only one thing: protect our people against heat.

(The speaker agrees to answer a "blue card" question)

Yes, esteemed speaker. You, Social Democrats, are fighting very hard against climate change, against CO2, so that there would be zero CO2 emissions. And here Europe has indeed made great progress. Industry is, in fact, one might say, stagnating, less CO2 is emitted, but Europe suffers the most from heatwaves. What are you doing wrong?

Maybe he should try to answer that question himself. I mean, it's very clear we are trying our best from day one to show more ambition, to take also our historical responsibility. And this is a consequence of that. You know, scientists are very clear: whatever we can do to lower global warming, the more lives we can save. This is something that we have been telling you for quite a while. So what can we do now? We should do a bit more, and we should convince the rest of the world to do more.

Mr. President! We are facing an extraordinary drought. According to Copernicus drought monitoring data, the situation deteriorated further in June, which also means that an alert-level drought has developed in Germany, France, and Hungary, among others. In my homeland, only a tenth of the usual amount of precipitation fell in April, namely 4 mm. Since 2021, a precipitation deficit equivalent to an entire year's worth of precipitation has accumulated. It corresponds to this. Significant investments are needed to increase water retention and irrigated areas, but EU funds are also needed for this. In contrast, the European Commission would cut the agricultural fund by 20% in the seven-year budget.

Many of us are asking the European Commission to change this, to provide separate funds not only for water retention and facility development, but also for irrigation development. The latter receives very little emphasis in the Commission's plans. If there is not enough water, there will be no food security either, let alone at an affordable price.

(The speaker agrees to take a blue card question)

Mr President, dear colleague, over the past four years, more than 200 000 people have died from heat in Europe. This week, temperatures are exceeding 30 °C in cities across the Continent. And work continues on construction sites and in fields regardless. I agree on your point on water, definitely. But so far, the far right, together with many right-wing parties, has said 'no' to the binding rules on really tackling the climate crisis and really protecting workers from heat at their workplaces.

So please, tell us directly, how many deaths would it take to convince you and your colleagues in your parties that this isn't a hypothetical situation or problem, but something that is happening right now, killing people all over the European Union?

Thank you for your question. I believe we agree on the goal: that we must act against the consequences of climate change, but how we handle this, we already have different approaches. You, and I can say that the left-wing grand coalition, work with a planned economy approach, which means that you make plans mandatory that very soon turn out not to be fulfilled, and meanwhile you do not care about what consequences these plans have. Just think of the automotive industry! You pushed the European automotive industry into mandatory plans, a mandatory transition, consequently they are going bankrupt. Partly as a consequence of this, Volkswagen announced that it is parting with a hundred thousand people, a hundred thousand jobs are disappearing, this is the consequence of your policy.

Mr President, in recent weeks, Europe has burned and flooded at the same time. France, Spain and Italy recorded temperatures of over 38 degrees. Romania has been hit by violent storms, floods and destruction.

The European Union's response remains, however, too often a bureaucratic one. We are talking about targets for the year 2050, while people need solutions today.

The Green Deal has remained a bureaucratic exercise built on many rules and high costs for citizens and industry - contradicted by science. A recent report shows that the reduction of aerosols from coal burning has contributed to an increase in global warming by 1 degree Celsius in European cities. This is under conditions where the European Union has burdened European industry, increased the cost of living, and diminished the competitiveness of our economy.

The citizens of Europe no longer need promises for 2050. And one more thing: trying to introduce "light with a washbasin into the windowless house" is not science - it is pure stupidity.

Vážený pán predsedajúci, ďakujem. Ako je možné, že v roku 2026 sú v Európe krajiny, kde nemocnice nemajú klimatizáciu, kde je počas horúčav 42 stupňov na izbe? Ako je možné, že sú v Európe krajiny, ktoré ani nerátajú, nerátajú úmrtia kvôli horúčavám? Čiže ani nevieme, koľko ľudí vlastne zomrelo. Ako je možné, že sú v Európe krajiny, ktoré majú ministrov, ktorí sa zrazu zobudili do toho, že existuje zmena klímy, a nepočúvali o tom posledných 30 rokov? A potom, potom budeme počúvať o tom, že za všetko zlé môže Brusel. Ten zlý magický Brusel. A pritom v mnohých členských krajinách stále stovkami miliónov, miliardami, dotujeme fosílnu ideológiu, dotujeme fosílnu loby. Namiesto toho, aby sme presne tieto peniaze, ale aj európske peniaze, použili na pomoc poľnohospodárom, na pomoc mestám udržať si zeleň, na modernizáciu nemocníc tak, aby pacienti neležali pri horúčavách na izbách a sestričky neodpadávali pri operáciách. Ďakujem.

(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty)

Esteemed colleague, with the heatwave, more than ever we need a cooling strategy, and in that cooling strategy also an action plan for geothermal energy, in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Now, the Commission has been promising that to be delivered in May, then in June, then it was postponed. Now it's July. So I would like to ask about your views about that cooling strategy, and particularly on the role of geothermal.

Indeed, we are walking on the very heat, but also cold – let's be honest, from here you can make cold – that's physics – that we need. Geothermal is the very one we have been overlooking and understating.

So I expect the Commission to come up now, in the electrification strategy, with a very concrete, dedicated action on next-generation geothermal, so we can use it both for electricity, as well as heating, and right now, cooling.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, (the speaker speaks in an unofficial language), this is how Núria, a Catalan peasant woman, reacted when she saw how the flames of the fires affecting Catalonia these days were turning the land into ashes. Extreme weather events such as heat waves or sixth-generation fires, which are already part of summers in southern Europe, are increasingly frequent in the center and north of the continent.

(The speaker speaks in an unofficial language), Núria said, and we have stopped listening to her. The rhythm of the system under which we live is incompatible with the sustainability of the world in which we reside. Faced with a complex, rapid and expansive world, the solution involves promoting ways of life rooted in the territory and in harmony with the environment.

Neither is the earth flat nor does solar callousing work. Either we bet on science, evidence and regional and local management of the territory, or climate denialism will make Europe turn into a giant ashtray.

(The speaker agrees to answer a question raised under the blue card procedure)

Mr President, this year an estimated 20,000 deaths are already expected in Europe, half of them among elderly people, and we are still doing nothing. The lack of investment to adapt their homes is not being a priority for this Commission. Many nursing homes also fail to meet climate adaptation standards. In Europe, the elderly suffer from ageism that makes them live worse and die sooner. Ask yourselves, honourable members, because we will all grow old, why do we stop being subjects with rights from a certain age and become objects that must be hidden or set aside, and whose lives are no longer worth anything? Is this what we want? I, honestly, do not.

I think it is true that we are speaking in broad terms, but, when we see the figure of thousands of deaths that our colleagues have also presented, within these figures there is a majority who are older adults. I think we need to pay more attention to these vulnerable groups—the elderly and minors. We have seen that in Germany there is not a single hospital that is air-conditioned, there are no air-conditioned care homes, nor are there well-air-conditioned schools throughout Europe. We urgently need to adapt to this situation, because climate change, I think, places two objectives before us: decarbonisation—which we have spoken about—, the Green Deal, but also adaptation, which is already a reality today of this rise in temperatures.

Mr President, the climate crisis is here, even if Donald Trump's conservative imitators do not recognize it, and even if Mrs von der Leyen underestimates it. The heatwave kills, fires destroy, the countries of the European South are tested. On the front line is Cyprus. Extreme temperatures, prolonged drought, burnt forests, lost properties, human lives in danger.

It is not enough to count the disasters. We need more prevention, not based on cost. More resilience. More European solidarity. Cyprus, due to its strategic geographical position, can and must become a model European regional firefighting and civil protection hub for the Eastern Mediterranean, with permanent aerial assets, specialized personnel, with adequate European funding. The climate crisis knows no borders, nor should European solidarity be offered drop by drop.

Mr. Chairman. Those heat waves are really sometimes truly unbearable, but you say that we must reduce emissions, that we must restrict transport and restrict industry to stop that warming. And I have one, perhaps a bit conspiratorial, but - in my opinion - completely legitimate question for you, colleagues. What if that warming simply does not stop despite that drastic reduction in emissions? In 1990 we had a certain level of emissions, now that emission level has allegedly decreased by 40% compared to 1990. It is still hot despite that. Where do you have the guarantee that when we reduce those emissions by 90%, that warming simply will not happen? What if the only result of your green policy, your Green Deal, will be that we destroy our economy, our industry and it will still be hot in Europe? In my opinion, more money should be invested precisely in that adaptation, investing it in air conditioning, in water retention measures, in the fight against droughts or in building greener cities so that there is not just glowing concrete everywhere. Simply preparing for the fact that there will be heat in Europe.

(The speaker declined a question asked by Martin Hojsík via the raising of a blue card)

Mr President, every summer the same discussion, the same mistakes. Nature did not catch us by surprise. Science has been warning us for decades. Yet every time you had to choose between the environment and profit, you chose profit. You gave land and water —forests, coasts, natural resources— in the name of a so-called development. Today, the bill is not being paid by those who profited; it is being paid by the peoples.

There are no longer natural disasters without political responsibilities. Climate change is not an alibi for political inertia. And no, we cannot talk about preparedness when, in the face of permanent dangers, you continue to send seasonal workers. We cannot talk about protecting citizens when we ask builders, farmers, delivery workers, rural workers, and rescuers to work under extreme temperatures and without adequate protection.

I ask you that Europe funds prevention, forest management, firebreaks, the protection of settlements, and the protection of the people on the front line.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner! Europe is burning once again, and this is long no longer an exception; it has become the new reality, and that has a great deal to do with climate change. This year alone, 1,000 wildfires have already been registered, almost twice as many as the average of past decades. 2025 was the most destructive wildfire year in the history of the EU - more than 1 million hectares were devastated. France and Portugal had to reactivate the Civil Protection Mechanism just a few days ago.

We are not talking about a future scenario, we are talking about the sad present. The Commission has already pre-positioned over 800 firefighters from 14 countries in the high-risk areas of southern Europe; that is right, that is necessary, but unfortunately it will not be enough, because we are long no longer dealing with isolated extreme events.

We are currently also working at full speed to further develop the so-called European Civil Protection Mechanism, but we need further investments in prevention, modern early warning systems, climate-resilient forests and the protection of our emergency personnel. Our guiding principle must be to anticipate crises instead of improvising, to prepare instead of lagging behind, to act before a situation escalates.

I would also like to use this speech here to put those in the focus of our attention who deserve it: Who puts out the fire when it burns? It is, of course, the male and female firefighters. In Europe there are approximately 2 million, 2.5 million volunteer firefighters - we must put them in the focus. We must not only protect them, we must even promote this volunteer work. This also includes that we adapt our social security systems to this volunteer work. Europe is burning, and we must help those who put out the fire.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, in Europe we are already experiencing the third super-heatwave and it is only the beginning of July, so the data on climate change are indisputable and anyone who engages in denialism today is simply crazy.

Therefore, those who deny climate change must stay out of politics, because our duty is to respond to the needs of citizens. And I see, anyway, that the empty benches of the far right go in this direction.

The point today is that of the new inequalities that are being created: inequalities in access to cooling, generational inequalities, inequalities also regarding migrants - climate migrants are increasing - therefore, there is a strong link between environmental justice and social justice.

An integral ecology approach is needed - the one that Pope Francis already indicated - where integrated responses are given above all to the most vulnerable.

Europe has done a lot: it should take the helm and above all bring everyone along, and not just some.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this weekend, a fire of rare virulence started in my family's village, Lédenon, in the Gard department. It devastated 500 hectares of scrubland in a few hours. Families were confined, residents evacuated. Other fires are currently ravaging France and other countries in Europe.

These fires are arriving a month early, they are more intense, more uncontrollable due to the heatwave and dry soils. We know that all this is only a beginning; scientists have been repeating it for decades. Yet, in this hemicycle, some still choose to weaken what can protect us by unpicking the Green Deal.

I put the question to Jordan Bardella's group: are you going to install air conditioning against fires in farmers' fields? You chose to disarm the European Union in the face of climate change by voting month after month against forest restoration, against renewable energies, against the obligation of corporate climate transparency. You chose inaction while heatwaves and fires caused 200,000 deaths in Europe over the last four years.

Let's be clear: only a policy to fight against global warming can save us. Phase out fossil fuels, adapt housing, our cities, protect forests, strengthen civil protection: we have all the assets. The house is burning, let's not look elsewhere!

Madam President, heatwaves and wildfires are not threats of the future but the new harsh reality. The numbers speak for themselves: 2025 was the worst wildfire season, with over 1,000,000 hectares destroyed in Europe, while June 2026 was the hottest ever recorded in several European countries. This is a reality that Greece and the Mediterranean in general are experiencing with increasing intensity, making the adoption of measures to improve the resilience of cities absolutely necessary.

However, we must readjust our disaster management model, with an emphasis on prevention and early warning, as well as a drastic increase in European resources. The Preparedness Union must materialize—with better coordination between the European and national levels, strengthening of the European Solidarity Fund and the rescEU mechanism, further development of the European Forest Fire Information System, creation of a European early warning platform utilizing artificial intelligence, and, of course, enhanced funding under the next multiannual financial framework of the European Union so that member states are adequately equipped.

The climate crisis requires coordinated action, increased resources, and a change in the way we have operated in the past, and this change must happen now.

Madam President, every summer we hear the same excuse in this hemicycle: that fires are inevitable, that it is all the fault of climate change and that we must resign ourselves.

And while some use every fire to make their climate propaganda, others know how fire is prevented. Summer fires are put out in winter, honorable members, with grazing, with firebreaks, with clearing, with intelligent forest management, with that rural Spain that you have expelled with your beloved, cherished and praised European Green Deal; with that same rural Spain is how fires are put out.

What reports do we use, the Socialists asked. Mrs. García Pérez, ask the livestock farmers, those who have been prevented from grazing; ask the farmers, the foresters and all those who have been driven from the countryside by decades of policies of bipartisanship and your European Green Deal that has turned its back on the rural world. Those are our reports: the real world, the one that you only step on when there are cameras.

The climate changes, honorable members, indeed, but climate change does not clean the forests, does not open firebreaks, does not clear brush, does not delay aid and does not explain why Spain concentrates 40% of the fires of the entire surface of the European Union when Portugal shares the same climate and does not...

(the President withdraws the floor from the speaker)

(The speaker agrees to take a question raised under the "blue card" procedure)

Blue Card. - Yes, thank you very much! I would find it exciting to hear once again, because you used the term climate ideology again - could you perhaps explain to us once more what your definition of "ideological" is? Because I have the feeling that your obsession with giving autocrats of this world an import guarantee for fossil fuels is quite an ideological approach, instead of actually giving EU citizens in Spain and everywhere else the chance to also obtain cheap renewable energy. Isn't that more of the ideology? Perhaps you could clarify our definition again.

Let's see... first of all, we are talking here about fires, not about renewable energies, but what do I conceive as ideology? Your ideology, your climate fanaticism, is simply making political and ideological use of a factual event which is climate change, which nobody here denies that the climate is changing. The climate has been changing since the origins planet Earth.

You use that factual event that the climate is changing to establish an ideology and establish your own ideological interests, your climate fanaticism, to invent issues like this: that fires are the fault of climate change, when it has been more than demonstrated that fires are the fault of your disastrous management and since you are incapable of assuming responsibilities, you hide behind your climate fanaticism...

(the president withdraws the floor from the speaker)

Madam President, dear colleagues, we are experiencing the coolest summer of the rest of our lives. Heatwaves are no longer an anomaly, they are our new normal, and these heatwaves are killing: 200,000 people in Europe in four years!

Sue Ellen Demestre is sounding the alarm on behalf of travelers: "We are looking for a climate refuge. We can no longer breathe!" Sarah, a homeless mother of four, recounts that in summer all shelters are closed: "We sleep in parks, sometimes on concrete. There is no water." And while we debate here, workers, female farmers, garbage collectors continue to work in 40 °C, without European protection.

Because yes, the heatwave does not affect everyone in the same way. The Commission knows this; it is aware of this injustice, having turned on the air conditioning for the commissioners on the upper floors and turned it off for the civil servants on the lower floors. It has also shone by its lack of reaction: not a press release, not an action plan, not a tweet when the high heat hit our continent. This inaction must stop!

Heatwaves do not fall from the sky. They bear the name of fossil fuel multinationals, and our action plan must be clear: take back control of the firms that caused climate disruption, adopt a major law to protect workers exposed to extreme heat, release urgent resources to adapt our hospitals, schools, and housing to the high heat. Let us wait no longer!

(The speaker refuses blue-card questions from Jaak Madison and Kateřina Konečná)

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I come from a country where the summer heatwave is an almost daily phenomenon. In the European Union last year we had a record of fires with over 10 million stremmas of burnt land. For Cyprus, my homeland, the data from the European Forest Fire Information System record an extreme peak in burnt areas. I therefore welcome the milestone decision, as there will be a record number for the European Union: 777 firefighters, 22 aircraft and 5 helicopters in various parts of the European territory, to assist at any time where needed.

However, I want to know if there is planning for where they will go and when—if you can tell us. I was and remain one of those who strongly supported the absolute need for a permanent and enhanced presence of rescEU in Cyprus, as its geographical isolation made it vulnerable. I think we are now on the right track and continuous reinforcement is imperative. Any delays are dangerous, with incalculable consequences for the natural environment and human life.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, social justice and climate justice: same struggle. Today already and tomorrow even more so, it is the most vulnerable, in the north as in the south of the planet, who pay the price of climate disruption. In Europe, it is estimated that the morbid toll will be 80,000 deaths each summer. In Belgium alone, for the heatwave of this month of June, we deplore more than 1,200 additional deaths related to high temperatures, and once again the most fragile are hit: the elderly, the chronically ill or babies. Workers are also on the front line.

But, meanwhile, our government, through the voice of our Minister of Defense, invites us not to dramatize and to enjoy a good beer by the pool. Mr. Francken, I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of the 130 million workers exposed to infernal temperatures that put their health and lives in danger. This is why it is urgent to adopt a directive that protects workers in order to prevent risks to their health, not to take note or to suffer.

Madam President, far from diminishing, the incidence of fires in Europe, as we would all wish, starts earlier every year and is more virulent.

The Union is aware of the problem and tries to better coordinate the effective means available against fires, but we have a pending cause: prevention, we are not doing it well. We have made some progress, for example, with the recent approval of new genomic editing techniques to make the plant world more resilient or the recognition the day before yesterday by the European Commission of extensive sheep and goat farming and its important environmental role and in the fight against fires. But there are still necessary political and budgetary decisions that incontestably show the commitment to the populated environment of the rural world and its role.

We must modify legislation such as the Natura 2000 network, regulations such as the Nature Restoration Regulation, the New EU Forest Strategy for 2030, regulations related to biodiversity or habitats to allow once again, without controversy, the European rural population to practice effective measures to prevent natural disasters which are fires. And how? By allowing them to return to practices that for centuries and centuries have worked, such as logging, thinning, cleaning, trails, firebreaks.

I do not know what we are waiting for, but while we argue over trifles, Europe continues to burn.

(The speaker agrees to take a blue-card question)

"Blue card" question. – I have already heard a number of interventions from, let us say, civilized right, center-right. And all I hear are pleas for prevention and for investments and goodness knows what. Now, what I observe is that everywhere in Europe, where the vast majority are right-wing or center-right governments, cuts are being made precisely on prevention everywhere, cuts are being made everywhere on emergency services and the like. So I would like to ask: is what you are coming to tell us consistent at all and how do you see that?

The vision is very clear, sir. And thank you for your question.

Look, we must be aware that there is a very important prevention, which is the practice that has always been carried out in the rural world.

Those who know the rural world best are those who, by inheritance, tradition, family, and knowledge, have been doing it well for centuries and, for I would say more than a decade, we have started to systematically ban a lot of measures that they bet on. Firebreaks have disappeared, which is why we now cannot limit the extent of the fire. We do not let them, when they enter the Natura 2000 Network, use natural resources as they have always done. We do not clean. We have put an end to extensive sheep and goat farming, with all that it represents for the fight against fires.

Listen, it is as simple as applying what we know—knowledge—and not banning it.

Madam President! Every year, more than 175,000 people in Europe die as a result of extreme heat. Temperatures in Europe are rising twice as fast as the global average. Yet instead of treating this as the emergency that it is, the EU is dismantling climate protection measures. While the richest 1% emit as much CO2 as the poorest two-thirds of the population combined, it is workers, pensioners, and low-income families who suffer the most.

Climate protection means: taxation of extreme wealth and emissions, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, investment in public services, and making the biggest polluters pay. But while Europe burns, conservatives and the far-right are in bed together: they are weakening the Green Deal, and the EU continues to pour billions into fossil fuel subsidies.

Protect people instead of polluters, lives instead of fossil fuel profits!

(The speaker agreed to respond to a question under the "blue card" procedure.)

Yes. Since you are speaking in German, I will speak in Estonian. Your speech was extremely enthusiastic and positive, so the speechmaking was very good. But when you talk about fossil fuels and that fossil fuels are to blame for Europe burning, that we don't have a climate agreement, a green transition, all of that, then just a little question: to my knowledge, the climate has always changed. Always throughout history. In the year 1685, the River Thames was so frozen that horses ran on it. What do you think, why did the climate change about two hundred years ago, if now it only changes because we have petrol cars? So if previously the climate changed thanks to the sun and all of nature, now it changes precisely because we have scientific development and it is possible to develop the economy also on natural resources. What happened in between? Why did the climate change before?

Blue Card". - Yes, climate change also existed before human-made climate change. Ignoring human-made climate change, which has been scientifically clearly established, is climate-terrorist ideology that you are pursuing together, and from which female workers, female pensioners, and poorer families in this EU are suffering.

I call on you to finally take responsibility for this - for your politics - and to honestly tell people what is coming their way. You are not doing that; you are lying to the people.

Yes, when you talk about someone having to take responsibility, then why do you think that Europe has to take responsibility? When you talk about climate change and global warming, it is only in Europe that climate change has increased significantly. At the same time, in the rest of the world, in Africa, in Asia, this has not happened. Why should the European person, because of your policy, have to pay more for the Green Deal, higher fuel prices, higher heating prices, in order to do some ideological project, like the communists did? Well, you are also a bit of a communist after all. So why do we, as Europeans, have to pay for your ideology when we know that actually the human impact on climate change is marginal, very small, or non-existent? Why do you want Europe [cut off]

Firstly, it is 57 corporations that produce 80% of all global emissions. It is not the people who should pay for it, it is these corporations that should pay, that should finally live up to their responsibility. And yes, these are also many European corporations.

I am very much in favor of it not being the people who suffer the most from this – which they are already doing nowadays. 175,000 deaths from extreme heat in Europe, and corporations like Exxon are already saying for the first quarter that they have made 5 billion more in profit. Where is your initiative in all this? Where is the outcry to say: Stop these profits!

Madam President, in recent days we have experienced record temperatures across Europe. And I very much fear that this will be the coolest summer of the coming years. Heatwaves have left thousands of victims and multiplied fires. Thermal stress threatens more than 130 million workers and the burnt area already exceeds 130,000 hectares. In our land, in Castellón, in Soneja, but also repeatedly in León, in Catalonia, simultaneously, they are fighting the fire. We give all our support.

Our new civil protection mechanism must strengthen the Union's capacities to respond. We are working on it. But, above all, it has to foster a culture of preparedness, planning, prevention, with the participation of local and rural actors. We have to understand its dimension, frequency, and virulence in a climate emergency. We will not be able to do this if we do not dismantle the laws that protect and monitor our forests, as is being attempted here. And we will not do it if we do not understand its causes: climate change, depopulation, if we do not take into account local and rural actors.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a debate about more air conditioning. We need to air-condition, yes, but above all we need to prevent. We must anticipate and avoid more fires and also more deaths from the heat.

Mr President, Commissioner, we only have one planet. At present, it is burning in many places, and extreme weather events are becoming more common. Climate change is here. We see it with our own eyes every day, and thousands of people in Europe have lost their lives due to the heat. It is shocking.

In Finland, because of blue-green algae, our children and grandchildren can no longer swim in the sea in the same way as before. Storms and violent thunderstorms follow one another. The Sami people living in the Arctic region suffer particularly badly from climate change.

It is irresponsible that even today there are decision-makers who deny climate change. European citizens have the right to expect action from us. We must abandon fossil fuels, oil and coal. We must build an EU preparedness union, and it is time to implement President Niinistö's report on strengthening the EU's comprehensive preparedness.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

That question is actually for you, colleagues from the groups of Socialists, Greens, and Renew. You are talking about leaving fossil fuels behind. You are talking about how fossil fuels are warming Europe and the world for us. Why are you not talking about war? How many emissions are caused by your wars that you start? You support purchases of weapons that kill people and destroy the climate. And not a single one of you said a word about that. So let us take it comprehensively. Let us look at how your war-mongering, which you support and into which you invest money, destroys this planet.

It seems that the parliamentarian has missed something elementary. It is Russia and Putin that have started a war against Ukraine, and that is tragic. That war is ongoing every day, and we must make sure that we do everything to support Ukraine, so that we in Europe do not buy Russian gas and oil.

We can in our own way support Ukraine through our own actions in our countries, and it is our task to ensure that Ukraine can also one day become a member of the European Union.

This is not about Ukraine at all. You were not able to vote that you disagree with how aggressively Donald Trump is acting in Iran. And weapons are used there too. The climate is also being destroyed there. You were not able to vote that you disagree with the genocide in Palestine. Weapons are used there too. Simply until you agree that peace policy is the most environmentally clean policy, and you will blame only one part of the economy or sector, it is hypocrisy and you are just pretending something.

It is of course the case that it would be very good if we had peace in the world. But that does not mean that we can close our eyes to the environmental catastrophe that is happening in the world now, the climate catastrophe that we have.

We must work on many levels every day. We must combat climate change. We must get rid of fossil fuels. We will invest in the green transition, and we will work for a world where people are respected – democracy, human rights – and that every country has the right to its sovereignty.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, in the face of heatwaves, air conditioning is not a luxury, it is a public health issue. Since 2017, nearly 40,000 French people have died from the consequences of heat. Yet, only 24% of homes are air-conditioned, compared to over 50% in Italy. When temperatures go wild, schools, hospitals, and retirement homes must be effectively protected.

In Nice, we have chosen a major action plan, an air-conditioning action plan for our city. Adapting to climate change does not mean giving up on fighting it. Adapting means investing in nuclear power to produce decarbonised electricity. Adapting means making our buildings livable both summer and winter. Above all, it means protecting the lives of the most vulnerable.

True ecology is not the one that makes people feel guilty, it is the one that protects. True ecology never chooses between the planet and people, it protects both.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, "extreme heatwaves are a public health emergency," said the WHO Regional Director for Europe yesterday.

We already knew that. High temperatures have a direct impact on increasing morbidity and also mortality. Excess mortality due to heat was over 7,000 deaths, just in the month of June, in three European countries.

But, beyond the firefighting resources that the European Union has available to support all countries, we need to do more. The rollback of global warming reduction policies, of environmental deregulation, comes at a heavy cost. It is measured in preventable illnesses, it is measured in preventable deaths, and climate adaptation and mitigation measures are the long-term key.

For many in this hemicycle, you only have to look at it, fires are something that happens because cattle farming was ended, vector-borne diseases happen because they come on planes, from strange places, carrying mosquitoes on board. And climate change is ideology.

Until we agree on the facts, we will not catch up with our losses.

Madam President, six days of heatwave in June in France, 2,025 deaths. And while some are still discussing, others are acting. In Madrid, the metro is air-conditioned. In Barcelona, climate shelters are accessible within a few minutes on foot. In Greece, employers must provide cooled spaces for their employees. These countries have understood a simple thing: protecting the population against the heat is not a luxury, it is a public policy.

In France, we are lagging behind. Too many schools, EHPADs [residential care homes for the elderly], too many hospitals, too many homes remain unsuitable, and yet the heat kills. It strikes children, the elderly, the sick, workers. Faced with this, we are proposing a 'Climate Plan': the right to coolness for everyone. Cooling priority public buildings and helping families adapt their housing, developing insulation and reversible heat pumps, and also producing this equipment at home. Every euro invested must protect the French people, revive our industry and create non-relocatable European jobs.

This is our line. Neither climate denial nor punitive ecology: a protection ecology that adapts and, above all—above all!—saves lives.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Dear Colleagues, there is an inevitable relationship between climate change, heatwaves and fires. This circumstance is increasingly less cyclical and more structural, which explains the permanence of this very sequence.

The question that arises is: what to do?

There are two very relevant levels of action. First, mitigation: continuing to invest in reducing causes, combating climate change; but the second is the level of adaptation. We cannot be naive to the point of thinking that mitigation will happen in a flash and we have to prepare ourselves for this circumstance.

What to do? Prepare the most exposed communities, reinforce the resilience of territories, modernize and empower civil protection authorities. Investigate or invest increasingly in research against fires.

But it is also necessary to strengthen European-level action, namely the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism and RescEU, as well as the sharing of resources and operational cooperation.

Only with an active and prepared European level can we be successful in combating the scourge of fires.

(The speaker agrees to answer several blue card questions)

We are discussing the civil protection mechanism in Europe and I have argued that we need to include early recovery in a solidarity mechanism.

In Portugal, we are having fires in forests where the timber from the storms is still lying around and we still have populations without electricity and even difficulties with communications.

The groups here in the European Parliament have had a consensus on the need for early recovery, except for your group, the EPP. And so I ask you, when you defend more European solidarity here, don't you think we should do everything and ensure this early recovery to clear the territory and restore electricity and communications with solidarity and quickly?

I reiterate that the commitment to mitigation is crucial, but that does not mean we should not prepare for circumstances that are inevitable.

Unfortunately, climate change is a reality and its impact in terms of fires, particularly forest fires, is also a reality. And for this, the adaptation and preparation of communities are central.

What my political group advocates, and the European Commission has been doing, is to invest in funds like preparedness, which help communities become more resilient, better prepared to better overcome these circumstances.

Mr Member of the European Parliament, I am not going to nationalise the issue here, as the PSD did in the past with PS MEPs, I am actually going to Europeanise it. You spoke about the civil protection mechanism and we are together, not only in that action, in that activation and in what concerns aid to Member States, but it is just that here in this House, in 2023, European legislation against deforestation was approved.

In the last year, that legislation came back here to be ratified or to be postponed. Unlike this group, which voted in favour of ratification, your group voted in favour of postponement.

Therefore, the question I leave you with is: instead of a civil protection mechanism, wouldn't it be better to have a mechanism to protect MEPs, one that is in favour of prevention, and avoid what is happening in Portugal today?

The political group to which I proudly belong has had a very consistent position on this as on other matters. What we cannot defend is a regime of deforestation that is not compatible with other dimensions that need to be safeguarded.

I have argued, on many occasions, that the concept of sustainability presupposes not only assessing the environmental impacts of economic measures, but also the economic impacts of environmental measures.

That was what we talked about when we dealt with a topic like the one suggested here and, therefore, consistency, a sense of responsibility and, above all, a dimension of sustainability that is more appropriate to the circumstances in which we live.

Madam President, I would like to tell the far-right deputies of this hemicycle that they bear a very heavy share of responsibility for the current situation. You have voted against all the texts – all the texts! – that allow us to reduce the worst effects of climate change. You voted against the very principle of having a European climate policy to reduce emissions, and therefore to reduce the climate shock. You therefore bear a very clear share of responsibility for the fact that there are, for example, in France, 12 million people – 12 million people! – whose houses are cracking, breaking apart, and losing all their value due to the impact of climate change.

You bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that thousands of farmers are losing all their harvests, in the south of France, due to the multiplication of forest fires, due to climate change. Take responsibility, at least! Take at least this responsibility! Say it in front of all French and European people! And please, stop, stop this climate-skeptic policy, which is unbearable today in Europe!

(The speaker accepts a blue-card question)

Blue Card. - Thank you, dear colleague, for allowing the point of order. You just said that the responsibility for environmental disasters and forest fires lies with the right. I have a question: Which specific law do you know that you believe failed to be passed because of a vote by the right? I would argue that all laws were passed, and in the end the conclusion is simply that your laws are ineffective.

Sir, your political group and all the far-right political groups voted against the nature restoration law, which precisely makes it possible to have wetlands that help limit the impacts of climate change on water stress or forest fires. You voted against the very principle of having a European climate law that respects the Paris Agreement. You voted absolutely against all texts on industry, on the automobile, on everything, on agriculture, which would make it possible to limit the absolutely dramatic consequences of climate change for Europeans.

Take responsibility, have at least the honor of taking this responsibility!

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues! In recent years, many of us have had the experience in our home countries of having to cope with extreme weather events. In my home region of Saxony, too, we are experiencing this development firsthand: the major forest fire in the Gohrischheide last year was Germany's largest forest fire. Therefore, a big thank you goes out at this point to the many thousands of emergency workers, firefighters, and disaster relief personnel who stand by our side and help us in these situations.

Precisely for this reason, however, it is right for Europe to further strengthen its disaster preparedness and the idea of preparedness. With the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, joint firefighting aircraft, and satellite data from the Copernicus program, the European Union creates genuine added value. Europe helps to identify dangers earlier and to act together more quickly in an emergency.

At least as important, however, is prevention. We need more resilient forests, new water supply concepts, modern early warning systems, and investments in civil protection. Europe can provide support here, but responsibility begins locally with a preparedness strategy that protects people, secures infrastructure, and makes our regions more resilient – and that is precisely what we will also have to pay attention to in the negotiations on a new EU budget as this august House.

Madam President! Then it was time again – a new heatwave here in Strasbourg. The previous one we had about two weeks ago is actually one of the worst we have ever had in several of the EU's countries.

But the EU and the member states can do a lot to make the climate crisis at least less catastrophic. Today, we from the Greens group have sent a letter to you in the Commission with our demands to protect us in Europe from the consequences of extreme weather.

We must invest more in nature-based solutions, ensure that climate resilience is included in all legislation, take full responsibility for all climate adaptation work in all sectors of society, set clear targets for the 36 largest identified risks, and last but definitely not least, protect the workers who risk being affected by the extreme heat.

In short, we need a very strong climate adaptation law for the EU.

Mr President, the heatwave at the end of June was not the first we have encountered and will not be the last. Precisely for that reason, our focus must be on climate adaptation. Make houses, offices, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and daycare centers more resilient to that extreme heat. And that is why we must, first of all, stop demonizing air conditioning. Air conditioning is not a symbol of climate indifference. On the contrary, it is a necessary tool to protect the elderly, the sick, young children, and caregivers when temperatures soar. Air conditioning saves lives. They are therefore vital.

What we certainly should not do is follow the example of the Commission, because during the heatwave in June, employees on the lower floors of the Commission building actually had to work without air conditioning, while the offices of the Commission President and the other Commissioners on the upper floors were indeed cooled. Orwell would say: “All floors are equal, but some floors are more equal than others.” That sort of thing is called hypocrisy and sums up the Commission's policy very well.

Madam President, dear colleagues! Climate apocalypse cancelled – that is how the AfD was still rejoicing in May. I would say that has aged like fresh milk in a heatwave. Not two months later, and we have temperatures of over 40 degrees across Europe, wildfires, power outages, heat-related deaths, looting. And science is in agreement: this extreme heatwave would be unthinkable without human-made climate change, without the climate crisis, and it affects the European Union directly.

What comes to mind on the far right? Air conditioning. Wow! Have you ever worked on a construction site during this heatwave? Delivered packages? Nursed the sick? No, you haven't, you are sitting here in the air-conditioned chamber.

We need investments in our hospitals, in care facilities, in production halls – yes, but we also need civil protection; we need more renewable energies; we need resilient infrastructure. And at the same time – and I know thinking about two things at once is hard for you – we have it in our hands to ensure that this hot summer remains an exception and not the beginning of the climate crisis. The Green Deal must be pursued consistently, emissions must come down. Adaptation alone will not save us. When will you finally grasp that?

President, Commissioner, Colleagues, I will address you in Portuguese.

More than 1,300 Europeans lost their lives, above the usual number, between June 21 and 29, due to the heatwave. It is estimated that around 44,000 lives are lost every year due to high temperatures in Europe.

Fire prevention and climate resilience are among the most important agendas of this term, and I want to focus on a particular climate adaptation measure: affordable air conditioning for all Europeans from north to south. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

Only one in five homes in the EU has air conditioning. In the United States and Japan, nations facing summers similar to ours, it is nine out of ten. In several European countries, installing an air conditioning unit at home can require permits, municipal approvals, and the consent of the majority of the condominium.

A Union that considers adaptation to climate change urgent cannot consider technologies like air conditioning a dispensable luxury because it consumes a lot of energy. It must and has to treat it now as a climate adaptation measure.

(The speaker agrees to take a "blue card" question)

Madam Deputy Ana Vasconcelos, you spoke to us about air conditioning regarding the mitigation of heat, but I wanted to ask you a question about water resource management and access to European funds for the improvement of water networks, water supply and sanitation, which in many circumstances see their possibility of using European funds limited in order to have better efficiency in the management of water resources, issues so absolutely essential to cope with the situations of drought and excessive heat that we have.

Does the Deputy think we should continue to deal with these kinds of restrictions in access to European funds by public entities that have this responsibility for water and sanitation management?

Mr Member of the European Parliament, Southern Europe, including Portugal, has been among the largest beneficiaries of European funds to manage water resources. In fact, it is thanks to the mismanagement of these funds that we have not had a good performance in managing these resources and in the availability of water to our citizens.

Therefore, yes, we must better manage our resources, European resources and national resources, for the provision of quality water and to avoid water losses due to poorly maintained infrastructure.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, during the most recent heatwave we counted more than 1 300 victims in Europe, some due to illnesses caused by working in unsustainable conditions, some due to pre-existing vulnerabilities or sudden illnesses that clogged our emergency rooms, some for having dived into dangerous basins or watercourses.

The cities that have taken this issue seriously - coincidentally none led by far-right deniers - are saving lives, creating climate refuges, enhancing urban greenery, removing asphalt, unsealing the soil, lives are being saved, especially those of the most fragile and the most lonely.

And let us also think of prisoners, of those who do not have a home or who have one that is a fridge in winter and an oven in summer. And this is where strategies to combat the climate crisis, the social crisis and their effects come together. Investing in sustainable housing cuts emissions, creates social cohesion, creates stable jobs, boosts European industrial supply chains, such as that of heat pumps, saves lives and their dignity.

We have the tools, it takes political courage.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, Gaston Bachelard wrote that fire is the greatest ambiguity of human experience. Ever since the first man gazed at a flame, we have understood why.

Fire warms and destroys; it illuminates and consumes; it shines in Paradise and burns in Hell. But above all, fire has always been the symbol of the trial.

In all cultures, the trial by fire represents the decisive test, the one that reveals true value. This is how, for centuries, the authenticity of gold was measured. Only true gold resists fire.

Gold and the firefighter share the same essential truth: it is not the fire that makes the gold. Nor the firefighter. Fire merely reveals what each is made of. Whenever they step into the flames to protect others, the homes of others, the lives of others, Portuguese firefighters go through the trial by fire once again. It is there, face to face with the flames, that it is proven that those men and women are authentically made of gold.

Portugal is in iron and fire. The European Union Civil Protection Mechanism can help, but only Portuguese firefighters can prevent 900 years of existence from burning.

(The speaker refuses a "blue card" question from Marta Temido)

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, this summer millions of Europeans are still living through suffocating days. Elderly people who cannot leave their homes, children who have to give up playing in parks, families evacuated due to fires, firefighters risking their lives.

This is no longer an emergency, it is a reality.

Europe must continue to combat climate change through mitigation, relying more on incentives than on penalties, but it must – alongside the reduction of emissions – think about a major adaptation strategy.

We must continue to prevent climate change, but alongside this we must protect people from the effects of climate change.

The three billion trees planned by 2030 are an important signal. Europe must strengthen its reforestation strategy: one billion more trees in cities to lower temperatures by 2 to 8 °C, more forests where fire has destroyed entire territories, more greenery in areas threatened by desertification.

Adapting to climate change does not mean surrendering, it means defending health, defending security, defending the future of our children. It is a responsibility that Europe must assume today.

Madam President, last year southern Europe suffered an unprecedented fire season marked by so-called sixth-generation fires. This year's data is not looking good either, quite the contrary.

I welcome the fact that the European Union is reacting. Last March, the Commission presented the first Communication on the integrated management of wildfires and has also increased the deployment of resources. This is a step in the right direction, and other public administrations should follow this line.

In this regard, I want to praise the importance that the Xunta de Galicia has been giving in recent years to wildfire prevention and extinction. In this year 2026, it is further strengthening a system that is a true benchmark not only at the national level, but also internationally. For this year 2026, the Xunta has improved systems at all levels —prevention, surveillance, extinction—, material and human resources available have been increased, and the largest budget in history has been approved: more than 213 million euros, 18% more than last year.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, from the intensity of this debate and the controversy it has sparked, it is clear that the European Union is the region of the world most affected by global warming and has a tragic mortality toll this very summer, but lowering standards in European ambition regarding the digital agenda and the migration agenda is undoubtedly harmful and, in my view, suicidal. But nothing is more unjust than lowering standards in the fair green transition, and that cannot happen, under any circumstances, by reducing the necessary financial allocation within the multiannual financial framework so that the European Union can maintain its ambition in the incorporation of renewable energies and in combating the carbonization of the European economy that has contributed to global warming. It is essential that there are resources to protect citizens and, especially, the working class who cannot bear this heat.

Madam President, dear colleagues, for years, decades even, we have been warning about the impact of climate change. Yet here we are. Every summer is hotter, every wildfire season more devastating, and our response is still too slow. Why? Because of those who repeatedly choose to ignore the facts. Unfortunately, some of them are today here in this plenary.

Heatwaves and wildfires are no longer exceptional events. They are Europe's reality. Families lose their homes, workers face unbearable conditions and firefighters risk their lives.

Europe must do more, because no Member States should be left to face these disasters alone. There is no credible strategy against heatwaves and wildfires if at the same time we weaken climate policies or dismantle the Green Deal. Every delay and every vote against climate action has consequences that are measured in lives lost and communities destroyed.

Mr President, here is EU news: heatwaves hit Brussels and the rest of Europe, and the air conditioning in the Commission building was partially turned off. Now, sweating profusely, people are demanding EU heatwave strategies and EU-level responses. But what do a hot day in Finland and a heatwave of over 40 degrees in Spain have in common? Practically nothing, and that is why the solutions must be different, too.

Rescue services, healthcare, construction, and preparedness belong to the member states. They know their own conditions better than any bureaucrat sweating in Brussels. But when the thermometer rises, it seems that a fever for power rises in Brussels, too. When it comes to climate action, we can certainly discuss China and other exploiters, but when it comes to preparedness solutions for the present moment, the solutions must remain in national hands.

Madam President, the five biggest fossil fuel companies – TotalEnergies, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell – together generate roughly EUR 8 trillion in revenue every year. According to the Commission's own estimate, making Europe heatwave proof would cost EUR 70 billion a year – just 7 % of these companies' revenue. These same companies have spent decades profiting from the very emissions now killing people all over the world and in Europe. So my question to the Commission is: will the Commission make the companies causing the climate crisis pay the bill for making schools, hospitals and care homes safe in hot weather?

Madam President, listen, it has been said, but 1,222 people died in Belgium because of the heat. If it had been a military attack, how would you have reacted here? If there had been 1,200 people dead in Belgium because of a military attack? That would have been a state of emergency. You would have mobilized all the troops, all the forces, all the funds to react to that. And here, today, what do I hear from the Commission? "Don't worry, in a few months we will come up with a new action plan."

But in the meantime, the funds for militarization, for war, amount to hundreds of billions for fighter jets. Where are the hundreds of billions for our nursing homes? For the hospitals? We now have to put emergency blankets in Europe – emergency blankets! – on the windows of our hospitals so that patients don't die of the heat! Workers who have to work at 40 degrees. Where is the emergency plan? How are we going to save them?

And there, the far right even denying the obvious, it's a disgrace! But the government coalition, the ruling coalition here, also has questions and responsibilities to which it must respond.

Madam President, congratulations Commissioner on the increase of the EU Rescue mechanism Fund by 11 billion euros.

As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, I think this is crucial. In 2019, this house had no interest at all in us doing anything in that regard, but we are still not investing in what is fundamental, and that is firefighters. No one is helping firefighters to procure equipment; last week in Mostar, meaning, we use this equipment for cross-border firefighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. Desperate, a firefighter came and said: „We can't go on. We can't do any more, we don't have equipment”. Meaning, fires are also coming to Croatia, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11 billion, we are discussing here, we are still doing nothing for prevention.

We are using nothing, and in 1956 in Mostar 46 degrees was recorded, there was heat and there will be, but our inaction still exists here.

Madam President, protecting people from heatwaves also means protecting workers; because preparation for heatwaves starts with not forcing anyone to choose between their salary and their health.

That is why it is incomprehensible that the Partido Popular in Spain proposes precisely to cut benefits for those on sick leave, as if doctors had no criteria or as if, for example, suffering a heatstroke were not serious enough. Is that your recipe for protecting workers when extreme temperatures are already putting their health at risk? Because climate change does not understand ideologies, but it does understand consequences.

Quality work must be safe, healthy, and adapted to the reality of the 21st century. And that, in 2026, involves protecting those who work against extreme heat, establishing common minimum standards of prevention and protection, and guaranteeing income when it is not safe to work. That is the difference between those who understand adaptation as a cut and those who understand it as an expansion of rights.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the data is clear: the next climate refugees will be us. It will be families in Spain, Portugal or Italy forced to leave towns their grandparents built because the climate is just too hot. In Andalusia right now, experts are using crop planting methods once reserved for the Sahara, because that's what Europe's soil is turning into.

Yet some still prefer just distracting citizens. Today we again listened to some of your climate lies that, in the end, only serve and protect the wealthy – those who are building climatised luxury bunkers because they know what's coming. As do you. You're just fooling your own voters.

We need a European plan to work with nature to update our infrastructure before our own citizens are forced to flee it. Let's stop pretending the danger is somewhere out at the gates. The danger is right here in our own ranks.

Madam President, dear colleagues, wildfires are a security, economic, and climate challenge.

I come from Croatia, a country that has been devastated by fires in recent years, and we know very well what it means to protect lives, homes, and nature. Thanks to a strong civil protection system, professional and volunteer firefighters, and an aerial firefighting fleet, we have shown that good organization ultimately saves lives and property. That is what we call prevention.

Now we must raise that level of preparedness to the European level. We need greater joint capacities through RescuEU, faster cross-border assistance, increased investment in prevention, forest management, and modern early warning systems. Investing in resilience is not just climate policy. It is a security policy for European citizens, and that is why we must discuss this before the next season arrives, because otherwise we will say again: the fires are here, the warm weather has come.

No, we must think about that today.

Madam President, Commissioner Lahbib, the prevention and fight against fires require the valorization of the rural world, they require investment in public services and civil protection structures.

When competitiveness is defended, small businesses and small producers are crushed. When militarization is defended, diverting resources from the CAP and other European funds that should support productive sectors, family farming is ruined, and all this contributes to the desertification of the rural world, turning the territory into a powder keg.

When budgetary limitations are imposed on State investment in public services, the capacity for action of health services is conditioned, the response of civil protection is conditioned.

All of this is absolutely essential to be reversed. We need better planning, we need a better approach to fire prevention issues.

But none of this can be done if there is not on the part of the States the capacity and the means to face their responsibilities, including in these areas that I highlighted.

Madam President, but are we truly prepared? We are still talking about heatwaves as if they are tomorrow's problem. But they are not. People are struggling to sleep, children cannot go to school as usual, workers are working in dangerous temperatures and thus this is a social emergency. People do not need more debates, they need protection and action today. Let us insulate our homes, protect schools and hospitals, more shaded spaces in our cities and this very Parliament, a year ago, called for access to drinking water in public spaces. These are practical measures that save lives and thousands of people have already lost their lives. Dear Commission, enough with strategies, people want tangible action. I am waiting for a climate resilience framework that works, not in ten years' time, not next summer, but now.

Madam President, thousands of dead from the heatwave in Europe. The European Union and governments, after bleeding billions of euros from the peoples to feed the predators of green conglomerates under the guise of climate change, now appear provocatively surprised and unprepared. At the same time, they are already budgeting hundreds of billions for military preparation, suffocating even the most elementary needs concerning the peoples, such as in infrastructure.

In the era of artificial intelligence, peoples and workers in workplaces melt in inhuman working hours and high temperatures. They mourn losses and destruction from natural phenomena for which climate change is always put forward as an alibi, while forestry services and firefighting—as in Greece—are stripped of infrastructure and personnel. You claimed that the capitalist market and competition would solve high prices, energy poverty, low wages—and ultimately the people live in unimaginable deprivation for the 21st century. From everywhere shouts the need for the new world of socialism, overthrowing the rotten, outdated capitalist system of war, profits, and exploitation.

Madam President, honourable members, Europe needs a budget commensurate with the climate emergency. Summer has just begun and Spain is already in flames. And facing regional governments that make pacts with climate change deniers and cut resources allocated to address this crisis, there are we Socialists, who defend investing where it really matters: in prevention, in emergency services, in adaptation and in effective European solidarity, especially in rural and depopulated areas where our farmers, our families, our neighbours — like mine from Leciñena and Robres — risk their lives when they try to contain the flames with their own means. Let us give priority to the climate adaptation and prevention agenda. Let us act now. Let us save lives and also save European heritage.

Madam President, I will be very brief in one minute. I just want to correct some information. First of all, thank you for this very hot debate. The EU must be an added value, some of you said – and that is exactly the spirit of the preparedness strategy that we presented last year. I would like to add that it is not a strategy that started last year: the rescEU capacities and the ERCC, the Emergency Response Coordination Centre, have existed since 2000. So we didn't start it last year from scratch.

Our rescue capacities must be a permanent reserve, some of you said. It is a permanent reserve. It is not during the summer that we activate. This is a reserve that we can activate when Member States are overwhelmed and, through rescEU and the European Civil Protection Pool, we have 22 firefighting aircraft, 5 helicopters and 22 certified ground firefighting teams available across 10 countries.

So I would like to thank you for this strong debate, and I hope to have such commitment in the autumn, when the temperature goes down and we need your support for the next efforts.

Madam President, thank you, and I want to thank the honourable Members and indeed the Commissioner as well. This has been a timely debate on a very, very important topic.

I should say as well that it is important to remember those who have died and those who have suffered because of the unprecedented heat wave that we have just experienced in Europe. And it is a reminder of the urgent need to tackle the causes and consequences of the climate crisis. The presidency will support continuing work in this regard, alongside risk management and preparedness to extreme events.

I should acknowledge that many Members from southern Europe spoke during the debate, and we must acknowledge the suffering and deaths there. But there was not just Members from southern Europe; we see that this has been an issue in other Member States of the European Union, and it is an example of where best I think the European Union can show solidarity and action.

The Council has been acting on two main fronts countering the effect of climate change. One is to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, which we know from the science lead to negative impacts of climate change. The second is to adapt to climate change.

Regarding the mitigation of emissions, I would like to stress that the EU has one of the most ambitious and necessary climate policies in the world. Our task for the following months and years is to ensure that the implementation of the climate measures supports and enhances the competitiveness of the European economy and indeed not just contributes to climate resilience, but contributes to economic resilience as well.

With the increasing economic costs of extreme weather events such as wildfires, heatwaves and floods, it's increasingly clear that the cost of inaction against climate change exceeds the cost of timely climate measures. On the front of adaptation to climate change, the recent analysis by the European Environment Agency has acknowledged uneven progress in national adaptation policies and identified gaps between the plans and implementation across European countries.

Indeed, to address these challenges, the Council looks forward to a proposal for a European Union framework for climate resilience, which the Commission is expected to propose in the fall.

tós – Every summer Europe is tested more and more by extreme heatwaves and devastating forest fires. From Greece to Portugal and from Spain to France, our citizens expect the European Union to be better prepared.

Solidarity through rescEU is invaluable, but on its own it is not enough. We need a more ambitious European approach that will strengthen prevention and preparedness.

That is why I call on the European Commission to create a European mechanism for joint procurement for civil protection, along the lines of the joint procurement we are developing in the field of defence.

With joint European orders, member states will be able to procure fire engines, aircraft, firefighter equipment and modern means of dealing with natural disasters at a lower cost, faster and with greater interoperability.

Natural disasters know no borders. Our response cannot be limited to national borders. A stronger Europe in civil protection means a stronger operational capacity for National Authorities and greater security for citizens and their property.

Record highs are raging across Europe, heatwaves are devastating, and more than 1,300 people have lost their lives due to the heat in recent weeks. In Hungary, too, thousands of people have suffered from the extreme heat. Yet the European Commission is tightening the quotas of certain climate gases for the coming years with a new implementing decision, thereby further increasing the cost of cooling equipment and air conditioners.

Instead of helping people to adapt—for example, with more affordable air conditioning equipment—the Commission makes decisions that endanger people's health and safety for abstract green ideological goals.

This is not climate protection, but green fundamentalism. Environmental protection cannot happen at the expense of people's safety and health. Rational, affordable adaptation solutions are needed that serve both the protection of the environment and the people.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing and preventing risks, understanding early warnings and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they are the ones who best know the territory, the vegetation, local climatic conditions and the specific needs of their communities. Likewise, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are responsibilities that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, understanding, and preventing risks, comprehending early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they are the ones who best know the territory, the vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Likewise, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are responsibilities that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing, and preventing risks, understanding early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Similarly, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are competencies that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing and preventing risks, understanding early warnings and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they are the ones who best know the territory, the vegetation, the local climatic conditions and the specific needs of their communities. Likewise, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are competences that can only be exercised effectively from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, understanding, and preventing risks, comprehending early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they are the ones who best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Likewise, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are powers that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing, and preventing risks, understanding early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Similarly, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are competencies that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Today, Slovenia is under a high fire risk due to extreme heat. Meanwhile, France and Greece are already battling extensive forest fires—in the far south of France, around 10,000 people had to leave their homes, while a fire west of Athens is forcing residents to stay indoors. This is not an exception, but a new European reality.

Europe broke temperature records this spring. The June heatwave alone has already claimed more than 1,300 lives in Europe. This is a horrifying statistic.

Science predicted this for us. Now is the time for action, not for backing down on climate ambitions.

Slovenia understands this, primarily because of the largest fire in 2022 and the historic floods in 2023. Over the past five years, we have thoroughly reformed the protection and rescue system. With new equipment, infrastructure, and trained personnel. However, the entire European Union needs the same thorough overhaul. Without European solidarity back then, we in Slovenia would not have succeeded, and without it, no one will succeed today.

Therefore, we call: to combat heatwaves, we need comprehensive action—from climate-adapted construction and building renovation, the strengthening of the European Civil Protection Mechanism and RescEU, to binding protection of workers against heat and, above all, a decisive reduction in emissions to limit further temperature increases.

Solidarity works. Now we must strengthen it.

Mr President, according to WHO estimates, over 200,000 people have died in Europe over the past four years due to heat-related causes. The June heatwave was record-breaking in severity. In just one week, thousands of people died in Europe. The ongoing El Niño phenomenon is temporarily raising the average global temperature, worsening the situation further, and 2026 is expected to be a record-hot year. We can view this summer's record heatwaves as a foretaste of the future.

Climate change is accelerating, as a result of which heatwaves and wildfires are becoming more common and intense. We must do everything we can to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It makes all the difference whether the planet warms by two degrees or four. The best and most sustainable option for preparing for heatwaves and wildfires is to mitigate climate change. The fewer heatwaves and wildfires we have in the future, the less frequently we will need to react to them. Therefore, the level of ambition in our climate and environmental policy should also be raised to match scientific facts. Our current actions are unequivocally insufficient.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing, and preventing risks, understanding early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Similarly, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are powers that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in the implementation of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, knowing, and preventing risks, understanding early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Likewise, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are competencies that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Fires and heatwaves have become two of the most destructive and lethal threats facing Europe. Directly aggravated by the climate emergency, heatwaves are increasingly frequent, intense, and prolonged, causing thousands of deaths and creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread with unprecedented virulence. Our solidarity is with the victims and those affected by these phenomena.

Preparing for these threats involves anticipating, understanding, and preventing risks, comprehending early warnings, and knowing how to act before and during an emergency. Regional and local authorities play an irreplaceable role in this area, as they are the ones who best know the territory, vegetation, local climatic conditions, and the specific needs of their communities. Similarly, the activation of early warning systems and citizen education on evacuation and self-protection are competencies that can only be effectively exercised from proximity. Every euro invested in prevention saves up to six in response and recovery.

From the Government of Spain and the Union, resources will continue to be reinforced, including RescEU, in application of the new fire preparedness plans.

Every summer the same images are repeated: columns of smoke, blocked roads, residents watching the wind and firefighters pushed to the limit. But fires do not start when the flames appear; they start much earlier, when the countryside is abandoned, paths are closed, undergrowth accumulates and grazing and rural activity disappear.

Asturias, my region, knows this well. Last summer more than 6,000 hectares burned. We did not only lose vegetation: we lost landscape, farms, memory and a future for our villages.

Europe has reinforced its emergency resources, coordination and response capacity. That solidarity is essential, but we cannot limit ourselves to acting when everything is burning. The Union must continue supporting surveillance, forest management, paths, water points and cooperation between administrations.

But Europe cannot replace the responsibility of Member States, which must turn European funds into concrete actions on the ground. And Spain has not made sufficient use of these resources.

Prevention may not offer great photographs, but it saves homes, jobs, hectares and lives. The resources exist; what is lacking is political will and management capacity to act during winter and spring, before regretting in summer what was not done in time.

Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to encourage honourable Members to support the Commission Delegated Act on indirect land-use change and to vote against the tabled objection.

In the latest review, it was found that both palm oil and soy beans qualify as feedstock with a high risk of indirect land-use change and therefore the Commission was obliged to revise the delegated act accordingly. This Delegated Act is supported by robust scientific analysis and latest available data and is legally required by the legislative framework agreed by the co-legislators.

Updating the scientific data to determine which feedstocks are classified as high risk is also needed for the EU to comply with the findings in two WTO dispute settlement cases, and the WTO. Should the Delegated Act be blocked, then the EU risks being subject to substantial sanctions, which could target our agricultural exporters.

It is important to underline that the categorisation of soy beans as high-ILUC risk feedstock does not represent a ban. Member States are still free to promote and support biofuels, including from soy beans, as they consider most appropriate. Only the amount of fuels that is counted towards the targets in the Renewable Energy Directive is gradually reduced until 2030.

I would also like to stress that only a small share of biodiesel consumed in the EU is produced from soybeans and the vast majority of it is grown in third countries. Therefore, although some operators in the EU may need to adapt, the economic impact of classifying soya as high ILUC on EU producers and crushing industry should remain limited because the EU livestock sector continues to rely on soyabean and there are alternative outlets for soya oil, including food, feed and industrial uses. Strong global demand and high soyabean oil prices, together with possible lower EU imports and export opportunities, should further help limit negative effects on suppliers and the soya industry.

Independently from that, work is currently ongoing on ways to review the low ILUC-risk certification procedure, so that producers of soy beans that receive such certification will be exempted from the categorisation of a feedstock as high-ILUC risk, and we will further assess in setting-up the renewable energy framework for the decade ahead how we can further support domestic biofuel production as well as the farming sector.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, we are proceeding with a vote that represents a technical alignment for Morocco's participation in PRIMA, the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area, with a focus on water, agriculture, and food security.

This vote will guarantee its continuity until 2031, with no budgetary implications.

I also take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the ITRE Committee, who voted for the measure in committee almost unanimously.

That being said, however, I would like to broaden the reflection to the topic of agriculture, given that we cannot look at an agreement with Morocco without extending our vision to a broader framework of relations, particularly on the agricultural front.

In the last two months of 2025 alone, Morocco covered over 70% of extra-EU imports regarding tomatoes, a flow that has quadrupled over the last twenty years.

Therefore, this report would also like to open a reflection on the issue that the Commission should monitor the implementation of these types of agreements, even those referring to research and innovation, with particular attention to agricultural imports, so that the principles of reciprocity and fair competition are respected.

Mr President! We propose an amendment in the following wording (I will read it right now): "The European Parliament demands memory for the 100,000 brutally murdered Poles and Jews in the Volhynian slaughter; firmly rejects the cult of bandits from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Stepan Bandera, who are responsible for genocide and cooperation with Hitler; calls on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately cease their state commemoration and glorification; cultivating the memory of genocide perpetrators is contrary to morality and European values; therefore, we call on the Ukrainian authorities to unequivocally reject the glorification of persons responsible for genocide; emphasizes that Banderite ideology is a mirror image of Nazi ideology and - like Nazism - Banderism must be recognized as a banned ideology in the European Union."

Mr President, the prospect of Ukraine's accession to the European Union would constitute a major threat to our nations' agriculture. Our farmers have already been suffering the consequences since 2022. The liberalization of Ukrainian agricultural imports, which only the Patriots group fought against from the very start, has led to the massive influx of sugar, cereals, and poultry onto the European market, to the detriment of our producers' incomes.

Yet the Commission wants to go further. In its new vegetable protein strategy presented yesterday, it confirms its abandonment of the ambition to see European agriculture satisfy our needs for vegetable protein, in order to worsen imports from Ukraine.

I therefore propose the following amendment to create a new paragraph 32: "stresses that the Commission, in its latest protein strategy, proposes to rely on Ukraine's agricultural production capacity to remedy the shortage of vegetable protein in the Union, instead of favoring the development of European production".

Mr President, colleagues, let me move the following oral amendment:

'Welcomes the valuable talks between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Poland and Ukraine, held in Warsaw on 3 July, which demonstrated the goodwill of both sides to resolve the existing tensions before they develop into a crisis; calls for an open and constructive dialogue between the Polish and Ukrainian authorities, historians and civil societies in order to restore the indispensable trust between the two countries.'

Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to some of the chants that were uttered here from that side of the Chamber, when somebody dared to stand in opposition to one of the oral amendments. People – colleagues – were called Nazis just because they dared to have a different position on something, which is very sensitive, but we do not share the style of calling each other Nazis. Some of the real Nazis...

(Protests)

Some of the real Nazis who are present in this Chamber are never called as such during the sessions here. I have never heard anyone call each other that. I would like to ask you to identify and to sanction those who are attacking their colleagues just for their opinion here, who dare to oppose that amendment.

Mr President, on the same subject, but not at the time of the same vote, the colleague who sits at seat number 286, I believe, or 288, made an obscene gesture - made an obscene gesture! - at the time of the vote. That gesture was directed towards this part of the assembly. And that is deeply unbearable! You have the right to be Vladimir Putin's relays in this chamber, but do not behave like Russian fascists!

Mr President! Above all, thank you very much to the colleague from Germany who speaks out against colleagues being called Nazis here, because Mr Brandstätter, your kindred spirit, called me, a Czech refugee, “the friendly face of National Socialism” yesterday. I strongly reject that, and I think that should be penalised.

I will have this oral amendment, but first I have to tell you and I will do it in German – according to Rule 180, I must have the possibility to say that what he just said is not true.

Yesterday I said: There is a German member of the Bundestag from the AfD named Matthias Helferich, and he once described himself as "the friendly face of National Socialism". Matthias Helferich, member of the German Bundestag, AfD. Exactly that is what I said yesterday.

I did not say it to Mr Bystron, and therefore he has now spoken an untruth. I would ask you, Mr President, to give Mr Bystron the opportunity to apologise for his untruth.

Mr President, the official ceasefire in Gaza may have been agreed last October, but in reality the war is still continuing today. The strikes never stopped. Humanitarian access continues to face obstacles and the majority of its inhabitants remain displaced. At the same time, the situation in the West Bank is worsening. In 2026, settler violence reached unprecedented levels. New illegal settlements, destructions and seizures of property belonging to Christians and Arabs, even within the E1 corridor.

All these measures consolidate a de facto annexation with the sole aim of blocking any viable prospect for the two-state solution. For this reason, as the Socialists and Democrats group, we requested today's timely debate in plenary, as it was the only way to raise it again, because Europe cannot remain a spectator any longer to violations of international and humanitarian law. We cannot want to appear as the defenders of the international legal order while at the same time the Council of Foreign Ministers is unable to recognise reality—namely that Article 2 of the Association Agreement is being violated—and to adopt the necessary targeted sanctions against settlers and against far-right ministers of Netanyahu's government. We cannot defend the United Nations on the one hand and on the other have the Commission participate, even as an observer, in President Trump's Peace Council.

We told you, Commissioner: It was a mistake for you to go, both yours and the Commission President's who asked you to. You had no mandate to participate. Likewise, your recent visit to Israel was also very misguided. It lacked clarity and the necessary firmness towards the Netanyahu government and took place at a very wrong moment, when the Israeli government attacked the High Representative. For that reason alone, the visit should have been cancelled. When our institutional representative is attacked, silence is not neutrality, it is retreat.

Commissioner, the issue of Gaza's reconstruction and securing the conditions for a viable Palestinian state is too serious an issue to be left to a private mechanism outside the international framework. We call for a Gaza reconstruction mechanism with a central role for the United Nations, including UNRWA, where Palestinians will have the primary say. Only in this way will it be successful. Europe must not only be present, but be the driving force. It is no longer enough to simply be the largest donor of humanitarian aid in the region. We must also have the corresponding influence and participation. Someone else will not decide while we simply pay.

For this reason, I reiterate our request for an ambitious, comprehensive and coherent strategy for the Middle East that corresponds to the scale of the challenge, without double standards, with a clear voice and with political will. The President promised it to us two years ago and preliminary work has not even started yet.

Mr President, MEP Maniatis, honourable and distinguished Members, Commissioner Šuica, thank you for organising this debate on a topic that unfortunately is a recurring one for both Parliament and the Council.

Let me stress that the Irish Presidency will do its utmost to support efforts on all European Union work strands concerning the Middle East. Concerning Gaza, the European Council continues to express concerns about the lack of progress in the implementation of the ceasefire and other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2803. It called on all actors to fully implement the resolution, including the permanent disarmament of the terrorist Hamas group and other non-state armed groups, and the full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the Gaza Strip.

We remain gravely concerned over the persistent and devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel must allow immediate, unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale into and throughout Gaza. When it comes to providing support for the reconstruction and development of Gaza in line with international law, the role of international and regional stakeholders is crucial. This is why the European Union is engaging with all partners to contribute to recovery and reconstruction efforts.

Next week, on 13 July, the European Union will host the next ministerial meeting of the Palestine Donor Group in Brussels, co-chaired by the Commission and the Palestinian Authority. The European Union will also continue to support the Palestinian Authority in implementing its reform programme so that it can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza and be fully involved in its reconstruction.

Israel must also do its part to ensure the proper functioning of the Palestinian Authority. This includes the release of withheld tax revenues so that it can deliver essential services to the population. In terms of accountability, the European Union has consistently urged the Government of Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and to protect the Palestinian population of the occupied territories.

Independent and impartial investigations and prosecution of crimes are essential to achieve justice. In May 2025, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed to a review of Israel's compliance with its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU‑Israel Association Agreement. It is clear from the finalised review that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations.

Faced with continuing and growing settler violence against Palestinian civilians, which the EU strongly condemns, on 28 May the Council adopted additional restrictive measures against extremist Israeli settlers and organisations which support them under the EU global human rights sanctions regime. When the Foreign Affairs Council returns to the matter next week, ministers expect to have a discussion of options for measures related to illegal settlements, presented by the Commission.

Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this crucial issue. The persistent crisis in Gaza and in Palestine more broadly obliged us to act. During my recent visit to Ramallah, I met Palestinian Vice-President al-Sheikh and Prime Minister Mustafa. The Palestinian Authority finances were under pressure, which affected the banking sector and access to finance of the private sector.

I see some positive further steps from the Israeli side. As you know, the corresponding banking arrangements have lately been extended every two weeks. This morning, we were informed that these arrangements have been extended until the end of 2026, which is another positive sign.

Basic services such as healthcare are challenged. Rising settler violence is straining all this further. During my visit to Israel, I underlined that our partnership requires a continued open and frank dialogue. Both President Herzog and Foreign Minister Sa'ar agreed and reiterated the importance of EU-Israeli relations. We need to engage with all parties. It is important that they engage with all European interlocutors as well.

Supporting a reformed Palestinian Authority and continuing to engage with Israel are not mutually exclusive. Without a buy-in from both sides, we will not be able to deliver on our objectives; early recovery in Gaza and the financial stability of a reformed Palestinian Authority. As I spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa'ar, I told him the European Union remains strong in our support of a viable Palestinian state. There can be no just and lasting peace without it. I insisted on our collective interest in avoiding backsliding on the implementation of the Gaza peace plan, in line with the implementation of UN Secretary resolution 2803.

Early recovery in Gaza must start now, together with much more humanitarian assistance to meet the basic needs of civilians. We achieved an important step – Minister Sa'ar is open – or was open, has been open – for the European Union and its partners to initiate two critical early recovery interventions, one on solid waste management and another on water and sanitation.

This paves the way for the Palestinian donor group next week, on Monday 13 July, which I will co-chair with Prime Minister Mustafa. We are planning to bring together more than 65 delegations. We will be informed about the reform progress of the Palestinian Authority. We will also launch the Team Gaza initiative – the European Union, together with like-minded partners for early recovery in Gaza.

It is true – the situation is dire, but we are achieving real, concrete results with our diplomatic work.

Mr President, thank you very much, Mr Maniatis, I understand that you are pressed by the leadership of the socialist group – the Spanish leadership – to talk about this now. But what I don't understand – because, you know, there are some problems in Spain and the government, and this classic debate appears always out of the blue when there are problems in Spain – but what I can't understand is that in your speech, you did not mention Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Türkiye. Again, double standards. I would love to talk about the reconstruction of Gaza, please. This is what I want to talk about! But now, all the interventions will be about who is against and who is in favour, you know, instead of talking about Gaza's reconstruction. Sorry for that. This is a spoiled debate, already from the start.

I wish for accountability for everybody, for terrorists and for the massacred also. And also democracies, because they have courts of law. They have judges. I am sure there will be also investigations and prosecutions. And we will be a European state, the example of the Commissioner, she just spoke, she was there. She talked with everybody. That is the European way of doing things: talking and listening to everybody, not only to one side. Please, everybody.

Let's try for once – for once – not to be seen to be taking one or the other side. Accountability is for everybody. That's what Europe has to do. And these kind of debates – again, where some of you will speak about one side, the others will speak about the other – are not going to solve any of the problems of the region. I think that we have to take seriously, for once in this Parliament, these kind of debates and that we really have these European solutions, these pragmatic solutions. Thank you very much for that, Commissioner. I think it was very welcome, your visit and the results. Let's hope that all of us will make a little effort not to be biased for once, and to talk about the real reconstruction of Gaza and the humanitarian help that this European Union has to provide. I am on board. I am on board. Thank you very much.

Mr President, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so on. We mention it, but let us move on to today's topic, which is Israel's responsibility.

Commissioner Šuica, you told me on a few occasions: will there be money for reconstruction? There are different budget lines to draw money from. I believe that creating a mechanism for Gaza gives external visibility to our commitment. Therefore, I beg you to re-examine the possibility of, instead of taking money from various budget lines, creating this mechanism that our Group is asking you for.

Let us put an end to double standards. We are talking all day about Russia's responsibility in the reconstruction of Ukraine. Why is it so difficult to talk about Israel's responsibility in the reconstruction of Gaza? Is it not the same violation of international law that we have witnessed? Therefore, Israel must be demanded the same things that we demand of Russia.

Commissioner, I do not blame you. You have been sent to the Peace Board. Ms Von der Leyen has sent you to greet genocidal ministers. I understand that you are a team. Please, Commissioner, when you have to greet those ministers, show some discomfort at being in that role.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Let us note that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Let us also note – even if you laugh – that Israel is surrounded by half a billion Muslims, where there is a great deal of threat. Let us also note that on this 7th of October 2023, the most brutal attack ever took place against Israel, with over 1,200 dead, where civilians were used as human shields. I know that you like to laugh, but that is a fact. Let us also note that we know the European Union has pumped funds into the Gaza Strip via UNRWA and that these funds ended up in Hamas's terror kitchens. That is the wrong path.

People like Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar and also the Americans are right: these terrorist organizations must finally be disarmed. A demilitarization of this region must take place, and only then, and after it is ensured that Israel retains its right to existence and defense, can one talk about corresponding aid.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, today the international community is called upon to face two inseparable challenges.

The first is to guarantee immediate humanitarian assistance to the civilian population, the second is to ensure that October 7 remains confined to history and never again marks the future of the Middle East.

The first requires ensuring full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access, so that aid quickly reaches those who need it, without being intercepted or exploited by terrorist organisations.

The second requires a long-term political vision. The reconstruction of Gaza must be accompanied by the dismantling of terrorist networks and every form of extremism that has fueled hatred and violence.

Europe must lead this process by mobilizing the tools already available to rebuild hospitals, schools and essential infrastructure and create the conditions for lasting economic growth, because the stability of the Mediterranean also passes through the stability of Gaza, and a decisive part of Europe's security and prosperity passes through the stability of the Mediterranean.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Madam Commissioner, the world spends more on weapons in one single day than it spends on tackling sexual violence as a weapon of war in an entire year. For the first time, the UN has listed Israeli forces among the parties suspected of conflict‑related sexual violence. At the same time, the UN has recorded, colleagues, the highest number of grave violations against children ever verified. More than 2 700 Palestinian children have been killed.

When we ask for justice, we are told this conflict is a difficult issue. Yes, for many Member States, it is. But that cannot be an excuse for silence. Europe must defend international law every time, everywhere. I repeat my goal for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Europe, it is time to act.

Mr. President! The theme of the debate today is the reconstruction of Gaza, and I say this for the information of the right wing, which would rather discuss all sorts of other things. But even more importantly: respect for human life and human dignity must be restored.

More than 70,000 people are confirmed dead. Nothing in this world—not even Hamas's horrific terror attack—justifies the killing of many innocent people and the keeping of more than 2 million people in a catastrophic situation.

Many thousands lie hidden—but not forgotten—under the rubble. They are now experiencing living in chaos, garbage, polluted water, and pests. The EU and the EU member states know well what is happening. We know well what is happening, not only here, but also in the West Bank. Even without access to international journalists, we know what is happening.

We talk about freedom, about peace. We talk about respect and justice. But we still trade with illegal settlements. We still have an association agreement that even has human rights written in as a precondition.

Our paralysis is a moral stain.

A Uachtaráin, the people of Gaza have now suffered more than 1 000 days of genocide, 1 000 days of mass murder, starvation and an international community that's too cowardly to hold Israel accountable. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestine Territory has found that Israel continues to commit genocide and deliberately targets Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank.

This is the rogue State that, according to the European Commission, is a close ally – this rogue State! We stand here and we talk about reconstruction and pretend that the genocide is over, when it continues. We need sanctions, a two-way arms embargo, suspension of the association agreement, a ban on trade with the illegal settlements and full, unequivocal support for UNWRA.

Before we even talk about reconstruction in Gaza, how about we talk about the fact that Israel has destroyed at least EUR 150 million of EU-funded infrastructure, and has not paid back a single cent? When is the Commission going to recover our taxpayers' money? When are they going to release the documents that relate to the destruction of EU-funded infrastructure in Gaza? Because the public has a right to know how much Israel is costing them.

Finally, the EU must urgently act to secure the immediate release of Doctor Hussam Abu Safiya, who has been arbitrarily detained by Israel since December 2024. He has been beaten, he has been tortured, he is at risk of death – free Doctor Hussam Abu Safiya!

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, Europe has been engaged for decades in providing humanitarian aid and basic social services to the people of Gaza. Recent initiatives by Commissioner Šuica, including the convening of donor conferences, demonstrate Europe's continued strong commitment, even at a time when equally devastating humanitarian catastrophes in Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan demand our attention.

But reconstruction cannot simply mean rebuilding buildings. It must mean building a future in which Hamas can never again use civilian infrastructure as a base for terror, store weapons in schools or hospitals, or divert international assistance for its own extremist Islamist purposes. The reality is that Hamas has never respected and never will respect international law. On the contrary, its ideology is built on a cult of death and martyrdom in which individual human lives are meaningless, and the highest civilian death toll is cynically exploited to preserve its grip on power.

For us Europeans and for our partner Israel, international law matters because we have committed ourselves to it. But it is also clear that international law alone does not always provide solutions when dealing with terrorist organisations or violent and oppressive regimes. This is why we must urgently advance the implementation of the political process laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 2803.

Hamas announcing its withdrawal from Gaza's civil administration opens a critical window. The apolitical, technocratic National Committee for the Administration of Gaza can assume its responsibilities. The EU police training mission can help restore public order and improve security for civilians. And the CMCC is fully operational to coordinate stabilisation and relief efforts.

Mr President, while Israel continues with oppression and occupation, generations of Palestinians are paying the price. Yet every time until now, our European Union has failed to act properly.

Too many in this House, especially in the centre-right and the far-right side, chose to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing. And you play the fourth monkey, through crossing your arms and thinking that you are not doing any evil. Let me be clear: inaction is action, and that choice has consequences. You even attack vital organisations such as UNRWA with baseless allegations, making yourself Netanyahu's and Hamas's useful idiots.

The EU does not suffer from a lack of solutions; the EU suffers from a lack of political courage. What more should Israel do for enough to be enough? Should it commit the genocide? Let me remind you: it has already done that. Can we start acting now and suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement?

Commissioner, with all due respect, I don't know what steps you mean the Israeli Government has taken. The only steps I have seen until now are steps into other countries.

Mr. President, honourable members, the title of this debate, to begin with, is deceitful: it judges Israel's responsibility and omits that of the culprit. Any serious debate requires starting from the truth and here some groups have installed themselves in deliberate lies.

Three facts are ignored over and over again. First, if we talk about rebuilding Gaza, it is because Hamas decided to destroy it. On October 7, 2023, a terrorist organization murdered more than 1,200 people, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. And whoever omits this responsibility is not looking for peace, but an alibi.

Second, the European Commission and some Member States —headed by the corrupt Spanish socialist Government— continue to finance UNRWA, whose employees were involved in the massacre.

Third, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of every State to self-defense. To every State, including Israel.

For this reason, we demand the immediate suspension of all funding to UNRWA and that not a single euro be disbursed...

(the president withdraws the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, if it is difficult to see perspective anywhere, it is certainly in Gaza. Two million Palestinians live in appalling conditions, in a completely hopeless situation. It is all Israel's fault, many say, but of course that is not true. Certainly, Israel must make maximum efforts to get humanitarian aid to the affected population. But how can we possibly blame Israel for trying to get Hamas under control? That brings us to the core of the problem: Hamas's refusal to lay down its arms. How can the EU then help with reconstruction? I would say: let us concentrate on Hamas-free areas. In any case, make sure that not a single euro gets into the hands of Hamas, because as long as this terrorist organisation is still in charge, the situation as it is now will remain completely hopeless.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, I was asking myself what kind of a charade is this? Rebuilding Gaza, really? For 1 000 days, the Palestinians in Gaza have been enduring unimaginable suffering, and they have not even elected the despicable terrorist organisation Hamas, still, they are paying the price for this narrative that is broadcasted in Europe – somehow it is still connected.

1 000 days of killings, even during the so-called ceasefire! Nothing seems to get a grip on us as Europeans. We are still unable to take any concrete action. Why haven't we suspended the agreement with Israel? Why haven't we forbidden imports from illegal settlements? Why haven't we acted? We still just speak these big words while 73 000 Palestinians have been killed, children have lost their limbs in thousands and many of them have been operated on without anaesthesia. Somewhere there has to be a heart – even in you, even in you! Somewhere there has to be a heart.

Mr President, dear colleagues, grand statements do not resolve complex crises. It has been nine months since Trump declared a ceasefire for Gaza. Since then, more than 1 000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 60 % of Gaza is controlled by the Israeli military – with Netanyahu pushing for 70 % – and families forced to flee again and again.

An illegitimate so-called 'peace board' is to govern Gaza, without any role for Palestinians. Rafah never fully reopened, aid deliveries still severely restricted: this is not peace. This is war disguised as peace – and Netanyahu wants to keep it this way.

So where is Europe? How much longer will we hide behind constructive dialogue, when all it has delivered is nothing? The Commission put measures on the table almost a year ago: partial suspension of the Association Agreement, sanctions, trade measures. Let's finally take these steps and stop treating the status quo as a solution. Because it's not!

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, a question: does Donald Trump have your phone number? Does he call you like he calls the president of FIFA? I don't know, tell us what those conversations are like. Does Donald Trump call you to support genocide, to support the illegal occupation of the West Bank? Does he call you when children are going to be burned alive or simply calls you to keep quiet and pay for his wars while he bombs half the world?

Because that is what people see, Commissioner, that there is a small group of very dangerous men who are destroying the world for business and whom no one is stopping. And there is a problem because, right now, answering Trump's phone calls is turning him into the owner of Europe and you into accomplices to his crimes.

Do something now: stop the genocide, break off relations with the terrorist State of Israel. It is your obligation. Stop answering Donald Trump's phone calls. Hang up the phone on him!

Mr President, dear Christian Democrats, dear Christian patriots, dear leaders of the EU, you are hypocrites. And you will probably end in hell. It is the Vatican, not me, who is saying: 'If a country is an enemy, it is condemned as undemocratic and sanctioned in various ways; but if it is an ally, the fact that it lacks freedom of expression, human rights or democracy is ignored.'

The EU chose as an ally the genocidal regime of Netanyahu. By doing that, we alienated the majority of Global South, including the Arab world, and lost any credibility regarding international law.

Please note that I don't speak about Israel or about the Jews. It is not about a country, and it is not at all about race. It is about a genocidal regime. The EU should denounce Netanyahu and his ministers as war criminals, which they are, now, or bear the mark of Cain of utter hypocrisy.

Mr President, my dear colleagues, reconstruction is an important step towards providing the people of Gaza with the prospect of returning to a semblance of normal life. Hopefully, it is soon possible.

The EU conducted an assessment in April, together with the World Bank and the United Nations, finding out that we would need USD 71.4 billion to rebuild the Palestinian enclave. Reconstruction must go far beyond rebuilding roads, hospitals and schools. It must restore hope and the foundation of a lasting peace.

The European Union is already the largest humanitarian donor to the Palestinians – it has to be mentioned. However, its construction also needs accountability. Therefore, I think the terror organisation of Hamas cannot play any role in the future of Gaza. The European Union must still support its two-state solution, enabling Palestine and Israel to coexist.

Mr President, yesterday, Hamas announced that it had dissolved its own government and had agreed to give up its role into the hands of the Palestinian Authority. It's the beginning of a big change yet doubts and fear in this moment are bigger than satisfaction in the Middle East.

The fear is that Hamas is going to apply the Hezbollah model: separation between administration and military wing. The suspicion is sustained by the fact that it has said nothing about the future of the military wing. On the other hand, the Board of Peace is a lost case – it has proved to be an ineffective, slow institution.

So I think these things can work in this moment. It is a very critical moment – new protagonists, new power, new country. Europe, especially, should act very fast and insert itself into this process. So it's time for Europe to step up, but very fast, Commissioner, with an independent, fully diplomatic initiative. We have the contacts, the people and the money to get it.

Mr President, dear leftists, when you talk about accountability, perhaps you should first look at yourselves. For years, you have been very consistent in your support for terrorist-led regime, demanding impossible standards of proof from Israel while accepting Hamas propaganda without any scepticism.

Let me be absolutely clear: Europe must never spend a single euro rebuilding what Hamas will simply use for the next war. We have already once paid for tunnels, rocket infrastructure and a terrorist regime.

So if you want accountability under international law, start with the organisation that started the war and massacred civilians. Before you say another word about reconstruction, make sure first that the Islamist terrorists are wiped out for good.

Mr President, in the reconstruction of Gaza culminate all the problems we can imagine: the number of victims, which number in the tens of thousands, the mitigation of the humanitarian catastrophe that is still raging. The question of responsibility for the present situation is not only that of Netanyahu's government, but also that of Hamas and its Iranian guardianship, without wishing to remain silent about those who in no way want to accept the two-state solution,

The European Union, for its part, remains divided on the advisability of implementing the few means at its disposal to influence the course of events – this has been seen before. We suffer from a lack of authority, and we are respected by neither side. As long as we afford ourselves the luxury of division, we will remain a powerless observer of the situation in the Middle East. And the only thing we will be asked to do is pay: "Player or payer. That’s the question."

'Player or payer?' That's the question.

Mr President, a few months ago, I stood in the occupied West Bank, and around me was the rubble of what was once a community centre. The family next door were next – their house was next to go. And right there, there was still a children's playground with a shiny blue EU plaque. I wonder how many of those plaques are buried under the destruction of the genocide in Gaza.

Israel has destroyed more than EUR 150 million of EU-funded infrastructure there and in the West Bank, and the reconstruction of Gaza might cost up to EUR 70 billion in the next decade. When will we demand that Israel pay for the destruction that they caused? Yes, we must act swiftly to ensure humanitarian aid and reconstruct Gaza – we need to do this together with Palestinians and by recognising the irreplaceable role of UNWRA. But without accountability, we risk rebuilding today what Israel will destroy again tomorrow.

It's time for accountability – on Monday, finally, stop trade with illegal settlements, suspend the association agreement, introduce proper sanctions and support the ICC, because words will not rebuild Gaza, only actions will.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, after over 1,000 days of ethnic cleansing, 75,000 confirmed deaths, millions of displaced people, this Parliament still does not condemn the Israeli genocide.

And, to clear your conscience, you propose a debate on the role of the European Union in the reconstruction of Gaza. But, I say, with what courage, honestly?

There are thousands of human beings who remain trapped in an open-air death camp, killed by hunger, disease or the democratic bombs of Tel Aviv.

The European Union, in reality, today is the doormat of Trump and Netanyahu: from Tajani with the MAGA hat, to Meloni and von der Leyen, to the "Board of Peace", you race to kneel before the United States, incapable even of defending the judges of the International Criminal Court or the rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

To save the dignity of the Union there is only one way: suspend the association agreement with Israel and sanction the Netanyahu government. The rest is just shameful hypocrisy.

Mr President, genocide with over 73,000 dead Palestinians, the flattening of Gaza, a partition plan and generalised colonisation in the West Bank with a historic high in the murder of children: unpunished serial crimes of the occupying state of Israel, with an additional attack on Iran and an invasion of Lebanon and Syria.

At the same time, you reward with provocative immunity visits like that of the Commission to Israel, military and commercial agreements from the complicit United States, European Union, NATO and the Greek government. The supposed American peace plan, as well as the corresponding NATO "Eastern Mediterranean Gate" plan, orchestrated at the gathering in Ankara, promote the energy and trade routes of Euro-Atlantic interests in the competition with China and Russia.

Nevertheless, developments have proven that imperialism is not invincible. You are not all-powerful, because you have neither brought the Palestinian people nor the people of Iran to their knees. Through internationalist solidarity and their independent struggle, the Palestinian people have the power to enforce their right to an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on the '67 borders.

A Uachtaráin, the Commission estimates that rebuilding Gaza will cost USD 71 billion. For decades, the EU has funded schools, hospitals, water networks, community centres in Palestine – many of them now destroyed. We must ask ourselves why the European Union has become remarkably consistent in financing the foundations of Palestinian life, while displaying far less determination in holding accountable those who systematically dismantle them.

The EU has a moral responsibility to help rebuild Gaza, but it must also go hand in hand with accountability. UNRWA – the only organisation with the capacity to respond at this scale on the ground – has become a scapegoat, while the real questions go unanswered.

What has the so-called Board of Peace delivered? Without a two-state solution, we'll find ourselves funding the reconstruction of Gaza again and again. Europe must help build not only infrastructure, but also the conditions for a just and lasting peace.

Mr President, Commissioner, once again, this Parliament is debating on Gaza while the humanitarian catastrophe continues to deepen. Despite the so-called peace agreement, civilians continue to suffer, humanitarian access remains severely restricted and there is still no credible political horizon.

At the same time, the West Bank faces unprecedented settler violence and de facto annexation. Lebanon continues to suffer repeated violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the recent conflict with Iran has once again demonstrated how volatile the regional security environment remains.

And what is the European strategy? We don't have a holistic approach on militias, disarmament, Hamas, Hezbollah, territorial integrity, borders being part of a peace agreement, being on the table to negotiate. We need a comprehensive Middle East strategy that matches all these challenges. Our credibility depends on how we apply international law and humanitarian law.

The foundation of a credible European foreign policy, particularly on the Middle East and Europe, has often failed. We need to act (inaudible) reconstruction in Gaza. And it's not about the Israeli population; we need them on board, but we need to stop the impunity of the killing of the Netanyahu government. Let us act once and for all.

Mr President, colleagues, some of you are talking about the reconstruction of Gaza as if the need arose from a natural disaster. Gaza was destroyed, and that destruction has a name: 'genocide'. It is astonishing that some still spend more energy avoiding that specific word rather than condemning what is happening – true champions of justice and peace, indeed.

Now, one thing is to pay the bills, but what about accountability for those responsible? If we rebuild the infrastructure but fail to defend international law, we will soon be facing the rubble again. That's precisely why it is even more shameful that the new Slovenian Prime Minister, Janez Janša, is talking about relocating the Slovenian embassy to Jerusalem as a manoeuvre of his political alignment alongside Netanyahu. At a time when we should be defending international law, he is relativising it, choosing political loyalty.

So once and for all, make up your mind – not between when international law is politically convenient or not, but decide whether you will stand up for the values you so often speak about, or you will continue to help finance the consequences of your own silence. I am not speaking only about...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, dear colleagues, Madam Commissioner, the Israeli Foreign Minister insults Kaja Kallas, the head of European diplomacy, and four days later you run to Tel Aviv to shake his hand, no doubt with Ursula von der Leyen's approval. The signal sent is disastrous, and your contempt for European credibility is total. To make the absurdity absolute, you add that Israel is a key partner.

Ms Šuica, Israel is blocking the humanitarian aid and medicines that you are sending to Gaza, Israel is razing infrastructure funded by the European Union while ignoring your requests for reimbursement, Israel is pursuing an assumed apartheid policy, war crimes in Lebanon and a genocide in Gaza, despite your calls for peace.

Ms Šuica, I need to understand: when were our treaties amended to authorize you to free yourself and free European foreign policy from international law and the values of the European Union? What are the criteria now, what are your criteria for qualifying a key partner or...

(The President cuts off the speaker's microphone)

Mr President, honourable members, rebuilding Gaza is not just a matter of dedicating resources to make it habitable again — though it is that too —, but of ensuring that Palestinian men and women are the sole owners and rulers of that territory. How we do it, how Europe acts and exerts pressure so that Gaza does not become a luxury resort for millionaires without empathy or shame.

Gaza is no man's land, it is part of the Palestinian nation and, therefore, it is up to Palestinians alone to decide, starting with the terms of the reconstruction and ending with the exercise of the right to decide, with the right to self-determination of the people of Palestine.

Anyone else who arrogates that competence to themselves to the detriment of the Palestinian people will always face our rejection and denunciation. And that should also be the Union's attitude in defence of international legality.

To date, Palestine remains the target of a planned genocide that has cost more than 70,000 lives. Standing on the right side of history requires the immediate suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and providing political cover to the International Criminal Court, particularly regarding the arrest warrants against the perpetrators of the Palestinian genocide.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner! Somehow all previous speakers are a little bit right, but that will not actually help the people in Gaza. Reconstruction—and I think we are all clear on that—will only be possible within the framework of a political, fundamental pacification of the conflict for all involved. The EU has the role of the central financial and diplomatic supporter, while Israel, under international law as an occupying power, would be primarily responsible for the provision and reconstruction of civilian infrastructure. In reality, the exact opposite is happening—and peace is far away.

Meanwhile, the EU must continue to try, in cooperation with all actors, to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and try to save the wounded of the Gaza war. We should consider whether we should quickly redirect the funds for the Rafah Border Mission to the hospitals of the West Bank and Jordan in order to provide practical help.

Last week I witnessed the evacuation of the wounded and their relatives via Jordan to Spain and Turkey. Thank you Spain, thank you Jordan, thank you Turkey!

Let us be the EU that is the family of nations that cares for the weak, the disenfranchised, the cheated, and the suffering wounded!

Mr President! The EU is the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, and ahead of next week's meeting of the Palestinian donor group, it must be crystal clear that financial support requires concrete reforms. Without results, there are no conditions for a lasting peace.

First, Hamas must be disarmed and comprehensive deradicalization carried out in Gaza. School education must be reformed so that antisemitism, glorification of terrorism, and martyrdom are not passed on to the next generation.

Last year, the PA paid the equivalent of 156 million US dollars in compensation and benefits to terrorists and their families within the framework of pay to slay. This, too, must cease immediately.

If these conditions do not change, the two-state solution will remain an illusion. The Commission must be crystal clear: missing reforms will have tangible economic consequences. European taxpayers' money must never be used to finance or reward terrorism.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, in Gaza, the ceasefire only exists on paper. The strikes continue. They kill 125 Palestinians every month. The Israeli army has not withdrawn; it controls 60% of the Gaza Strip.

So, in this Parliament, our group has to insist at every plenary session just so that we can debate what is happening in Palestine. Every discussion is systematically blocked by the right-wing and far-right groups. Why? How can one be so blind to human suffering and injustice?

It has been said: it took the Israeli government a few hours to break off relations with the High Representative of the European Union, Kaja Kallas, because she denounced the apartheid regime in the West Bank. But we have been procrastinating for years, without suspending the association agreement with Israel. We still have not condemned the law on the reinstatement of the death penalty in Israel, designed to apply only to Palestinians, and still have not protected the International Criminal Court against US sanctions.

This complicit inaction is that of the European political rights, which history will judge. There are elections in a few months in Palestine and in Israel. A new generation can come to power to finally work for justice, equal rights and peace. We must act now.

Mr President, dear colleagues, international law is the foundation of peace and security. When we weaken it, we all become less secure. That is why, first, Europe should be sceptical of the so-called Board of Peace. Lasting peace depends on strong institutions and clear rules that provide legitimacy, predictability and accountability. Europe should never accept their replacement by alternative and personalised structures that lack a sound foundation in international law.

Second, the same principles must guide our approach to Gaza. We should support Israel's right to self-defence. At the same time, all violations of international humanitarian law must be investigated and those responsible held accountable. The independence of the International Criminal Court should be respected. Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice have to be respected as well.

Third, the reconstruction of Gaza cannot succeed while Hamas remains an armed force. It has no role in Gaza's future. The real test is not declarations, but genuine disarmament.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, do you want to know how we can oppose and ensure the reconstruction of Gaza, peace?

We must oppose the occupation. We must oppose genocide. Responsibility must be assigned before speaking of reconstruction.

The United Nations have told us: Israel has deliberately killed children, Israel is committing genocide.

And where are these criminals now? They are in Gaza. They decide what goes in and what goes out, who goes in and who goes out. They are in the West Bank, where they make deals with settlers to steal Palestinian land, capture them and brutally kill them.

Israel is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza continue to die among rats, without water, in the ruins, under the bombs, among the bodies of their loved ones.

And what are we doing? We continue to do business with war criminals, with a genocidal government, we continue to treat them as allies.

Enough! We must cut ties with Israel.

But what reconstruction are you talking about? Trump's, who wants to build a resort there, or Netanyahu's, who wants to annex it to Israel? Or the colonial project of the Board of Peace in which Europe has shamefully participated?

(The President cuts off the speaker's microphone)

Mr. President! Commissioner! The UN is sounding the alarm that Israel is deliberately attacking and killing Palestinian children. These are children who are sleeping, children who are playing, children who are fleeing, children who are targets. Can you look your children in the eye and say that you have done everything in your power to stop the genocide? Can you?

People demonstrating in the streets and squares have significantly more civil courage than the spineless political elite that continues time and time again to protect the war criminal Netanyahu. The world sees this complicity. You knew everything and you did nothing.

Stop the trade agreement with Israel and bring the murderers to justice.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, this crisis must not be forgotten. Hamas is still around in Gaza. It is not yet gone. People are still under pressure. This terrorist organisation even was not ashamed to put children on the line, to put women on the line, to put their own civil society, the civil population, at risk. And they are still around.

So I can only one more time advocate for deweaponising the terrorist organisation, demilitarising Gaza, creating proper education towards a proper civil society without hatred, antisemitism, Islamism, creating a precondition for economic self-capability so that one day it will not be necessary anymore that the whole world pours money into the region.

And when development aid is given, not one single cent must be misused for hatred, for Islamism, for antisemitism, because that means pouring hatred into even children's hearts, which leads again to such an outrageous violence such as in 7 October.

Mr President, how can this Commission still look itself in the eye. How do our heads of government actually do that? While Gaza is being buried alive and the West Bank is being swallowed up, settlement by settlement. And that in real time before our eyes. And let us also stop saying that this is a complicated story. It is not. The violence is unlawful, the occupation is unlawful, the settlements are illegal.

The United Nations tell us that, the International Court of Justice has said so and that must also continue to resound loudly and clearly from the European Union. And yet nothing happens. And that has a name: complicity. Completely suspend that association agreement, ban trade in products from illegal settlements and expand those sanctions. This Commission once wanted to be a geopolitical Commission. Europe wants to play an important role on the geopolitical stage. Well, then do something. Words are not enough. Free Palestine. Now.

Mr President, humanitarian aid has been weaponised and politicised, 90 % of Gaza destroyed, 60 % of Gaza occupied, continual encroachments into the West Bank, aggressive actions by settlers being facilitated by the Netanyahu government and the Israeli Defence Forces. Fundamental breaches of international law, refusal to accept decisions of the International Criminal Court. At the same time, we are here in the House today debating the EU's role and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and accountability of Israel under international law.

But maybe it's time that we started looking for accountability among ourselves, because we have consistently turned a blind eye to Israel in all its actions with regard to Palestine. No acceptance of the two-state solution, no acceptance of the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Israel acts with impunity because we have granted it immunity. We simply will never sanction any action that Israel does. So the accountability should start here in this House, in the European Union, and particularly among the Council.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I have to confess something to you. After Gaza, after a thousand days of genocide, I am a different person. No one can live with so much horror without changing their way of being in the world, of seeing themselves and humanity.

Today we are debating Israel, but in reality we are debating ourselves. It happened and it can happen again. Primo Levi warned us after Auschwitz. And what did we tell him? No, never again... we promised. We lied. It is happening again. And you take pictures with those responsible.

Are we better than those who looked the other way when Jews like Primo Levi were being deported? We are worse, because now we cannot say that we did not know, nor even that we did not participate. When we ask who the bell tolls for, it tolls for us.

What will become of us after Gaza, Madam Commissioner? The darkest places in hell await us: the right —which is not here today— for its participation in genocide, for dehumanising itself, and us for not preventing it.

Mr President, Commissioner Šuica, as we discuss the reconstruction of Gaza, the destruction on the ground continues.

The ceasefire is a lie. Israel continues to murder Palestinians, to prevent the entry of the humanitarian aid they need, to attack camps of displaced Palestinians, to destroy civil infrastructure, some of it built with European Union funding.

While we discuss here holding Israel accountable for violations of international law, the European Union maintains its full complicity in the genocide. The Commissioner went to Israel to reaffirm that political, economic and even military cooperation relations with Israel continue at full steam: the most obvious proof of the European Union's complicity in the genocide is right here.

Not even the report by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which denounces the genocide and crimes committed by Israel against children, makes the European Union blush with shame and reverse its path.

But that must be the direction: to guarantee respect for the rights of the Palestinian people, to put an end to the genocide.

Mr President, colleagues, I asked to speak in this debate on behalf of the young people I meet in Malta. Young people tell me, "We are sick of double standards, we are sick of European hypocrisy." I want the prosperity of the Palestinian people just as much as I want the security of the Israelis in their home. But the biggest contribution we want to make to both is to insist on legality. That is why we can no longer continue to support a trade agreement as we currently have with Israel. As if nothing is the matter.

President von der Leyen in this same plenary here, promised us a suspension of this agreement. What happened in the meantime? We got stuck in a deadlock between governments. Believe me, my friends, I am ashamed to explain this situation to my fourteen-year-old son. I am ashamed to say that Europe is completely impotent. We have a credibility crisis which we will get out of by having accountable reconstruction that neither serves Hamas nor serves to rebuild buildings to be destroyed again...

(The President withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, the situation in Gaza is dire. But we must also draw attention to the situation of the West Bank, where Israeli forces are actively cooperating with the violent settlers, ignoring court decisions and international law, and facilitating attacks on innocent Palestinian families. From the beginning of the war, settlers and the IDF have killed at least 1 160 Palestinians in the West Bank, including 242 children – children, colleagues, while simply living on their own land.

This is why I strongly condemn any tolerance and support for Israeli violations, including dangerous threats by the new Slovenian Government and President of the Government Janez Janša, member of the EPP, to move the Slovenian embassy to Jerusalem. This not only shows the one-eighty overnight shift in Slovenian foreign policy but also deviates from the official EU position.

Colleagues, the EU will retake a test of principles on Monday. To pass, we must suspend the EU‑Israel Association Agreement.

Mr President, before I came to this Parliament, I was a schoolteacher in Germany. And back in my home country, we make sure children deeply study the darkest chapter of our past so they never, ever question the horrors of what happened.

But we only succeed as educators if we get students to think beyond the specifics of one era. Because that's exactly what people do to avoid accountability: they hide behind the specifics of the moment to justify looking away at today's crimes.

But history is not a museum piece; it's a life lesson in human dignity. And the hardest part is recognising suffering when it wears a different face in a different era. True reconstruction begins with the courage to apply international law equally. If we don't ask for accountability now from the perpetrator of this genocide, we have failed the most fundamental lesson of our recent history.

Mr President, we are talking about the reconstruction of Gaza as if a natural disaster has taken place. But the reality is different: as part of a genocidal campaign, Israel has razed 85% of Gaza to the ground. There is a ceasefire on paper, so reconstruction should be possible and humanitarian aid should be possible. But that obscures reality. Also, since that ceasefire, more than a thousand Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured. And the aid that does get in is insufficient and restricted by absurd limitations. Prosthetics are being withheld as military equipment. Just this week, aid workers were exposed to airstrikes. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to speak about reconstruction and have a decent conversation about it. The policy of the Israeli government has not changed. As long as Europe blindly lets this happen, proudly talking about the European commitment to reconstruction and humanitarian aid is nothing more than a fig leaf. The Palestinian people deserve reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Therefore, the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel must be suspended.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, I have been with other parliamentarians in the West Bank, in the occupied territories.

As soon as we arrived in the city of Hebron, we saw a curve where we were told there were still bloodstains of some Palestinians killed a few days earlier, and we asked: "Why don't you turn to justice?" "No, because we do not have normal justice. We have military justice, and the first thing they would do would be to come and destroy our house."

I saw a baby who did not have an incubator: born underweight, he was in a shoebox with cotton; a bride who was crying because, behind her, her house was destroyed for security reasons.

We cannot continue in this way. I saw that people treated exactly as the Jews were treated during the Second World War.

We must sanction Israel, break off all contact with Israel, because Israel listens, at this moment, with its government, only to force.

Mr President, the International Court of Justice was clear: Israel has obligations. It must guarantee the essentials for the survival of the population of Gaza. It must let aid in, without exceptions. Furthermore, the Court rejected with facts the excuses used to block that very aid.

A Court decision that is not complied with is not just an ignored decision. It is international law called into question, and those who violate international law must answer for it before justice and before History.

There can be no impunity. There can be no rules for some, exceptions for others. History will judge not only those who violated human rights, but those who stood by and said nothing.

Enough words without consequences! It is time to suspend the European Union-Israel Association Agreement!

cannot look the other way while denouncing what is happening in Gaza. While we call for international law to be applied in Ukraine, but we do not apply it with the same firmness in Palestine, the world understands a terrible thing: that in Europe not all lives are worth the same.

This double standard is destroying our credibility and our dignity. Gaza has gone from being an open-air prison —as Borrell said— to an open-air cemetery. And when in a few years my son asks me what Europe did to stop the genocide in Gaza I want to tell him that we did not look the other way. Therefore, Europe must act now, it must call for an immediate ceasefire, the end of the occupation, but today we ask the Ministers for Foreign Affairs for an urgent measure: that the EU-Israel Association Agreement be suspended.

Because when Europe remains silent in the face of Gaza, it not only loses its credibility, but also its soul.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, you just saw a lucky mother with her excellent child. But unfortunately in Gaza the hospitals are destroyed. Hospitals are not battlefields; yet in Gaza, the basic principle of humanity has been broken for too long, colleagues.

Since the October ceasefire, the strikes have not stopped and humanitarian access remains conditional and obstructed, colleagues. I am speaking with you, the representatives from the Council, colleagues, now.

Children are dying not only from bombs, but from the collapse of hospitals and the healthcare system. Now you see the contrast between those two examples.

And of course, you know, this is not a side issue to the political debate. A ceasefire that still allows a hospital to run out of oxygen is not peace, it's a crime. And we need to stop it immediately. And it's up to us now to send a clear message to the Council: please act.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, stability in the Middle East is of utmost importance. For European security and stability but, most importantly, of course, for the people who have been suffering too much and for too long. The only viable way to long-term stability is the two-state solution. What does this mean, a two-state solution? It means two fully democratic states holding regular and free elections, meaning no space for religious extremists on all sides. No Hamas nor Orthodox extremists, which also includes the settlers in the West Bank.

With the newest reports coming now from Gaza, a clear European position for a two-state solution is essential. We cannot leave rebuilding to the United States under Donald Trump. We need to stand on the side of human rights, of international law and the people hoping for peace and prosperity in this region.

Mr President, 73 000 Palestinians have been killed. Among them, 21 000 kids; 10 000 kids have suffered life-changing injuries; 60 000 kids have lost one or both of their parents. Hundreds of journalists have been killed. Hundreds of thousands of homes have been completely damaged or totally destroyed. So when this genocide is being perpetrated, settler violence still continues to this very day. Land is stolen. Families are beaten. Children are being terrorised.

Now, let's be honest: no horror will ever justify another. But what if these were Ukrainian kids or Ukrainian families? What if this genocide was being perpetrated by the Iranian regime? This Chamber would not be empty as it is today. It would roar. It would call it for what it is.

So please spare us the empty speeches, especially from the right side of this House, because there is no reconstruction without justice. There is no reconstruction without a Palestinian state. Israel has every right to exist, but so does Palestine. And recognising the right of the Palestinian people is no punishment against Israel; it is the rightful recognition of the Palestinian people. So end the EU-Israel Association Agreement now.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, the genocide in Gaza has never ended.

The words of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Pizzaballa, are like stones: water, food and medicine are lacking, rats are biting children, while people die.

Hamas appears to be open to the transfer of civil administration, but not to disarmament. And in the meantime, there is talk of deploying a Moroccan contingent.

Trump's plan is advancing in the vacuum left by Europe, but the reconstruction of Gaza must be under the aegis of the United Nations and its agencies, such as UNRWA.

This is why we need to send clear messages now, in the face of the drift of the Israeli government. I appeal first and foremost to the Italian government, to Giorgia Meloni: have the courage, for once, and lift the veto on the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and recognise the State of Palestine as Italy. It is necessary that at least the commercial part of the agreements be suspended, as we have asked in this Parliament.

Europe must break with the double standard and do what is necessary to restore dignity and freedom to the Palestinians.

Stop the genocide, stop terrorism, stop violence. Let us work together for reconstruction and peace.

Mr President, Minister Byrne, I have a simple question: what do we mean when we say 'respect for human rights'? It is the foundation of our European project and a legal obligation under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. It doesn't mean the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian children, reducing the city of Gaza to rubble, turning what's left into an open-air prison the world is forbidden to enter.

The list of Israel's crimes is endless, but I can name one action we need to take: ending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Why does the agreement remain? It's worth billions to the Israeli economy. Yet we comfort ourselves by saying we will lead in rebuilding Gaza. But you cannot rebuild a hospital with one hand, while rewarding the war criminals that flattened us with the other.

Ending this agreement is not radical. It is the minimum required by our own law and our own values. The Irish Presidency of the EU must lead. End the EU-Israel Association Agreement once and for all!

Mr President, honourable Members who are left in this room, I was listening carefully to each of you, and I heard each word which you said during this meeting.

Our speaking slots are not enough to elaborate on this very difficult topic. One-minute speeches are not enough to discuss this topic. I have to say that I am here representing High Representative/Vice-President Kaja Kallas. So I will quote her first: 'The European Union and Israel have a lot that binds us together. I value our dialogue and engagement, respectfully and constructively. Dialogue is the foundation of diplomacy, especially when differences arise.' This is what our HR/VP said. So I'm building on this and leaning on this.

All of us know that the situation is dire. The topic is very serious, as I said. Listening to you, I felt like I was a rival in a Foreign Affairs Council. As long as we are divided, we will stay powerless. All of you turn to the Commission, turn to me. I don't want to blame anyone. This is not a black-and-white story; this is not a blame game. But the ball is with the Council. The Member who was speaking last, Mr Ó Ríordáin, really said the right thing. He was the only one who turned towards the Council. I am also looking towards the Council, and I think that during the Irish Presidency, I wish they would be capable of reaching consensus.

Unfortunately, the association agreement and its suspension is at the table as of last September, you remember. During the State of the Union speech, it was put on the table. Unfortunately, I was present at each and every Foreign Affairs Council – the Member States are divided. Not to blame anyone, but just to say there is a problem. We can speak for decades like this. We can blame each other. We can post our video clips blaming someone. But I say we won't reach a solution if we attack each other. This is not the way how it works. So I really hope that under the Irish Presidency, we will be capable of reaching the unanimity on this.

Someone said time to suspend the association agreement. Yes, time is to spend the association agreement, but it's on the table. And, as I told you, turning towards us and toward me was not the right address. We are trying to find a solution all the time. We are having a dialogue. In parallel, we are really financing the Palestinian Authority. Without us, all of you know that the Palestinian Authority would not have survived. Those people there – teachers, nurses, doctors – we have this package programme, which is EUR 1.6 billion. So without us, they would have collapsed.

I have replied to all of you. I especially want to thank Mr Sánchez Amor, because I need your support for this. In the next MFF, we want to have extra money on top of our budget. The Team Gaza initiative is being launched and we would like to have this in our budget. It is very important, but we cannot do it without you. You are the ones who decide on the budget in the end. So we are trying to bring together a coalition of all Member States, a coalition of the willing, and this is what we are doing.

But, as I said, each and every conflict ended at the negotiation table. We need conditions, we need circumstances for this. And, first of all, we need accession to Gaza. Unfortunately, this NCAG committee which was established sits in Cairo. At the moment they haven't acceded Gaza. This is what I was trying to do during my visit in Israel. As I told you in my introductory speech, they released now these banking sector issues, and they also approved the two projects for waste and water management, which I think is a good sign.

So we need diplomacy and we are doing what we can.

I hope that during this Palestine donor group, which will be held on Monday, there will be much more to say. So I want to thank you for all this and we need to be together. We need to be unified. This not a blame game. We have to help people on the ground.

Mr President, thank you very much, and I want to thank all of the speakers who made their voices heard so strongly in this debate. I have noted that I think almost 50 Members have spoken in this debate and it shows the very strong views here in the European Parliament. The Council certainly takes note of everything that was said and I particularly mention, as the Commissioner did, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, but also Mr Andriukaitis as well, for directly addressing the Council.

Diverging views have been expressed on what the EU can and should do to help the people in Gaza, and to hold Israel and Hamas accountable. But I can say this: we are united in one common goal, and that is lasting peace and security in the Middle East.

In our priorities as the Irish Presidency, which our Taoiseach presented yesterday, we have committed to promoting active engagement in support of such lasting peace and security regarding the conflicts in the Middle East, and in particular the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. This reaffirms, and must reaffirm, the EU's commitment to a two-state solution, where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

We must work towards ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the deteriorating situation in the West Bank. Next week, as I said already, the Council is looking forward to the options that the Commission will present for the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 13 July in light, particularly, of the further deteriorating situation regarding the illegal settlements. I have no doubt that the Council and the members of the Council will certainly hear the views that have been expressed here in the European Parliament.

Mr President, honourable Members, on 8 May, two Spanish Guardia Civil agents were killed after their boats collided while chasing suspected drug traffickers in the Atlantic. I feel deeply for the two officers, their relatives and their colleagues. This tragic event reminds us of the risks that law enforcement officers face to keep narcotics off our streets. They deserve our full support.

Honourable Members, we recently presented the annual European Drugs Report. It paints an alarming picture. Cocaine is more available than ever before. Between 2013 and 2023, cocaine seizures in Europe increased sixfold. At the same time, we are seeing a sharp rise in synthetic drugs, which are often even more dangerous and harder to detect.

Drug trafficking is not an isolated crime. It fuels money laundering, corruption, human trafficking, violence and other forms of serious organised crime. Behind this market are highly sophisticated criminal networks. They use advanced technologies, including for their communications, international logistics chains and enormous financial resources. At the same time, they exploit social vulnerabilities, social inclusion, lack of opportunities, mental health challenges and other societal pressures that create an environment in which drug use and addiction can flourish. That is why we take a comprehensive approach: the new EU drugs strategy combines public health preservation and treatment with a strong security and law enforcement response, because we need to reduce both supply and demand.

On the law enforcement side, we presented a European action plan against drug trafficking at the end of last year. Its objective is to target criminal networks along the entire supply chain, from production countries and transit routes to European markets. A key focus is the security of our ports. A large share of the cocaine entering Europe comes through them. That is why we are strengthening the European Ports Alliance, improving controls and tackling the infiltration of ports by organised crime. The alliance shows what can be achieved when public authorities and private operators work hand in hand, and you can see the results in the media: four tonnes of cocaine seized at Rotterdam in March, eight tonnes concealed in cocoa beans in Wilhelmshaven in May, and over 100 tonnes of cocaine and ketamine hidden in timber from Chile.

We are also stepping up cooperation with partner countries, particularly in Latin America. Drug trafficking is a global business and our response must be global as well. Europol has recently concluded new partnerships with Brazil and Ecuador to strengthen the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime. The Commission has recently proposed a new mandate for Europol; it will strengthen the agency as Europe's information hub, operational hub and technology hub, enabling it to better support Member States in tackling increasingly sophisticated criminal networks. And early next year, we will propose modernised rules on organised crime.

I encourage you to give priority to all these files in the coming months, so that we will be able to see their impact on the ground soon. I look forward to the discussions that will follow.

Mr. President, maritime drug trafficking in the Atlantic is evolving rapidly and increasingly pressures the borders of the European Union. We are talking about networks that are more organized, more aggressive, more sophisticated, with a direct impact on our internal security and our response capacity.

Recent operations in Spain and Portugal, in which we mourn the deaths of officers from the Guardia Civil and the GNR, show that this is a structured threat that is operating with increasing impunity. In 2025 alone, we let approximately 192 vessels and 700 tons of cocaine slip away in the Atlantic. The networks adapt: they change routes, use West Africa as a transshipment point, resort to high-speed boats and narco-submarines to redistribute the drugs through different routes. At sea, they continue to have the advantage due to mobility, range, and speed of escape.

The European Commission cannot limit itself to monitoring the phenomenon. It must lead an operational, legislative, and technological response worthy of the threat.

We need more funding, yes, but above all we need more capacity, more aerial surveillance, more information and intelligence sharing, and more operational instruments.

We also need to seriously review the rules of engagement at sea, with a clear approach to the proportional use of force in high-risk maritime operations. The Commission must also advance European legislation on the possession, modification, and operation of high-power vessels used by organized crime. It must support technologies capable of neutralizing engines remotely and must strengthen cooperation with Member States and West African countries, where many of these routes are consolidated.

Mr. Commissioner, we cannot ask our security forces to face organizations that know no borders with limited means, with mismatched rules, with funding designed for the challenges of the last century. We cannot demand effectiveness without giving them capacity.

This is a matter of security, sovereignty, and the rule of law.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are two years into the European Parliament's legislative term, and it is rare for a plenary session —if indeed there is any— to pass without a point where the forces in opposition to the Government of Spain take instrumental advantage of it to criticize it.

It is deplorable on such a sensitive issue that should command our utmost unity, such as the fight against drug trafficking at our external borders and the support for law enforcement and security forces, which is precisely what the Government of Spain does.

The Minister of the Interior has increased the number of police officers and civil guards by 17,000 —4,000 of them in Andalusia— during the term of the progressive government presided over by Pedro Sánchez. Two billion euros have been invested in police station infrastructure and, therefore, security centers in the Campo de Gibraltar area.

Obviously, this issue has a European dimension and, therefore, what matters is the EU Drugs Strategy and the EU action plan against drug trafficking, with European coordination and in collaboration with Eurojust and Europol.

As suggested by the European Union Drugs Agency —located in Lisbon—, there must be a European budget line for European resources and, of course, the protection of victims. We must stand on the side of the victims without ever having our photo taken with drug traffickers.

Mr President, drug trafficking is not only a terrible enemy for the health of individuals and societies, today drug trafficking is also a hybrid warfare weapon and a colossal political power.

Organized crime has entered politics. Decades ago, drug cartels allied with the Ibero-American left. Today, that narco-socialism of the São Paulo Forum is already in Europe and entered through Spain. Sánchez's government liquidated the best anti-drug police units and the others, without resources, are powerless. Hence the deaths due to the advantages of the drug traffickers that the Spanish Government itself has caused.

Spain is today the paradise of drug traffickers thanks to the friendly government. First, because all the coasts are open, and then because they roam freely and because they invest and launder their money in Spain.

The only way to stop drug trafficking is to end the governments that work for it; that is, to end socialism—narco-socialism—is the key to ending this plague.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, for too long the institutions have treated drug trafficking, drug dealing and drug consumption as an endemic evil, no longer eradicable, almost invincible, sometimes to be contained, if not, in the worst cases, even ignored or encouraged.

If, on the other hand, we want to be responsible as people engaged in politics, we must show that we have a heart open to conscience and the common good. We must believe it, firmly believe it, we must believe in the fact that these criminal networks can be defeated and those who profit from the skin of the youngest and the death of people can be defeated.

And if this is the case, then we have the task, the duty, to give the appropriate tools to our law enforcement agencies and to invest more resources. We must impose greater and constant controls on ports, defend borders and use an iron fist.

This is the only way to win against the traffickers of death. In fact, we cannot leave alone those who fight, alone, on the front line.

Mr President, Commissioner, the convicted and wanted drug lord Jos Leijdekkers remains free because Sierra Leone refuses to extradite him. One month ago, I called on the European Commission to increase pressure on Sierra Leone after the largest seizure of cocaine in the Canary Islands. The Netherlands has already made repeated requests through all available diplomatic and legal channels. Yet Sierra Leone continues to refuse cooperation. In fact, it appears to be shielding Jos Leijdekkers and even facilitating drug trafficking. This must stop now.

Drug-related organised crime undermines our security, trust in the rule of law and ultimately threatens our democracy. All European countries should therefore take this seriously and stand united in the fight against organised crime. The European Union must come forward with a concrete and comprehensive package of measures, including suspension of EU development cooperation with countries that refuse to cooperate in the extradition of convicted criminals. I ask the Commissioner: what is the current state of this confrontation and when can we expect...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, honourable colleagues, Europe attracts and consumes enormous quantities of narcotics in a multi-billion-dollar drug market.

Europe has become a meeting place for Colombian drug trafficking, European and Italian drug mafias, and Belgian, Dutch, French and other criminal organisations.

This criminal market is also fuelled by drug production in Asian countries – from Laos to Myanmar, from Afghanistan to Pakistan – with the recent UN alarm over the origin of synthetic drugs from the East.

A network of complicity makes it possible to evade police checks in major European ports. It is not enough to ascertain the identity of those crossing the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; it is urgent to intervene and intercept at the source the criminal agreements between cartels in the distribution towards Europe.

It is urgent, during their planned reform, Mr Commissioner, to strengthen Europol and Eurojust in their fight against organised crime, in order to offer a strong European response. There is also a need for greater coordination to counter the laundering of drug trafficking profits through European banking and financial systems.

Considering the effects that this money laundering has on life...

(The President cuts off the speaker)

Mr President! Europe is facing an explosion in drug crime, and we are experiencing record availability of illegal drugs. The EU has now overtaken the USA as the largest cocaine market, and case numbers at Eurojust have risen by 60% in just five years - just five years; drugs worth EUR 20 billion have been seized. More than half of Europe's most dangerous criminal networks are involved in drug smuggling, two-thirds use violence, and over 70% use corruption to influence authorities and port personnel.

This is no longer a marginal phenomenon; this is a total security policy failure. Even Europol states: The networks smuggling drugs into Europe are frequently the same criminal structures that also organise illegal migration and human trafficking. The cartels have long since understood: Europe's open borders and cozy political approaches are their business model.

Our ports must no longer be gateways for drug cartels, and our borders must no longer be business models for smugglers. The solution is so simple and is called: secure external borders, smash smuggling networks, and stop illegal migration.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, drug trafficking kills: it kills those who consume it, it kills the future of young people, it kills the rule of law and it kills the officers who fight it.

The civil guards murdered in Huelva and Barbate, run down by drug boats, are not an isolated tragedy; they are the consequence of years of impunity and a lack of resources from a Government like that of Sánchez, which leaves the security forces unprotected, which liquidates OCON-Sur — the key unit in the fight against drug trafficking.

Europol has warned: drug traffickers no longer only smuggle drugs from outside the European Union, but are infiltrated within Europe. They operate from our ports, launder capital with shell companies and use weapons of war and cutting-edge technology to corrupt, intimidate and kill.

Europe, Commissioner, is right with the European Ports Alliance, pursuing the money and cutting off the financial oxygen of the gangs, but the new strategic framework will only work if we protect those who protect us, classify any attack on any police officer as a eurocrime, and recognise the profession of our police officers as high-risk.

Drug trafficking is the greatest threat to Europe's security and we must strengthen cooperation between Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, Customs and national police forces. We must demand from each State more commitment, more officers, more resources, more legal certainty and tougher legislation, because only in this way will we defeat drug trafficking. But not with Governments that abandon their police officers, but with a Europe that recognises them, supports them and protects them.

(The speaker refuses to take a question from Petras Gražulis under the "blue card" procedure)

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, drug trafficking is a major threat to our societies. It fuels violence, corrupts our economies and undermines the rule of law. Faced with criminal organisations operating on a global scale, our response must be European.

But let us not be mistaken in our fight. Drug trafficking will not be combated by blurring the lines between migration and organised crime. The networks that channel drugs into European ports have nothing to do with those who are fleeing conflict and persecution. Believing that an ever more restrictive migration policy will address our security challenges is a political dead end and a strategic mistake. The fight against drug trafficking requires something else, notably greater cooperation between member states and decisive action against money laundering.

Let us be firm against traffickers. Let us be clear-headed about the responses to be provided. Let us reject shortcuts that weaken both our security and our values.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues, in the face of drug trafficking, we no longer need words but actions, because behind every intercepted shipment, there is now blood spilled in our European cities.

The European Union finally seems to be waking up to the scale of the threat. We enthusiastically applauded an important agreement with Ecuador—of which I was the rapporteur—a country that has become a strategic hub in the cocaine trade destined for Europe. We have also done everything possible to strengthen the European police agency, Europol, in order to better coordinate the fight against transnational criminal networks.

These are all real steps forward against drug mafias that now kidnap, corrupt, intimidate, and very often kill in broad daylight. I am thinking of young Mehdi Kessaci, family man and Uber driver Nessim Ramdane in Marseille, or student Socayna Jean, victims of bullets and Kalashnikovs from drug traffickers, all of whom died in Marseille, which has become the French capital of drug trafficking. Following Marseille, other cities will follow if nothing is done: Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam. From my profession as a police officer, I have seen the organization of these groups and their ruthless striking power. Our weakness for decades has been their main fuel.

For all those who paid with their lives: let us regain control of our maritime borders, protect our strategic ports, and give real resources to our customs officers, police, gendarmes, magistrates, and intelligence services!

(The speaker agrees to take a blue-card question)

I think we will all agree that there are no ideologies here, neither left nor right. We all see the huge problem that this drug business or criminals are simply thriving in Europe. And one trend - do you not think that power structures are intertwining with the criminal world, those who are supposed to control them? For example, twelve officials and municipal employees were detained in Lithuania who participated in smuggling. Is this only Lithuania's problem? Or is this a universal problem?

Listen, dear colleague, corruption is a fight we must all wage, but the majority of our police officers, gendarmes, prison guards, intelligence services, and military personnel do an exceptional job.

I want to say it again here: the problem is not mostly corruption in our democracies, it is thugs that we have let off far too much and who have benefited from judicial laxity, political laxity, cowardice... And in France, the far left and the left are members of parties that defend thugs, criminals, rather than our police officers, our gendarmes.

Therefore, we need to change our mindset and we need a real revolution, with a cross-party willingness to fight against this drug trafficking, which can bring down our democracies.

Mr. President! I am convinced that the European Union has for a long time underestimated the problem of border protection, leaving states at the Union's external borders without sufficient support. To make the Union's borders secure, several conditions must be met. Border countries must receive significant financial support related to the tasks of maritime and land external border protection. National services must be strengthened and provided with appropriate technical tools – including those that were universally criticized here in the European Parliament. Frontex must comprehensively support national services rather than initiate proceedings against officers. Enough with political correctness – states must liberalize regulations regarding the use of direct coercive measures and ensure legal security for officers.

It is impossible not to link drug crime with criminal groups recruited from third-country nationals, illegal immigrants, and asylum fraudsters. Applicants for residence in the Union must be aware that non-compliance with the law entails swift punishment and effective readmission. Effective border protection is the first step to restoring order and security in many European cities.

Mr President, every single day our police and customs officers fight a battle against international drug gangs. Crawling through small spaces looking for drugs hidden in the most unlikely places, intimidated by organised criminals trying to corrupt them. The fight against this unjustified criminality forces all of us to run harder and smarter. A few sacred cows will have to be overthrown: less national thinking, more European.

First, more resources, more powers and more opportunities for Europol, our unique European police force, with more operational presence in the field and more investment in innovations such as artificial intelligence and drones. Second, an ambitious European anti-corruption strategy. Without corruption there is no drug trade. Third, daring to continue investing in prevention in our neighbourhoods to prevent vulnerable children from being recruited by drug criminals. Narcos is more than a Netflix title and cosmetic solutions get a thumbs down from me.

(The speaker agrees to answer a "blue card" question)

Madam Deputy García Hermida-Van Der Walle, we heard in this debate a deputy of the Spanish far-right, Hermann Tertsch, make a distinction between drug trafficking, which is bad if it comes from some countries, but may not be as bad if it comes from others.

It seems to me that this is a truly indecent political exploitation of drug trafficking and it is particularly difficult to understand how it is possible to make this type of exploitation when the lives of security forces and services professionals are at stake, such as those who were, unfortunately, murdered in anti-drug operations.

What I ask you is whether you do not think that this is an exploitation that should not be done?

Mr President, thank you colleague Oliveira, yes – debates get hijacked all the time in this House by those who want to put every single fault on a single country or a single group of people. To me, it is really important to understand that drug trafficking is from all times.

Colleague Tertsch will remember that, in Spain, the country that I come from originally, we had huge problems with drug gangs in Galicia and they were all home-grown. They were not coming from outside the European Union – they were Spanish home-grown. In the Netherlands we see criminals that are international, but also home-grown, and in other countries we see the same. So it's really important that we take this as the problem that it is and not try to make it into a different problem which citizens are not particularly interested in.

Mr President, how many women have to be raped and murdered before you all start doing anything? How many children have to die at the hands of vile criminals and murderers before you realise what is happening outside? How many seniors have to become victims of those criminals in Europe before you start thinking about the future of Europe and the safety of Europeans? We just need to secure our external borders right now, immediately – we need to protect our borders at all costs.

People just deserve this safety, and we need to start with mass deportations right now. Every illegal immigrant from Europe has to be deported – even every legal immigrant who does not respect our way of life and our laws and committed a crime has to be deported. As soon as you do this, you will realise how the narco-trafficking problem, which we are discussing right now, just disappears. As soon as you do this, you will see how the numbers of rapes, violent attacks and murders just drops down.

If you are not ready to fight for Europe, then we need to replace you, defeat you in the elections and save Europe for our children.

Mr President, Commissioner, honourable members, the recent loss of two members of the Spanish Guardia Civil after being rammed by a drug traffickers' boat is yet another demonstration of how drug trafficking constitutes a serious threat to our societies.

As the mother of two members of law enforcement, I want to express my solidarity with their families.

Enormous profits for criminal organisations, loss of human life, corruption, money laundering, rampant violence, recruited minors, insecurity and huge health and social costs: all of this is and has always been drug trafficking.

And the impact on Europe – a consumer market, transit hub and production place – is truly enormous. We must therefore resolutely continue with the implementation of the ProtectEU strategy and, above all, the action plan to identify and counter maritime, land and air trafficking routes, strengthen cooperation between Frontex, Europol, MAOC-N and national police forces, improve information exchange between customs law enforcement and judicial authorities, and strengthen cooperation with third countries of origin of narcotics.

For this reason, it is necessary to provide our police forces with resources and means, but it is also necessary to invest in prevention and recovery to combat not only the supply, but also the demand for drugs.

This is not an easy battle against drugs, it is true, but one that the entire European Union cannot afford to lose.

Mr President, Europe's ports have become a gateway for organised crime. Record amounts of cocaine are entering the European Union, fuelling violence, corruption and criminal networks. Our law enforcement officers, custom authorities and coastguards deserve all our support. They need better tools, modern technology and stronger cooperation across Europe, not more bureaucracy.

But if we are talking about corruption, we also need to talk about protecting the workers in the ports, because we all know how much money the organised crime has, and sometimes the port workers, without protection, have to make the choice between their lives or being corrupted. So it goes hand in hand. If we talk about our law enforcement authorities, they have to have better tools, but we also need to protect the workers in the ports.

The fight against drug trafficking starts at our borders. We need stronger port security, closer cooperation between Member States and Europol, and the relentless effort to dismantle criminal networks and seize their assets. The safety of our citizens depends on it.

Mr President, Commissioner, today I am not going to talk about how dangerous the mafias of the Strait are. We all already know that: we know they have more money, we know that, surprisingly, they have more resources and we know that they are increasingly violent.

What I do not understand is why we continue to treat those who defend us as if the problem were not bleeding. At the southern border of Spain, civil guards are dying, ladies and gentlemen, they are dying and they do not have the hard-fought profession of risk recognized. We still continue not to consider as a European crime the attacks on European security forces who risk their lives every day against criminals with weapons of war, without physical security and without legal certainty.

And there are still Governments in which incomprehensible decisions are made, such as that of Spain, by dismantling the OCON-Sur unit, a unit that had achieved thousands of arrests and some of the biggest blows against drug trafficking in the Campo de Gibraltar.

This is the message that the mafias receive. They organize, they arm themselves, they advance and we dismantle tools that work. Ladies and gentlemen, wake up: extreme violence is combated with resources, with forcefulness and with authority.

Mr President, Commissioner, today we are here not only to discuss but above all to express our gratitude and respect to the unsung heroes, the women and men of the Navy, national coastguards, law enforcement agencies, Frontex and all European services fighting to combat the scourge of drugs; to all those who, with self-denial and a high sense of duty, guard our national and European borders.

The threat of drugs may often seem distant and unseen, but in reality it is continuous, organized and relentless. We know well the heavy footprint in our neighborhoods, streets and cities. But we know equally well that the fight against drugs requires constant vigilance, excellent coordination and international cooperation. That is why from this chamber we must constantly strengthen the work of those operating daily in Europe's seas and ports, at the forefront of the battle against organized crime. Every drug shipment intercepted will never reach our societies. And every criminal network dismantled is a victory for the security, human dignity and cohesion of Europe's societies.

Madam President, if drug trafficking is thriving, it is because – let us be frank – our borders have become like sieves and the European Union continues to multiply the obstacles facing those responsible for protecting them. Our police officers, customs officers and magistrates need enhanced cooperation, not additional bureaucracy. We must facilitate the collection and exchange of data between national authorities, Europol, Frontex and Eurojust. The cartels do not wait for authorization from Brussels to share their information.

Yet the European Data Protection Supervisor has suspended cooperation between Europol and Frontex. This is a decision completely disconnected from the reality on the ground. By constantly prioritizing administrative constraints over operational efficiency, it is the criminals who emerge victorious.

We must also clarify the role of the future European Customs Agency. There is no question of creating a new institutional layer that would blur the missions of Europol and Frontex.

Finally, let us give the European Ports Alliance the means to freely exchange intelligence with police and judicial authorities. Faced with increasingly powerful mafias, our response must be simple: more cooperation, more intelligence, more efficiency and less ideology.

Madam President, a ship leaves loaded with 10 tons of cocaine from a South American country towards Europe; the 16-year-old son of a doctor from Brussels - or from Paris, or from Berlin, or from Rome, or from Bucharest - tries his first gram at a party. He is a good child, with extraordinary school results, well-educated by his parents and with a bright future ahead of him - or at least his future was supposed to be like that until that first gram. He knows it is no good, but his friends laugh at him for not having the courage to try and he tells himself that he is strong and that it will be just once, then he will stop.

While the boy snorts his first line of "snow" or "powder of death", another loaded ship arrives in a European port and manages to unload the cargo. The tens of tons mean hundreds of thousands, even millions of victims, of addicts, of young people whose future is cancelled, of good children like mine or yours.

And right while all this is happening, in the European Parliament, some of our colleagues vote not to strengthen the competent law enforcement structures in combating drug trafficking. Meaning precisely those structures that could have stopped the two ships coming from the sea and could have saved our children.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, cartels are entering Europe through our vulnerabilities. The line pursued in France by Bruno Retailleau must find its European extension. Drug trafficking is no longer just a scattering of isolated news items; it is a maritime, financial, and territorial criminal power. It challenges our states, tests our borders, and calls for exceptional resources.

This power turns our scruples into a transit corridor. When it is necessary to prevent an identified trafficker from returning to their dealing spot, part of the left finds the state too firm. When residents demand some breathing room, it reopens the debate on decriminalisation. This is a strange compass: fewer constraints for dealers, more abandonment for our populations.

When drugs enter by sea, it is Europe that is springing leaks, swept away by a wave that reaches our countryside, ends up recruiting, harming, and killing our children. So let us take action! Let us turn our ports into zones of customs retaliation, with inter-agency coordination, clear commands, targeted twenty-four-hour controls, and the protection of threatened agents. Let us make the cartels pay for security: every euro must equip law enforcement services. It is no longer enough to bail out water; we must permanently take back the helm!

(The speaker agrees to take a blue-card question)

Céline Imart, you are talking about Bruno Retailleau and drug trafficking in France: yesterday, the presumption of self-defense was adopted in the National Assembly. We are finally going to believe our police officers before the thugs.

But, for a year, Mr. Retailleau was at Beauvau: reform of the judicial police, recruitment of judicial police officers, payment of overtime, simplification of criminal procedure, but also mandatory minimum sentences, minimum sentences to fight against recidivists and delinquents who attack the uniform of the Republic.

You did not do it for a year: have courage, Céline Imart, join Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella! Recovery is now! What you could not or did not want to do, do it by our side! The vital prognosis of our country is engaged.

Thank you, Mr. Valet, for your very kind invitation. I would like to remind you that Bruno Retailleau was not Minister of Justice, but Minister of the Interior. Therefore, he acted within the powers he had within his portfolio, which unfortunately do not notably concern juvenile justice.

But he acted on what could be done within his portfolio, that is to say, having an emergency anti-narcotics law, which will hit traffickers in the pocketbook, which will mobilize law enforcement and make them more effective on these drug dealing spots.

I believe we have quite similar convictions on this subject, and in any case the fight continues on a French scale, but also on a European scale, because this fight is vital for our children.

Madam President! Dear colleagues. I have been a police officer for 19 years, and I know what drugs really are. It is knocking on a door at two o'clock in the night. A father and a mother open, and their faces crack when they understand why. Their child has died of an overdose. You never forget that.

Meanwhile, cocaine is streaming in through Europe's ports and borders. And what does the EU do? They write strategies while the drug masterminds earn billions. Strategies alone do not stop the criminals. Police officers, customs officers and effective control do. So the solution is not more EU. The solution is permanent border and port control, strong national police forces and tougher punishments. Give countries back the power and the police the tools needed to stop the criminals.

My old colleagues are working their fingers to the bone every single day, so do not fail them. We owe that to both them and our young people.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Next year, the 'Prüm Regulation' will enter into force for automated data exchange of DNA profiles, fingerprints and number plates of vehicles of criminals. Your country, Denmark, cannot participate in this system and will not be able to exchange data of criminals with other countries. How do you think Denmark can stay a safe country without this key instrument if it keeps the opt‑out on justice and home affairs?

I am really proud that we in Denmark have our justice opt-out, because I have myself worked with international and cross-border crime for 10 years. And our justice opt-out in Denmark protects both the police and our legislation. It thus protects the fact that we can actually implement new investigation methods without having to ask the EU for permission. And it means that one can adapt the investigation methods within the country one happens to come from.

So I am proud that we in Denmark have a justice opt-out that protects us in this exact area. And to that I must also say that seeing as I have myself worked within this area, we have a large number of parallel agreements in Denmark. And Denmark is perhaps one of those that is most leading and best at solving international organized crime. So therefore we have parallel agreements that mean we can get all the same information that is being negotiated in the new agreement.

Thank you so much for your answer and I really appreciate your service as a police officer, also having worked in a border region. But the whole point here is automated data. When a criminal is crossing from, say, Germany into Denmark, if you cannot have access to automated data exchange, then it is impossible for you to know what that person has done and why it might pose a risk to your country. So wouldn't you want to solve that by being part of the Prüm Regulation and other parts of the justice system of the European Union?

Thank you for the question. That can be solved, and it is already being solved today, because with these parallel agreements, you have complete access to all this information. It has become license plate registration, we have cooperated with Europol, we have an office down there ourselves, we can get DNA answers, etc. So I know that this is possible in Denmark, and I have done it countless times myself, and the information is only a phone call away. And I can add that last year Denmark sent 40,000 SIENA requests, which is also a cooperation one has. So our parallel agreements actually apply not only to Europe, but also outside, and this means that we are in a much stronger position in the investigation of crime in Denmark.

Madam President! It is impossible to talk about organized crime involved in drug trafficking without addressing the issue of illegal immigration. As it happens, the ruling coalition in the European Union is responsible for letting in illegal immigrants. So if you want to combat the drug route, you also have to deal with illegal immigration. The issue concerning the consequences of, for example, aiding illegal immigrants under the guise of non-governmental organizations is stalled and is no longer being processed because the left is blocking it.

Perhaps it is worth paying attention to the experience that Poland can share. As it happens, I had the pleasure of being in a government that stopped illegal migration, that led to the deportation of illegal migrants.

But what happens? The very next day you adopt solutions related to the migration pact. Do you want these migrants—many of whom engage in criminal activity; the increase in crime on various grounds, including sexual, is gigantic—to be relocated to other countries? So the simple answer is this: zero illegal migrants, and we will also close the issue related to the scale of the drug problem.

Mr President, I may seem a little harsh to you, but I am going to say something.

The drugs that tomorrow will be offered to any of our children, the cocaine in any European capital, will probably come from Spain, a whole European country.

Spain is the main gateway to southern Europe, and it is a gateway that is completely open. It is the gateway through which a large part of the drugs poisoning our continent are slipping.

Rest assured, because this border has guardians, brave civil guards who every night go out to stand up to drug trafficking with more vocation than resources. But I want to tell you something, Commissioner: we are sending them to war without weapons. While opposite them they have semi-submersibles and military weaponry, behind them they have an increasingly weaker State and a Government sick with corruption.

People have died in Barbate, they have died in Huelva and they are going to keep dying. Because criminals kill them, yes. But also due to a lack of our political will. So, Commissioner, please, more resources for Europe and for Frontex, more shared intelligence, harsher sentences against criminals.

Let us not wait for the next funeral to recognise the danger. Theirs is a high-risk profession.

Madam President! In 2024 alone, European Union member states reported over one and a half million drug-related crimes. Belgian Antwerp is the gateway for drug gangs smuggling into Europe – coincidentally, right under the nose of Eurocrats, those teachers of the rule of law.

Between 2018 and 2023, the number of patients starting treatment for cocaine-related problems increased by 31%. The number of people starting treatment for crack addiction increased by 35%. Such a scale of drug smuggling is the work of the European Commission. This is an open-border policy. At a time when Europeans are afraid of drug gangs in their cities, drug cartels treat European coasts and ports like their warehouses. Border protection services need real support, tough laws, and a free hand in action, not an attack by the leftist agenda from the European Commission.

I will be honest: your lack of effectiveness in combating drug smuggling into Europe raises the question of whether you sometimes cooperate with smugglers and derive some financial benefits from the drug trade in Europe. I'm asking for a friend, so to speak.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Union's new drug strategy cannot repeat two mistakes: forgetting the emergency of fighting synthetic drugs, and ignoring that its western borders begin in the heart of the Atlantic with the Azores and Madeira.

It is through the Atlantic that routes increasingly exploited by international drug trafficking networks have been passing, with boats, drones and even narco-submarines. That is why it is urgent to reinforce maritime surveillance, technology, information sharing, and cooperation for European agencies, as well as the recognition of the importance of our security forces who have done so much with so little.

We also need to recognize that the European Union's external borders begin with the Azores and Madeira, and the Azores and Madeira play a fundamental role in the security of the European Union. And that is also why we need a new strategy for the Atlantic, which frames new geopolitical tensions, but also the fight against drug trafficking and the security of the European Union.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, our borders are like a sieve and you know it. Today we are talking about drug trafficking in the Mediterranean, but drugs are the symptom: the disease is that we do not defend our borders, because every year tons of drugs arrive from our ports – especially from North Africa – which are killing thousands of young Europeans. That same route, which over the last 15 years has clandestinely brought a million and a half immigrants by sea to Italy and three million to Europe, has also been exploited to traffic drugs and weapons and fuel billionaire profits for the mafias. While you preached open ports and while von der Leyen and the European left turned Frontex into an ideological target, smugglers and criminal organisations made a fortune. Defending borders is not a slogan, it is the only serious and concrete tool to block drug trafficking.

Madam President, let us be brutally blunt: Europe is losing control of its security. Open‑border policies fuel chaos, turning narco‑trafficking into a real threat for all of us. The core issue is a catastrophic failure of integration. Multigenerational migrant neighbourhoods are forming parallel societies that reject European values. In Sweden, second generation migrants dominate gangs behind record bombings. In France, suburb drug wars drive hundreds of narco‑homicides. Criminal groups exploit this isolation. They turn youth into foot soldiers and use minors as legal shields for drugs and killings. We can no longer deny the link between uncontrolled migration, failed integration and tribal gang violence. The age of naive multiculturalism must be over.

Madam President, Commissioner Costas Kadis, action needs to be taken in two dimensions: on the one hand, combating drug addiction by making the lucrative drug trafficking business disappear; on the other hand, combating drug trafficking and the criminal networks that flourish within it.

In both dimensions, the role of States is decisive. To win this fight, we need effective policies to combat drug addiction, robust public health and social integration services, and public investment in the treatment and rehabilitation of consumers.

We also need appropriate criminal policy measures and investment in national security forces and services, including customs, improving the working conditions of their professionals and strengthening their operational capacity.

At the same time, we need to free ourselves from EU impositions on national budgets that condition public investment, which is essential for all these objectives.

And we cannot allow the fight against drug trafficking to be used as a pretext for militarisation, to justify indiscriminate surveillance measures against citizens, or to propagate suspicions and prejudices of a racist and xenophobic nature, as we unfortunately just heard in the latest speeches made by the far right.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, drug trafficking obeys the classic laws of supply and demand. Therefore, as long as there are consumers, there will be drug traffickers, and drug trafficking will continue with its procession of deaths, the destruction of the health of a portion of our populations, and the destabilisation of our societies.

If we want to triumph in this fight against drug trafficking, then we must work to deter drug consumption. This will involve three strategies. First, the deployment of deterrent sanctions against drug consumers. Second, the massive broadcast, across all media, of information spots on the ravages of drugs on health, but also on the deaths caused, because consumers must realize that they have blood on their hands. Last point, the systematic confiscation of all assets acquired through drug trafficking. This is how we will triumph.

Madam President, "there are nights when my partner and I are alone against fifteen drug boats." Unfortunately, this is not the beginning of a Colombian Netflix series: it is the testimony of a Spanish Civil Guard, denouncing the helplessness with which our agents are forced to fight drug trafficking.

A helplessness that comes at a very high human cost. In the last two years, four agents have been murdered in Spain and, in recent weeks, one in Portugal. This escalation of violence, more typical of other latitudes, is the new normality on European coasts, but Europe cannot continue to tolerate it.

We cannot continue to depend on the heroism of our agents. European governments have the political and moral obligation to provide them with the best means to fight drug trafficking. They do not want pats on the back or tributes at funerals, although some do not even dare to do that; they simply want the means to be able to fulfill their duty in defense of all Europeans.

Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your remarks. We have taken good note of all your positions. I will make some general comments.

I think that we all agree that no Member State can face security challenges alone. We are bringing the full weight of EU legal, financial and operational resources to support Member States in this fight. We have agreed on a new EU drugs strategy, an action plan against drugs trafficking, and we are already working on their implementation. We have proposed new mandates for Europol and Eurojust, and we will propose new legislation on Frontex and organised crime soon. So in all these initiatives, we count on your cooperation and support to make real progress.

If the drug trade is flourishing, it is because the protection of external borders remains insufficient. Border states need greater financial support, modern tools, and stronger cooperation with Frontex, Europol, and Eurojust. Instead of multiplying bureaucracy and restricting information exchange between services, the European Union should provide them with effective operational instruments. There is also no need to create further institutions if they weaken the competencies of existing agencies.

In 2024, European Union member states reported over 1.5 million drug-related crimes. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of people starting treatment for cocaine problems increased by 31%, and for crack addiction by 35%. This shows that Europe is losing the fight against drug smuggling and organized crime.

Criminals cannot be allowed to feel unpunished. European ports cannot be warehouses and transshipment points for drug cartels. Much data indicates a connection between drug crime and illegal migration as well as the abuse of asylum procedures. Individuals breaking the law should be fully aware that breaking the law will result in a swift return to their country of origin.

Europe needs secure borders instead of ideology, cooperating services instead of regulations that prevent them from operating effectively, real border protection, and decisive actions against international cartels in order to restore security to its citizens.

Madam Chair! Colleagues! Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine, which is now continuing for a fifth year, is not just a military conflict. Russian neo-imperialist aggression has and will have a deep and lasting impact on international law, European security, democracy, and the lives of millions of people. All Russian state instruments—the government, the economy, the financial sector, propaganda, the Orthodox Church—serve the war and militarize society. Therefore, the only path to Russia's revival and the recovery of society is Ukraine's victory in the war. Russian neo-imperialism must be stopped. Only through defeat can Russia become a state where democracy will develop, the rule of law will prevail, human rights and fundamental freedoms will be ensured. Therefore, our duty is to support Ukraine's self-defense. The European Parliament is the home of democracy. Therefore, we support the Russian democratic opposition, civil society, human rights activists who condemn the aggression against Ukraine. They continue their resistance to the Kremlin regime, despite repressions, arrests, and exile. The regime ruthlessly targets anyone who does not support the aggression. More than 5,000 criminal cases have been initiated, more than 4,000 political prisoners are languishing in prisons. The release of political prisoners is a demand that must be included in the peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, which will happen sooner or later. However, the Russian democratic forces are divided. History has proven time and again that dictatorships are defeated by those who, in the name of victory, put aside disagreements of views and personalities and concentrate on the strategic goal—the creation of a democratic and law-abiding state and society. Without unity, the influence of Russian democratic forces on the political process in Russia will be insignificant.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, Russia is not Putin.

Russia is also thousands of women and men who, in a suffocating climate, continue to defend democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. They are people who oppose Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine and it is precisely from them that we receive countless reports every day of citizens who are repressed, detained, imprisoned and mistreated simply because they have exposed themselves, raising their heads and voices to tell the truth about Putin's war.

The regime's propaganda prevents democratic forces from expressing themselves and when someone manages to escape the very dense meshes of this network, the judicial system takes the stage, concocting ad hoc sentences to punish activists, journalists and anyone who has the courage to speak out.

The European Union must be firm and resolute in its unwavering support for the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin's war of aggression. At the same time, the Union must continue to support Russian human rights activists, pro-democracy actors and anti-war activists, people who often risk their own safety and lives for their commitment and to present another Russia: a free, democratic Russia, a Russia of the rule of law. Such a Russia – let us remember – is possible.

Madam President, Dear Colleagues, my dear friends, let us make a little History.

European errors since the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall: very little political dialogue with Russia and total energy dependence on that country. The result was predictable because we drifted away politically and embraced economic and energy dependence.

My dear friends, far, very far from accepting this regime in Russia, on the contrary, we strongly criticise it. Now, we do not have to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, of third countries, moreover foreign to the European Union.

The priority must be to set and resolve Europe's problems, before taking on external agendas that are neither always clear nor honest. Therefore, let us try, once again, for Europe to behave as expected and to resolve its own problems instead of going around trying to solve those of others.

Madam President! I am glad that we are talking in the European Parliament about another Russia, about a Russia that will not be a mortal threat to the free world and that will not be dripping with the blood of innocent victims. Is such a Russia possible? When we look at the history of this country, it is difficult to find a basis for optimism. Both Tsarist Russia and Red Russia were aggressive imperial states. Putin draws from both of these traditions. Values such as democracy, human rights, and civil rights have never taken root in Russia.

Those who dream of making Russia a civilized state are simply murdered. This is what happened to Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny. Today, there is no organized opposition in Russia. This does not mean that we should not support those who, mostly in exile, declare their aversion to the dictatorship. However, this support must be adequate to the actions actually undertaken and the values truly professed. It should also be remembered that almost 20% of the citizens of modern Russia are representatives of national minorities. Their national aspirations deserve special attention.

Madam President, geography imposes it upon us: because Russia is European and it is with Russia that we share this continent, we must find the ways and means to coexist in a solid and lasting peace.

This requires two things: the first is to increasingly help Ukraine inflict upon Vladimir Putin the defeat he deserves. The stability of our continent requires that no one in Russia can any longer believe that brutal force can triumph over law and that missiles can rebuild the empire of the tsars. Perhaps that day is closer than we think – we shall see –, but the certainty is that nothing smiles upon Vladimir Putin any longer, that no dictatorship survives the humiliation of a military rout, and that a page will therefore soon be turned in Moscow, in three days, three months or three years.

That day, we must prepare for it, and that is why we have begun and will continue a dialogue with the Russian opposition. Even before Ukraine's victory raises a wind of freedom in Moscow, the Russians – not the Kremlin, but the Russians – must hear us tell them that we want nothing other than to live alongside them, in security and cooperation, and that, when the time comes, we will reach out a hand to a liberated Russia, at last free to choose Europe and democracy.

Madam President, dear colleagues, for too long, the EU's Russia policy has been reactive: sanctions after aggression, statements after repression, emergency support after arrests. This is not enough. This is not strategic. We need a real EU strategy on Russia with two pillars: deterrence against the current regime and the 'de-Putinisation' of the Russia of the future. This should be a European security objective.

The Brussels Dialogue conference last month showed that this is possible. For the first time, officially, the European Parliament, with support of Commission and EEAS, brought together Russian democratic forces in a structured dialogue with the EU institutions, including voices from Russia, following the initiative of Mr Kubilius a couple of years ago. The presence of Commissioner Kubilius, but also of Commissioner Marta Kos, was also important because enlargement also includes a wider strategic neighbourhood. This dialogue should mark the beginning of a more structured and political engagement with Russians who fight against Putin's regime. A Russia that remains imperialist remains a threat to Ukraine and to all of us. Europe cannot impose democracy on Russia, but we can support those Russians who fight for it, who die for it.

That is why in the next MFF we need a dedicated Global Europe funding line for Russian civil society. I call on the Commission and the Council to work on an update of the EU strategy on Russia. Stop treating Russian civil society as a side issue. They are our allies. They are our best, important weapon against Putin and for Ukraine. And this Parliament will do our best to support them and all of us.

Madam President, missiles and drones are killing people in Kyiv every night at the moment. Putin has shown that he is a modern‑day fascist leader by trying to conquer Ukraine militarily, but also by attacking those in his own country who oppose his imperialist ideology and who do not fit into his patriarchal and heteronormative notion of the nation. It is not only our moral obligation, but also in our own interest to support the Ukrainians that are fighting for independence and are fighting against Putin's authoritarianism.

Likewise, it is also in our own interest to support those democratic Russian opposition forces who share these objectives. This means engaging in dialogue but also recognising the diversity of actors in Russian civil society, including those representing linguistic and ethnic minorities. This means supporting independent media projects and also providing refuge in Europe for those who really need it, not sending back people belonging to the LGBTQI community or those that are resisting Putin and resisting his war on Ukraine.

Mr President, the dream of the collective West has always been to see a Maidan in Moscow. For decades, the West trained and funded many people and organisations in Russia, hoping they would become its fifth column and ruin their own country themselves. But despite the billions of dollars and euros spent for this purpose, the majority of Russian citizens rejected the Danaean gift of Western hypocrites. Normal Russian citizens understand perfectly well that these people, despite all their high-flown words, do not give a damn about democracy, freedom and the prosperity of Russia. The only thing they want is total control over the Russian Federation and to plunder it with impunity.

The West desperately wants to repeat the situation of the 1990s, when their favourite Yeltsin and his close oligarchs unquestioningly carried out the wishes of foreign power centres and sold off their country. The current leadership of Russia long ago rejected this vassal dependency, and that is why Brussels and Washington are doing everything possible to overthrow it. However, neither the colossal sums spent nor the hysterical propaganda achieved this goal. Foreign agents of influence in Russia either fled to their patrons or fell silent in shame.

The policy of the collective West regarding Russia is totally flawed. Instead of conducting an open dialogue with Moscow, Western leaders decided they could easily ruin this country. They figured they would buy the Russian elite for a pittance, just as Western colonisers did with the local population in Africa and America. They believed that today, fat grants and free junkets to Brussels and Washington for Russians would be what sparkling beads once were for American and African tribal chiefs.

Yes, individual NGOs and politicians sold out, but ultimately it turned out that the huge financial resource allocated for anti-Russian propaganda has led to nothing. The continuation of this strategy will lead to the same zero result.

Madam President, honourable Members, the Ebola outbreak continues to expand rapidly in a region marked by conflict, displacement and fragile health systems. It is a crisis within a crisis and a reminder that, in today's interconnected world, no country can face a major health threat alone. Sustained financing and global coordination are essential.

According to the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, ECDC, the risk of infection for people living in the EU remains very low. But this is no reason for complacency. We remain vigilant and the Health Security Committee issued an opinion on the current recommendations for a common EU approach. The EU and our Member States are prepared for an imported Ebola case, as France's rapid response has shown.

A few weeks ago, I travelled to Bunia, in Ituri, the epicentre of the outbreak, to show EU solidarity and reaffirm our support. I saw the extraordinary bravery of healthcare and humanitarian workers operating in extremely difficult conditions. But I also saw that Europe's support matters. Our presence, our reliability and our ability to act quickly are recognised and highly valued by all partners. And our assistance is saving lives.

Major challenges remain. Our priority is to boost surveillance and contact tracing, deploy diagnostics and medical teams, support exit screening, keep humanitarian health access open, strengthen community trust, and ensure respect for international humanitarian law.

Since day one, we have worked with the WHO, the Africa CDC, affected countries and partners. ECDC experts have been deployed through the EU Health Task Force to support Africa CDC and strengthen exit screening. Overall, the EU is providing immediate and long-term support of EUR 493 million for humanitarian aid, vaccines, treatments and health security in the region. This includes more than EUR 1 million for the current preparedness and response effort, with EUR 16.5 million to rapidly deploy diagnostics and strengthen field testing capacities. We have invested EUR 39.3 million in CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, to support the development of new, broadly protective filovirus vaccines.

We have also mobilised EUR 15 million in humanitarian assistance for WHO and frontline humanitarian partners and transported more than 590 tonnes of essential supplies to eastern DRC through eight EU humanitarian air bridges.

Our response builds on years of EU investments in health security in Africa, healthcare workforce training, public health institutes and laboratory capacities, clinical trials, infrastructure, surveillance, logistics and research into vaccine therapeutics and diagnostics.

Beyond our bilateral and Team Europe action, we continue to provide significant multilateral contributions to the global health initiatives such as the Pandemic Fund, Gavi and the Global Fund, which are mobilising flexible funding to help countries respond to Ebola and maintain essential health services.

Honourable Members, while responding to the immediate crisis, we must also continue building long-term preparedness and response capacity. This is the aim of the global health resilience initiative to help countries prevent, prepare for and respond to current and future outbreaks. Containing Ebola requires solidarity, political commitment to bring a lasting solution to the conflict, sustained financing, and reliable access to lifesaving humanitarian supplies and medical equipment. I have pleaded for that already in February during my first visit to the Great Lakes region.

We must invest in what is needed today while preparing for tomorrow. This is why sustainable financing and health preparedness must go hand in hand in the next multiannual financial framework. You can count on me and my commitment to support the response, mobilise resources and advocate for humanitarian access and respect for humanitarian international law.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda reminds us once again that infectious diseases know no borders.

In today's interconnected world, a health crisis in one part of the world can very quickly become a security challenge for Europe as well. That is why the response to such epidemics is not only a matter of humanitarian aid, but also a matter of health security, the resilience of our systems, and responsible international cooperation. The World Health Organization has declared this epidemic a public health emergency of international concern. Precisely for this reason, the speed of reaction, international coordination, and the exchange of expertise can be decisive in stopping the spread of the disease.

The European Union has already shown solidarity by providing financial assistance, sending expert support, and investing in the research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, and therapies. At the same time, the EU is helping to strengthen epidemiological surveillance, laboratory capacities, and the preparedness of neighboring countries in order to prevent further spread of the infection. Europe must continue to monitor the development of the situation closely. Although expert assessments show that the risk for European Union citizens is currently very low, experiences from past years have shown how quickly health circumstances can change. Therefore, we must continue to invest in the preparedness of our health systems, strengthen early warning systems, develop joint European capacities to respond to health crises, and deepen cooperation with the World Health Organization.

The fight against infectious diseases is a test of our ability to act together, in a timely manner, and in solidarity. Only through cooperation, investment in science, and responsible international action can we prevent a local epidemic from growing into a global threat.

Precisely for this reason, European solidarity and preparedness must remain the foundation of our response to such health challenges.

Madam President, the outbreak originating in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda is not an African issue. It is a global and also a European issue.

Diseases do not stop at borders. An outbreak can start very far from Europe, but it takes exactly the same amount of time to arrive as it takes for a person to travel. At first, we receive news, figures, a few hundred cases and the first deaths—we are already at 500. Then, we can fall into the error of saying that, since it is in Africa and not here, it is not our problem.

Does anyone remember the pandemic? Because this is exactly it. And I know that Ebola is not COVID-19, but we should have learned from the pandemic. It is absolutely important that our response be twofold. On the one hand, firm support for the affected countries, prevention, preparation and response from the European Union. On the other hand, that our mechanisms are also shared in coordination with the countries of the Global South.

Madam Commissioner, I want to thank you for your commitment, for going to the field, for your constant work, for being a light in a dark moment; because we need to reinforce surveillance, logistics, community communication, and coordination between our surveillance centers and the African ones. And, above all, because solidarity is not charity, it is containing the outbreak at its source. And it is justice. But it is also the smartest way to ensure the security of Europeans.

Madam President, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, populations are already suffering the ravages of war. Now they must face a new catastrophe: Ebola – more than 1,500 cases, more than 500 deaths.

But we must call things by their name: this virus is also spreading because it is arriving in regions, Ituri and Kivu, destroyed by war. Since 2021, eastern Congo has once again been ravaged by attacks by the M23, supported by the regime of Paul Kagame. Millions of people have had to flee, infrastructure and hospitals have been burned down.

So, how to stop Ebola? How to stop it when there are not enough ambulances, when care centers are destroyed, when doctors can no longer even reach the sick? Yes, we must send humanitarian aid, but closing our eyes to the real culprits of this chaos means accepting that the situation continues; it means making ourselves accomplices.

The European Union must finally act, as Parliament has been demanding for several years: sanction Rwanda and Mr. Kagame and put pressure to end this war. Why so much complacency towards Rwanda? This is the moment to show that we also know how to take political action, and not only humanitarian action!

Madam President, dear colleagues, the Ebola epidemic in the DRC is one of the most serious in history. Moreover, the armed conflict in the eastern DRC makes the fight almost impossible. Without security, it is impossible to stop the epidemic.

Africa, dear colleagues, is an essential partner. It is our neighbor. Faced with a virus that threatens an entire region, we cannot remain spectators: we must protect civilians, protect health personnel, and guarantee access to humanitarian aid. And we must strengthen our support for local organizations, such as Dr. Denis Mukwege's Panzi Hospital, which are on the front line in the fight against Ebola.

We must also restore security in the region. As other speakers have said, we must begin to sanction Rwanda. Peace must return there to allow the fight against Ebola. Our duty is clear: save lives. Every day counts.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, this virus, which many of us have compared to what happened a few years ago with COVID, is a much more lethal, much more dangerous virus: there are no cures, no vaccines and no way to stop the hemorrhages inside the body and outside the body of these poor patients.

We truly must step in to replace what the United States has done with its step back from the World Health Organization. If we do not want to do this because we believe that aid and solidarity are important, we should do it out of selfishness, because, as many have said, starting also with the Commissioner, viruses do not need a passport to cross a border.

The fact that there have already been 1,500 infections, 500 people who have lost their lives, and seeing those images – where, Madam Commissioner, it is true that an effort has been made, but, in fact, on the ground, where these people die, they do not even have the possibility of having those protection tools for doctors and nurses, so much so that almost twenty of them have died – and also for the very people who assist or go to visit their loved ones.

We must do more and we must do it now, because this virus is truly dangerous and deadly.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am well aware that you personally oversaw the shipment of paracetamol to Congo to help combat the Ebola outbreak. But it is a bit meager, isn't it?

I wanted to ask you two questions about concrete actions by the European Union.

First of all, we are facing a variant for which there is no commercial vaccine, but we now know there are exciting scientific advancements. And my question is whether the European Union will, therefore, invest in these scientific advancements so that we can have the vaccine.

The second question is about local health services. Doctors Without Borders have rightly said that it is necessary to invest directly there. In fact, they have been asking for direct investment so that health services can not only monitor but also control and treat the disease. And my question is whether the European Union will increase its support, because it has to do so. The cases detected in Paris and Berlin show, in fact, that it is in its own interest to do so.

And a final note: the European Union has particular responsibilities, because if in conflict zones it is more difficult to control the Ebola outbreak, let us not forget that we are trade partners of those blood minerals that are causing the conflicts in the most affected areas.

Madam President, thank you all for this first exchange.

I totally agree that the Ebola outbreak is not an African problem. It's about all of us, because no one of us is in security until everyone is in security. We live on the same planet. So we have to acknowledge and to remind us that a virus does not need a visa to cross borders.

When it comes to investments in vaccines, the Commission is currently replenishing its rescEU stockpiles for a range of relevant medical countermeasures in Europe, also for remdesivir, an antiviral authorised in the EU against COVID-19, but which is considered and recommended by WHO as potential therapeutics against Ebola. Together with Member States, we are looking into the possibility of rolling out clinical trials with potential therapeutic candidates.

The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership is supporting the development of monoclonal antibodies against Ebola and other filoviruses with EUR 3.4 million. And the Commission has invested over the past years heavily into the development of vaccines and therapeutics for filoviruses like Ebola and Marburg. I have to say that this Ebola Bundibugyo was already a priority. We already acknowledged that it was a threat coming soon.

Last month we launched also a call for tenders with EUR 16 million to establish an investigational vaccine reserve for human pathogenic filoviruses for which no authorised vaccines are currently available addressing Marburg, Sudan, Ebola but also Bundibugyo viruses.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, it is again an outbreak of terrible sickness. We have Ebola in many parts of Africa, even one case on European soil. We have seen the hantavirus spreading over springtime.

I want to emphasise one important point, because this is the very beginning of one or the other sickness, and we do not know where it will lead in either case. But I have already observed extremists claiming that the sickness does not exist, that the sickness has been made up by what they call 'elites'. But these extremists are the ones who define themselves whom they call 'elites', and they create the conspiracy theory that the 'elites' would create information about the sickness to control people.

No – this is academic research, this is scientific data that what we are doing is based on. This is why, especially the European role with our approach of human dignity, of individual freedom, is to take it seriously when such outbreaks take place and to always rely on evidence, academic evidence, and to confront extremists in the very beginning when they start their conspiracy theories.

Madam President, Commissioner, I fully agree with what you just said about the situation related to vaccines, antibodies and so on, but what we see is climate-sensitive disease spread. Of course pandemics and epidemic threats are ongoing, we have no chance to deny it, but in opposite, we have fragile and shrinking global health financing and global health support.

Now when we are discussing about financing and our global health, how much money we can put in, we see that we are also reducing financial capacities. Humanitarian aid and cross-border preparedness require a lot of financial means and, of course, all means which can help us.

But we are facing a situation and we can help the Commissioner and ask the Council to pay more attention to global threats because otherwise we have no strategies. Please keep in mind that the United States goes out from the WHO. It's clear there are a lot of challenges.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Ebola epidemic raging in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda is above all a humanitarian tragedy. More than 1,700 people have been infected, and hundreds have lost their lives. Behind these figures lie families, communities, and health professionals who are struggling to survive in these difficult circumstances.

The context of insecurity and regional tensions makes the situation much more complex in eastern DRC. The conflict is ongoing, and the instability linked to the crisis between the DRC and Rwanda complicates access for humanitarian workers, severely disrupts health services, and accentuates population movements across borders.

I call on the Commission and the Council to complement our humanitarian aid with renewed diplomatic engagement, urging all parties to implement an immediate ceasefire to guarantee humanitarian access and protect civilians. Because protecting lives requires not only medical aid, but also peace and stability, so that communities can recover.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the news about Ebola is horrible, obviously. It is a disease that kills, and is also frightening – transmissible, highly lethal –, but at the same time, we must also dare to tackle the root causes of the problem.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, what is needed to fight Ebola effectively? It is not just about finding a vaccine; it is also about a high-performing public health system, prevention – detection! –, being able to reach out, being able to have practices at the level of burials, too, working with local communities.

But for all of that, resources are needed. And those resources are lacking, they are missing. Why? On the one hand, effectively, simply because there is war with actors involved like Rwanda, whom we are still sponsoring. But secondly, also because of the looting of natural resources, organized by the United States and European multinationals.

The DRC is losing money, is losing funds, is losing wealth to the West and therefore no longer has the means to invest in this public health system. So, that is what we must work on: on our trade policy, against the Western and European multinationals that are looting the wealth of Congo.

Mr President, since 2019 we unfortunately know better than ever that viruses know no borders. Although the risks for Europe are currently very low, we see that the humanitarian tragedy in Congo and Uganda is not yet fully covered today. Fortunately, we can count on a strong intervention by the World Health Organization, the European Union and its member states. With local support for healthcare, investments, and research into vaccines and treatments, we are also strengthening global and therefore our own resilience here at home against new variants, as is the case here.

By working together, supporting our African partners and investing in innovation, we not only save lives on the spot, but we also strengthen the health and safety of our own citizens. And precisely that shows that there is more need than ever for a strong European health union. Something that I also strive for within the biotech regulation. We cannot look away from such tragedies, so strong support from Europe remains more necessary than ever. And for that, we count on you.

Mr President, there are more than 1,500 confirmed cases of Ebola in Congo and Uganda; more than 500 deaths. An outbreak that is spreading to new areas. What is so painful is that we saw this coming: global cuts to development cooperation, the dismantling of USAID. We knew that this would cause crises to increase, precisely in countries where conflicts and disasters are already severe. More money for infrastructure, more money for the extraction of critical raw materials and less money for poverty reduction, healthcare, education, less money for the resilience of communities. And this is the direct consequence.

The consequences are disastrous, not only for the people who are now ill and at risk. Ebola undermines the path to stability and development for entire communities. It is a preventable disease. Prevention costs money, it costs presence, it costs trust. Trust that has been built up over years and is now being broken down at a rapid pace. This can and must be done differently, not only incidentally, but also structurally.

Madam President! It is indeed completely right, as the Commissioner says, that before we are all safe, no one is safe. But I also want to celebrate and point out that here in Europe we have actually learned from what we have been through.

We now have authorities that keep watch; HERA, ECDC, which actually ensure every day that we can sleep safely at night.

While all of this has happened - and several have commented on this - the US has lowered its investments. The US has withdrawn from the WHO, the US has completely withdrawn from USAID, and during the same period we have of course tried to compensate as best as possible. We have rearmed, and the Commissioner has made a huge effort.

I would like to ask the Commissioner; Can the Commissioner tell us, quite concretely, what is going on right now? What activities have been initiated to keep the situation under control? And above all, what is being done to provide relief in countries right now?

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, one in three people does not survive Ebola. And recently the first case in France was detected. This outbreak should remind us that infectious diseases do not stop at borders. It demonstrates the need for a resilient health system worldwide.

Despite declining international help, African countries are, little by little, strengthening their own health systems through improving surveillance, regional cooperation and targeted investment. Europe should support this African‑led transition by investing in laboratories, healthcare workers and outbreak preparedness while supporting African ownership of their respective health systems.

A stronger African healthcare system is not only in Africa's interest; it's in Europe's interest. Investing in an African‑led health resilience is an investment in shared global health security.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues! The Ebola outbreak in East Africa reminds us: health knows no borders. Global health security also protects our security.

Our first responsibility is to the people on the ground; they need rapid medical help and strong health systems. Especially now, as international partners, particularly the USA, are withdrawing from parts of development cooperation and global health financing, Europe's responsibility, our responsibility, is growing.

Yet this outbreak is also a warning to Europe. The lesson from Ebola is: prevention instead of isolation. Pandemics are fought where they originate, not only at our external borders.

However, health policy has long since also become security and economic policy. Anyone who talks about resilient supply chains and secure raw material partnerships must also invest in global health.

Ebola is therefore a touchstone of whether we understand global health as a humanitarian responsibility and as a prerequisite for security and prosperity. Especially now, as other actors are withdrawing, Europe must assume responsibility – out of solidarity and out of prudent prevention.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable colleagues, the Ebola epidemic in Congo and Uganda reminds us that health crises can rapidly cross national borders, as also demonstrated by the confirmed case in France of a doctor returning from Congo, reported by the World Health Organization.

European solidarity is not only a humanitarian duty, but also an investment in international health security. By supporting the affected countries, we protect local communities, reduce the risk of spread beyond borders and strengthen the global capacity to prevent future emergencies.

For this reason, the European Union must continue to support health surveillance, research, prevention and rapid crisis response. Investing in solidarity, coordination and preparedness means strengthening public health protection in Africa, but also in Europe, while contributing to a greater global capacity to prevent future epidemics.

Madam President, the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda is deeply worrying. While we cannot control when these outbreaks happen, we can – and must – control how we respond. Targeted emergency funding is appropriate.

At the same time, there is an endless number of crises in the world. Aid can provide temporary help, but ultimately, true safety cannot be outsourced. It starts with the institutions that are built within a country. A response to a crisis should not be to cross fingers and hope that new crises will not come. They will come, and at some point, aid money runs out. If at that point there are no institutions in the country that can step up, it is not the donor who has betrayed the people, it is their government.

Madam President, you know, this Ebola outbreak is the 17th that occurred in the region. So it means that this epidemic outbreak didn't take us by surprise. We were prepared for that. And I have to say that when I went there in February, I saw that all the ingredients were already there to provoke this epidemic outbreak.

So it is right to say that we need structural investment, and that is exactly what we are doing. In May, we presented our humanitarian communication, which is mainly addressing the fragile context, how we can help this protracted crisis, addressing the root causes in these fragile contexts and how we can implement the famous nexus: working hand in hand with humanitarian aid, development and peace actors. And that is why we propose to strengthen our humanitarian diplomacy and to work with the long‑term vision involving our international partners, but also cooperation and development at a very early stage, because indeed, humanitarian aid cannot solve what is mainly a crisis provoked by the lack of governance and wars in this region.

And to answer your questions, dear Stine Bosse, 'What are we doing now?' As I said in my introductory remarks, we first have a very quick funding response. The eighth EU humanitarian air bridge arrived in Goma last Tuesday. Another EU air bridge is planned for South Sudan on 21 July to support the preparedness effort, and we are exploring the possibility of more EU humanitarian air bridges in the coming weeks, probably to Entebbe as it is a really strategic location.

Allow me to to end on a personal note. As a former journalist, I know the effect misinformation can have on our response to crisis. People need facts they can trust to protect themselves and their families. And that is why, when I was there in Bunia, I entered into contact. I was there to communicate for us, to European citizens, but also for local communities. And I entered into contact with traditional leaders, religious leaders to encourage them to help us to build trust with the affected communities.

And lastly, a word on the next MFF. We will have three good instruments to boost research and development and medical countermeasures: the UCPM, the European Competitiveness Fund and Horizon. I count on you for strong support for the next MFF.

Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for organising this debate on the bioeconomy and its potential to boost the EU's strategic autonomy, resilience and competitiveness. The timing could not be more relevant.

Europe is facing a changing geopolitical and economic landscape. Real wars, trade wars and climate change have turned global energy and raw material markets upside down. We often speak about our energy dependency, but we must also have a conversation about our material dependency. The bioeconomy is a part of the answer.

Every time we use bio‑based materials to produce plastic, chemicals, textiles or fertilisers, we increase our resilience and our independence. The recent crisis has highlighted just how vulnerable our economics are to external shocks. They have also reminded us that resilience is not built overnight – it requires long‑term investments, strategic partnerships and confidence in Europe's own resources.

In this context, building a competitive and sustainable bioeconomy has become an economic necessity and clear strategic opportunity for Europe. We know what the EU bioeconomy already means for citizens and businesses across Europe. I have seen it first‑hand in discussions with farmers, fishers, rural communities and innovative companies – and the numbers speak for themselves. The EU bioeconomy creates a value of around EUR 2.7 trillion. It employs 17.1 million people and corresponds to 5 % of EU GDP. And every job in the bioeconomy creates three indirect jobs in the EU.

I have no doubts that, with the right incentives, we can deliver more economic growth, environmental benefits and resilience. For the first time, we have taken steps to maximise this potential with our new EU bioeconomy strategy. We showed that the possibilities already exist in nature's design. We are not the only one who sees this. In October, the Irish Presidency will bring the world to Dublin for the Global Bioeconomy Summit, with the European Union as a committed partner. But strategies alone can only matter if they also lead to concrete actions – and this is only happening when policy, industry and finance move together. That is what I want to focus on today.

First, we aim to remove barriers that delay market entry, create uncertainty and increase administrative costs. We will look at sector‑specific regulations but also cross-cutting efforts, steered by the soon‑to‑be established Bioeconomy Regulators and Innovators' Forum. Some innovators tell me that they struggle with different national definitions of what can be considered as bio‑based. That matters a lot, of course, in terms of what legislation applies. So with the future Biotech Act II, we will streamline rules to remove bottlenecks and create a single market for these innovative products. We are also progressing work on bio‑based plastics, including the necessary preparatory studies and consultation to provide greater clarity for innovators and investors.

Second, we are taking concrete steps to bring investors to the table. The first meeting of the Bioeconomy Investment Deployment Group confirmed that the challenge is not a lack of capital, but a mismatch between available finance and the needs of bio‑based industrial projects. That is why we will work closely with the EIB, private investors and national promotional banks to better connect promising projects with the financing that they need to scale up.

During the Global Bioeconomy Summit, we will officially launch the Bio‑based Europe Alliance to mobilise private demand for bio‑based materials and products, and the alliance will gather EU companies committed to collectively purchasing bio‑based materials and products worth EUR 10 billion by 2030. We are already engaging with key industry associations and leading companies across Europe to ensure that this alliance starts delivering tangible market demands from day one. It is key to create long‑term opportunities for European bio‑based materials, products, technologies and applications, so we are also working on a buyers' club to leverage public and private investments for purchases of carbon farming credits, thus encouraging investments across value chains.

Honourable Members, building a thriving, innovative bioeconomy requires buy‑in from all Europe, from farmers to the financial sectors, from rural communities to regulators, from policymakers to researchers and innovators. So here the Parliament plays a crucial role. I really look forward to continue working with you on this strategy.

Mr. President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are strategic sectors for the European Union.

This is correctly recognized by Mario Draghi in his report on competitiveness, in which he emphasizes that precisely innovations in the field of biotechnology and advanced manufacturing will be key to Europe's future economic growth and strategic autonomy. Today, the European Union achieves a trade surplus of around 220 billion euros in medicines and pharmaceutical products, which shows that this is one of our most successful industries. However, we must not take this success for granted. Competition is increasingly fierce, China is aggressively investing in manufacturing and biotechnology, India is strengthening its position as a global producer of medicines and active ingredients, and the United States of America, through its industrial policies and incentives, is attracting investments, research, and development away from Europe.

If we want to maintain our leading position, Europe must act decisively. The Critical Medicines Act and the proposed Biotech Act are important steps in the right direction. However, to preserve European competitiveness, more needs to be done: ensuring strong intellectual property protection, accelerating the issuance of permits for strategic projects, facilitating access to capital, and helping European innovative companies grow from successful startups into globally competitive scale-up companies.

That is precisely why the new strategy for a competitive and sustainable EU economy must be more than an environmental or agricultural strategy. Its implementation must connect science, sustainable biomaterial production, biotechnology, and the pharmaceutical industry. By doing so, we will strengthen European resilience, increase the added value of our natural resources, and ensure that innovations created in Europe stay in Europe.

That is the path toward a truly competitive, sustainable, and strategically autonomous European Union.

Mr President, of course the bioeconomy can be a great opportunity. But, Commissioner, we cannot replace an economy based on extracting oil with one based on extracting more and more resources from nature.

It would be a mistake because biomass is not infinite. Our forests, soils, seas and ecosystems have limits. Respecting them is not a brake on development; it is the condition for that development to be sustainable.

That is why we need a truly circular bioeconomy that makes better use of waste and by-products, uses resources intelligently and generates more added value with fewer raw materials.

Neither can we forget something essential: food and biodiversity must remain a priority. The bioeconomy can never compete with food production or put more pressure on ecosystems that are already under severe strain.

If we want a stronger and more competitive Europa, our advantage will not come from producing more biological resources, but from consuming fewer resources and creating more value while using less.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, the Council recognised the bioeconomy last March as a lever for industrial sovereignty, ecological transition and competitiveness. It is now up to Member States to make the most of their abundant agricultural and forestry resources and new European instruments, notably the industrial accelerator and the biotechnology regulation.

In France, the bioeconomy accounts for 2 million jobs and 300 billion euros in turnover per year. But reading the Council's conclusions raises questions. They talk about carbon neutrality and removing regulatory obstacles without lowering standards, of simplification while setting up a new bureaucracy, of protecting the internal market while advocating an open economy. Finally, the issues of this plan are being diverted to advance the financialisation of nature and transform the farmer into a mere provider of ecosystem services.

To make the bioeconomy an instrument of geopolitical power, the EU must break out of its strategic dependencies, but also break out of its inertia.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, we must recognise that the strategy of the economy, of the bioeconomy, is a great deal. The Greek term "bio" relates to the life cycle. I shall focus on the subject of fuels and their use. If declined from a perspective of technological neutrality, it must also place the subject of fuels at the centre. And we are talking about biofuels produced in Europe with European raw materials and European workers, which combine decarbonisation, security and employment. Animal waste, agricultural waste, but also the recovery of primary and secondary raw materials represent a good starting point for achieving autonomy. This too is "bio", if one considers, precisely, the life cycle. On fuels, however, there is a contradiction. Today we are asking – in these hours in Ankara, this is being said – for a greater effort for defence, a greater effort in order to be self-sufficient, but I do not know of any military aircraft that run on batteries, nor tanks, nor ships, nor the logistics that transport our vehicles and our manufactured goods. Then we must have an approach of economic circularity, guarantee this with a bioeconomy approach, and defend what is truly European.

Mr President, for decades, Finland has championed the bioeconomy. Our economy is heavily based on that, but the bioeconomy is also so much more. Bioeconomy is an answer for several wicked problems of our time. The bioeconomy is not just wood, it is how to replace fossil-based solutions that we eventually need to get rid of with renewable local solutions based on bioeconomy and largely, yes, on wood, but also all the side streams it also generates for us.

There has been a lot of talk and goodwill with the bioeconomy, but then when it comes to the actual legislation, we constantly face contradictory goals. The Commission often presents rather restrictions on bioeconomy-driven legislation, which only supports the fossil industry and not the phasing out of it. Hopefully, we would finally find the maturity to integrate bioeconomy into the actual legislation, as this is not only a question of environment, but it is a question for the economy, security and self-sufficiency of this continent. Finally, I am very grateful for the groups that you back this discussion from the Renew initiative. It is very important theme for all of us.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, we are talking about building a competitive European bioeconomy and then we are hindering one of its most promising supply chains, hemp, where, in just a few years, in the European Union alone, the cultivated area has grown by 60% and production by over 84%. It is not only a very versatile sector, which provides raw materials for construction, textiles, food, feed and many other "bio-based" products, but also a sector that gives farmers new sources of income, diversification and therefore more resilience, the ability to resist crisis. The new European strategy for the bioeconomy must support those who work in this supply chain, overcoming the political obstacles that still hold back its development today. We must give them clear rules, criteria that incentivize the use of "bio-based" materials in public procurement and construction, investments - especially in primary fiber processing plants - and innovation without prejudices. Europe already has the skills, the companies and the interested farmers: now we need a strategy capable of responding to all this.